Who says procrastinating isn't useful?

This past weekend, instead of "lazing about" (read: cramming in as much school work as humanly possible into 48 hours) I decided that I should go get educated on social media, so I went to PodCamp Toronto 2009.

I can't really describe everything that went down at PodCamp, suffice to say I learned a lot about the technical aspects of making a video from Geo Perdis, how to use social media for non-profits from John Sheridan, and what's new and upcoming in Canadian social media from Sean Moffitt.

I ended up taking a lot of notes, learning a lot about how to integrate social media with my (starting soon!) job as a communications officer, and even networking a little bit. Not to mention I had an awesome chicken souvlaki pita for lunch at Mutual Street Deli.

I'm looking forward to see what next year brings. Hopefully I'll be good enough that I might have some input to give instead of mainly taking.


Image courtesy of LexnGer; Roast beef sandwich from Mutual Street Deli.

Chillin' with the birds

Climate change is pushing American birds further north, into Canada. Way to go Toronto Star on picking up on this!

According to the Audubon Society's most recent report, warmer weather in the US has led to the range expansion of 58% of species observed in the Christmas Bird Count. These birds are moving further north into the colder weather.

This may sound crazy at first, but it really makes a lot of sense. The birds aren't equipped to deal with warmer temperatures so they move further north (into Canada) to where the temperatures are closer to the seasonal range that they are used to.

The biggest problem now is how to reverse this trend. The most obvious solution would be to reverse the temperature changes, unfortunately this is a complicated issue that isn't fully understood yet. The best solution for now is a band aid one at best: conserve the suitable habitats that currently exist and hope that the species can hold on for long enough until the temperature changes are at least halted.

Happy (belated) birthday Darwin!

Did you know that Darwin's 200th birthday was on February 12th, 2009? A smorgasbord of events were organized in honour of one of the most important scientists in history, not to mention the slew of articles that were released.

One article in particular caught my attention, or rather the related material that was listed after the article. The link provided led me to a site called "Dissent from Darwin" and was a petition from a number of "scientists from prominent organizations" who are "skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life."

This petition was started by the Discovery Institute, which puts itself forward as a "forward-thinking" organization wanting to make "a positive vision of the future practical." All of this sounds great on the surface, until you read further into how the organization functions. Now the truth comes out.

Discovery Institute was founded on the beliefs of "God-given reason" and "the permanency of human nature." Does this really sound like the beliefs of a science-oriented, logic-based organization? I would have to disagree.

What's puzzling is that the proposed alternative to Darwin's theory is intelligent design. That's right, intelligent design. Again, I have to question what the real reasoning behind this organization is. Could this be a new form of creationists' arguments against evolution? Who knows. All I know is I'm not sold on intelligent design. I think I'll keep curling up by the fire with a glass of wine and read On the Origin of Species.

Queen's playing the name game

It's a little known fact that Queen's University was nearly bought out by the University of Toronto in 1878 after losing nearly all of its money after their bank made some bad investments. An also little known fact is that Robert Sutherland, the first black man to graduate from a university in North America and a Queen's graduate, donated his entire estate to the university in 1878 and saved it from bankruptcy.

In March 1998, after decades of students lobbying, Queen's finally named a room after Sutherland. Students were pleased for the time being, until more recently, they began again lobbying for a building to be named after Sutherland. The value of his estate in 1878 was enough to constitute the university's entire budget for that year. Students are frustrated that the university refuses to name a building after the man who saved the university so long ago.

Alternatives to naming a building have been suggested including making a statue of Sutherland, which is impossible because no images of him exist. After pressure was applied by the media, Queen's has decided to consider the proposal to name a building after Sutherland but require "more research" before they can come to a decision.

I'd love to know exactly what kind of research naming a building after someone requires. It seems like a no-brainer to me, but I guess that's why I'm still a student and not in management.

Oh deer! Population changes from trophy hunting

The National Post recently ran an article about trophy hunting and how it has changed the population dynamics of herds. The article talks about the human tendency to target larger animals as trophies, leaving the smaller, weaker animals to survive. The problem arising from this is that the smaller animals are surviving long enough to breed, so ensuing generations are physically smaller in size.

The issue is that humans are changing these populations at a rate which exceeds that of natural selection. This means that hunters are working their way through the largest members of the population until its necessary for them to hunt the medium-sized members of the population and so on.


The proposed solution to this problem is to hunt less or start hunting the smaller animals in addition to the large ones. Good luck convincing trophy hunters that this is the only solution to this looming problem. It's going to take an integrated marketing strategy on the part of the Ministry of Natural Resources before people start getting the message.

Coke sells its soul for a polar bear, part 2

Apologies that it's taken me so long to update this and comment on Coke's holiday blitz. The main reason that it took me so long is that Coke has taken down the part of its site that dealt with the holiday campaign for polar bears and has instead replaced it with multiple direct links to the WWF site. But that's a good thing, right? Not in my case.

Early in November, I noticed the fine print that Coke had included on their site stating that they would donate up to a maximum of $100,000 provided that 1.4 million PINs were entered on their site by December 31st.

It took me a while, but I finally managed to find a site with information about the monetary donations made by Coke this season. Apparently they succeeded in getting the 1.4 millions PINs because Coke proudly proclaims that it has donated $100,000 from its loyalty program in 2008 for polar bear conservation efforts.

I'm a little suspicious of this. Neither Coke nor WWF has issued a news release or any related materials on their respective sites. No news agencies have picked up on this story; even the bloggers are silent. These large corporations have remained suspiciously silent towards a potentially huge PR campaign that could bolster their images in a positive light.

More updates to come once I've found out more.

From Shylock to the workplace, a pound of flesh can cost a lot

According to a recent study done by Professor Cawley of Cornell University, for every 7.2 pounds that a woman gains she will earn 1% less than a female colleague whose weight remained the same. Weight is often closely tied to first impressions and the overall image of a person. Being in PR, image management is a really important part of the industry, so this article got me thinking: does a company have the right to ask their employees to manage their weight?


The immediate answer would be no, but I think it should depend on what company it is that we're talking about. If a company makes money almost solely from the physical appearance of its employees, say a modelling agency, then it's reasonable to expect that the company would have a weight clause in the contract that a model signs. Is it reasonable to think that a company where the revenue is based other streams should be concerned with their employees weight? I'm not so sure.


Is it infringing on an employees' rights when a company promotes the skinny and holds the not-so-skinny down? It's not really a clear-cut issue and I'm not really sure as to how I feel - all I know is that I'm outraged that weight gain can play a part in my future wages. Being so early in the new year, I'm still on the eating healthy and working out more track from my New Year's resolutions, so I'm still thinking along the lines of losing weight, but it has nothing to do with a job. And that's the way it should be.