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.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
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.
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?
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?
Thursday, November 8, 2007
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.
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.
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.
Thursday, August 30, 2007
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.
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.
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)