To Sing or Not to Sing: But is That the Question?

A school principal in Springfield, New Brunswick (too bad his name isn’t Skinner) is making international headlines today and has sparked a national debate over the singing of O Canada in schools across the country.

Erik Millett, principal of Belleisle elementary school, is on the defence today as a decision he made over a year ago to do away with the daily sing-along has caused quite the flag-flap, and not just in Canada. Media outlets in both the U.S and in Europe have picked up this story, but why such a to-do over a daily tradition that is seen by many as un-necessary and outdated?

Ultimately it comes down to how you handle a situation, and Mr. Millett has provided us a Class A example of how not to make a statement. His response to the whole situation involved of a variety of different responses, not entirely consistent which each other.
Mr. Millett says that in 2007 a “couple of parents” had voiced their concern about the singing of the anthem and that: “We try to balance the needs of every student, and we want every student to feel welcome in our school.” Mr. Millett has also suggested that the song is “distracting” to students (could someone please explain that to me?) and that it takes too much time out of morning classes. Mr. Millett also went on to say that the playing of O Canada through a low quality PA system doesn’t do it justice and that the song loses its meaning when heard everyday. He also added by reserving the playing of O Canada for events such as assemblies helps to preserve its meaning.

At the risk of sounding irreverent and unpatriotic, I would suggest that the issue of singing the national anthem daily is not front and centre here. I can remember hearing O Canada at school played through the PA system and can’t say it was the most patriotic feeling in the world. The fumbling of cassette tapes, the clicking of the microphone on and off and the occasional “Due to technical difficulties there will be no O Canada today.” You knew when you heard this someone had forgotten to rewind the tape or someone had lost it altogether. But in a lot of ways it is not the a question of whether or not the song should be sung at schools every morning but instead about a personal agenda expressed inapproprietly. Mr. Millett claims he did away with the anthem singing because of the complaints of a couple of parents; complaints which he refuses the elaborate on; but what about the hundreds of students and parents who didn’t complain? Who are these parents to make them so powerful? For myself it doesn’t really add up. Ultimately it comes down Mr. Millett’s own values and beliefs. I’m sure he wouldn’t have been so quick to listen to these parents if he didn’t himself have some qualms with the anthem himself.

In actuality Mr. Millett did nothing wrong in doing away with the morning tradition. The law says it is up to each school’s principal to decide if O Canada will be played or not. The big to-do has to do with his motivation and the lingering sense that what he is saying is not completely the truth. If he had come out and had a story and stuck to it he might have saved him face, but his dithering on the issue and conflicting stories have left him looking more like a politician. (which he coincidently is as Mr. Millett has previously run for the Green Party)

Whether the national anthem should be sung or not (many countries, like Sweden for example, would think this practice unusual and over-patriotic) it now seems that Millett has more to worry about than “a couple of parents.” Is this negative press justified? Probably not; but one can’t help but think Mr.Millett brought it on himself.

Will Grassby

Check out http://www.cbc.ca/canada/new-brunswick/story/2009/01/28/nb-o-canada.html?ref=rss for the full story.

The Arrival of True Democracy

Democracy, as outlined by Aristotle from the very beginning, is based on the principle of equal access to power for everyone in society. Over the last two weeks we have begun to see the arrival of true democracy to the world, not through the firing of guns and wars on terror but in the very buildings where democracy is, or at least should be, taking place.

Following the pomp and circumstance of Barack Obama’s inauguration as America’s first black president (yes, it is ok to say that), another victory for democracy will be taking place with slightly less pageantry (but no less importance) in the financially fraught nation of Iceland. Johanna Sigurdardottir, the current foreign affairs minister is expected to take over the reigns for the ailing Geir Haarde.

But why is this such a big deal? That’s exactly the point! Let me explain.

In his speech last Tuesday, Barack Obama pointed out how “a man whose father less than 60 years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath...” At the same that Obama was elected as president, a country with a gruesome history of racism took a huge step towards the further not just the eradication of racism but to moving past race as a barrier to true democracy.

Jump ahead, one week later and another wall is being torn down as Johanna Sigurdardottir will become the first openly gay women to become a Prime Minister. Yet that question still lingers: Why is this such a big deal? The truth is it’s not.

Although moments like Obama’s inauguration and the selection of Johanna Sigurdardottir draw attention and headlines it is actually the subsequent silence that is most significant; not silence on the issue of homosexuality but the silence of the critics. A silence that signifies a realization of the equality we share as human beings regardless of our skin colour, sexuality, religion, or beliefs and the insignificance of everything that works against this principle. The silence that marks the arrival of a true democracy.

Despite these significant steps however it is clear there is still work to be done. The fact that the headlines will no doubt cite Sigurdardottir’s sexual orientation is proof enough that we are still not totally comfortable with homosexuality. If we were, maybe we would instead hear the story how Sigurdardottir worked her way up as a flight attendant in the 60’s and 70’s and has been a mainstay in Icelandic politics since 1978. Maybe we would hear the story of how she missed an opportunity to become leader of the Social Democratic Party in 1994 and marked her defeat with the quote: “My time will come.”

These traits of hard-work and commitment, which mirror those virtues profiled in Obama’s speech last week, make her seem like a perfect candidate to bring Iceland out of a very dark period. Wouldn’t it have been a shame if she had been ignored because of who she was?

It is very seldom in the news we hear anyone applaud anyone for anything but in my view several positive steps have been taken in the last few weeks for both democracy and equality. I sincerely hope that these moments will not be forgotten, but that their memory will put to rest the irrelevant and un-democratic roadblocks we have been obstructed by for so long.

Will Grassby

A Political All-Star Team

Alex Kovalev is the All-Star MVP (I should get pool points for that), and the East beat the West in a shootout. Don't worry, the West still gets a single point for not losing that badly. This is all in the first All-Star game in Canada in nine years, and on the eve of parliament returning from a hard-earned and extended Christmas break.

With this imminent return to action, talk of last month's highly controversial coalition has been raised again. Smart money would suggest this is simply Liberal posturing to secure a reasonable budget, and prevent an otherwise messy and unappealing political coup. The New Democrats and Bloc, of course, see if differently, and continue to press the issue. Jack Layton is correct when he asserts that it really comes down to Iggy.

And what is Ignatieff to do? He has been notoriously cool to the prospect of forming the coalition, and probably rightly so for the sake of his political future. He was one of the last MPs to sign the proposal when it came out last month, but he has bandied the idea about much more than I expected this past month since his acclamation as Liberal leader. After the generally negative reaction to the proposed coalition; frantic Conservative back-peddling; lies and half-truths; and a prorogation and a new leader, much has changed in a month and a half, most of which would point towards the death of the coalition. However, Ignatieff has kept the door open.

He has done this to keep the Conservatives honest, as all opposition members of parliament must do in a minority government, and especially one playing such high-stakes partisan politics. Einstein defined insanity as ‘doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results’, and Ignatieff seems to echo these sentiments, suggesting the ‘country needs another election like it needs a hole in the head.’ An election would result in another long expensive process that would be unlikely to see any significant changes in the House of Commons, and after the public backlash may actually do more harm to the Liberals than any other party. So that would limit the Liberals options should they dislike what they hear from Jim Flaherty tomorrow.
In an interview with CBC this weekend, Jack Layton was asked about the coalition, and he remained staunchly in favour of it. When asked about the reaction it may receive amongst staunch New Democrats opposed to working with the Liberals, he said (paraphrasing) it was okay to like your team (such as Jerry and Elaine), but sometimes it is necessary and positive to create a political All-Star team (I'd give the Liberals the edge with the likes of Frank Mahovlich and Ken Dryden). He went on to say that even if the pending Conservative budget included all of the terms the coalition was looking for, he would be unable to support it because he has lost confidence in the government. Perhaps it’s just me, but it would seem an odd move to vote down a budget, rise to power, and replace it with exactly the same budget. A lot has been made about Jack’s attempt at power, with many believing it to be a self-serving grasp at a dream he is unlikely to realize on his own. With less to lose and less coverage overall, it is difficult to ascertain the direction he and the NDP are headed, but he does seem to remain at least philosophically in favour of a coalition.

So with the (second) Conservative budget dropping tomorrow, we will likely have another few days of constitutional discussion. Michaëlle Jean surely cannot grant another prorogation, so this is Harper’s last chance. If he fails again and relegates his party to opposition status or sends the country into another election, his performance as leader will surely be under review. So with that hanging over him, Ignatieff is smart to keep the coalition door open, with Jack and Jill (err, Gillies) peeking through the crack. There will still be those who argue that they did not vote for a coalition, but I will tell you had I known we were holding Presidential elections I would have voted differently. With an election the equivalent of a hole in the head, an unpopular coalition, Ignatieff’s first big move, and Harper’s political future hanging in the balance, this is sure to lead to an interesting few weeks and months again in Canadian politics. Certainly for his government to go down, this would have to be a thoroughly disagreeable budget, and he wouldn’t make that mistake twice. Would he?

Russel MacDonald

Chance for change in Canada

If you have read a newspaper or watched CBC news in the past year, you will know that "change" was the word of 2008. Since it worked for Obama, I thought I'd give it a try. My first blog as part of The Blog Journalists will be focusing on changes the Canadian government should be making.

Currently, our economy is in terrible shape; banks aren’t lending, people aren’t spending and we are shedding jobs like a German
sheppard sheds fur in the summer. Yesterday it was announced that Canada would run a $64 billion deficit over the next two years. That’s a far cry from what Jim Flaherty predicted two months ago but that’s a whole other story. Our government continues to pour billions into the failing auto sector, which has yet to show any improvements and likely won’t given their history. I for one feel that it is time for the government to cease their bailout plans, or handouts as I like to call them, and start focusing on rebuilding the economy in a new way. There is a great opportunity for the government and private enterprises to create thousands of new jobs and help the environment at the same time.

The Canadian economy is held together by the auto industry. In recent years, Ford, General Motors and Chrysler (the big three) have been struggling to compete with Japanese automakers. The big three are way behind when it comes to technology and that has to change. The next five to ten years are going to decide their fate. In order to survive, they will be required to heavily invest in new technologies and make sure that they are leaders, not followers. While hybrid cars are a start, they need to look at other new technologies such as the electric and hydrogen fuel cell cars. Electric cars are ever so close to being road ready. The only barrier is the ability to recharge their batteries. The big three must create a partnership with the companies who will build these electric stations (which will likely infuriate the oil companies). They will also have to take an active role in educating the country on the new technology. Hydrogen fuel cell cars are several years away from being road ready but should still be looked at seriously.

As for the government, they should increase the value of the rebates given to those who purchase energy efficient cars. In tough economic times like we are experiencing today, there aren’t many who are willing to spend more on a hybrid car when they are struggling to afford basic items. Even the smallest of incentives would get more of these cars on the road. Another idea that is being thrown around lately is giving those who drive energy efficient cars new privileges, such as allowing them to drive in HOV and bus lanes.

Moving away from automobiles and onto trains, it is time the government invested in upgrading the national train system. It’s quite surprising how far behind our system is compared to the United States and Europe. The biggest barrier is the cost. Can someone please explain to me why it costs just as much, if not more, to ride a train than it does to fly? There aren’t many willing to take a train from Toronto to Montreal when it costs the same to fly but takes seven hours longer. We should turn our train system into an asset by constructing more tracks, especially those with high-speed capabilities. This would surely lead to greater use of the train, which in turn would eventually bring about lower fares.

The next step is to look at investing in renewable energy. In 2007 Canada was the world’s seventh largest consumer of oil. While we consumed significantly less than those at the top of the list, there is still room for improvement. The easiest project to implement is wind turbine farms. They should be built in areas that are deemed best fit, even if some find them to be an eye sore (It’s OK Kincardine, take a deep breath). In addition, there should be greater promotion of solar panel use. While I understand that they can’t provide enough energy to power a house or a building, every bit counts. I’m sure there are many people who would love to see a smaller number on the bottom line of their utility bill. Seeing as corporations are the biggest consumer of energy in the country, they should be given greater incentive to adopt these new ideas. While there are rebates and small tax breaks currently in practice, they clearly aren’t as tempting as originally thought.

Implementing the ideas that I listed above would create thousands of jobs over the next few years. There would be a demand for scientists, engineers, construction workers, and a variety of business related jobs. The banks would also benefit by providing loans to the government and private enterprises responsible for these projects. This would kick start the economy and get people back on their feet. At the same time, most of these jobs would be green jobs. Who says there has to be a tradeoff between the economy and the environment. The House of Commons are back in parliament next week which will feature the much anticipated budget announcement. Hopefully the government takes this opportunity and runs with it.

Brent Densmore

Special Edition: The Speech Heard Around the World

Due to the extraordinary happenings in Washington today The Blog Journalists are publishing in advance of their ordinary Wednesday slot in order to provide up-to-the-minute coverage of President Barack Obama's inaugural speech. Enjoy!

The Speech Heard Around the World

Just having listened to Barack Obama’s inaugural speech I felt the need to put in writing the feelings roused during the roughly 20 minutes where the world stood still to listen this afternoon. I left the room before any analysis came on or talking to anyone else in order to give my own impressions without the influence of any outside sources.

Addressing a wide variety of issues, Obama had the undivided attention of millions and did not disappoint. His slip during the oath was soon forgotten as he dazzled with unrivalled charisma and poise. Highlights for myself were the moments where he reached out to the nations of the world and addressed both subtly and explicitly America’s adversaries saying “We will reach out our hand to you if you will unclench your fist.”

Without naming any names (Bush, Bush, Bush) Obama sounded at times apologetic for America’s recent behaviour and urged Americans and the world to look forward to a future of change but change based on the beliefs of the American forefathers such as honesty, integrity, hard-work and determination. This sense of moving forward while relying on traditional and enduring virtues was a powerful one, especially in the face of the present economic, environmental and international turmoil.

Most powerful was the way Obama chose to incorporate equality into his time at the podium. His assertion that it is only because of “the giving our all to a difficult task… why a man whose father less than 60 years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath...” was extremely significant but perhaps surpassed by the way he took that notion forward and extended it to the world citing “the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.”

Whether one attributes the virtue of equality to a God, a moral code or a simple sense of justice, the sentiment expressed by Obama is both clear and needed. The dream of Martin Luther King Jr. lives on; a dream not just of equality for African-Americans but for humanity as a whole. That, in Obama’s words “…men and women and children of every race and every faith can join in celebration.” This unifying image of hope and equality gives purpose to the struggle of both Americans and the human race as a whole.

Obama even touched on the metaphysical, acknowledging that “God calls on us to shape an uncertain destiny.” Despite potentially alienating a meaningful group of population, Obama touches on something that even the non-believer can agree to; this being the mystery of life and the uncertainty we experience each and everyday. Obama did his best on this day to address these uncertainties and inject hope into the American society in a time where it is most needed. His message? “With hope and virtue, let us brave once more the icy currents, and endure what storms may come. Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested, we refused to let this journey end…”

Now it is up to Obama to follow his own advice and steer both America and the world through those icy currents; a task many see as being the most difficult any president has ever faced.

After seeing Obama today and hearing him speak I don’t know anyone better for the job.

Will Grassby

Obama: A Canadian'80s Perspective

Welcome back again. After a slow start to the year, the Blog Journalists are back on track and ready to return to our steady schedule of posts Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, at 5:00pm EST. We will be joined by new member Brent Densmore with a weekly post, as well as be unveiling some new features in the coming weeks. Thanks for reading, and remember to check back frequently. Now for Monday's post:

Five days after the eightieth anniversary of the birth of Martin Luther King, Jr., Barack Obama will be inaugurated as the forty-fourth President of the United States. The fact that my father was not only alive, but almost a teenager when King was assassinated in 1968 is I think somewhat lost on my generation. The event is chronicled in our history textbooks, somewhere after Sputnik, and just before Trudeau. We cannot grasp the enormity of systematic racism or the civil rights movement from our Canadian'80s vantage point. That perhaps is a testament to how far we have come. Hopefully Barack Obama's ascension to the Oval Office is a further testament to that.

Much has been made about Obama being the first African American President, and this is indeed a significant event. But more importantly in our post-race world is the fact that he will be the first president born after 1946. He is fifteen years younger that W and Bill Clinton, and he is twenty-five years younger than John McCain. He is also younger than Harper, Brown, Sarkozy, Merkel, Rudd, Putin, etc, and he will be the first president since 1989 not to be named Bush or Clinton. While Hillary Clinton certainly had her own qualities and merits, it is important for America to embark in a new direction of the next generation. Dare I say 'Change'.

America is at a cross-roads. Before his term is even over, the title of 'Worst President' is being bandied about for Bush (much to Warren Harding's delight). Grappling with debts and recessions, wars and oil, and an international image that is not merely tarnished but thoroughly corroded, there is a lot on the plate of the incoming president. He campaigned on the promise of Hope and Change, and he is being heralded a savior world-wide. Kenyans were dancing in the street. These are extremely high expectations for a man entering the post under two foreign wars and a global recession. Will he be able to live up to all that is expected of him and all that is necessary of him? I believe he has the tools and the temperament to be unlike any leader we have seen for a long time, and certainly has a better shot at righting things than everyman moose-hunting hockey-moms. Reading passages from The Audacity of Hope just made me tingle with idealism.

Are we really living in a post-race world? Of course not. Despite what Stephen Colbert says, subtle racism, as well as sexism, streak through our society (just ask Prince Harry). Will Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton change that? Probably not. But him at the helm represents a chance for a new direction; a hope for change. There are watershed moments in history; moments when we stop running uphill and start bouncing down the other side. Just as the end of the First World War realized a new kind of warfare, 20 January 2009 will realize a new kind of president. One which we can believe in.

Russel MacDonald

Heathrow Expansion: What About the Climate?

After spending the last couple days wandering through airports on an overseas journey from Toronto to Stockholm I decided that tackling a spicy issue out of England invovling the further expansion of London Heathrow airport would be a fitting post-holiday return to the blogosphere.

The plan is to construct a third runway at London Heathrow which, proponents say, would be an economic boon for the Brits, and would allow the airport to increase the number of flights using Heathrow from 480 000 anually to 702 000 by 2030.

Ministers are expected to pass the strongly protested bill tomorrow all but ensuring the construction of the third runway, which Friends of the Earth director Andy Atkins is saying “…would shatter the government's international reputation on climate change.”
What Atkins is referring to is Britain’s goal of cutting carbon emissions by 80% before 2050; a goal which will likely be impossible of reaching if the plan for the third runway goes ahead.

Ultimately it comes down to a battle between politicians who see the economic positives of jobs being created as well as maintaining Britain’s image as a world hub and environmentalists who see Britain re-neging on their commitment to fighting climate change.

In this argument one only needs to go as far as looking at the stances the opposing sides are taking to see who has a better grip on reality.

The politicians are saying things like “We sincerely believe that Heathrow’s modernization is the only way to reduce aircraft emissions and cut disruption” and “Heathrow’s status as a global hub is at stake.” I think if these statements were re-worded to say something like “We sincerely believe that the only way we’ll get approval for this plan is by somehow making it appear green” or “We’re losing money fast” they would give a more accurate description of what is really going on.

Environmentalists are calling attention to the political propaganda that uses the current economic situation to overplay the benefits such as the creation of jobs while almost completely ignoring the environmental risks as well as the construction the new runway will require the demolishing of over 700 homes.

This technique, a common one in advertising, is playing off the emotions of people that are facing job-loss or struggling to make ends meet and points to a major problem, one that I discussed in the blog “How We are All Destroying the Rainforest in Borneo.”

The problem is that environmental concerns clash with the sustainability of the economy. If we are to slow progress, people will lose jobs, but if we don’t slow progress, we will destroy the planet. This is a paradox however that must be solved. We need a long term solution that helps people meet their daily needs while maintaining quality of life for both ourselves and the planet.

In this case, the truth is that expanding Heathrow airport is a short-term solution to a long-term problem. Building a new runway will create new jobs under the period it is being built but does little to help the economy long term while blatantly ignoring the environmental side of the equation.

It seems that when a problem arises that conflicts with environmental concerns it is rarely the environment that wins (and this project will almost certainly be approved tomorrow.)

I don’t want to be one of those doomdayers but Sir Issac Newton once said: “To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction” and I maintain the politicians that continuously sacrifice the environment on the insatiable altar of economics are catalysts pushing us towards a great collapse.

Will Grassby

NEW FEATURE: A Photo and a Thousand Words- Kent State

Happy New Year to you all, and welcome back. Our first post of 2009 is also the first of some new features we will be introducing over the following weeks, along with some contributions from new members of the Blog Journalists. The inspiration for this feature came from a book on 'photographs that changed the world,' combined with a desire to present history from a photojournalistic context. Marshall McLuhan said that the medium is the message, and in this case the medium is photography, and the message is its impact on society and culture. A still image, if taken at the right moment from the right angle, can convey so much meaning; more so, in fact, than any video or thousand words. It has been argued to me that it's not the photos themselves that change the world, but rather the actors in them. Perhaps in the most literal sense this is correct, but by capturing an important moment in time, the image and its meaning are able to transcend time and space, and reach an infinite number of people. The first instalment features a stirring photograph of shock and anguish at one of the darkest days in American history.

---

4 May 1970- Kent State University, Ohio -John Paul Filo


Kent State student John Filo's Pulitzer Prize-winning photograph depicts a distraught Mary Ann Vecchio as she kneels over the fallen body of Jeffrey Miller. Miller had been fatally shot by the National Guard on campus at Kent State University while protesting the American invasion of Cambodia during the Vietnam War. In all, four students were killed and nine wounded when the National Guard opened fire on the unarmed students, who were rallying and throwing rocks and returning tear gas canisters at the guardsmen. Of the four dead, only two were actually involved in the protest: Jeffrey Miller and Allison Krause. Sandra Scheuer and William Knox Schroeder were simply caught in the cross-fire while walking between classes. Miller was the closest of the four to the guardsmen, at approximately 265ft away.



Student unrest, in the United States and around the world, had been gaining strength since the spring of 1968. Largely directed at American involvement in Vietnam, but also at American imperialism, racism, environmentalism, and a general disregard for the status quo, students everywhere were gaining a sense of right and wrong and self-determination. Richard Nixon was elected President in 1968 with the promise to end the war, but by 1969 had instituted a draft lottery into the military, and on 30 April 1970 he announced that American forces would enter into Cambodia as part of their offensive against Vietnam. In the four days following this announcement and leading up to the shootings there were many instances of student demonstrations, which resulted in vandalism and looting in Kent. The demonstrations led to violent clashes between police and students, and Kent's mayor called in the National Guard in an attempt to restore order.



This led up to the fateful conflict on May 4th. A campus protest was scheduled for noon of that day, and went ahead despite attempts by the university administration to break it up. Two-thousand students showed up, and were met with orders to disperse from the National Guard. After some time spent marching around and throwing rocks and tear gas back and forth, the guardsmen opened fire, spraying 67 bullets in 13 seconds, murdering four young Americans. In reaction to the shootings, hundreds of schools across the country were closed while eight million students went on strike in protest. Nixon himself was even squirreled away at Camp David for a few days afterwards for fear of his personal safety.




The incident became a symbol of authoritarianism and the state's disregard for its citizens. The protesters and draft-dodgers were decried as un-American and communists, simply for expressing their displeasure with a war with which they did not agree. While looting and vandalism cannot be condoned, these actions are no way worthy of a death sentence, and for what amounts to a government agency of the United States of America firing indiscriminately on unarmed citizens is utterly deplorable. Protests and opposition to the war would continue until the removal of the last American troops in 1975. Because of student actions and events surrounding this turbulent time period, America and the world was altered forever.



The photograph itself depicts Mary Ann Vecchio, herself a fourteen-year-old runaway from Florida and not a Kent State student, crying out over the body of twenty-year-old Jeffrey Miller. Miller lies face down on the pavement where he fell, after a bullet pierced his skull. The others in the photograph do not seem yet to grasp the severity of the situation. It was taken by photojournalism student John Filo, and won the 1971 Pulitzer-Prize. Its publishing in newspapers across the country furthered the anger directed at the administration, and it was seen around the world. Coverage of the incident led to further disillusionment with the United States and its 'ideal' democracy.



The photograph itself has been the centre of some controversy, after manipulated versions of it were found in Life Magazine and other publications. An anonymous editor in the 1970s had removed the pole from above Vecchio's head (left). Life responded that it was an honest and unintentional mistake, and one that had been made by other publications before. At the time they were unaware that the photo had been altered, and were simply using the photograph that they had in stock. It led to some debate about the use of manipulated images in journalism, which is something Life has denied doing and condemned.



This picture remains as a stark reminder of the power of ideas, and the results of panic and trigger-happy law enforcement with a disregard for human life. Some of the guardsmen claim they believed they were being shot at and feared for their lives, but randomly shooting bullets at unarmed people who are hundreds of feet away is not a reasonable response. There was apparently no order to fire, and the guardsmen were acting on their own. Nixon's investigative President's Commission on Campus Unrest criticized both the protesters and guardsmen, but this effectively misses the point, as demonstrations against unpopular decisions should be an integral part of a healthy democracy, rather than something to be violently oppressed by the leadership. The tragedy at Kent State is a reminder of what we cannot become, and marks one of the darkest days in American history.


RM

---

A Photo and a Thousand Words will be a continuing series and appear periodically throughout the coming months.