Thursday, February 28, 2008

dog and danny show

So our mayor has finally moved on. He will be remembered as a colourful, deriding, and sometimes divisive figure in Newfoundland and Labrador Politics. As a strong advocate of keeping pets on a tight leash and off of city streets, Andy was was himself a fierce attack dog for the issues of his choosing.

His bombastic nature spared no one, including Danny Williams (albeit before the now-Premier entered politics). These two icons of Newfoundland political culture were known to many as foes who occasionally confronted each other publicly.

This makes the nature of their relationship (friendship?) all the more interesting. One might suspect that the premier, who likes to maintain an image of professionalism and respect, would want to remove the hot-headed mayor from his position of influence and national attention. But Williams has kept this once-enemy closer than many of his friends.

Premier Williams wanted Wells to be the chair of the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board (C-NLOPB), and made quite a scene in his efforts to see this happen. The accepted logic of the premier's position is that Wells would have stood up for the province's interest in an organization largely influenced by outside interests. Williams was attempting to release his attack dog on the powers that be.

Upon the failure of this tactic, Williams offered the Mayor a job as the chair of the Public Utilities Board (PUB). While this position has a more limited sphere of influence, it is still associated with an industry that is extremely important to the prosperity of the province. Wells accepted.

Many people still consider Wells, with his bridge-burning skills and off-the-cuff nature, to be more a liability than an asset for Williams. Why, then, would the Premier appoint this loose cannon to the PUB, or more importantly to such a high-profile portfolio as the chair of the C-NLOPB?

An important clue was revealed recently with the Auditor General's revelation that the C-NLOPB is not allowing him access to all of their documents. Whether or not the Board is required to provide this information, the fact remains that Newfoundland and Labrador is not fully informed on decisions pertaining to its future.

So perhaps as chairperson, Wells, who is regarded even by his enemies as politically savvy, would have been effective at prying important information from special interests who like to keep information to themselves.

But what tension amongst board members and other important players that Wells would have caused! His handling of Council meetings is evidence enough that the standard of decorum would have been noticeably reduced. Already the whole affair has damaged relations with the eventual chair, Max Ruelokke.

While it is difficult to determine Danny William's strategy (he likes to be "four or five steps ahead" of his opponents), one thing is certain: The city is better off without a mayor who insults, at every opportunity, the representatives of the citizens he leads. The province, too, will do better with a less abrasive spokesperson.

The question that remains is Why the Premier's change in attitude toward Wells since taking office? Perhaps it is purely political. When the premier announced Wells' job offer, the public was given the opportunity to voice their desire for the mayor to leave. The public did as much.

Maybe this was Danny's strategy all along. By first playing nice to the man in charge of the province's capital city, then letting Wells see the public's opinion of him, and then ultimately dealing the final blow to his tenure as mayor, it would appear Williams has shown Andy Wells who is really in charge.

That being said, an attack dog not fed regularly or kept on a tight leash can turn against his master at any time.

Wednesday, February 20, 2008

state of the nation

I don't know a whole lot about American History. But, like many, I have an idea of what they've gone through thanks to movies and referrals in the news and other popular culture. And of course, I can observe them today in their current situation.

So, with this small scrapbook of trivia I've been formulating an understanding of what makes America the country it is; I'm beginning to put together a story of who Americans are and why they are that way.

A good story has principle characters and key events. The characters of this story are the leaders of America, mostly in the political sense. The events are wars, assassinations, and popular movements. And even if these characters and events don't necessarily define the people they represent, they certainly shaped America's view of the world and vice-versa.

Let's begin in the early part of the 20th century. Incredible inventions were being revealed that would dramatically alter human civilization: the mass-produced automobile; the telephone and wireless communication; the aeroplane; etc. America was on the leading edge of these developments, and was getting rich.

Tensions were mounting as people all over the globe began to see the immensity of the world while simultaneously recognizing the smallness of it. Cultures were suddenly exposed to vastly different ways of life, and had few tools to make sense of it all. Finally a war broke out, and nations birthed of imperialistic homelands were called upon to fight for their heritage.

Self-sufficient America, with its vast resources and relatively fresh wounds from a bitter family feud, was reluctant to join in a battle overseas. But eventually she joined, and help deal the final blow. Proud and prosperous, America has secured a path to becoming the global superpower.

The celebration came to an end as old systems, stressed by vast numbers of organized citizens lived lavishly - something not possible on such a large scale before. The banks broke and the Great Depression set in. America and the world were coming down from a high.

After these very hard times, another war broke out, and once again America waited and once entering battle helped deliver the final blow to the enemy. But then America did something that would set off a chain of events driven by fear and uncertainty: they developed and dropped a nuclear weapon.

America was now the proven global power. They had the power to destroy, and had utilized that power for that same end. A world damaged by hate and suffering now had a leader who could, and would, use force to get its way.

The fifties in America saw a people trying its best to recover from a long, intense war. Popular culture sent messages to the people that depicted happy families following a formula of working husband, stay-at-home wife, young kids and dinner together at the table. This was a formula, that if people followed it, could keep things running smoothly despite the confusion and insecurity resulting from global conflict.

But the tension in America could not be hidden by TV dinners, and changes started to occur. During the 1960 presidential election, the debates were televised for the first time. An unprecedented number of people could now be informed of who was running their country, and thus participate with great understanding of the issues. From this election a memorable president was chosen by the people: John F. Kennedy.

JFK inspired the American people and carried them through one of the most imminent threats of the day: possible nuclear attack during the Cuban Missile Crisis. He represented to many the best of what America was capable of. He offered hope to America and the world, and when he was assassinated, many people felt their sense of hope ripped away from them.

This was a time of great upheaval. The wars had strained the resources of the country and had forced its citizens to work together. Women had proven to themselves and the country that they are capable of doing much more than they were relegated to in the past. Blacks were banding together and demanding equality from their white brothers. America was only just beginning to comprehend the implications of this new knowledge and understanding.

Martin Luther King was peacefully fighting for black rights. Women were bravely entering the male-dominated work force. Tensions were high. And then King was assassinated. Believers in a peaceful America were beginning to think that perhaps their dream was impossible. And then Bobby Kennedy, JFK's charismatic brother, saw a need for leadership and entered the 1968 run for president. He was shot after winning California - an important state for any presidential candidate.

It must have seemed as though all hope was lost. The forces of evil and hatred had won. Every leader who showed great promise of bringing a good life to the country had been pushed back. However, it is important to note that through this whole period of grief and turmoil, the hippy movement was thriving. In the face of extreme hate and violence emerged a huge movement in the support of love and peace. These two forces opposed each other, but the offensive force won out.

But it was impossible to not be deeply affected by these visceral acts; depression was the inevitable result of these events. Those who loved peace were turned off by the corruption of politics, and so the crooks and greedy filled the offices of the decision makers. President Nixon was caught committing crimes. This was the tip of the iceberg, and only served to further alienate the public.

The focus of an emotionally drained populous went into finding other ways to distract and prosper. A couple of computer-geek hippies developed the first electronic spreadsheet. They gave it freely to the world, and the stock market latched onto it with vigour thanks to its ability to rapidly calculate the changing value of stocks. Suddenly people could make lots of money really quickly.

The 70s saw a generation born of parents who had seen their purpose in life dashed by the bullets of angry people. 'Generation X' were raised by television while their parents both worked to find a happiness promised to them by commercials and the markets. The value of the stock market rose and rose until finally, in 1987, there was another crash.

People were still struggling around the world with the increasing rate of globalization, a movement that US industry and culture had been dominating. The Cold War between the US and Russia had been going on for decades after the thirteen days that JFK oversaw in the early sixties. But at the end of 1989 an event occurred that once again injected hope not only into the American psyche, but that of the world - the Berlin Wall was torn down, and the Cold War declared over.

Since that time some remarkable events have taken place. In 1993 people began to hear of a previously academic and military project called the Internet. This primarily American creation was a robust communications network that allowed people to connect with each other and discuss whatever was on their minds.

The Internet had its beginnings in the 60s, but the reason it was finally able to go public was because of an inspired hippy (Steve Jobs) and a brilliant geek (Bill Gates). These two important players had been making personal computers a part of everyday life, and these "PCs" were natural nodes in a burgeoning global network.

The promise and power of this technology was not lost on corporate America. Encouraged by a bolstered sense of peace in the world, it probably seemed like anything was possible, and rich Americans started pouring money into any idea that a new culture of intelligent, previously reclusive nerds could imagine.

And so the Internet quickly became pervasive and citizens of the world began to get to know each other in unprecedented ways. It was beginning to be seen that people, when given the freedom, love to say what's on their mind. They love to collaborate with others. People are thirsty for information and love to share their opinions and knowledge.

The naivety of the nation lead to a large number of expensive, bad ideas backed by poorly planned business models. And so the 'bubble' burst. Though the Internet had already proven its worth, and America and the world began to recover and adapt.

The new millennium was forecasted to begin with a disaster dubbed "Y2K." The problem lay in the fact that computer software to this point had been developed in an environment where saving disk space was key, and as such years were denoted using only the last two digits and assuming it was the 1900s. Once the clock struck 2000, there was no telling how our computer-driven society would react.

But people knew this potentiality in advance and spread the word on our new mass medium. People began to talk about the problem and found solutions. Disaster was avoided.

However, a new disaster occurred about 2 years later. A small group of terrorists attacked America in a very public, destructive fashion. And the America had a new version of television from which they could get up-to-the-second updates. Within minutes of the attacks, commentators were already announcing that the world had changed.

The attacks of that September are still very fresh in the minds of Americans and the world. The five years that followed the attacks saw the American government display a corruption that turned the opinion of the international community largely against the US and embarrassed many American citizens.

This brings us to the state of the super power today. The American culture has been sculpted by vast expanses mixed with an ability and willingness to utilize the power of world-shrinking mass media. Lately the leaders have perpetuated a culture of corruption, mismanagement, and greed. Many Americans are disillusioned, but they have an overwhelming new ability to see what is possible in the world by communicating with those who are far away and have different ideas and experiences.

Just as TV gave a new power to the people to shape an election in the 1960s, the Internet will do the same today, but with a much stronger result. The sheer number of people who now have access to detailed information, articulate explanations of how the world works, and voices from all over the world of people affected by American decisions is staggering.

The parallels with the 60s are exciting and real. However, many are fearful of the current mood, and understandably so. The Vietnam War, the assassinations of promising leaders, and a resulting cold war dotted with corrupt governmental actions are the dark side of the 1960s.

But there are some very different elements in place this time around. First, we have become very good at predicting the near future. And while we obviously can't predict with perfect accuracy, we can prepare for likely outcomes. The secret service is extremely sophisticated today, where it was barely present 50 years ago. We are now much more used to the diversity of the world thanks to global media and the expansive Internet. There are a large number of independent countries that are rising as super powers, which will level the playing field. And most importantly, we are beginning to enter a world where collaboration gets us further than violence, and there are many, many means by which to collaborate effectively and collectively benefit.

It is my feeling that what is happening in America is representative of what is happening in the world. More and more people all around the world are coming out of poverty and moving into the 'middle class'. And while the disparity between rich and poor is growing, there are simply due to scale many more rich people. Because there are so many people with the power of wealth, there are more voices being added to important debates that affect the world. More voices means more opinions, which means more creative solutions.

And the solutions to problems are getting better and easier to come by because of the spread of knowledge and ideas. Opinion leaders and decision makers are talking to one another and listening to the rest of the world and their views of the world are changing to incorporate more perspectives. The direction of the world is more representative of the masses' opinion because more of the masses are talking to each other.

So what has happened in America is that people looked for a leader that they felt represented them best, and they've had a long time to think about it. And their choices have been very telling.

The top three choices in each of the two major parties were as follows:
Republican: Rich business man Mitt Romney (third); Evangelical priest Mike Huckabee (second); and Old war hero John McCain (assumptive nominee).
Democrat: All-American son of a mill worker John Edwards (third); Past first-lady woman Hillary Clinton (currently second); and mixed-breed black man who went to grade school in a Muslim country Barack Obama (currently first).

Supporters of Barack Obama, which includes myself, see the man as representative of the world and of America. And it is becoming increasingly likely that he will win the Democratic nomination and eventually the presidency. I feel this could not come at a better time as the world enters some very interesting times that will require the creativity and open minds of the entire global population. But there needs to be a leader able to inspire and unite, and Obama seems to be that person.

Wednesday, February 6, 2008

on thinking too long

Some people argue that America should not elect Barack Obama as president because he does not have enough experience.

While it is important to think long and hard about important decisions like buying a home, plotting a career, or voting for a president, that does not mean you should pass up a great opportunity when you wish you had more time to think (in this case, more time to see what Obama is capable of).

An extremely important point to note in this election is that it is the first one to truly be occurring in the age of the Internet. The Internet has matured very quickly as a social construct, and there are now robust means of disseminating and analyzing information.

That being said, people are arguably making better and better decisions on things like everyday purchases or medical treatments because they can access the experiences and opinions of others regarding the choice they’re making.

Right now we are seeing some very high-profile endorsements of Obama (Oprah, the Kennedys, etc.). They are risking their reputations by doing so, and in many cases these people are extremely experienced and well-liked. They have a ‘feeling’, but this feeling is rooted in deep understanding of the way their world works.

With this knowledge, people can be more at ease in taking the "risk" of voting for a president who has a proven ability to move people to make changes themselves. Why not take the challenge of voting for someone with great promise rather than someone who’ll just maintain the safe, ‘ho-hum’ status quo?