I know that many of my recent blog entries are on shopping sales and deals, and (somewhat...hehe) frivolous things like handbags and premium denim. But as the holiday season approaches, don't forget the warm fuzzies you get from giving.
A lot of non-profits are quite concerned this season as reports are coming in of decreased donations. During a time of economic slowdown, more and more people will come to rely on the services they provide, so it seems like a potentially explosive situation of collapsing social programs. More need but less support.
In the 90s when the federal government cut transfers, the Ontario government implemented a Common Sense Revolution that decimated the education system, the health care system, the welfare system and beyond. Basically everything received funding cuts as a way to trim the fat. And if you don't have a short memory, you will remember the consequences of these short-sighted actions. Things need not be quite so dire.
What can you do?
Donate! If you can't afford to donate money, donate your time, in-kind goods and expertise.
Especially if you have expertise and the time. A lot of these organizations have people with the passion, but not necessarily the right knowledge to make sure that they are reaching the most people in their target market, and using their resources as efficiently as possible.
If you do have the means and not the time, take care into researching where your donation dollars go. Some of the top charitable organizations are very effective in reaching their mandate.
United Way is one such organization. They have a rigorous process in place to ensure that the NGOs they provide funding for are established organizations with solid business plans, and really just need the money to run their campaigns.
Another organization I support is the Daily Bread Food Bank. Yes, their services are very much band-aid solutions, but they really do provide one of the key necessities in life for those who cannot afford it. Food. For the food bank, I also believe giving cash is the best thing you can do, because they have much stronger purchasing power than you do as an individual.
So this holiday season as you get together with your loved ones, make a day of it and volunteer at a local charity. Or incorporate donations into your gift giving.
My friends have switched from $50 Secret Santa gifts to $30 gift/$20 donation, where one person "wins" the donations to be applied to a charity of their choice under their name. This is a double-win since they also get the charitable donation tax receipt. :)
Happy gifting...
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
November 26, 2008
November 08, 2008
In the News: Prop 8 Propped Up
Along with the presidential election this past week, voters also weighed in on a series of propositions. Californians faced a decision called Proposition 8, which eliminates the right of same-sex couples to marry. In May of this year the California Supreme Court recognized same-sex marriage as a fundamental right, and about 18,000 same-sex couples in California had wed since the ruling.
I had fully expected the motion to fail, so I was surprised to see that California's Prop 8 passed. I have always believed California to be one of the most liberal states in the US, but this past week they revoked same-sex marriage. It is not often that Americans vote to take civil liberties away from individuals after they have been granted.
The tally to date is 52.4% for and 47.6% against defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman, a difference of about 0.5M votes.
Reuters link
I had fully expected the motion to fail, so I was surprised to see that California's Prop 8 passed. I have always believed California to be one of the most liberal states in the US, but this past week they revoked same-sex marriage. It is not often that Americans vote to take civil liberties away from individuals after they have been granted.
The tally to date is 52.4% for and 47.6% against defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman, a difference of about 0.5M votes.
Reuters link
November 05, 2008
In the News: Yes We Can
I'm not American, but I found this speech very inspirational!
Barack Obama is known to be a very charismatic orator, and demonstrated his skill again last night after winning the seat in the Oval Office:
Expectations are high, but I am curious what he will actually be able to accomplish in terms of the current issues being faced by America. I don't mean to be cynical, but there is only so much that a person can do!
John McCain's concession speech was also very gracious, and we should remember his ability to reach across party lines to work toward the greater good of the country. It needs reminding that McCain is not GWB. I think Americans were fortunate to have a choice between two excellent presidential candidates.
Barack Obama is known to be a very charismatic orator, and demonstrated his skill again last night after winning the seat in the Oval Office:
Expectations are high, but I am curious what he will actually be able to accomplish in terms of the current issues being faced by America. I don't mean to be cynical, but there is only so much that a person can do!
John McCain's concession speech was also very gracious, and we should remember his ability to reach across party lines to work toward the greater good of the country. It needs reminding that McCain is not GWB. I think Americans were fortunate to have a choice between two excellent presidential candidates.
December 23, 2006
Scientists ≠ Morals?
(link)
Well, it looks like those rumblings of government interference in stem cell research have materialized in the form of this conservative-biased body, the AHRC agency.
Will we soon be teaching Creationism as a viable alternative to Evolution in elementary schools? Should the government be able to make moral decisions for academic and medical research? (Should it?? Where do we draw the line?) Stem cell research is going to happen, whether they like it or not, and Canada currently has an extensive body of collaborating scientists who are world-reknown for their work.
I definitely believe that regulations and restrictions need to be applied to stem cell research -- no human-something else chimeras, or factories for manufacturing embryos to obtain the stem cells, etc. but I hope this body does not suppress the progression of scientific knowledge.
Back in the 1970s when plasmid DNA and new molecular biology technologies were first being combined to genetically modify lower organisms, the entire scientific body briefly underwent a self-imposed moratorium on the use of bacteria in genetic research until they could hammer out rules that everyone would agree to follow to ensure the safety of the public and prevent malicious misuse. At the Asilomar Conference on Recombinant DNA Molecules in 1975, an outline was created by the scientists, and the guidelines were adopted and expanded by the NIH. These guidelines were then adopted by many countries and continue to be adapted to reflect the current issues of the day.
So back to the issue of stem cell research in Canada. Some people commenting on the article seem to think that scientists have no moral boundaries (although most are calling out for separation of religion and government, and for Steve-O to say sayonara). We already have a comprehensive bill (C-13), which is considered conservative in comparison to many other countries. What is going to happen to the future of stem cell research in Canada? We will have to wait and see....
BUT perhaps the presence of outspoken critics against abortion and stem cell research, and the lack of a stem cell expert on this advisory board is indicative of what kind of voice they will provide.... *ominous music*
Well, it looks like those rumblings of government interference in stem cell research have materialized in the form of this conservative-biased body, the AHRC agency.
Will we soon be teaching Creationism as a viable alternative to Evolution in elementary schools? Should the government be able to make moral decisions for academic and medical research? (Should it?? Where do we draw the line?) Stem cell research is going to happen, whether they like it or not, and Canada currently has an extensive body of collaborating scientists who are world-reknown for their work.
I definitely believe that regulations and restrictions need to be applied to stem cell research -- no human-something else chimeras, or factories for manufacturing embryos to obtain the stem cells, etc. but I hope this body does not suppress the progression of scientific knowledge.
Back in the 1970s when plasmid DNA and new molecular biology technologies were first being combined to genetically modify lower organisms, the entire scientific body briefly underwent a self-imposed moratorium on the use of bacteria in genetic research until they could hammer out rules that everyone would agree to follow to ensure the safety of the public and prevent malicious misuse. At the Asilomar Conference on Recombinant DNA Molecules in 1975, an outline was created by the scientists, and the guidelines were adopted and expanded by the NIH. These guidelines were then adopted by many countries and continue to be adapted to reflect the current issues of the day.
So back to the issue of stem cell research in Canada. Some people commenting on the article seem to think that scientists have no moral boundaries (although most are calling out for separation of religion and government, and for Steve-O to say sayonara). We already have a comprehensive bill (C-13), which is considered conservative in comparison to many other countries. What is going to happen to the future of stem cell research in Canada? We will have to wait and see....
BUT perhaps the presence of outspoken critics against abortion and stem cell research, and the lack of a stem cell expert on this advisory board is indicative of what kind of voice they will provide.... *ominous music*
March 29, 2005
Prevention versus therapy
This evening I attended a debate held by the Cardiovascular Sciences collaborative program. The question was: "Be it resolved that in our increasingly stressed healthcare system, greater emphasis should be placed on the prevention of ischemic heart disease rather than on the development of novel therapeutic strategies."
The protagonist was Dr. Cameron Mustard, a Professor at the University of Toronto, involved in epidemiology. The antagonist was Dr. David Alter, a cardiologist and scientist affiliated with Sunnybrook and Women's College Hospital, and the University of Toronto. The chair was Dr. Thomas Parker, the current Chair of Cardiology at the University of Toronto and St. Michael's Hospital.
It was pretty interesting, because Dr. Mustard's points focused on population health and the strange stabilization of cardiovascular disease (CVD). He stated that back in the day (I forget what decade), CVD was considered a disease of the affluent. Today a complete reversal can be found, with CVD afflicting mainly those below the poverty line. Although obesity and smoking are strong predictors of CVD, they do not explain the current situation. The prevalence of smoking Canadians has actually dropped from 35% to 20% today. He stated a lot of facts and figures, but basically presented his position that preventative measures currently account for the majority of increased longevity of patients with CVD.
On the other hand, Dr. Alter presented some interesting points. The role of the healthcare system is not to educate the masses to eat right and exercise, but to treat the patients who come in. By this time, it's too late for prevention, but the patient still must be treated. Something like 60% of healthcare funding is allocated for the last six months of a person's life. This is the unfortunate reality of healthcare. I was much more convinced by his arguments, although I agree that prevention is important. This is good because it means that my research is still meaningful! (Hopefully.)
The speakers were excellent, and CBC Radio One was there for a taping, so perhaps it will be on the radio in the near future!
The protagonist was Dr. Cameron Mustard, a Professor at the University of Toronto, involved in epidemiology. The antagonist was Dr. David Alter, a cardiologist and scientist affiliated with Sunnybrook and Women's College Hospital, and the University of Toronto. The chair was Dr. Thomas Parker, the current Chair of Cardiology at the University of Toronto and St. Michael's Hospital.
It was pretty interesting, because Dr. Mustard's points focused on population health and the strange stabilization of cardiovascular disease (CVD). He stated that back in the day (I forget what decade), CVD was considered a disease of the affluent. Today a complete reversal can be found, with CVD afflicting mainly those below the poverty line. Although obesity and smoking are strong predictors of CVD, they do not explain the current situation. The prevalence of smoking Canadians has actually dropped from 35% to 20% today. He stated a lot of facts and figures, but basically presented his position that preventative measures currently account for the majority of increased longevity of patients with CVD.
On the other hand, Dr. Alter presented some interesting points. The role of the healthcare system is not to educate the masses to eat right and exercise, but to treat the patients who come in. By this time, it's too late for prevention, but the patient still must be treated. Something like 60% of healthcare funding is allocated for the last six months of a person's life. This is the unfortunate reality of healthcare. I was much more convinced by his arguments, although I agree that prevention is important. This is good because it means that my research is still meaningful! (Hopefully.)
The speakers were excellent, and CBC Radio One was there for a taping, so perhaps it will be on the radio in the near future!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
