By: guesswho

guesswho — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 01:22:46 +0000

I agree with your comment about the fact that Rabbi Cohen was really trying “to sell” is university. Nevertheless, I didn’t think it was much different to some seminars, presented by researchers, that we’ve attempted during the semester. After all, Ricciard’s presentation was all about convincing us that invasion of exotic specie are happening unprecedented rate, Dr.Ebi argue during all her presentation that health problems were to emerge from climate change, and so on.

Perhaps that the common link between all these lecturers is that they are concern by, or let’s say involved in, the issue they are presenting on, and that therefore, they have a certain will to convince people about the importance of this issue.

By: patagonia

patagonia — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 01:09:15 +0000

I agree with your comments about the motives of the speaker; you could tell he was very charasmatic, a real public relations guru…or rabi. I found it, at times, difficult to absorb the real message of the Avara Insitute due to the advertisment side of the presentation. He even started by plugging his own book. Nonetheless, he was and is clearly the right man for the job of fundraising and advocacy for the Institute, and that can be an important role within an NGO. The point I would like to make is; when it comes to activism or sharing ones knowledge/message, each person will feel confortable presenting ones knowledge or message by various methods and at various stages and public levels. At first glance this is not a bad thing, it simply means that different researches will appeal to different audiences. But it seems to me that, inevitably, it will be the best funded, best presented, most prestigeous, and pro-economy type research and research bodies that get their information heard by the most influencial audience (politicians/ policy makers). This is not always the case, as for the IPCC which is a hot topic within many influencial goverments, but it often is. And to clarify, by ‘best presented’ I am refering to the leadership and representation of a piece of reserach, idea, or platform. Rabi Cohen was and is a strong leader who is capable of captivating and convincing an audiance of his cause. In comparison, Stephan Dion was not a strong leader and was unable to captivate or convince his audiance of his platform, resulting in the Liberal party loss and consequently the loss of some important enviromental policies (carbon taxes, etc.). It is sad but true, that is todays culture of flashy TV and advertising, good reserach, good policy and political platforms mean nothing of not presented properly. The general public simply does not get self motivated and read into important topics like climate change, therefore many do not understand the research and significance of the issue. Similarily, many people do not read a party’s platform, and thus vote for a backwards conservative party stronger representation. As an aside, did anyone else here the gossip on TV during the Canadian federal elections over who dressed the best, how Elizabeth May would do better if she had a makeover, etc etc. It is sad when appearance and presentation are made to be more important than good research, good policy and good politics.

Comments on: Rabi Cohen and activism

By: guesswho

By: patagonia