The provincial Liberals' complete disarray following the Progressive Conservative landslide victory is highlighting an important political point in Newfoundland and Labrador: we have a very powerful government on our hands.
While voters have overwhelmingly approved of the Williams Administration, the plain truth of the matter is that our current government has an increased ability to pursue its agenda whether we like it or not.
The government's successful and popular first term notwithstanding, there is absolutely no guarantee that Danny Williams will lead us in a direction that is best for the province. And although this administration has set precedence in several areas of accountability, it remains a glaring fact that there is little official opposition in the House of Assembly. This is a threatening reality.
Williams has decided, perhaps intelligently, not to call the House to session until next year, making the most recent session the shortest on record. The argument given is that it will give the new members of cabinet, and all MHAs for that matter, a chance to get used to their new jobs and co-workers. And although it is good practice to give newcomers time to adapt, we are presented with an extended period of relative silence in the political arena. Who knows what our representatives will be up to between now and Spring?
The hope is, of course, that the media will be our eyes, ears, and mouths in the realm of public policy during this time. Indeed, the media is in many ways our new 'official opposition.' They are the people on the ground who gather intelligence and report back to the public. They also, in theory, offer citizens the opportunity to voice their opinions. And as our economy grows and citizens become more savvy to the ever-growing encroachment of digital TV and Internet access, more people have louder voices and more views can be expressed.
But who are the people who run the media? We have our publication editors, at least one of whom appears to have targeted the small market niche of Williams-skeptics. Then, of course, we have our television and radio news coverage with intermittent commentary, as well as those mysterious bloggers - of which anyone can become.
All of these people have their own motives and values, and have the potential to influence the views and opinions of large numbers of people. But there are only so many of them to go around. They can only represent so many views, and well all know that mistakes can be made by even the most well-meaning folk.
What, then, are we lowly voters to do? We have taken on the heavy responsibility of holding to task both a government that has done well by us and media outlets that love to harass and question the powers-that-be. The government has a leader that gets into spats with these local news reporters and it can't be denied that this sells papers (and is thus potentially desirable). The real question is How do we mediate these two sides?
Well, what Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are faced with right now is a good government with little official opposition and a good set of media who need money to stay afloat. Neither of these parties can be fully trusted to represent effectively the views of the people by themselves, nor together. Our responsibility, then, is to be good citizens and demand that these two opposing forces are influenced equally by our thoughts and desires.
Every grievance should have its place in the pages of a local newspaper. Open line shows should always be jammed with callers. While some opinions may be misguided and others extreme in their approach, they all contribute to the overall mood and zeitgeist of this place. The media's task is to compile these views into an overall picture of what the general population wants our province to achieve. The government must then pay attention and act on what it sees and hears.
Our job as the general population is to be honest with ourselves and with others. We must not be afraid to speak our minds. We should take others' opinions in stride and set an example for our government and media by listening to our fellow Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. We are all in this together and there has never been a better opportunity to make a difference.
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
driving to the grocery store with reusable bags
My roommate and I went to the grocery store the other day. We chose this particular store because it is new, has a lot of selection, and (as far as I'm concerned) has a greener approach to business. When we got to the checkout and informed the cashier we had our own bags, the otherwise friendly woman gave us a hard time for seemingly thinking that avoiding the use of five plastic bags makes a difference in the grander scheme of things.
The truth is we could have walked to the store, but decided to drive. And a lot of our groceries had a lot of packaging. Not to mention we were endorsing a large grocery chain and purchasing goods which require lots of energy to import. The irony was not lost on us.
Despite the cashier's admitted grim outlook on the fate of world, and our own realization that saving a few thin bags from the landfill means exceedingly little to the environment, I still feel compelled to defend our decision to bring our 99-cent recycled bags to the store.
I find it interesting that so many people not only disregard small actions as negligible in terms of the global effort to revert our terrible destruction of the environment, they also decide that this is reason enough to avoid making the small decisions. I suspect that former has to do with the difficulty most people have in seeing the big picture in terms of incremental change. The latter probably is a result of an assumption that any change in lifestyle will add to the duress of daily life.
And while it is true that five less shopping bags in the landfill can easily be negated by a small boat owner accidentally spilling some gasoline into the water as he fills his engine, my small action is part of a larger plan.
Consider the number of grocery bags my roommate and I will not use over the course of my life if we ignore our cynical cashier and continue with our reusable bag mission. Some quick math pegs this at 5 bags every 2 weeks, which is twice for each 12 months of the year, times our expected 50 years remaining on this Earth. That's 6000 bags. Minimum.
Add that to the many, many other things we do in our household: minimize our water usage; take measures to insulate the house; use compact fluorescent bulbs; and turn off electronics when not in use, etc. We walk or ride our bikes most places we go, and this is possible because we live in a part of the city which is densely populated and thus we are surrounded by amenities.
As well, we endorse the organics movement by purchasing organic versions of whatever we can. These products are just as delicious as their counterparts, and for the extra few cents in cost (which will eventually be eliminated), we are also supporting ethical treatment of works and the environment while resting assured that the food is safe and healthy.
These are easy choices to make and don't require much, if any, change in lifestyle. And while it may be unconvincing to say "yes, but if everybody used reusable grocery bags" (the simple retort being that "you can't make anybody do anything"), one can be certain that nothing can change if nobody does anything.
The truth is we could have walked to the store, but decided to drive. And a lot of our groceries had a lot of packaging. Not to mention we were endorsing a large grocery chain and purchasing goods which require lots of energy to import. The irony was not lost on us.
Despite the cashier's admitted grim outlook on the fate of world, and our own realization that saving a few thin bags from the landfill means exceedingly little to the environment, I still feel compelled to defend our decision to bring our 99-cent recycled bags to the store.
I find it interesting that so many people not only disregard small actions as negligible in terms of the global effort to revert our terrible destruction of the environment, they also decide that this is reason enough to avoid making the small decisions. I suspect that former has to do with the difficulty most people have in seeing the big picture in terms of incremental change. The latter probably is a result of an assumption that any change in lifestyle will add to the duress of daily life.
And while it is true that five less shopping bags in the landfill can easily be negated by a small boat owner accidentally spilling some gasoline into the water as he fills his engine, my small action is part of a larger plan.
Consider the number of grocery bags my roommate and I will not use over the course of my life if we ignore our cynical cashier and continue with our reusable bag mission. Some quick math pegs this at 5 bags every 2 weeks, which is twice for each 12 months of the year, times our expected 50 years remaining on this Earth. That's 6000 bags. Minimum.
Add that to the many, many other things we do in our household: minimize our water usage; take measures to insulate the house; use compact fluorescent bulbs; and turn off electronics when not in use, etc. We walk or ride our bikes most places we go, and this is possible because we live in a part of the city which is densely populated and thus we are surrounded by amenities.
As well, we endorse the organics movement by purchasing organic versions of whatever we can. These products are just as delicious as their counterparts, and for the extra few cents in cost (which will eventually be eliminated), we are also supporting ethical treatment of works and the environment while resting assured that the food is safe and healthy.
These are easy choices to make and don't require much, if any, change in lifestyle. And while it may be unconvincing to say "yes, but if everybody used reusable grocery bags" (the simple retort being that "you can't make anybody do anything"), one can be certain that nothing can change if nobody does anything.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)