I feel bad for Albertans. I really do. I've spent the past few weeks trying to make sense of this Bill 6 debate in my head and in different forums (including in-person conversations and online). I'm still struggling to come up with answers. The only thing I can really conclude is that I feel bad for Albertans.
The rest of this country is watching and it kind of feels like they're laughing at us. Not because of who's in power. Not because of who's in opposition. Not because of the farmers or the ranchers or the farm workers themselves. But they're laughing because of how this has become an absolute trainwreck by all accounts. And maybe they should be laughing.
This should have been a debate and discussion about how to make farms safer. This should have been a debate and discussion about how we could get farm workers feeling safer. This should have been about standing behind an industry that has been the bread-and-butter of this province for generations and letting it continue to flourish, even if it means under a few new rules to modernize the thinking, especially when it comes to corporate farms. Yet it's turned into nothing more than vitriol, name-calling and even a few threats against politicians. You have one side of the equation essentially saying that Alberta farms are nothing more than death traps, and that farmers and ranchers don't want to change that. You have the other side of the equation essentially saying that there's nothing wrong and this is just a heavy-handed government trying to upset a group of people who didn't vote for them in the first place.
It's become petty. Potshots are being taken. Some are disagreeing just for the sake of disagreeing. Others are trolling just because they can troll. And that's fueling the rage even more. I can't help but feel we're only one bad word away from an all-out brawl. You know who's to blame for this? Everyone. I don't care about political stripe at this point. We're lacking some serious leadership here, top to bottom.
Premier Rachel Notley and her party called it a miscommunication. While the original intention may have been honorable, the NDP's execution misfired. How can you tell? You've upset farmers, who have shown up from all corners of the province to rally, not necessarily against the bill, but hoping for some sort of consultation. And many farmers don't take a trip to the city lightly. There's a new sheriff in town and farmers and ranchers didn't really get to meet 'em before the "consultation" continued. And even after the admittance that mistakes were made, perception of "ramming through the legislation" continued. One of the ministers was quoted as saying "we think the amendments we'll be announcing shortly will help alleviate some concerns", to which a reporter asked "you mean the ones announced yesterday?" One could deduce that either the minister wasn't plugged in to the discussion in Edmonton, or the minister wasn't on top of the portfolio. Both are bad situations from a communications standpoint. Farmers always have their complaints, but usually it's about the weather, or the grasshoppers, or the price of their product. But it's always more of a "shrug and move on" than anything. This actually prompted them to get off the farm, en masse. This was an opportunity to prove you were something different from previous governments, who were accused of not involving the right people in the process, which was ultimately a factor in their demise. And yet that opportunity to say "we're different from them" seems to have been lost on you.
Opposition leader Brian Jean and his party also need to bear some of the responsibility. Sure, he's penned a nice sentiment for people to cool it. But even some supposed Wildrose supporters (to which I even question their loyalty) are calling for him to step down because he's "gone soft." Then you have the revelation that he was supportive of a bill like this in the past, and it throws even more questions into the air. Has the Wildrose moved past the old thoughts that they opposed just for the sake of opposing? I've read some of the allegations being tossed around by the party's faithful when it comes to the future of the family farm, how far the legislation will go, etc. Whether or not the party endorses those thoughts is irrelevant, because we all know perception is reality. And those not aligned with the Wildrose now think you're the ones fanning the misinformation flames. That information, right or wrong, has led to a massive and sometimes ugly movement that needs more than just a Facebook post and some handshakes.
Even the PC's, Liberals and Alberta Party deserve some blame. As much as they tried to have their voices heard, they were drowned out. I got the sense that many people were looking for some sort of calm voice of reason. But from one side, we had the talk about "unite the right" take over in a heartbeat, while on the other side, we had a party leader say he didn't like how the communication went, then in the next breath was trying to speak at an anti-Bill 6 rally about how the bill was actually a good thing. Can't blame a guy for trying, I suppose. Not exactly the best plan of action though.
And then there are those who have been really vocal about this debate. You're passionate and I'll give you that. But you have a weird way of showing it sometimes. Some of you have gone so far as to hide behind "freedom of speech" when it comes to your hate and threats. It's despicable. Really. Alberta is better than this. Or maybe Alberta isn't. Maybe this province is being exposed a bit. And that's what I fear going forward. Bill 6, as we know it, is a done deal. It's been passed and there's really no going back on it. But now we're up for an even bigger discussion about farmers' rights and other issues. Premier Notley has said that could take anywhere from 6-18 months. Can you imagine more of this disgusting commentary over the next year or so? Both sides will dig in their heels. Both sides will argue until they're blue in the face. But what will it really accomplish, if neither side is really willing to hear the other one out?
We can only hope that civility will reign supreme again in this wonderful province that we call home. We can only hope that when it does come time for a discussion on working conditions and other issues, that we're going to have a FULL discussion about it. Both sides need to understand this isn't going to be an easy discussion. It's not as simple as some make it out to be, but it's not as convoluted as others claim either. Both sides need to be articulate, take the emotion out of it, and be open to the idea that there are two sides to this debate. I don't believe anyone is (or should be) coming at this with an adversarial tone. We all want safe farms and ranches. We all want great places to keep raising our families and to contribute to society as a whole. We all want to see another part of our economy shine, especially when others struggle. I don't think anyone will argue those points.
But what they will argue, is whether the other side is willing to come to the table with ears wide open, ready to soak up all the information that can help us get to that point. Or will they show more interest in fighting and online battles than in creating good policy that makes all Albertans proud?
Wednesday, December 16, 2015
Wednesday, November 25, 2015
Confessions of a Farm Boy
Anyone who knows me, knows I'm a farm kid. Born and raised on the family farm north of Lethbridge, just outside the Village of Carmangay, it was a pretty modest upbringing. We didn't have any animals (other than a few cats and the odd dog) but I spent more than a few hours in the tractor.
Truth be told, I had it pretty easy in terms of the amount of work I actually did. My dad did the best he could to make sure I had the cushy jobs, like running swathers and combines, instead of doing the busier jobs like running truck. I handled pre-seeding work for a couple of years, but he took control of the actual seeding (might have had something to do with a fertilizing accident I had early on, where I may have over-fertilized a field or two). I ran a lot of errands, a lot of driving, became pretty good with a wrench. I also learned a lot about the value of working hard, earning and saving money, and having (and sometimes changing) plans.
Naturally, I have more than a few questions about what the province has in mind with its Bill 6. It's being dubbed the Enhanced Protection for Farm and Ranch Workers Act. While some have called for Alberta to "get with the times" for a while now, there's also a pretty vocal group out there wanting to quash this thing before it even takes off.
Let me be the first to say, I'm all for farmers, their families and their workers to have some sort of protection. One of my uncles lost his life in a farming accident. I remember his funeral well, mainly because my sisters and I watched over his young son during the service. Even to this day, I've never been 100% sure what kinds of programs and protection is out there for farmers and their workers, other than life insurance. It's not like they're covered or pay into workers compensation or anything like that.
The thing is though, I don't know if the family farm would want to be under those kinds of programs. It's not your typical work environment where you're working a typical 8-hour day. You're not sitting behind a desk, 9-5. There's a lot more to it than that, and I'm hoping that the government, as it goes through the consultations and drawing up of what will likely be some eye-opening legislation, realizes that.
Sometimes a calf is going to be born in the middle of the night, or maybe you need to put in that extra time to finish combining that field. Does that mean the farmer or his hired hand gets to take a day off in lieu of that overtime?
Sometimes you're not working with the newest of equipment. I worked in and on tractors, combines and other things that probably could have gone in a scrap heap years before I was born (I'm pretty sure my dad wanted a few of those contraptions to spontaneously combust once in a while). But we fixed them all up and hobbled them along year-after-year. Under the new legislation, will that equipment be deemed unfit to use? And if it is, will that leave some farmers without equipment to use, and the prospects of closing down shop because they can't afford the newest and shiniest things?
Two recent incidents on farms in Alberta also have me wondering what would happen with similar cases in the future.
One involves three sisters who died in a tragic accident on a farm near Withrow last month. It was at a family farm and had many people wondering how or why something like that could happen. Under the new legislation, would you see the province step in to investigate? Would we see a fatality inquiry of sorts, to determine if anything could be done to prevent similar deaths? And would it be fair to make public the circumstances behind their deaths, potentially putting their upbringing and the parents' parenting abilities under the microscope (and not for a second am I questioning them in this case, but these are the tough questions that would need to be asked in the future if we go down this road).
The other incident involved a ten-year-old boy, who died running a forklift at a Hutterite colony near Killam last week. Hutterite colonies are unique in their own way, as they're family farms to an extent, but also big enough to be considered a commercial operation. Again, would Occupational Health and Safety walk onto the colony in a similar situation to determine who was at fault? The question would likely be asked: why was a ten-year-old boy running a forklift? Would the legislation allow for penalties to be levied against the colony? Could they potentially be shutdown if certain rules and regulations aren't adhered to?
I would also be curious to know how the province would plan to police such legislation. Would additional inspectors be hired to visit all farms (commercial, colony and family)? What would they deem as acceptable work conditions? Would you need to wear a hard hat every time you worked on machinery? Would you need to be a certain age to do that work? What kind of work would you be allowed to do? (For an example on this one: I was paid to cut the grass with both push-mowers and garden tractors, aka equipment. That would make me a paid employee, subject to the same rules and regulations, I would assume, as someone who is paid to do other farm work.)
One other sidenote in all of this is the complexity of each farm. No two farms are exactly alike. Everyone's using different equipment. Everyone has different crops in the ground. They have different kinds of animals, with different numbers. They also have different workforces (some have several hired hands, some have one, some are totally self-sufficient with family members only). What about family or other friends who stop in each fall to help with harvest, and do the work for free? Would they need to fill out paperwork in order just to run truck for a couple Saturdays in September?
I realize I've asked a lot of questions (and some are hypothetical) and given very few answers. But that's the interesting thing in the province's announcement is that they don't even have a ton of answers. So I'm hesitant to throw the province under the bus when we don't have the legislation in front of us. But I do hope there's an understanding that this isn't going to be something that's easily fixed with a blanket bill that promises to make everyone safer.
Many farmers and their families choose to do what they do because of the lifestyle. They don't have to adhere to the usual "rules of the world." They work at their own pace, setting their own hours and their own rules. The good farmers and ranchers have good hired hands, who work to make it a safe environment together. They don't need government intervention to make it work.
Again, I'm not saying we shouldn't be held to high standards and I'm not saying safety shouldn't be taken into consideration. But I do believe there should be an understanding that there's a difference between commercial operations where the top consideration is making money, and a family operation, where the primary focus is to make and create a living for you and your family. Does anyone really think a family would put their loved ones (including children) at risk, just to make an extra buck?
Yes, mistakes do happen though. You never thought about what would happen if a high-velocity chain snapped off and smashed into a back window of a truck you're driving (happened). You never thought about what would happen if you climbed onto the top of the combine and stepped on some ice, slipping and falling a few metres down onto the rocker-bar (happened to someone I know who shall remain anonymous). You never thought about trying to sneak between a pickup truck and the grain truck, in hopes of getting the combine auger over top of the grain truck, only to realize you've hit the pickup with your combine pickup (guilty as charged). Mistakes happen. It's an assumed possibility when you take the job. Are we running the risk of creating more red tape for an industry that, for the most part, wasn't looking for protection in the first place?
I'm proud of my upbringing. Like I said, it taught me everything I know about the value of hard work and dedication. It made me who I am today and I wish more people had and would get that opportunity. To the provincial government, I hope the time is taken to craft this legislation properly, and not rush only to make good on a campaign promise.
I leave you with this:
"I believe a person's greatest possession is their dignity and that no calling bestows this more abundantly than farming.
I believe hard work and honest sweat are the building blocks of a person's character.
I believe that farming, despite its hardships and disappointments, is the most honest and honorable way a person can spend their days on this earth.
I believe farming provides education for life and that no other occupation teaches so much about birth, growth, and maturity in such a variety of ways.
I believe many of the best things in life are free: the splendor of a sunrise; the rapture of wide-open spaces; the exhilarating sight of your land greening each spring.
I believe true happiness comes from watching your crops ripen in the field and your children grow tall in the sun.
I believe my life will be measured ultimately by what I have done for my fellow man.
I believe in farming because it makes all this possible."
Author unknown, "The Farmer's Creed"
Truth be told, I had it pretty easy in terms of the amount of work I actually did. My dad did the best he could to make sure I had the cushy jobs, like running swathers and combines, instead of doing the busier jobs like running truck. I handled pre-seeding work for a couple of years, but he took control of the actual seeding (might have had something to do with a fertilizing accident I had early on, where I may have over-fertilized a field or two). I ran a lot of errands, a lot of driving, became pretty good with a wrench. I also learned a lot about the value of working hard, earning and saving money, and having (and sometimes changing) plans.
Naturally, I have more than a few questions about what the province has in mind with its Bill 6. It's being dubbed the Enhanced Protection for Farm and Ranch Workers Act. While some have called for Alberta to "get with the times" for a while now, there's also a pretty vocal group out there wanting to quash this thing before it even takes off.
Let me be the first to say, I'm all for farmers, their families and their workers to have some sort of protection. One of my uncles lost his life in a farming accident. I remember his funeral well, mainly because my sisters and I watched over his young son during the service. Even to this day, I've never been 100% sure what kinds of programs and protection is out there for farmers and their workers, other than life insurance. It's not like they're covered or pay into workers compensation or anything like that.
The thing is though, I don't know if the family farm would want to be under those kinds of programs. It's not your typical work environment where you're working a typical 8-hour day. You're not sitting behind a desk, 9-5. There's a lot more to it than that, and I'm hoping that the government, as it goes through the consultations and drawing up of what will likely be some eye-opening legislation, realizes that.
Sometimes a calf is going to be born in the middle of the night, or maybe you need to put in that extra time to finish combining that field. Does that mean the farmer or his hired hand gets to take a day off in lieu of that overtime?
Sometimes you're not working with the newest of equipment. I worked in and on tractors, combines and other things that probably could have gone in a scrap heap years before I was born (I'm pretty sure my dad wanted a few of those contraptions to spontaneously combust once in a while). But we fixed them all up and hobbled them along year-after-year. Under the new legislation, will that equipment be deemed unfit to use? And if it is, will that leave some farmers without equipment to use, and the prospects of closing down shop because they can't afford the newest and shiniest things?
Two recent incidents on farms in Alberta also have me wondering what would happen with similar cases in the future.
One involves three sisters who died in a tragic accident on a farm near Withrow last month. It was at a family farm and had many people wondering how or why something like that could happen. Under the new legislation, would you see the province step in to investigate? Would we see a fatality inquiry of sorts, to determine if anything could be done to prevent similar deaths? And would it be fair to make public the circumstances behind their deaths, potentially putting their upbringing and the parents' parenting abilities under the microscope (and not for a second am I questioning them in this case, but these are the tough questions that would need to be asked in the future if we go down this road).
The other incident involved a ten-year-old boy, who died running a forklift at a Hutterite colony near Killam last week. Hutterite colonies are unique in their own way, as they're family farms to an extent, but also big enough to be considered a commercial operation. Again, would Occupational Health and Safety walk onto the colony in a similar situation to determine who was at fault? The question would likely be asked: why was a ten-year-old boy running a forklift? Would the legislation allow for penalties to be levied against the colony? Could they potentially be shutdown if certain rules and regulations aren't adhered to?
I would also be curious to know how the province would plan to police such legislation. Would additional inspectors be hired to visit all farms (commercial, colony and family)? What would they deem as acceptable work conditions? Would you need to wear a hard hat every time you worked on machinery? Would you need to be a certain age to do that work? What kind of work would you be allowed to do? (For an example on this one: I was paid to cut the grass with both push-mowers and garden tractors, aka equipment. That would make me a paid employee, subject to the same rules and regulations, I would assume, as someone who is paid to do other farm work.)
One other sidenote in all of this is the complexity of each farm. No two farms are exactly alike. Everyone's using different equipment. Everyone has different crops in the ground. They have different kinds of animals, with different numbers. They also have different workforces (some have several hired hands, some have one, some are totally self-sufficient with family members only). What about family or other friends who stop in each fall to help with harvest, and do the work for free? Would they need to fill out paperwork in order just to run truck for a couple Saturdays in September?
I realize I've asked a lot of questions (and some are hypothetical) and given very few answers. But that's the interesting thing in the province's announcement is that they don't even have a ton of answers. So I'm hesitant to throw the province under the bus when we don't have the legislation in front of us. But I do hope there's an understanding that this isn't going to be something that's easily fixed with a blanket bill that promises to make everyone safer.
Many farmers and their families choose to do what they do because of the lifestyle. They don't have to adhere to the usual "rules of the world." They work at their own pace, setting their own hours and their own rules. The good farmers and ranchers have good hired hands, who work to make it a safe environment together. They don't need government intervention to make it work.
Again, I'm not saying we shouldn't be held to high standards and I'm not saying safety shouldn't be taken into consideration. But I do believe there should be an understanding that there's a difference between commercial operations where the top consideration is making money, and a family operation, where the primary focus is to make and create a living for you and your family. Does anyone really think a family would put their loved ones (including children) at risk, just to make an extra buck?
Yes, mistakes do happen though. You never thought about what would happen if a high-velocity chain snapped off and smashed into a back window of a truck you're driving (happened). You never thought about what would happen if you climbed onto the top of the combine and stepped on some ice, slipping and falling a few metres down onto the rocker-bar (happened to someone I know who shall remain anonymous). You never thought about trying to sneak between a pickup truck and the grain truck, in hopes of getting the combine auger over top of the grain truck, only to realize you've hit the pickup with your combine pickup (guilty as charged). Mistakes happen. It's an assumed possibility when you take the job. Are we running the risk of creating more red tape for an industry that, for the most part, wasn't looking for protection in the first place?
I'm proud of my upbringing. Like I said, it taught me everything I know about the value of hard work and dedication. It made me who I am today and I wish more people had and would get that opportunity. To the provincial government, I hope the time is taken to craft this legislation properly, and not rush only to make good on a campaign promise.
I leave you with this:
"I believe a person's greatest possession is their dignity and that no calling bestows this more abundantly than farming.
I believe hard work and honest sweat are the building blocks of a person's character.
I believe that farming, despite its hardships and disappointments, is the most honest and honorable way a person can spend their days on this earth.
I believe farming provides education for life and that no other occupation teaches so much about birth, growth, and maturity in such a variety of ways.
I believe many of the best things in life are free: the splendor of a sunrise; the rapture of wide-open spaces; the exhilarating sight of your land greening each spring.
I believe true happiness comes from watching your crops ripen in the field and your children grow tall in the sun.
I believe my life will be measured ultimately by what I have done for my fellow man.
I believe in farming because it makes all this possible."
Author unknown, "The Farmer's Creed"
Monday, November 16, 2015
When It All Goes Wrong Again
We know that a select few are responsible for the heinous crimes. We know that their actions don't represent the large majority. We know that they can hide amongst the innocents and make it extremely difficult to weed out them out. We also know we can't really close the borders without first doing a major audit of what's going on within.
Of course I'm talking about the scandal that erupted surrounding the sexual abuse of young boys by priests within the Catholic Church.
What's that?
You thought I was talking about Paris, terrorism and refugees?
The similarities are astounding, aren't they?
I'm not about to take sides in what has become an all-out war of words over what to do in the aftermath of the atrocious attacks in Paris. All I'm here to do is add a little context after reading enough online comments that make me want to turn off my computer and heave it into the Bow River.
Maybe I'm getting soft but I do kind of understand both sides.
There are those who want to go to war. They want to bomb ISIS (and in some cases the Middle East) back into the Stone Age, which might be an upgrade for some of the people who live in those nations. Those who want to take the battle to these terrorists want the slaughter of our innocent people to stop. They've watched as we've seemingly done nothing in recent years to neutralize the threat, and you know what they say about the definition of insanity (for those who don't know, it's doing the same thing over and over and over again while expecting a different result).
There are those who don't want to go war. They believe we need to save the refugees. Canada, in particular, is supposed to be a peacekeeping nation and it makes no sense to potentially slaughter innocent people in order to get a select few. They've watched as we've taken the battle to others and waited years to finally get to the end game (aka Osama Bin Laden).
The crazy thing is: both sides are right and wrong. We can't sit around and do nothing anymore. How many more of these attacks will we have to endure before someone finally puts their foot down and says "enough is enough"? Because we can mount social media campaigns and paint our Facebook profile pictures in the colours of the flag of the latest victimized country all we want, but that hasn't stopped the bloodshed before. The problem though is this: do we want to go to war when we don't seem to know who the target is? This is essentially guerrilla warfare. Unlike many wars in the past, this isn't a specific country we're facing. It's not a particular dictator or group leader. It seems it's every soldier for themselves, and as long as they do the deed, they are off to the mythological world they've been promised. We'd simply just be adding more fuel to the fire.
As far as the refugee issue goes, I've really been amazed at the amount of hatred that is out there towards Syrian refugees. They're being viewed by some as, essentially, all potential terrorists. We need to close our doors to all Muslims, they say. But do they realize they're going to have to close that door to many other nations along the way as well, if that's the road you want to take? Did you know that in 2010, there were more Muslims in China than there were in Syria? That's according to this Pew Research report. That all being said, there is an obligation to make sure Canadians (in our case) remain safe, so you can't just leave the door wide open (although I don't believe that's what has been proposed at all). The proper checks and balances should be done.
But now we've talked ourselves into another predicament, haven't we? How do we prove these people are exactly who they say they are? How do we know they're not going to commit more crimes? How do we know innocent people aren't going to be caught in the crossfire? Are we talking about Syria or are we talking about priests again?
Some of us are scared. And I get that. Not to sound all mushy but it's days like these which should remind us to be looking out for ourselves and each other. Whether it's terrorism, gangs, domestic abuse or white collar crime. We need to care a little more about what's going on in the world around us. It starts in our own neighborhoods, standing up for what's good and speaking out against what's bad. You don't want kids to be recruited by terrorist organizations? Make them feel like part of the community. You don't want seniors to be scammed by sophisticated criminals? Be more involved, help them understand what to look for. You want newcomers to our country to "adhere to our societal norms"? How about we show them why it's so great to live here, instead of exposing them to ignorance which will make some question why they moved here in the first place? Because I'm pretty sure most came here as it's the "land of opportunity", not the place where they get snarled at or all-out ignored simply because of their skin colour or home country.
I'll never claim to have any of the answers. In fact, I'm certain I end up questioning myself more than anything each time I write one of these blogs. I've said it before and I'll say it again: I don't care about your political stripe, religious choice, marital status, sexuality, wealth, waist line or any other "defining feature", as long as you're a decent human being. And that's what seems to be lacking everywhere I look. My only hope in the days and weeks to come is that we make the right choices based on basic human decency.
Of course I'm talking about the scandal that erupted surrounding the sexual abuse of young boys by priests within the Catholic Church.
What's that?
You thought I was talking about Paris, terrorism and refugees?
The similarities are astounding, aren't they?
I'm not about to take sides in what has become an all-out war of words over what to do in the aftermath of the atrocious attacks in Paris. All I'm here to do is add a little context after reading enough online comments that make me want to turn off my computer and heave it into the Bow River.
Maybe I'm getting soft but I do kind of understand both sides.
There are those who want to go to war. They want to bomb ISIS (and in some cases the Middle East) back into the Stone Age, which might be an upgrade for some of the people who live in those nations. Those who want to take the battle to these terrorists want the slaughter of our innocent people to stop. They've watched as we've seemingly done nothing in recent years to neutralize the threat, and you know what they say about the definition of insanity (for those who don't know, it's doing the same thing over and over and over again while expecting a different result).
There are those who don't want to go war. They believe we need to save the refugees. Canada, in particular, is supposed to be a peacekeeping nation and it makes no sense to potentially slaughter innocent people in order to get a select few. They've watched as we've taken the battle to others and waited years to finally get to the end game (aka Osama Bin Laden).
The crazy thing is: both sides are right and wrong. We can't sit around and do nothing anymore. How many more of these attacks will we have to endure before someone finally puts their foot down and says "enough is enough"? Because we can mount social media campaigns and paint our Facebook profile pictures in the colours of the flag of the latest victimized country all we want, but that hasn't stopped the bloodshed before. The problem though is this: do we want to go to war when we don't seem to know who the target is? This is essentially guerrilla warfare. Unlike many wars in the past, this isn't a specific country we're facing. It's not a particular dictator or group leader. It seems it's every soldier for themselves, and as long as they do the deed, they are off to the mythological world they've been promised. We'd simply just be adding more fuel to the fire.
As far as the refugee issue goes, I've really been amazed at the amount of hatred that is out there towards Syrian refugees. They're being viewed by some as, essentially, all potential terrorists. We need to close our doors to all Muslims, they say. But do they realize they're going to have to close that door to many other nations along the way as well, if that's the road you want to take? Did you know that in 2010, there were more Muslims in China than there were in Syria? That's according to this Pew Research report. That all being said, there is an obligation to make sure Canadians (in our case) remain safe, so you can't just leave the door wide open (although I don't believe that's what has been proposed at all). The proper checks and balances should be done.
But now we've talked ourselves into another predicament, haven't we? How do we prove these people are exactly who they say they are? How do we know they're not going to commit more crimes? How do we know innocent people aren't going to be caught in the crossfire? Are we talking about Syria or are we talking about priests again?
Some of us are scared. And I get that. Not to sound all mushy but it's days like these which should remind us to be looking out for ourselves and each other. Whether it's terrorism, gangs, domestic abuse or white collar crime. We need to care a little more about what's going on in the world around us. It starts in our own neighborhoods, standing up for what's good and speaking out against what's bad. You don't want kids to be recruited by terrorist organizations? Make them feel like part of the community. You don't want seniors to be scammed by sophisticated criminals? Be more involved, help them understand what to look for. You want newcomers to our country to "adhere to our societal norms"? How about we show them why it's so great to live here, instead of exposing them to ignorance which will make some question why they moved here in the first place? Because I'm pretty sure most came here as it's the "land of opportunity", not the place where they get snarled at or all-out ignored simply because of their skin colour or home country.
I'll never claim to have any of the answers. In fact, I'm certain I end up questioning myself more than anything each time I write one of these blogs. I've said it before and I'll say it again: I don't care about your political stripe, religious choice, marital status, sexuality, wealth, waist line or any other "defining feature", as long as you're a decent human being. And that's what seems to be lacking everywhere I look. My only hope in the days and weeks to come is that we make the right choices based on basic human decency.
Tuesday, November 10, 2015
SMRT...I mean SMART...
I'll never forget one of the first things I heard in D'Arcy Kavanagh's writing class in college.
"Everything you learned in high school about proper English: forget it."
I'm paraphrasing a bit (I don't remember the exact quote). But I do remember promptly hitting "select all" in my mind and clicked on "delete" faster than you could ever imagine. It's not that I was horrible at that class (I was an honor roll student in high school). But when I first started taking broadcasting, I had no intention of actually writing anything. My initial plan was actually to produce commercials and other audio tidbits. News and sports weren't even really on my radar.
As it turns out, my practicum in Red Deer changed my outlook on that side of the business, and ten years later, here we are.
But even in that ten years, it's amazing how much the industry has changed when it comes to the technology. The website we had at my first station in Lloydminster was about as basic as it could possibly get. We didn't have news on it or anything. I don't even think you could listen live. There were bios and a few other things, but that was about it. It wasn't until I got to Calgary in 2007 that we even started to feed the internet beast. But it was a couple of times a day, if that.
It wasn't until about my trek with CJCY in Medicine Hat from 2008 to 2010 that we started to get a feeling of just how prevalent the online and social media side was going to take over the industry. We were starting to post stories on an "as it happens" to our website. Those stories were being pushed to our Facebook and Twitter accounts.
That's when we started to realize one of radio's biggest problems. We were now going to be compared to TV and print outlets in the way our visual presentation looked. Gone were the days when all you had to do was SOUND awesome. You now had to be eloquent on a screen. And I was one of the "lucky" ones, in that I wasn't far-removed from my high school English days, so I went back into the trash can and recovered all of those files I deleted a few years previous. For others though, it wasn't that easy. I'm pretty sure sports guys are born with the inability to spell, or even have their fingers on the right home keys on the keyboards. I remember reading one of the scripts of the late Billy Powers once, and I had no idea what it read:
Yhe Vslhsty Glsmrd str bsvk im svyion yonihhy.
In real speak, it was "The Calgary Flames are back in action tonight." But his fingers were never on the right keys. But he knew what he meant and that's all that mattered.
But now it does matter. People judge you on your ability to spell, your grammar and all of that fun stuff. And not only that, but they're judging you on presentation, such as the photos you put up on the website. Which can be a bit of a challenge as a reporter. With two arms, you're trying to hold a microphone, take a picture, live-tweet and maybe even do some video. Oh, and that picture better be in focus, properly centered and look professional (even though you're probably taking it with an iPhone). And you better spell everything properly. For the record: don't depend on auto-correct for that. It never comes in handy when you actually need it.
It's funny to look back on the last ten years in this business because you realize just how quickly things changed. I can't imagine being some of my colleagues in the industry who have been in it for 20 or 30 years. The difference between "the good ol' days" and today must look like two totally different worlds.
A fascinating world we live in nowadays...
"Everything you learned in high school about proper English: forget it."
I'm paraphrasing a bit (I don't remember the exact quote). But I do remember promptly hitting "select all" in my mind and clicked on "delete" faster than you could ever imagine. It's not that I was horrible at that class (I was an honor roll student in high school). But when I first started taking broadcasting, I had no intention of actually writing anything. My initial plan was actually to produce commercials and other audio tidbits. News and sports weren't even really on my radar.
As it turns out, my practicum in Red Deer changed my outlook on that side of the business, and ten years later, here we are.
But even in that ten years, it's amazing how much the industry has changed when it comes to the technology. The website we had at my first station in Lloydminster was about as basic as it could possibly get. We didn't have news on it or anything. I don't even think you could listen live. There were bios and a few other things, but that was about it. It wasn't until I got to Calgary in 2007 that we even started to feed the internet beast. But it was a couple of times a day, if that.
It wasn't until about my trek with CJCY in Medicine Hat from 2008 to 2010 that we started to get a feeling of just how prevalent the online and social media side was going to take over the industry. We were starting to post stories on an "as it happens" to our website. Those stories were being pushed to our Facebook and Twitter accounts.
That's when we started to realize one of radio's biggest problems. We were now going to be compared to TV and print outlets in the way our visual presentation looked. Gone were the days when all you had to do was SOUND awesome. You now had to be eloquent on a screen. And I was one of the "lucky" ones, in that I wasn't far-removed from my high school English days, so I went back into the trash can and recovered all of those files I deleted a few years previous. For others though, it wasn't that easy. I'm pretty sure sports guys are born with the inability to spell, or even have their fingers on the right home keys on the keyboards. I remember reading one of the scripts of the late Billy Powers once, and I had no idea what it read:
Yhe Vslhsty Glsmrd str bsvk im svyion yonihhy.
In real speak, it was "The Calgary Flames are back in action tonight." But his fingers were never on the right keys. But he knew what he meant and that's all that mattered.
But now it does matter. People judge you on your ability to spell, your grammar and all of that fun stuff. And not only that, but they're judging you on presentation, such as the photos you put up on the website. Which can be a bit of a challenge as a reporter. With two arms, you're trying to hold a microphone, take a picture, live-tweet and maybe even do some video. Oh, and that picture better be in focus, properly centered and look professional (even though you're probably taking it with an iPhone). And you better spell everything properly. For the record: don't depend on auto-correct for that. It never comes in handy when you actually need it.
It's funny to look back on the last ten years in this business because you realize just how quickly things changed. I can't imagine being some of my colleagues in the industry who have been in it for 20 or 30 years. The difference between "the good ol' days" and today must look like two totally different worlds.
A fascinating world we live in nowadays...
Monday, November 2, 2015
If I Was John Gibbons...
...I'd be rich.
Okay. Horrible reference to a Barenaked Ladies tune. Anyways, time to go off-script a little and talk some sports. I realize the World Series is now over, but it's taken me this long to get over my beloved Blue Jays not advancing past Kansas City. Despite having an all-star team each night, the Blue Jays somehow managed to hit a string of bad luck and awful decision-making at the worst possible time.
Truth be told, I didn't think they'd get past Texas in the ALDS. The game two loss in 14 innings took a lot out of me. I was absolutely baffled at that point about how this team didn't have the ability to manufacture a run. Every player in that game was swinging for the fences, trying to be the hero. They did better in the remaining three games (obviously) and it gave fans a bit of hope.
But the Kansas City series really showed a weakness of the Blue Jays: their dependance on the long ball. Which is fine and dandy as long as you think you can beat the other team's pitching. We all know about the 12 runners left in scoring position in game six. No one can ever say they didn't have opportunities to win that game. In particular, the last inning, where you leave runners on second and third after having none out.
For those who missed it, here's how it played out: Russell Martin gets a single. Dalton Pompey pinch runs for Martin and steals second AND third. Kevin Pillar walks and ends up stealing second while Dioner Navarro (pinch-hitting for Ryan Goins) strikes out. Ben Revere strikes out. Josh Donaldson grounds out. End of ball game.
There's probably a reason I'm not a MLB manager, but I didn't understand the sequence of events following Pompey's stolen bases and Pillar's walk. It was like Jays skipper John Gibbons didn't think things through fully. It all started with the decision to go to the bench to use Navarro instead of Goins. According to the MLB website, the only Blue Jays player with a sacrifice hit of any kind in the post-season was...Ryan Goins. That's all you're trying to do. You want to advance Pompey, who is fast. You don't need to crush a pop-fly to score him. If I'm Gibby, I'm using Goins to bunt down the first base line. If he gets it halfway up the line, Pompey likely scores, Pillar advances to third and Goins has a 70/30 shot of being out (as that's probably the only play the defense has at getting an out). That ties the game up 4-4. You have one out with a runner on third (if Goins is actually thrown out). Then you do the exact same thing with Revere. Make him bunt up the first base line and see if you can score Pillar (who is no slouch on the basepaths). If he doesn't score, no harm no foul. If he does, you have a lead and Donaldson comes up with either one or two out (depending on if Goins was out in the at-bat before and if Revere managed to reach first on the bunt). But Revere didn't even show bunt through his at-bat.
I do understand the furor over the one pitch out of the zone being called a strike and likely changing the complexion of Donaldson's at-bat (more defensive swings as compared with being patient, waiting for his pitch to drive). But the Jays shouldn't have been in that situation with two runners on base anyways. They should have been rolling the dice with small-ball before the MVP candidate even stepped into the on-deck circle.
Gibbons said he was doing everything to extend the season when it came to his pitching staff (which was baseball's equivalent to hockey's "shortening the bench" by having five guys he actually trusted on the bump and three were starters). But when it came to hitting, the Jays took two risks by having Pompey steal not only second but third base in the ninth. Then they took no risks at all. I'm not saying my ideas would have won the series. They might not have even won the game for that matter. But it felt like it should have been common-sense decisions in a time of desperate need. Need of one run to tie it.
The even crazier part of this happens to be that the Jays watched Lorenzo Cain score from first base on a line drive into right field. It was a crazy risk by the Royals third base coach to even send Cain, knowing Bautista's arm in right. Yet it worked out beautifully. But that's what happens when you take a few risks. Some will pay off. Some won't. But that's what playoffs are all about.
That's why it took me this long to vent about this. I wanted to ruminate on it. Surely there was going to be some sort of explanation made available. Perhaps I was under-thinking how that ninth inning played out. Maybe I was letting emotions get the better of me. But even now, under a relatively sound state of mind, I can't quite wrap my head around what happened.
It was a great ride as a Jays fan to have something to cheer about in October, don't get me wrong. But the sour taste of that game six is going to linger for a while from my spot as armchair manager.
Okay. Horrible reference to a Barenaked Ladies tune. Anyways, time to go off-script a little and talk some sports. I realize the World Series is now over, but it's taken me this long to get over my beloved Blue Jays not advancing past Kansas City. Despite having an all-star team each night, the Blue Jays somehow managed to hit a string of bad luck and awful decision-making at the worst possible time.
Truth be told, I didn't think they'd get past Texas in the ALDS. The game two loss in 14 innings took a lot out of me. I was absolutely baffled at that point about how this team didn't have the ability to manufacture a run. Every player in that game was swinging for the fences, trying to be the hero. They did better in the remaining three games (obviously) and it gave fans a bit of hope.
But the Kansas City series really showed a weakness of the Blue Jays: their dependance on the long ball. Which is fine and dandy as long as you think you can beat the other team's pitching. We all know about the 12 runners left in scoring position in game six. No one can ever say they didn't have opportunities to win that game. In particular, the last inning, where you leave runners on second and third after having none out.
For those who missed it, here's how it played out: Russell Martin gets a single. Dalton Pompey pinch runs for Martin and steals second AND third. Kevin Pillar walks and ends up stealing second while Dioner Navarro (pinch-hitting for Ryan Goins) strikes out. Ben Revere strikes out. Josh Donaldson grounds out. End of ball game.
There's probably a reason I'm not a MLB manager, but I didn't understand the sequence of events following Pompey's stolen bases and Pillar's walk. It was like Jays skipper John Gibbons didn't think things through fully. It all started with the decision to go to the bench to use Navarro instead of Goins. According to the MLB website, the only Blue Jays player with a sacrifice hit of any kind in the post-season was...Ryan Goins. That's all you're trying to do. You want to advance Pompey, who is fast. You don't need to crush a pop-fly to score him. If I'm Gibby, I'm using Goins to bunt down the first base line. If he gets it halfway up the line, Pompey likely scores, Pillar advances to third and Goins has a 70/30 shot of being out (as that's probably the only play the defense has at getting an out). That ties the game up 4-4. You have one out with a runner on third (if Goins is actually thrown out). Then you do the exact same thing with Revere. Make him bunt up the first base line and see if you can score Pillar (who is no slouch on the basepaths). If he doesn't score, no harm no foul. If he does, you have a lead and Donaldson comes up with either one or two out (depending on if Goins was out in the at-bat before and if Revere managed to reach first on the bunt). But Revere didn't even show bunt through his at-bat.
I do understand the furor over the one pitch out of the zone being called a strike and likely changing the complexion of Donaldson's at-bat (more defensive swings as compared with being patient, waiting for his pitch to drive). But the Jays shouldn't have been in that situation with two runners on base anyways. They should have been rolling the dice with small-ball before the MVP candidate even stepped into the on-deck circle.
Gibbons said he was doing everything to extend the season when it came to his pitching staff (which was baseball's equivalent to hockey's "shortening the bench" by having five guys he actually trusted on the bump and three were starters). But when it came to hitting, the Jays took two risks by having Pompey steal not only second but third base in the ninth. Then they took no risks at all. I'm not saying my ideas would have won the series. They might not have even won the game for that matter. But it felt like it should have been common-sense decisions in a time of desperate need. Need of one run to tie it.
The even crazier part of this happens to be that the Jays watched Lorenzo Cain score from first base on a line drive into right field. It was a crazy risk by the Royals third base coach to even send Cain, knowing Bautista's arm in right. Yet it worked out beautifully. But that's what happens when you take a few risks. Some will pay off. Some won't. But that's what playoffs are all about.
That's why it took me this long to vent about this. I wanted to ruminate on it. Surely there was going to be some sort of explanation made available. Perhaps I was under-thinking how that ninth inning played out. Maybe I was letting emotions get the better of me. But even now, under a relatively sound state of mind, I can't quite wrap my head around what happened.
It was a great ride as a Jays fan to have something to cheer about in October, don't get me wrong. But the sour taste of that game six is going to linger for a while from my spot as armchair manager.
Sunday, October 25, 2015
Post-Election Ramblings
I'm going to start with what I said on Facebook after the election was over:
Canada has spoken. Whether you like the results or not, this is our new reality. For those who don't like it, you can either stomp your feet in the corner, claiming the world is coming to an end. Or you can suck it up and fight for what you feel is important. Fight for justice and good policy in light of a new government's failings. But let's not forget to celebrate Canada's successes as well. Those on the left felt a Conservative government would ruin this country 10 years ago. We, as a nation, did pretty well, I'd say. The roles are reversed now. Just like we did then, let's put politics aside now and work together to keep this country as wonderful as it always has been.
I would like to add something to that sentiment. For those who are celebrating the results of last Monday's election, you also can't sit on your high horse and expect the accolades to pour in. You are in for a long four years (or so) of constantly having to prove yourself, to show that your vision for Canada was in fact the best, and that this was a decision based on that vision and not just to get another party out of power. Because your true colours will ultimately determine whether this country continues to thrive or not.
I'll step off my pedestal now and talk about a few observations about this election:
#1. All-Candidates Forums
Is it safe to say that the all-candidates forum is quickly becoming a thing of the past? While I understand the value it can hold (especially when it comes to determining who can work well under fire, who can talk in front of crowds, etc), the point of these gatherings has quickly been lost, especially here in Alberta. If showing up to these forums actually mattered, many MPs wouldn't have jobs right now. The other thing is that these gatherings have become nothing more than partisan grandstanding. Most people in attendance already know who they're voting for, and they've only shown up to either rip on the other candidates or act as cheerleaders for their candidates. I haven't met very many people who have gone in with an open mind and said "that forum really helped change or make up my mind." I whole-heartedly agree with how it is important to the democratic process, but I can also see how some candidates wouldn't want to take part.
#2. The West's Relevancy
I joked on Twitter that the national TV networks would have their projections and have their elections called by 7:35pm MST. And I wasn't that far off (I think it was 7:37). If this election did anything, it brought us back to the 90's, where the results of the west really didn't matter because Ontario and Quebec spoke in relative unison. Admittedly, it was a little frustrating to see that, but I do understand representation by population, to a certain extent. But look at the provincial election. 360,000 people voted for the Wildrose, who ended up with 21 seats. 413,000 people voted for the PC's, who ended up with 10 seats (well...9 because Prentice didn't stick around to sit in the seat). That's right, the PC's actually got more votes than the Wildrose, but the Wildrose ended up with double the seats. That's what happens when the Wildrose cleans up in the rural areas and the PC's finished 2nd in the cities. Is that really appropriate representation in the legislature? It's an argument that's gone on since this system began. Here's an idea: each party gives you 100 of its best candidates to man the 100 seats in the House of Commons. They give you a depth chart of sorts, including who would sit in what cabinet post. Then on election day, voters truly vote for the party. If the winning party gets 44% of the vote, they will send their top 44 to the House. If one is caught breaking the law or something else that's untoward, we don't hold a byelection. We kick that MP out and we bring up the next person on the depth chart from the OTHER guys. So for example, if a Liberal MP is booted, a Conservative (official opposition) gets to replace that MP. If it's someone from the official opposition getting turfed, they are replaced by the third party, and so on. It's like recall legislation, only less costly for the taxpayer and makes parties really think hard about who they want in their inner-circle. The one downside is that you don't have a "local" voice in Ottawa, which I sympathize with. But maybe that's where we start depending more on our provincial governments to be our advocates. Because we see it far too often, where we feel like MPs are more "Ottawa's representative in this riding" more than "this riding's representative in Ottawa." I've said it before: I'd rather have an MP in opposition who works for me than have an MP in government who works for his party.
#3. And then there was Alberta...
Something really weird has happened in Alberta. In May, we voted for a leftist NDP government, yet in Monday's federal election, the majority of the province took another right and went with Conservatives. Talk about two opposite ends of the spectrum. So now you have a provincial government (NDP) trying to cozy up with Alberta's MPs (Conservatives) to make sure our best interests are being looked after in Ottawa, which is now run by another majority government (Liberals). Holy moly. Makes for some really interesting discussions over whether you can or whether you should put partisan politics aside. You should, given all of these politicians have been elected to serve the best interests of Albertans and Canadians. That being said, you can't just bend over backwards just to get along. I reckon the conversations behind closed doors are going to be quite animated as all three sides try to figure out how to best govern what many still consider to be the "economic engine" of this country.
That got long-winded in a hurry. I don't say it often, but thanks for reading this blog. I'm always amazed seeing how many people actually take the time to at least read a few sentences of my sometimes-coherent rambling. If there's a topic you'd like for me to chat about, political, sports or otherwise, don't hesitate to drop me a line: radiofriendlyjoe@yahoo.ca.
Canada has spoken. Whether you like the results or not, this is our new reality. For those who don't like it, you can either stomp your feet in the corner, claiming the world is coming to an end. Or you can suck it up and fight for what you feel is important. Fight for justice and good policy in light of a new government's failings. But let's not forget to celebrate Canada's successes as well. Those on the left felt a Conservative government would ruin this country 10 years ago. We, as a nation, did pretty well, I'd say. The roles are reversed now. Just like we did then, let's put politics aside now and work together to keep this country as wonderful as it always has been.
I would like to add something to that sentiment. For those who are celebrating the results of last Monday's election, you also can't sit on your high horse and expect the accolades to pour in. You are in for a long four years (or so) of constantly having to prove yourself, to show that your vision for Canada was in fact the best, and that this was a decision based on that vision and not just to get another party out of power. Because your true colours will ultimately determine whether this country continues to thrive or not.
I'll step off my pedestal now and talk about a few observations about this election:
#1. All-Candidates Forums
Is it safe to say that the all-candidates forum is quickly becoming a thing of the past? While I understand the value it can hold (especially when it comes to determining who can work well under fire, who can talk in front of crowds, etc), the point of these gatherings has quickly been lost, especially here in Alberta. If showing up to these forums actually mattered, many MPs wouldn't have jobs right now. The other thing is that these gatherings have become nothing more than partisan grandstanding. Most people in attendance already know who they're voting for, and they've only shown up to either rip on the other candidates or act as cheerleaders for their candidates. I haven't met very many people who have gone in with an open mind and said "that forum really helped change or make up my mind." I whole-heartedly agree with how it is important to the democratic process, but I can also see how some candidates wouldn't want to take part.
#2. The West's Relevancy
I joked on Twitter that the national TV networks would have their projections and have their elections called by 7:35pm MST. And I wasn't that far off (I think it was 7:37). If this election did anything, it brought us back to the 90's, where the results of the west really didn't matter because Ontario and Quebec spoke in relative unison. Admittedly, it was a little frustrating to see that, but I do understand representation by population, to a certain extent. But look at the provincial election. 360,000 people voted for the Wildrose, who ended up with 21 seats. 413,000 people voted for the PC's, who ended up with 10 seats (well...9 because Prentice didn't stick around to sit in the seat). That's right, the PC's actually got more votes than the Wildrose, but the Wildrose ended up with double the seats. That's what happens when the Wildrose cleans up in the rural areas and the PC's finished 2nd in the cities. Is that really appropriate representation in the legislature? It's an argument that's gone on since this system began. Here's an idea: each party gives you 100 of its best candidates to man the 100 seats in the House of Commons. They give you a depth chart of sorts, including who would sit in what cabinet post. Then on election day, voters truly vote for the party. If the winning party gets 44% of the vote, they will send their top 44 to the House. If one is caught breaking the law or something else that's untoward, we don't hold a byelection. We kick that MP out and we bring up the next person on the depth chart from the OTHER guys. So for example, if a Liberal MP is booted, a Conservative (official opposition) gets to replace that MP. If it's someone from the official opposition getting turfed, they are replaced by the third party, and so on. It's like recall legislation, only less costly for the taxpayer and makes parties really think hard about who they want in their inner-circle. The one downside is that you don't have a "local" voice in Ottawa, which I sympathize with. But maybe that's where we start depending more on our provincial governments to be our advocates. Because we see it far too often, where we feel like MPs are more "Ottawa's representative in this riding" more than "this riding's representative in Ottawa." I've said it before: I'd rather have an MP in opposition who works for me than have an MP in government who works for his party.
#3. And then there was Alberta...
Something really weird has happened in Alberta. In May, we voted for a leftist NDP government, yet in Monday's federal election, the majority of the province took another right and went with Conservatives. Talk about two opposite ends of the spectrum. So now you have a provincial government (NDP) trying to cozy up with Alberta's MPs (Conservatives) to make sure our best interests are being looked after in Ottawa, which is now run by another majority government (Liberals). Holy moly. Makes for some really interesting discussions over whether you can or whether you should put partisan politics aside. You should, given all of these politicians have been elected to serve the best interests of Albertans and Canadians. That being said, you can't just bend over backwards just to get along. I reckon the conversations behind closed doors are going to be quite animated as all three sides try to figure out how to best govern what many still consider to be the "economic engine" of this country.
That got long-winded in a hurry. I don't say it often, but thanks for reading this blog. I'm always amazed seeing how many people actually take the time to at least read a few sentences of my sometimes-coherent rambling. If there's a topic you'd like for me to chat about, political, sports or otherwise, don't hesitate to drop me a line: radiofriendlyjoe@yahoo.ca.
Wednesday, October 7, 2015
Don't Know Who To Vote For?
It's amazing the number of texts, messages and outright conversations I've had in the last few days surrounding the federal election. The main theme of these communications has been the same: "I don't know who to vote for."
This has been a LONG campaign. Longest in Canadian history. And for those who have been paying attention the whole time, the fatigue factor is starting to set in. Many have heard more than enough reasons to not only vote FOR each party, but also more than enough reasons NOT to vote for each party. And that seems to have frustrated a lot of people. So I'm here to provide some advice to any of you who have been thinking about how they were going to cast their ballot, and for those who were a little confused on how to do so.
#1. Find What Resonates With You
Think about your own life and determine what's important to you. Is it strong finances? Is it a strong moral compass? Is it child care? Find some issues that look like they are going to be affecting you in the next few years. Then look at each party's platform and determine which one seems to jive with your own belief system. Chances are, each party is going to have a couple of things you disagree with. But that's almost to be expected. Don't let the little things deter you from voting for or against a certain party. No party is going to be perfect for everyone, and the minute you start nitpicking is the minute that you quickly realize you won't be able to vote for any of the parties.
#2. Find Which Candidate Resonates With You
If you're still at a loss when it comes to the parties or the leaders, then it's time to look at each of the candidates in your own riding. Now, I would argue this should be your primary concern, because as I've said before, there's no way any party will remain accountable if you're not keeping all of the candidates accountable. That being said, do some research on your local candidates. Answer the door when they knock. Get to see which of them impresses you. Don't let them over-promise. Make them be realistic with you. And make them show you why they would help represent you in Ottawa. I have no doubt that each party has all-stars, who are willing to do the best for their constituents. And if you think a strong voice in Ottawa is more important than someone who tows party lines just to stay in the "inner circle", this might be the recommendation for you.
#3. Find A Reason To Vote FOR Something/Someone
I've been on a bit of a crusade of late, with my key message being that I would rather vote FOR something rather than AGAINST something else. I really believe everyone should find that reason. And that reason should be FOR you. I'm glad that people where their political stripes on their sleeves, but it won't be affecting the way I vote at the end of the day, nor should it affect you. Maybe it's the economy and jobs. Maybe it's social issues. Maybe it's that you like the way a certain candidate handles the pressure and the questions you ask. The important thing is that you ask those questions and find the answers that you're looking for. You might end up being surprised where you find the good answers. Don't depend on everyone else to get the answers for you. Get it straight from the horse's mouth. And who cares if someone doesn't like the way you're voting. It's your vote. It's your chance to take part in the democratic process.
I could try to tell you who to vote for. But I play a mean devil's advocate and would do my best to poke holes in every single argument. Plus, my opinion shouldn't matter at the end of the day. It's your opinion that matters on October 19th. The only opinion I'll share is that I hope everyone takes a minute to get informed, find a reason to vote for someone, and then casts their ballot. A message will never get sent to politicians unless the electorate mails the letter.
This has been a LONG campaign. Longest in Canadian history. And for those who have been paying attention the whole time, the fatigue factor is starting to set in. Many have heard more than enough reasons to not only vote FOR each party, but also more than enough reasons NOT to vote for each party. And that seems to have frustrated a lot of people. So I'm here to provide some advice to any of you who have been thinking about how they were going to cast their ballot, and for those who were a little confused on how to do so.
#1. Find What Resonates With You
Think about your own life and determine what's important to you. Is it strong finances? Is it a strong moral compass? Is it child care? Find some issues that look like they are going to be affecting you in the next few years. Then look at each party's platform and determine which one seems to jive with your own belief system. Chances are, each party is going to have a couple of things you disagree with. But that's almost to be expected. Don't let the little things deter you from voting for or against a certain party. No party is going to be perfect for everyone, and the minute you start nitpicking is the minute that you quickly realize you won't be able to vote for any of the parties.
#2. Find Which Candidate Resonates With You
If you're still at a loss when it comes to the parties or the leaders, then it's time to look at each of the candidates in your own riding. Now, I would argue this should be your primary concern, because as I've said before, there's no way any party will remain accountable if you're not keeping all of the candidates accountable. That being said, do some research on your local candidates. Answer the door when they knock. Get to see which of them impresses you. Don't let them over-promise. Make them be realistic with you. And make them show you why they would help represent you in Ottawa. I have no doubt that each party has all-stars, who are willing to do the best for their constituents. And if you think a strong voice in Ottawa is more important than someone who tows party lines just to stay in the "inner circle", this might be the recommendation for you.
#3. Find A Reason To Vote FOR Something/Someone
I've been on a bit of a crusade of late, with my key message being that I would rather vote FOR something rather than AGAINST something else. I really believe everyone should find that reason. And that reason should be FOR you. I'm glad that people where their political stripes on their sleeves, but it won't be affecting the way I vote at the end of the day, nor should it affect you. Maybe it's the economy and jobs. Maybe it's social issues. Maybe it's that you like the way a certain candidate handles the pressure and the questions you ask. The important thing is that you ask those questions and find the answers that you're looking for. You might end up being surprised where you find the good answers. Don't depend on everyone else to get the answers for you. Get it straight from the horse's mouth. And who cares if someone doesn't like the way you're voting. It's your vote. It's your chance to take part in the democratic process.
I could try to tell you who to vote for. But I play a mean devil's advocate and would do my best to poke holes in every single argument. Plus, my opinion shouldn't matter at the end of the day. It's your opinion that matters on October 19th. The only opinion I'll share is that I hope everyone takes a minute to get informed, find a reason to vote for someone, and then casts their ballot. A message will never get sent to politicians unless the electorate mails the letter.
Wednesday, September 9, 2015
Facebook Statuses Explained
I have this bad habit of venting frustrations on Facebook. I'm sure it's going to come back and bite me in the rump one day. But the thing is: I'm not afraid of my opinions. As someone in talk radio, I believe that we need to have an opinion to get people talking.
It's been a weird few weeks in the world of news and it's had me venting. 140 characters aren't enough on Twitter. And on Facebook, I'm really just giving a "Coles Notes" version. So I'm here to share my full, unfiltered thoughts on some recent posts.
#1. Maybe politicians should start their campaigning with "I'm sorry for what's coming." It'd be a lot easier for everyone to digest, whether it's lies, corruption, stupidity or whatever makes headlines. Because right now I feel bad for voters, who are having to wade their way through the seemingly infinite amount of garbage just to find a reason to vote for someone. Especially when all the politicians say is that they "regret" their missteps. That's not an apology. That's a "I wish I didn't get caught." Anyways... Back to your regularly-scheduled long weekend.
I did add one more point onto that, being it wasn't aimed at any one party or politician. This was from this past long weekend after a couple of federal Conservative candidates were booted from the campaign because of things said and done. But it runs rampant in every single election and with every single party. And it's left voters in flux. How do you vote for someone when all you can focus on is all the bad everyone has highlighted about them. "You can't trust this guy." "He's too young." "She doesn't have enough experience." "The economy might collapse with this party." "We need change." All of these typical slogans and party lines and not enough substance because voters just don't have the attention spans to keep up. In Alberta, people knew they wanted change in the last provincial election. But did they know what they were getting when they voted NDP? Or were they simply voting for something just to get the 40+ year dynasty out the door? Why did urban go NDP and rural go Wildrose? Could the federal election be split depending on geographic region as well? It's a fascinating case study on "divide-and-conquer" politics, deliberate or not. But I think part of the reason is because of the fear-mongering being done by all parties, coupled with the scandals and sideshows, which leave people shrugging their shoulders and not really focused on the most important question: who is best to run this fine country of ours?
#2. Just a little follow-up to my last post about the woman who allegedly threw the puke bag at the taxi driver after he requested a clean-up fee for her mess: what in the coldest gates of hell? I'm sorry. But why do people feel so GD entitled that they can do whatever they want to those who are in the service industry? Honestly, you must believe that they are below you if you think you can get away with making racist/derogatory/ridiculous comments or take inappropriate/abusive actions. How would you like it if someone walked into your office and did the same thing? Everyone's trying to make a living here and you're showing absolutely zero respect for them. I get it. Respect goes both ways. But you'd be surprised how quickly it's reciprocated if you make the first move. Have a conversation. Be civil. It's not that GD hard. Rant over.
I don't use taxis a lot. But when I do, I try to get the conversation going quickly. I find some of the stories fascinating. I remember meeting a gentleman in Calgary who was from "the good part of Afghanistan" (his words). He was in Canada trying to make enough money to bring the rest of his family over. He loved our idea of freedom. This was his "land of opportunity," in particular for his kids. It was a great story. There was another guy when I was in Florida who was running a fleet of older vehicles. So we got to talking about fixing up these old 1950's and 1960's trucks and cars and how they handle the Florida heat. It was "something different" for a guy originally from New York who needed to "escape." The same thing goes for waiters and waitresses, gas station attendants, or grocery store workers. I know this sounds super-hokey, but why can't we all just get along? It's absolutely baffling that we allow ourselves to get caught up in our own BS and go off the rails at the first opportunity. Even something simple like looking someone in the eye after you've paid for your slurpee or whatever, then saying "thank you." You can tell it brightens their day just a little bit. I feel like I'm in the Miss America pageant here or something, but holy moly. Are we so far removed from simple things like opening the door for someone? We're in "too much of a rush?" Yeesh.
#3. I'll admit that I'm a bit of a moron. I monitor the comments on the station's Facebook page quite regularly (for work), which means I read them all. And we all know that the #1 rule of journalism is to not read the comments section. Ever. But I have to read them. It's the comments on stories like this one (the Pride Bus) which makes me lose a lot of faith in humanity. The needless Twitter wars that have popped up because of it. The vitriol. It's just tiring to watch. "When do we get a Straight Pride Parade?" How about when you're feeling oppressed and marginalized for who you love? "LGBQT is threatening the sanctity of marriage!" Really? Did it break up your marriage and the love of others you know? Maybe we should worry about banning Ashley Madison-style websites first. Who appoints you as the "Director of Love?" Why is it your business what other people do in their bedrooms? Why is someone else's happiness a detriment to your being? I'm a proud, straight man. I'm also proud to associate myself with and love people of all sexualities and backgrounds. If you're a good person, that's all that matters to me. Be happy. Much love y'all!
This one gets me every time. Maybe it was because I was bullied when I was younger. But for whatever reason, we have this infatuation with hating everything that's different from our "norm." Too fat. Too skinny. Too white. Too black. Too Christian. Too Muslim. Too gay. Too straight. Too rich. Too poor. What the heck does it even matter?
I found one thing in particular really disturbing on this topic. The Calgary Flames and associated organizations (Hitmen, Stampeders and Roughnecks) all posted Facebook profile pictures altered with rainbow colours (as many personal pages had done). You would not believe the vitriol thrown in the comments of those posts. I had to go for a walk after a while, just to calm down and make sure I didn't post anything I'd later regret. Here's the thing: why are you letting something like that bother you? Some claimed the teams were trying to get on the "indoctrination" train or trying to be "trendy." Really? This is about acceptance and being inclusive. If a player were to come out tomorrow, are you saying that player should be cut immediately? All these teams are saying is "we support you" to those who are being bullied, shamed and the like. But again, it goes to another bigger point: why does it matter to you what they do in the comfort of their own homes, so much so that you need to make negative comments about someone else's way of life? If I'm putting a team together, I'm looking for the best group of athletes. I don't care where they came from, what religion they are, what sexuality they are. None of it matters because (if I was in that position) I would be in the business of winning championships and if that meant bringing in a blind, three-armed trans-sexual Irish-Catholic man to do it, sign him. Would it be a distraction? Sure. Right up until he dominated on the ice.
And for those of you who are "sick and tired of having this shoved in my face every year": You're tired of hearing about it?!? Imagine having to live through the shaming, doubt, bigotry, cat calls and more EVERY DAY.
I'm an optimist. I look for the best in people. I really do. But sometimes, society puts me to the test. We can be better. I know we can.
It's been a weird few weeks in the world of news and it's had me venting. 140 characters aren't enough on Twitter. And on Facebook, I'm really just giving a "Coles Notes" version. So I'm here to share my full, unfiltered thoughts on some recent posts.
#1. Maybe politicians should start their campaigning with "I'm sorry for what's coming." It'd be a lot easier for everyone to digest, whether it's lies, corruption, stupidity or whatever makes headlines. Because right now I feel bad for voters, who are having to wade their way through the seemingly infinite amount of garbage just to find a reason to vote for someone. Especially when all the politicians say is that they "regret" their missteps. That's not an apology. That's a "I wish I didn't get caught." Anyways... Back to your regularly-scheduled long weekend.
I did add one more point onto that, being it wasn't aimed at any one party or politician. This was from this past long weekend after a couple of federal Conservative candidates were booted from the campaign because of things said and done. But it runs rampant in every single election and with every single party. And it's left voters in flux. How do you vote for someone when all you can focus on is all the bad everyone has highlighted about them. "You can't trust this guy." "He's too young." "She doesn't have enough experience." "The economy might collapse with this party." "We need change." All of these typical slogans and party lines and not enough substance because voters just don't have the attention spans to keep up. In Alberta, people knew they wanted change in the last provincial election. But did they know what they were getting when they voted NDP? Or were they simply voting for something just to get the 40+ year dynasty out the door? Why did urban go NDP and rural go Wildrose? Could the federal election be split depending on geographic region as well? It's a fascinating case study on "divide-and-conquer" politics, deliberate or not. But I think part of the reason is because of the fear-mongering being done by all parties, coupled with the scandals and sideshows, which leave people shrugging their shoulders and not really focused on the most important question: who is best to run this fine country of ours?
#2. Just a little follow-up to my last post about the woman who allegedly threw the puke bag at the taxi driver after he requested a clean-up fee for her mess: what in the coldest gates of hell? I'm sorry. But why do people feel so GD entitled that they can do whatever they want to those who are in the service industry? Honestly, you must believe that they are below you if you think you can get away with making racist/derogatory/ridiculous comments or take inappropriate/abusive actions. How would you like it if someone walked into your office and did the same thing? Everyone's trying to make a living here and you're showing absolutely zero respect for them. I get it. Respect goes both ways. But you'd be surprised how quickly it's reciprocated if you make the first move. Have a conversation. Be civil. It's not that GD hard. Rant over.
I don't use taxis a lot. But when I do, I try to get the conversation going quickly. I find some of the stories fascinating. I remember meeting a gentleman in Calgary who was from "the good part of Afghanistan" (his words). He was in Canada trying to make enough money to bring the rest of his family over. He loved our idea of freedom. This was his "land of opportunity," in particular for his kids. It was a great story. There was another guy when I was in Florida who was running a fleet of older vehicles. So we got to talking about fixing up these old 1950's and 1960's trucks and cars and how they handle the Florida heat. It was "something different" for a guy originally from New York who needed to "escape." The same thing goes for waiters and waitresses, gas station attendants, or grocery store workers. I know this sounds super-hokey, but why can't we all just get along? It's absolutely baffling that we allow ourselves to get caught up in our own BS and go off the rails at the first opportunity. Even something simple like looking someone in the eye after you've paid for your slurpee or whatever, then saying "thank you." You can tell it brightens their day just a little bit. I feel like I'm in the Miss America pageant here or something, but holy moly. Are we so far removed from simple things like opening the door for someone? We're in "too much of a rush?" Yeesh.
#3. I'll admit that I'm a bit of a moron. I monitor the comments on the station's Facebook page quite regularly (for work), which means I read them all. And we all know that the #1 rule of journalism is to not read the comments section. Ever. But I have to read them. It's the comments on stories like this one (the Pride Bus) which makes me lose a lot of faith in humanity. The needless Twitter wars that have popped up because of it. The vitriol. It's just tiring to watch. "When do we get a Straight Pride Parade?" How about when you're feeling oppressed and marginalized for who you love? "LGBQT is threatening the sanctity of marriage!" Really? Did it break up your marriage and the love of others you know? Maybe we should worry about banning Ashley Madison-style websites first. Who appoints you as the "Director of Love?" Why is it your business what other people do in their bedrooms? Why is someone else's happiness a detriment to your being? I'm a proud, straight man. I'm also proud to associate myself with and love people of all sexualities and backgrounds. If you're a good person, that's all that matters to me. Be happy. Much love y'all!
This one gets me every time. Maybe it was because I was bullied when I was younger. But for whatever reason, we have this infatuation with hating everything that's different from our "norm." Too fat. Too skinny. Too white. Too black. Too Christian. Too Muslim. Too gay. Too straight. Too rich. Too poor. What the heck does it even matter?
I found one thing in particular really disturbing on this topic. The Calgary Flames and associated organizations (Hitmen, Stampeders and Roughnecks) all posted Facebook profile pictures altered with rainbow colours (as many personal pages had done). You would not believe the vitriol thrown in the comments of those posts. I had to go for a walk after a while, just to calm down and make sure I didn't post anything I'd later regret. Here's the thing: why are you letting something like that bother you? Some claimed the teams were trying to get on the "indoctrination" train or trying to be "trendy." Really? This is about acceptance and being inclusive. If a player were to come out tomorrow, are you saying that player should be cut immediately? All these teams are saying is "we support you" to those who are being bullied, shamed and the like. But again, it goes to another bigger point: why does it matter to you what they do in the comfort of their own homes, so much so that you need to make negative comments about someone else's way of life? If I'm putting a team together, I'm looking for the best group of athletes. I don't care where they came from, what religion they are, what sexuality they are. None of it matters because (if I was in that position) I would be in the business of winning championships and if that meant bringing in a blind, three-armed trans-sexual Irish-Catholic man to do it, sign him. Would it be a distraction? Sure. Right up until he dominated on the ice.
And for those of you who are "sick and tired of having this shoved in my face every year": You're tired of hearing about it?!? Imagine having to live through the shaming, doubt, bigotry, cat calls and more EVERY DAY.
I'm an optimist. I look for the best in people. I really do. But sometimes, society puts me to the test. We can be better. I know we can.
Wednesday, July 22, 2015
Social Media vs. Traditional Media
"The more things change, the more they stay the same."
I laugh when I think about that line, but then I realize how true it can sometimes be. Take the argument of "social media vs. traditional media." Obviously, I have a vested interest in the success of traditional media. But I also understand the pull and importance of social media and believe it can be used for the power of good.
So as I started writing this post, I had this weird feeling I had written about it before. I went through the entire history of this blog and couldn't find it. Then I remembered that there's a "Notes" function on Facebook. Eureka! Found it. In light of what I've seen and heard following today's tornado warning in the Calgary area, I present to you the unedited post I wrote from February 9th, 2012:
*****
I've been biting my lip on this whole argument for a while now. I've been trying to find a way to "craft" some sort of rant to get a few things off my chest while trying to keep the "emotional" element out of it. I've had a day or two to cool off and now it's time to give you an inside look into the mind of a reporter in what seems to be an ever-changing industry.
Social media is an interesting beast. Outside of radio, where are you going to get information up-to-the-minute? Not the papers. Not the TV (unless you're on an all-news channel). Maybe on radio (I'm proud to be working for a radio station which actually still has newscasts so you do get it there). But if something's happening right now, you'll probably find it on social media. That can be a good thing and a bad thing. And there's two schools of thought I want to hit on when it comes to that last sentence.
Let's start with you, the average everyday Facebook/Twitter user. You LOVE to post things. Especially when something is going on. It's good to be that person trying to help out your community. But how FACTUAL is that information? Did you hear it from a reliable source or is it just something you heard through the grapevine or rumour mill? Because we all know how many ears that gets passed through before it's hit yours.
I look at the grassfires near Lethbridge a few months back as a prime example of this. The city wasn't evacuating anyone from the west side yet you'd never know that by reading some of the tweets sent out. I have no idea how that information came to be, whether it was something made up through imagination or if it was a young firefighter or rookie officer saying something. What I do know is it creates a ton of problems, including hysteria for those on social media sites. How serious should you be taking these claims? How long do you wait before you determine this is a legitimate concern?
The other issue it creates is it forces traditional media outlets into trying to confirm these claims. And, as a reporter, I can say it sometimes feels like you're running around in circles. I've always likened social media to having a call-in radio show, only there's millions of calls you have to sift through. The only trouble is you have to get through a ton of crap to find the gold. Having heard almost every rumour imaginable in the hours after the tragic murder-suicide outside Claresholm, we spent most of our initial news conference with the RCMP asking questions which the officer said had no bearing on the investigation (eg was a house fire connected). I don't blame anyone for that but it makes you question just how much stuff out on the internet is truth and how much isn't.
As for us media types, we're almost caught in a Catch-22. We're told (sometimes repeatedly) that we "need to be first". Consultants come in and say social media is here and we need to embrace it. Be the first to tweet whatever you have because you don't want to risk having "the other guys" beat you to it. Well unfortunately this has left us holding onto our journalistic integrity by the hair of our chinny-chin-chins. I can't tell you the number of times I've seen media people re-tweet wrong information (the Lethbridge-area fires were really bad for that). You hear horror stories of reporters being sent out on wild goose chases about some "situation" someone else in the office saw on Facebook or Twitter, then it turns out to be nothing at all. Yet no one bothers to fact-check and make a quick phone call. They are using these social mediums as "sources" and it's getting some people in major hot water. And yes, it's all to be "first". Look at how many celebrities have "died" on social media, then it spreads to traditional media, only to have the celeb call someone to say "hey wait a second". I'll tell you right now (and most of you who actually take the time to read this probably already know), I don't care if I'm first. Yeah, it's cool to have a possible scoop. But I'd rather be second by a minute and accurate ALL the time than be first by a minute and accurate MOST of the time. I am super-competitive, but I like my integrity and the trust that people put in me to have the story right the first time.
I don't have any fancy-dancy anecdotes that will make people proclaim "Eureka!" while altering their attitudes towards social media. Just hopes and dreams that one day traditional media can fully grasp the power that social media has and use it to their advantage while giving the average everyday person an absolute surefire place to go to get accurate, relevant information, whether its on-air or online. Hopes and dreams that the average everyday person will stop taking rumours and innuendo as being "truth" and, in turn, will come back to the traditional media outlets to get the real truth. Because, as it stands right now, between journalists, bloggers and the gossipers, the line still seems a little blurred to me.
*****
More than three years later, all I can say is "ditto."
I laugh when I think about that line, but then I realize how true it can sometimes be. Take the argument of "social media vs. traditional media." Obviously, I have a vested interest in the success of traditional media. But I also understand the pull and importance of social media and believe it can be used for the power of good.
So as I started writing this post, I had this weird feeling I had written about it before. I went through the entire history of this blog and couldn't find it. Then I remembered that there's a "Notes" function on Facebook. Eureka! Found it. In light of what I've seen and heard following today's tornado warning in the Calgary area, I present to you the unedited post I wrote from February 9th, 2012:
*****
I've been biting my lip on this whole argument for a while now. I've been trying to find a way to "craft" some sort of rant to get a few things off my chest while trying to keep the "emotional" element out of it. I've had a day or two to cool off and now it's time to give you an inside look into the mind of a reporter in what seems to be an ever-changing industry.
Social media is an interesting beast. Outside of radio, where are you going to get information up-to-the-minute? Not the papers. Not the TV (unless you're on an all-news channel). Maybe on radio (I'm proud to be working for a radio station which actually still has newscasts so you do get it there). But if something's happening right now, you'll probably find it on social media. That can be a good thing and a bad thing. And there's two schools of thought I want to hit on when it comes to that last sentence.
Let's start with you, the average everyday Facebook/Twitter user. You LOVE to post things. Especially when something is going on. It's good to be that person trying to help out your community. But how FACTUAL is that information? Did you hear it from a reliable source or is it just something you heard through the grapevine or rumour mill? Because we all know how many ears that gets passed through before it's hit yours.
I look at the grassfires near Lethbridge a few months back as a prime example of this. The city wasn't evacuating anyone from the west side yet you'd never know that by reading some of the tweets sent out. I have no idea how that information came to be, whether it was something made up through imagination or if it was a young firefighter or rookie officer saying something. What I do know is it creates a ton of problems, including hysteria for those on social media sites. How serious should you be taking these claims? How long do you wait before you determine this is a legitimate concern?
The other issue it creates is it forces traditional media outlets into trying to confirm these claims. And, as a reporter, I can say it sometimes feels like you're running around in circles. I've always likened social media to having a call-in radio show, only there's millions of calls you have to sift through. The only trouble is you have to get through a ton of crap to find the gold. Having heard almost every rumour imaginable in the hours after the tragic murder-suicide outside Claresholm, we spent most of our initial news conference with the RCMP asking questions which the officer said had no bearing on the investigation (eg was a house fire connected). I don't blame anyone for that but it makes you question just how much stuff out on the internet is truth and how much isn't.
As for us media types, we're almost caught in a Catch-22. We're told (sometimes repeatedly) that we "need to be first". Consultants come in and say social media is here and we need to embrace it. Be the first to tweet whatever you have because you don't want to risk having "the other guys" beat you to it. Well unfortunately this has left us holding onto our journalistic integrity by the hair of our chinny-chin-chins. I can't tell you the number of times I've seen media people re-tweet wrong information (the Lethbridge-area fires were really bad for that). You hear horror stories of reporters being sent out on wild goose chases about some "situation" someone else in the office saw on Facebook or Twitter, then it turns out to be nothing at all. Yet no one bothers to fact-check and make a quick phone call. They are using these social mediums as "sources" and it's getting some people in major hot water. And yes, it's all to be "first". Look at how many celebrities have "died" on social media, then it spreads to traditional media, only to have the celeb call someone to say "hey wait a second". I'll tell you right now (and most of you who actually take the time to read this probably already know), I don't care if I'm first. Yeah, it's cool to have a possible scoop. But I'd rather be second by a minute and accurate ALL the time than be first by a minute and accurate MOST of the time. I am super-competitive, but I like my integrity and the trust that people put in me to have the story right the first time.
I don't have any fancy-dancy anecdotes that will make people proclaim "Eureka!" while altering their attitudes towards social media. Just hopes and dreams that one day traditional media can fully grasp the power that social media has and use it to their advantage while giving the average everyday person an absolute surefire place to go to get accurate, relevant information, whether its on-air or online. Hopes and dreams that the average everyday person will stop taking rumours and innuendo as being "truth" and, in turn, will come back to the traditional media outlets to get the real truth. Because, as it stands right now, between journalists, bloggers and the gossipers, the line still seems a little blurred to me.
*****
More than three years later, all I can say is "ditto."
Monday, July 13, 2015
Coming To A Town Near You
Being a small town kid, I'll always have a soft spot for small towns. It also gives me a unique perspective on how the big city handles the small towns.
You see, the only time big city media types invade the small towns, it's for negative news. Disasters and tragedies. Both are obviously unthinkable events. Unexpected. And it creates a problem for everyone involved when the expectation in both camps is so vastly different.
From the small town perspective, you're simply not used to having 15 media outlets (or more) converge on your community. At most, you might have a weekly newspaper, maybe a regional radio station that stops by once in a while. But that's it. So you're completely unprepared for what's about to come. About five years, I attended an emergency preparedness conference in Banff, where the vast majority of municipalities I spoke with said their plans don't/didn't include how to handle media. Standing in front of one microphone was nerve-wracking enough, let alone 15 with reporters yelling questions.
From the media perspective, you're used to getting the big city response. The cities have multiple spokespeople/communications people, whose sole job is to organize the message being sent out and to get back to us media types. The cities develop strategies on communications for everything from a new park opening to an emergency. The towns, well, don't. The speakers are well-coached and are used to handling the pressure cooker of a scrum. It's a totally different world between the two.
So I tend to give smaller communities a little more leeway in terms of answering interview requests when disasters or tragedies strike. It's not a ton of leeway. But it's enough to make sure to say to them "we're looking to help you pass along as much information as possible to our listeners/viewers/readers, who also happen to live in your community." The relationship needs to be perceived as being mutual. It's an idea that's sometimes foreign to small town spokespeople, who are already resentful that the only time media types are talking to them is in the most inconvenient time.
I've covered so many of these situations. High River, Claresholm, Sparwood, Innisfail, Brooks. Even the bigger small cities like Lethbridge, Medicine Hat and Red Deer. For the most part, I don't believe that they're trying to dodge questions. They're simply not as prepared to deal with the barrage like Calgary and Edmonton are.
That being said, I will 100% advocate for all communities to be prepared. The person in charge of communications, whether it be internal, external, or both, needs to realize that the media is going to go looking for information to pass along to listeners/viewers/readers, especially when natural disasters hit. So to help your own image (whether it be on the "open and transparent front" or on the "let's quell any rumours that might be out there), the only option you have is to plan for the media to arrive. Plan regular updates. Communicate your plans.
Media can and will be the conduit from you to your residents, if you utilize it correctly.
You see, the only time big city media types invade the small towns, it's for negative news. Disasters and tragedies. Both are obviously unthinkable events. Unexpected. And it creates a problem for everyone involved when the expectation in both camps is so vastly different.
From the small town perspective, you're simply not used to having 15 media outlets (or more) converge on your community. At most, you might have a weekly newspaper, maybe a regional radio station that stops by once in a while. But that's it. So you're completely unprepared for what's about to come. About five years, I attended an emergency preparedness conference in Banff, where the vast majority of municipalities I spoke with said their plans don't/didn't include how to handle media. Standing in front of one microphone was nerve-wracking enough, let alone 15 with reporters yelling questions.
From the media perspective, you're used to getting the big city response. The cities have multiple spokespeople/communications people, whose sole job is to organize the message being sent out and to get back to us media types. The cities develop strategies on communications for everything from a new park opening to an emergency. The towns, well, don't. The speakers are well-coached and are used to handling the pressure cooker of a scrum. It's a totally different world between the two.
So I tend to give smaller communities a little more leeway in terms of answering interview requests when disasters or tragedies strike. It's not a ton of leeway. But it's enough to make sure to say to them "we're looking to help you pass along as much information as possible to our listeners/viewers/readers, who also happen to live in your community." The relationship needs to be perceived as being mutual. It's an idea that's sometimes foreign to small town spokespeople, who are already resentful that the only time media types are talking to them is in the most inconvenient time.
I've covered so many of these situations. High River, Claresholm, Sparwood, Innisfail, Brooks. Even the bigger small cities like Lethbridge, Medicine Hat and Red Deer. For the most part, I don't believe that they're trying to dodge questions. They're simply not as prepared to deal with the barrage like Calgary and Edmonton are.
That being said, I will 100% advocate for all communities to be prepared. The person in charge of communications, whether it be internal, external, or both, needs to realize that the media is going to go looking for information to pass along to listeners/viewers/readers, especially when natural disasters hit. So to help your own image (whether it be on the "open and transparent front" or on the "let's quell any rumours that might be out there), the only option you have is to plan for the media to arrive. Plan regular updates. Communicate your plans.
Media can and will be the conduit from you to your residents, if you utilize it correctly.
Monday, July 6, 2015
If I Had $10,000...
I was sitting around one night, looking at the stars, thinking to myself "what would be the best way to promote myself?" Then it hit me! Why don't I get myself a lawnchair and $10,000 worth of helium, build a sign with an image of me on it, then launch myself into the sky! Seems like a pretty solid plan.
Pardon?
What?!?
It's been done already?!?
Dang.
OK, time for me to rant. Admittedly, I struggled with wanting to write this blog, simply because I didn't want to give this guy any more attention than he had already received. But ultimately I find myself writing this (and you find yourself reading this), as maybe I can shed some light on my observations about a story like this.
I feel like I've already gone through three different emotions with this story already:
#1. Anger
I honestly can't believe this was made out to be such a BIG story. It's a guy doing a publicity stunt, so he wants publicity and we're giving it to him. Reporters are tripping over themselves trying to get an interview with him. That's what he WANTS! His story is going to ultimately trump other, more important stories of the day. There are massive wildfires burning out of control in Western Canada, there's quite the economic crisis in Greece which is having an impact across the world, and oil prices have fallen again big-time. But those three stories are going to be buried behind this guy. And there are reporters spending their entire DAY on this. He says he "has no regrets." Of course he doesn't. It's a PUBLICITY STUNT! This is what he wanted.
#2. Baffled
I don't know if baffled is an emotion but I'm going with it. Here's the thing that seems to have been lost in all of this: it's not just his life he's playing with. Imagine if he had flown into the path of an oncoming plane. Or how about his contraption malfunctions and he falls, hitting someone. Or one report I saw alluded to him wanting to get into the Stampede Grounds where the rodeo or chuckwagons were going on. Imagine him landing on the track and causing a massive pileup as horses tried to stop. He's been given a lot of publicity for someone who didn't seem to have public safety at the top of his mind.
#3. Frustration
Here's the kicker: you all LOVE this "story." Judging by the number of shares, likes, retweets and the like, you love every single minute of this. This highlights the ongoing battle that I have in my mind every single day. Do you talk about the stories that everyone is talking about? Or do you try to spend some time to work on stories that will get people talking? Because I've seen it. Important stories that people should be outraged about, or disappointed about, or maybe even impressed by. But they get one Facebook like and a couple of retweets. Then some ridiculous story that has no bearing on anything in the world goes viral. And here's where things get sticky. We're now all in a rat race to make sure we're on top of those viral stories. Because if we're not talking about it, the assumption is that the consumer is going elsewhere to find it. Well hello there, slippery slope! Nice to see you again!
All of this leaves me with one very clear message: if you (or anyone else you know) want to get some free publicity, all you need is a stunt. Don't worry, it'll be all over the news.
Pardon?
What?!?
It's been done already?!?
Dang.
OK, time for me to rant. Admittedly, I struggled with wanting to write this blog, simply because I didn't want to give this guy any more attention than he had already received. But ultimately I find myself writing this (and you find yourself reading this), as maybe I can shed some light on my observations about a story like this.
I feel like I've already gone through three different emotions with this story already:
#1. Anger
I honestly can't believe this was made out to be such a BIG story. It's a guy doing a publicity stunt, so he wants publicity and we're giving it to him. Reporters are tripping over themselves trying to get an interview with him. That's what he WANTS! His story is going to ultimately trump other, more important stories of the day. There are massive wildfires burning out of control in Western Canada, there's quite the economic crisis in Greece which is having an impact across the world, and oil prices have fallen again big-time. But those three stories are going to be buried behind this guy. And there are reporters spending their entire DAY on this. He says he "has no regrets." Of course he doesn't. It's a PUBLICITY STUNT! This is what he wanted.
#2. Baffled
I don't know if baffled is an emotion but I'm going with it. Here's the thing that seems to have been lost in all of this: it's not just his life he's playing with. Imagine if he had flown into the path of an oncoming plane. Or how about his contraption malfunctions and he falls, hitting someone. Or one report I saw alluded to him wanting to get into the Stampede Grounds where the rodeo or chuckwagons were going on. Imagine him landing on the track and causing a massive pileup as horses tried to stop. He's been given a lot of publicity for someone who didn't seem to have public safety at the top of his mind.
#3. Frustration
Here's the kicker: you all LOVE this "story." Judging by the number of shares, likes, retweets and the like, you love every single minute of this. This highlights the ongoing battle that I have in my mind every single day. Do you talk about the stories that everyone is talking about? Or do you try to spend some time to work on stories that will get people talking? Because I've seen it. Important stories that people should be outraged about, or disappointed about, or maybe even impressed by. But they get one Facebook like and a couple of retweets. Then some ridiculous story that has no bearing on anything in the world goes viral. And here's where things get sticky. We're now all in a rat race to make sure we're on top of those viral stories. Because if we're not talking about it, the assumption is that the consumer is going elsewhere to find it. Well hello there, slippery slope! Nice to see you again!
All of this leaves me with one very clear message: if you (or anyone else you know) want to get some free publicity, all you need is a stunt. Don't worry, it'll be all over the news.
Sunday, May 24, 2015
I Survived A Secondary Suite...
Some might consider me a survivor. Others might have called me the scourge of West Lethbridge. I was young and wasn't really paying attention. I was just happy to have somewhere to live.
To the surprise of some, I spent a year at the University of Lethbridge in hopes of getting into accounting. I'm relatively good with numbers and I took every high school accounting class I could, so it only seemed logical. So during that year, I needed a place to live (my first away from the farm).
It didn't take me long to find a place. Found it on Temple Boulevard. Nice middle-aged man had the house to himself and was looking to rent out the basement. I suppose it wasn't a FULL secondary suite as I didn't have my own kitchen, but everything else was my own. Entrance, bathroom, bedroom and even a parking spot connected to the back alley. He was a Christian chap, so I tried to mind my P's and Q's and didn't have parties or anything. My place was basically to sleep in anyways, as I was a full-time student with a part-time job (and as it turned out, volunteering at the university radio station took up the rest of my time).
As I've watched the on-going battle over secondary suites in Calgary, I can't help but look back on my days in my old place and wonder if someone is missing out on an opportunity that I had. The debate has been heated on both sides, with those against claiming it will ruin their communities, with everything from a lack of parking to an influx of drugs and prostitutes (that was actually one argument made). Those for the suites say nothing will really change as most of the suites are already in place, they're just considered "illegal" unless the owner has gotten the proper permits, etc.
What I have found interesting in this whole debate is that it feels like an "us vs. them" argument again, but someone is missing in this whole equation: the homeowner/landlord. I was lucky in that Gerry (I think that was his name, it's been a few years hahaha!) was an upstanding guy. He actually lived in the place, cut his grass, checked in on me. He was the opposite of a "slumlord." Maybe I'm being too much of an optimist here, but is it possible that most who are anti-secondary suite aren't actually opposed to the renters, but they're opposed to the idea that there will be homeowners who will rent out every single room in their home without actually checking in, only there to rake in the profits? Hate to burst any bubbles here, but I saw it when I first moved to Calgary. I went to a place in Inglewood where the owner showed me a room (Room #4 with an actual number on the door). It was one of six or eight rooms (can't remember) being rented. The room would have fit a bed and a dresser. That's it. You shared everything else. Needless to say, I didn't move in there.
It really feels like this whole argument is over something that no one has been able to actually eloquently address. It's about the homeowner/landlords. The renters want something resembling choice (aka affordable) and a safe place to live, while residents want their community to remain safe and everyone to be responsible. They want to be able to trust their neighbours, yet they don't. So instead of having to deal with it later (aka those "personal interactions" we all seem to deplore), they're being proactive and saying "no" outright. It's "nothing personal" for the potential renters, it's just there's that possibility that a bad apple could move in and they don't want that.
And really, no one does. But therein lies the problem. There are bad apples in every single group involved in these debates. The majority of renters are just simply looking for a place to live. The majority of potential landlords are mindful of their community but might also need some income, or wouldn't mind having someone in the house, or they feel they can help ease the housing crunch a bit. I'd also like to think the majority of communities are welcoming to the idea of legalizing secondary suites as they realize it will have little to no impact, especially if the first two groups are good apples.
Unfortunately, this is kind of like the debate over policing the Red Mile during the Calgary Flames playoff run. Police say the vast majority of revelers are good. But there are the few they need to keep a watchful eye on. The "bad apples" who ruin it for everyone else. There's a difference between the two though. Police are letting the Red Mile party continue while they weed out the bad apples, while the Secondary Suite party was shut down before it even started. And the good apples are being left with a court summons even though they didn't do anything wrong.
By no means am I saying that concerns on either side of the argument are misguided. I just hope to add a little insight into the back-and-forth, and that everyone keeps an open mind.
Wednesday, May 20, 2015
OFF-BEAT: Best Tunes of All-Time
I was compiling a list of my favorite tunes of all-time (for an upcoming roadtrip) and it got me thinking about what my top tunes would be. For anyone who knows me, trying to break that down is like picking a favorite child. I own a LOT of music, both CDs and through iTunes. It's almost unhealthy (it's better than drugs, right mom?) Anyways, I think I've narrowed down the list to my Top 11 Tunes of All-Time. (11 was my football number, for those who weren't at that post-game party 15 years ago). Let the countdown BEGIN!
#11. Papa Roach - Do or Die
One of those gems that you find at the end of an album. This is off the "Getting Away With Murder" album and I've always gravitated to songs with a positive life message (you'll get that feeling through this countdown). "It's never too late / To live your life / The time is now / It's do or die" is pretty awesome. The beat gets your foot tappin' and it's definitely one of those songs that makes you wanna drive 180 down the highway (but I don't because I'm a law-abiding citizen). Enjoy!
#10. Matchbox Twenty - Bright Lights
Now to go to the polar-opposite of "Do or Die". "More Than You Think You Are" was an album that came out while I was starting university and remember listening to this song, thinking I wasn't going to be able to handle life in the "big city" (yes it was Lethbridge but for me, that was the big city). Plus I'm a sucker for good piano and a sing-along chorus. Check and check!
#9. Black Stone Cherry - Remember Me
I could technically plunk almost any BSC song in here and I'd be okay with it. This is one of my favorite bands of all-time and, while this is a fairly new tune, it's quickly become of my favorites. A sing-along chorus (which I can actually sing along with thanks to my deep voice), crunchy guitars and a breakdown near the end (after the last chorus) that gets you rockin'. Southern rock at its best.
"A Little More Off-Beat"
Just to give you a bit of a breather, I should be clear that there are a ton of other songs I love. For example, I have a playlist on my iPod called "Chillout Mix", which are tunes that I can pretty much always fall asleep to. And there are some songs that I think would shock a few people that I even own. For example: Chantel Kreviazuk's "Imaginery Friend", Dave Matthews Band's "Crash Into Me" and Doc Walker's "Beautiful Life". All are wonderful tunes that I recommend if you're looking for something to relax with.
#8. Shinedown - In Memory
A few people would probably be surprised that this band isn't higher up on the list. Again, another band I could pick any song from and would be okay with it. This is off their first album "Leave A Whisper" and no one really knows it. I have no idea why, but when Brent Smith sings "Because I can't wait for you / To catch up with me / And I can't live in the past / And drown myself in memories", it makes my spine tingle.
#7. Meatloaf - I'd Do Anything For Love (But I Won't Do That)
This might surprise a few people, but I believe Meatloaf is one of the best singers of his generation. Plus rock operas are awesome. And this song screams exactly that. I remember listening to this song on my Walkman going out to Christmas in Queenstown, singing along. Totally forgot everyone else wasn't listening to my music. But I didn't care. And how this song goes from quiet to a full-blown orchestral bombardment of music: epic!
#6. Our Lady Peace - Right Behind You
I had to get some Canadian content in here. Okay, that's a lie. Going back to that theme of songs that inspire me with positive life messages, this is it. "No matter what you say / No matter what you do / No matter what I'm always / I'm right there behind you" is like a mission statement from me to the people I hold close to my heart.
#5. Alter Bridge - One Day Remains
Talk about driving tunes, this is another one of 'em. Off their debut album, 3 members of Creed along with Myles Kennedy formed a bond that became one of my favorite bands of all-time. They have failed to disappoint me. And again, the lyrical content in the chorus is what draws me to this song. "Because I see in you / More than you'll ever know / And I ask you why / You question the strength inside / And you need to know / How it feels to be alive" is powerful in my mind.
"More Off-Beat Ramblings"
Just breaking things up again. Before we went with chillout tunes. And now we go with the "punch a hole in the wall" tunes. My tastes can get pretty heavy. I'm not a black metal guy, but I do like a good heavy tune. I have the standards like Metallica, Pantera and Godsmack (among many others). Slipknot's "Spit It Out" comes to mind (I would never get myself into a moshpit with them on stage though). Trivium's "Strife" and Killswitch Engage's "My Curse" get me going as well.
#4. Badfinger - Baby Blue
This one might stick out like a sore thumb compared to the rest of these songs. I remember seeing something about this, written in my baby book that my parents put together and it seems to me the writing was my dad's. I don't remember the story behind the song, but I do know the Badfinger greatest hits album was one of the first CD's we ever owned as a family and I always gravitated to this song. I think of my dad every time I hear this song. So how can I not like it?
#3. Collective Soul - Under Heaven's Skies
Another one of those bands that I could pick any tune from and it'd be awesome. The "Youth" album is still one of my favorites, as it's solid from front to back. It's not a typical rock song, but it doesn't matter what mood I'm in, it always seems to put a smile on my face. And it's extra big when you have a live version like this one, with an orchestra. Everything is better with an orchestra.
#2. Pearl Jam - Betterman
I'm gonna take a lot of flack for this but I was never really a big Pearl Jam fan until I saw them live. Newfound appreciation for them. I still rank this song as one of my top five "saw in concert" moments. It was in Rexall Place and when they started playing this song, the lighters went up, lit the whole place up, then the crowd started singing. It made the hair on the back of my neck stand up. It was insane.
And finally...
#1. Foo Fighters - Everlong
No one should be surprised that this song is at the top of my list. This is my favorite band. This was the first song I taught myself how to play on guitar. It's the perfect rock song and the title is kind of appropriate given how you want it to be everlong. I'm not ashamed to admit that I shed a tear seeing this song played live and probably will in August. Because it just makes me so happy. Doesn't matter the mood I'm in, the Foo Fighters make me smile.
As it turns out, I have something in common with David Letterman, as two of his last guests happened to be Eddie Vedder of Pearl Jam and the Foo Fighters.
Anyways, thanks for tuning in and we'll be back to our regular-scheduled politics and other random ramblings next time!
#11. Papa Roach - Do or Die
One of those gems that you find at the end of an album. This is off the "Getting Away With Murder" album and I've always gravitated to songs with a positive life message (you'll get that feeling through this countdown). "It's never too late / To live your life / The time is now / It's do or die" is pretty awesome. The beat gets your foot tappin' and it's definitely one of those songs that makes you wanna drive 180 down the highway (but I don't because I'm a law-abiding citizen). Enjoy!
#10. Matchbox Twenty - Bright Lights
Now to go to the polar-opposite of "Do or Die". "More Than You Think You Are" was an album that came out while I was starting university and remember listening to this song, thinking I wasn't going to be able to handle life in the "big city" (yes it was Lethbridge but for me, that was the big city). Plus I'm a sucker for good piano and a sing-along chorus. Check and check!
#9. Black Stone Cherry - Remember Me
I could technically plunk almost any BSC song in here and I'd be okay with it. This is one of my favorite bands of all-time and, while this is a fairly new tune, it's quickly become of my favorites. A sing-along chorus (which I can actually sing along with thanks to my deep voice), crunchy guitars and a breakdown near the end (after the last chorus) that gets you rockin'. Southern rock at its best.
"A Little More Off-Beat"
Just to give you a bit of a breather, I should be clear that there are a ton of other songs I love. For example, I have a playlist on my iPod called "Chillout Mix", which are tunes that I can pretty much always fall asleep to. And there are some songs that I think would shock a few people that I even own. For example: Chantel Kreviazuk's "Imaginery Friend", Dave Matthews Band's "Crash Into Me" and Doc Walker's "Beautiful Life". All are wonderful tunes that I recommend if you're looking for something to relax with.
#8. Shinedown - In Memory
A few people would probably be surprised that this band isn't higher up on the list. Again, another band I could pick any song from and would be okay with it. This is off their first album "Leave A Whisper" and no one really knows it. I have no idea why, but when Brent Smith sings "Because I can't wait for you / To catch up with me / And I can't live in the past / And drown myself in memories", it makes my spine tingle.
#7. Meatloaf - I'd Do Anything For Love (But I Won't Do That)
This might surprise a few people, but I believe Meatloaf is one of the best singers of his generation. Plus rock operas are awesome. And this song screams exactly that. I remember listening to this song on my Walkman going out to Christmas in Queenstown, singing along. Totally forgot everyone else wasn't listening to my music. But I didn't care. And how this song goes from quiet to a full-blown orchestral bombardment of music: epic!
#6. Our Lady Peace - Right Behind You
I had to get some Canadian content in here. Okay, that's a lie. Going back to that theme of songs that inspire me with positive life messages, this is it. "No matter what you say / No matter what you do / No matter what I'm always / I'm right there behind you" is like a mission statement from me to the people I hold close to my heart.
#5. Alter Bridge - One Day Remains
Talk about driving tunes, this is another one of 'em. Off their debut album, 3 members of Creed along with Myles Kennedy formed a bond that became one of my favorite bands of all-time. They have failed to disappoint me. And again, the lyrical content in the chorus is what draws me to this song. "Because I see in you / More than you'll ever know / And I ask you why / You question the strength inside / And you need to know / How it feels to be alive" is powerful in my mind.
"More Off-Beat Ramblings"
Just breaking things up again. Before we went with chillout tunes. And now we go with the "punch a hole in the wall" tunes. My tastes can get pretty heavy. I'm not a black metal guy, but I do like a good heavy tune. I have the standards like Metallica, Pantera and Godsmack (among many others). Slipknot's "Spit It Out" comes to mind (I would never get myself into a moshpit with them on stage though). Trivium's "Strife" and Killswitch Engage's "My Curse" get me going as well.
#4. Badfinger - Baby Blue
This one might stick out like a sore thumb compared to the rest of these songs. I remember seeing something about this, written in my baby book that my parents put together and it seems to me the writing was my dad's. I don't remember the story behind the song, but I do know the Badfinger greatest hits album was one of the first CD's we ever owned as a family and I always gravitated to this song. I think of my dad every time I hear this song. So how can I not like it?
#3. Collective Soul - Under Heaven's Skies
Another one of those bands that I could pick any tune from and it'd be awesome. The "Youth" album is still one of my favorites, as it's solid from front to back. It's not a typical rock song, but it doesn't matter what mood I'm in, it always seems to put a smile on my face. And it's extra big when you have a live version like this one, with an orchestra. Everything is better with an orchestra.
#2. Pearl Jam - Betterman
I'm gonna take a lot of flack for this but I was never really a big Pearl Jam fan until I saw them live. Newfound appreciation for them. I still rank this song as one of my top five "saw in concert" moments. It was in Rexall Place and when they started playing this song, the lighters went up, lit the whole place up, then the crowd started singing. It made the hair on the back of my neck stand up. It was insane.
And finally...
#1. Foo Fighters - Everlong
No one should be surprised that this song is at the top of my list. This is my favorite band. This was the first song I taught myself how to play on guitar. It's the perfect rock song and the title is kind of appropriate given how you want it to be everlong. I'm not ashamed to admit that I shed a tear seeing this song played live and probably will in August. Because it just makes me so happy. Doesn't matter the mood I'm in, the Foo Fighters make me smile.
As it turns out, I have something in common with David Letterman, as two of his last guests happened to be Eddie Vedder of Pearl Jam and the Foo Fighters.
Anyways, thanks for tuning in and we'll be back to our regular-scheduled politics and other random ramblings next time!
Sunday, May 10, 2015
What Did We Just Do?
We've had a few days to soak in what we've just done in Alberta. We voted in a majority NDP government. That's correct. "Redneck Alberta" went off the rails and went with a non-PC government for the first time since 1971. I've known nothing but PC governments my entire life. It was certainly something few people thought was possible. But here we are. And, as usual, here's a few random thoughts I've had over the last few days when it comes to the 2015 election.
#1. Who did we vote for?
It sounds like a weird question, but let me put it another way: did Albertans vote for the NDP or did they vote against the PCs? I'm sure it's a combination of the two, but I know many people who simply said they were done with the PCs and a change was needed, regardless of whether it was the NDP or the Wildrose. What it also feels like is that there's still a lot of uncertainty when it comes to Wildrose in the cities (have they really gotten rid of their "Lake of Fire" connections?) while the NDP doesn't have many fans in the rural areas (they hate unions, etc). Which begs another interesting question: which party will be able to galvanize both urban and rural Albertans, or is it even possible? As a sub-plot to the "who did we vote for" question, what will Rachel Notley's cabinet look like? There's a lot of new blood in there. That doesn't mean they're not capable. That just means that they are going to have to rely on advisors and other government officials who are already sitting in the legislature to get up to speed, and fast. They have to build a budget and keep things in Alberta rolling. Because with the low price of oil, no one wants a government to do nothing while they learn the ropes.
#2. Calgary Foothills
You have to feel for the people of Calgary Foothills. They went to the polls last October in a byelection and voted for the PC's Jim Prentice. Then they were forced back to the polls in the general election and again, voted for Prentice. Then he took his ball and went home after the loss, forcing constituents into another eventual byelection. Rightfully so, those residents are not happy campers. That being said, I'm really interested to see how each party handles that byelection. The NDP finished second in that race, while the Wildrose would love to make some headway in the city somehow. I'm curious if the NDP runs an "all-star candidate" with plenty of connections to the oil industry, in hopes of electing an eventual energy minister and maybe winning over some of the naysayers who believe the industry is dead with an NDP government. The Wildrose would probably love to find a candidate well-loved in Calgary who could be viewed as trustworthy and can show just how far the party has come. I'm not sure what the PC's do there. But they might have bigger fish to fry, like finding a leader.
#3. Education and health care
The NDP has a pretty daunting task ahead of it. There are a lot of issues left behind by a party that at one point had gotten rid of deficits and debt, but failed to build infrastructure before or during a boom, and is now playing catchup. The one worry everyone should have is that if the economy continues to struggle, will people start to leave? And if they do, are we building all of these new schools and infrastructure for no reason? On top of that, the NDP made plenty of campaign promises which they will be expected to deliver on. They're not going to be able to change things overnight, but I do believe that the two most important portfolios they need to address are health care and education. If they can get wait times in hospitals back to respectable levels and clear up all of the issues surrounding "fat" in the system, they'll turn some heads. Same with education. If they can address the space shortage and deliver on getting some sort of funding formula put together for boards, they will win over a lot of detractors. I know parties aren't supposed to be focusing on the next election, especially after just winning one, but if they clear up some of the mess in those two portfolios, it'll be hard for a lot of Albertans to not re-elect them in four years.
#4. What happens to the PCs, Liberals and Alberta Party?
I'm really curious what happens with all three parties. Plenty of prognosticators are already making predictions about the demise of the PCs, much like the Social Credit after '71. I think it might be too soon to write them off, but they have a daunting task ahead of them. After Ralph Klein, it was kind of expected that Jim Dinning would be the poster boy for the party, but he was beaten by Ed Stelmach in the party's leadership way back when, and that set off a wild chain events that I think wrapped up last Tuesday. The party has always had a "next one" and I'm not sure if they have that right now. Is there an all-star leadership hopeful coming down the line? The key for the party over the next couple of years is to search for that person that can bring the electorate back to centre-right, and potentially unite Albertans, both urban and rural. At one point during the leadership race that was won by Alison Redford, I thought that person was Doug Griffiths (young, new ideas, well-spoken). Do they have that person waiting in the wings? I've thought Manmeet Bhullar, who has handled a number of key portfolios, could be that person. Maybe they need to find someone outside the party, who can claim that they're coming at it with a clean slate. I'm not sure. But that'll be their focus for the foreseeable future. As for the Liberals, they have just one MLA left (interim leader David Swann). Do they keep him on as leader or do they have a new leader not sit in the legislature? Does this re-open talks of joining another party? Maybe he jumps ship to another party and the Liberals disappear? It's a bizarre time for that party. And then there's the Alberta Party. They have their first MLA in Greg Clark in Calgary Elbow. This could be an important turning point for the party. Could an MLA or two cross the floor to join them, much like Rob Anderson and Heather Forsyth did when they went to the Wildrose after Paul Hinman won the Calgary Glenmore byelection a few years back? And if they go from a "one-member caucus" to a three- or four-member caucus, does that make the Alberta Party the true centrist party and make life even harder for the PCs?
#5. Self-fulfilling prophecies
There's been a lot of doom and gloom about the NDP taking over in Alberta. People are threatening to leave. They're saying "haven't you seen what they did in other provinces?" While it's hard to ignore their points, there's also a part of me that has to ask "what if this is different?" What if this NDP government (which I think is closer to centre than some of the other examples) is ready to listen to all stakeholders and steer this province back in the right direction, and is more transparent and realistic than other parties? What if things actually end up better in this province? There's also been a lot of attention drawn to the individual candidates. There's a movement abound to get rid of one candidate for questionable pictures on Facebook. Should they have been posted by a soon-to-be politician (or at least someone contemplating public office)? Probably not. But you know what else shouldn't be done while in public office? How about soliciting prostitutes? Or flipping the bird on camera like Ralph Klein did? And then there's the whole "they don't know how to run a multi-billion dollar business" side, as some will argue. I hope these people realize that there are people in the legislature that will help with the learning curve. Will they make mistakes? Sure. You know what I hope happens though? I hope that this new set of politicians will own their mistakes and apologize when they're made. Because there was a previous crop of politicians that never apologized for a no-meet committee, a SkyPalace, government plane debacles and much, much more.
I'm not advocating for the NDP or any other party for that matter. I'm just saying I'm not going to wave the white flag before they've had a day in office. Maybe I'm too much of an optimist. But some people are already thinking of giving up before the game's even started. The NDP has an opportunity to prove that they're different from others in this country and different from other political parties in Alberta. The Wildrose has an opportunity to prove to be an effective opposition and if they succeed, could be buoyed into a position of power in short time. The PC's have an opportunity to re-invent themselves and re-connect with an electorate that has lost faith in them. The Liberal Party has an opportunity to also take a step back and think about how to make themselves better. And the Alberta Party has an opportunity to prove that they are for real and should be considered a party to vote for in the future.
But most importantly, I think Albertans have an opportunity to see life through a different set of political lenses. They've been eating steak and eggs for breakfast since 1971. And now they've ordered pancakes and bacon. Will it be as tasty as others have told them, or will they go back to steak and eggs in a few years?
So many questions. And many, MANY more to come.
#1. Who did we vote for?
It sounds like a weird question, but let me put it another way: did Albertans vote for the NDP or did they vote against the PCs? I'm sure it's a combination of the two, but I know many people who simply said they were done with the PCs and a change was needed, regardless of whether it was the NDP or the Wildrose. What it also feels like is that there's still a lot of uncertainty when it comes to Wildrose in the cities (have they really gotten rid of their "Lake of Fire" connections?) while the NDP doesn't have many fans in the rural areas (they hate unions, etc). Which begs another interesting question: which party will be able to galvanize both urban and rural Albertans, or is it even possible? As a sub-plot to the "who did we vote for" question, what will Rachel Notley's cabinet look like? There's a lot of new blood in there. That doesn't mean they're not capable. That just means that they are going to have to rely on advisors and other government officials who are already sitting in the legislature to get up to speed, and fast. They have to build a budget and keep things in Alberta rolling. Because with the low price of oil, no one wants a government to do nothing while they learn the ropes.
#2. Calgary Foothills
You have to feel for the people of Calgary Foothills. They went to the polls last October in a byelection and voted for the PC's Jim Prentice. Then they were forced back to the polls in the general election and again, voted for Prentice. Then he took his ball and went home after the loss, forcing constituents into another eventual byelection. Rightfully so, those residents are not happy campers. That being said, I'm really interested to see how each party handles that byelection. The NDP finished second in that race, while the Wildrose would love to make some headway in the city somehow. I'm curious if the NDP runs an "all-star candidate" with plenty of connections to the oil industry, in hopes of electing an eventual energy minister and maybe winning over some of the naysayers who believe the industry is dead with an NDP government. The Wildrose would probably love to find a candidate well-loved in Calgary who could be viewed as trustworthy and can show just how far the party has come. I'm not sure what the PC's do there. But they might have bigger fish to fry, like finding a leader.
#3. Education and health care
The NDP has a pretty daunting task ahead of it. There are a lot of issues left behind by a party that at one point had gotten rid of deficits and debt, but failed to build infrastructure before or during a boom, and is now playing catchup. The one worry everyone should have is that if the economy continues to struggle, will people start to leave? And if they do, are we building all of these new schools and infrastructure for no reason? On top of that, the NDP made plenty of campaign promises which they will be expected to deliver on. They're not going to be able to change things overnight, but I do believe that the two most important portfolios they need to address are health care and education. If they can get wait times in hospitals back to respectable levels and clear up all of the issues surrounding "fat" in the system, they'll turn some heads. Same with education. If they can address the space shortage and deliver on getting some sort of funding formula put together for boards, they will win over a lot of detractors. I know parties aren't supposed to be focusing on the next election, especially after just winning one, but if they clear up some of the mess in those two portfolios, it'll be hard for a lot of Albertans to not re-elect them in four years.
#4. What happens to the PCs, Liberals and Alberta Party?
I'm really curious what happens with all three parties. Plenty of prognosticators are already making predictions about the demise of the PCs, much like the Social Credit after '71. I think it might be too soon to write them off, but they have a daunting task ahead of them. After Ralph Klein, it was kind of expected that Jim Dinning would be the poster boy for the party, but he was beaten by Ed Stelmach in the party's leadership way back when, and that set off a wild chain events that I think wrapped up last Tuesday. The party has always had a "next one" and I'm not sure if they have that right now. Is there an all-star leadership hopeful coming down the line? The key for the party over the next couple of years is to search for that person that can bring the electorate back to centre-right, and potentially unite Albertans, both urban and rural. At one point during the leadership race that was won by Alison Redford, I thought that person was Doug Griffiths (young, new ideas, well-spoken). Do they have that person waiting in the wings? I've thought Manmeet Bhullar, who has handled a number of key portfolios, could be that person. Maybe they need to find someone outside the party, who can claim that they're coming at it with a clean slate. I'm not sure. But that'll be their focus for the foreseeable future. As for the Liberals, they have just one MLA left (interim leader David Swann). Do they keep him on as leader or do they have a new leader not sit in the legislature? Does this re-open talks of joining another party? Maybe he jumps ship to another party and the Liberals disappear? It's a bizarre time for that party. And then there's the Alberta Party. They have their first MLA in Greg Clark in Calgary Elbow. This could be an important turning point for the party. Could an MLA or two cross the floor to join them, much like Rob Anderson and Heather Forsyth did when they went to the Wildrose after Paul Hinman won the Calgary Glenmore byelection a few years back? And if they go from a "one-member caucus" to a three- or four-member caucus, does that make the Alberta Party the true centrist party and make life even harder for the PCs?
#5. Self-fulfilling prophecies
There's been a lot of doom and gloom about the NDP taking over in Alberta. People are threatening to leave. They're saying "haven't you seen what they did in other provinces?" While it's hard to ignore their points, there's also a part of me that has to ask "what if this is different?" What if this NDP government (which I think is closer to centre than some of the other examples) is ready to listen to all stakeholders and steer this province back in the right direction, and is more transparent and realistic than other parties? What if things actually end up better in this province? There's also been a lot of attention drawn to the individual candidates. There's a movement abound to get rid of one candidate for questionable pictures on Facebook. Should they have been posted by a soon-to-be politician (or at least someone contemplating public office)? Probably not. But you know what else shouldn't be done while in public office? How about soliciting prostitutes? Or flipping the bird on camera like Ralph Klein did? And then there's the whole "they don't know how to run a multi-billion dollar business" side, as some will argue. I hope these people realize that there are people in the legislature that will help with the learning curve. Will they make mistakes? Sure. You know what I hope happens though? I hope that this new set of politicians will own their mistakes and apologize when they're made. Because there was a previous crop of politicians that never apologized for a no-meet committee, a SkyPalace, government plane debacles and much, much more.
I'm not advocating for the NDP or any other party for that matter. I'm just saying I'm not going to wave the white flag before they've had a day in office. Maybe I'm too much of an optimist. But some people are already thinking of giving up before the game's even started. The NDP has an opportunity to prove that they're different from others in this country and different from other political parties in Alberta. The Wildrose has an opportunity to prove to be an effective opposition and if they succeed, could be buoyed into a position of power in short time. The PC's have an opportunity to re-invent themselves and re-connect with an electorate that has lost faith in them. The Liberal Party has an opportunity to also take a step back and think about how to make themselves better. And the Alberta Party has an opportunity to prove that they are for real and should be considered a party to vote for in the future.
But most importantly, I think Albertans have an opportunity to see life through a different set of political lenses. They've been eating steak and eggs for breakfast since 1971. And now they've ordered pancakes and bacon. Will it be as tasty as others have told them, or will they go back to steak and eggs in a few years?
So many questions. And many, MANY more to come.
Wednesday, April 22, 2015
FHRITP & Other Garbage
Dear gentlemen (and I use that term really loosely),
Stop it. Just stop it.
I get it. You like to have fun. So do I. But never in my life have I ever thought that it was okay to harass a woman, all in the name of my team winning a playoff game or series. Never have I ever been enticed to walk up to a TV reporter doing a live report, grab the microphone, and yell obscenities into it. And never have I ever needed to use the line "just trying to have some fun" to validate ridiculous behaviour.
Because I don't make it a regular habit to make others around me feel uncomfortable. Yet here we are, talking about basic manners again, thanks to the Calgary Flames playoff run.
It all kind of started with someone walking up to a Global Calgary reporter, grabbing the microphone and yelling some ridiculous saying that is apparently making the rounds on the internet. Now all of a sudden it's "cool" for everyone to do the same. Then we started hearing about reporters like the Herald's Erika Stark being disrespected and cat-called. And it's just taken on a bit of a life of its own, with women coming forward saying they don't feel safe walking along that stretch of road on game nights because they fear being assaulted, harassed or worse.
Granted, I assume most revelers aren't the problem (much the same as we shouldn't be labeling all Canucks fans as rioters). But this does paint Calgary fans as rude and idiotic. It paints men with the same brush, whether you like it or not.
As I've said in the past when it comes to Stampede, for some reason, we think that "I was drunk" is an acceptable excuse. I'm here to say it's NOT. Straight-up bro.
"No one cares." You probably should. Some don't feel safe trying to celebrate their team's victory or even doing their jobs while these "shenanigans" are going on. Imagine being in that person's shoes, even for a few brief moments.
"Well what do you expect?" We should be expecting better of ourselves. We should be acting like we've been here before. Instead, some are acting like it's their first cotton-pickin' college kegger. And it's painting OUR team's supporters (and I'll take it a step further and say our CITY) with a pretty nasty reputation.
"If you don't like it, don't go." Really? So now, celebrating a team's victories is only reserved for those who want to openly harass others and be ignorant idiots? Gimme a break. EVERYONE should feel welcome to celebrate a team's success. Not a select few.
I would also argue that those who don't believe this is "news" in Calgary really don't like having the spotlight shining down on them. Just like with Stampede, it seems a select few try to put a darkness on what should be a good time. And whether you like it or not, that side of the story needs to be told as well. So if you don't like being singled out as a moron, then maybe you should take a step back and think about what you're doing. Show a little respect to everyone around you, everyone has a good time, and we can go back to doing what we're really supposed to be here for: celebrating success.
Sincerely,
Vulture
#SafeRedMile
Stop it. Just stop it.
I get it. You like to have fun. So do I. But never in my life have I ever thought that it was okay to harass a woman, all in the name of my team winning a playoff game or series. Never have I ever been enticed to walk up to a TV reporter doing a live report, grab the microphone, and yell obscenities into it. And never have I ever needed to use the line "just trying to have some fun" to validate ridiculous behaviour.
Because I don't make it a regular habit to make others around me feel uncomfortable. Yet here we are, talking about basic manners again, thanks to the Calgary Flames playoff run.
It all kind of started with someone walking up to a Global Calgary reporter, grabbing the microphone and yelling some ridiculous saying that is apparently making the rounds on the internet. Now all of a sudden it's "cool" for everyone to do the same. Then we started hearing about reporters like the Herald's Erika Stark being disrespected and cat-called. And it's just taken on a bit of a life of its own, with women coming forward saying they don't feel safe walking along that stretch of road on game nights because they fear being assaulted, harassed or worse.
Granted, I assume most revelers aren't the problem (much the same as we shouldn't be labeling all Canucks fans as rioters). But this does paint Calgary fans as rude and idiotic. It paints men with the same brush, whether you like it or not.
As I've said in the past when it comes to Stampede, for some reason, we think that "I was drunk" is an acceptable excuse. I'm here to say it's NOT. Straight-up bro.
"No one cares." You probably should. Some don't feel safe trying to celebrate their team's victory or even doing their jobs while these "shenanigans" are going on. Imagine being in that person's shoes, even for a few brief moments.
"Well what do you expect?" We should be expecting better of ourselves. We should be acting like we've been here before. Instead, some are acting like it's their first cotton-pickin' college kegger. And it's painting OUR team's supporters (and I'll take it a step further and say our CITY) with a pretty nasty reputation.
"If you don't like it, don't go." Really? So now, celebrating a team's victories is only reserved for those who want to openly harass others and be ignorant idiots? Gimme a break. EVERYONE should feel welcome to celebrate a team's success. Not a select few.
I would also argue that those who don't believe this is "news" in Calgary really don't like having the spotlight shining down on them. Just like with Stampede, it seems a select few try to put a darkness on what should be a good time. And whether you like it or not, that side of the story needs to be told as well. So if you don't like being singled out as a moron, then maybe you should take a step back and think about what you're doing. Show a little respect to everyone around you, everyone has a good time, and we can go back to doing what we're really supposed to be here for: celebrating success.
Sincerely,
Vulture
#SafeRedMile
Sunday, April 12, 2015
Wow me...
My message to all political parties (and all candidates for that matter) is simple.
Wow me.
Over the next 22 days or so, you will be bombarded with announcements, news conferences, door-knocking, advertisements and a boatload of other attempts to try to garner your vote on May 5th. The parties are going to be ruthless. They will boast whatever their party stands for while shooting down all of their competition. You will hear about all sorts of polls, debates and issues that will surely get everyone up in arms.
But what you will be hearing, more than anything else this campaign, is promises. Here's a couple:
- "We promise to build schools."
- "We promise to cut the fat at AHS."
- "We promise to get our economy back on track."
Perhaps you've heard some of these promises already. Maybe you haven't but want to hear more. And right now, I want you to stop. Think about it. Really, think about it.
Time and time again, elections are seemingly won by whoever promises the most. But here's the thing: voters constantly complain about promises unfulfilled AFTER the fact.
Here's what I recommend: if a candidate or party or a leader approaches you and says they will promise something, ask them HOW they plan to do it. Make them go into detail about it. Don't accept the cliches. For example, let's look at the three promises above:
#1. "We promise to build new schools."
This is indeed a noble promise. It's no secret that the big city schools are bursting at the seams. So when you hear this promise, ask "how?" Think about it. We're supposedly in a tough spot financially, so someone must have a plan on how to get the funding for big projects like this. Are we going back to our credit card? Are we looking at P3's again? And ask them about funding for the ongoing costs of these schools. It's one thing to build a building. It's another to put teachers and support staff in it. What about maintenance? Have they thought about this beyond the initial ground-breaking ceremony? Make each of the candidates answer.
#2. "We promise to cut the fat at AHS."
I've blogged about this before. This might be one of the most worn-out cliches I've heard in the last year or so. But does anyone really know how much "fat" there is and how much "mission critical" substance there is? We're so unclear on what the hierarchy at AHS actually looks like. I'd love to see a flow chart of what the typical hospital in Alberta looks like. If I was in charge of a political party, I'd show that flow chart to EVERYONE, then show a new chart of what I'd want AHS to become (ie a "lean, mean, health care machine"). Voters should be asking for both charts. Voters should also be asking how each party plans to deal with each of the unions that represent all of these workers. Because to enable ANY kind of cuts, you're going to have to get the unions on board. It's not going to be as easy as some make it out to be.
#3. "We promise to get our economy back on track."
Maybe I'm off my rocker here, but as far as I know, Alberta has two major sources of revenue: taxes and oil. So when one goes down, the other goes up. That's what the last budget seemingly showed. So when oil goes down (as it has), your taxes are going up, because the government needs to fund all the promises it made from before. We've heard all sorts of promises already about how we're going to get off the roller-coaster of the price of oil. You're also hearing promises of how "we'll keep taxes low." Again, ask the question: "how?" Such as: "how do you plan to keep taxes low while also staying off the oil roller-coaster?" Or try: "how do you plan to diversify the economy?" Are we talking trades and technology? Are we talking wind and solar energy? Are we talking manufacturing? And if you're focus is on spending, "what do you plan on cutting?" is a good question to start off.
It's an interesting crossroads for Albertans, with four parties headed up by a new leader (PC, Wildrose, Liberal, NDP) and one party with the same one (Alberta Party), although that one party didn't have an MLA in the legislature when the writ was dropped. I obviously haven't made up my mind on who I'm voting for. But it is clear to me that Albertans seem to be willing to weigh their options here, even though they may very-well go back to what's familiar when all's said and done.
What I do hope is that they do their research. Look past all the glitzy promises and really demand more from all the parties. They say they are here for a "better Alberta." But can they actually deliver on that promise? That's why the question of "how" is so important here. Because if you don't ask that question, you might be crying "broken promises" again. Albertans should be looking for a party/candidate that is looking to the future. How do they plan to fix what's been broken? How do they plan to build and do things better? How do they plan to energize and empower the electorate?
Wow me.
Wow me.
Over the next 22 days or so, you will be bombarded with announcements, news conferences, door-knocking, advertisements and a boatload of other attempts to try to garner your vote on May 5th. The parties are going to be ruthless. They will boast whatever their party stands for while shooting down all of their competition. You will hear about all sorts of polls, debates and issues that will surely get everyone up in arms.
But what you will be hearing, more than anything else this campaign, is promises. Here's a couple:
- "We promise to build schools."
- "We promise to cut the fat at AHS."
- "We promise to get our economy back on track."
Perhaps you've heard some of these promises already. Maybe you haven't but want to hear more. And right now, I want you to stop. Think about it. Really, think about it.
Time and time again, elections are seemingly won by whoever promises the most. But here's the thing: voters constantly complain about promises unfulfilled AFTER the fact.
Here's what I recommend: if a candidate or party or a leader approaches you and says they will promise something, ask them HOW they plan to do it. Make them go into detail about it. Don't accept the cliches. For example, let's look at the three promises above:
#1. "We promise to build new schools."
This is indeed a noble promise. It's no secret that the big city schools are bursting at the seams. So when you hear this promise, ask "how?" Think about it. We're supposedly in a tough spot financially, so someone must have a plan on how to get the funding for big projects like this. Are we going back to our credit card? Are we looking at P3's again? And ask them about funding for the ongoing costs of these schools. It's one thing to build a building. It's another to put teachers and support staff in it. What about maintenance? Have they thought about this beyond the initial ground-breaking ceremony? Make each of the candidates answer.
#2. "We promise to cut the fat at AHS."
I've blogged about this before. This might be one of the most worn-out cliches I've heard in the last year or so. But does anyone really know how much "fat" there is and how much "mission critical" substance there is? We're so unclear on what the hierarchy at AHS actually looks like. I'd love to see a flow chart of what the typical hospital in Alberta looks like. If I was in charge of a political party, I'd show that flow chart to EVERYONE, then show a new chart of what I'd want AHS to become (ie a "lean, mean, health care machine"). Voters should be asking for both charts. Voters should also be asking how each party plans to deal with each of the unions that represent all of these workers. Because to enable ANY kind of cuts, you're going to have to get the unions on board. It's not going to be as easy as some make it out to be.
#3. "We promise to get our economy back on track."
Maybe I'm off my rocker here, but as far as I know, Alberta has two major sources of revenue: taxes and oil. So when one goes down, the other goes up. That's what the last budget seemingly showed. So when oil goes down (as it has), your taxes are going up, because the government needs to fund all the promises it made from before. We've heard all sorts of promises already about how we're going to get off the roller-coaster of the price of oil. You're also hearing promises of how "we'll keep taxes low." Again, ask the question: "how?" Such as: "how do you plan to keep taxes low while also staying off the oil roller-coaster?" Or try: "how do you plan to diversify the economy?" Are we talking trades and technology? Are we talking wind and solar energy? Are we talking manufacturing? And if you're focus is on spending, "what do you plan on cutting?" is a good question to start off.
It's an interesting crossroads for Albertans, with four parties headed up by a new leader (PC, Wildrose, Liberal, NDP) and one party with the same one (Alberta Party), although that one party didn't have an MLA in the legislature when the writ was dropped. I obviously haven't made up my mind on who I'm voting for. But it is clear to me that Albertans seem to be willing to weigh their options here, even though they may very-well go back to what's familiar when all's said and done.
What I do hope is that they do their research. Look past all the glitzy promises and really demand more from all the parties. They say they are here for a "better Alberta." But can they actually deliver on that promise? That's why the question of "how" is so important here. Because if you don't ask that question, you might be crying "broken promises" again. Albertans should be looking for a party/candidate that is looking to the future. How do they plan to fix what's been broken? How do they plan to build and do things better? How do they plan to energize and empower the electorate?
Wow me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)