Influencers – Who and why are they?

This is an excellent brilliant 13-minute documentary called the INFLUENCERS, How trends and creativity become contagious, produced by R&I Creative and directed by Paul Rojanathara and Davis Johnson. This film is interesting because of the content and interviews that have a good rhythm. It is wonderfully produced with a polaroid look & feel, a great soundtrack, and spliced in quotes.

The people interviewed include a slew of diverse and articulate people, not least of which is the inanimate representation of Anthony Gormley, an English sculptor, whose statue is the leitmotif of the film.

INFLUENCERS TRAILER from R+I creative on Vimeo.

Who is an influencer? (quotes from the speakers)

  • “Someone who has a certain type of confidence…that they know they’re doing is the right thing, because they are comfortable in it.”
  • Someone who has a different way of thinking and expressing themselves…
  • There’s a group of people that are early adopters
  • Those are the people that everyone ends up paying attention to, … because they can recognize what the next thing is and are able to popularize it early.
  • “…is a person who can take an idea, brand, a concept that is not the mainstream consciousness and can bring it into the mainstream consciousness”

And my favorite description of an influencer:

  • “Somebody that other people listen to and react to….they have a certain amount of trust to what they say and they react to it…” In other words, they move people to act.

Another tidbit from the film: The great meetings are where people assemble by passion, such as SWSX, Glastonbury, Bonaroo, TED… Need more of those in our lives, don’t you think!

At the end of the video, the different speakers reveal who inspires them. This is one of my favorite questions for my podcast interviewees: who is your role model? Would that we all took real inspiration from some role models and acted accordingly every day!

Seth’s Blog: Heroes and mentors & role models…

« The book of the year | Blog Home | N-1 »

Heroes and mentors

Mentors provide bespoke guidance. They take a personal interest in you. It’s customized, rare and expensive.

Heroes live their lives in public, broadcasting their model to anyone who cares to look.

The internet has created a long tail of heroes. There are tens of thousands of musicians, artists, entrepreneurs, social leaders, politicians (okay, maybe not thousands of these), coders and colleagues to find and emulate. WWHD. What would my hero do? Continue reading

Political Heroes & Role Models Debated in the UK

Politicians’ Heroes from the English Perspective

As if on cue with regard to one my recent posts on role models, the English (run by the Guardian newspaper) have put on two debates – one by each political party — to establish who is the greatest hero [of their party]. The format in each case was to put forward a short list of four candidates.

The first debate by the Labour Party chose Clement Atlee (1883-1967; the only Prime Minister [1945-1951] in their list, defended by David Blunkett), Keir Hardie (1856-1915; Scottish socialist and founder of the Labour Party, presented by the Labour peer and historian Kenneth O Morgan), Aneurin “Nye” Bevan (1897-1960; creator of the NHS by Ed Balls), and Barbara Castle (1910-2002; championed by Fiona Mactaggart, with article here from Patricia Hewitt). And the winner was the founder of the Labour Party, Keir Hardie, without whom the others would not have existed… See here for the Guardian writeup. BBC writeup here.

On the Tory docket, debated on Monday September 29, were: Edmund Burke (1729-1797), Benjamin Disraeli (1804-1888; Prime Minister 1868, 1874-1880), Winston Churchill (1874-1965; and Prime Minister 1940-1945, 1951-1955) and Margaret Thatcher (b 1925; PM 1979-1990). And the winner of the Tory debate was the Iron Lady, Maggie Thatcher (pictured as a young lady on the right, in front of another icon).

A few things to note about this Tory short list.

First, it is neither a classically Conservative nor particularly pure breed list. As the Guardian points out (Fight for the right), under closer inspection, the list “reveals more respect – at least in retrospect – for unorthodoxy, romanticism, even recklessness among leaders than first glance suggests.” Moreover, three of the four have a mixed background: Churchill (half American and a past Liberal), Disraeli (3rd generation immigrant, son of a practicing Jew, and a former radical) and Burke (Irish & Whig heritage).

Secondly, the list includes a woman. Kudos.

Thirdly, in reference to my prior post (read here) on the topic of political role models, I note that I chose Palmerston over Disraeli (eminent rivals). Also, I mentioned in the same paragraph Churchill and Gandhi, whom the former called “a half-naked fakir.” Oops.

Finally, there are two out of the four from the 20th century (oh dear, that was LAST century) — with 3/4 for the Labour Party selection. The beauty of a debate like this is that the winner depends on the quality of the presenters as well as the context within which it is taking and some “great people” do some great things that may or may not age well. In any event, one could read all sorts of things into the winners in both camps, but I note that the Labour Party chose its only 19th century [non 20th] representative. (Added later) Read here for an insightful commentary from Martin Kettle, including what the winner says for each political party.

I love the fact that we spend time to debate the great heroes in England. Reviewing, debating and selecting heroes is a great way to sharpen one’s understanding of the importance of role models. Perhaps we should do the same in France? For the right and left, it would be hard not to want to feature de Gaulle from the 20th century. Who would you propose on the short list for France’s political role models?

Rousing Speech by President Sarkozy (Toulon, Sept 25 2008)

President Nicolas Sarkozy made a startlingly strong speech tonight (September 25, 2008) in Toulon, at the Zenith, in front of 4,000 people. His speech was marked by personal engagement & responsibility, a bold acknowledgment of the unpopularity of certain of his decisions as well as an unveiled description of the risks of the current economic crisis. The crisis, he said, is a reason to accelerate the reforms rather than postpone them.

Nicolas Sarkozy spoke of reformulating the capitalist model à la française — with a grand reduction of the bureaucracy and the elimination of 30,600 state jobs in 2009 (including a diminution of the number of local collectivities), a reform of the educational institutions (-13,500 jobs) as well as the hospitals (with a system of rewards for heightened productivity). Sarkozy also proclaimed the demineralization of the golden parachutes for corporate heads.

In a certain way, I am inclined to call his form of capitalism as Lime Capitalism — a little green, that is. Clearly, Sarkozy is looking to refurbish the right to be an entrepreneur in France and, at the same time, indicated that the State has a role in accelerating the transition to greener solutions (via the incentive of “bonus/malus”). And, as a marker of his desire for a more rapid, effective action, he asked whether Europe would be capable of taking as strong a stance and as rapidly as Treasury Secretary Paulson (left) did in demanding the controversial $700 billion bailout. Sarkozy affirmed, meanwhile, the protection of the savings of all French people should the banking bankruptcies cross the Atlantic.

As a baseline for his lime capitalism, Sarkozy said (and I translate), “If we should tax less investment, tax less work, penalize less effort and success, and tax less one’s own products, one should on the other hand tax pollution.”

Echoing many of his initial messages and promises of his presidential campaign, Sarkozy seemed confident, serious and engaged. My favourite line from his speech was: “The current crisis should prompt us to rebuild the foundations of capitalism on the ethics of effort and work, to find a balance between freedom and rules, and between collective and individual responsibility.” In sum, he was pleading for a new balance between the state and the [free] market.

What I enjoyed most about the speech was the way he took responsibility for his decisions. Rare is the boss that takes such leadership on his government’s policies and pronounce so clearly a personal engagement on the results. I would describe Sarkozy’s Toulon speech, written by his favourite plume, Henri Guaino, as a model way to stand up in the face of difficult times — in stark contrast to Senator John McCain’s approach I might add of putting on hold his campaign — and a way to rally the French people and businesses behind him.

Here is an executive transcript of the speech with some analysis, thanks to 20minutes.fr. And if you want the full monty, it is now out, here — here thanks to Le Monde.

And how did/do you react to Sarkozy’s speech?

Role Model for Obama, McCain and myself

Statue of Liberty by Andy WarholWe all need a role model. Call it a (Wo-)Man’s Condition.* I have found this true for me in life as well as in work. Among other things, a role model or icon helps to inspire you and shape your response to unknown situations; and it is in those moments that people can become bigger than life. But, for me, my icon is somewhat fragmented. Depending on the subject (spiritual, leadership, sports…), sometimes it is one singular person, sometimes it is a composition, and sometimes it is fictional. And what is true for the ordinary layperson is also true of the big leaders, corporate, humanitarian or political: we all need a role model.

Any politician that is wanting to make a name for him or herself normally will have identified a few icons to look up to. These icons can serve as models for behaviour, benchmarks for how to construct a career, make a speech or set an agenda. And there is no dearth of choice of big name leaders in the past.

Teddy RooseveltMoving to the US Presidential campaign, for Senator McCain, you tend to think he is anti-iconic to the extent he is the maverick, not that there has never been a maverick before. All the same, McCain apparently takes stock from Teddy Roosevelt (see this article by Jill Zuckman from Chron.com).

I have been wondering, meanwhile, at the comparisons drawn between Senator Obama (D) and President Abraham Lincoln (R). Certainly, there are many articles, blogs and chat rooms that have taken up this story. The fact that Obama made his coming out speech (announcing he would run for President) in front of the Old State Capitol where Abraham Lincoln served as a legislator has no small part in beginning this thread.President Abraham Lincoln

Here is recap of the similarities between Obama and Lincoln:

* they both came from humble backgrounds in Illinois
* both were lawyers
* served 8 years in the Illinois State Legislature
* 1 term in Congress
* neither served in the military
* and race is clearly a defining part of their Presidential campaign.

This television report from CBS, with an interview of Professor Daniel Weinberg from Illinois, discusses some of the similarities between Obama and Lincoln.

However, this NYT article by Michael Cohen prefers to compare Obama to Frederick Douglass, the abolitionist leader (not to be mixed up with Stephen Douglas, Lincoln’s opponent in the 1860 election campaign). Douglass, ironically, was more commonly known as a critic of Lincoln, although, as Cohen writes, Douglass, in the latter part of his life, also openly lauded Lincoln.
There are two lines that I wish to reproduce here from Cohen’s article. He writes that, what may define Obama’s presidency if he wins, is: “one campaigns in poetry but governs in prose.” And, secondly, I also enjoyed the last line of Cohen’s article: [If Obama wins in November, he will likely look to] “…prove the elder Mr. Douglass correct by seeking out the proper balance between what is right and what is possible.”

It is interesting to note that Douglass was nominated as VP of the first ever woman US presidential candidate, Victoria Woodhull in 1872. Douglass refused the nomination. It should also be said that there is controversy as to whether Woodhull was actually a legitimate candidate (age, not on the ballot, etc.).

Lord Henry Temple Palmerston, 3rd ViscountIn any event, if I were to choose my own political icons, in no particular order, I personally would cite Prime Minister Winston Churchill — the right person for a difficult time. Secondly, I would view NY Mayor Michael Bloomberg as a good maverick icon to look up to — anyone that brings ethical business sense to politics is good news. Thirdly, I would like to mention Rudy Giuliani for his leadership pre- and post-9/11. Fourth, I would have to cite Mahatma Ghandi — proof that a single individual can move a mountain. And lastly, going further back in time, I am inclined to think of Prime Minister Lord Palmerston, the master of brinksmanship. But, in each case, what they stand for is hugely contextual. You need to find the right pitch for the times. Not that I am running for President (I cannot as I was born overseas), but it is a good exercise to stop and think over who your role model(s) is (are).

And who are your role models in business, politics or life?

____
*Not to be mixed up with Malraux’s La Condition Humaine.

MEDEF 2008 Conference “Think Big”: Is the USA Still a Giant?

Is the US still a Giant the right question?

The plenary session of Wednesday evening August 27th at the MEDEF‘s Université d’Ete was entitled: Is the USA still a Giant? And the star-filled panel gave a very vivid and resounding yes to the question, with the normal and logical set of qualifications. For purposes of this post, I have three angles regarding this plenary session.

First, the highlight comments and perspectives. Second, what was missing from the debate. Three, a quick review of the panel format and an informal scorecard on the quality of the speakers. The highlight comments and perspectives (comments are paraphrased from French into English).

* From Ms. Christine Lagarde (Minister of Economy, Industry and Employment) Despite the quadruple crisis that America is undergoing today (rising imports, housing, finance and currency), the chances are that the US will come out of the crisis in better shape. Ms Lagarde cited the American’s ability to appreciate the value and role of failure, referring to the startling example of Donald Trump who has been up and down a few times. [Same for Martha Stewart?]

* Again from Ms Lagarde: Why is the USA able to reinvent itself? Because the USA is not based on a rigid “model” (as in France), but on values, values that are fluid. Ms Lagarde cite three key values: self-esteem, [with a plug for the high level of R&D where over 6% of GNP is invested in private or public R&D – citing the strength of Harvard, Stanford and Berkeley]; the genuine sense of welcome and integration of the immigrants; the instinct to give back, where 10% of the wealth is given back to charities.

* Img00440Loic Lemeur, CEO of Seesmic, his 5th startup (inveterate e-entrepreneur). Through a number of interesting anecdotes, Mr Lemeur managed to get our attention with verve. He cited paying for a billable one-hour chat with Daniel, an online consultant – and Daniel turned out to be a 14-year-old entrepreneur. Mr Lemeur resumed the existence of the 14-year old entrepreneur in the US because Daniel has entrepreneurial icons, such as Steve Jobs, Steve Case, Steve Ballmer up to whom he can look (though they don’t all have to have a first name Steve).

* Again from Loic Lemeur who said that the notion “How can I help you?” is embedded in the American’s personality. And, Mark Zuckerberg, founder of CEO of Facebook tendered out the same help and delivered… A nice spirit of collaboration.

* Stuart Haugen, CEO Of Certus Executives, VP of Republicans Abroad, gave a very “American” and thoroughly positive rendition of the US’ long term health, citing Mark Twain: “the rumours of my mother are considerably exaggerated.”

* David Ignatius, journalist from The Washington Post. Mr Ignatius talked about the demise of the MSM (Main Stream Media) at several occasions and rued the end of privacy and intimacy. He also stated that America is too big to take care of so many problems that are so small (such as Kosovo). Yet, is so small to take on the truly big problems (notably Global Warming). Mr Ignatius said that the question is not whether the US is a big giant… but how big a giant should the US be? The real question is how to be the “right size”.

* Finally, Mr Ignatius talked about the need to “turn the page”, but intoned: “yes, but the page of which book?” A nice way to plug the arrival, next week, of his new book, co-written with Zbigniew Brzezinki and Brent Scowcroft: America and the World: Conversations on the Future of American Foreign Policy.” (Buy here on Amazon).

As for my own insights on the subject, I feel that the panelists did a good job of explaining how the US has become a Giant and the underlying reasons why the US has managed to rebound so vigourously from prior recessions. However, as much as I believe that the US will indeed bounce back from the current troubles, the issue is not about the US’ ability to recover. The real questions are whether the US can ensure its’ long-term, structural health. Any decline of an empire happens deceptively and over a longer timeframe: that inevitably makes it hard to “predict.” For me, there are two key points:

1. how to improve the education system in the middle & high school levels (the “100% positive” approach for the toddlers on the one end and the excellence of the university system sandwich a vastly inferior middle & high school product). The University product is open to the world, and the world (read Asia) is taking full advantage. The challenge is educating “middle America.”

2. how to create a healthier USA? The medical system has, once again, excellence at the top end. However, the health of the average American is poor and his/her ability to have proper health care is limited and/or expensive. There are two underlying points that need to be reviewed in parallel: teach Americans to eat better and limit the lawsuits. The level of investment in medicine and medical services is virtually double the level in France; however, there is too much waste and wasted efforts.

Finally, a quick comment on the format of the panel and a review of the panelists. For this conference of two hours, there was barely time for one question at the end — and certainly none from the audience (although I would have wanted to get one in). Rather than a debate, the evening plenary session was a string of 9 different speakers, delivering their point of view on the question. To some degree, the request from Mr Christophe de Margerie, CEO of Total, to have the USA help Europe, summed up the usefulness of the plenary session. What are the lessons to take from this session? On the one hand, there is a need to find some structural solutions to the problems in the US in order to allow for a true long-term health, so that the famous “decline of the empire” does not materialize. With a stronger US, it will be less doubtful (as Mr Dominique Moisi suggested) it will be better able to help outside its borders. And, in the upcoming Presidential elections there is a lot riding on the victory of Obama : including (1) really tackling the fundamental issues of education and health care; (2) opening the door to
minorities [including women] in future Presidential races, with a trickle down in other political and non-political domains; and (3) seeing if such a critical election encourages a larger percentage of the American electorate to participate in the largest democracy of the world. And, then, on the other hand, there are the practical actions that France could take to help “change” its own future. And, on this, I certainly didn’t get any implementable solutions.

And, lastly, rather than make a person by person grading on the quality of the speeches, I note, with irony, that among the least exciting presenters were the two Americans (notwithstanding that they were both speaking in French), Mr Ignatius and Mr Haugen, along with Mr de Margerie. The most invigorating speech came from Loic Lemeur, with some pertinent anecdotes, which received several rounds of applause. But, the best speech came from Ms. Christine Lagarde who, freed from having to speak once again about the morosity of the French economy, was brilliant and pertinent in the 15 minutes she was accorded at the opening.

Quebec paves way in managing delinquency

Le Monde published an article in October (6th), entitled, ” Le Quebec en exemple,” in which it wrote about the Quebec [role] model for handling criminality. The article, subtitled “the challenge of prevention,” focuses on their efforts with regard to juvenile delinquency, sexual offenders and repeat criminals. And the results are evidently powerful. While I can’t find the article on line, I will share with you what I found stirring in this article. And the Quebecquers sure do know how to take a modern, original angle on topics like this.

There are several prongs to their strategy to manage delinquency. The first and foremost is in the realm of prevention (also under way in France, see photo to the left). The police force has a mandate to get into the social fabric of the community. Eliminate the “them” vs “us” mentality. Mine your information and sources. Secondly, what ever form of incarceration takes place, the focus is on re-integration including training, partial leave, residences in normal residential areas.

Other techniques cited include having a criminal finishing out his/her service by doing social services, including singing at a retirement home (music is a great soother, as we saw in the Philippines Prison Thriller set up in Cebu). Prison is considered as therapy and inmates are greatly encouraged to work, to learn, all in a goal to be re-insertable into society when their time is up.

The results show that the rate of criminality in Montreal has dropped by 13% since 2000 and by 38% since 19991.

Of couse, it’s not like shooting has disappeared. A naysayer might evoke the Freakonomics type argument that it was statistically probable (just like for NYC’s Giuliani) that crime was going to come down naturally.

And there are clearly people not happy about the “royal” treatment these convicted criminals are receiving. I would have to say that, if I were ever in such a horrid situation to be put away in prison, I would prefer the Quebec approach. Makes sense. It seems human, decent and, more importantly, effective in reducing the recidivist tendencies. Yet, of course, no program of this sort is without its risks (corruption, carelessness, connivery…)

But another sign of “modernity” in their program is their approach of workshopping topics such as Control of Anger, Emotional Management, Sense of the Other, Empathy, Acquiring interpersonal skills, etc., which are more accessible means of helping the criminally convicted to accept the therapy and get the benefits — as opposed to being set up for “psychiatric treatment.”

And for those of you scared to have a penitentiary house as your neighbour, less than 1% of the men who have lived in that “transitional” house has gone on to do further violent crimes.
Montreal, Quebec, had 43 homicides in 2006, 10x less than in a comparably sized city in the US, such as Philadelphia. For Quebec, it’s the lowest level of criminality since the 1960s. And Canada as a whole has seen global delinquency drop by a 1/3 since 1991. All seems to be very encouraging. Nothing’s perfect, but this approach does seem to speak to me. The article avoids the difficult task of proving reduced tax payer dollars (or even pretending that it is the ultimate goal), but lower criminality is the right objective and surely that has more than monetary value! Peace of Mind. Yet another reason why I loved living in Montreal.

And the part I liked best: “It all begins in the recreation yard…” with 11-year old students, where the policemen and women intermingle with generosity and humour.

Priceless. For everthing else, it’s MASTERFUL.

Rugby as a (role) model for competing

Rughy as role modelSportsmanship & CompetingIs rugby the best role model for competing? I believe so. I may be entirely biased since I played rugby (union) for more than fifteen years of my life, but I have established a personal credo that says that when I encounter another rugby player I am very probably going to be able to get along with that person under virtually any conditions. Despite the vast pressure, the demonstrations of team spirit and good sportsmanship post-match thus far at the RWC have been sterling examples for how sport should be played. Yes, there have been altercations and some nasty boots and tackles. That’s part of the war-like environment in the heat of the match. Yet, the vivid emotions after the match were testament to the intensity of the game. The upset favorites (All Blacks and Wallabies)handshake - role model totally in dismay. The underdog victors (France and England) in ecstasy. And yet, the teams shook hands with solid displays of good sportsmanship. No gloating by the winners. No sour grapes from the losers. Good natured winning and dignified (if still incredulous) losing.

Among the strong values in rugby is the lack of glorification around the person doing the scoring. There is no madman running around lifting up his shirt and kissing the sky to the adulation of the fans. Typically, there will be a pat on the back from the teammates and a “let’s get on with it” attitude. A score is normally the result of a team effort. The kicker, for his part, has an assignment.

Another favourite (for amateur rugby at least) is, of course, the famous 3rd half, down at the local pub–once we hit the legal drinking age, ahem–where both sides will meet for a drink’em up/patch’em up get-together.

In the face of the multiple sporting scandals around doping, gambling, rigging of results, is society losing touch with the purpose of sports? In my life, sports have always served as the three E’s: entertainment, exercise and education. For most sports these days, there is just too money circulating it would seem to key a “valuable” eye on the ball.

Rugby sportsmanship isn’t always perfect; nor does it have a monopoly on good sportsmanship. It exists fortunately everywhere. However, among the other team sports that show genuine good spirit after hard combat I would cite ice hockey and lacrosse. And I pay particular attention to these sports where, for the most part, there is not the same kind of money as in other professional sports. Playing rugby comes above all from an authentic passion for the game, not because of a dollar bill waved in the air (although it is of course a professional sport in the big rugby playing countries and the players receive adulation and achieve star status).

To allow a child to play a rough sport at school is often a challenge for the parent. That’s not essential, but the three sports of ice hockey, lacrosse and rugby have my vote for giving the best and most authentic values. Whatever the team sport, learning the camaraderie (as well as the leadership skills) in true team sports is an invaluable lesson for life and business.

I cite some interesting articles and blogs below that I picked up on good sportsmanship.

Great example in football from Leicester City FC (featuring my old friend Tim Davies who is Chief Exec): Leicester City Site which I found about courtesy of Centre of Soccer

For better kids health:
How to teach your kids good sportsmanship

10 ways to be a good sport

From Touching Base magazine (www.slopitch.org)

Some blogs on the topic of good sportsmanship (there are many on the subject)
Vicky & Jen
Spoongungame
The Sporting Life

Will Live Earth encourage the sports world to go green?

The greening of sports

In the aftermath of Live Earth 7.7.07, it struck me that the sporting world could also take up the green cause in a more formal fashion. Live Earth apparently attracted an audience of 2 billion people. [As an aside, I would like to see some of the performers be greater role models in their personal lives.] The World Cup of Rugby 2007 in France, the Super Bowl (every year in the US) and the Football (aka Soccer) World Cup 2010 in South Africa would be great platforms to showcase that they care more than just the turf on which they play. Considering all the money involved in sports and the status symbols and opinion leaders that sports heroes represent, they certainly would have their fans’ ears. And they have the merit of a worldwide scope. I shudder to think of the impact on golf courses and the amount of water needed to sprinkle the greens. What about Formula One getting a dose of diesel?

Green Olympics

In an effort to find a down-to-earth incentive — beyond common sense — for the sports world to take up the mantle, it seems that, if the trends continue, the number of rained out games, parched grounds, melted ice rinks and so on will on increase, causing havoc to the schedulers not to mention ticket sales. In the anticipated climate changes, sports equipment will have to be adapted. Conditioning will be dramatically impacted as players will need to contend with enormous swings in temperatures. Stadiums will need to be adjusted to include air conditioning in the summer. This will all mean less dollars and cents for the owners. Not good business. So, should we not be seeing an Earth Fit 8.8.08 or a Green Dream Team as part of the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing? It would be a great message if China, which along with the US are the two countries most responsible for carbon dioxide emissions, were to take up the cause more publicly. Politics and sports have a natural cause in this regard. I would like to showcase this site that seems to have taken the (China, speaking of the Olympics) bull by the horns: www.ecologysports.com.

The Green Dream Team

A potential Green Dream Team of sports figureheads could ally themselves across a number of sports. On the one hand, the sponsors of individuals could find the marriage of performance and the eco-cause of value. If Roger Federer chose to take on the campaign, Nike, Wilson (racket) and Rolex might all benefit. Among tennis’ former stars, John McEnroe and Martina Navratilova have already joined in the cause for clean water by being ambassadors for the (one of its originators is Johan Kriek). Maybe a quorum of past & present already in the making?

Another sport that needs to look the effects of the climate change directly in the face is skiing where, in the past season alone, there were seven World Cup events were entirely canceled for a lack of snow. In an icy cool show of support, there is news (from the BBC) of the 1km swim by the courageous Lewis Pugh in the Arctic, a sad statement that such a swim is even possible. And then there is my US hometown, Philadelphia, whose sports teams I all support (especially the bottom of the barrel in ’07 Flyers). The Philadelphia Eagles have made a happy marriage with the firey slogan “Go Green.” They are certainly setting a very good example as they have also officially joined the Stop Global Warming March.

In short, there are many people beginning to get on the bandwagon, but let’s push it up another notch and reach for the visibility that Live Earth achieved, but with another audience.