What an insane last few days in provincial politics. When I wrote my last blog, I knew the results of the by-election would have a massive impact on the parties. But to see the Wildrose completely self-destruct? Absolutely insane. The floor-crossings have been analyzed over and over again so I won't bore you with my thoughts on it (although I do want to blog at some point about some of my "other" observations at a later date).
No, this time I wanted to have some fun with what's happened in terms of alternate endings. The hindsight game is always a fun one. So here's a trio of headlines that would have changed the space-time continuum:
#1. Jim Dinning replaces Ralph Klein as PC leader
After Dinning edged out Ted Morton in the #1 vs #2 showdown at the PC leadership convention in 2006, he took the party to a massive election win in 2008. His first cabinet was a who's who of the "old guard", including Morton as finance minister, who refused to run deficits despite tough economic times. And despite calls for more money for health-care and threats from health minister Ron Liepert to dissolve the health boards into one "super-board", Dinning kept the structure status quo, stating they needed to buckle up for now and funding would be increased once the downturn was over. Dinning also promised that he would bring in some new blood through his first term to help introduce some of them to Albertans ahead of another election in 2012. And that's exactly what he did. Morton was replaced by up-and-comer Rob Anderson while Liepert was replaced by Raj Sherman, an ER doctor who won over the support of many within health care. As we head into 2015, Dinning has hinted he may not run in the next election, planned for a year from now. A few names have already started popping up as potential replacements, including Alison Redford, who has won over plenty of support for her work in the justice ministers' chair, Doug Griffiths, who has handled a couple of portfolios with ease already, and Danielle Smith, who won her first seat in 2012 and appears ready for a move into cabinet, perhaps to Agriculture and Rural Development.
#2. Gary Mar replaces Ed Stelmach as PC leader (assuming #1 didn't happen)
The leadership race was tight in Round #1 but with only the top two candidates going head-to-head in Round #2, Mar beat out Alison Redford to become the new leader of the PC Party in 2011. Mar goes into the following general election touting his track record with Ralph Klein through the '90's and that seemed to resonate with Albertans. The PC's kept most of the 72 seats they won under Stelmach, giving up a handful of rural ridings to the upstart Wildrose. But they lost a couple of big guns, being Rob Anderson and Heather Forsyth. Both had crossed the floor to the Wildrose in 2010 and after Mar won the leadership race, both hinted as possibly wanting back with the PCs, which didn't sit well with voters. Wildrose leader Danielle Smith, a former PC supporter, has also struggled, as she's tried to be viewed as moderate despite pressures from the party to be more Conservative. Rumours have been circulating she's ready to step down and head to the private sector, to give the party more time to get a new leader before a 2016 election.
#3. Lake of Fire doesn't happen
The pollsters got it at least partially right in 2012. They had predicted through the campaign that the Wildrose had a substantial lead, but the PC's, led by Alison Redford, were able to make up some ground in the final week of the campaign. In the end, the Wildrose, led by Danielle Smith, formed the new government, although for the first time in Alberta, it was a minority government. Smith had 38 seats, Redford had 36, the Liberals held on to five and the NDP had four. The first Wildrose budget is a challenging one, and Smith is forced to nearly work hand-in-hand with Redford's PCs on it, as the Liberals and NDP have no interest in backing her to get enough votes to pass it, potentially leading to another election. The first test makes its way through and 2013 ends on a relatively low-key note. But the 2014 budget is a different story. The PCs feel they have made some headway, pointing out some rookie mistakes by the new governing Wildrose, including the inability to deliver on campaign promises, and Redford has a few more people in her back corner. In a desperation move, Smith looks to Raj Sherman and Brian Mason for some backing, but doesn't get it, and the budget doesn't pass, forcing Smith to call another election in May. The PCs win, but the balance of power doesn't change much, as it is still a minority government, the two main parties almost flip-flopping numbers. Both seemingly learned from the Wildrose over-promises and didn't do much of that, leading to a "steady as she goes" budget finally being approved. The challenge for the Redford government heading into 2015 is going to be balancing the books with the price of oil where it is. And there hasn't been much in the way of scandal or intrigue in the legislature, as neither party wants to do anything damaging to themselves. As the year comes to a close, the biggest speculation is coming from the Liberals and NDP, where the talk is of a "progressive coalition" led by new NDP leader Rachel Notley, one they think they can capitalize on by saying they will help the province get out of this stalemate between two "do nothing" parties. And believe it or not, rumours are also running rampant that a few of the more "progressive" PCs are thinking of joining Notley, and depending on how many go, could actually leave the PCs with fewer MLAs than the Wildrose. Stay tuned...
Saturday, December 20, 2014
Thursday, September 25, 2014
By-Election Bonanza
It's hard not to be intrigued by what will happen once Albertans head to the polls for upcoming by-elections. Sure, political junkies might be over-blowing the significance of the votes (myself included). But Albertans should be keeping a close eye on all of the races.
Let's face it: the results won't only put new MLAs in seats, but will likely set the stage for an upcoming general election and campaign. And interestingly enough, I think all five parties involved in provincial politics right now seem to have something to lose.
PC Party
Can you imagine if the three by-elections end without a PC party in any of the seats? Or even less than three? You have Premier Jim Prentice, Education Minister Gordon Dirks and Health Minister Stephen Mandel all vying for seats. And if any (or all of them) lose, that would set off quite the firestorm. Do you force another MLA out the door to get another by-election? Do you say goodbye to the appointed ministers and name someone from within caucus to move into those spots? And what if Prentice doesn't win his seat? The perception that he can turn this party around would take a significant hit. But if they sweep the three seats, it would pretty much an end to the opposition belief that Albertans are "fed up".
Wildrose
I've been chatting with a few different people about this and if one party was supposed to take a stranglehold over the political scene thanks to the controversies surrounding the Redford government, it was the Wildrose. Yet, they're not running away with things in all the opinion polls (take that for what it's worth, as we all know how reliable they've been recently). They are in the lead, but some argue it's not as big of a lead as it should be, and it wouldn't take a lot for the Prentice PC's to gain back support. So what happens if the Wildrose get swept or lose the majority of the seats up for by-election? Is that a sign that the Wildrose failed to capitalize on the PC discourse? If it is, who's to blame? Does Danielle Smith take the fall?
Liberals
I know it was a long time ago, but in the 2007 by-election in Calgary Elbow (yes, THAT Calgary Elbow), the Liberals' Craig Cheffens beat the Conservatives' Brian Heninger to replace Ralph Klein. Kind of came out of left field but set the stage for a general election nine months later where some people thought the Liberals would make up some significant ground. They obviously didn't. But it does prove that an opposition party can win in the riding. The Liberals do have something to gain here. A win in any of these races would be massive (and unexpected) for a party that is really struggling to find any footing and could potentially face the loss of a pair of Calgary MLAs to the feds.
NDP
If you look at the history of Calgary-Elbow and Edmonton-Whitemud, neither have been strong spots for the NDP. Almost always in the single-digits when it comes to percentage of popular vote. But they will likely head into these by-elections with a new leader (leadership vote set for October 18th). All four current NDP MLAs are from Edmonton. So depending on who wins that leadership race, it could set a really interesting tone if they pick up the Whitemud seat. It would certainly send ripples up both the PC and Wildrose parties in particular and give the "left" momentum. Although the one thing to keep in mind is the NDP and Wildrose could "vote-split" thanks to popularity and allow the PCs to run up the middle.
Alberta Party
This party is pulling out all of the stops and is being very aggressive in hopes of grabbing Calgary-Elbow. All you need to do is look at the list of people involved in leader Greg Clark's campaign team. Many names will be familiar to Calgary political eyes, having been involved in Mayor Naheed Nenshi's 2010 campaign. You get the sense they just want to get on the political map "officially". They have had a sitting MLA (Dave Taylor), but he wasn't voted in as an Alberta Party MLA. They would probably like to see something like Paul Hinman in Calgary-Glenmore, where he won a by-election in 2009, setting a tone and gaining a lot of momentum. Could this happen for the Alberta Party here, or is it back to square one?
One big question mark that will remain heading into the votes has nothing to do with the parties. What will the voter turnout be? In Calgary-Glenmore in 2009, it was 39.1%. In Calgary-Elbow in 2007, it was 34.6%. Interestingly enough, the last by-election held in the capital was in Edmonton-Highlands in 2000. The winner of that vote? Outgoing NDP leader Brian Mason. The turnout? 41.9%.
Like I said, it will be interesting to see how each party mobilizes its forces and who ends up the big winners. Because the fallout could be detrimental to one or more of the parties.
Let's face it: the results won't only put new MLAs in seats, but will likely set the stage for an upcoming general election and campaign. And interestingly enough, I think all five parties involved in provincial politics right now seem to have something to lose.
PC Party
Can you imagine if the three by-elections end without a PC party in any of the seats? Or even less than three? You have Premier Jim Prentice, Education Minister Gordon Dirks and Health Minister Stephen Mandel all vying for seats. And if any (or all of them) lose, that would set off quite the firestorm. Do you force another MLA out the door to get another by-election? Do you say goodbye to the appointed ministers and name someone from within caucus to move into those spots? And what if Prentice doesn't win his seat? The perception that he can turn this party around would take a significant hit. But if they sweep the three seats, it would pretty much an end to the opposition belief that Albertans are "fed up".
Wildrose
I've been chatting with a few different people about this and if one party was supposed to take a stranglehold over the political scene thanks to the controversies surrounding the Redford government, it was the Wildrose. Yet, they're not running away with things in all the opinion polls (take that for what it's worth, as we all know how reliable they've been recently). They are in the lead, but some argue it's not as big of a lead as it should be, and it wouldn't take a lot for the Prentice PC's to gain back support. So what happens if the Wildrose get swept or lose the majority of the seats up for by-election? Is that a sign that the Wildrose failed to capitalize on the PC discourse? If it is, who's to blame? Does Danielle Smith take the fall?
Liberals
I know it was a long time ago, but in the 2007 by-election in Calgary Elbow (yes, THAT Calgary Elbow), the Liberals' Craig Cheffens beat the Conservatives' Brian Heninger to replace Ralph Klein. Kind of came out of left field but set the stage for a general election nine months later where some people thought the Liberals would make up some significant ground. They obviously didn't. But it does prove that an opposition party can win in the riding. The Liberals do have something to gain here. A win in any of these races would be massive (and unexpected) for a party that is really struggling to find any footing and could potentially face the loss of a pair of Calgary MLAs to the feds.
NDP
If you look at the history of Calgary-Elbow and Edmonton-Whitemud, neither have been strong spots for the NDP. Almost always in the single-digits when it comes to percentage of popular vote. But they will likely head into these by-elections with a new leader (leadership vote set for October 18th). All four current NDP MLAs are from Edmonton. So depending on who wins that leadership race, it could set a really interesting tone if they pick up the Whitemud seat. It would certainly send ripples up both the PC and Wildrose parties in particular and give the "left" momentum. Although the one thing to keep in mind is the NDP and Wildrose could "vote-split" thanks to popularity and allow the PCs to run up the middle.
Alberta Party
This party is pulling out all of the stops and is being very aggressive in hopes of grabbing Calgary-Elbow. All you need to do is look at the list of people involved in leader Greg Clark's campaign team. Many names will be familiar to Calgary political eyes, having been involved in Mayor Naheed Nenshi's 2010 campaign. You get the sense they just want to get on the political map "officially". They have had a sitting MLA (Dave Taylor), but he wasn't voted in as an Alberta Party MLA. They would probably like to see something like Paul Hinman in Calgary-Glenmore, where he won a by-election in 2009, setting a tone and gaining a lot of momentum. Could this happen for the Alberta Party here, or is it back to square one?
One big question mark that will remain heading into the votes has nothing to do with the parties. What will the voter turnout be? In Calgary-Glenmore in 2009, it was 39.1%. In Calgary-Elbow in 2007, it was 34.6%. Interestingly enough, the last by-election held in the capital was in Edmonton-Highlands in 2000. The winner of that vote? Outgoing NDP leader Brian Mason. The turnout? 41.9%.
Like I said, it will be interesting to see how each party mobilizes its forces and who ends up the big winners. Because the fallout could be detrimental to one or more of the parties.
Tuesday, September 16, 2014
Time For Compromise
It's amazing to see just how divided 15 people can be on any topic. When they are 100% set in their ways and beliefs, trying to budge them off their pedestal is nearly impossible. Give them an electorate and an idea that they have "consensus", and watch out!
Some will say it's Calgary city council, which has 15 distinct voices and it would be wrong to have everyone singing from the same book of hymns. Others will say it's dysfunctional. The reality is: it's sometimes a bit of both. Call it "middle ground". And it's almost too bad that councillors can't seem to agree on that "middle ground" on some pretty important portfolios. I can point to three in particular.
To me, these three need to be dealt with properly with adult conversations. Proponents on both sides need to take a gander across the room and realize the world doesn't revolve around them. And someone at the council table needs to be the leader. Or at least the mediator. Because talking in circles isn't going to get us anywhere in "building this beautiful city". Those three topics, in no particular order:
#1. Urban vs. Suburban
It's not a sexy topic but people need to realize it's affecting everyone. I know many will look at the past battle between the mayor and the homebuilders. But it's not just there. Look at how the inner-city councillors have banded together, just as much as the suburban councillors have done the same. The trouble is that both sides are kind of right. Calgary needs to start growing UP, as in more high-rise apartment buildings and urban planning to allow people to live, work and play in one area. Because it seems counter-intuitive to have EVERYONE live in the 'burbs and work in the inner city. On the flipside, we need to give people options. Not every family should be pent up in a 15th storey 2-bedroom apartment and not every unmarried person should be forced to own a home at the edge of the city because that's all they can afford. We need options. And pitting each side against one another is doing us no good. Imagine having a solid mix of inner-city and suburb living. Might actually make housing affordable across the city, rather than continue to drive people further and further out. Then we might finally get ahead of the transit shortage and the lengthy commute times as well. Oh the utopia!
#2. Secondary Suites
This one has been in the news for the last couple of days. It's driving some councillors absolutely nuts, forcing them to wonder why we're spending so much time drawing up reports and task forces when it will go all for not when it's voted down anyways. And there's a point to be made there. How many times does this story have to be recycled? As someone who has lived in a secondary suite before, I didn't consider myself the scourge of the earth. I was a good tenant with a back lane parking spot and no desire to invite "unfavorable characters" because I was busy trying to make enough money to get myself through school and out of there to move into a nicer place. I couldn't afford rent in one of those fancy apartment buildings at the time. It was nice to have an option. I can understand some of the concerns by certain neighborhoods or groups of residents. But at the same time, it does beg the question: do you not trust your neighbors, who might set up one of these "unsightly suites"? It's a baffling discussion. And the longer the debate goes on, the deeper the heels are dug in. No one is arguing we have a severe lack of affordable housing in Calgary, even those making "middle income" in the city who seem to be looked down upon because they can't afford to buy a $500,000 house at the moment.
#3. Bike Lanes
This one is a fun one. In one corner, we have the pro-cyclists who believe that bike lanes will be revolutionary for the downtown core and no one will ever need to drive downtown again. In the other corner, we have the anti-cyclists who believe that bike lanes will forever alter the space-time continuum, never to be repaired again because they're too attached to their vehicles. I've talked about this one before and the fact that I actually can't wait for these lanes to be put in for a trial basis. Because we will FINALLY have some ACTUAL evidence to prove one of these arguments to be absolutely false. Again, I go back to the idea of having options. Why shouldn't we give people an option/the ability to cycle? Might take a few vehicles off the road, which would reduce the mass chaos known as "rush hour" in Calgary, which would also lead to less demand for parking, which could mean the price for parking downtown wouldn't cost you one night a week with your wife AND your first-born. It does need to be done in a smart fashion, but where's the negative here? On the flipside, I don't believe for a second that we should choke off vehicle access into the core. That's just plainly naive, especially with the ever-expanding urban sprawl we've been so attached to. Not every neighborhood has convenient transit (or other transportation) options. Some people depend on their vehicle for their job (cough*reporters*cough).
All members of council need to take a deep breath on these files and think for a couple of minutes about the pros and cons for everyone. Stop playing to the tune of your specific special interest group and think of the benefits for Calgary as a whole. We need to have a wide-ranging (and adult) conversation on all three of these topics (and others I'm sure). We're talking about housing affordability, urban sprawl, commuter strategies and the future of Calgary. At the end of the day, each council member needs to answer one very simple question: is the status quo good enough?
Sunday, September 7, 2014
Drink & Fight & Drink & Fight
It has been a rough couple of weeks in one of Calgary's "entertainment districts". At least in the public's eye. But the interesting thing is, it's nothing really new if you actually live around 17th Avenue SW..
A few days ago, media got a hold of a video of a man getting pummeled by a couple of bouncers outside a bar. The video (taken by a bystander) was reportedly taken out of context, as the "victim" had apparently sucker-punched one bouncer and had been kicked out of the bar. As he was kicked out, he allegedly threatened the bouncers and staff that he'd come back, possibly armed. He came back, sucker-punched a bouncer (not sure if it was the same one), and that's when the beatdown happened.
And now this morning, we're hearing word of another assault in the same vicinity as the first one. We haven't heard a lot of the details yet so I hesitate to make any connections except for one. And that is the reaction that has started to funnel in on this Sunday morning: "what is happening to our city?"
The fact of the matter is: talk to any bar staff member or police officer on 17th Ave and they will tell you the same thing. They will tell you that these kinds of attitudes and incidents are nothing new. And it's not just on 17th Avenue but pretty much anywhere when you combine booze and large groups of people. Someone's bound to not like someone else and all you need to do is add some liquid courage to add to the powder keg.
Let's review three of the more high-profile cases where this combination really struck a chord for me:
#1. Lukas Strasser-Hird - police said it all started with some sort of exchange in a bar. The two sides were parted, found each other, were parted again, then Strasser-Hird was beaten to death.
#2. Nicholas Baier - RCMP say the suspect in the case had intentionally driven into a crowd of people at the Texas Mickey Bar after supposedly getting kicked out of a bar.
#3. Matt McKay - this was one of the first major crime scenes I remember going to working in Calgary. McKay was hit in the head with a pickaxe while trying to intervene in a dispute over unwanted guests at a house party.
What bothers me is that there seems to be a lot of attention being paid on the wrong issues. Some have pointed the finger (at least lately) on 17th Avenue as a whole for having too many bars. Others say it has to do with closing time and how everyone's let out at the same time. The issue of "over-serving" at bars is always brought up in this conversation. But no one seems to want to issue the REAL blame. And that should be targeted at us: human beings.
Since when do we have the right to get so drunk that we're belligerent to the point of threatening or harming others? Why is it that women are abused (verbally and physically) when they reject some guy's advances? And then when we do get kicked out of an establishment for being an idiot, it's perfectly fine to threaten, harass and/or come back to get revenge? The sad part is: for each of the examples I have outlined above, there are hundreds of others like it. Maybe not with as dire consequences, but go to a bar in Calgary and stay until the end. You'll likely see someone get kicked out at some point for unacceptable behaviour.
I don't want to be party pooper. But why should complete strangers have to babysit you because you can't handle your alcohol or because you don't like someone or because you got rejected by the pretty girl? Why should complete strangers have to feel the wrath of your anger for getting kicked out of a bar or a party? Why do you feel entitled enough to come back to wage war on those who have "done you wrong"? Own up to your actions. And if you see a friend being obnoxious or worse, tune them in.
I know everyone wants a silver bullet to "make Calgary safe again". We want that always-loved "silver bullet" that can fix the problem. Unfortunately, that silver bullet isn't changing closing times, "cutting people off" from booze after a certain point, or limiting the number of bars on a strip. It's going to depend on the sense of entitlement people seem to have after a couple of wobbily pops. And sadly, that doesn't look like it's going to change any time soon.
A few days ago, media got a hold of a video of a man getting pummeled by a couple of bouncers outside a bar. The video (taken by a bystander) was reportedly taken out of context, as the "victim" had apparently sucker-punched one bouncer and had been kicked out of the bar. As he was kicked out, he allegedly threatened the bouncers and staff that he'd come back, possibly armed. He came back, sucker-punched a bouncer (not sure if it was the same one), and that's when the beatdown happened.
And now this morning, we're hearing word of another assault in the same vicinity as the first one. We haven't heard a lot of the details yet so I hesitate to make any connections except for one. And that is the reaction that has started to funnel in on this Sunday morning: "what is happening to our city?"
The fact of the matter is: talk to any bar staff member or police officer on 17th Ave and they will tell you the same thing. They will tell you that these kinds of attitudes and incidents are nothing new. And it's not just on 17th Avenue but pretty much anywhere when you combine booze and large groups of people. Someone's bound to not like someone else and all you need to do is add some liquid courage to add to the powder keg.
Let's review three of the more high-profile cases where this combination really struck a chord for me:
#1. Lukas Strasser-Hird - police said it all started with some sort of exchange in a bar. The two sides were parted, found each other, were parted again, then Strasser-Hird was beaten to death.
#2. Nicholas Baier - RCMP say the suspect in the case had intentionally driven into a crowd of people at the Texas Mickey Bar after supposedly getting kicked out of a bar.
#3. Matt McKay - this was one of the first major crime scenes I remember going to working in Calgary. McKay was hit in the head with a pickaxe while trying to intervene in a dispute over unwanted guests at a house party.
What bothers me is that there seems to be a lot of attention being paid on the wrong issues. Some have pointed the finger (at least lately) on 17th Avenue as a whole for having too many bars. Others say it has to do with closing time and how everyone's let out at the same time. The issue of "over-serving" at bars is always brought up in this conversation. But no one seems to want to issue the REAL blame. And that should be targeted at us: human beings.
Since when do we have the right to get so drunk that we're belligerent to the point of threatening or harming others? Why is it that women are abused (verbally and physically) when they reject some guy's advances? And then when we do get kicked out of an establishment for being an idiot, it's perfectly fine to threaten, harass and/or come back to get revenge? The sad part is: for each of the examples I have outlined above, there are hundreds of others like it. Maybe not with as dire consequences, but go to a bar in Calgary and stay until the end. You'll likely see someone get kicked out at some point for unacceptable behaviour.
I don't want to be party pooper. But why should complete strangers have to babysit you because you can't handle your alcohol or because you don't like someone or because you got rejected by the pretty girl? Why should complete strangers have to feel the wrath of your anger for getting kicked out of a bar or a party? Why do you feel entitled enough to come back to wage war on those who have "done you wrong"? Own up to your actions. And if you see a friend being obnoxious or worse, tune them in.
I know everyone wants a silver bullet to "make Calgary safe again". We want that always-loved "silver bullet" that can fix the problem. Unfortunately, that silver bullet isn't changing closing times, "cutting people off" from booze after a certain point, or limiting the number of bars on a strip. It's going to depend on the sense of entitlement people seem to have after a couple of wobbily pops. And sadly, that doesn't look like it's going to change any time soon.
Saturday, August 9, 2014
#BrokenNews
"Can we have a meeting involving all media outlets to set standards for what we consider "breaking"? Please? #stopit #broken"
That was a tweet of mine from yesterday. It's been a bit of a crusade I've been on in recent years. Remember when "breaking news" actually meant something? And now it seems to be attached to everything. The stock market closes down? BREAKING NEWS! Severe thunderstorm watch? BREAKING NEWS! "Rappers bare it all in support of #NickiMinaj"? BREAKING NEWS!
The last one actually had a #BreakingNews hashtag beside it. I wish I was kidding.
"Breaking news" is used so often now that I'm starting to wonder if it actually catches the attention of the average reader/listener/viewer anymore. All you needed to do was watch CNN during the Malaysian Airlines flight disappearance a few months back and they were attaching "Breaking News" to virtually every slight change in coverage. I've seen "breaking news" attached to a story that is HOURS old. How is that "breaking". Is that not "broken"? I'm curious if that's drawing more people in to watch or if it's forcing people to flip the channel. Have we become desensitized to the idea of breaking news?
I can say that our newsroom tries to really control how much we use those two words in the same sentence. If something is happening right now (for example: yesterday's surprise guilty plea from the man accused of killing three RCMP officers in Moncton), then that's breaking news. We went on-air to say it was breaking news, then told everyone to listen for more details through the rest of the afternoon. We didn't attach "breaking news" to the story for the rest of the afternoon. I'll use "this just in" when something is just coming into the newsroom (much like breaking news but can be a little later than breaking). We'll throw in a "developing" if it's continuing coverage from a previously reported story or if it's something new with not a lot of details.
A little over a year ago, I made fun of the idea that there's a "consensus media". The idea makes me giggle because it's like some people actually believe that news organizations sit around a table together with our giant wads of money, deciding which stories we will and won't be covering. Laughable at best. But as I said back then, there might be some merit to having a "bat phone" of sorts to be able to chat with other outlets to come to a consensus on how certain things should be done, so that we don't paint our industry with a horrible brush. Having a meeting to set out parameters for what constitutes "breaking news" wouldn't be a bad idea to me.
I do understand that we're all trying to brand ourselves as "the place to go when breaking news is happening". It is about where you stand in the market. This could easily get me into the discussion about whether you'd rather be "second and right than first and wrong". I won't dive into that one. But in our race to be first to everything and branding it as "breaking", we have almost forgotten the entire spirit of what breaking news really is.
I'm waiting for the day that we start each newscast with "BREAKING NEWS: The sun rose this morning. More at 11..."
That was a tweet of mine from yesterday. It's been a bit of a crusade I've been on in recent years. Remember when "breaking news" actually meant something? And now it seems to be attached to everything. The stock market closes down? BREAKING NEWS! Severe thunderstorm watch? BREAKING NEWS! "Rappers bare it all in support of #NickiMinaj"? BREAKING NEWS!
The last one actually had a #BreakingNews hashtag beside it. I wish I was kidding.
"Breaking news" is used so often now that I'm starting to wonder if it actually catches the attention of the average reader/listener/viewer anymore. All you needed to do was watch CNN during the Malaysian Airlines flight disappearance a few months back and they were attaching "Breaking News" to virtually every slight change in coverage. I've seen "breaking news" attached to a story that is HOURS old. How is that "breaking". Is that not "broken"? I'm curious if that's drawing more people in to watch or if it's forcing people to flip the channel. Have we become desensitized to the idea of breaking news?
I can say that our newsroom tries to really control how much we use those two words in the same sentence. If something is happening right now (for example: yesterday's surprise guilty plea from the man accused of killing three RCMP officers in Moncton), then that's breaking news. We went on-air to say it was breaking news, then told everyone to listen for more details through the rest of the afternoon. We didn't attach "breaking news" to the story for the rest of the afternoon. I'll use "this just in" when something is just coming into the newsroom (much like breaking news but can be a little later than breaking). We'll throw in a "developing" if it's continuing coverage from a previously reported story or if it's something new with not a lot of details.
A little over a year ago, I made fun of the idea that there's a "consensus media". The idea makes me giggle because it's like some people actually believe that news organizations sit around a table together with our giant wads of money, deciding which stories we will and won't be covering. Laughable at best. But as I said back then, there might be some merit to having a "bat phone" of sorts to be able to chat with other outlets to come to a consensus on how certain things should be done, so that we don't paint our industry with a horrible brush. Having a meeting to set out parameters for what constitutes "breaking news" wouldn't be a bad idea to me.
I do understand that we're all trying to brand ourselves as "the place to go when breaking news is happening". It is about where you stand in the market. This could easily get me into the discussion about whether you'd rather be "second and right than first and wrong". I won't dive into that one. But in our race to be first to everything and branding it as "breaking", we have almost forgotten the entire spirit of what breaking news really is.
I'm waiting for the day that we start each newscast with "BREAKING NEWS: The sun rose this morning. More at 11..."
Saturday, July 26, 2014
Is There A "Right Response"?
I've always been fascinated by the response of people in the midst of a rally or protest when police are involved. This dates back to my first really contentious gathering involving members of Calgary's Aryan Guard at City Hall. If memory serves me right, it would have gone relatively unnoticed had it not been for a bunch of flyers that were circulated. That led to a couple of hundred people showing up, both neo-Nazis and anti-racists. To say it got "pretty heated" would be an understatement.
But that's where things got kind of interesting. Police were there when they got wind that both sides would be converging on the same spot. I can't remember for sure if any arrests were made in that initial incident, but I do remember the differences in opinion over whether police should have even been there in the first place. Or in some eyes: why wasn't there more police presence?
Those same questions have popped back up recently with the Israeli/Palestinian protests in Calgary. Last week, a clash between the two sides led to a melee, leading to criticism of the police service for its lack of presence. Even Police Chief Rick Hanson admitted on News Talk 770 that they "dropped the ball" when it came to communications. That issue was rectified ahead of last night's rallies, and police say the gathering (with somewhere between 700 and 1,000 people in attendance) went off without a hitch.
Now I know some people will think I'm a police apologist here and I'm ready for that criticism. But one has to wonder what the "right response" is to these rallies and protests. Or maybe there isn't one and you simply have to be okay with the idea that not everyone is going to be happy with what you do.
On one hand, there's the idea that police shouldn't be there. You want to have faith in people that they will be well-behaved on their own and don't need to be "babysat" on the off-chance that something bad might happen. Some will say police should have "better things to do" and "our taxpayer dollars are better spent elsewhere."
On the other hand, there's the idea that police should be there at full attention. Because if ANYTHING bad happens, they should be there to break it up right away without incident. Otherwise, they're "not doing their job" to "serve and protect".
So the reality becomes that the response almost always ends up somewhere in the middle. And when you have those two extremes in hand, someone is going to complain. The answer isn't going to be black or white.
And it's certainly a no-win situation for police, even when it comes to the rights and freedoms issues. In the latest incidents, some people have gone so far as to question police on why they would allow pro-Israeli protesters anywhere near the pro-Palestinian rally. Which isn't a bad point, as the best offense is a good defense so if you can get in the way of a potential conflict, you're being proactive. But there is the right to peaceful demonstration that can't be trampled on. And "innocent until proven guilty" is the way we have to go here as well, so you can't assume the two sides will clash just because they have differing viewpoints. Can you imagine the firestorm that would ensue if police "intercepted" someone if they were only working on assumptions and it turned out to be completely unfounded?
What was nice to see was that despite having both sides at last night's rally and despite it getting very vocal, there were no physical incidents reported and police actually applauded both sides for keeping it civil.
We can only hope it stays that way.
But that's where things got kind of interesting. Police were there when they got wind that both sides would be converging on the same spot. I can't remember for sure if any arrests were made in that initial incident, but I do remember the differences in opinion over whether police should have even been there in the first place. Or in some eyes: why wasn't there more police presence?
Those same questions have popped back up recently with the Israeli/Palestinian protests in Calgary. Last week, a clash between the two sides led to a melee, leading to criticism of the police service for its lack of presence. Even Police Chief Rick Hanson admitted on News Talk 770 that they "dropped the ball" when it came to communications. That issue was rectified ahead of last night's rallies, and police say the gathering (with somewhere between 700 and 1,000 people in attendance) went off without a hitch.
Now I know some people will think I'm a police apologist here and I'm ready for that criticism. But one has to wonder what the "right response" is to these rallies and protests. Or maybe there isn't one and you simply have to be okay with the idea that not everyone is going to be happy with what you do.
On one hand, there's the idea that police shouldn't be there. You want to have faith in people that they will be well-behaved on their own and don't need to be "babysat" on the off-chance that something bad might happen. Some will say police should have "better things to do" and "our taxpayer dollars are better spent elsewhere."
On the other hand, there's the idea that police should be there at full attention. Because if ANYTHING bad happens, they should be there to break it up right away without incident. Otherwise, they're "not doing their job" to "serve and protect".
So the reality becomes that the response almost always ends up somewhere in the middle. And when you have those two extremes in hand, someone is going to complain. The answer isn't going to be black or white.
And it's certainly a no-win situation for police, even when it comes to the rights and freedoms issues. In the latest incidents, some people have gone so far as to question police on why they would allow pro-Israeli protesters anywhere near the pro-Palestinian rally. Which isn't a bad point, as the best offense is a good defense so if you can get in the way of a potential conflict, you're being proactive. But there is the right to peaceful demonstration that can't be trampled on. And "innocent until proven guilty" is the way we have to go here as well, so you can't assume the two sides will clash just because they have differing viewpoints. Can you imagine the firestorm that would ensue if police "intercepted" someone if they were only working on assumptions and it turned out to be completely unfounded?
What was nice to see was that despite having both sides at last night's rally and despite it getting very vocal, there were no physical incidents reported and police actually applauded both sides for keeping it civil.
We can only hope it stays that way.
Saturday, July 19, 2014
What Happens At Stampede, Stays At Stampede
We're now a week removed from the Calgary Stampede, and by all accounts, the "Greatest Outdoor Show on Earth" was another smashing success. After working hard to make sure the 2013 edition went off without a hitch following the flood, 2014 seemed to bring about some sort of normalcy. Yet, there's an uncomfortable truth that is starting to be uncovered as the drunken haze begins to lift.
While no one really questions the fun of the midway, the cowboy heritage in the exhibitions or the majesty of the horse events (outside of a few animal rights activists), there is one side to Stampede that was really thrown into the limelight and might have to be addressed heading into the 2015 edition of the event. And that's the parties.
I'm all for having a good time. But in the last couple of years, I've really been turned off by anything bar/gathering related at Stampede time because of just how ridiculous things get. And I'm not alone.
We've all heard the stories about how much pancake batter and bacon strips are cooked up in the bigger Stampede breakfasts. So a couple of years ago, I went on a mission to find out just how much booze is sold during the ten days. The Stampede itself wasn't able to disclose what it sells on the grounds, so I asked around to the different bars and one of the reps at Cowboys replied. The quote I got was "one of our suppliers say they sell as much beer during Stampede as any major Canadian sports team does in its entire season." That's ONE supplier. That's JUST beer. And that includes the Toronto Blue Jays, who have an 81-game schedule at home. I did the math. Use this as an example: let's say one tent hosts 10,000 people in a day. Average out four beverages per person (I know that's probably conservative). Let's say the drinks are $10/each (tips included). That's $400,000 in a day or $4-million for Stampede. In one tent. I know of some waitresses who claim they can get $10,000 in tips over the ten days without even trying.
So this is big business. It's landed Stampede in magazines and other "top ten lists" for being a top party destination in the world. But with it, comes some pretty big problems when the spirits get flowin'. You have the usual antics of barfights and "public disorder", like puke and other bodily fluids hitting the streets.
Then you have the "other" reputation that's been created with all of the booze. It's the reputation that surrounds news reports about STI rates skyrocketing during Stampede. It surrounds divorce rates rising and a "baby boom" of sorts that happens every March/April. Yet, people read/hear/watch these stories and just kind of giggle about it, like "oh it's just Stampede!" How can this be perceived as being "good, clean, wholesome fun"?
And then there's the whole issue of how women are treated during the ten days. All I needed to do was watch social media to see just how disgusting it really was. Women being touched, fondled, you name it without invites being sent out. These are issues that happen every day, but it seems to be amplified because "it's Stampede so lighten up." A couple of friends of mine went out one night to enjoy a concert and ended up leaving about three songs in because guys couldn't keep their hands to themselves. One of the producers at our radio station shared some of her horror stories on-air one day during Stampede, including a story about a woman who ran into the guys washroom because the ladies room lineup was ridiculously long. The story included a guy trying to break into the stall to get at her. In what world is any of this acceptable behaviour?
Now I get it. Some guys and gals go out with certain "intentions". But does that mean EVERYONE has those same intentions? And that's part of the problem. It's almost as if that you get away with it once and you expect to get away with it every time. It's leading to absolutely dangerous scenarios (rape, abuse, assault among others).
This isn't "western hospitality". Everyone deserves to let down their hair, kick up their boots and have a good time, no questions asked. Stampede is supposed to be a celebration. But there's a line that shouldn't be crossed. We're better than this (or at least I'd like to think we're capable of being better than this). Is it really a good time if you're the only one having a good time or you're forcing it on someone else? No one should have to be looking over their shoulder, wondering what the next stranger they cross paths with will do.
"What happens at Stampede, stays at Stampede." I guess...
While no one really questions the fun of the midway, the cowboy heritage in the exhibitions or the majesty of the horse events (outside of a few animal rights activists), there is one side to Stampede that was really thrown into the limelight and might have to be addressed heading into the 2015 edition of the event. And that's the parties.
I'm all for having a good time. But in the last couple of years, I've really been turned off by anything bar/gathering related at Stampede time because of just how ridiculous things get. And I'm not alone.
We've all heard the stories about how much pancake batter and bacon strips are cooked up in the bigger Stampede breakfasts. So a couple of years ago, I went on a mission to find out just how much booze is sold during the ten days. The Stampede itself wasn't able to disclose what it sells on the grounds, so I asked around to the different bars and one of the reps at Cowboys replied. The quote I got was "one of our suppliers say they sell as much beer during Stampede as any major Canadian sports team does in its entire season." That's ONE supplier. That's JUST beer. And that includes the Toronto Blue Jays, who have an 81-game schedule at home. I did the math. Use this as an example: let's say one tent hosts 10,000 people in a day. Average out four beverages per person (I know that's probably conservative). Let's say the drinks are $10/each (tips included). That's $400,000 in a day or $4-million for Stampede. In one tent. I know of some waitresses who claim they can get $10,000 in tips over the ten days without even trying.
So this is big business. It's landed Stampede in magazines and other "top ten lists" for being a top party destination in the world. But with it, comes some pretty big problems when the spirits get flowin'. You have the usual antics of barfights and "public disorder", like puke and other bodily fluids hitting the streets.
Then you have the "other" reputation that's been created with all of the booze. It's the reputation that surrounds news reports about STI rates skyrocketing during Stampede. It surrounds divorce rates rising and a "baby boom" of sorts that happens every March/April. Yet, people read/hear/watch these stories and just kind of giggle about it, like "oh it's just Stampede!" How can this be perceived as being "good, clean, wholesome fun"?
And then there's the whole issue of how women are treated during the ten days. All I needed to do was watch social media to see just how disgusting it really was. Women being touched, fondled, you name it without invites being sent out. These are issues that happen every day, but it seems to be amplified because "it's Stampede so lighten up." A couple of friends of mine went out one night to enjoy a concert and ended up leaving about three songs in because guys couldn't keep their hands to themselves. One of the producers at our radio station shared some of her horror stories on-air one day during Stampede, including a story about a woman who ran into the guys washroom because the ladies room lineup was ridiculously long. The story included a guy trying to break into the stall to get at her. In what world is any of this acceptable behaviour?
Now I get it. Some guys and gals go out with certain "intentions". But does that mean EVERYONE has those same intentions? And that's part of the problem. It's almost as if that you get away with it once and you expect to get away with it every time. It's leading to absolutely dangerous scenarios (rape, abuse, assault among others).
This isn't "western hospitality". Everyone deserves to let down their hair, kick up their boots and have a good time, no questions asked. Stampede is supposed to be a celebration. But there's a line that shouldn't be crossed. We're better than this (or at least I'd like to think we're capable of being better than this). Is it really a good time if you're the only one having a good time or you're forcing it on someone else? No one should have to be looking over their shoulder, wondering what the next stranger they cross paths with will do.
"What happens at Stampede, stays at Stampede." I guess...
Thursday, July 3, 2014
Enough is Enough
I'm going to deviate from my usual ramblings about the news world to focus on something semi-close to home. And it all stems from an early-morning wake-up call I had today.
It wasn't my usual alarm bells ringing on my cellphone signaling the start of the work day. It wasn't the sound of cars passing by, emergency vehicles screaming off to the scene of something or the typical tomfoolery that happens when you live relatively close to the infamous 17th Avenue SW strip in Calgary (aka the stretch formerly known as the Red Mile).
I awoke at 6am to the soothing sounds of a marital spat. "You f****** b****" and "f*** off and die you piece of s***" were just a couple of the loving gestures hurled at one another. Took me about a minute or so to evaluate the situation, knock the crumbs out of my eyes and realize it was 6am.
Perhaps I was tired and maybe a little cranky, but it got to that point that I felt like I needed to intervene and at least let everyone else on my street enjoy a little more sleep before the work day started. So I stumbled my way to the patio door, walked out onto the balcony and yelled back at them to have some respect for their neighbours, go home and get some sleep. I also told the guy that "that's no way to speak to a lady".
Of course I received the response I was kind of expecting: "go f*** yourself", which set off an interesting exchange of pleasantries. They were both obviously drunk, so it wasn't worth getting too worked up over it, other than to try to prove my point then go back to bed. He persisted for a little bit and I just kept on message that they needed to be adults. Eventually it winded down with a "mind your own business" from him, to which I said "the minute you woke me and the rest of the neighbourhood up, it became my business." I've become pretty good at thinking on my feet working in the media. And that was enough for him to walk away grumbling. They went back inside and I didn't hear a peep out of them for the rest of the morning.
Unfortunately, this story probably plays out a lot more than most would care to admit. What I don't like is when people stand by and watch without doing anything, then grumble about it afterwards. I'm going to be full of cliches here, but we have to be the change we want to see (or something like that). If we don't want a world where spousal abuse, sexual assault or heinous crimes against children happen, then don't stand around and watch it without acting. And I mean anything of the issues that people get up in arms about (oh hi there "bullying", so we meet again). It doesn't matter who "started it". It doesn't matter that it's a nice guy/girl. The excuses don't matter. Cliche #2: if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.
Each and every day, I want to be part of the solution.
It wasn't my usual alarm bells ringing on my cellphone signaling the start of the work day. It wasn't the sound of cars passing by, emergency vehicles screaming off to the scene of something or the typical tomfoolery that happens when you live relatively close to the infamous 17th Avenue SW strip in Calgary (aka the stretch formerly known as the Red Mile).
I awoke at 6am to the soothing sounds of a marital spat. "You f****** b****" and "f*** off and die you piece of s***" were just a couple of the loving gestures hurled at one another. Took me about a minute or so to evaluate the situation, knock the crumbs out of my eyes and realize it was 6am.
Perhaps I was tired and maybe a little cranky, but it got to that point that I felt like I needed to intervene and at least let everyone else on my street enjoy a little more sleep before the work day started. So I stumbled my way to the patio door, walked out onto the balcony and yelled back at them to have some respect for their neighbours, go home and get some sleep. I also told the guy that "that's no way to speak to a lady".
Of course I received the response I was kind of expecting: "go f*** yourself", which set off an interesting exchange of pleasantries. They were both obviously drunk, so it wasn't worth getting too worked up over it, other than to try to prove my point then go back to bed. He persisted for a little bit and I just kept on message that they needed to be adults. Eventually it winded down with a "mind your own business" from him, to which I said "the minute you woke me and the rest of the neighbourhood up, it became my business." I've become pretty good at thinking on my feet working in the media. And that was enough for him to walk away grumbling. They went back inside and I didn't hear a peep out of them for the rest of the morning.
Unfortunately, this story probably plays out a lot more than most would care to admit. What I don't like is when people stand by and watch without doing anything, then grumble about it afterwards. I'm going to be full of cliches here, but we have to be the change we want to see (or something like that). If we don't want a world where spousal abuse, sexual assault or heinous crimes against children happen, then don't stand around and watch it without acting. And I mean anything of the issues that people get up in arms about (oh hi there "bullying", so we meet again). It doesn't matter who "started it". It doesn't matter that it's a nice guy/girl. The excuses don't matter. Cliche #2: if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.
Each and every day, I want to be part of the solution.
Monday, June 23, 2014
Clarity Sure Would Be Nice
There weren't many contentious issues during the 2013 floods in Alberta, especially in Calgary. Considering the disaster upon the city, it wasn't like we were mired in any kind of controversy. Yet, just down the road in High River, it was a totally different story.
I had a chat with Roy Green over the weekend, reflecting on the one-year anniversary and when asked about any "ongoing issues" still needing to be addressed, I said the RCMP's handling of guns in High River is still going to be front-and-centre for many in that neck of the woods. We've waited for a year now for a report and analysis to be done, which many people hope actually give us some answers on who called the shots on that one and why.
We could probably argue until we're blue in the face about what exactly happened. But I'm willing to let that discussion wait until we get all the facts from the powers that be. I can say that I've heard plenty of rumours and rumblings and I have a few working theories in place. If I get anywhere with them, I'll let you know. But for now, all it would be is speculation and rumours.
I do find some of the arguments interesting though from those who can't believe the RCMP would even step foot in residential homes to begin with during the flood. One particular comment I saw really irked me though. "There was no good excuse to kick people's doors in and walk around their homes in muddy boots." Normally I'd say just one person is probably thinking this, but I've seen more than a few of them. So, being that I like playing devil's advocate, I'm going to respond to this one (even if some of you think this is just "feeding the trolls").
I'm going to give you a hypothetical situation. The RCMP decide not to go door-to-door as it's not safe to go back into the community as the flood waters are really rushing in. They have decided they will not enforce the mandatory evacuation that's been ordered. And after the flood waters subside, everyone goes back in to realize that several people have died inside their homes as they either ignored or were not aware of the evacuation order. Who do you think is going to get the blame for that one?
Here's another story: winter storm paralyzed the Trans-Canada Highway a few years back yet people still tried to drive between Medicine Hat and Calgary. A young man in shorts hit the ditch in his vehicle. The car died and he was left freezing with no emergency kit/blanket/etc. He tried to call RCMP who were being called out to several other people being stuck and they told him they'll get to him when they can (even though they can't see 10-feet in front of the hood of their vehicles as they're trying to find stranded motorists). He was finally saved, everything was good, yet he still had the audacity to blame RCMP for not getting to him sooner.
Is it wrong to connect these two to a certain extent?
In a state of emergency, is it not the authorities who are looking out for everyone's best interests? Let's forget the guns for a second. A door or a muddy carpet can be replaced. Can a life?
By no means am I giving any policing authority a blank slate to do whatever they want. But should we not be looking at the overall picture (aka context)? We were in a state of emergency and is it not likely that decisions made were to make sure as many people as possible were safe? Even if that meant they would have to "kick people's doors in and walk around their homes in muddy boots"?
Maybe I'm way out in left field on this one though. Maybe policing agencies use natural disasters as a cover to break into homes to dig up some dirt on their residents so that they can implement their grand master plan of world domination and a complete police state.
Just some thoughts to ponder.
Again, I really look forward to seeing what happens with that federal report into what happened in High River. If the RCMP or the town or anyone else overstepped their boundaries, you know we'll be reporting on it. But there is that possibility that no one overstepped boundaries and everything was done with public safety in mind. And we'll be reporting on that too. I just hope we can get some answers sooner rather than later, so that we can finally move on from that part of the disaster and allow some people to finally move on and deal with the real tragedy here, that being people losing their homes and, in some cases, their lives.
Tuesday, June 17, 2014
Flood 2013: One Year Later
Let me echo the sentiment that has rang loud and clear over the past week or so: it's so hard to believe that it was a year ago that we were all bracing for the worst disaster in Alberta's history. The 2013 Flood was something none of us ever want to live through again. And while many of us media types take a look back, I thought I'd take a moment as well to do the same.
Last July, I did write up a blog post on my feelings right after the insanity subsided. You can read that whole post here. The emotion and feelings were still pretty strong at that point (and a little sleep deprivation). I've also obviously moved up in the world, so my outlook has changed a little bit. But the message does remain the same.
It's that raw emotion that still rattles me. Nothing will jar you more than looking into the eyes of someone who has lost everything except the shirt off their back and ask them to answer a few questions with a microphone in hand. Truth be told: after the third day of the flood, I went home and cried myself to sleep. It wouldn't be the first time during a stretch of six days straight where I worked 20-hour days (happened twice). Part of it might have been physical and mental exhaustion, but the bigger part was, without a doubt, the bottled up emotions that you're not only feeling, but the ones you're sharing with those you're speaking with.
But it was all worth it. It's what I, and most other journalists, live for. We're here to inform. It's events like the flood which give us the opportunity to tell stories in a way most others can't. As I mentioned in my post from last July, it's when we are a true public service. Whether it be on the air or online, we're trying to give you the most up-to-date information in real-time.
A little story for you: I was part of the team that launched 102.1 The Lounge in Medicine Hat in the spring of 2008. Within the first few weeks of being on-air, we had several big stories come our way, including a major thunderstorm which ripped through Burdett, Seven Persons and other parts of SE Alberta. We went out to those communities that night and the next morning and brought our listeners every story we got a hold of. It was after that when many people came to us and said "you've gained our trust and are now our news source." For a team of two (at the time), that was pretty special. That sentiment continued throughout my time in the 'Hat and, even to this day, some people still claim that I (and other members of my old team) hold that place as "the place to go." I'm still very proud of what our team (Christy, Steve & Harv) accomplished.
And that's what I (and all journalists) really strive for: to be trusted in your home and office. That's what we wanted during the 2013 floods. And I reckon that's what we'll all be striving for heading into this coming week, as Southern Alberta braces for more possible flooding in the Lethbridge and Medicine Hat regions in particular. Sitting in my new position as news director, I can say without a shadow of doubt that's my team's goal here in Calgary each and every day, and we'll do everything we can to provide that as Alberta battens down the hatches.
One final note: thank you for allowing us into your homes, offices and lives.
Last July, I did write up a blog post on my feelings right after the insanity subsided. You can read that whole post here. The emotion and feelings were still pretty strong at that point (and a little sleep deprivation). I've also obviously moved up in the world, so my outlook has changed a little bit. But the message does remain the same.
It's that raw emotion that still rattles me. Nothing will jar you more than looking into the eyes of someone who has lost everything except the shirt off their back and ask them to answer a few questions with a microphone in hand. Truth be told: after the third day of the flood, I went home and cried myself to sleep. It wouldn't be the first time during a stretch of six days straight where I worked 20-hour days (happened twice). Part of it might have been physical and mental exhaustion, but the bigger part was, without a doubt, the bottled up emotions that you're not only feeling, but the ones you're sharing with those you're speaking with.
But it was all worth it. It's what I, and most other journalists, live for. We're here to inform. It's events like the flood which give us the opportunity to tell stories in a way most others can't. As I mentioned in my post from last July, it's when we are a true public service. Whether it be on the air or online, we're trying to give you the most up-to-date information in real-time.
A little story for you: I was part of the team that launched 102.1 The Lounge in Medicine Hat in the spring of 2008. Within the first few weeks of being on-air, we had several big stories come our way, including a major thunderstorm which ripped through Burdett, Seven Persons and other parts of SE Alberta. We went out to those communities that night and the next morning and brought our listeners every story we got a hold of. It was after that when many people came to us and said "you've gained our trust and are now our news source." For a team of two (at the time), that was pretty special. That sentiment continued throughout my time in the 'Hat and, even to this day, some people still claim that I (and other members of my old team) hold that place as "the place to go." I'm still very proud of what our team (Christy, Steve & Harv) accomplished.
And that's what I (and all journalists) really strive for: to be trusted in your home and office. That's what we wanted during the 2013 floods. And I reckon that's what we'll all be striving for heading into this coming week, as Southern Alberta braces for more possible flooding in the Lethbridge and Medicine Hat regions in particular. Sitting in my new position as news director, I can say without a shadow of doubt that's my team's goal here in Calgary each and every day, and we'll do everything we can to provide that as Alberta battens down the hatches.
One final note: thank you for allowing us into your homes, offices and lives.
Monday, April 14, 2014
Cyclists vs. Motorists
It's been amusing to watch the battle in Calgary between cyclists and motorists. It's actually quite similar to the battle we see daily on the roads, with middle fingers raised in the air and curse words coming from all directions. It's left many (including myself) scratching our heads and asking that all-too-familiar question: "can't we all just get along?"
For those who haven't been watching this whole episode unfold: Calgary is looking to introduce a "cycle track" into the downtown. Yes. An entire lane of traffic being taken out on some pretty important roadways to accommodate cyclists. They will be partitioned off, in theory to make it safer to ride the two-wheeled variety of transportation and decreasing the number of interactions (read: crashes + horn-honking + other forms of vitriol between the two sides) that happen.
The arguments for and against this pilot project (which has been pegged at anywhere from $9-million to $11.6-million) have been pretty vocal. It doesn't seem like many are sitting on the fence on this one. Those who want the project say let the numbers speak for themselves. "If you build it, they will come" has been uttered way too much in the last few weeks. They will say people don't ride their bikes because they don't feel safe and this will fix that problem. On the other side, you have those saying Calgary's a winter wonderland where no one will cycle for six months out of the year. They will cite other bike lanes aren't being used as much as the pro-bikers claim. And they will say the numbers have nothing to do with safety and everything to do with urban sprawl making it virtually impossible for anyone outside a one-mile radius of the downtown to even try to cycle.
And trust me, I'm giving these arguments a "general audience" feel, because to watch the argument on social media would need a PG-13 warning sticker.
We can argue until the cows come home about whether this is going to be a good fit for the downtown. Realistically, all anyone is working with right now is stats and probabilities. No one has any empirical evidence to prove the other side wrong. But there's one undeniable truth in all of this nonsense: getting around downtown Calgary is virtually impossible and SOMETHING needs to be done.
Calgary has the highest parking rates in any Canadian city and is second only to New York in all of North America. Why? Because the market is there for it. People feel the need to drive their vehicles into the core and are willing to shell out ridiculous amounts of money to do it. This sets off a whole bunch of supplemental questions and answers:
Q: Why not take transit?
A: First off, if you have to drive to the transit station (which many do), you better be at the park-and-ride by 6am. Because parking is at a premium. If you're lucky enough to get a spot, then you get to feel like a sardine in a can for the entire trek. And then if there's some sort of outage or trouble downtown, you're stuck in that can for even longer. And don't even get some people started on the bad behaviour/bad smells/bad whatever on the train itself.
Q: Why not live closer to the downtown?
A: Have you seen the prices for living downtown? A young family paying $500,000 or more for a house with a small backyard? And all the talk about "building up" instead of out has many wondering about what might be in their backyard anyways. So why not get into the 'burbs, where you get a little bit of the country with the big city amenities? Plus inner-city schools seem to be few and far between. So families are left with one option, and they will need their vehicles to at least get them to the transit station. Go back to Question #1.
Q: Why not walk/bike to work?
A: Have you been out to the suburbs? It takes 45 minutes to DRIVE into work. Unless you're Lance Armstrong, there's no way you're biking in each day. So forget walking. And oh yeah. There's that little thing called winter that rears its ugly head every year.
So you see, there's a fundamental problem here. Calgary's grown up, grown out and apparently grown impatient. They want a quick fix but don't want to spend a single tax dollar on that fix. Many must think that this deal's still under warranty.
Here's an idea: why hasn't anyone brought up the idea of staggering opening/closing times, like they have for bars and nightclubs? Many think that'll alleviate some of the issues around taxi shortages, bar brawls, etc because of everyone getting booted out at 2am. So let's have some businesses go 10-6 or 7-3. Why not?
Because from what I gather, everyone's trying to find the answer (perhaps mythological) to getting more vehicles off the road. Which is a great idea. But it's naive to think that bike lanes will solve that problem on its own. This is a much bigger discussion than many are making it out to be. And in the process, it's pitted cyclists vs. motorists in a hotly-contested war of words. We need to figure out how to get vehicles, transit, cyclists and pedestrians using all of the means available to them, with the understanding that we live in a cold weather climate. We're not living in Portland, Minnesota, San Francisco, Victoria or any other place. We're living in Calgary. So we'll need to come up with what many politicians will call a "Calgary solution".
This isn't an either/or issue. This is a "strategic planning" issue. We don't necessarily have to get along here. Maybe bike lanes and cycle tracks aren't the answer. But keeping things status quo won't be making things better any time soon either.
For those who haven't been watching this whole episode unfold: Calgary is looking to introduce a "cycle track" into the downtown. Yes. An entire lane of traffic being taken out on some pretty important roadways to accommodate cyclists. They will be partitioned off, in theory to make it safer to ride the two-wheeled variety of transportation and decreasing the number of interactions (read: crashes + horn-honking + other forms of vitriol between the two sides) that happen.
The arguments for and against this pilot project (which has been pegged at anywhere from $9-million to $11.6-million) have been pretty vocal. It doesn't seem like many are sitting on the fence on this one. Those who want the project say let the numbers speak for themselves. "If you build it, they will come" has been uttered way too much in the last few weeks. They will say people don't ride their bikes because they don't feel safe and this will fix that problem. On the other side, you have those saying Calgary's a winter wonderland where no one will cycle for six months out of the year. They will cite other bike lanes aren't being used as much as the pro-bikers claim. And they will say the numbers have nothing to do with safety and everything to do with urban sprawl making it virtually impossible for anyone outside a one-mile radius of the downtown to even try to cycle.
And trust me, I'm giving these arguments a "general audience" feel, because to watch the argument on social media would need a PG-13 warning sticker.
We can argue until the cows come home about whether this is going to be a good fit for the downtown. Realistically, all anyone is working with right now is stats and probabilities. No one has any empirical evidence to prove the other side wrong. But there's one undeniable truth in all of this nonsense: getting around downtown Calgary is virtually impossible and SOMETHING needs to be done.
Calgary has the highest parking rates in any Canadian city and is second only to New York in all of North America. Why? Because the market is there for it. People feel the need to drive their vehicles into the core and are willing to shell out ridiculous amounts of money to do it. This sets off a whole bunch of supplemental questions and answers:
Q: Why not take transit?
A: First off, if you have to drive to the transit station (which many do), you better be at the park-and-ride by 6am. Because parking is at a premium. If you're lucky enough to get a spot, then you get to feel like a sardine in a can for the entire trek. And then if there's some sort of outage or trouble downtown, you're stuck in that can for even longer. And don't even get some people started on the bad behaviour/bad smells/bad whatever on the train itself.
Q: Why not live closer to the downtown?
A: Have you seen the prices for living downtown? A young family paying $500,000 or more for a house with a small backyard? And all the talk about "building up" instead of out has many wondering about what might be in their backyard anyways. So why not get into the 'burbs, where you get a little bit of the country with the big city amenities? Plus inner-city schools seem to be few and far between. So families are left with one option, and they will need their vehicles to at least get them to the transit station. Go back to Question #1.
Q: Why not walk/bike to work?
A: Have you been out to the suburbs? It takes 45 minutes to DRIVE into work. Unless you're Lance Armstrong, there's no way you're biking in each day. So forget walking. And oh yeah. There's that little thing called winter that rears its ugly head every year.
So you see, there's a fundamental problem here. Calgary's grown up, grown out and apparently grown impatient. They want a quick fix but don't want to spend a single tax dollar on that fix. Many must think that this deal's still under warranty.
Here's an idea: why hasn't anyone brought up the idea of staggering opening/closing times, like they have for bars and nightclubs? Many think that'll alleviate some of the issues around taxi shortages, bar brawls, etc because of everyone getting booted out at 2am. So let's have some businesses go 10-6 or 7-3. Why not?
Because from what I gather, everyone's trying to find the answer (perhaps mythological) to getting more vehicles off the road. Which is a great idea. But it's naive to think that bike lanes will solve that problem on its own. This is a much bigger discussion than many are making it out to be. And in the process, it's pitted cyclists vs. motorists in a hotly-contested war of words. We need to figure out how to get vehicles, transit, cyclists and pedestrians using all of the means available to them, with the understanding that we live in a cold weather climate. We're not living in Portland, Minnesota, San Francisco, Victoria or any other place. We're living in Calgary. So we'll need to come up with what many politicians will call a "Calgary solution".
This isn't an either/or issue. This is a "strategic planning" issue. We don't necessarily have to get along here. Maybe bike lanes and cycle tracks aren't the answer. But keeping things status quo won't be making things better any time soon either.
Saturday, March 22, 2014
The Next PC Party Leader
It would be really easy for me to break down my thoughts and give my two cents on what's happened in the last two years with Alison Redford serving as Premier of Alberta. But as I've said to many people, I honestly can't wait for politicians to get back to the work of governing this beautiful province that I've called home my entire life. But there is one piece of important business that will need to be done over the next 4-6 months and that is to select a new leader for the PC Party, who in turn will become the next premier. And the challenges that lie in even selecting that person, especially for the party, are going to be plentiful.
There are several key questions that are going to have to be answered when it comes to selecting the new leader. Some are obviously large and some are quite small but will still be a part of the grand plan. Here's just a sampling:
#1. Within the party or out of the party?
This is probably the biggest one, as it leads to a few spin-off questions as well. We've already had several names thrown into the rumour mill. Everyone from Manmeet Bhullar and Jonathan Denis to Stephen Mandel and Naheed Nenshi. If it's from within party, how entrenched should that person be? A long-time MLA or a fairly new MLA with many great ideas? And how much support is that person going to get from the rest of the party? That was one of the problems with Redford, is she virtually had no support from the party faithful during the 2011 leadership race and so it was an uphill battle for her right off the hop. Will the "old guard" be willing to back a younger candidate who will undoubtedly claim again that this "isn't your father's PC Party"? If this is an "outsider", how open to new ideas will the party be? And how much change will be too much change if it's someone like a Mandel or Nenshi, who will likely want to change the identity of the party, at least a little bit?
#2. Calgary, Edmonton or rural?
This probably sounds like a rather minor issue but you know that it's going to come up. Ralph Klein was a Calgary guy who rubbed Edmonton the wrong way. Ed Stelmach was a rural guy from around Edmonton who didn't seem to get a lot of support in the south (hence the emergence of the Wildrose, who has a stranglehold in the south). Alison Redford was someone who had strong support in the cities but not-so-much in rural. So is it Edmonton's turn to try to right the ship again? If it is, does that not further distance the party from Southern Alberta (and possibly Calgary)? Is it time to go back to a rural candidate, and run the risk of not connecting with the big cities? Or do you stay in Calgary (the economic engine of Canada) and hope it's not viewed as a slap in the face for the capital? Like it not, there's a divide in this province and the new PC Party leader is going to have to bridge that gap somehow.
#3. What about personality vs. politics?
I've said it before and I'll say it again: optics is almost EVERYTHING in politics. You could be the biggest buffoon, but as long as you have personality, people will like you. You could also be the smartest person in the province, but if you can't connect with people, you're doomed. When you look at Ralph's track record, you'll probably bring up the fact he balanced the books and that he was a "man of the people". But people seem to forget things like blowing up the General Hospital in Calgary, which was a short-term fix with no long-term plan. He was very much an "in the now" leader. Sure it's great that the books were balanced but how much stuff still needed to be built or done?
That's what Ed Stelmach and Alison Redford struggled with. Stelmach was known as "Honest Ed". I actually really enjoyed it whenever he and I chatted but he was widely perceived as soft-spoken and a bit awkward in front of the cameras. He did what needed to be done but without the fanfare. I can't say a lot about Redford as she's the only one I wasn't able to do a one-on-one interview with. Not for a lack of trying though, as requests through her office were either turned down or avoided. But from her time as justice minister, I do remember thinking to myself that she is very smart and willing to do what it took to get things done. She had a plan to make things better and she executed (remember it was her and the police chief's work of cracking down on gangs in Calgary that dropped the murder rate down substantially). But as premier, that work was just never communicated well. Whether that was her call or her office's, is anyone's guess. Long story short: the perfect leader needs to have some personality, but also some smarts to make sure the politics aren't left in the dust.
#4. How long before the next election?
My fourth and final question and this could be a big one. The PC Party is in quite the Catch-22 right now. The sooner the election is called, the more likely you catch the opposition parties napping, but the party's support has been dwindling which may send the electorate elsewhere. You're also facing your own inner-party problems (like finances), and calling an election soon doesn't allow you a lot of time to build your war chest. Wait a long time, and the opposition parties are given more time to prepare their slate of candidates, but it also gives your new leader time to win hearts and minds, plus you get some time to build up your donations. But it also gives the opposition more time to dig up some dirt on you and your new leader. The timing of the next election may very well depend on who is selected as the new leader. If it's someone with a proven track record and seems to be fairly popular out of the gate, it might be good to have an election sooner. But if it's a new candidate, or even an all-star that comes from outside provincial politics, you almost want to spend more time without an election to prove just how good things can be with them at the helm.
And that takes us right back to the initial question of whether the PC Party of Alberta wants to go with someone from inside the party or from outside. I don't know if there's a right or wrong answer to any of these questions. But I get the sense that the party could be compared to a hockey team in the midst of a rebuild. Might be time to detach yourself from the veteran presence in the locker room, pick up a few prospects and draft picks, and hope that they will go out there and work their rear-ends off to get you a few wins. The Stanley Cup might be imminent. But if you play your cards right and work hard, the fans will stick around to watch you rise again.
There are several key questions that are going to have to be answered when it comes to selecting the new leader. Some are obviously large and some are quite small but will still be a part of the grand plan. Here's just a sampling:
#1. Within the party or out of the party?
This is probably the biggest one, as it leads to a few spin-off questions as well. We've already had several names thrown into the rumour mill. Everyone from Manmeet Bhullar and Jonathan Denis to Stephen Mandel and Naheed Nenshi. If it's from within party, how entrenched should that person be? A long-time MLA or a fairly new MLA with many great ideas? And how much support is that person going to get from the rest of the party? That was one of the problems with Redford, is she virtually had no support from the party faithful during the 2011 leadership race and so it was an uphill battle for her right off the hop. Will the "old guard" be willing to back a younger candidate who will undoubtedly claim again that this "isn't your father's PC Party"? If this is an "outsider", how open to new ideas will the party be? And how much change will be too much change if it's someone like a Mandel or Nenshi, who will likely want to change the identity of the party, at least a little bit?
#2. Calgary, Edmonton or rural?
This probably sounds like a rather minor issue but you know that it's going to come up. Ralph Klein was a Calgary guy who rubbed Edmonton the wrong way. Ed Stelmach was a rural guy from around Edmonton who didn't seem to get a lot of support in the south (hence the emergence of the Wildrose, who has a stranglehold in the south). Alison Redford was someone who had strong support in the cities but not-so-much in rural. So is it Edmonton's turn to try to right the ship again? If it is, does that not further distance the party from Southern Alberta (and possibly Calgary)? Is it time to go back to a rural candidate, and run the risk of not connecting with the big cities? Or do you stay in Calgary (the economic engine of Canada) and hope it's not viewed as a slap in the face for the capital? Like it not, there's a divide in this province and the new PC Party leader is going to have to bridge that gap somehow.
#3. What about personality vs. politics?
I've said it before and I'll say it again: optics is almost EVERYTHING in politics. You could be the biggest buffoon, but as long as you have personality, people will like you. You could also be the smartest person in the province, but if you can't connect with people, you're doomed. When you look at Ralph's track record, you'll probably bring up the fact he balanced the books and that he was a "man of the people". But people seem to forget things like blowing up the General Hospital in Calgary, which was a short-term fix with no long-term plan. He was very much an "in the now" leader. Sure it's great that the books were balanced but how much stuff still needed to be built or done?
That's what Ed Stelmach and Alison Redford struggled with. Stelmach was known as "Honest Ed". I actually really enjoyed it whenever he and I chatted but he was widely perceived as soft-spoken and a bit awkward in front of the cameras. He did what needed to be done but without the fanfare. I can't say a lot about Redford as she's the only one I wasn't able to do a one-on-one interview with. Not for a lack of trying though, as requests through her office were either turned down or avoided. But from her time as justice minister, I do remember thinking to myself that she is very smart and willing to do what it took to get things done. She had a plan to make things better and she executed (remember it was her and the police chief's work of cracking down on gangs in Calgary that dropped the murder rate down substantially). But as premier, that work was just never communicated well. Whether that was her call or her office's, is anyone's guess. Long story short: the perfect leader needs to have some personality, but also some smarts to make sure the politics aren't left in the dust.
#4. How long before the next election?
My fourth and final question and this could be a big one. The PC Party is in quite the Catch-22 right now. The sooner the election is called, the more likely you catch the opposition parties napping, but the party's support has been dwindling which may send the electorate elsewhere. You're also facing your own inner-party problems (like finances), and calling an election soon doesn't allow you a lot of time to build your war chest. Wait a long time, and the opposition parties are given more time to prepare their slate of candidates, but it also gives your new leader time to win hearts and minds, plus you get some time to build up your donations. But it also gives the opposition more time to dig up some dirt on you and your new leader. The timing of the next election may very well depend on who is selected as the new leader. If it's someone with a proven track record and seems to be fairly popular out of the gate, it might be good to have an election sooner. But if it's a new candidate, or even an all-star that comes from outside provincial politics, you almost want to spend more time without an election to prove just how good things can be with them at the helm.
And that takes us right back to the initial question of whether the PC Party of Alberta wants to go with someone from inside the party or from outside. I don't know if there's a right or wrong answer to any of these questions. But I get the sense that the party could be compared to a hockey team in the midst of a rebuild. Might be time to detach yourself from the veteran presence in the locker room, pick up a few prospects and draft picks, and hope that they will go out there and work their rear-ends off to get you a few wins. The Stanley Cup might be imminent. But if you play your cards right and work hard, the fans will stick around to watch you rise again.
Monday, February 17, 2014
What Are Kids Learning Nowadays?
I've really slacked off when it comes to this blog in recent months and for that I apologize. But if it's any consolation, I've actually started a list of potential ideas so that should help in getting more of these out there. Also: I've realized being a manager means "lists", which is code for "organized". I'm getting the hang of it. Now with that caveat out of the way, let's continue.
Actually, let's have another little disclaimer before we really get started. I'm not a parent. I don't have kids in school in Calgary or anywhere else in the province. I'll be writing the rest of this post from an outsider's perspective with a little bit of an inside track on what's going on around this province, and in particular in this city, given I am in the news business and am more informed than many. OK. Now we're good.
To say the last few weeks in education in Calgary have been a little weird would probably be an understatement. Let's set aside the whole "New School Tour" the province has been on, where everyday Premier Alison Redford or one of her cabinet ministers is in a different community making an announcement. That one on it's own would likely garner a few responses.
Here's why it's been a little weird to me: I remember a time when different schools/programs were facing closure because they didn't have the numbers to support keeping the schools open. And yet, the local school boards are still begging for more schools (in the 'burbs). To me, this begs a couple of questions:
#1. Are the school boards trying to close down schools in the "inner-city" because they can then move those kids to other schools and maximize the capacity at those schools to convince the province they need more spaces? I believe the magic number is 85% capacity, so if you can stuff as many kids into a school as possible and get that capacity to 95% or 98% or 102%, it makes a bigger and better case for getting new schools.
#2. Are the school boards and the province in close enough discussions with city planners on how new communities are being built and do they have a pretty good idea on where a school COULD go should it be built? Because if you look at what's happening in regards to my #1 question, one could argue the City of Calgary is being made to look like a donut when it comes to schools. As the city's urban sprawl gets bigger, more attention is paid on getting new schools in the fringes and attention is lost on keeping people in the inner-city. It seems to be a vicious cycle with no end in sight, especially when you consider how expensive living is as you get closer to the downtown. What new family wants to live there when they can get a cheaper house in the 'burbs?
Maybe I'm over-simplifying this. By no means am I accusing anyone of being negligent in their duties. No one's questioning that population growth is a major issue. All I'm saying is something seems to be amiss here when we can't seem to keep up with growth yet we're not able to utilize the space we have at our fingertips.
Here's another thing I'd love some insight on: did we stop teaching the basics in grade school? I'm a really simple boy who grew up in a simple world. But I started to notice this in the difference between what I learned in Grade 12 compared to what my youngest sister learned when she went into Grade 12 (seven years difference between us). What I learned that year was what she later learned in Grade 9. I know school boards are really going after this "education for every student" philosophy so that each child is feeling engaged. Is it possible that we have forced our education system into becoming TOO specialized/personalized that the kids have no choice but to go to a particular school to get the education they need, rather than simply go to the one that's closest to them? Whatever happened to having math, language arts, social studies, the sciences, gym and maybe a few electives, like shop or foods? Last year I remember doing a media tour of a high school that was made specifically for different careers and trades. It was mind-boggling to see kids in Grade 9 learning about TV and radio. I paid college dollars to do that!
Again, maybe I'm over-simplifying this, but I grew up in a town of 250 people. We could have gone to Claresholm or Vulcan for high school, which was anywhere from a 20-30 minute drive. That's rural Alberta. Am I wrong to think that it's bizarre that kids are having to be on a bus for 45-60 minutes in the "big city", especially when they have a school three blocks away?
This doesn't seem very elementary, my dear Watson...
Actually, let's have another little disclaimer before we really get started. I'm not a parent. I don't have kids in school in Calgary or anywhere else in the province. I'll be writing the rest of this post from an outsider's perspective with a little bit of an inside track on what's going on around this province, and in particular in this city, given I am in the news business and am more informed than many. OK. Now we're good.
To say the last few weeks in education in Calgary have been a little weird would probably be an understatement. Let's set aside the whole "New School Tour" the province has been on, where everyday Premier Alison Redford or one of her cabinet ministers is in a different community making an announcement. That one on it's own would likely garner a few responses.
Here's why it's been a little weird to me: I remember a time when different schools/programs were facing closure because they didn't have the numbers to support keeping the schools open. And yet, the local school boards are still begging for more schools (in the 'burbs). To me, this begs a couple of questions:
#1. Are the school boards trying to close down schools in the "inner-city" because they can then move those kids to other schools and maximize the capacity at those schools to convince the province they need more spaces? I believe the magic number is 85% capacity, so if you can stuff as many kids into a school as possible and get that capacity to 95% or 98% or 102%, it makes a bigger and better case for getting new schools.
#2. Are the school boards and the province in close enough discussions with city planners on how new communities are being built and do they have a pretty good idea on where a school COULD go should it be built? Because if you look at what's happening in regards to my #1 question, one could argue the City of Calgary is being made to look like a donut when it comes to schools. As the city's urban sprawl gets bigger, more attention is paid on getting new schools in the fringes and attention is lost on keeping people in the inner-city. It seems to be a vicious cycle with no end in sight, especially when you consider how expensive living is as you get closer to the downtown. What new family wants to live there when they can get a cheaper house in the 'burbs?
Maybe I'm over-simplifying this. By no means am I accusing anyone of being negligent in their duties. No one's questioning that population growth is a major issue. All I'm saying is something seems to be amiss here when we can't seem to keep up with growth yet we're not able to utilize the space we have at our fingertips.
Here's another thing I'd love some insight on: did we stop teaching the basics in grade school? I'm a really simple boy who grew up in a simple world. But I started to notice this in the difference between what I learned in Grade 12 compared to what my youngest sister learned when she went into Grade 12 (seven years difference between us). What I learned that year was what she later learned in Grade 9. I know school boards are really going after this "education for every student" philosophy so that each child is feeling engaged. Is it possible that we have forced our education system into becoming TOO specialized/personalized that the kids have no choice but to go to a particular school to get the education they need, rather than simply go to the one that's closest to them? Whatever happened to having math, language arts, social studies, the sciences, gym and maybe a few electives, like shop or foods? Last year I remember doing a media tour of a high school that was made specifically for different careers and trades. It was mind-boggling to see kids in Grade 9 learning about TV and radio. I paid college dollars to do that!
Again, maybe I'm over-simplifying this, but I grew up in a town of 250 people. We could have gone to Claresholm or Vulcan for high school, which was anywhere from a 20-30 minute drive. That's rural Alberta. Am I wrong to think that it's bizarre that kids are having to be on a bus for 45-60 minutes in the "big city", especially when they have a school three blocks away?
This doesn't seem very elementary, my dear Watson...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)