The Realm of Sean

If there’s one thing you avoid doing at all costs in politics, it’s pissing off veterans. The same thing goes the anyone or group, as in the battle for public opinion, veterans tend to reign victorious.

This is why the Occupy Nova Scotia demonstrators are only putting the ‘pedal-to-the-metal’ while driving straight for the edge of a cliff by choosing to remain in place despite the upcoming Remembrance Day ceremony at Grand Parade, something which is being framed as creating difficulties for those planning the ceremony. 

The ‘Occupy’ movement has already faced a rather negative spotlight from the media which has had difficulties framing the movement, and in many cases has taken on the narrative of those opposing it. As George Lakoff says, you must frame yourself or risk being framed by others. 

The movement is not necessarily aimed at a single grievance, which makes it different from many protests that we see on a regular basis (anti-War, against tuition increases, ect.) but instead is a general statement of, “We the people are not happy with the way things are going”. As the media has often taken the job of consistently framing movements through a consolidated list of demands, they seem confused as how to portray these protestors.

The lack of clarity makes it difficult to gain sympathizers to the cause. While a professor of mine said that the movement needs a leader in order to effectively communicate it’s message, I initially disagreed mainly because I felt having a single leader could risk de-legitimizing the entire movement by slandering that leader (see Assange and Wikileaks). Unfortunately, it seems that they face being further de-legitimized without someone speaking on their behalf.

What prompts this post is a discussion I heard earlier today on the bus between two women a couple of seats behind me. As we drove by Grand Parade, one said something along the lines of having to clear out “those protestors before Remembrance Day” followed a few seconds later by “how about get off your ass and get a job”. They then proceeded to talk about the awful bus service in the city, which I found amusing as one of the reasons for poor public transit services can be attributed to income inequality, which is one of the things those in Grand Parade are protesting against.

Last week, Mayor Kelly “requested” that the protestors leave by a set date in order for the city to prepare for upcoming activities such as the Remembrance Day ceremony. I commend Peter Kelly’s patience and realize this is a political move to frame himself as the reasonable leader, while the protestors are irrational hippies who oppose the honouring of Canadian veterans. 

Apparently the protestors voted to continue to occupy the Grand Parade in response to the Mayor’s request for them to leave. I understand that they do not want to set a precedent of leaving the area every time an event is hosted, as this could be seen as them being weak. They must realize though that they will only face negative attacks if they remain in the Parade with their tents during an already tightly packed Remembrance Day ceremony. 

The protestors should issue a release stating that they will temporarily leave the area out of respect for Canadian veterans and the Remembrance Day ceremony in order to allow for the greatest number of persons to be facilitated. They should state that they plan to return to the Parade following the ceremony and remain here until government recognizes and responds to their protests. It would also be preferable for them to elect a spokesperson for the movement in order to best take questions and respond to those wishing to talk ‘with’ the movement.

When it comes to public opinion - the veterans will always win. 

When I opened my Facebook page after hours of working on a paper, I saw a post from Digg, “We will miss you, RIP!” followed by Steve’s name. 

Initially, I felt like it was one of 4Chan’s usual “Goodnight Sweet Prince” jokes. Quickly typing “Steve Jobs” into Google taught me otherwise.

While I had figured his cancer was back when he resigned from his post as CEO in August, just like with Jack, I failed to recognize the possible gravity of situation.

I think what first drew me to Steve Jobs years ago was his ability to think, quite literally, outside the box. Being a bit of a futurist, I admired his ability to look to the future and push the boundaries in thinking of what technology can do. 

This was the guy who took the MP3 player, which was largely a niche and relatively new device, and perfected it through a unique design and clean interface. If you take the bus, get on an airplane, or go to the gym, chances are you’ll see over 50% of those people with earphones in their ear and an ‘iDevice’ attached to the other end.

This is a guy who had the tenacity to think, “One day, everyone will have a computer in their household”. This was at a time when computers were reserved for universities and big business, often because they were too large and cumbersome to fit into one’s home. Taking on the big players in the industry, Apple was able to force them to compete through innovation in order to survive.

Most recently, we have seen this after the creation of the iPhone. Beforehand, there really wasn’t a phone that “just worked”. Cellphones were clunky, tedious devices that often were more trouble than they were worth. The Motorola RAZR was considered one of the most unique on the market, simply because it was thin. Since the introduction of the iPhone, you’ve seen a boom in competition in the smart-phone market, many of which have begun to offer features that even exceed the current hardware of the current iPhone devices.

Similarly, you’ve seen this happen in the tablet market after the introduction of the iPad. Say what you will about the device, but it’s remarkably similar to something you would have seen in Star Trek back in the 1960’s, a show based hundreds of years from now. All of this is an example of how the man with the vision was able to push the envelope of technological innovation forward, not just through his own products, but by forcing those in the industry to innovate as well.

I remember back in high school in my Entrepreneurship class, we were asked to make a poster or visual medium about an entrepreneur. I chose Steve - But instead of doing a poster, I decided to take it a step up and make a 13 minute video (which you can find below). I suppose this was a means of making a visual record of all of the information I already knew about him.

Saying that one misses Steve because, “Oh no, now he won’t be able to make more things for me to buy” sounds disgustingly consumerist. When “famous” individuals die, we often see social media websites go into a sort of ‘circle-jerk’-mode where everyone is trying to be the first to tell someone else. Less caring about the actual passing of the individual, but more excited that something significant happened in the world that they’re able to talk about for the next two days.

What I’m sad over is that there is one less person out there willing to push the envelope of what is possible; one less person out there willing to “Think Different”. I’m an optimist when it comes to the future of mankind, I believe that people who are able to think outside the box will be the ones who help further push this race forward.

Without a doubt, the vision that Steve had when it came to technology was remarkable, making him one of the most notable individuals from the ‘Computer-age’ of the 20th century. 

It’s sad to think that we’ll no longer hear “One more thing…” and proceed to see the the boundaries of technological innovation be further extended.

Farewell Mr. Jobs.

_______

Steve Jobs: A Biography of an iCon

As I sat at work looking for any energy-sector related news that I could include in the association’s daily bulletin, news of a bombing in Norway began to trickle its way through my RSS feeds. Soon after, reports began to surface of a gunman at a Norwegian political party’s youth camp. It goes without saying that these attacks are outrageous and a tragedy. 

Quite quickly, the boming and massacre was labelled as a “terrorist attack”. This is a fair and fitting definition of this event. The bomb that blew in Oslo hit a building housing offices affiliated with the Prime Minister. A terrorist attacked is regularly defined as an attack against civilians launched by political motives.

What was interesting to me is that some apparently link the term “terrorist attack” exclusively with Islamic Extremists. Those who do are likely unfamiliar with the terrorists of Northern Ireland, or the right-wing extremists who carried out the Oklahoma City bombings. In both cases, as well as thousands more, the perputrators of these attacks were not practioners of Islam. 

Those who inherintly link terrorism and Islam are not necessarily at fault for their erroneous beliefs. The events of 9/11 became the most prominent example of a terrorist attack for those in the Western world, and the media began to use the term almost exclusively with attacks launched by Islamic extremist organizations such as Al-Qaeda. In the aftermath of 9/11, terrorism was increasingly framed as a product of the Islamic religion; the ignorance is astounding.

What is terribly worrisome is that when those in the public and media immediately hear of an attack and assume that is must have been carried out by a member of the Al-Qaeda network. This is precisely what happened in the U.K. when the Sun ran a front-page story shortly after the Norwegian attacks declaring it an “Al-Qaeda Massacre - Norway’s 9/11”. This sort of sensationlist, knee-jerk reaction by the media to sell papers is quite concerning (although, The Sun is a Murdoch paper, so this does not come as a surprise).

When I heard of these attacks, I did not immediately think that Al-Qaeda was behind them. My initial predicition was that it was an pschyotic individual disgruntled by government, which appears to have been the case. 

Two things that should be highlighted to the general public are, first, that terrorist attacks can be committed by any individual, not just those blindly devoted to religious ideals. Second, that some media outlets, when lacking any solid information, will make wild assumptions regardless that further higlight their sensationalist ways.