How to Save the World in Four Steps

There is a learning opportunity for Newfoundland and Labrador currently underway in the United States.

Because a man with a bomb in his underwear almost killed about 300 people on a flight to Detroit, a huge uproar has surfaced over how well the nation's Homeland Security departments are doing their jobs.

There is a similarity in the aftermath of this event to our own health care flap. When it was revealed that faulty tests were used to diagnose people with cancer, or to give them a clear bill of health, the people's trust in our health system was dramatically put into question.

Just as various politicians and departments of Homeland Security began pointing fingers at each other after the Christmas attack, an entire inquiry saw politicians and health care professionals here shift blame and deny responsibility.

This type of reaction is frustrating and counter-productive. But what is the alternative? How can a problem that was spread throughout several agencies and groups of people be blamed on one individual?

The solution is currently being shown to us in President Obama's handling of the situation south of the border.

His first step was to openly and quickly inform the public of what is known about the situation. Some critics say his three-day delay was too long, but compare that to the months of secrecy surrounding the receptor tests.

Second, he pulled together everyone involved and made a clear assessment of what went wrong. His term "systemic failure" is apt: it recognizes that many levels were involved, and it was not one person's fault.

Third, he outlined the steps that will be taken to prevent this issue from ever happening again.

And fourth, and most importantly, he emphatically stated that he will not tolerate finger-pointing. He backed this up by taking ultimate responsibility for the actions of his entire government: "The buck stops with me"

We have an excellent leader in Premier Danny Williams, and several of the above elements were evident in the eventual, though tragically belated, response to the faulty receptor tests.

However, a quicker, more decisive response and acceptance of responsibility may have saved time and encouraged others to accept some of the blame and feel comfortable telling us the facts of the situation.

We must remember that we are all in this together, and everyone has a shared responsibility to do what is right. The more we can accept that everyone makes mistakes and focus more on solving problems than arguing over who's to blame, the better off we'll be.

group speak

St. John's is known across Canada (and even in some of the United States) as having a "colourful" or "dynamic" city council. Many would argue that this is thanks in large part to our last mayor, although I've heard that he was just latest in a distinguished line of characters.

Now we are about to elect a fresh new council, and the stakes appear to be high. This city is posed to benefit immensely from an impending boom in oil and gas exploration and production. And whoever's in charge of the city's budget will wield a great deal of power.

While the Internet is still a relatively new phenomenon, it is finally becoming a pervasive medium for a majority of our population. Apart from its potential for communicating to voters, it present astounding possibilities for citizen engagement in the running of the city.

The comment boards on CBC NL and The Telegram may seem benign at the moment; they are essentially an online, text-based "Open Line." But even just the added feature of being able to "vote" for or "approve" of other people comments has started to change our idea of our ability to influence the direction our public policies take.

All of the candidates are campaigning on the promise of engaging citizens to assist in decision making. This approach is probably as old as democracy itself, however one wonders if candidates are prepared for a new age of citizen expectations.

The Internet is giving us a view of the entire world. Today a person living on Elizabeth Avenue can read the news from St. John's, Toronto, Los Angeles, London, Tokyo, and Shanghai. She can see that cities have common issues, and can learn exactly how these cities are tackling such problems. She can observe which ones work, and then ask "why aren't we doing that here?"

And so, perhaps the most effective leader of a city is one who can assimilate a wide array of ideas and inputs, and then mobilize the council members, city workers, and citizen groups to enact programs to address these concerns and suggestions.

Our last mayor told us at every opportunity that our representatives work for him were incompetent fools. Many of us still believe this.

I'm involved in this year's election campaign and have been fortunate to meet many of the candidates. One thing I can tell you is that they are not fools. But I can also tell you that learning what matters to voters takes open ears and a lot of work.

However, it's not hard for voters to submit their opinions and views to the many, many outlets online. These include the sites I mentioned above, as well as blogs, discussion forums, social media (facebook, twitter, etc) and direct emails to the candidates.

And because we're getting so used to being able to do this, we will soon demand that city council not only listen to these voices, but that they provide a central forum for ideas to be shared and discussed expressly for the folks at city hall.

Is your candidate ready for that? Because I know you and your neighbours are.

it takes a community

The Globe and Mail's Report on Business has an article about what appears to be the next approach to sustaining and developing economies in the post-natural resource era. From the article:

The secret ingredient for recovery is to encourage communities to take responsibility for their own futures.

Basically what's going on is that we're emerging from a massive transition of post-war human civilization. After the wars we had all moved to cities and created the assembly-line culture. Everything was mass-produced, including our communities (the suburbs).

The global community was born with newspapers, then radio, then television, and finally the internet. We are now more informed and educated than ever, and all of our old traditions and beliefs are being questioned. Where we used to stay close to our small clans and towns for stability, we had to retreat further into our individuality as we were overwhelmed by the diversity of the global human race.

And so we lost the sense of community and our religion. It was every person for themselves. And now we're at a turning point where we can finally enjoy individuality and simultaneously experience it as a group, because we better understand one another and can effectively choose to hang out with people like ourselves.

But our social structures now have to be rebuilt. So we're starting to come back together with a new energy and lots of new ideas. Our new approach to society will be collaboration, because we've now got the tools to make it really easy and effective to work together. In many cases you only need to commit as much as you feel like to a cause, and that's enough thanks to sheer numbers and effective systems to make it work.

I seriously believe this is where we are heading. It's a very natural direction, and it's the one we've been on for a very long time.

nouvelles amis

Quebec has nation status, and it's because they're unique in Canada.  Newfoundland has a pretty unique history and culture as well, and people have bandied about the idea of NL as Nation.

Quebec is a powerful province with a large population and what appears to be a sustainable economic system.  They also have an approach to social welfare that values a rich culture and high standard of living.  A lot of people think Quebec has certain things figured out.

Quebec is not likely to separate from Canada any time soon (if ever) but if they ever do, it would physically cut us off from the rest of our parent country.  In fact, as it stands, they already do act as an obstacle to Ottawa.

We've had our differences in the past (notably the Upper Churchill disaster), but wouldn't we be better off to forge a positive relationship with Quebec?  It's been said that there are Labradorians who already associate themselves with Quebec more strongly than with NL.

Somehow, intuitively, it seems as though we've been ignoring a potential powerful ally.  I say we foster our relationship with Quebec.  What do you guys think?  How could we do this?

new world order (and canada, too!)

So.  The prime minister we all love to hate has increased his minority government.  The resounding chorus of facebook statuses collectively cried "at least it's not a majority!" after the results were in.  Many of us are sad, but not destroyed.  And the good news is there is a bright silver lining to all of this.

Martin Lawrence (my favourite Globe columnist) has a prediction that Dion will exit as Liberal leader before 2009, and that (God willing!) Harper will be out within two years.  His argument for the latter is that the PM has failed to achieve a majority after two tries, and that the next Liberal leader will be popular (unlike Mr. Sweatervest).

I tend to agree.  And, of course, we mustn't forget that Obama will very likely be President of the United States.  This is important because it's looking as though there is going to be major movement from western leaders to begin working together for the greater good.

See this Economist article, which reports the European Union's efforts to not only avoid an economic disaster, but to also reform "capitalism" so that it's based more on morals and people.  With Obama's career-defining commitment to helping people work together, this is a recipe for a major global shift in culture.

I really liked Dion, and he represented an approach to governance that could have lead to great things.  However, the unfortunate truth of the matter is that we live in a media-driven world and if you don't translate well, you won't be heard.  The next Liberal leader (my bet is on Ignatieff) will most certainly be popular and likely win the election - and s/he will be running on a platform influenced by 2 years of Dion environmentalism.

So.  Take heart!  We will suffer some further deconstruction of our social fabric for a little while longer, but once the time comes to decide again, our choice will be clear.  And this leader will be guiding us through a global climate where community and collaboration are the ideals on everyone's lips.

gratitude

It's thanksgiving weekend. It's a time for turkey and cheesy radio shows about the things we're thankful for. Today I figured, "Hey, I'm cheesy, how about I express my gratitude for stuff?"

So here goes.

Today I took my cat to the vet. He's been showing signs of an infection and I want him to be OK. But I don't have a car so I usually hold off on these things. I did so last time and he literally came within hours of death. I don't always treat Luna really well, mostly cause I'm a yuppy who likes to focus on himself (i.e., sit at the computer and write blog entries while he meows that he's bored). But I really love him a lot, and so perhaps his traumatic experience at the vet today was my way of saying "thanks for being so sweet."

My roomie Heather brought Luna with her when she moved in a few years ago, and it is her that I attribute Luna's peaceful demeanor. I'm thankful that she came into my life, and that we're better friends now than we were during the year she lived with me.

I've had several room mates throughout my years here on Gower Street, and they've all been great. The guy I first moved here with was Dave, and perhaps the close proximity during both our first time living away from our parents kinda drove us apart near the end. But I know that we both still care deeply about each other, and that we'll always be friends. And I'm very thankful for that.

Two other room mates in particular stand out to me. Tristan and Alain. These are both guys with big minds and big hearts, and I can always count on them to help me out when I'm going through tough times. They're definitely two of my best friends and I wouldn't trade anything for them. They travel a lot and bring to me a world view that keeps me sane as I live my life in the same place I was born during a time of global change.

Two other guys that I've made important connections with are Chris and Joey. Chris is on the other side of the world, but we often find ourselves going through similar emotional situations at the same time. Chris's artful penmanship puts things in a unique perspective that I value deeply. Joey keeps everything real for me and shows me what unabiding love looks like. The world loves Joey, and to have a special place with him is pretty brilliant.

And of course, there's Luke, who was my friend in high school and will be my friend at the grave. Perhaps that is all that matters in this friendship, but even better is that we share common interests and an excitement and optimism about the present and the future. I learned my attention to detail from him, and with his help have developed my ability to articulate my thoughts in a meaningful way.

I'm thankful for the women in my life. Because I am a male of the species, I am sorely lacking in a vast component of perspective that women seem to have on life. Because my hormones often go haywire when I'm around women, it's difficult for me to connect with many of them on the level that I would like. So for this I am extremely thankful for the few that I've had the profound honour of sharing an intimate relationship with.

There are three that come to mind, and they were the most long-standing. First is Holly, whose name implies her cuteness. She is sweet and serious, and dedicated to what she believes in. She'll always be my high school sweetheart, and we've remained friends even though I had a hard time getting over her (which I made sure she endured with me).

I spent one fifth of my life with Nora. She was there while my parents were living away, at my sister's wedding, and with me when I was kicked out of the band. Together we have endured some of the most intense struggles that we'll ever experience. She taught me how to care for others I don't know, and communicated her experience of the world in such a way that I learned how to connect with my emotional intelligence. I attribute much of who I am and what I'm proud of to the times we went through. We'll always have an important connection.

Most recently, of course, was Jenn. She introduced me to Alain, was there when I got my big job, and supported me while I bought the house. It is from her that I learned to true power and freedom of honesty in a relationship and from her that I have learned how to direct my life and constantly push myself to go further. We will probably be living miles away from each other for most of our lives, but I have in Jenn a best friend that will last forever.

Then there's my family. It is becoming clearer and clearer that our personalities and life experiences are dictated profoundly by our genes as well as our environment, especially in the early years of our lives. My mom and dad are beautiful, intelligent people who knew the importance of raising their children well.

My mom brought to my life a deep commitment to raising happy children who were well educated and balanced in life. She was a primary school teacher who has touched the lives of hundreds of children yet still devoted the lion's share of her energy to caring for me and Andrea. She has had many difficult struggles in her life, and most people will never know this because she continues to smile and laugh and care. I know that as I continue to grow and find my way in life, she will only become more of an inspiration and guiding light for me.

And what a choice Mom made in marrying Dad! I always kind of knew this, but as I'm finally far enough along my path to start looking back on my life with perspective, I can see that I have in my own father a man with the kindest heart I have ever known and probably ever will know. Quiet, considerate, and perpetually (it seems) pleasant, my dad is very much the rock of our family. I suspect he is the only one who knows all of our secrets. My regret is that I don't know as much about him that I would like, but he has expressed he felt the same way about his dad, so we're working on ending the cycle together.

Finally, there's my sweet, loving, caring, beautiful older sister, Andrea. I'm a dreamer, and I think a lot of this is thanks to the knowledge that I can go into the clouds and always know that if I fall, my sister will be there to catch me. No matter what. So much of who I am was inspired by her dreams that she shared with me when we were young. My passion for music, my interest in space, my desire to find truth - they all have roots in spending time with Andrea and learning what it is that can be accomplished in this life. I am inspired by her choice in a husband that matches her so well and seems to bring balance to her chaotic, brilliant mind.

It doesn't end there, of course. I am extremely fortunate to come from an extended family full of loving, intelligent, wonderful people. I was born and raised on an exceptional island where the culture is rich and minds are sharp. I am coming of age during a time of great historical importance, and I can watch it all happening on the Internet. I am thankful for these things.

It looks like we might be having some tough times for the next while. There is a great deal of tumult in the world, and it's beginning to touch almost everyone. It is during these difficult times that it is imperative that we keep perspective on what we have and who we are. Look to what it is that you're grateful for and remember that they are your roots. They are what give purpose to life, and they are innumerable.

why harper is winning.

While I still hold out hope that my party of choice - the Liberals - will win this Canadian election, it is likely that Stephen Harper and his Conservative party will retake the PMO. And he achieved this despite the fact that only about a third of Canadians want him in there. There are several reasons for this.

A few months after Harper became prime minister, it became clear to the mainstream media that he was a very strategic man. Every move he makes is calculated, and he maintains control over the actions of his government by restricting media communication and demanding that most decision making comes directly from the PMO.

His rise to power can be attributed in part to his efforts to "unite the right." During the Chretien years, the right-leaning political parties were weak and fractured. The Reform party was doing reasonably well, and the Progressive Conservative party (the party that was in power when Canada was formed in 1867) was on life support.

Harper made headlines with a soundbite from a speech in which he pleaded that "The West wants in" which appealed to Alberta's and its neighbours' feeling that they were being ignored by Ottawa. He could see that forming a party that represented the people of a province that was about to boom with oil would be a powerful and effective thing.

Many Canadians are appalled at the cuts that Harper has made to social programs and minority rights. On many occasions Harper has reneged on direct promises, and has blatantly reversed his stance on various issues to suit the political climate of the day.

Now, while upon even brief analysis it is clear that Harper cannot be trusted to keep promises or support the less fortunate in our population, there is wild support for him primarily in the west. Why is this? It seems counter-intuitive: these are our fellow Canadians, and we know there are good people over there because as Newfoundlanders we've sent them half our population.

The reason that Harper's leadership resonates with Albertans is because the policies he has enacted are ones that seemingly "get government out of the way" of people's lives. In other words, by ending social programs, people's tax dollars are no longer going to support people who can't support themselves and citizens are not forced into standardized (read: low-quality) services like education and health care.

Alberta has no provincial sales tax, a low unemployment rate, and high wages. This is a recipe for independent-minded folks who have at their finger tips a vast array of options on which to spend their money. There is a large population in many major centers, and due to sheer numbers there are plenty of services offered privately.

It makes no sense to many people that if a person can afford high-quality health care, for example, they cannot access it. If a person has the means to send their child to a great school, they should in no way be restricted from doing that.

Whatever one's opinion of this point of view, there are a lot of people who do not wish to give money to a government that cannot (perceived or otherwise) provide as high quality services as they can afford themselves.

Harper believes this (one assumes) and panders to those who agree. His calculated self-image and actions as PM have managed to trick those who do not closely follow the circus that is politics. Or, at least one third of them.

Take heart, at least, in the fact that we remain a left-leaning country who mostly care deeply about social justice, fairness, and equality. We are just having trouble focusing our message (four opposition parties!) as Harper was able to do.

why i'm voting

In a couple of weeks, on October 14th, I'll head to Gower Street United Church to pay tribute to a belief system that I am a part of: democracy.

We fight monumental battles all the time.  We were asked in grade school not to litter, to recycle our bottles and cans, to not waste water.   Use your resources wisely, purchase organic products, boycott animal-testing companies.

But what if I like to let the water run the entire time I wash my dishes?  What if I want to flush the toilet instead of letting my human waste sit in the bowl until the next use?  What if it makes me feel good to drive an SUV that I worked hard to purchase?  I thought this was a free country!

The frustration felt on all sides of the issues about saving the world and improving society is palpable and understandable.  Some people see the potential for change if we could all just band together and make real adjustments to our lifestyles.  Others see so many pressures to alter their habits as frustrating their efforts to make a living and enjoy the things they have.

So, do we do nothing?  Do we maintain the status quo?  The answer is 'no.'  But the solution that requires us all to dramatically shift our mindsets simply cannot happen.

Or can it?  It all comes down to how long it takes.  My view is that we _are_ dramatically shifting our habits, it's just happening over a period of time that makes it difficult to see.  This change is obscured by the scale at which we are extracting resources, polluting the environment, and populating the Earth.

But as we increase our connectivity and reliance on each other globally, we are beginning to talk seriously about issues that affect us all.  The number and strength of global initiatives being initiated and attended by influential people is rapidly growing.  Our ability to pinpoint and stifle the roots of big problems is improving, and we moving away from blanket solutions such as throwing wads of money at corrupt governments who benefit from the crises.

Our growing population and prosperity is causing an increase in materialism and disease.  But this is a temporary effect.  We are, in fact, seeing a reduction in armed conflict.  We are seeing vast movements toward sustainable living.  Life expectancy is increasing and will continue to do so as the standard of living and care improves globally.  We are moving away from large families, and global population is going to plateau at around 9 billion people.

This is the future that is too often hidden from our view.  The fear that is propogated by sensationalist media encourages us to stick with what we know is safe enough, and we fear change.  But the difference today is that WE have become the media.  We control the message with blogs, forums, open-source communities, and social networking.

We have access to so much information that any individual can be as well informed as any head of state.  And in our system of democracy, we can be confident that our vote goes to the best possible choice for leader.  We know more collectively than we realize, and we can trust our selection.

So.  You have a choice on October 14th, and that choice is whether you vote or not.  I'm choosing to vote, and the good news is that I can leave work at 3pm to do so!  If you don't know who to vote for, take a few minutes to assess your views of the options and go with your gut.  It's as easy as that.

for the children

Today, Stephane Dion announced that if the Liberals are elected into power, they would offer a comprehensive child care program. In essence, the Liberals want to make quality child care affordable for all Canadians.

The previous Liberal government, under Paul Martin, had proposed a child care plan as well, but it was scrapped by Stephen Harper's Conservative government. He instead offered $100 a month to families per child. Then he taxed it.

Those who support Harper's view believe that parents should take care of their own kids instead of placing the burden on society. This laughably short-sighted and devastatingly ego-centric.

I suspect that these same voters are the same who approve of pumping our tax dollars into building prisons, persecuting as many criminals as possible, and fighting the "war on drugs." These voters don't see why they should "have to take care of someone else's brat" (actual cbc.ca reader comment).

But they're missing the point. A standardized, wide-ranging child care program ensures that every Canadian child is well fed, well socialized, and well educated. That way, when they grow into an adult they are prepared to contribute to society in meaningful ways rather than forced to resort to crime to fulfill their basic human needs and desires.

If you want a peaceful society but don't want to pay for social services, at a minimum you should support the development of the children that will one day be running your country.

why i don't trust polling data

I'm not one to follow "polls" when it comes to elections, however difficult that might be for an obsessive news-reader.  I simply don't think they're accurate - and thank goodness for that.

My problem with constant polling data is that it can skew people's opinions about candidates when the only information it provides is "who is voting for whom."  I simply don't think that is good basis upon which to make a decision of who to vote for.

Even worse is shoddy record of accuracy.  Again and again during the US primaries, polls were at times radically at odds with actual results.  They seemed to get better as the election went on, but there were still noticeable discrepancies.

There are some possible reasons for this unreliability.  The one most discussed is the number of "cell-phone only" voters who are generally not polled.  This is because (so I've heard) some or many states have laws against unsolicited calls to mobile numbers.  As well, generally if you're receiving a call on a cell phone, you are on the move and probably don't want to spend a few minutes responding to a(nother) poll.

The thing is, this is a pretty specific demographic.  "Cell-phone only" (as opposed to "landline only," for example) voters are generally 35 or younger.  Not to mention they have a certain income brack and education level.

Now, polling companies have very complex systems for eliciting and analyzing data.  They likely consider factors such as the likelihood of certain demographics lying about their choice or not even voting come election day.  I would like to know how often they update these metrics.  For example, a few years ago "cell-phone only" voters probably likely to have a high income and good education, whereas now you're likely to see more low-income earners having only a cell phone because it's cheaper than a landline.

And the "cell-phone only" factor is only one of the issues with polling data.  What about people who screen their calls using caller ID?  What about people who are on the "do-not-call" lists? Perhaps the pollsters take this into account, but that would be a pretty complex algorithm just to elicit two percentages (red vs. blue).

So while I yearn to have up-to-the-minute status updates of the candidates' standings, I really don't think I can take this information seriously.  And that's great, because right now McCain has taken a slight lead over my man, Obama...

the next premier

With the Hebron deal announced, Premier Williams has fulfilled all he needs to have a lasting positive legacy. The next direction for our province is to use our wealth to fulfill our values.

Danny has secured for Newfoundland and Labrador its financial future, and he ends his leadership at the end of this term (my prediction), he will have put us undeniably on the right track.  Our next leader should keep in place the policies that maintain our fiscal footing, and focus his or her legacy on using that money effectively.

As prosperity begins to show its effects in the province, we are starting to see an increase in spending power and consumer choice as well as crime and drug use.  Generally these two indicators are considered the symbolic good and bad results of economic improvement.

But there's more to life than that.  We have wanted fiscal freedom for a long time - that's a common goal.  Now that we have it, what do we want to do with it?  Buying stuff and fulfilling vices are short-term joys that often deteriorate our well-being over time.  They're also easier and more fun to accomplish quickly.  To have a long-term, high quality of life we need to foster a culture that endorses it.

So what are the principles we should follow in order to achieve this goal?  Some we already value in our province: good humour, strong communities, and pride in our people.  Others are less universal, but still popular: hard work, long-term planning, and education.  We have a deep pride in where we're from and display a genuine hospitality to visitors.

Will we maintain these values?  They may be strong now, but as more and more people move to the major centres of the province, we become more anonymous.  Our doors are closed to each other more often due to the fear of home-invasions.  Tourism is a major industry here thanks in part to our beautiful scenery, but our financial gains are won through an industry that produces some of the most harmful pollutants in the world.

Our next leader should be chosen based on their commitment to moving quickly to the next phase of our growth as a province.  The groundwork laid by our current government is very solid, and to continue our primary focus on developing resource-based industries would be narrow minded.

We've financed the trip and packed our bags.  Now all we need to do is chart the best course.  And that should be based on values we all cherish and goals that benefit the entire province now and into the future.

Une entante formidable

France's president, Nicolas Sarkozy, recently visited England to meet the Royals for the first time. While his wife garnered more attention than he, some interesting political developments began to take shape.

The Prime Minister of the UK, Gordon Brown, echoed President Sarkozy's desire to strengthen relations between the two countries.

What kind of benefits can such a relationship, if indeed strengthened, bring to the two nations and to the world?

...

What kind of benefits might come from improved relations between the two nation-states of Newfoundland and Labrador and Quebec?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7315649.stm

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.

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.

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?

the official opposition

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.

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.

buffered by oil

The Economist is reporting that the global economy has been holding up despite various perils like "investor panic and a credit crunch." However, this stability is tenuous and readers are advised to remain cautious, no matter where they live in the world.

As a conscientious media monitor, I am moved to consider what affect a potential recession would have on my home province of Newfoundland and Labrador (NL).

The search for an answer starts with Canada, of which NL is a province. Canada's economy is historically influenced greatly by that of it's southern neighbour, the United States. Some major causes of panic on the market originated in the US, and as such their economy will likely show clear effects. Thus, Canada is poised to feel them as well.

However, Canada has been slowly wrenching itself free of America's economic grip and as such has become an attractive destination for foreign investors. Our economy is more secure as Canadians are traditionally less likely to take major risks. And an influx of production of our abundant natural resources is pumping dollars into our government coffers and potentially shielding us from (or hiding) various economic perils.

Along with the protection given to us as citizens of a wealthy nation, our provincial economy has been improving as well. Just in terms of revenue stream, our government has recently signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with a consortium of oil companies. Once finalized, this project (Hebron-Ben Nevis) will pump about $16 billion into the province over 25 years.

This massive number ignores the other economic benefits, many of which are near-immediate, that the project will bring to the province. The number of jobs alone will surely increase the population and inject further millions into regional economies. Not to mention the family members who will be looking for and making their own work.

One expects that premier Danny Williams intends to avoid the types of problems that are still being faced in Alberta thanks to a booming oil and gas industry. Shortages in all areas of social services and infrastructure plague the province despite record budget surpluses and salaries.

The proof that Williams is planning for a major economic boom in our province can be found in the many initiatives his government has undertaken in the four years of his first term as premier.

Millions of dollars have been invested in infrastructure and education. Mandates to reduce poverty, violence, and crime have been reinforced by action plans and policy amendments. Immigration policy has become a priority for the current government. And within government itself major overhauls are occurring with respect to health care, governance, and bureaucracy (though stimulated by scandal).

So as the world goes through its rapid transformation into a truly global village, our province is preparing itself. And while the global economy takes a natural stumble, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador will begin to enjoy a new era of prosperity.

criminal offensive

I read an article today about the rising rate of armed robberies in our city. This concerns me, as I would suspect it does most people.

In the article, they interviewed a corner store owner who said that the courts need to take a hard look at the problem, and in essence make the laws tougher.

I have a problem with this as an exclusive stance towards how to solve the problem.

People must ask themselves "who is committing these crimes?" Most likely the offenders are folks who are struggling intensely with their current situation and are so desperate that they are willing to terrify innocent cashiers to make some quick cash.

The second question people must ask themselves are "Are the lawful consequences of armed robbery more or less harsh today than in the past?" Most people probably don't know the answer to this question. And why should they - most people have never committed an armed robbery.

What, then, will stricter laws do to prevent would-be robbers from picking up a knife and threatening someone in a convenience store? Are criminals more 'in the know' regarding courtroom procedures and the justice system?

Of course not. Many, if not most armed robbers are either under the influence of a mind-altering substance (or worse, experiencing extreme withdrawal), and are unconcerned with the long-term consequences of their actions. So stricter laws do nothing but make their lives even more unbearable than they already are, sending them further into depression and making them even more prone to commit crimes.

It is time that, when we call for action to reduce crime, we demand that these crimes be prevented as opposed to punished more severely. We must call for more inclusive education systems, more robust poverty reduction plans, and a child care system that ensures a high standard of socialization for every single child.

People that are taught from an early age to respect and accept instead of reject and isolate one another will be more likely to detect the early signs of a troubled individual and work to integrate them into a safe society.

Yes, punishment that fits the crime will still help to prevent repeat offenses, but it will not bring back the sense of trust that exists in our towns and cities. We must prevent violations by fostering a community spirit.

the bright future frightens me

I've gone through several 'phases' thus far in my life. The one I remember most was the phase of learning about evolution. It marked the beginning of challenging some of the beliefs that I didn't even know I had.

My current phase (and this one comes and goes, like the rest) is futurism. I've been paying a whole lot of attention to where the world is headed. I've been listening to brilliant people discuss their findings from years of research into global trends. I've been watching the progress of the Internet and new technologies. I've been reading about the genome project, space exploration, political shifts, economic flux, and the redistribution of wealth.

Right now I'm about to turn 25 years old and have had some amazing experiences thus far. I've traveled, I've met incredible people, I've been exposed to human and other forces, and I've been developing insight into how this planet works.

But I'm sedentary. I still live in the same city during a time in my life when travel is deemed most effective and affective. I don't have a job, which inhibits my ability to grow outwardly. It inhibits my ability to experience the world we live in; a world that costs money to be a fully functioning member of. So I sit at home and absorb predictions on how the world will change over the next 20 to 100 years.

Having such a comprehensive vision of what the world will be when I'm older, while still maintaining the great uncertainty that comes with predicting the future, is worrisome. That's because I feel like the world will always be ahead of me. I'm listening to people I admire tell me that soon we'll all be a part of some big network of minds that work together to tackle bigger problems that don't include near as much human suffering.

This future world excites me but leaves me worried for selfish reasons.

This will sound pretentious, but fuck it. I have confidence in myself. Not just that I will succeed in life, but that my success will be in changing the world by affecting a large number of people's lives. I have a great deal of strengths that all point in the direction of 'leader.' Empathy, confidence, an ability to articulate my opinions, reasoned approach, vision... But the number of leaders is growing and a new one (me) won't be special.

* * *

My current frustration is that I feel my strengths can't be put to effective use unless I cross some threshold. This threshold seems to be 'entering the workforce.' Sounds stupid, I know. I am pretty arrogant to believe that I'm the only one who doesn't want to work. I am one of the millions of kids from my generation who feels entitled to a life of wealth and happiness. Logically I know I should be working to attain my goals, but so far I haven't had to.

I'm sitting here, lamenting my current state of affairs to try and get these thoughts out of my head. A diary won't do so I stick them online for 2 random people to start reading and stop after two paragraphs. There is no discourse here except with myself. So, self: GET OFF YOUR GODDAMN ASS.

Nope, didn't work.