Hi all,
These past two days have been filled with intense activities and sessions at the International AIDS Conference in Mexico City. On Tuesday, I spent a lot of time at the global village. I might already talked about this, but the global village is a space at the IAC 2008 where community groups from around the world are sharing their work and creating opportunities for networking. I hope to be able to share video on this soon.
I also attended sessions on funding gaps and opportunities relating to HIV/AIDS and one on the current state of the pandemic in Latin America. This one was very instructive and brought together activists with leaders from international agencies like UNAIDS and the Global Fund working in the region.
On Wednesday, I attended a plenary on sexual workers, which for the first time had them discussing their own issues. It was very interesting! I also attended sessions on the linkage between human security and HIV (this one with Mary Robinson) and one on the effect of global trade and bilateral agreements on universal access to treatment. The one on human security was particularly interesting as it presented associative (but not causative) data from UNHCR which links low prevalence levels to high levels of conflict. This would mean that wars keep HIV low, and this rapidly expands in post-conflict zones. This was highly controversial, but the speaker tried to focus on the need to invest heavily on post-conflict areas, instead of speaking about when and/or how the data may more directly link low HIV prevalence to conflict.
I finished Wednesday with a session on young people, including youth speakers from India and Guyana who explained youth-friendly programs in their regions and ways that youth-related commitments in the UNGASS declaration are being implemented (or not).
Tomorrow and Friday are the last days of the conference! I’ll keep you posted!l
Today I attended a few sessions at the IAC 2008. The first one was a plenary discussing the different approaches to HIV/AIDS. It was very informative!
I then spent a lot of time at the conference’s Global Village. This is a huge exhibition space where a multitude of community-based organizations are sharing their experiences working with HIV/AIDS and organizing a lot of participatory activities.
I also participated in a session on how young people are using information and communication technologies (ICTs) to battle the pandemic. I’ll share some videos from this session soon.
Following this last session, I went to an event focusing on the linkage between migration and HIV/AIDS. I thought it was just going to address migration from Mexico and Central America to the US, but the conversation was much richer and included presentations on migration issues in Asia and Africa.
I ended the day with a session on the pandemic’s future. It was run by an initiative called aids2031 which is trying to create a framework for addressing HIV/AIDS in a more sustainable long-term manner.
From July 31 to August 2, I was part of a youth pre-conference to the International AIDS Conference. It was great! I hung out with 200+ young people from around the world working on HIV/AIDS-related projects. The conference provided some preparation for the actual International AIDS Conference, which started last night. I helped organize the last youth pre-conference in Toronto, but feel that this one was better in many ways.
I taped some of the content from the pre-conference and hope to add it to some footage from the main conference and share it with everyone soon!
Last week I spent a few nights at an amazing beach called La Boquita near Huatulco, Mexico. We stayed at a very eco-friendly hotel called Bahia de la Luna. The staff was super friendly and the prices were very affordable.
Most of my stay at Bahia de la Luna was spent hanging out at this beautiful Pacific coast beach. I did take some time to check out some of the reservations in the area holding crocodiles and different types of birds. See the following Youtube videos for details of my stay!
Now, I’m at the International AIDS Conference in Mexico City. More postings on that soon!
I have been an avid Paul Krugman for a few years now. I don’t necessarily agree with all of his positions, but his data-driven explanation of the economy and issues such as health care has always been appreciated. My main area of disagreement with Krugman falls on his approach to create change. He focuses on this old-school idea of confrontation as the only way to accomplish a “progressive agenda.” This idea follows the same type of prescription that states: 1) let’s put together in a room a bunch of technocrats (scientists and lawyers for the most part) who come up with a “solution” to a specific problem. 2) Let’s hire a bunch of lobbyists, lawyers, NGOs and other groups to push and “fight” for the “progressive solution” and not stop till the other side (in Krugman’s vision this means the Republican Party) is fully destroyed and left with nothing. 3) Implement the solution and continue to step all over the opposing party (instead of looking for ways to create bridges and understanding),and focus on reminding the losing party that they are wrong and the winning party (in Krugman’s vision this means “the progressives”) is on top.
This of course has not worked since the 1970’s in the US (policy-wise) and since Lyndon Johnson (in presidential politics). At that point, the US population got tired of this old cycle, and started looking for political leaders to propose ideas (even if the wrong one), remain optimistic (even if for the wrong reasons), and provide the solutions that will keep people positive about their future (even if those solutions are wrong).
It is sad that Krugman doesn’t seem to get this, and instead continues to be insecure about the possibilities of unity and foregoing a stop to confrontation and bickering as the only way to obtain positive solutions.
Hopefully Krugman will get on the bandwagon before it is too late… A first step to achieve this is stopping to bash Obama every single opportunity he gets.
I recently read Adam Werbach’s newest speech to the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco. The first one was extremely controversial among the environmental community, as it declared environmentalism dead. This was huge given Werbach’s work with Sierra Club (youngest president ever at 23), and essentially as the poster boy for young people involved in environmental issues (for more discussion on this go to Grist.com).
The new speech still declares environmentalism dead, but instead declares the birth of a new movement called Blue. This new movement is essentially a movement made up by everyone and anyone, allowing people to become better consumers, design what he calls PSPs (personal sustainability practices), and live better, healthier lives. Werbach designed this idea while working for WalMart as a sustainability consultant (this obviously brought more controversy to his image). The concept also feeds to the same thinking embraced by the folks at the Breakthrough Institute (see my previous posting).
I think the idea has a lot of potential… Sure, people conscious of the magnitude of climate change, should consider ways to reduce consumption, and live healthier lives through more sustainable lifestyles. However, most people are not aware of this! Until there are massive investments into educating citizens around the world about the dangers posed by climate change, and ways to adapt and mitigate its effects, efforts like Blue actually make a lot of sense. I also think that Blue also changes the framework by which most people consume and behave as members of society. It provides a positive, non-confrontational solution to the way we approach sustainability.
I am convinced that this idea is going to remain controversial, especially among the activist community, but I am looking forward to gaging whether it becomes a true vibrant movement or not.
Hi everyone! It has been a while since I posted to the blog. I have been really busy and doing some traveling for work. Nevertheless, after watching last night’s debate I had a definite urge to start blogging again!
I don’t want to comment on the bickering between the candidates… For that go to Politico.com…
Instead, I wanted to write about the most interesting subject (in my opinion) that came out of the debate; a clear remark by Obama supporting an Apollo Project-like presidential initiative to support renewable energies and a global economy based on green jobs. This would include a dramatic increase of funding for R&D in overcoming the technology gap when it comes to energy resources.
Interestingly enough, I went to a meeting earlier this week with the Breakthrough Institute discussing recent findings published in a Nature Magazine on how the IPCC understimated the technological advances needed to stabilize carbon-dioxide emissions.
The presenters at my meeting focused on the need to mobilize the US in a massive technology innovation effort, like the rebuilding of Europe after World War II, the Manhattan Project and the Apollo Project. Michael Shellenberger, famous with Ted Nordhaus for proclaiming the Death to Environmentalism, has been promoting this concept as well, especially as it fits the idea of reframing the discourse on environmentalism to a more inclusive and broader movement for all progressives. All of this is very much influenced by George Lakoff’s work on framing language focus on strenghts and not on policy/wonky confrontational prescriptions (a la “bread and butter” Democrats).
The other side of this Apollo Project-type effort involves an honest partnership with groups that have not been fully engaged in the renewable energy discussion in the past, such as unions, environmental justice groups, people of faith, etc. An interesting group that is trying to bridge this is Green for All which tries to “build an inclusive green economy strong enough to lift people out of poverty.”
The point with all of this is that at my recent meeting, I specifically asked if anyone was speaking to the presidential candidates about all of this stuff, and no one really knew… Based on Obama’s remarks last night, it seems that someone is! Let’s see how it works out!
Very sadly we all learned today that New York Governor Eliot Spitzer resigned his post after it was disclosed in the media that he had been spending around $80,000 in prostitutes. This came from the man that the press liked to call “Mr. Clean” and “Eliot Ness.”
I think other blogs and the general news media have covered this and will continue to cover this episode for days or or weeks to come. Nevertheless, I have not yet read commentary on how this is going to pan out for Spitzer’s wife (I’ve only read one article in the NY Times so far – http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/12/nyregion/12wife.html)
Don’t get me wrong, I feel bad for her and her family. It must be an extremely difficult situation to be in, and I can’t begin to imagine how she must feel. However, it is hard to understand why she (as other politicians’ wives in the past) stood with her husband as he admitted such a scandalous affair.
Maybe she did it to protect her children or out of some strange type of loyalty towards her husband. Regardless of why she did it, she might want to consider some prospective opportunities based on the history of a similar disraught wife: Hillary Clinton.
A lot of cynics have commented on the reasons why Hillary Clinton remained married to Bill Clinton after the series of sex scandals that have been linked to the former president’s life. Many of them claim that she stayed eyeing a potential political career. This theory has been given credibility by how well she has done for herself in the political arena. Silda Wall Spitzer resembles Hillary in interesting ways; they both left lucrative law practices to support their husbands’ political careers, and both have shown a particular interest in promoting children’s causes.
Given the similarities, it might be interesting to see if Silda Wall Spitzer is also accused of sticking to her husband for the prospects of a potential political career. Only time will tell, but who knows… Maybe New Yorkers will have a Sen. Silda W. Spitzer very soon!
`
Today I found out that my buddy Rob Camstra has a new band in the Netherlands. The name of the band is Minerva Sound Society and it is made up by 10 students in the Netherlands who play a pretty funky sound! They are also a sort of cultural ambassador troupe for the Netherlands, traveling the world and sharing good will. If you are interested check them out! They have videos of their performances in China, Dubai and Nigeria as well as some of their music.
Rob and I know each other from our time playing together in Curacao. We used to have a band named Retrospective, and we did pretty well for ourselves – even though we were just in high school!
Make sure you check out Rob’s band!
A couple of days ago I received a notice from Fidelity Investments letting me know that because of my 401k, I had the opportunity to vote on the upcoming motions to be introduced during the next board of directors meeting. The notice says that the board of directors suggests that as partial owner of a fund that invests internationally, I should vote to approve a motion to include new board members and another one that reduces the size of the quorum. Incredibly enough, the board of Fidelity Investments suggests that I vote against a motion that bans Fidelity from investing in countries that are engaged in genocide. Whaaat? You read it right! Fidelity Investments wants me to support their practice of investing in countries (like Sudan) that promote genocide. This is crazy!
I did some research and it seems that Fidelity is investing on Chinese oil companies (such as PetroChina) that are operating in Sudan, which provide funding to the Sudanese government, which supports the Arab militias wreaking havoc in Darfur. Activists have started organize against Fidelity, and have already started campaigns to push Fidelity into responsible investments and out of Sudan (see http://fidelityoutofsudan.googlepages.com/).
I know that I will vote against Fidelity Investments on this, and hope that others consider doing this as well (for more information on how you can get involved check out: http://investorsagainstgenocide.googlepages.com/shareholderresolutions). I am also researching ways to roll out my 401k out of Fidelity into a private IRA, because I can’t believe that in 2008 we still have companies blatantly refusing to work responsibly.
