Alternative holidays to adopt: Growlentine's Day

 Reposted from February 14, 2008.  It's still that good. The pictures are new--first one compliment of Aaron.

How do you feel about Valentine's Day? Do the looks of disgust and disdain on these animals' faces express your opinion?

You're not alone. There are a lot of V-day haters out there. And why not? It's a holiday that seems to be created to make some people spend

lots of money and other people to feel bad about themselves. It's pretentious and exclusionary. Anti-American, even!
So, I think it's time we take back February 14th from the lovers. Enough of the lovey-dovey, sickeningly sweet "You is my pookey bear" Hallmark cards. No more overpriced roses and sweeethearts with cool new messages like "text me! 143!". Honestly folks, we're better than that.
So here's my proposal. This February 14th marks the inauguration of a new age. This year, we celebrate GROWLENTINE'S DAY.

The rules are simple:
1. You must dress like a predator
2. You must growl at people (intensity of growling should be proportional to the strength of your feelings towards them--i.e. you growl loudest at those you love and hate, and more amiably at strangers and cute babies).

Beyond that, it's up to your discretion. There's no gendered expectations or norms, no need to find that special someone to spend the day with. Just an excuse to growl (which you know you secretly wish was more socially acceptable), dress up (Halloween in the spring. . .score!), and be silly. And hey, if you want to eat some chocolate and drink some wine with a saucy minx or a big, bad wolf, no one's saying that's against the rules. Bear in mind, you never know where a growl might lead you.

If it's for a good cause

Last week, my mom send me a list of the most influential cause marketing campaigns (by U.S. companies).

It was interesting to read as a global health person because the way in which I think about "influence" or "effectiveness", if you will, is obviously very different from how the author did.  For example, I tend to think about the administrative costs of raising money--the "feel good factor"to the donor is not at the forefront of my mind.  Cause marketing obviously relies on engaging consumers, which inherently means that resources that could have been passed along to the intended beneficiaries has to be put into the fundraising activities.  But, the question is: does that lead to greater levels of donations and/or other types of engagement that ultimately result in more resources for delivery on the ground?  A lot of people that run in a marathon as a charity runner wouldn't necessarily have picked up a checkbook to donate money to breast cancer research.  For programs that receive a lot of funding from the government, the broad-based support for the cause is an important part of sustaining political commitment.