The Power Behind Closed Doors staff would like to ask its readers to help solve a riddle. Ready? What is the single most popular unasked question in the US? Here’s a hint: The Australians are asking it and the French are asking the exact same question. Last hint: it is weirdly connected at the Copenhagen conference.

Here is the wave that is hitting many shores and political scientists are tracking it with their mouths glued tight. In the halls of congress we find fewer and fewer so called political leaders who will address the riddle, which is crossing America from sea to shinning sea. So we now present it to our readers. Are we citizens of a single country with only a single national identity, based on geographical boundaries or are we instead only part of a larger human body that overrides all? The existence of national identity comes with the currently very unpopular sidekick, national sovereignty. How do people define themselves? Can there even be a common national identity anymore? What is “An American?”

This debate is at the heart one of the hottest questions being asked right now around the world and yet, it is taboo in the US.

If you tried to ask any of your friends or colleagues this question at your last holiday party you could have watched as you become the last one standing in the room. Power Behind Closed Doors feels that it should be added to the list of unspoken rules of polite society; never talk religion or politics AND NOW national identity.

To give us some perspective, let’s look around. Certainly this past year has seen the identity crisis brewing in Australia. The Australian Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd has suggested that there be a test given to measure whether new immigrants can be granted Australian citizenship. Grasp of the English language, as well knowledge of the country’s history are in large part most of what would be on the test, if a test were to be given. In addition, Australia has recently been grappling with the concept of what it means to be Australian, with that country’s unique past as a prison colony usurping the already present aboriginals; it does seem ironic that they pass judgment as to what makes new immigrants acceptable. Ironic or not, Australians have some of the most restrictive requirements on citizenship in the world.

But the question doesn’t just stop being posed at the Australian borders. France too has recently been asking itself what it means to be a French citizen. Is it pitting those who feel that long-forgotten values are taboo against those of liberty, equality and fraternity. In France as in Australia, the debate is framed with questions on language, history and culture. Unlike any other country currently surveyed however, the French government has gone out of its way to host a debate on the subject at the national level, using television and the internet to ask for and broadcast comments from its citizenry.

Now lets look at our closest neighbor and historic ally, Canada. We get our answer in an interview with a well known businessmen and representative of the country who also sits on several boards, Robin Elford. Well known for his business sense in Western Canada working through all manner of real estate transactions in his business career as well as appreciating and living in and around the resource rich rugged-bush country on the slopes of the Rocky Mountains. Robin Elford has developed a depth of business acumen and logic, as well as an extreme appreciation of the Canadian bush and the natural resources that abound throughout the western and northern hinterland that can only come by living and working closely with the land as many Canadians do. Thus he is in a unique position to understand the Canadian Psyche from a business and personal point of view.

When asked “What does it mean to be Canadian?” Robin explained:

“To be Canadian is to explain one of the most accommodating national identities the world has known. It is a country that began as both an English colony and a French settlement.” Robin contends that “Canada’s identity is the view of embracing, negotiating and collaborating with the peoples of this Earth and they are proud to be in the global “leading roll” of human rights and equality. The history of Canadian prosperity extends nowadays to protecting the right for our planet. Humanity is a single word to describe us all. The rights of one of us extends to all. Our position to collaborate includes the earth, to which we are all bound and accountable to.”

It is a necessity that we are all are forced to dig for answers on these questions, because of international pressures. The government has to define its national identity, but its people have to be able to talk about this. Otherwise, how can the country much less the government find the pathway through international agreements?

This is what is being debated generally any time there is a call for international cooperation. The Copenhagen Summit could be seen as an example. The Summit was an amazing event in the world of Political Science. Each country’s economic progress requires energy and energy production required to sustain an economy’s health produces pollution. Regulating global pollution levels requires regulating individual country’s economy. Global regulation requires that the individual country to give up some of its sovereignty. This question has been framed in the mainstream news cycle as a battle between money-mongrels-production-at-all-cost versus liberal, apologizing, one-world governmentalists.

Now, that we have seen what other countries say, what about us? It seems that most Americans know better than to even answer the question much less ask it, for fear that they will be sued. We must remember that a free society has laws, which can be beneficial to all or can be twisted against its citizens.

Is that an answer by itself? If it is, it might explain some of our country’s problems?

The United States traditionally seen as being a “melting pot.” How do you define an identity without stepping on someone’s toes? Is it the fear of being sued? Or what about the idea of the “American Dream?” Some people feel that this is a key part of our definition. A country founded by people coming to this land to seek a better life through hard work in order to provide for their family. Is this still a common belief for newly or one-time immigrants. Is that dream still possible anymore? The current economic turmoil has left many people without jobs, without homes, without hope in our government. Do we still have faith in the American Dream?

Look at our current employment rates. Anyone looking for a job knows it is a tough place out there right now. Anyone looking for a career knows it is a necessity to have a college education. But public school prices are soaring. How do we have the American Dream when you leave school with tens of thousands of dollars in debt? And don’t even think about buying a house.

Right now our faith in the government is faltering. Most people point to the most recent MA election of a republican to a recent democratic senate seat. Does our faltering faith in our government create a national identity crisis? Or does it bring us together to create solutions? To making changes and not support things we don’t believe in?

We are at a point now where it is more important than ever to define what it means to be “an American,” when we enter into international talks such as Copenhagen Conference and especially with legislation such as healthcare for all Americans. How can we enter into the debates, when we don’t know who we are as a people and our goals for our society?

Are we are people afraid of asking tough questions because we don’t want to be sued? Are we a people of hope? And no matter what we are, how do you turn those theories into action?

That’s about what it feels like to be a progressive Democrat in Massachusetts right now. We’ve been hit hard in the gut and we’re down on one knee as we try to re-inflate our bruised lungs.

I don’t think it’s quite sunk in yet that I’m about to be represented in the U.S. Senate by a walk-and-talk Ken doll who had his American Idol-losing daughter make robocalls on his behalf. Seriously, think about that again for a second.

Coakley’s robocallers? Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.

Brown’s robocallers? Curt Schilling and his daughter.

But it’s over, it’s done. There’s nothing left to do but cry into my beer and ponder what might have been. And, of course, worry myself into an ulcer over whether any of what President Obama promised us in his campaign can still happen.

Let’s not forget – Democrats still hold an 18-seat majority in the Senate. But as Jon Stewart noted, Democratic math seems to think a majority of 100 is 60. What does that mean for the President’s agenda? It’s tough to say, and it probably depends on which issue you’re looking at.

Healthcare reform is obviously the biggest one. Now, Congress as a whole has two real options: either they can try and pass a reform bill before Brown is seated (could be up to 15 days, according to the Boston Globe), or they can wait for Brown to be a senator instead of a senator-elect to try and get something done.

Both approaches come with significant peril. That 15 days is probably not long enough for the House to make changes to the existing Senate bill and send it back for a final approval before going to the President. The House could, instead, opt to pass the Senate bill word-for-word, which means it goes right to the President’s desk. But the House doesn’t really like the Senate bill, so what they’ll do is anybody’s guess.

The other option is equally unpalatable for Democrats. Wait for Brown to get seated and see what happens. The shoestring alliance the Democratic party (and the two left-leaning independents) have could fall completely apart now that the filibuster is a genuine threat. Without the ability to force a cloture vote, some conservative Democrats could bail on the bill entirely, believing it can’t pass anyway, so why stick your neck out? Senators Bayh (D-IN), Lieberman (I-CT), Nelson (D-KS), Conrad (D-ND), and Lincoln (D-AR) could all jump ship. And there definitely aren’t enough Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe moderates to make up the difference.

There is another path to reform, albeit an extreme one. The “nuclear option” is the term given to declaring the filibuster unconstitutional and passing a bill with a simple majority in the Senate. Even if the moderate and conservative Democrats bailed on the bill, the left-wing of the caucus could probably pull together 51 votes in favor of a bill. But the nuclear option has far-reaching effects: it would be tough to go back to a filibuster-friendly Senate, and any senator in a close race can count on their vote on the nuclear option coming back to bite them in their election. And there aren’t 51 senators willing to sacrifice their career over the one health care vote.

And health care isn’t the only contentious issue that might be in trouble. When the GOP finds a strategy that works, they don’t back away from it very quickly. Say goodbye to many gay rights issues, campaign finance reform, anti-global warming action, additional gun control measures…the filibuster will become the vogue Democratic bill killer.

So the entire Democratic agenda comes crashing down one special election in the bluest of states, where a Republican came out of nowhere to win. Is the situation really that dire? It might be if the Democratic leadership doesn’t grow some teeth. It’s going to take some incredibly hard work to keep even the 59 seats the party currently has with several seats up for grabs this fall. Going into the rest of the legislative session with a renewed vim and vigor and willingness to fight might be the only thing that saves them.

Twitter, which, at one point, was a site people only visited to get updated on Ashton Kutcher’s political opinions, has broken yet another boundary put in place by its detractors. Thanks to Kerry Israel, Audience Development Manager at the American Repertory Theater, tweeps who follow @ARTGatz can now ingest the classic novel “The Great Gatsby” in bite-sized 140-character pieces.

Israel was struck by the idea while trying to come up with a way to promote “Gatz,” the current production on at the Loeb Drama Center. The truncated Twitter promotion contrasts heavily with what it’s promoting; “Gatz” is a 6 1/2 hour play that recites the novel, word for word.

God bless the ART for trying to keep Fitzgerald relevant, but if you’re not a part of the Twitter nation and you don’t feel like sitting through a six hour play, perhaps you might just try picking up the book.

Now, the United Freedom Front was active in the 1970s. Generation Y’ers don’t remember them. But some do. One of us who remembers the UFF all too well is Sarah Lamonaco, 28. She’s trooper Lamonaco’s daughter, and she was 10 months old when her dad was murdered. This is her story. — John M. Guilfoil, Editor-in-chief.

Sarah Lamonaco

On December 21,1981 Trooper Lamonaco was murdered on Route 80 in the state of New Jersey, leaving behind a wife of 6 years, Donna, and his three children, Laura, 5; Michael, 4; and me, Sarah, 10 months old. That day changed our lives forever.

December 21 is and will be the hardest day of my life. I never had the chance to know my Father. I learn about him through the pictures and memories my family shares, but the pictures do not have his voice or his smell, his laugh or many other things that I will not know about him. I remember being the only child in the classroom at school to make a Mother’s Day card when it was Father’s Day. On my college graduation day I wondered if he was proud of me. I wonder who will walk me down the aisle on my wedding day.

I didn’t choose growing up and learning that daddy was never coming home. My mom tells me a story of us in the car and I asked her for Jesus’s phone number because I had to ask my dad a question and that is where he went so it made sense, right? If it was that easy it would have been great. So I had to think of another way to speak to him. My family and I later wrote a letter on a balloon and sent it up to the sky for my dad. We often go and make sure his spot at the cemetery was the best looking spot around. Looking back at all these things that I did helped me cope with my dad not being here, I know went through a part of my life where I felt alone — that nobody else know what I was going through. All my friends had fathers at sporting events and school functions, and most of all they had a father who came home at night for dinner.

I spent many years not knowing where to put these feeling. One day in the 1980s, my Mom became President of Concerns of Police Survivors (C.O.P.S.). We went to Washington D.C. and I learned that I was not alone. Many other children have gone through what I have and were feeling what I felt. I finally learned that it’s OK to think about him and miss him and to talk about him. I may not be a “normal” girl and have a living, breathing father, but I had one thing many don’t. I have a angel with me all the time. I took my anger and confusion and turned it to a positive outlook. I stopped wondering how I was going to do things with out my father and I found ways to make him a part of my life. When the class made a Father’s Day card I became strong enough to make one and tell the class that I made it for my Dad and would put it on his grave site. When I graduated, I looked up and said thank you for helping me get through this path and keeping me strong. The one that I have not had to deal with and will be bittersweet is my wedding day. I know the perfect way to have my dad with me on that day and that is to walk alone and have my flowers in his hat. I always said my dad would walk me down the aisle, and he will.

Today I am 28 years old, and I still think about my father just as much as I did when I was young. Life has been hard for my family, but I have had an amazingly strong mother who raised three of us. I am very proud of my Fathe,r and I am proud to be Trooper Lamonaco’s daughter. I still attend a rally in Washington D.C. every year to honor my father. For any other child out there who has lost a parent, know that life is what you make of it. We all have bumps in the road. Ours are biger than most, but we need to find away around them and know that our loved ones are always with us.

This year, as in the past, my father’s stocking hung on our fireplace filled with all the love, joy and a pride that only a girl could have for her dad.

Melissa, who had wild red-hair and often missed appointments to attend to the black lab who slept under the table when she did decide to show up, used crystals to read my body energy. She often talked to me about the need to understand my ability to give energy (or love) that resides in the right side of the body but also the ability to receive energy (and love) that resides in the left side. Like most men she would inspect my body and find that I was strongly right-side dominant. I couldn’t seem to receive love from my kids, my family, the world, or a higher power.

Whenever she reminded me of this duality and touched the left side of the body my heart hurt. At first I cried face down so she wouldn’t see my pain. But pretty soon I realized she already knew how much trouble I was in so there was no use hiding it. So I lay face up with salty drops rolling down my cheeks in into my ears.

There was much that I couldn’t control in those days that I was desperately trying to. Sometimes I would arrive so distraught that Melissa asked me to lie down immediately on the table, fully clothed, so she could go right to work. With her hands on me, she would have visions that she would sometime ask me about. Or I would speak, unprompted, about my guilt over my kids or my addiction.

In the years since I have experienced many, many blessings. I got and stayed sober on 12.28.96. I have had a role in my kids’ life. I have had financial success. On 12.28.02 I got remarried to the woman of my dreams. On Valentines Day 2005, I had a third child, a son. In the last year I have written a book and produced a film on manhood that took me to Sing Sing, Hollywood, and to media appearances all over the country.

Yet, as I think about New Years Resolutions I am brought back to Melissa and what she taught me on the table in conversations that still seem in my logical mind more like voodoo than any kind of eternal truth.

At 45, I am still an addict. I don’t do booze or money or sex or food anymore. They all seem to have found their natural and healthy place in my life. But I still have that dark male side which can’t allow the world, or my wife or my kids, to love me. I keep them at more of a distance than I’d like through obsessive activity.

I am consumed with the idea that men of all walks of life are at crossroads in our country. Tiger Woods is just a final red flag in what we all already know about the trap we as men find ourselves in as fathers, husbands, sons and workers. NFL Hall-of-Famers, Marines on the ground, and stay at-home dads have all shared their stories with us confirming it.

But ironically the men’s movement I am attempting to spark has taken me away from the very principles that got me this far. I have become an Internet whore. I have no interest in pornography. I am talking about Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Huffington, blip.tv, Flickr, Scribd, LinkedIn, and old fashion email. My laptop and blackberry are always on and I can tell you exactly how many people are watching me and which influencers I am chasing like a fox on a hunt.

So I was talking to my wife last night about resolutions and she volunteered that she’d like me to spend less time on my social media family and more with my real family. “We need you,” she said matter-of-factly.

I also have been thinking of the times in the last year when I treated men and women working on our Project with anger rather than compassion. I have a bad habit of, at times, using my own urgency as a weapon at moments when I perceive others have let me, or our greater goal, down. I’m not proud of it. I know anger is generally counter-productive. But when the walls are closing in my mind explodes with frustration at losing a battle rather than being able to focus on the greater goal of a war that won’t be won on my personal will alone.

What Melissa used to say, and I know to be true, is that doing less isn’t a matter of giving up on a goal in life. It is actually a way to be more effective and accomplish more. It’s like the difference between holding your breath and actually inhaling and exhaling while doing something. You can swim or read or make love a hell of a lot longer and more effectively if you just remember to breathe.

So my resolution is to bring what I learned from Melissa, and from my yoga mat, back more deeply into my life. Yes I want to continue to expand the role of our Project in the lives of men. But the best way to do that is to be less insecure, to receive love from my wife and kids, and to have more faith. To show love and receive love. To let go more often. To develop my left side rather than pounding away with my right fist on a table or a blackberry. To laugh and cry in the face of my own anger. To remember, when all else fails, to breathe deeply of my life.

In 2009 America, the economy has put gas on this flame of the male need to chase his tail. Us guys are defined by what we do. It’s our armor, our hide out. A guy behind a desk shuffling papers is a sad but stable creature. But if forced to undress all hell breaks loose. He is a turtle without a shell. And it isn’t pretty.

“Up In The Air,” whose tagline is “The story of a man ready to make a connection,” is about that moment of exfoliation and the impact it has on the psyche, particularly of men. Ryan Bingham (George Clooney) travels the country firing people. We see men and women react to the news, and Bingham’s attempts to comfort them, as he “sets them adrift.” But, of course, the real story isn’t so much about the real people who the film gives voice to as they stare into the void but the cumulative impact on Clooney’s character.

Bingham prides himself on emptying his backpack, traveling light, never allowing himself to get weighed down by the baggage—wife, kids, mortgage—of the rest of us American men. He is a guy’s escape fantasy on steroids.

The plot gets rolling when women appear on the scene. Every guy knows that women are our collective conscious. They tell us what we know to be true but just can’t stand to hear. The finger nails on chalk board kind of truth that just ruins a beer and a ball game every time because it cannot be ignored. And at some deep-reptile-level we know our escapist fantasy isn’t the answer. We just can’t admit it until directly confronted by female intuition (and it doesn’t hurt if the tough love is being spoken by a woman who is smart and hot).

The crack in Bingham’s life plan comes in the form of two women (with a guy of his stature and momentum you need a tag team to slap him around and wise him up), one a precocious young women threatening to steal his livelihood and the other a mirror image of his nomad life style (“think of me as you with a vagina,” she cues to him on the phone) threatening to steal his heart.

As an audience we are rooting for the well-oiled cliché of boy meets girl and girl changes boy and boy lives happily ever after despite the fact that we know damn well that it’s bullshit. We just love the comfort of yet another escape fantasy in the form of romantic perfection. What sets “Up In The Air” apart is its willingness to divert from the superficial and go inside to the uncomfortable truth of life.

The central moment of the film isn’t the happy ending. There is no such thing and we all know better. But it comes when Clooney, in all his glamorous beauty, decides to invite his sometimes girlfriend Alex Goran (Vera Farmiga) to his sister’s modest wedding in Milwaukee. There is nothing glamorous about the sister or her fiancé or Milwaukee. But for once Bingham(Clooney) makes an effort to show up for his family to whom he has thus far been a ghost.

Bingham’s soon-to-be brother-in-law Jim Miller (Danny McBride), a bearded real estate developer down on his luck who designed a quarter karat engagement ring himself, gets cold feet at the church. And it’s up to Bingham to try to convince Miller to go through with the wedding.

“What does it all mean?” Miller asks Bingham in the church nursery school with The Velveteen Rabbit in his hands. He reports lying in bed the night before and thinking about the rights of passage for guys: marriage, kids, jobs, kids’ college, weddings, retirement, and death. And asking himself whether it all made sense, whether he could in fact sign up for everything that getting married implied.

At that moment the movie goes from cliché to universal truth. I have certainly asked that question a million times. My college friends and I have a running joke when things get bad. We tell each other, “I am just going to go in the back yard and dig a big old hole and climb in,” we tell each other. The point isn’t that we want to kill ourselves. It’s just that we have run out of answers and desperately to laugh with an old friend to soothe the pain.

In the last year, my own manic search for meaning has led me to publish a book on the topic (The Good Men Project), produce a film, create an elaborate social media platform to promote discussion among men, and travel from Sing Sing, where I met with lifetime inmates, to Hollywood, where we had a screening for our film complete with paparazzi. By the end of my airport to airport dash, like Miller’s question, I began to ask, “why?”

Nasty emails from Hollywood lawyers over my supposed misuse of their client’s images at our charitable event and letters of criticism from academic experts on the male psyche didn’t help my mood as I lay around my bed looking for a barf bag these last few days. I wasn’t sure if it was the stomach flu or just over-exposure to life.

But then I went and saw “Up In The Air” and heard Bingham searching his soul to explain the “why” of manhood, not just to groom-to-be, but to himself. The answer he gives isn’t about meaning in any big sense. The rights of passage are what they are. Some are wonderful, many are drudgery. But if there is any meaning it is found in not being alone, in reaching out to another living soul at a time of need, in having a co-pilot in life.

I thought about that when I got home last night after the movie. My wife was rightly furious with me for losing wallet, and all our credit cards, for the second time in a month. I really wanted to kill her and tell her how unfair her anger was. I wanted a break from all the attention I seem to be getting—I made the mistake of appearing on the Tyra’s Christmas show to help a widow and her two kids which has brought every such family out of the woodwork.

But then I thought of the wedding scene in the film, after Bingham has convinced Miller that getting married is the best thing he could do with his life. “Up In The Air” went from highly stylized images of planes and clouds to home movies of highly imperfect people enjoying real life even just for this moment. All of the sudden Clooney’s movie star good looks became invisible because in that one scene we see into his heart. The fact that there is no happy ending doesn’t matter. It’s just that glimpse of meaning—of truth—that counts in life. And that is what we as guys so often miss.

I remembered a particular inmate in Sing Sing who had told me how hard it was to go to his mother’s death bed in shackles. I remembered how he had cried telling me the story and how I had cried with him for his loss. Then I hugged my wife, spooning in bed. And thought how no matter how much we fight I would trade all the money in the world for just the sensation of lying in bed with her, silently holding her tight in my arms.

And I realized, like George Clooney’s character, I too may continue to take flight after flight in search of some bigger truth. But it’s that smaller momentary dose of beauty, that real connection, which sustains me and is the point of it all.

Tom Matlack is the Co-Founder of THE GOOD MEN PROJECT (www.goodmenproject.org). He is also the managing partner of Megunticook Management, a Boston-based venture firm. He is the former Chief Financial Officer of The Providence Journal Company. He lives in Brookline with his hot wife and three kids ages 15, 13, and 4.

I live in Canada so I’m so very disappointed in what our Prime Minister is doing there. In short, he’s done everything by something. And that’s a travesty because we really suck when it comes to climate change. He opted to not deliver an address at the plenary session and has repeatedly suggested that developing countries hammer out a pact to reduce emissions before Canada.

That’s unfair. The developed world went through its industrial revolution with little regard for the environment, as it was not seen as a factor in those days. Now, as countries like India and China revolutionize, developed countries like Canada are demanding that they take action first? While of course those two powerhouses must act to reduce their emissions in some way, they cannot be expected to take the lead or draft a binding agreement now, just as the world is taking notice of their strides and unloading a great deal of respect on their leaders (see: White House Inaugural State Dinner). In the end, climate change is a political game.

Leaders must lead and as leaders of the world the developed nations must draft a BINDING agreement first. Copenhagen produced a non-binding agreement to limit global warming to 3.6 degrees Farenheit. While neither the United States, South Africa, India, Brazil or China, all signatories of the pact, stated how this goal would be acheived, it is a goal set and one that the UN has taken “note” of but not approved. It even includes developing nations.

Of course this non-binding pact is hardly better than a verbal agreement, and is far from “unprecedented” as President Obama stated. However, while it isn’t groundbreaking, it is a start, and Obama was correct in stating that it’s a big deal that major economies (the U.S., India and China) have agreed that climate change needs to be addressed.

Other developing countries have lambasted the deal, which does include a clause to commit $100 billion by 2020 to developing nations affected by global warming. The major downfall of the agreement is its lack of specific pollution reductions, which is one of the main ways to keep temperature rise to a minimum. A 3.6 degree cap on temperature rise won’t be honored if pollution reductions aren’t drafted and agreed upon in a BINDING agreement.

However in that agreement, the United States or some other developed country, will have to take the lead, unlike Harper suggests. And that is step two.

I thought it was an odd decision. Definitely. Especially given the other nominees which include the Cluster Munition Coalition, a group that strives to clean up cluster bombs and decrease accidental civilian war deaths and Dr. Denis Mukwege, an inspired young Conoglese physician who opened a hospital to treat female victims of sexual abuse.

Inspiring, to say the least. Deserving candidates, no doubt.

And then there’s the victor, Barack Obama, a Harvard law school graduate, community organizer, civil rights lawyer, law professor, junior senator and president of the most “powerful” country in the world. A stunning resume, but where are the accomplishments? The peace work, the advocacy, the results?

That’s what so many are asking. What so many are wondering. And while I, a supporter of Obama, do not think he deserved the award based solely on his accomplishments to date, I do believe the award was given for a reason, and a just, sane reason at that.

Innovative decision to award Obama prize

Now hear me out. Obama won the prize not just for what he has achieved in less than 10 months (which is quite a bit if you look at it with an open mind) but for how he changed the game and reshaped the face of a nation so hated and demonized for so many years. For the potential of peace on a plethora of fronts.

Obama is in the process of sewing together the gaping wound that is America’s international reputation; not an easy feat. It’s something that no other modern Democratic or Republican candidate could do in two terms, let alone a quarter of one.

The fact that the Norway-based committee stressed it made the prize decision based on Obama’s efforts to date was a little strange. I don’t really believe that to be the case, nor does anyone else, even the hardest and strongest Obama supporters. Obama doesn’t believe it either, rightfully so.

Strengthening the international reputation of the most “powerful”nation in the world contributes to peace in many ways. His efforts toward nuclear disarmament are commendable. His decision to end the missile-defense system in Poland led to strengthened ties with Russia, a nuclear powerhouse. His administration has striven for peace with India, another nuclear nation.

His efforts to strengthen relationships and mend ties between Americans and Muslims was politically risky, but so right and groundbreaking morally.

His confusion on Afghanistan is warranted, no one knows what the hell is needed there, and the answer given (“more troops”) isn’t a surprising one. But he’s taking his time and not rushing.

Some view him as the “do-nothing” president or the president of “inaction.” I view him thoughtful and rational, and I’d rather he take weeks to decide the fate of thousands of American soldiers than make a quick decision (like the last guy) and put so many soldiers in harm’s way just because of political pressure from both sides of the spectrum, without thinking it through and weighing the options. That’s called reasoning.

His no-nonsense discussions with Iran, without preconditions, a proposition he was so ridiculed for during his campaign, showed the world he is committed to nuclear disarmament and a more peaceful Mid-East.

His speech in Cairo, though predictable, reaffirmed that idea. His quoting the Qu’ran was a great way to connect with an overwhelmingly large global group so alienated by American ideological extremists.

We elected him for that reason. Because he’s intelligent, thoughtful, peaceful, multi-racial and ambitious. It’s been less than 10 months. How many ambitions are achieved in 10 months? None. But the path to realizing those ambitions has been laid.

Oz

Let me make it a bit clearer by using a crude but wonderfully applicable analogy.

Think of Obama as Dorothy and his path to peace as the yellow brick road. When Obama crash landed in the White House after a whirlwind electoral campaign, he was ambitious, excited and ready to overhaul the system. Soon he realized that that’s not possible, at least not as quick as he thought. There are hundreds, if not thousands of people to please and political and social hurdles to vault.

Just as the Afghanistan war became more brutal and a reassessing of the plan was needed (just as Dorothy tried to find out from the munchkins how she could get back to Kansas), Obama was given hope, something he’d given, in abundance, to millions around the world.

The Peace Prize committee are the munchkins, they are Glinda (the good witch). They gave Obama direction, thanked him for his bravery and pushed him, inspired him (as he inspired us) to continue his work. To keep on going. After all, he doesn’t want to be the guy who won the prize and did nothing to deserve it. And no, he’s not already that guy.

There will be obstacles (the wicked witch, the fake Wizard of Oz) however Obama/Dorothy prevail in the end, defeating the evils that stand in their ways. Yes you can think he was awarded prematurely, but only if you view the award as something given only for hard results. More results will come, the award is faith in that.

In fact, the award was given because he’s changed the world’s mood. He’s made global citizens happier and more tolerant in times of economic uncertainty, global racially charged fear, terrorism and war.

Uninspired criticism

Today I came across an article on the British website timesonline.co.uk written by broadcaster/writer Minette Marrin. She claims, wrongly in my opinion, that Obama should never have accepted the peace prize. That he is undeserving, and she compares his victory to that of Henry Kissenger’s in 1973.

Ms. Marrin, that’s cold. It’s unfortunate that you can’t see past the present day.

Marrin ventures another guess as to why Obama accepted the prize, a very odd one. She ventures that the president accepted the prize just because two fellow Democrats, Al Gore and Jimmy Carter, also boast the prestigious medal in their respective trophy libraries.

As if the award were some piece of trivial memorabilia, some baseball card, that an 11-year-old pines for just because his best buddies have the same one. She then quotes an “American commentator” who said “it is like accepting an Oscar now for being likely to make an Oscar-winning movie next year.” A degradation of the award that is insulting to past winners and childish, to say the least.

Marrin goes on to ask “Can it be that Obama is already intoxicated with the exuberance of his own celebrity? For that is all he is so far — a well-meaning super-celebrity.” Well-meaning? See the second section of this piece.

However there are many who wonder if Obama’s ego has been so inflated that he believes himself the savior of America and the world.

But to those of you who ask that, I ask why is he so “humbled” by the award? Why is it the man, the president, started off his acceptance and justification speech by talking about his two children? Yes, he has speech writers, but only he heard what his kids said that morning. And he remembered.

Yes Obama is a little egotistical, he is, after all, the president. But don’t forget, we gave him that ego (see: road to ‘08 election).

Finally, for those who believe Obama didn’t deserve this prize, you hold a valid view. I too believe Dr. Mukwege or the Cluster Munition Coalition deserve an award of recognition for peace work.

My argument is that Obama’s victory isn’t unwarranted or undeserving. His accomplishments to date are impressive, his future is full of possibilities and the peace prize was awarded to him by a panel “instructed to encourage international co-operation, arms reduction and acts of engagement” for his initiative and to ensure he keeps working towards his, and our, ultimate goal.

Peace.

The first occurs during the Army-McCarthy Hearings in 1954, when Joseph Welch, an attorney for the for the U.S. Army asks Senator Joseph McCarthy to provide evidence to the attorney general of his accusations that there are communists working in U.S. defense plants. Instead, McCarthy names someone from Welch’s law office in Boston. The exchange leads to Welch’s now-famous retort to McCarthy:

“Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator…. You’ve done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?”

Now shift to 55 years later. The President of the United States is delivering a speech on healthcare reform to a joint session of Congress. At one point in his speech, President Obama refutes recent reports that healthcare bill proposals would include so-called “death panels” that will decide the fate of elderly citizens. “It’s a lie, plain and simple,” he says. As the president continues in his speech he says that there are no provisions to provide healthcare to illegal immigrants in any of the bills. South Carolina Representative Joe Wilson shouts out:

“You lie.”

Both Welch and Wilson called people out on what they viewed to be misrepresentations. Welch is widely heralded for being among the first to help bring down a Senator intent on a communist witch hunt. Wilson, however, is castigated by members of his own party.

Senator John McCain, Obama’s Republican opponent in the presidential election, calls Wilson’s outburst “totally disrespectful.”

The reaction to Wilson’s outburst begs the question of why it was so wrong for him to shout out what he believed to be “truth to power” when it was OK for Obama to sweepingly call out liars in his speech and admirable for Welch to confront McCarthy while the whole world was watching. (Well, maybe not the whole world, but certainly a good chunk of U.S. citizens watching the televised hearings.)

Welch’s act came after McCarthy raised a colleague’s name in an effort to divert attention from the request made to support his allegations. By confronting McCarthy, Welch effectively disarmed McCarthy and continued to focus on the issues at hand in the hearings. Welch and McCarthy were engaged in a hearing where each had the right to express their views, however abhorrent Welch may have found McCarthy’s comments.

Obama shone light on what he viewed to be the lie, rather than call out specific liars. Granted, his comments may still have irked those who had been talking about death panels, but he never singled out, say, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as being a liar for continuing to talk about death panels. “You, Governor Palin are a liar,” rings far differently from “It’s a lie, plain and simple.”

Where Wilson stepped over the line was in the method and forum in which he chose to deliver his message. He and Obama were not engaged in a hearing. His was a direct assault on the character of the person speaking not the issue he raised.

The reason why some members of his own party joined in the criticism of his behavior was that Wilson breached the agreed-upon norms of how members of Congress should act. By doing this his actions were not only uncivil but struck many as unethical.

“Ethics is how we behave when we decide we belong together,” write Margaret Wheatley and Myron Kellner Rogers, who wrote in A Simpler Way (Berrett-Koehler, 1999).

Wilson fell short of behaving in a way that he and his colleagues deemed appropriate when they work together on important issues facing the country.

Walsh, (D-Boston) who covers a district that includes Boston College, is sponsoring legislation that would ban any alcohol-related advertising on state-owned property. The crazies in the anti-alcohol (and even the anti-advertising) lobby have joined, and they are calling on the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (The T) to join in and ban alcohol ads on buses, trains and stations.

No other state in the US has such an advertising ban, which would eliminate things like billboards and limit advertisements for locally-owned wine and spirits shops, which is simply a bad idea in this economy.

“It is unfathomable that in the midst of an epidemic of underage drinking in Massachusetts, a government agency would allow alcohol advertising on public property,” said Amy Helburn of the collaborative, “Supporting an Alcohol Advertisement Free Environment,” in a statement supporting Walsh’s legislation.

The bill also has the support of a group called “Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood.”

Because that’s possible.

Ok. You’ve heard the facts and seen what’s proposed.

This is never going to happen.

It’s a perennial bad idea like many that come up each year from a relatively new and a creepy alliance of teetotalers and helicopter parents.

Blast is the only media outlet that’s entirely run by Generation Y, so let me be as frank with you as possible: The ads aren’t screwing up your kids. Teens don’t start drinking because a whimsical frog says so.

Young people don’t start drinking because of commercials or billboards. Young people start drinking for two reasons. First, they start drinking because it’s (perhaps only in the US) considered a rebellious taboo. And second, the vast and overwhelming majority of American adults drink.

But that alone is a pretty poor argument against liquor legislation. The fact is alcohol is dangerous. It kills people and can lead people to do things that can hurt them or others. Like all vices, it’s users, especially young people, are not taught moderation. In fact, the only people telling us to “drink responsibly” are the liquor companies in their commercials!

I’ve seen lives ruined by alcohol, but I’ve also seen lives ruined by overbearing colleges that take away scholarships, throw students out of residence halls, charge fines and publicly embarrass students for a first time alcohol offense. I’ve seen college newspapers report the names of students that got caught with a beer in their hands. I’ve seen them come into my office when I was in the Northeastern University student government in tears when they got turned away from internships and jobs because of it. I’d need a drink, too, if my school just ruined my life.

HEY, OLD PEOPLE: Listen up.

Your precious little honor student is going to drink when he or she gets to college. (They’re also going to have sex, a lot, and they might even try pot!) More than 90 percent of college students drink. You wanna help them? Teach them responsibility. Teach them to know their own limits. Give them cash for a cab. Teach them the warning signs of alcohol poisoning so they don’t leave some kid in a bathroom to die.

Commercials aren’t the problem. There is a much deeper issue here. Alcohol, sex, smoking, marijuana, etc. etc. etc. The more you tell someone “no” without an explanation, the more curious they become. If Massachusetts is such a liberal bastion, they should do something really radical: teach kids safe sex and drinking in moderation.

Let’s start small: Colleges could give students the phone number of a cab service instead of a pamphlet of vague threats.

Just don’t waste my time trying to convince me that it’s all the commercials’ fault.

In a last minute change in posture, President Barack Obama recently decided to go to Russia to “reset” the generally confusing political relationship between Russia and the United States.

Outsiders could perceive that the U.S. State Department attitude has been that Russia can be ignored because it is not in the game and is just another distraction for the U.S. This position is a complete and utter rejection of the world of reality which we live in, including the misuse of the word “distraction.” Russia can never be ignored nor should she be. This general Washington attitude about Russia tends to be an unrealistic assumption , and does not consider what the long-term and potential tragic consequences that this idea could render for the international community. A recent media comment stated a realistic assessment as, “Russia is too big of a country to ignore including the fact that European History has been tied to Russia, sometimes with disastrous results.”

As for the Summit, Andrei Klimov, Deputy Chairman of the Russian State Duma’s Foreign Affairs Commission said prior to the official Summit meeting, “Unfortunately, our agenda contains too many difficult issues; I’ll be surprised if we can solve any of them.” In the Intel World this is considered a very strong position statement. In another confusing statement, President Obama, on Russian TV said, “It (Russia) remains one of the most powerful countries in the world.” If this is true then how can the State Department ignore Russia and consider it as a weak country not worthy of American attention and/or support. Although, on the other hand America does need Russian support for creating a viable European image including the building of much needed political and public support for America.

Thus, at the end of the meeting, the public was told that two agreements were signed. One agreement involving the cutback in nuclear arms to 1,700 warheads per country within seven years. The second, a mutual agreement which gives the U.S. the right to fly over Russia to deliver troops and supplies to Afghanistan. This is estimated to save the United States $133 million in current day fuel costs.

As a conclusion to the meeting President Obama reinforced Russia’s nuclear arms position during his speech at the New Economic School in Moscow when he stated, “President Medvedev and I made progress,” the word progress does not mean resolution “on negotiating a new Treaty that will substantially reduce our warheads and delivery systems. We also renewed our commitment to clean, safe and peaceful nuclear energy, which must be a right for all nations that live up to their responsibilities under the NPT. We also agreed to increase cooperation on nuclear security, which is essential to achieving the goal of securing all vulnerable nuclear material within four years.”

It is interesting to note that both the Russian and American media understanding from summit is that both parties have reached a major breakthrough in terms of limiting nuclear arms to a new low level where nuclear weapons are not considered a threat to any country. This is hard to believe since the U.S. and Russia together have approximately 95% of the world’s nuclear weapons, which the State Department reported in 2009 as 3,909 Russian warheads vs. America’s 5,576 warheads. Are we to believe that this is the primary subject? Or is the real concern, the proliferation of nuclear arms in Iran and North Korea, a problem which neither Russia or the U.S. want to face directly.

A most interesting analysis of the so-called Arms Agreement has been made by Daryl G. Kimball, Executive Director of the Arms Control Association when he called the agreement,“An overdue, if very modest, step toward riding each side of obsolete and expensive cold war legacy weapons.” John Bolton added his thoughts when he said,

“The number they are proposing for delivery vehicles is shockingly low.” Aren’t these comments the main objective that both sides really wanted? To initiate a media program in both countries in order to obtain public credit for eliminating old useless nuclear weapons including unreliable missile systems. This agreement does not preclude the fact that the world needs to realize that it still faces large stockpiles of new high performance, multi-headed nuclear weapons and delivery systems? THINK ABOUT IT. Is this a subject Political Intrigue or Reality?

In terms of an overview President Obama made light of the positive cooperation between Russia and the U.S. in assessing the threat of ballistic missiles from other countries. He said, “I’m pleased that President Medvedev and I agreed upon a joint threat assessment of the ballistic missile challenges of the 21st Century, from Iran and North Korea.” As we can see, this was an interesting comment to make considering just three weeks ago, right after the election of Iran’s new president, Russia and Iran both sat at the same table, as official members, at the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) annual meeting. At this meeting President Medvedev officially expressed his support of the newly elected Iranian President. It is also interesting to note that the Charter for this organization says its goal is, “To pursue joint security, energy and development goals, including enhanced cooperation against terrorism, Islamist extremism and separatism.” The word “Separatism” is of real concern in terms of Putin’s vision of a new Great Russia. Therefore it is now official that Russia and Iran support each other in their “security efforts” in an organization that rejected the entrance of U.S. as a mere observer status. How will it be that Russia shares the same ideals for security as Iran while supporting the US in a so called, “Joint threat assessment of the ballistic missile challenges?” One answer comes from the Intel World which states from long experience, “All is not what it appears too be.” Only time will answer questions like these. As Peter Baker in the Wall Street Journal recently said, “They made promises of cooperation that ultimately might prove easier to translate into words than reality.”

This current agreement may be reminiscent of similar ones made in the Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and G.W. Bush presidencies. In summary it is oblivious that although agreements were reached on the decision to reduce nuclear missiles many issues have been left open as points to agree to disagree. After President Obama’s meeting with Prime Minister Putin President Obama said, “On areas where we disagree, like Georgia, I don’t anticipate a meeting of the minds anytime soon.”

The second day of the meeting involved President Obama meeting with Russian business leaders to stress better economic ties between the United States and Russia. This is a reasonable subject to open, assuming that the U.S. has an economic system to negotiate with. It is also interesting that the Secretary of Commerce was the only person to accompany President Obama to Russia. Secretary Locke’s remarked at the Business Summit that, “Now is the time to further United States and Russian integration with the world economy.” We continue to hear words like “World Economy” not “American Economy.”

Secretary Locke also commented that, “Likewise, we consider it very much in the interest of Russia to further integrate into the world economy. We support Russia’s accession to the World Trade Organization and encourage Russia to pursue opportunities to increase its bilateral trade and investment with the United States as well as other countries.” Russia had been on the waiting list to enter the WTO for several years although the week before the Summit Prime Minister Putin withdrew Russia’s application. This is a key Russian strategy decision which America should not overlook.

The logical question now would be why did Putin remove Russia from the application process only a week before the Summit with the U.S.? Russia is continuing to give conflicting signs of what it wishes to do. Is no one paying any attention to what Putin is saying?

In summary, one question must be asked: will this Summit have the desired effect of starting the so called “reset” of the long troubled relationship between Russia and the United States? Keep in mind that the U.S. won the Cold War and Russia lost. In winning the Cold War we created a “Big Bad Enemy,” which is not going to be subservient to the U.S. In addition, Russia and the United States have very different cultural views with the result of a distorted view of the U.S. which has become embedded in the Russian public. How will Russia overcome this view that it has had of the United States for so long? Will it happen in a few short meetings, years, or ever? Will it be too much to overcome or will we be able to work through them to have two strong countries who no longer fight for power, but instead share and grow from it.

It has been said by many wise men including Julius Caesar that, “Power is the Name of the Game.”

Think about it.

For advocates of guaranteed truly universal healthcare the debate over Obama’s reform efforts have been rather disappointing.

Despite the fact that a clear majority of Americans prefer joining the rest of the developed world and having a comprehensive government plan that cover everybody, President Obama and most of Congress, all of whom have received large sums of campaign donations from the drug and insurance industries, have made a government run plan that would not sell healthcare as a commodity to make profit, a non-starter. As a result, single-payer healthcare advocates, despite having overwhelming grassroots support, have been dismissed in Washington.

Now, with few other options, liberal members of congress and advocacy groups have largely focused their advocacy and money behind what appears to be the most heated battle over possible healthcare reform this summer: the fight to include a “public option” to compete with private plans in the healthcare package.

Predictably, ideologues opposed to any kind of government involvement in healthcare are fighting tooth-and-nail to oppose this option, ridiculously, calling it a step towards socialism. But as much of the left rallies to counter these shameful distortions, they may want to consider a very important question. What exactly are they fighting for?

By taking single-payer off the table at the start, Obama and his supporters may have put all of their fuel into a sputtering vehicle. To date, two state governments Massachusetts and Vermont have attempted to implement “hybrid” pseudo-public solutions to major healthcare problem. Both of these plans have been floated as possible templates for national reform; the Mass plan is often cited as a possible angle, and Rep. Peter Welch, D-Vermont, has introduced legislation for a public option that is somewhat similar to Vermont’s state-wide plan. Sadly, in both cases the results of these efforts have not been promising.
Those of us living with the new and once-highly touted Massachusetts plan, which aims to cover everyone by requiring that everyone buy insurance (and providing subsidies for those who cannot afford it), have become all-too familiar with the problems of this arrangement, which was worked out in 2006 between Mitt Romney and the Legislature.

The Boston Globe’s recent front-page article highlighting how Boston Medical Center, which provides more healthcare to the poor than any other hospital in Massachusetts, is facing major deficits largely because the 2006 healthcare legislation has bled money from the “free care pool,” is only one example of how this legislation, well-intended it may be, is not sustainable.

By June 2011 enrollment in the plan is projected to be 342,000 people at an annual expense of $1.35 billion up considerably from the original projections of covering 215,000 people at a cost of $725 million.

Moreover, because so much of the funding for the plan has come from the state’s free care pool, many low-income residents who were once able to get care, now face unaffordable co-pays, premiums and deductibles (which have already risen 9.4 percent since passage of the reform.) According to a study done by the Physicians for a National Health Program, if a middle-income person on the cheapest available state plan got sick, he or she could end up paying $9,872 in premiums, deductibles and co-insurance for the year.

“The Massachusetts reform law is not providing universal access to care even in a state with highyl favorable circumstances including previously high levels of spending on health care for the poor, high personal incomes, and low rates of uninsurance,” the report said. “It is not a model for the nation.”

A recent New York Times article, aptly titled “Massachusetts Takes a Step Back from Health Care for All,” reported problems as well. The July 14 article states, “The new state budget in Massachusetts eliminates health care coverage for some 30,000 legal immigrants to help close a growing deficit, reversing progress toward universal coverage just as Congress looks to the state as a model for overhauling the nation’s health care system.”

Vermont’s Catamount Health, public-private hybrid effort to cover the state’s uninsured population now at 11 percent is also failing. Passed in 2006 as a compromise after Gov. Jim Douglas vetoed single-payer legislation, the bill, unlike the Massachusetts plan, does not mandate residents buy insurance. Instead it offers residents a chance to purchase healthcare from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Vermont with help of government subsidies based on income. But the plan, even according to its own advocates, does little to solve the problem.

One reason: the plan is unaffordable for many working Vermonters. Even those with no income must pay a monthly premium, and someone earning $30,000 a year still must pay $160 a month for coverage, plus monthly deductibles and co-pays for prescription drugs and doctor visits. Accordingly, less than a quarter of those eligible have signed up for the plan. Catamount can also deny coverage for pre-existing condition and the recently unemployed must wait a year before they are eligible for the program.

Since Vermont, like Massachusetts and so many other states, is facing dreadful revenue forecasts, the co-pays and premiums may well be raised in the near future, or services cut. A Democratically-controled Legisalture was able to avoid cuts in the most recent state budget, but more cuts may well be needed during the year, according to Tom Kavet, Vermont’s Legislative economist.

As Peter Sterling, Catamount Health’s outreach director told Seven Days, Vermont’s largest weekly paper, “It doesn’t solve the big problem, and we know that.”

Sterling’s words, and the failure of both of these reform efforts, could serve as a warning for healthcare activists as the national debate over a public plan reaches critical mass. Putting all of our muscle and money into a potentially doomed public option something that “doesn’t solve the big problem” may yield little benefit in the fight for universal healthcare. Worse, if Congress pushes through a failed public option, neutered by congressional Republicans, it could give the concept of public healthcare an undeserved black eye in the eyes of many Americans.

In fact, a more intriguing consolation prize in Obama’s health reform bill could come from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) who has a plan to fund pilot programs for universal healthcare in five states — one of which would be a single-payer plan. This could prove to be a sterling example of the cost-effectiveness of such a program. If Sanders’ home state, Vermont, were to implement state-wide single-payer, it would save the tiny state a sizable $51 million a year, according to a study commissioned by the Vermont Legislature in 2006. Predictably, however, the Senate has not been very open to this idea, moderate as it may be, and voted it down in committee. One can only hope this idea will resurface as the debate rages on.

Despite such unceasing opposition from Washington, giving up on single-payer healthcare is not a wise move. As healthcare costs continue to skyrocket, the likelihood of a single-payer plan becoming reality in the US will only increase. The United States currently spends about 16 percent of its GDP (and rising fast) on healthcare more than any other country in the world and still has embarrassing rankings on infant mortality, life expectancy and overall healthcare rankings, according to the World Health Organization and BMJ, a peer-reviewed international medical journal. 46 million are left uninsured with many more underinsured, and an estimated 18,000 people die each year from lack of insurance.

Since nearly half of healthcare costs go towards corporate profits and administrative waste, two expenses that are virtually eliminated by implementing a single-payer system, in time some kind of not-for-profit government-run system is the only option that will make any fiscal sense. This reality should not be lost in the battle for a doomed-to-fail half measure that may or may not be attached to healthcare reform in the coming months.

Further Reading:

• PNHP Report on Massachusetts Reform Plan
• Vermont Workers’ Center: Health Care is a Human Right Report (Features information on Catamount)
• Study commissioned by VT Legislature on economic impacts of a single-payer system
• *Hasta la vista single-payer movement? (Article I wrote in 2007 on a hybrid plans vs. single-payer)

Oddly enough, it was Khamenei who congratulated Ahmadeinjad while both he and Mir Hossein Mousavi were claiming victory. The call for investigation will progress tomorrow.

The request comes amid reports of a leaked interior ministry file that shows Ahmadinejad finished third in the election with just 5.7 million votes. Mousavi, according to the report placed on countless blogs and news sites, finished first with 19.7 million votes and reformist Mehdi Karoubi finished respectively second with 13.7 million.

For the past three days Iranian citizens have been parading down streets protesting the results of the June 12 election and the victory it brought for President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Millions of Iranians, both home and abroad, are convinced the election was fixed. Some believe the result was set before the election took place.

Why? Well, the results were announced after 30 minutes or so. Odd, since more than 40 million votes were cast. The ballots, by the way, were hand counted. The turnaround on that seems quite suspicious.

Many voters and international media personalities say they were skeptical before the vote even took place. I’d say there was some foreshadowing, for example the lax rules on political rallying for a liberal opposition candidate before the election.

Some in Iran may have thought the allowance of public support and rallies for Mousavi signaled the end of an oppressive government and the start of a government of the people, for the people and by the people.

But that was of course not the outcome of what seemed like the end of Ahmadinejad. He supposedly won the election, according to tallies released by the government, by more than 13 million votes, carrying regions with strong Mousavi support bases, such as Mousavi’s hometown.

And now, with the looming prospect of four more years under the oppressive Ahmadinejad, the people are fighting back. Not since the 1979 Iranian Revolution to overthrow the monarchy has such a public distaste for the ruling class taken place. But people are inspired and angry, both in Iran and outside.

Millions are following along on twitter, thousands are attending protests and rallies in their hometowns.

But the Iranian government isn’t happy about it, either. Reports have surfaced that some candidates were put under house arrest and some students were shot and killed at a rally Monday. Police open fired at citizens during a protest in Tehran on Monday as well, as supporters rallied despite government order prohibiting such demonstration. At least one person was killed.

In the video below you see men carrying a man who has been shot, possibly dead.

Secret police are trying to arrest protesters, an attempt greeted by contempt and violence by young Iranians. Some riot police were beaten bloody by protesters. But some police, as you’ll see in the video below around 2:47, are being helped by citizens. Possibly united by there lack of free expression and voice, the police simply doing their job.

A particularly gripping photo, seen here, shows a protester helping a riot policeman after he was beaten.

Mousavi appeared at a rally and spoke to his supporters today. Obama ensured Iranians today that the “world is inspired” by their actions. He also said it is up to Iranians to decide their leaders, signaling their will be no intervention from the United States. Many believe, as a democratic model and world power, the U.S. should intervene.

Protests will continue until something happens. Hopefully soon to minimize more possible deaths.

“I personally strongly protest the many obvious violations and I’m warning I will not surrender to this dangerous charade,” said Mousavi, according to Reuters.

The possibility of a re-run is very slim so Iranians, unfortunately, must come to terms with the reality of four more years under Ahmadinejad, a man whom many have called a “dictator.”

But the people just wont have it. To many of Mousavi’s supporters 62.6 per cent is suspiciously high. After all, before the election the two candidates were apparently locked in a head-to-head battle.

Mousavi’s supporters and supporters of free vote and democracy have taken to the streets in anger. Yelling “down with the dictator” and “freedom freedom freedom” they are vocally expressing their extreme distaste at the prospect of four more years under the tyrannical Ahmadinejad.

The protest has turned violent now, with many angry voters breaking windows, breaking into shops and setting fire to various objects across the crowded city. Police isn’t responding well, they’re using tear gas and batons in an attempt to discourage and stop protesting, which is, despite these attempts, still going strong. Reports of deaths are now coming in.

Click here to see photos of street violence in Iran.

Many of the protesters are urbanites who voted for Mousavi or Karoubi and feel betrayed by their government. A government who they say, perhaps frightened by the prospect of losing power, rigged the election to guarantee victory.

Mousavi said it. The citizens have said it. It’s popular belief among westerners, too.

If the election results are correct, Ahmadinejad apparently won handily in Mousavi’s heartland. That’s hard to believe.

What it means for society

Speculating about a possible election rigging won’t solve the problem however, because Ahmadinejad is now president and is unlikely to relinquish power or allow any sort of re-run. He’s never been one to give into public demands, and this isn’t an exception.

So what does Ahmadinejad’s election mean for Iran? Well, any hope for peaceful social reform is now defunct. The state-owned media will continue to dominate, private and liberal media companies will still be outlawed, and the government will still own the communications system.

The young will continue to be oppressed; freedom of expression will not become a real right for citizens.

Unemployment will stay around 30 per cent, yea, 30 per cent. No joke. Inflation will remain in double digits and the economic problems of the nation will go ignored, just as they have been for a while now.

For the U.S.? This term will serve to increase tensions between the two nations, largely at odds because of Ahmadinejad’s thirst for advancing his country’s nuclear program and his hate for Israel.

Mousavi has the same view on Iran’s nuclear program and Israel, though he claims he wants to advance the program for peaceful purposes.

No one really believes that, though the moderate reformist did say he wanted to increase positive relations between his country and the U.S. and middle-east. However, while he was prime minister in the 1980s, many horrible human rights violations did take place.

Still, he would have been easier to deal with, and most likely better for Iran. But that dream is dead. And for Iran, it’s worse. Their people will continue to be oppressed, humiliated on an international stage and controlled by their government.

Anyway, this isn’t about abortion, though I think Veronique Courjault should have gotten three abortions instead of having her kids.

Courjault, the infamous Frenchwoman who confessed to killing three of her own babies and hiding two of them in the freezer of her home in South Korea, now stands trial in Tours, France.

The trial began Tuesday. The judge will have to determine whether Courjault is psychologically impaired or was aware of her actions, which took place between 1999 and 2003. She faces life imprisonment.

Strangely enough, Courjault’s husband, Jean-Louis, said he wasn’t even aware his wife was pregnant between 1999 and 2003. He also said he didn’t know she was killing the babies he didn’t know existed. Confusing. He has, however, been cleared of any involvement.

BBC reports investigators said Jean-Louis, an engineer, was often away on business, and his wife managed to hide all three pregnancies from him. Crafty.

Jean-Louis did however stand by his wife during her imprisonment. Courjault was jailed in 2006 after confessing to the murders, and Jean-Louis visited his ailing wife in prison regularly. He says she is “psychologically distressed.” Till death, they will not part.

Jean-Louis arrived in the court room Tuesday and told AFP “I am very, very tense. I am here to support the woman I love,” according to BBC.

It was however Jean-Louis who alerted the police after finding two baby corpses in the freezer in July of 2006. He and his wife had been living in Seoul, but the woman’s French heritage has made this a particularly disturbing local case of infanticide.

According to Courjault’s confession, she strangled one baby in France in 1999, later burned its body in the chimney of her house. She then gave birth to two children between 2000 and 2003, alone, and suffocated the two newborns in Seoul.

But wait, it gets worse. After Jean-Louis alerted the police, they took a sample of his DNA and allowed him to travel back to France and meet his wife, who was vacationing there with their two sons, then-aged nine and 11. Yea, she has more kids.

Courjault’s two surviving children were quite young when she was pregnant with the other three babies. Maybe they didn’t notice or were too young to remember and ask their father. Maybe they asked their mother and she lied to them. Who knows.

At first the couple protested accusations, claiming they had no idea whose babies were discarded in their freezer.

But that didn’t last for long. DNA tests confirmed the bodies belonged to the couple. Later, Courjault confessed to the crime, citing her reason for the murders as not wanting to have more children. Like it’s their fault.

Following the admission, BBC reports South Korea requested the woman and her husband return to face questioning. The couple denied and opted to be tried in France.

Despite having a legal co-operation pact with South Korea, France does not, in most cases, extradite its citizens.

How a mother, in her right mind, can kill her children is beyond my comprehension.

I did not. But luckily we have this glorious internet that allowed me to catch the whole thing just a half hour ago. Thanks to Al Gore for that invention.

Most of you won’t be surprised to hear that I liked the speech. I thought it was really effective in its own way and for its own purpose, which was to get Muslims and Americans thinking about their attitudes toward one another and to show the Arab world that America’s new government is committed to mending international relationships that have been negatively affected by Muslim extremists.

He acknowledged “no single speech can eradicate years of mistrust,” a message to those who believe he can solve this problem quickly and easily.

Early on, Obama spoke of an urgent issue, the Israel-Palestine conflict and the need for a two-state solution.

“If we see this conflict only from one side or the other, then we will be blind to the truth. The only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security,” he said.

Obama’s goal is to get the two parties talking about a possible amicable parting of ways. A good approach, since he isn’t advocating a certain methodology. He’s just asking them to sit and talk to see where it leads.

While past presidents, like Bush, have shown no shame in taking sides in the conflict Obama is trying to be neutral and satisfy both parties at once. So far it’s going over well, he’s chosen his words wisely.

In his speech he said that the bond between the U.S. is permanent, however the situation and the treatment of Palestinians is “intolerable.” See? Wise.

The president spoke about the attitude of Muslims in regard to America and vice versa. Of the Muslim attitude, Obama said that the U.S.’s past efforts to advocate their way of life abroad has hampered relations between the two sides.

“…the sweeping change brought by modernity and globalization led many Muslims to view the West as hostile to the traditions of Islam,” he said, and added that the “cycle of suspicion and discord” must come to an end.

In regard to America’s view of Muslims, he said what I predicted he would in my last post, that extremist Muslim groups have soiled the foundation of an otherwise peaceful religion.

“Violent extremists have exploited these tensions in a small but potent minority of Muslims. The attacks of September 11, 2001, and the continued efforts of these extremists to engage in violence against civilians has led some in my country to view Islam as inevitably hostile,” he said.

He also repeated that the U.S. is not at war with Islam, but added that they would continue to battle extremism in all parts of the world “because we reject the same thing that people of all faiths reject: the killing of innocent men, women and children.”

Obama added that the U.S. does not want to keep its troops in Afghanistan, but would not bring them home until he was confident extremism had been defeated there and in Pakistan, where the Taliban is now running rampant.

He also talked about tensions surrounding Iran and their mission to become a nuclear power. “Any nation – including Iran – should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty,” he said. Iran would obviously not be OK with that.

Obama spoke of one issue that, surprisingly, resonated particularly well with everyone in the audience: women’s rights. He rejected the stereotypical attitude some of the West throws at Muslim women.

“I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal, but I do believe that a woman who is denied an education is denied equality,” he said. “Our daughters can contribute just as much to society as our sons, and our common prosperity will be advanced by allowing all humanity – men and women – to reach their full potential.” Amen.

Obama made many references to the Qu’ran and at the end received a standing ovation from the crowd. He gave his speech at the University of Cairo where his crowd was full of a mixture of the young (among whom he has a sweeping popularity) and the old, more traditional men and women who listened to his speech with an apparent open mind and open heart.

Obama will travel to Germany and France before heading back to D.C. on June 7.

But this isn’t about that. The 447 story has flooded the media so much the last two days that a lot of people are forgetting about a major event happening this week; President Obama’s speech to Islam on Thursday. He will orate from the University of Cairo in Egypt.

The speech is being billed as, potentially, one of his most important as President. That’s true so far, but no one knows what the future holds.

Obama has said he wants to repair, rightfully so, the relationship between America and the Muslim community. He’s definitely the best candidate for that job as someone who can use his wealth of popularity around the world to influence both parties.

He’s a celebrity with the younger generation, a generation that doesn’t see religion as an inhibiting characteristic. His speech should, and probably will be, directed towards the next generation of policy makers and leaders who will essentially define the relationship between the U.S. and Islam for another 50 or so years.

The speech will also be focused on current leaders and influential beings in both communities. A key thing he should stress, I think, is friendship and tolerance.

The way in which Islam is portrayed in western media is not its true form. Extremists have soiled the foundation of the world’s second largest religion. A lot of people have an innate prejudice towards anyone who looks remotely Muslim or even just dark and suspicious.

I’m not Muslim and I’ve experienced that on subways and buses in Toronto.

Obama will also repeat a point that has been stressed in the past, that the U.S. is not at war with Islam. The conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan are not a direct attack on Islam, he’ll say. Many believe they are, however, the battles bear no reflection on religion or the American view of Islam, he’ll say.

“There are misapprehensions about the West on the part of the Muslim world. And, obviously, there are some big misapprehensions about the Muslim world when it comes to those of us in the West,” said Obama in an interview with BBC.

That is true. Many of the misunderstandings take place on home soil, both American and Islamic.

The speech won’t focus directly on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a conflict that drew media attention yet again after Obama told Israel to stop building settlements in Gaza. That request was denied by Israel.

The speech will however talk about the Arab-Israeli conflict as a whole. Obama will reference, perhaps, a two-state solution and stress peace in the Middle East (yeah, yeah). A peace that can only be achieved by reaching some fair solution, which will no doubt be tough since neither side wants to give up more than necessary but will have to negotiate and sacrifice to create an amicable resolution.

People in the Muslim world love Obama. “Everybody is looking for him as the magical man,” said Ibrahim El Moallem, an influential cultural figure in Egypt, according to CNN.

“We think if he can handle the problem of the Arab-Israeli conflict not in a biased, not in a double-standard way, and if he can really begin to reach an overall, comprehensive, just peace, this will immediately win the heart and mind of the Arab and the Muslim,” he added.

He’s got legions of fans and backers on both ends of both conflict. Arabs trust his judgment, Israelis view him as a reasonable, albeit ambitious, seeker of peace. And Americans, well, just check his approval ratings and compare them to the last guy.

There hasn’t been this much hope surrounding Mid-East peace in some time. But only a few times in history has there been more need.

As both the President of the United States and as someone who has lived in Muslim countries and has Muslim family, Obama has an automatic respect from both sides. He is a representative of both, while being a representative of one.

To Americans he’s Barack Obama, to Muslims he’s Barack Hussein Obama.

It’s an obvious truth, most people know that a lot happens on the continent that doesn’t get picked up or spotlighted. Hell, a lot happens in the U.S. that doesn’t get spotlighted so why should we care, right?

In an age of western media where Archie marrying Veronica is a top story (I can’t believe he’s not choosing Betty!), there just isn’t room for tales from the Dark Continent, even though they tend to sometimes be the most newsworthy international exposé.

But that’s OK right? I mean, who wants to hear about horrible, daunting and depressing news when you can read about a historically pimp redhead choosing the brunette with the trust fund? (I’m actually distraught over his choice.)

There obviously has to be some kind of balance, but when stories like the one I’m about to tell you come out, they deserve some attention, even if the next Archie comic development involves Jughead losing his legendary, bejeweled crown for good.

A whole area of the world is ignored and while the problem the people face can sometimes be overwhelming and hard for us to even comprehend, they are still real people, facing real problems and they deserve some real attention and aid.

That may sound hypocritical, since I don’t talk about African news very much on Terra, or report on it very much for Blast. But we’ve been trained by our media to ignore them because they seemingly always have some problem they need help with.

But those constant problems arise from their lack of global attention. In other words, they always have a problem because we ignore them. It’s become a vicious, ruthless cycle that is destined to continue repeating itself with no impending solution, just the looming possibility of it getting worse.

It’s hard to keep track of everything that’s going on the world. North Korea is losing its mind, Sri Lanka has been reduced to wasteland in some areas, Archie is marrying Veronica (I’m not letting that one go), and the U.S. has more crises than you can count on all fingers and toes.

Add another continent and the news landscape becomes too vast, and rightfully so. So it’s understandable. But even if you don’t read too much about the AIDS crisis, the genocide, the malaria, the new, stronger Ebola-like virus “Lujo”, or even the hunger; read this.

Forty-eight albino people have been killed in Tanzania over the last 18 months. No one has been convicted. The killings aren’t random; these Albino people are not just a group caught in a mass genocide. Actually, it is believed by some that their body parts can be used to make magic potions more effective. The albinos must now live in constant fear of being slaughtered.

The violence isn’t solely in Tanzania; last November a six-year-old girl was found dead in Burundi, the BBC reports. All her limbs and her head had been chopped off. Only her bloody torso was found.

In the same month, in Tanzania, two women were hacked with machetes after the attackers failed to find their true targets, children. One of the women was hiding in a refugee camp used to protect people with albinism from this kind of violence. The attackers were looking for her two-year-old child, planning to saw off the baby’s limbs for a potion.

Eleven men have been accused, though none convicted. They were charged with murder and trafficking the limbs to potential buyers. The prosecution also claimed the men dug up buried albino people and harvested their bodies for limbs.

All charges were dropped due to a lack of evidence.

Albinism affects just one in 20,000 people worldwide, though the number of albino people in Tanzania is much higher. Though only 4,000 people are registered as albinos in the country, the number is believed to be as high as 173,000, the BBC reports.

The PSI is a U.S.-led initiative that searches ships thought to be carrying suspicious goods in an effort to prevent the transfer and trafficking of weapons of mass destruction. South Korea joined the initiative as a response to North Korea’s underground nuclear test, and says it will, in an effort to protect its own safety, partner with the more than 90 countries already participating.

North Korea says the South’s actions are essentially a “declaration of war” (stupid, right?). “Any hostile act against our peaceful vessels, including search and seizure, will be considered an unpardonable infringement on our sovereignty,” said the government in a statement released to the state-run news agency, KCNA.

“We will immediately respond with a powerful military strike.”

It makes sense for the South to participate in the PSI, especially at this time, and especially after reports that steam was seen emanating from the North’s main nuclear facility in Yongbyon, about 60 miles from Pyongyang. The steam confirms North Korea is making good on a threat; to reopen the major plant and start manufacturing weapons-grade plutonium. And I’ll bet it’s not to power a time-traveling DeLorean.

The scrapping of the truce however is particularly worrisome for two main reasons. First, North and South Korea have, for the last 50 years, been at each other’s throats, but even though their border is the most heavily armed in the world, they’ve been peaceful. There have been no major attacks. Negating the deal after 50 years of tense relations and the introduction of a leader in the South that Kim Jong-Il truly hates could result in an explosion of conflict and a barrage of bullets and bombs along the heavily armed border.

Second, the recent nuclear and missile test and North Korea’s assurance that they are developing technology to weaponize their nuclear arsenal make them a respectable (in the worst sense of the word) and formidable opponent. The country cares more about its reputation of power than its own people, evidenced by the high level of poverty in the nation. This hampers the widely accepted notion that the North is just doing all this to emit some sort of ray of strength before the health of Jong-Il deteriorates so much that he must appoint one of his sons.

The government recognizes the seriousness of trashing a half-century old truce, and they wouldn’t have done it just to prove they could and would wipe the South off the map if one of their vessels is so much as approached by PSI forces.

North Korea is a bully. It’s pretty simple. It’ll dish out a lot of heat and provoke as many people as it can, but when you try to calm it down or help it in anyway other than the way in which it believes it should be helped, it just gets angry and smacks you in the face.

The nuclear test was a slap in the face to the international community and the UN. For days, diplomats have been trying to come up with ways to heal their wounds behind closed doors. Sanctions may be placed, actions will be condemned.

But as long as Jong-Il is Commander-in-Chief, his country’s actions will continue to confuse everyone to the breaking point.

Maybe just because he likes the attention. Or maybe because he really does hate everyone and everything that opposes him.

North Korea is part of the Pacific-Asia region, which is also occupied by China, South Korea and Japan. China is the only other nuclear power in the region; however it is a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) which attempts to limit the spread of nuclear weapons around the world. China’s stance on nuclear weaponry has been fairly steady, though the proximity of this nuclear test could spur China to ensure its own nuclear arsenal is operational.

South Korea has been at odds with North Korea since the early 1950s, and the two are technically still at war even though an armistice was signed more than 55 years ago. Their border is the most heavily armed in the world, and the introduction of President Lee-Myung Bak has served to reignite hostility between the two countries. Bak has publicly called for the nuclear disarmament of North Korea, a demand that has angered Kim Jong-Il. But he’s always pretty angry.

The last regional neighbor is Japan, the only country to have ever been subjected to a nuclear attack and a steadfast supporter of all treaties and attempts to de-nuclearize unstable states. According to Al-Jazeera, “analysts fear that if Japan felt pressured into developing nuclear weapons, it would trigger an arms race across the region.” Personally, after the atrocities faced by their people in 1945, I really don’t see any way in which Japan would seriously consider developing a nuclear arsenal.

North Korea hasn’t always been so defiant. It actually ratified the NPT in 1985, but withdrew from the treaty in 2003 after being accused by the U.S. of operating an illegal uranium weapons program, claims that were later said to be misinformed. Since then North Korea has been the subject of the six-party talks, a series of diplomatic sessions between China, the U.S., Japan, Russia, South Korea and North Korea to try and peacefully resolve all security concerns that stemmed from its withdrawal from the NPT.

Three years after the first six-party talks and just one year after admitting it had nuclear weapons, in 2006, North Korea launched seven missiles into the Sea of Japan and conducted an underground test of a nuclear device, citing “hostile U.S. policy” as the main cause. Following the two events, the UN Security Council unanimously agreed to impose economic and diplomatic sanctions on North Korea as a punishment for its defiance.

Soon after, in 2007, talks resumed and North Korea agreed to shut down its nuclear weapons facilities in exchange for fuel oil and the stabilization of international relations between the U.S. and Japan. The sanctions were periodically lifted by the U.S. and other countries as North Korea met certain requirements.

However, in April 2009, North Korea decided to pull out of six-party talks indefinitely after the UN Security Council criticized and labeled what North Korea claimed to be a failed satellite launch as a long-range missile test. The country then banned all international nuclear inspectors and vowed to continue enhancing its nuclear arsenal and technology, something, it seems by the magnitude of yesterday’s blast, it had been doing all along.

North Korea also tested ballistic missiles yesterday, which has incited some panic among civilians who see it as an indication of an impending nuclear attack. However according to several experts North Korea cannot launch a nuclear attack because it has not weaponized its nuclear arsenal.

So while this is a particularly troubling event, let’s see what comes of the UN meeting and what steps the international body will take to ensure this stops now. Hopefully it is, as many are predicting, just a method of compensation by Jong-Il. His health is rumored to be declining so quickly after last year’s stroke that he is already thinking about his replacement.

The favorite? Why, his youngest son, of course.

UPDATE: UN Security Council releases statement unanimously condemning North Korea’s actions. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon “’strongly deplores’ the latest test as a ‘clear and grave’ violation of past resolutions,” CBC reports.

Stick with Blast for developments.

Yes, the fighting has ended and lives will now be spared. But these men and women deserve better treatment from their own government.

The LTTE used civilians as shields against government fire in the civilian populated “safe zone”. The region’s name bears no resemblance to its true nature, as both the army and the LTTE used that area to fight each other, killing an UN-estimated 6400 civilians.

But many got away and sought refuge in poorly kept relief camps away from all the fighting. The fighting has now ended, but the displaced remain in dense captivity.

Though the civil war and violent conflict in Sri Lanka has come to a halt, a new conflict has risen from its ashes. A humanitarian conflict, pitting humanitarian relief agencies against a government complicit in the killing of its own civilians, guilty of firing into a safe zone, ignorant of the aid so desperately needed by its own people and somehow, seemingly unaware of the toll the war has had on the entire world.

The LTTE and the government have put civilians in a horrible place and because of them more than 250,000 have been displaced and thousands killed. The incipient attitudes of both the Tigers and the government have caused so much disruption that humanitarian organizations now must repopulate and rebuild a whole region. They must relocate a whole population while simultaneously providing them with the supplies and aid necessary for them to come somewhat close to their previous way of life.

The UN and relief agencies like Oxfam are trying to access relief camps to provide the displaced with supplies and aid, but the Sri Lankan government has placed restrictions on the areas, denying vehicular access. The government says they’ll relocate the displaced by year’s end.

But the Tamil diaspora, especially here in North America, is pretty sick of these promises. Now that the war has ended, they want relief for their people and they want it now. Their protests have disrupted large western capitals (like Toronto) and their resolve is one that hasn’t been seen in long. Many Tamils are especially angry at Canada, home of the largest population of Tamils outside Sri Lanka, for displaying so much apathy even now that the war has ended. Vigils and protests still occur weekly in downtown Toronto.

UN secretary-general Ban Ki-Moon made his way to Sri Lanka last night, traveling with 20 reporters who were previously banned from many war-torn regions in the country. He said, according to the AFP, he was “deeply moved” as his plane flew over the desecrated, stripped and people-less landscape.

Ban will press for unrestricted access to relief camps so aid can be quickly and efficiently supplied to the displaced and homeless. He will argue his case to Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapakse and Foreign Minister Rohitha Bogollagama.

Good luck.

The AJR article reports the stations like WJLA-TV in the nation’s capital have cut their “I-Team” to save money. WJLA VP of News Bill Lord says that he needs to “do newscasts before I can do specialty items.” That makes sense; newscasts provide viewers with a small glimpse of everything that’s happening in the U.S. Some of the more learned viewers actually stick around to see what’s going on outside of America.

Adrienne Roark, the News Director at Miami’s WFOR-TV makes the best argument for keeping investigative reporters. “It’s what sets you apart from all the other noise out there,” she told AJR. Ratings.

That, to me, makes more sense. Personally, I think all local news stations (just as most of them do) should only report local news and create in-depth local stories. If I want news on a broad scale, I turn to CNN or CBC, I don’t watch CP24 or City TV (those are local Toronto news networks).

But if I do want local news I flip to the smaller stations because I know they can offer a more detailed look into local stories that affect my area. Just like CNN or CBC can give me a better look into what’s happening in different parts of the country and in different countries.

This is where I think a structural overhaul needs to take place. Local stations should see investigative local coverage as a top priority. And while some do, investigative reporters that uncover local scandals and even triumphs should remain a part of the team because they are crucial to the survival of real journalism and to citizens understanding what’s going on in their surroundings.

Journalism is not just the reiteration of fact. It the discovery and analysis of new developments that provide the public with an all-encompassing view of an event. That’s what real journalists do, and that’s why it’s a trade that should be upheld and protected, as long as it continues to operate honorably.

To survive, these in-depth reports would have to air on a regular basis, not every few months. That makes the title of “investigative” null, however, something like in-depth coverage or in-depth storytelling should definitely have a place, at least on a weekly basis, in all local newscasts.

Just a thought.

Perhaps the LTTE has been defeated once and for all. They have suffered major hits over the past 25 years but never have they completely collapsed. A high-ranking Tamil and former member of the LTTE (a long while ago, when they were non-violent and a group of just about 20, she said) said this morning on CBC radio (a major radio station in Canada run by our public broadcasting corporation) that she believes the majority of Tamils are sick of the Tigers and will not take part in a resurgence of the group, at least not any time soon. She believes the conduct of the LTTE has been particularly destructive to the well-being of the Tamil Diaspora over the years, especially now, when so many civilians have died and so many have been displaced.

We don’t know for sure if Prabhakaran is dead or if the Tigers have been defeated. Yes, the army showed photos of Prabhakaran’s corpse, eyes wide open, however, this is the same government that has been complicit in the killing of civilians. And because journalists and media have been banned from the region, we only have government accounts. Since when do we trust politicians to be truthful and not doctor images? Maybe Prabhakaran is dead and I’m being overly suspicious or cautious, but there is that possibility that it isn’t him.

One thing we know for certain is that neither peace nor humanitarian aid will be handed willingly to the displaced, injured and horrified citizens of the war-torn region. International bodies are hesitant to step foot in Sri Lanka. This lack of civilian aid and international apathy is the new topic for Tamil protesters.

The UN secretary general had condemned the army and the LTTE for ignoring the safety of civilians, the group the two bodies are supposedly trying to protect from each other. However, the government in Sri Lanka is not seeking a political victory. An all-out, definitive military triumph is the only thing that will please them, and it is the wrong thing for them to be pursuing.

The LTTE is trying to secede with the Tamils, but it’s causing so many civilian deaths, which can be blamed on both the LTTE and the government. Both blame each other and without reporters in the region we can only speculate.

Before their defeat, the LTTE were backed and cornered into a spot chock-full of civilians. By leaving the area they would die. By staying the civilians would die too.

So instead of sparing civilian lives, they stayed and civilians died as the LTTE and the government tread over the carcasses of their own people to kill each other. Neither cared much for their surroundings.

Now that it is over, there are scores of political options behind which the international community can voice their support. But the UN wants to allow reporters in to the region and chase a phantom political solution that, at this time, has no hope of being achieved.

Since 1977 have the Tamils been officially asking for a separate Tamil Eelam. They won’t throw that away now just because the LTTE has been stripped to the bone.

They may not back the reincarnation of the Tigers for some time, but they will rise again to fight for their independence from an oppressive government. Violence hasn’t worked, peaceful protest and requests haven’t worked and elections haven’t worked. But the downfall of the LTTE could spark a new generation of Tamils to demand their freedom.

The way they go about it is up to them.

Now I love free news. It’s a real privilege for us to be able to access, for free, what domestic and foreign reporters toil and trudge over for hours, days, weeks and sometimes months. We’re pretty lucky and most of us don’t know it.

News websites make ad revenue, that’s how they stay afloat, that’s how they make their money and keep content free. Sometimes they have really kind, noble and hardworking writers who will write for no pay (*ahem*), just to be heard as a part of the internet news and opinion landscape.

But as a journalism student and someone who has a future in the field of news-gathering and reporting, I have to say, against all my Indian instinct, that the journalist in me (he comprises about 90% of my soul) is beginning to hate the person who created the first free news website.

Amidst all this horribly daunting news about the news industry, amidst all this talk and inquiry into the future of journalism and whether or not traditional journalism is dead, I feel as though some free news websites have contributed to this problem. Not websites like Blast, which has a solid group of talented writers who have day jobs or are in school.

I mean big news websites that also have material publications, ones you can pick up, touch, flick through and sometimes, cause you to bust out the soap to get that damn black ink off your fingers. The best kind.

Papers, which are owned by parent companies that often have television stations and websites in their portfolios, are going under. They have no money. When they want to charge for content online, people just go elsewhere. It makes sense. I did it when the Times started the “Times Select” fiasco.

If newspapers die, which is still a big IF for me, ad revenue and all the money they get from being online won’t keep them afloat. It won’t pay for investigative journalism, it won’t pay for local reports and it won’t pay for hard-hitting interviews with big name screw-ups.

It’ll pay for news wires. It’ll pay for shitty, generic reports and day-to-day affairs. Nothing with any real substance. Nothing worth more than a few hundred words. Nothing worth much.

I can’t and won’t be subjected to a field like that. I didn’t get into journalism to report on the farmer who breeds super-strong pigs (can’t get swine off my mind). I got into the business to educate the public and to bring hard new stories and internationally relevant developments to light. I got into the business to, essentially, help people. And I refuse to settle for doing anything less.

Salon already charges for content. Soon Variety and News Corp. will, too. And while I don’t have any desire to read anything put out by News Corp. besides The Wall Street Journal, my emotions are mixed.

In a time of recession where online advertisers are spending a little less, free news websites are having trouble staying above rumbling waters. Even student newspapers are feeling the pinch. The Eyeopener, my university’s student-run publication, cut itself in half because of reduced advertising dollars.

I want my news quick and free, but in this age, and with all this going on, that isn’t a realistic possibility anymore. It sucks but it’s true.

We’ll always need the news and while people will be angry, they will pay for it in whatever medium they choose, whether it be online, print or television.

Realistically, at least in my opinion, it’s necessary to make journalism an honorable and noble profession again. There are too many hacks in the industry writing unedited garbage that gets published just because it’s cheap to manufacture and pump out.

Let’s bring it back to the days of Murrow, Cronkite, Woodward and Bernstein. Let’s manufacture and allow a new generation of Cooper’s. At the very least, let’s help prevent more like Stephen Glass.

But you, and I, need to pay up.

Follow this blogger on Twitter.

Follow Blast on Twitter.

Neither side is exactly peaceful. A recent attack, blamed on the government by the Tamil Tigers and the Tamil Tigers by the government, fired artillery shells that have killed 300, including more than 100 children, and injured nearly 1,000.

The government can be violent and the Tamil Tigers have been branded a terrorist organization in the U.S., Canada, India and 29 other countries. They’ve use child soldiers and suicide bombs. But their government kills their supporters too, so the real tragedy here is not the deaths of the Tamil Eelam fighters or soldiers, but of the civilians caught in the crossfire.

And while I’m not Tamil, I understand and recognize the hurt the innocent are going through, though I could never truly imagine or begin to comprehend the veracity of it. Hell, I can’t even describe it using language.

But here’s where it gets tricky. Some of you may have heard that a 2,000-strong five hour Tamil protest blocked off the Gardiner Expressway until midnight last night, the city of Toronto’s major highway which sees between 200,000 and 300,000 cars daily. It’s been called an artery at times as it transports citizens from the beating heart of the city out to the western suburbs, which are inhabited by more than 1,000,000 residents.

Imagine driving along a major highway when a Tamil mother and child suddenly pop up beside your car. Yes, they brought their children too. And yes, as you can see above, they actually walked up the ramp onto the highway. How? I have no clue.

At its height, the protest blocked off traffic in either direction for a few miles. It could have been quite dangerous if there had been a medical emergency, miraculously though, no ambulances reported to have been caught in the jam. No babies were delivered in taxis. Just some pissed off residents and a few missed flights (a friend of mine missed his).

Some might be saying, so what? How dare you compare a five hour inconvenience to the deaths of innocent Sri Lankans?

Well, I’m not doing that. But I am struggling to understand how in the world blocking off traffic and angering every Torontonian could possibly help the cause? Only those who hate Torontonians would laugh at us, and in Canada, there are a lot of those. But who cares about those haters, that’s beside the point.

Up to now, Tamil protests in Toronto have been pretty peaceful and sane. They walk down large streets in large numbers, disrupting traffic a bit in the downtown core but only for a little while. No big deal.

And I understand that the goal of this protest was to garner media attention so that the demands made would be heard by as many as possible. That’s fine.

But now everyone is angry at you. Torontonians are mad, many (as I read in the comments section on the CBC website) believe that the Tamils should respect Canadian society and protest in a way that doesn’t disrupt it. Or at least protest more at Parliament Hill, not downtown Toronto. Remember, the Prime Minister, that guy who runs our country (poorly) lives in Ottawa not Toronto.

The point of protesting is to get people to rally behind you and support you, not be angry with you.

And please, the next time you want to block off a highway or walk onto the court during a basketball game or something, don’t bring your kids. Someone could easily have gotten hit by a car last night, and the last thing anyone wants is to harm an innocent child.

I support the cause; the civil war should end or at least stop long enough to get the civilians out of there. Bring them to Canada, we’d love to take them. But seriously, angering Torontonians creates hate, and Torontonians are like the New Yorkers of Canada. Just waiting for something new to be pissed at.

Follow this blogger on Twitter.

Follow Blast on Twitter.

Did Barack Obama just trick every single person in the country?

It would seem on the surface that President-elect Obama stirred up his first controversy with his supporters this week, after announcing that Rick Warren, pastor of the Sattleback Church and arch-villain of gay marriage in California, will be giving the opening prayer at Obama’s inauguration on January 20th. Criticism ranged from Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) calling the move a “mistake” to a Time Magazine columnist stating, “Obama has proved himself repeatedly to be a very tolerant, very rational-sounding sort of bigot.”

But let’s take a step back for a minute and take everyone’s strong opinions about Warren out of the equation. Policy-wise, his prayer before the swearing-in is meaningless . He is not part of the Obama administration in any capacity, and in fact, Obama is stridently against Warren’s views on gays. Not to mention, Warren certainly will not being saying anything even coming close to the subject at the inauguration.

Selecting Warren was simply, in Vice President-elect Joe Biden’s words, “a showing of unity,” further inoculating Obama from any criticism from Republicans that he never bucks the party line. Liberals might be frustrated, but they aren’t going anywhere, and as a bonus, every conservative evangelical in the country will smile and nod when hearing all this, not realizing Obama never actually changed his position at all. As a pure political move, it makes perfect sense.

Much more critical, though, is the fact that the criticism leveled at Obama is only vaguely directed at him. The real venom and sting has been reserved for Warren’s words and deeds over the last few years, from which the preacher has avoided taking any flack for at all. The beating Warren is taking in the national news this past week is much larger than it would have been had he been left out of the January 20^th lineup, regardless of his infamy in California. For the past week, the press has been digging up all the ridiculous things he’s said over the years, such as comparing gays and lesbians to pedophiles. As a consequence, he is now forced to go on TV and give interviews and press conferences emphasizing how he “loves gay people,” and “has many gay friends,” effectively killing the message of the most famous anti- gay marriage messenger in the country.

Essentially, Obama’s imaginary insult to the Left caused Rick Warren to completely change his tone about the issue, thereby advancing the Left’s cause, while making sure to pick up some Conservative votes along the way and never actually changing his position on anything.

And to think — he’s not even president yet.

Warren backed the recent California ban on gay marriage, doesn’t believe in evolution and once publicly told a Jewish woman she would go to hell because she isn’t Christian.

“Choosing a man like Rick Warren to deliver the invocation isn’t just a slap in the face to gay supporters, but a slap in the face to several of Obama’s supporters,” said a gay Obama supporter who requested to remain anonymous. “The choice only satisfies the right-wing. It’s like Obama is saying ’sorry for beating McCain guys, here’s your consolation prize.”

Gays have been the most public of the outraged American population; several organizations have organized protests and sent letters urging Obama to reconsider his decision.

“Your invitation to Reverend Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at your inauguration is a genuine blow to LGBT Americans,” reads a letter to the President-elect from the Human Rights Campaign. “You have tarnished the view that gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender Americans have a place at your table.”

Obama’s decision to invite Warren, a man who is already such a powerful pastor and has been deemed by many as America’s “unofficial pastor,” may come at the expense of several important groups in the U.S., including many politically knowledgeable religious minorities and gays.

Knowing that many liberals see the choice as utterly insulting, Warren defended himself in a recent speech at his Saddleback Church in Southern California.

“You don’t have to see eye to eye to walk hand in hand,” Warren told the crowd, according to Fox News.

In defense over allegations that he is homophobic, he cited his relationship with gay rights activist Melissa Etheridge, saying he is a fan of her music and that the two enjoyed a great conversation one evening.

However, in an interview with BeliefNet, a spiritual site owned by Fox, he likened redefining marriage to include gays to incest, child abuse and polygamy. In the same interview he told BeliefNet that he has “many gay friends. I’ve eaten dinner in gay homes.”

“Every step Warren takes forward, he falls back twice,” said Jason Howell, a conservative who voted for McCain. “He says something to better his public image, then starts talking about gay homes.  He does work in Africa fighting HIV/AIDS, but teaches abstinence and prayer instead of sex education to a society where rape is a common cause of the disease. He always says things to satisfy those he’s speaking to, and we can expect the same pabulum in his invocation speech.”

Whether Warren spews pabulum or not, he will deliver the speech as millions around the world watch one of the most historic presidential campaigns come to an official end. Unfortunately, for many, the pastor’s preaching will mar this historic day.

However while countless Americans are insulted, some believe Obama’s willingness to have a man with whom he disagrees on many issues at his inauguration shows his commitment to unifying the country and sets an example all Americans should follow.

“You can look at it that way too. Just because he chose Warren doesn’t mean he supports Warren’s ideology,” said the anonymous Obama supporter. “He’s getting people from all ends of the political spectrum to join in his celebration.”

“He is reaching across the aisle. Warren and Obama disagree on a lot of things, but so do a lot of Americans,” said Howell. “But that doesn’t mean they all aren’t happy about change.”

As is the case with many political decisions that involve religion, this is wrought with controversy. However while analyzing this selection is of grave importance to several liberals, Howell believes January 20 should be about something else.

“The day is about Obama and his historical inauguration not about Warren’s political views. People shouldn’t let that overshadow an accomplishment by a man so deserving of all the success he has received in life.”

When Patricia Bays Haroski registered “National Boss’s Day” with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in 1958, she wasn’t playing a practical joke, or even sucking up. She was working as her father’s secretary in a State Farm Insurance office in Deerfield, Illinois. Haroski wanted to let her father know she appreciated his willingness to always go the extra mile and provide the attention and support his employees needed, even when a host of other priorities competed for his attention. Haroski chose her father’s birthday, October 16th, for the holiday because she believed a great boss should be celebrated with the same positive regard and enthusiasm typically reserved for his or her birthday.

Let’s hope the previous paragraph isn’t read by too many people at once, otherwise the collective roll of their eyes might tilt the earth off its axis. Most Americans just don’t have much to celebrate on National Boss’s Day. According to a recent study published in Human Resource Executive magazine, a third of US workers spend a minimum of twenty hours per month in the office complaining about their boss.

Things aren’t any better overseas. After reading a study that found employees have lower blood pressure on the days they worked for a supervisor they think is fair, researchers from the Finnish Institute of Occupational Health decided to take a closer look at this phenomenon. They followed British civil servants for a period of fifteen years to see if the type of boss one works for has any impact upon long-term, physical health. The team from Helsinki found that employees working for a bad boss were 30% more likely to develop coronary heart disease than those who did not. What’s more, the incidence of coronary heart disease–the #1 killer in Western societies–was measured after the researchers had removed the influence of typical risk factors, such as age, ethnicity, marital status, educational attainment, socio-economic position, cholesterol level, obesity, hypertension, smoking, alcohol consumption, and physical activity.

The Gallup Poll estimates US corporations lose 360 billion dollars annually due to lost productivity from employees who are dissatisfied with–you guessed it–their boss. And if there’s but one hard truth the Gallup Polls have taught US Corporations in the last decade, it’s that people may join companies, but they will leave bosses.

In the days of a strong dollar, bulging tech bubble and robust housing market, people working for a bad boss had options. Careers were mobile and talent was in short supply. It was a snap to pack up and leave. But nowadays, things are decidedly different. Jobs are scarce and workers are staying put, even those stuck under what I like to call “the seagull manager.”

Instead of taking the time to get the facts straight and work alongside their staff to realize a viable solution, seagull managers swoop in at the last minute, squawk at everybody, and deposit steaming piles of formulaic advice before abruptly taking off and leaving behind an even bigger mess than when they started. Seagulls interact with their employees only when there’s a fire to put out. Even then, they move in and out so hastily–and put so little thought into their approach–that they make bad situations worse by frustrating and alienating those who need them the most.

Today, seagull managers are breeding like wildfire. As companies flatten in response to the struggling economy, they are gutting management layers and leaving behind managers with more autonomy, greater responsibility, and more people to manage. That means they have less time and less accountability for managing people. It’s easy to spot a seagull manager when you’re on the receiving end of the airborne dumps, but the manager doing the swooping, squawking, and dumping is often unaware of the negative impact of his or her behavior.

If “seagull manager” doesn’t describe your boss, you are one of the lucky ones who actually have something to celebrate on National Boss’s Day. If you are unfortunate enough to be working for a seagull manager, perhaps a copy of this article should find its way onto his or her desk on National Boss’s Day.

Of course, if you think you might have succumbed to some seagull behaviors in the last year, it isn’t too late to turn things around. Give the following five strategies a try, and you just might get a gift next year on National Boss’s Day:

1.      Don’t Pass the Buck: When you set expectations for your staff, make sure you’re the one explaining what will be expected of them–don’t pass the buck to someone else.

2.      Check In Everyday: Make your communication with your team frequent and sincere. You can’t help people get results if you don’t know how they’re doing.

3.      Block Time to do Your Real Job: Schedule time in your calendar each day where you can be up and out of your desk, focusing solely on the needs of your team. Remember, as a manager, the primary purpose of your job is managing people.

4.      Leave Your Door Open: Seagull managers lose touch partially because they’re not approachable.

5.      Show Them the Way: When it comes to managing performance, balance praise with constructive criticism. Your team needs you to show them when they’re doing things right, as well as when they’re off track.

About the author:

Dr. Travis Bradberry is the president of think tank and consultancy TalentSmart. His new book, “Squawk! How to Stop Making Noise and Start Getting Results,” addresses the problem of seagull managers in the workplace and is published by HarperCollins.

According to a recent study published in Human Resource Executive magazine, a third of US workers spend a minimum of twenty hours per month at work complaining about their boss. The Gallup Poll estimates US corporations lose 360 billion dollars annually due to lost productivity from employees who are dissatisfied with — you guessed it — their boss. And if there’s but one hard truth the Gallup Polls have taught US Corporations in the last decade, it’s that people may join companies, but they will leave bosses.

In the days of a strong dollar, bulging tech bubble and robust housing market, people working for a bad boss had options. Careers were mobile and talent was in short supply. It was a snap to pack up and leave. But nowadays, things are decidedly different. Jobs are scarce and the prudent worker stays put, even if he or she is working under the worst type of boss imaginable–the seagull manager.

The roots of seagull management can be traced back to the days when “micromanager” was the worst non-expletive you could utter behind your boss’ back. Managers fear of this label grew so intense that they learned to keep their distance from employees, assuming a “good” boss is one who spends as little time as possible breathing down people’s necks. And most do. They give people room to breath until the moment a problem flares up. Then — instead of getting the facts straight and working alongside their staff to realize a viable solution — seagull managers come swooping in at the last minute, they squawk orders at everybody, and deposit steaming  piles of formulaic advice before abruptly taking off.

Seagull managers interact with their employees only when there’s a fire to put out. Even then, they move in and out so hastily — and put so little thought into their approach–that they make bad situations worse by frustrating and alienating those who need them the most. Today, seagull managers are breeding like wildfire. As companies flatten in response to the struggling economy, they are gutting management layers and leaving behind managers with more autonomy, greater responsibility, and more people to manage. That means they have less time and less accountability for focusing on the primary purpose of their job–managing people.

As it turns out, seagull managers aren’t just a US phenomenon. After reading a study that found employees have lower blood pressure on the days they worked for a supervisor they think is fair, researchers from the Finnish Institute of Occupational Health decided to take a closer look at this phenomenon. They followed British civil servants for a period of fifteen years to see if the type of boss one works for has any impact upon long-term, physical health.

The researcher’s findings cast a grave shadow upon anyone working for a seagull manager. The team from Helsinki found that seagull-type managerial behaviors lead to a much higher incidence of employee coronary heart disease. Employees working for a seagull manager were 30% more likely to develop coronary heart disease than those who were not. What’s more, the incidence of coronary heart disease — the #1 killer in Western societies — was measured after the researchers had removed the influence of typical risk factors, such as age, ethnicity, marital status, educational attainment, socio-economic position, cholesterol level, obesity, hypertension, smoking, alcohol consumption, and physical activity.

No one influences an employee’s morale and productivity more than his or her supervisor. It’s that simple. Yet, as common as this knowledge may seem, it clearly hasn’t been enough to change the way that managers and organizations treat people. Few companies recognize the degree to which managers are the vessels of a company’s culture, and even fewer work diligently to ensure that their vessels hold the knowledge and skills that motivate employees to perform, feel satisfied, and love their jobs. The very individuals with the authority to alter the course of company culture lack the facts that would impel them to do so.

With the stoic pragmatism that one might expect from a Finnish University professor, Dr. Mika Kivimäki, the director of the study, had this to say about the study’s findings, “Most people care deeply about just treatment by authorities.”

Indeed we do, Dr. Kivimäki. Indeed we do.

Dr. Travis Bradberry is the president of think tank and consultancy TalentSmart. His new book, “Squawk! How to Stop Making Noise and Start Getting Results,” addresses the problem of seagull managers in the workplace and is published by HarperCollins.

Both presidential candidates have been in the limelight long enough to talk of their life experiences and ideas for how to better the nation. However, they have been so involved in obtaining the nomination that until now will they be able to further explain how exactly they plan to fix the economy, offer health care to the more than 47 million uninsured Americans, restore the ailing educational system and figure a way to deal with the 20 million plus illegal immigrants and their American families who are in the country-amongst many other important issues.

While trying to build their case and be viewed as political saviors, both candidates must also prove that their vice presidential picks were good choices… and survive the gossip media frenzy that has been unleashed. Biden has had several years of political experience, becoming a senator in 1973 at the Constitutional minimum age of 30. He was the fifth-youngest senator in U.S. history and is the current chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee aside from serving as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He can give Obama the credibility amongst voters who are doubtful he is able to run a country after only eight years as senator.

Still, Biden is not easily recognizable by the youth of America and because of his age he can be seen as just another high up politician from the bunch. On the other side we have Palin, the young charismatic female governor of Alaska. If the Democrats were making history by having a black man and a woman running for the presidential candidacy, the Republicans are offering retribution by giving the people the first ever-female vice president hopeful.

The difference between the two parties, though, is that in the Democratic side both candidates launched themselves into the race. The Republicans front chose their woman practically out of the blue and shocked even its own members by doing so. The same doubtful voters can see Palin as an inexperienced, beauty-pageant contestant who needs to fill a void to attract those who were planning to vote for Hillary. Palin served in the city council of Wasilla, AK, in the 90’s until she became its mayor in 1999. The young politician, who has a bachelor’s degree in journalism, won the position of governor in 2006 and serves approximately 670,000 Alaskans.

After all these political character identifications my fear remains. Is this going to be a historic campaign because America will elect either its first black president or first female vice president? Or, will it be historical because America will elect the candidate who can solve the thousands of problems that are bringing the country down the drain?

True, race, gender and experience can be considered when making a decision. But what I want to suggest is blind, educated, decision making. Blind and educated in the sense that whenever listening to debates or political commentary we, as responsible voters, listen to the facts and the options offered.

So far, neither candidate has had a face-to-face debate. Democrat team has laid a blueprint for how they plan to refurbish the educational system by providing the necessary tools inner city and poor neighborhood schools are missing. They have also expressed their interest in a type of universal health care system and offered a plan for how to better the economy by investing in fields like energy independence. In the spirit of bipartisanism it must be said that the Republican presidential nominee and his VP gal have spoken of these issues and others like immigration. The pair would implement a clear two-step immigration process that offers various levels of working permits.

It is still safe to say we do not know each candidate completely. Whoever wins the presidential seat will have to grow into the position just as the country will grow to know them. Yet one thing remains clear. In this race it is extremely important to stray away from what the two parties are constantly shoving at us, this race is important because of one black and one female candidate.

The yellow journalists will continue, “uncovering” facts behind the specified candidate’s life and personalities. And although this is important-yes a black candidate and a female candidate are a first-EVER, please don’t be blinded.

The facts, the plans, the solutions being discussed are most meaningful part. These will make or break our America. These will ensure we do not have another four or eight years involved in warfare under economic and societal emergencies. These will prove that as Americans we can look past gender and color, like many claim to do, and truly elect a candidate for what they stand for.

For the past few weeks, I’ve been writing — actually writing with my hands, not a keyboard — more than usual. That’s because I’ve been testing out various executive and designer pens for a “Globe Tests” column.

I tested out four writing instruments, including a MontBlanc and a Cross, which you can read about tomorrow when the column runs, but for now, here are a few that didn’t make the cut:

Pierre Cardin Black Pen
$9.99

Pros: It writes. It comes with a free mechanical pencil and a nifty box to keep them in. They’re shiny and black.

Cons: This is a cheap pen. We had a good laugh at the stack of these on the store shelf, just knowing they’d be thrown into stockings and gift bags this year.

Overall: Pierre Cardin does make some decent pens. We say spend the extra money on something worth holding onto.

Classic Century Lustrous Chrome
$30 – $50

Pros: The recognized, slender shape of the Cross pen means something in the handwriting world. This is the equivalent of an E-class Mercedes, and it’s a way for you to own one without breaking the bank. (Read the Globe to see an example of one that does break the bank)

Cons: The large black tip gives it away as the “cheap” cross. You can get the pure silver model for about double the price

Overall: It’s a good pen. Maybe not great, but good.

Fisher Space Pen X-750
$30

Pros: It writes upside-down! Think of all the Seinfeld references! (Read the Globe to see another Space Pen example)

Cons: The ink is a little blotty.

Overall: The X-750 is a great gift, a perfect conversation piece and the ultimate writing-related novelty.

Cross Townsend Emerald Ballpoint Pen
$110

Pros: It’s a sturdy, solid pen that writes very well. Handsome design makes it a great gift.

Cons: Price may be a bit high, especially if you go for some of the precious metal-plated models.

Overall: The Townsend is Cross’ larger-sized mainstay. It comes in ballpoint, roller-ball and fountain.

Faber-Castell Pen of the Year 2008
$3,000

Pros: You may never find a more stunning looking pen. It’s shell is made of Indian satinwood woven into a parquet pattern that usually requires a flat surface.

Cons: It costs three thousand dollars.

Overall: I mean, seriously, if you can afford this pen, go for it.

INDIANAPOLIS – Leaders of the Society of Professional Journalists remain hopeful a federal shield law will pass when Congress reconvenes following the August recess, despite opposition to certain components of the bill.

SPJ leaders are bothered by opponents’ latest attempts to deter Senators’ support of this important piece of legislation. Members of the opposition include a group of former national security and law enforcement professionals who have tried to urge legislators to reject the shield law citing concerns about who would be covered by the law and specific risks to national security.

“We are advocating for the bill as it is currently written,” SPJ President Clint Brewer said. “It clearly addresses both of the oppositions’ concerns in its present state.”

In response to who constitutes a journalist under the federal shield law, the bill contains a clear definition that provides coverage for anyone who “regularly gathers, prepares, collects, photographs, records, writes, edits, reports or publishes information of public interest” for dissemination to the public.

The bill also invites no risks to national security, as opponents suggest. Specifically, Section 5 states that journalists must be ordered to reveal confidential sources and documents if, by a preponderance of evidence, a federal court finds that the protected information would assist in preventing a specific case of terrorism against the United States or significant harm to national security that would outweigh the public interest in newsgathering and maintaining a free flow of information to citizens.

“National security is not something SPJ or fellow federal shield law supporters are ignoring in the effort to protect journalists’ confidential information and sources,” Brewer said. “This bill addresses the opposition’s concerns about national security. However, it would require law enforcement officials and prosecutors to exhaust all other investigative avenues before turning to journalists.

“I suspect this is the part they are opposed to, because they would no longer be able to count on journalists to do the investigative work for them.”

The Society and its leaders encourage journalists across the country to contact their senators and voice their support for the bill. Contact information can be found at Senate.gov.

To see a list of those who voted late July against bringing the bill to the Senate floor for a vote, see the roll call

A federal shield law would give journalists the right to refuse to reveal information and sources obtained during the newsgathering process with a few notable exceptions, including where national security is at issue. The qualified privilege would be similar to those afforded to lawyers and their clients, clergy and their penitents and psychotherapists and their patients. To read more about SPJ’s research and past releases about the federal shield law, visit http://spj.org/shieldlaw-stall.asp.

Founded in 1909 as Sigma Delta Chi, the Society of Professional Journalists promotes the free flow of information vital to a well-informed citizenry; works to inspire and educate the next generation of journalists; and protects First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech and press. For further information about SPJ, please visit www.spj.org.

A Goldman Sachs analyst predicted the rise earlier this year and seems quite confident that he hasn’t made a mistake, much to the public’s dismay.  ”We believe the current energy crisis may be coming to a head, as the lack of adequate supply growth is becoming apparent,” said Arjun N. Murti, as reported by businessweek.com.

With a suffocating rise in gas prices looming, it’s now imminent that an alternative is found, a possibility that is consistently being hindered by global warming.

One alternative, converting coal to liquid fuel, emits twice the amount of carbon dioxides as compared to regular gasoline during conversion, according to thinkprogress.org. Carbon dioxide is a major contributor to global warming and allowing more of it to be released into our environment is hardly a solution to the problem.

Another issue arises in China and India. It is unavoidable that as these growing economies expand, their demand for fuel will rise as well. As these demands rise oil prices will rise higher, and cheaper, carbon-based fuel sources will be used to power cars in the two countries, further contributing to the environment’s deterioration.

Several projects aimed at reducing oil dependency are currently underway, the most prominent of which were recently ranked by Forbes Magazine.  These proposed technologies are not fuel-alternatives, rather adjustments and improvements to vehicles to make them more fuel-efficient.

Cylinder/Motor Deactivation is one proposed improvement which stops two or more cylinders during cruise mode, allowing the vehicle to burn less fuel.  Electronic start-stop systems are also ranked among the top ten, they shut down the engine when the vehicle is stopped and restart it when the brake is released. This technology is aimed at reducing idling at street lights and in traffic jams, both major consumers of excess fuel.

By-wire technologies are also featured in the list, they involve replacing heavy mechanical controls with electronics, thus reducing the weight of the car in order to increase it’s fuel efficiency.  On a similar note, Carbon Fiber Reinforced Plastic is a material that is currently used to construct some BMW models; it also reduces the car’s overall weight and heightens its efficiency.

Forbes also cites electric cars as part of a greener future, for good reason, the technology has come a long way since its introduction.  Many car companies, including Toyota and Tesla are developing highway-ready electric cars to equip customers with the same option of speed, luxury and power they would receive from a normal car.

Tesla seems to have found it with their new Tesla Roadster, which is equipped to travel approximately 225 miles on a single charge.  The only issue is its price; starting at $98,000.

All of these technologies seem promising and help to create a greener, more optimistic outlook for the future. The one question that remains however is when we will see these vehicular improvements implemented in cars around the world.

OSCAR’S PICKS

Best Picture:

“Atonement”

It’s the kind of sappy, over-the-top, made-for-the-Oscars film that you’d expect from the likes of Clint Eastwood. Plus, I can’t stand that stupid, hyper-emotional shot of Keira Knightley with her arms stretched out in the fog. Dear writers: Don’t bank your film on a pretty girl looking sad. Lame.

Leading Actor:

Daniel Day Lewis, “There Will Be Blood”

Exception. I think even the Academy has enough sense to recognize groundbreaking acting when they see it. The man’s brilliant, but somehow, he’s only got one Oscar under his belt. Now, it’s finally time for another.

Leading Actress

Julie Christie, “Away From Her”

A formerly attractive, married old woman (Julie Christie) comes down with Alzheimer’s, gets committed and somewhere between fraught old folk-emotions, falls in love with another man in the nursing home. Smells like Oscars. And maybe more old folks. Plus, the buzz in Hollywood circles has been traveling almost exclusively around her.

Best Directing

The Coen Bros, “No Country For Old Men”

Joel and Ethan Coen seem to have finally gotten the recognition they’ve deserved for more than 20 years. Their latest film has garnered four nominations this year, more than any of their previous contemporary cult classic films at one time. Once again, there’s been tremendous buzz about this one, and once again, it’s about time, anyway.

Best Cinematography

“No Country For Old Men”

Even ol’ Oscar can’t resist the sweeping shots of the barren, yet somehow beautiful rural Texas landscape the Coen Brothers captured. It’s nothing particularly stunning, but it seems cool enough – without being too sophisticated – for the Academy to stomach.

MY PICKS

Best Picture

“There Will Be Blood”

Simply put, it’s the most ambitious, frightening, deliciously creepy and visually satisfying film in recent memory. Other critics say it’s the “next Great American movie.” I say “good call.”

Leading Actor

Daniel Day Lewis, “There Will Be Blood”

The man is a genius. Somehow, Lewis is able to transcend his own humanity and fully enter into the role of a maniacal oilman. His stare is deathly eerie, and his delivery is superb. I first witnessed his performance about three weeks ago, and haven’t been able to sleep since then.

Leading Actress:

Laura Linney, “The Savages”

Laura Linney is one of those rarely acknowledged indie gems that sparkles with every performance. Her character is likable and accessible, and she’s the only one who could’ve pulled it off. Plus, she hasn’t won an Oscar yet – seriously – and I know that the Academy is into concessions (a la Scorsese), so why not?
Best Directing

Paul Thomas Anderson, “There Will Be Blood”

PTA is one of the up-and-coming young-ish directors who’s on his way to making movie history. So let’s start here – with his epic masterpiece – in which he flawlessly directs the larger-than-life D. D. Lewis, and photographs the lonely, haunting California landscape with enough macabre to make even Edgar Allen Poe lose his lunch.

Best Cinematography

“The Diving Bell and the Butterfly”

This picture is one of the most magnificently shot films I’ve ever seen. The soft colors and interesting focus-play just makes me feel good. And imagine that in a film that’s about a guy who loses nearly all control over his body, forcing him to live with “locked-in syndrome” for years before he dies. Dreamlike, subtle, yet atmospheric, it captures the delicate beauty of the here-today-gone-tomorrow essence of life.

A tiny Yellow Labrador Retriever puppy had its leg pressed against its cramped metal cage. It was cut and bleeding badly. She asked to see the puppy immediately, and as it clung to her she knew this wasn’t the first time this animal had felt pain.

Many people are simply unaware that many pet store animals come from “puppy mills,” high-volume, sub-standard dog breeding operations.

Unfortunately this is a story that is repeated time after time at pet stores across the United States. According to the Humane Society of the United States, an estimated 6-8 million pets enter shelters each year. With so many animals in need one wonders why there is a need for Pet Stores at all.

Howard went about contacting several animal rights groups in the Atlanta area to address the pet store issue with little success. Steadfast and tenacious, she heard of a young gentleman who had taken a job at one of the Docktor Pet Centers merely to help the animals. She met him, rented a video camera and documented many sick and dying puppies.

Footage in hand, Howard partnered with animal abuse investigator Robert Baker. Their efforts led to a series of exposes on ABC’s 20/20 as well as People and Life Magazine in which the Docktor Pet Stores were named directly. They also showed the horrors of puppy mills.

Docktor Pet Centers filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in February 1993. The company had more than 300 franchises at the time. Howard and Baker went on to start the Companion Animal Protection Society in Cohasset, Mass. It is the only national nonprofit dedicated exclusively to protecting companion animals.

Since that time Howard has worked with Dateline NBC, CNN, Hard Copy, and Numerous Newspapers around the country, as well as an HBO documentary that will air the end of 2008.

The Companion Animal protection society will be holding their first ever “Claws and Paws Shop” online auction to raise funds and awareness for their critical mission from November 5-30. Items include trips to Australia, Bermuda and signed memorabilia from the Boston Red Sox. There are also a ton of Pet items! Visit www.caps-web.org for more information.

Courtesy of Image Unlimited Communications. Blast Magazine edits commentaries for style only, and they do not necessarily represent the opinions of Blast Magazine, its editors or its publisher.

Recently, MoveOn.org came out with an ad labeling U.S. General David Petraeus as a conniving Bushie who isn’t serving America as a respected general. In a world that already views the New York Times as the flagship source of media bias, how did this love affair between a liberal anti-war group and an alleged liberal newspaper come to be, and where did it go wrong?

No one contests MoveOn.org’s constitutional right to free speech. However, reports show the New York Times had changed their own policy to allow this ad, a policy which specifically says: “we do not accept opinion advertisements that are attacks of a personal nature.” The Times is now being accused even more of being biased to the left by conservative tycoons such as Bill O’Reilly and Rush Limbaugh because of its subsidizing of the MoveOn.org ad. The Times is disputing this mistake by claiming that an advertising sales representative had made a mistake in granting the discount and that Move On should have been charged $142,083 as opposed to the $77,508 that Move On claims they paid for the ad. Because of this “mistake” the Times is denying any allegations of “bias.”

And then, as with any love affair in came a third party: Congress got involved. The House and the Senate have both voted on resolutions condemning MoveOn.org’s actions. In the House, it was voted on as an amendment attached to an appropriations bill, it passed with 347 votes, with 79 votes against. Seventy-nine votes? Where’d those come from? But of course, the liberals of the bunch – Barney Frank (D-MA), Rush Holt (D-NJ), Jerry Nadler (D-NY), Ed Markey (D-MA) and a slue of others from the typically liberal areas – the Northeast and the West Coast. Whose name doesn’t show up? Why Speaker Pelosi of course, however it is typical for the Speaker of the House to not vote. Majority Leader Hoyer did however come out against Move On. The Democratic House leadership seemed relatively divided on the issue, while the Republican party remained united in their opposition to Move On.

The Senate’s resolution passed with 72 votes in favor and 25 against. However, both Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) voted against the resolution. Guess those presidential campaigns are protecting their base where as Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) and Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) were both absent for the vote with Senator Obama positioning his absence as taking the high road and not commenting on an issue that is not worthy of Senate comment. Most of the presidential candidates on both sides of the aisle denounced the Move-on ads but Senator Clinton never came outright to denounce it but rather kept her denouncement of the ad ambiguous in an interview with Tim Russert on “Meet the Press” by saying “I don’t condone anything like that, and I have voted against those who would impugn the patriotism and the service of the people who wear the uniform of our country. I don’t believe that that should be said about General Petraeus, and I condemn that.” However, thanks this is another instance of having it both ways, condemning something on Meet the Press and taking the opposite approach when voting in the Senate.

What does this all amount to? A menial controversy created by a media giant and an already controversial anti-war group avoiding the important matters at hand such as creating an effective solution to the war in Iraq, approving another Attorney General and passing the 2008 fiscal budget. So it goes, another nonbinding resolution passed by Congress, another week in Washington with the people’s business left undone.