Seth Godin Wants You To Decide!

I liked what Seth was saying in his video, but it isn't something that I haven't heard before. If I understand him correctly, the Acumen fund is attempting to change the way that world approaches the poor and to start an economic system that includes growth on both ends, and not just siphoning money into the bottomless pit of a failing economy. This definitely seems to me to be an extremely good idea, because it is clear that our current version of helping the poor, while being well meaning, isn't really inspiring any long term change. Local sales and small investing is a really good idea, and I've actually been involved with some of the different projects that try to help do these things.

The first thing I became involved in was through the Vlogbrothers, a youtube channel that is committed to fighting worldsuck and increasing the nerdtasticness of the world. (That is almost a direct quote.) Every December, they have a thing called The Project For Awesome, which is basically where they try to get their entire internet community together and do some sort of charity work in a far away part of the world. A couple of websites tat really embody what Seth Godin was talking about are Kiva.org and Heifer.org. The first one is where you can invest a certain amount of money into a small business that then gives them about a year to get off the ground and pay back the loans that they received earlier. The second website is when you can donate a couple of animals or trees to a family and they are then obligated to share the offspring of those gifts with other members of their community, giving them a source of permanent income and a way of expanding their circle of influence. Kiva.org is a little more affordable for me because you only have to donate a portion of the loan cost, but I think both of them are good ideas and if we had more companies like that, we could probably be a lot farther along in solving our poverty problem.

Why Aren't They Doing That? Long Essay 1

So I haven’t yet accomplished this long essay because no matter how hard I thought, there just didn’t seem to be anything that I could think of that really made me want to ask, “ why aren’t they doing that?” However, after all of the time that I have spent watching a little too much television, the thing that came to me was the differences in the styles of commercials that they show. I noticed that there tended to be three different types of commercials, and only one of those types seemed at all useful to me. Therefore, I’m not really coming up with a new idea so much as wondering why the companies that use the other two types of commercials don’t switch the to the third type.

The first type that seemed really stupid and useless to me was the type where they basically just repeat the company’s name and phone number thirty gazillion times in a really loud creepy old guy voice. It didn’t matter if it was a soap or a car advertisement, the voice was super annoying and in my personal opinion, there didn’t seem to be any way that that sort of talk could convince anyone. I could just imagine multiple people being so upset that they turned off their tv’s or muted them for the few seconds that the commercials dragged on.

The other type of commercial annoyed me because it seemed to be trying too hard to be hip and cool. These commercials are the ones that just say a bunch of adjectives like, “ Sleek. Refined. Intense,” and then end with some picture but no real idea of what their product is. Some of them give you a website to visit, while others have a day that the “mystery” will be unveiled. Whatever ploy they use, I don’ t think it’s working. Nobody that I know sees a commercial like this and automatically thinks “wow, I’m so intrigued that I’m going to get off my couch, walk over to my computer, and spend time searching that website to figure out what that amazing product is.” To most, I think these are more a point of ridicule, and I really don’t think that these commercials help the company as much as they are paying to air them.

So, the only type of commercial that is left is actually a pretty broad genre. Some of these commercials are earnest, while others are centered on comedy. But the thing that all of these commercials have is emotional and personal appeal. Sometimes, watching these makes me want to go out and buy a cool perfume so that the paparazzi will love me. Others make me want to buy the amazing dinner that brings families together. Regardless of what they are about, these are the commercials that create our culture. Some commercials that are ten years old or more are still remembered today because of how they tugged at people’s heart strings. Why the companies with the first two types of commercials don’t use this one is of interest to me. I think it’s a mixture of what kind of advertising they can afford, coupled with the business savvy that the owners have. I mean, I can understand not being able to afford a Budweiser style commercial, but these commercials don’t seem to be helping much. Of course, many subscribe to the idea that there’s no such thing as bad advertisement, so I guess I can’t blame them for taking what they can get.

Why aren't they doing that Essay 2

There are these ads that come on TV late at night when I'm watching Cosby Show reruns that are definitely geared toward me - it's these two "best friends" that are raving about this little shop called "Plato's Closet" in South Bend. The idea behind why this store is so great is because you take your gently used clothes to the store in exchange for immediate cash and then can also buy great, slightly used clothes very inexpensively. The store is actually somewhere I'm planning on going tomorrow, but what really got to me about this ad is the stupidity of the girls in it - they actually have a few lines at the end where one girl says the shirt she's wearing was her friends before and the friend says the sweater she's wearing was once the girl's - implying they went to "Plato's Closet" in order to buy their "best friend's" stuff! How incredibly dumb! I mean if it were me and I was no longer going to wear something, instead of taking it to some thrift store for her to buy back, I'd just give it to her, and if I was selfish, just have her pay me a few dollars directly.

So when I next saw the ad the question of what is something we think could be improved or started was answered. I immediately thought why can't girls in Lamson set up a system where they don't have to go out and buy new or used clothes and such, they can just borrow from each other, or just buy directly from each other! We could have a website where you could place “ads” for what you were looking for, say a belt or a purple sweater, the size of the item you need, and when you would like to have it by, in case you needed it the next day the girl who has those things would get back to you promptly. Then those girls could respond to your ad with what they could supply you with and how long they would allow you to keep it. It seems almost perfect, but that’s in an ideal world.

But then I though about it a little more and the idea could fail in a lot of ways - I mean what if someone dirty borrows my clothes, or someone mistreats or breaks the clothes, or I borrow clothes from someone and I catch a rash or something - nasty!! We could require “customers” to wash the clothes before returning them, but how could we be completely sure that they did so, and what about in the case of garments that require dry cleaning. A small fee could be charged so that the facilitator of the program could hire people to be in charge of the proper washing and dry cleaning, but then many of the potential “customers” would find it wiser to invest in that item themselves instead of repeatedly renting it. Plus, with different people employed in the business, fees could begin to mount.

Then it seems that this idea would have to be based on the honor code – we trust that the supplier is providing clean clothes and is clearly stating any damages that the garment has previous to being “rented” (they could fill out and sign a form stating the above before each lending occasion, specifying a date for the item to be returned) and the customer is returning the clothes washed and with no damages, but not dry cleaned if that is what the garment requires (they too could fill out and sign a form that explains that they are returning the item by the date specified, washed and with no damages). Then in the case of a disagreement between the two, a third party who is voluntarily in charge, such as a Lamson employee, could review these forms and solve the problem. In the case that one does not meet the requirements, they would have to pay to replace the clothing or pay a fine for whatever condition they did not meet and either be put on public probation or expelled from the group.

You might say that this idea is a tad far-fetched, but with the heart to help of many of the Lamson women I think it could potentially be a success.

Media and Education Essay 1

When it comes to media and education there are obviously pros and cons to using it in the classroom. Media and technology, whether we think it is useful or not, is only going to become a more intimate part of our lives as time progresses. As can be seen in the trend of cell phones and computers – Ten years ago few people had cell phones, and at that they were all adults, while today it is unheard of to not own a cell phone and many children who have not yet entered high school are a part of that population; Same goes for computers which were as large as entire rooms and never thought to be something operated for personal use but now occupy every home and college student’s dorm room.

With the trend of owning these devices goes up so does our society’s use of them. It seems that we are growing a generation of children who cannot survive without instant answers from the internet, quick communication via texting or e-mailing, and entertainment from video games and television. As youth are increasingly exposed to media and their lives become saturated with it what are they missing out on? Are their childhoods ending sooner? If you ask me the answer is yes. Their over-exposure to media, constantly watching TV or playing video games detracts from their creativity and imagination. If they never go outside how can they learn things about nature on their own, if they never read a book will they be able to imagine as well? Called me old-fashioned, but many of the traditional teaching techniques and ways to learn are still beneficial.

I do believe that incorporating technology in the classroom is good to a certain extent, especially since children must be equipped with the skills to use it in order to survive in the job market and world at large. Without using it many teachers won’t be able to reach their students. However, with the proliferation of media and technology in all other aspects of life I think it wise to stick to many of those traditional teaching tools because they will be novel to such technology savy children – with those techniques the children will experience and be exposed to things that they haven’t been anywhere else.

With technology also comes higher expectations. Children are now leading busier lives than ever before, juggling so many activities and responsibilities. In order to get ahead a child must be in extracurricular activities, be a strong student, help the community, etc. and the age to begin this upward journey is getting lower and lower. With internet, e-mail, texting, and the works it is expected that we constantly communicate and be super productive. At what point do we take a break and turn it all off? When do we let children be children? Technology is taking precious time away from many of the other things we as people should be doing and there is no exception for children.

Technology can help us get a lot more done, and at a faster pace, but it can also distract us and actually numb us to thinking creatively and doing things differently. There are good things and bad things about it, as there are with most things in this world, but I feel educators need to not rely so heavily on it and make sure that their students have mastered the abilities that are becoming extinct instead. For the most part everyone is going to have some degree of knowledge about how to use technology and the media, but what they're probably not going to know how to do is write a poem, brainstorm their ideas, read the body language and social cues of others, etc. That is what is scary about integrating the media and technology into education as heavily as we are seeming to do.

Essay #2 - extention of service face to face

After looking over the books agiain for our paper, I was brought back to this question of direct service. Something that I strongly believe in is that we need to be there for one another and helping eachother, otherwise we won't survive. Especially as a christian I take it seriously when in the Bible God tells us to take care of our poor. Why should I have plenty and someone else be in want? I can share, help them have plenty and still have plenty myself. It also brings me back to the arguement of small government. I argued with my roommate so much during the elections about this. I voted republican because I believe in small government (mostly why I voted for them...not the sole reason), she thought I was crazy and tried over and over again to prove that I was making a bad decision. When I pointed out this concept from the Bible of us needing to take of the poor not the government, she whole heartedly agreed, but then said something that has bothered me ever since, she said that yes, it was true, but since we aren't doing it and won't do it, someone should, and it falls to the government. what? governemnt by default? No. It is our responsibility to take care of eachother, it is our rights as humans. Unfortunately we live in a time where no one wants to be responsible, in fact they want someone else to be responsible for them. This is why the earth is deteriorating right in front of us.

I suppose it still comes back to needing the experience and needing to be involved as a responsible human party. It is not someone elses responsibility, it is yours, it is mine - we need to do it.

(*Below is the origianal post that was extednted)


Is there a need to offer direct service (one-on-one) to the poor in the world?
This is the question posed to us and my answer is a very strong "Yes".

Reason #1 - out of sight out of mind syndrome.
If you haven't seen what you are trying to help, or writing off as a tax cut, then you are not really thinking about it. How much more powerful is it when something is experienced instead of donating. Even TV commercials for sponsoring the worlds starving children can not do justice to seeing, and touching and smelling what the commercial is actually talking about. I know that there is the the argument that it would cost less to just send the money down and create more jobs to have the workers there do the service projects, but then the experience is taken out of this part of life. Hiring locals is a good concept. On the mission trips I have been a part of we have often hired locals to help with the project and do specialized tasks as well as leaving money behind to continue the process. A plane ticket is expensive, but it always comes back to the needing of the experience. Being a part of something changes people, commercials don't - they have de-sensatized us.

Reason #2 - It will mean more to the poor
Seeing your face and interacting with you will mean more to someone who needs your help than receiving something in the mail with your name on it. It will have such a great impact on their lives to meet someone who cares - the letter in the mail doesn't due caring justice. It gives you an opportunity to build a relationship, to help more than just with money, but with time, advice and love. Your sphere of influence will be much larger if you go.

Reason #3 - Ignorance is not bliss - (related to #1)
I lived in small town pennsylvania where there were people who had never even left their county. They tend to be referred to as Hicks. They only know their lives and their neighbors and they only know one way of life. By traveling to other places - (including a new county where they might be a soup kitchen) - you learn about other cultures and ways of life. It greatly diversifies your life and enriches it. Americans in general have the reputation for being narrow minded in this area - we live as Americans, wherever we go. This is not what I would call a good reputation. Learning new things and new ways brings people closer together and will enrich globalization....which does not translate into everyone will become westernized. As we learn from our differences and enjoy them, it should result in less war and hostility and even help us come up with alternatives to bad lifestyles. We need to help each other, we can't do that from separate continents by checks in the mail.

Reason #4 - Why not you?
I saw one of the other posts that talked about the bystander effect - assuming that someone else will do what needs to be done. But, then it never gets done because we all think someone else will do it. But why not you? Why someone else? If we all get directly involved, if we all think the opposite, I need to do it cause no one else will, then maybe something would get done. The world needs to be changed, but to do that it needs people willing to participate. So why not you?

All of these reasons tend to find their way back to the world of experience. Experience for the giver the receiver. A concept of contact an relationships. These are basic human necessities, money is not - it is a necessity but other things are actually more important, even to poor people. This isn't to say that you need to go out on every mission you can or that you need to become a missionary, or even that these organizations don't need those lovely tax-deductable checks. But even just in the community, getting out and being involved in helping the poor, making friends and relationships - that is what makes a difference. You don't have to fly across the world to be involved directly - but you do have to be involved directly to make the difference the world needs.

Extended Blog 2

Back in high school, a couple of my friends and I used to visit a children’s home on Saturday afternoons. It was just a temporary home for kids who, for one reason or another, had to be separated from their parents/guardians. Some of those kids came from very poor homes or homes not conducive for young kids. When we visited the children’s home, we would play with the kids, sing worship songs, perform skits, and even tell them stories from the Bible. Sometimes, we’d play tag, kick a soccer ball around, color pictures, or just watch them as they showed us how to play a certain video game or two. In a way, we were there to just play and interact with them. Bring some joy into their lives and show them that someone cared.

Every time we would visit, the kids were so excited to see us that they’d be jumping all around, each trying to turn our attention towards them specifically. Sometimes, I’d even have two kids grab one of my hands and try to drag me towards the swings or slides. It was obvious that they were glad that we were there. Their eyes would sparkle and toothy grins spread across their faces. You could very clearly see the happiness on their faces when they saw us coming in through the door. The hardest part was when we would have to leave. They’d all be holding to our arms and legs, asking if we could just stay a bit longer. Some would even make us promise that we’d be back again to visit or else they’d never let go.

Because of the time I spent with those kids, I firmly believe that just giving monetary donations to those considered “poor” isn’t enough. No doubt, money would be helpful in providing for their basic necessities such as food, clothes, and shelter, but I believe that people should take a personal interest and get directly involved in helping the poor. For some, poor doesn’t just mean they are lacking in monetary funds. For some, poor means they’re lacking in happiness, compassion, and love. I know that those kids at the children’s home benefited more from our direct interaction with them than if we were to just donate money to the facility. What brought a smile to their face was the fact that we took time to just talk and spend time with them; that we cared about them. The direct contact we had with the kids made more of an impact on their lives (hopefully for the better) than any money we could have given to them.

If you really want to make an impact, a personal one, I believe getting involved is the key. While I believe that a personal interaction with the poor is greatly beneficial, I admit that obtaining enough funds is still important. Without the proper funding, the basic necessities to live on aren’t easily available. People need food, shelter, clothes, and other basic amenities; even the poor. In order to fill those needs, money needs to be available. For those who really can’t find the time to get actively involved, it becomes easier to just donate monetary gifts. I understand how time-consuming family, work, and/or school can be and I acknowledge that for some, monetary gifts is all that they can spare. What is most important is the intention behind the action. Don’t give money just because you feel obligated to, because other people are doing it, or because it will give you a tax deduction the next time tax time comes about. The giving should be because you actually care about those who will benefit from your generosity. For some, they just give money because it’s the easiest thing to do and they don’t have to “dirty their hands” in the process. They give and they feel as if they’ve fulfilled their philanthropic obligations. If that’s the case, what’s the point of giving in the first place? Would you still give even if you knew the target people weren’t getting the majority of the money being contributed? I believe it’s important to remember the people in need. I may come off as being an idealist, but what’s wrong with that? All I know is that while money is an important facet when helping out the poor, people need to remember that a little bit of personal interaction can go a long ways.

Extended Blog 2

error