just do it ...

when the kids were slightly younger, they would ask for nike sneakers. in a fit of socialistic tirades, i would explain that we would find it difficult to support a company which would pay an eighteen year old youth the princely sum of 90 million dollars to endorse their products. the standard line would always be "let them put that towards cancer research, and then we'll talk!".

a few years down the road, jane and i still feel this way (communists that we are!) - and of course, even more so now. we see the global economy, and recognize that there are indeed tremendous benefits. but amongst the other perils (low wages in developing countries, product safety issues, etc.) there lurks the notion that everything is justified by the bottom line. of course, this is how business works, and despite our left-leaning politics, we realize that this type of economy (ie. pure capitalism) can foment some very creative thinking and some highly motivated people - without whom we may not have advances in technology, medicine, etc..

the flip side is that a small number of individuals become grotesquely and extraordinarily wealthy, their wallets' contents outweighing the gdp of most african nations! again, that's 'the system' and we relent - often times said ceo's are generous, charitable, and supportive of incredible causes. we still must take issue, however, with the priorities our society exhibits when it pays a movie star 30 million dollars to appear in a film, or a baseball player 20 million dollars for hitting a ball. there's not a lot of george clooney's out there (hitting for darfur, for example), and even fewer bill (and melinda) gates - people who are not only putting up the money, but actually affecting lives and creating permanent and lasting change on the ground. instead, we see shining examples of young people smashing their lamborghinis, messed up on pills, ignoring their kids - not really 'contributing to society'!

so, tell me, would an eighteen year old kid not be happy if nike offered him 9 million dollars (instead of 90!), and the corporate officers took that 'extra' 81 million and put it towards cancer research? an aids vaccine? the eradication of poverty? fair trade? perhaps no one finds a nobel prize winner 'sexy' - ie. they can't 'sell the product' ... in what demographic would you see consumers flocking to the shops to purchase items hawked by the likes of aung san suu kyi?

for certain, nike could 'spin' this slickly - promoting young minds saving lives or changing the world - to sell even more shoes, couldn't they?

just do it!