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.

DO NOT CALL the CRTC

The Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) has been in the news recently, and my inner communications scholar was intrigued. This post was going to be about CANCON and the CRTC online, and the potential ramifications on net neutrality, but an interesting debate with my roommate today about another CRTC related issue prompted this post on the Do Not Call list instead. People often ask me what, in fact, the study of communications is, and both of these issues, along with many many others fall under the study of communications. Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) (the Internet; wind-up laptops aiding education in undeveloped countries; electronic voting, etc.) are constantly evolving and changing the way people communicate. Understanding and adequately regulating these interactions is vital in harnessing their potential for benefits to society. That is the importance of the study of communications.

So back to the Do Not Call List (DNCL). As of 30 September 2008 Canadians have been able to add their phone numbers to a national registry, which will prevent them from receiving phone calls from telemarketers. Unless, of course, those telemarketers happen to be: a charity; political parties; riding associations; candidates; newspapers; or organizations with which you have done business in the past 18 months. Also not covered are calls about market research, public opinion polls, or surveys, which the CRTC explains "are not telemarketing calls because the caller is not asking you to purchase, lease or rent products or services" (https://www.lnnte-dncl.gc.ca/cofi-fico-eng). This clause provides a neat loophole for companies to call you asking if you would like to answer a survey, after which they would progress to bombard you with their sales pitch. Some people have even found that they have received more calls from telemarketers. Some cell phone users had never received any calls until they registered their numbers, as the list provides a handy bank of numbers for telemarketers (why you would register a number that wasn't receiving calls in the first place I'm not sure).

There is clearly a demand for this service in Canada. On the first day the list was available, the website was overloaded and not everybody was able to register immediately. That much activity on the first day says to me that this is more than a nuisance and is on the mind of a lot of people. Four and a half million people registered in the two months following the implementation (about a seventh of Canada's population. In two months).

The DNCL is also clearly not working. Many of the phone numbers are displayed as a bunch of zeros, and are untraceable. The CRTC has received thousands of complaints, and has been able to do little about the issue. It has the power to levy $15 000 fines to those who break the rules, but this is clearly a difficult task, and one that is not slowing the tide of phone calls. Something must be done, whether it's increased scrutiny and swifter condemnation of offending parties involving the phone companies and the technology itself, or the further establishment of a Do Call List, where people can instead register to receive telemarketer's phone calls. Michael Geist, a professor at the University of Ottawa in the area of technology and law, has set up his own system called iOptOut (http://ioptout.ca/). Registrants with his system can have an e-mail sent on their behalf requesting to be removed from telemarketers' lists which would otherwise fit the exemptions.

The debate I was engaged in today was whether or not the list was necessary, and what was the nuisance/privacy factor involved with telemarketers. My roommate contended that it was easy to say no or hang up the phone when telemarketers call. It was not that big an inconvenience or an invasion of the private sphere, and was actually a legitimate form of doing business. I argued that calling people's private phone lines in an attempt to hawk stuff they don't need was an invasion of people's private time and space, as well as an aggravation and interruption. My house would receive numerous phone calls a week that when answered were nothing but dead air. An explanation I heard for this was the practice of companies using dialing machines to call multiple numbers at once. The first one to answer got the sales pitch, while the rest got nothing. This was an attempt on their part to reduce time wasted calling people who are not home. And we've all received phone calls once we've sat down for dinner. I believe both of these situations to be nuisances that are not reasonable expectations of phone-ownership.

He likened it to being approached at street corners by Amnesty International ("Can you spare a moment to save a life?") or Girl Guides selling cookies at your door. Yet both of these contain a fundamental difference to cold-calling. In the first scenario, you have left your house and entered the public sphere, where there is an expectation that you may be required to interact with other people. It is also easier to say 'no thank you' with a dismissive wave as you walk past than to move to and answer a telephone, and wait until they stop their initial spiel to say no. The second scenario is clearly different because it involves children in a community group, doing actual legwork to raise funds. I would be resentful of receiving random calls out of the phone book from Girl Guides, and be much less likely to buy cookies, however them walking around the neighbourhood shows some effort. This is also much less frequent than the sometimes daily calls.

I was dismissed as lazy for not wanting to get up from what I was doing to answer the phone, but this is not a fair assessment. It's not about the physical effort, but instead about the disruption and invasiveness. I should not have to screen my phone calls to avoid telemarketers. I should not have to feel rude about interrupting or hanging-up to avoid a sales pitch. I should not have to stop eating dinner to answer a dead-line that could have been an important call. These all become disruptive uses of my private technology, which are invariably different from pitches from the street-corner or the Girl Guides. It is also something the CRTC needs to do a better job of enforcing, lest it be left up to Michael Geist.

RM

The CRTC official Do Not Call List Website: http://www.lnnte-dncl.gc.ca/

My Blog entries may also take a Christmas break (perhaps something the 22nd), but we will return in the new year.

On A Positive Note...

With all the negativity in the news in the last week involving the prediction of a deep recession, cheating university students, collapsing ski-lifts and the deaths of 6 Canadian soldiers I would like to, in the spirit of the Christmas season, try and find some light in the deep darkness of the Swedish winter.

After experiencing an earthquake here in Southern Sweden yesterday, a first for myself, I found myself musing over how strong our need to be with others actually is. We all want to share our experiences with others and when something remarkable happens the first thing we do is open our door and try to find something to de-brief with. In a time of year where people, religious or not, come together to share stories, a good meal and take part in a more than 1600 year old tradition, we also share in a common need to be together.

I’ve been reading a book by Jean Vanier called “Our Life Together: A Memoir in Letters.” Vanier is the founder of the L’Arche communities for the disabled that exist in over 30 countries around the world. In this book he outlines the humble beginnings of the very first L’Arche community in Trosly, France. Vanier is a man of faith that has an unbelievable belief in humanity and its capabilities, especially amongst those we perceive as the weakest in our society. He also shares in his words great wisdom and hope for all of us. One particular quote that jumped out at me while I was reading has stuck in my head for the past week. It seems in our daily routines we at times forget about the common humanity we share. Other people become nuisances that get in our way and cause us to wait in line at the store while Christmas shopping. Sometimes we need something to happen to shake us up (an earthquake works pretty well) and put things back in perspective. In a season where stress and darkness can reach our very hearts we all need to see the potential that even the dark has to bring about something great.

“On the eighth of July a third left on pilgrimage for Fatima. During the trip we encountered all sorts of difficulties. The brakes of the minibus driven by Thérèse needed repairs. We stopped at Guarda and that gave us an unforgettable evening at the house of some new friends. Three windshields broke with a deafening sound on Spanish roads. Marie Paule and Carole in the Deux Chevaux were the first vicitims; then there was Colleen and family and finally it was the Citroën D.S. with Dédé, who cried out. “How beautiful! How beautiful! It is just like crystal!” We spent two days in Bayonne with Anne Marie and Sister Monique, who came to our rescue. The oilcap on Alain’s car disappeared and with it quite a lot of oil! Have you ever looked for an oilcap in Spain on a Saturday evening? These episodes were always accompanied by joy and by encounters with new friends. That is where I began to discover the importance of welcoming the unexpected with openness, trying to see the positive elements in these events.”

Whether it is a friendly greeting or helping someone with a car-problem we all have opportunities every-day to meet people; people just like us. At times it is as if we don’t have any room in our lives for new friends and we would rather stay in our own comfortable bubbles. However it is these bubbles keep us in the dark no matter the time of year.
Maybe this year, in the midst of all the darkness and worries, we can try and see these problems from the outside and, in Jean Vanier’s spirit, see the potential these tribulations give us to be better people.

A very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year from myself to all our readers!

Will Grassby

My blog entries will return on Jan. 3 along with a new format, weekly features and some other new surprises as well!

(Bus) Strike

I'd be lying if I said the new-urbanist in me wasn't just the least bit tickled by the plight of suburban Ottawaians during the current transit strike; but the environmentalist in me is equally appalled, so it balances out.

The City of Ottawa is currently embroiled in a six-day-old transit strike, that is looking like it could easily last until the new year. This, coupled with Christmas shopping and heavy snowfall has made for some very frustrated commuters.

The Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU), representing OC Transpo drivers, mechanics, and others associated with public transit in the city, have been on strike since last Wednesday. This call to the picket lines corresponded with the first big snowfall of the winter, which snarled traffic, and increased transit times ten-fold for some people, while stranding many without cars. Perhaps intentional, perhaps unfortunate, but that perfect storm left many unsympathetic to the striking workers. Making things worse is the picket lines themselves around the city, where they restrict access to certain parking lots, adding up to an additional forty minutes on to an already extensive commute, and resulting in more than one incident of drivers intentionally hitting picketers with cars.

At the heart of the matter isn't money, but rather control. Control over scheduling, that is. Without fully understanding the intricacies of transit scheduling, my understanding goes something like this: under the current system the city lays our the routes and times, and then the drivers get to select their desired shifts. The drivers with the most seniority get to select first. The real difficulty comes with many of these being split-shifts revolving around the rush-hours. Many shifts are only three or four hours long, and most are during regular commuter times. What the city wants to do it be able to schedule the drivers as they see fit into these slots, which could result in a driver starting their day at 8:00am and not finishing until 9:00pm, but with three hours off in between somewhere. This represents less quality/family time for the drivers, but $3.4 million in annual savings for the city (CBC, 15 Dec 2008).

Both the city and the drivers are represented by abrasive men to whom open-mindedness does not come easily. A self-made millionaire with no political experience rode a wave of rural-populism and a 'zero-means-zero' tax-increase message to Ottawa's mayoral chair in the 2006 municipal elections. Larry O'Brien has since quashed a light-rail public transportation plan; given himself and then rescinded that same pay raise; made disparaging remarks about homeless people; and been formally charged with bribery under the Criminal Code of Canada by the OPP for his actions in the election. He has also most recently lost a budget vote, and been forced to raise taxes a whopping 4.9% higher than zero. He believes he can run a city like a business, and has been looking to correct inefficiencies in the bureaucratic machine since is inauguration (not altogether a bad thing). However, I'm sure these pinko unionists concerned about 'quality of life' just grind his gears, and he can't afford to lose this strike battle too.

On the other side is André Cornellier; a seemingly militant unionist who would throw himself under a bus if it meant protecting his drivers (not altogether a bad thing). He recently fiercely defended a driver who left a young mother at the curb while he drove off with her two-year old on board after an argument about strollers. ("The mean bus driver took me away from mommy," said the tabloid Ottawa Citizen's front page.) Cornellier has recently offered up a couple of whoppers, appearing brash and unsympathetic, and not doing himself any favours. In an interview with CTV, the following exchange occurred:
CTV- "Will you be giving your membership an opportunity to see the offer and vote on it tonight before midnight?"
AC-"No."
*pause*
CTV-"Why not?"
AC-"Why?"
When asked about the delay caused by picketers, he said: "It's about... inconveniencing people. What's wrong with that?
For more: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkBIsGTlUT8&watch_response).

So now the city hangs in the balance. People are forced to find other ways to get around, and business owners are losing many customers at this vital time in a sagging economy. Freezing rain tonight, and calls for temperatures as high as 4°C Monday and as low as -9°C Tuesday, which will only result in icy slush, and we're all stuck watching two petty men duke it out (by duke it out I mean not talk to each other). I guess watching Harper try and save a measly $30 million at the expensive of the financial well-being of all of his opponents inspired O'Brien to try and save a measly $3.4 million at the expense of the contentment of oft-underappreciated employees who take a lot of abuse and make the city run. That said, calling a strike on the eve of the first big snowfall and right before the Christmas season, while being represented by a man who wears his callous disregard for everybody else like a badge of honour is not the best way to rally public sympathy. In the end really everybody loses, except for the cabs, and perhaps the new-urbanists. And this perfect storm is looking like it could go the distance.

RM