Clarity Sure Would Be Nice

There weren't many contentious issues during the 2013 floods in Alberta, especially in Calgary.  Considering the disaster upon the city, it wasn't like we were mired in any kind of controversy.  Yet, just down the road in High River, it was a totally different story.

I had a chat with Roy Green over the weekend, reflecting on the one-year anniversary and when asked about any "ongoing issues" still needing to be addressed, I said the RCMP's handling of guns in High River is still going to be front-and-centre for many in that neck of the woods.  We've waited for a year now for a report and analysis to be done, which many people hope actually give us some answers on who called the shots on that one and why.

We could probably argue until we're blue in the face about what exactly happened.  But I'm willing to let that discussion wait until we get all the facts from the powers that be.  I can say that I've heard plenty of rumours and rumblings and I have a few working theories in place.  If I get anywhere with them, I'll let you know.  But for now, all it would be is speculation and rumours.

I do find some of the arguments interesting though from those who can't believe the RCMP would even step foot in residential homes to begin with during the flood.  One particular comment I saw really irked me though.  "There was no good excuse to kick people's doors in and walk around their homes in muddy boots."  Normally I'd say just one person is probably thinking this, but I've seen more than a few of them.  So, being that I like playing devil's advocate, I'm going to respond to this one (even if some of you think this is just "feeding the trolls").

I'm going to give you a hypothetical situation.  The RCMP decide not to go door-to-door as it's not safe to go back into the community as the flood waters are really rushing in.  They have decided they will not enforce the mandatory evacuation that's been ordered.  And after the flood waters subside, everyone goes back in to realize that several people have died inside their homes as they either ignored or were not aware of the evacuation order.  Who do you think is going to get the blame for that one?

Here's another story: winter storm paralyzed the Trans-Canada Highway a few years back yet people still tried to drive between Medicine Hat and Calgary.  A young man in shorts hit the ditch in his vehicle.  The car died and he was left freezing with no emergency kit/blanket/etc.  He tried to call RCMP who were being called out to several other people being stuck and they told him they'll get to him when they can (even though they can't see 10-feet in front of the hood of their vehicles as they're trying to find stranded motorists).  He was finally saved, everything was good, yet he still had the audacity to blame RCMP for not getting to him sooner.

Is it wrong to connect these two to a certain extent?  

In a state of emergency, is it not the authorities who are looking out for everyone's best interests?  Let's forget the guns for a second.  A door or a muddy carpet can be replaced.  Can a life?

By no means am I giving any policing authority a blank slate to do whatever they want.  But should we not be looking at the overall picture (aka context)?  We were in a state of emergency and is it not likely that decisions made were to make sure as many people as possible were safe?  Even if that meant they would have to "kick people's doors in and walk around their homes in muddy boots"?

Maybe I'm way out in left field on this one though.  Maybe policing agencies use natural disasters as a cover to break into homes to dig up some dirt on their residents so that they can implement their grand master plan of world domination and a complete police state.

Just some thoughts to ponder.

Again, I really look forward to seeing what happens with that federal report into what happened in High River.  If the RCMP or the town or anyone else overstepped their boundaries, you know we'll be reporting on it.  But there is that possibility that no one overstepped boundaries and everything was done with public safety in mind.  And we'll be reporting on that too.  I just hope we can get some answers sooner rather than later, so that we can finally move on from that part of the disaster and allow some people to finally move on and deal with the real tragedy here, that being people losing their homes and, in some cases, their lives.

Flood 2013: One Year Later

Let me echo the sentiment that has rang loud and clear over the past week or so: it's so hard to believe that it was a year ago that we were all bracing for the worst disaster in Alberta's history.  The 2013 Flood was something none of us ever want to live through again.  And while many of us media types take a look back, I thought I'd take a moment as well to do the same.

Last July, I did write up a blog post on my feelings right after the insanity subsided.  You can read that whole post here.  The emotion and feelings were still pretty strong at that point (and a little sleep deprivation).  I've also obviously moved up in the world, so my outlook has changed a little bit.  But the message does remain the same.

It's that raw emotion that still rattles me.  Nothing will jar you more than looking into the eyes of someone who has lost everything except the shirt off their back and ask them to answer a few questions with a microphone in hand.  Truth be told: after the third day of the flood, I went home and cried myself to sleep.  It wouldn't be the first time during a stretch of six days straight where I worked 20-hour days (happened twice).  Part of it might have been physical and mental exhaustion, but the bigger part was, without a doubt, the bottled up emotions that you're not only feeling, but the ones you're sharing with those you're speaking with.

But it was all worth it.  It's what I, and most other journalists, live for.  We're here to inform.  It's events like the flood which give us the opportunity to tell stories in a way most others can't.  As I mentioned in my post from last July, it's when we are a true public service.  Whether it be on the air or online, we're trying to give you the most up-to-date information in real-time.

A little story for you: I was part of the team that launched 102.1 The Lounge in Medicine Hat in the spring of 2008.  Within the first few weeks of being on-air, we had several big stories come our way, including a major thunderstorm which ripped through Burdett, Seven Persons and other parts of SE Alberta. We went out to those communities that night and the next morning and brought our listeners every story we got a hold of.  It was after that when many people came to us and said "you've gained our trust and are now our news source."  For a team of two (at the time), that was pretty special.  That sentiment continued throughout my time in the 'Hat and, even to this day, some people still claim that I (and other members of my old team) hold that place as "the place to go."  I'm still very proud of what our team (Christy, Steve & Harv) accomplished.

And that's what I (and all journalists) really strive for: to be trusted in your home and office.  That's what we wanted during the 2013 floods.  And I reckon that's what we'll all be striving for heading into this coming week, as Southern Alberta braces for more possible flooding in the Lethbridge and Medicine Hat regions in particular.  Sitting in my new position as news director, I can say without a shadow of doubt that's my team's goal here in Calgary each and every day, and we'll do everything we can to provide that as Alberta battens down the hatches.

One final note: thank you for allowing us into your homes, offices and lives.

Cyclists vs. Motorists

It's been amusing to watch the battle in Calgary between cyclists and motorists.  It's actually quite similar to the battle we see daily on the roads, with middle fingers raised in the air and curse words coming from all directions.  It's left many (including myself) scratching our heads and asking that all-too-familiar question: "can't we all just get along?"

For those who haven't been watching this whole episode unfold: Calgary is looking to introduce a "cycle track" into the downtown.  Yes.  An entire lane of traffic being taken out on some pretty important roadways to accommodate cyclists.  They will be partitioned off, in theory to make it safer to ride the two-wheeled variety of transportation and decreasing the number of interactions (read: crashes + horn-honking + other forms of vitriol between the two sides) that happen.

The arguments for and against this pilot project (which has been pegged at anywhere from $9-million to $11.6-million) have been pretty vocal.  It doesn't seem like many are sitting on the fence on this one.  Those who want the project say let the numbers speak for themselves.  "If you build it, they will come" has been uttered way too much in the last few weeks.  They will say people don't ride their bikes because they don't feel safe and this will fix that problem.  On the other side, you have those saying Calgary's a winter wonderland where no one will cycle for six months out of the year.  They will cite other bike lanes aren't being used as much as the pro-bikers claim.  And they will say the numbers have nothing to do with safety and everything to do with urban sprawl making it virtually impossible for anyone outside a one-mile radius of the downtown to even try to cycle.

And trust me, I'm giving these arguments a "general audience" feel, because to watch the argument on social media would need a PG-13 warning sticker.

We can argue until the cows come home about whether this is going to be a good fit for the downtown.  Realistically, all anyone is working with right now is stats and probabilities.  No one has any empirical evidence to prove the other side wrong.  But there's one undeniable truth in all of this nonsense: getting around downtown Calgary is virtually impossible and SOMETHING needs to be done.

Calgary has the highest parking rates in any Canadian city and is second only to New York in all of North America.  Why?  Because the market is there for it.  People feel the need to drive their vehicles into the core and are willing to shell out ridiculous amounts of money to do it.  This sets off a whole bunch of supplemental questions and answers:

Q: Why not take transit?
A: First off, if you have to drive to the transit station (which many do), you better be at the park-and-ride by 6am.  Because parking is at a premium.  If you're lucky enough to get a spot, then you get to feel like a sardine in a can for the entire trek.  And then if there's some sort of outage or trouble downtown, you're stuck in that can for even longer.  And don't even get some people started on the bad behaviour/bad smells/bad whatever on the train itself.

Q: Why not live closer to the downtown?
A: Have you seen the prices for living downtown?  A young family paying $500,000 or more for a house with a small backyard?  And all the talk about "building up" instead of out has many wondering about what might be in their backyard anyways.  So why not get into the 'burbs, where you get a little bit of the country with the big city amenities?  Plus inner-city schools seem to be few and far between.  So families are left with one option, and they will need their vehicles to at least get them to the transit station.  Go back to Question #1.

Q: Why not walk/bike to work?
A: Have you been out to the suburbs?  It takes 45 minutes to DRIVE into work.  Unless you're Lance Armstrong, there's no way you're biking in each day.  So forget walking.  And oh yeah.  There's that little thing called winter that rears its ugly head every year.

So you see, there's a fundamental problem here.  Calgary's grown up, grown out and apparently grown impatient.  They want a quick fix but don't want to spend a single tax dollar on that fix.  Many must think that this deal's still under warranty.

Here's an idea: why hasn't anyone brought up the idea of staggering opening/closing times, like they have for bars and nightclubs?  Many think that'll alleviate some of the issues around taxi shortages, bar brawls, etc because of everyone getting booted out at 2am.  So let's have some businesses go 10-6 or 7-3.  Why not?

Because from what I gather, everyone's trying to find the answer (perhaps mythological) to getting more vehicles off the road.  Which is a great idea.  But it's naive to think that bike lanes will solve that problem on its own.  This is a much bigger discussion than many are making it out to be.  And in the process, it's pitted cyclists vs. motorists in a hotly-contested war of words.  We need to figure out how to get vehicles, transit, cyclists and pedestrians using all of the means available to them, with the understanding that we live in a cold weather climate.  We're not living in Portland, Minnesota, San Francisco, Victoria or any other place.  We're living in Calgary.  So we'll need to come up with what many politicians will call a "Calgary solution".

This isn't an either/or issue.  This is a "strategic planning" issue.  We don't necessarily have to get along here.  Maybe bike lanes and cycle tracks aren't the answer.  But keeping things status quo won't be making things better any time soon either.

The Next PC Party Leader

It would be really easy for me to break down my thoughts and give my two cents on what's happened in the last two years with Alison Redford serving as Premier of Alberta.  But as I've said to many people, I honestly can't wait for politicians to get back to the work of governing this beautiful province that I've called home my entire life.  But there is one piece of important business that will need to be done over the next 4-6 months and that is to select a new leader for the PC Party, who in turn will become the next premier.  And the challenges that lie in even selecting that person, especially for the party, are going to be plentiful.

There are several key questions that are going to have to be answered when it comes to selecting the new leader.  Some are obviously large and some are quite small but will still be a part of the grand plan.  Here's just a sampling:

#1. Within the party or out of the party?

This is probably the biggest one, as it leads to a few spin-off questions as well.  We've already had several names thrown into the rumour mill.  Everyone from Manmeet Bhullar and Jonathan Denis to Stephen Mandel and Naheed Nenshi.  If it's from within party, how entrenched should that person be?  A long-time MLA or a fairly new MLA with many great ideas?  And how much support is that person going to get from the rest of the party?  That was one of the problems with Redford, is she virtually had no support from the party faithful during the 2011 leadership race and so it was an uphill battle for her right off the hop.  Will the "old guard" be willing to back a younger candidate who will undoubtedly claim again that this "isn't your father's PC Party"?  If this is an "outsider", how open to new ideas will the party be?  And how much change will be too much change if it's someone like a Mandel or Nenshi, who will likely want to change the identity of the party, at least a little bit?

#2. Calgary, Edmonton or rural?

This probably sounds like a rather minor issue but you know that it's going to come up.  Ralph Klein was a Calgary guy who rubbed Edmonton the wrong way.  Ed Stelmach was a rural guy from around Edmonton who didn't seem to get a lot of support in the south (hence the emergence of the Wildrose, who has a stranglehold in the south).  Alison Redford was someone who had strong support in the cities but not-so-much in rural.  So is it Edmonton's turn to try to right the ship again?  If it is, does that not further distance the party from Southern Alberta (and possibly Calgary)?  Is it time to go back to a rural candidate, and run the risk of not connecting with the big cities?  Or do you stay in Calgary (the economic engine of Canada) and hope it's not viewed as a slap in the face for the capital?  Like it not, there's a divide in this province and the new PC Party leader is going to have to bridge that gap somehow.

#3. What about personality vs. politics?

I've said it before and I'll say it again: optics is almost EVERYTHING in politics.  You could be the biggest buffoon, but as long as you have personality, people will like you.  You could also be the smartest person in the province, but if you can't connect with people, you're doomed.  When you look at Ralph's track record, you'll probably bring up the fact he balanced the books and that he was a "man of the people".  But people seem to forget things like blowing up the General Hospital in Calgary, which was a short-term fix with no long-term plan.  He was very much an "in the now" leader.  Sure it's great that the books were balanced but how much stuff still needed to be built or done?

That's what Ed Stelmach and Alison Redford struggled with.  Stelmach was known as "Honest Ed".  I actually really enjoyed it whenever he and I chatted but he was widely perceived as soft-spoken and a bit awkward in front of the cameras.  He did what needed to be done but without the fanfare.  I can't say a lot about Redford as she's the only one I wasn't able to do a one-on-one interview with.  Not for a lack of trying though, as requests through her office were either turned down or avoided.  But from her time as justice minister, I do remember thinking to myself that she is very smart and willing to do what it took to get things done.  She had a plan to make things better and she executed (remember it was her and the police chief's work of cracking down on gangs in Calgary that dropped the murder rate down substantially).  But as premier, that work was just never communicated well. Whether that was her call or her office's, is anyone's guess.  Long story short: the perfect leader needs to have some personality, but also some smarts to make sure the politics aren't left in the dust.

#4. How long before the next election?

My fourth and final question and this could be a big one.  The PC Party is in quite the Catch-22 right now.  The sooner the election is called, the more likely you catch the opposition parties napping, but the party's support has been dwindling which may send the electorate elsewhere.  You're also facing your own inner-party problems (like finances), and calling an election soon doesn't allow you a lot of time to build your war chest.  Wait a long time, and the opposition parties are given more time to prepare their slate of candidates, but it also gives your new leader time to win hearts and minds, plus you get some time to build up your donations.  But it also gives the opposition more time to dig up some dirt on you and your new leader.  The timing of the next election may very well depend on who is selected as the new leader.  If it's someone with a proven track record and seems to be fairly popular out of the gate, it might be good to have an election sooner.  But if it's a new candidate, or even an all-star that comes from outside provincial politics, you almost want to spend more time without an election to prove just how good things can be with them at the helm.

And that takes us right back to the initial question of whether the PC Party of Alberta wants to go with someone from inside the party or from outside.  I don't know if there's a right or wrong answer to any of these questions.  But I get the sense that the party could be compared to a hockey team in the midst of a rebuild.  Might be time to detach yourself from the veteran presence in the locker room, pick up a few prospects and draft picks, and hope that they will go out there and work their rear-ends off to get you a few wins.  The Stanley Cup might be imminent.  But if you play your cards right and work hard, the fans will stick around to watch you rise again.

What Are Kids Learning Nowadays?

I've really slacked off when it comes to this blog in recent months and for that I apologize.  But if it's any consolation, I've actually started a list of potential ideas so that should help in getting more of these out there.  Also: I've realized being a manager means "lists", which is code for "organized".  I'm getting the hang of it.  Now with that caveat out of the way, let's continue.

Actually, let's have another little disclaimer before we really get started.  I'm not a parent.  I don't have kids in school in Calgary or anywhere else in the province.  I'll be writing the rest of this post from an outsider's perspective with a little bit of an inside track on what's going on around this province, and in particular in this city, given I am in the news business and am more informed than many.  OK.  Now we're good.

To say the last few weeks in education in Calgary have been a little weird would probably be an understatement.  Let's set aside the whole "New School Tour" the province has been on, where everyday Premier Alison Redford or one of her cabinet ministers is in a different community making an announcement.  That one on it's own would likely garner a few responses.

Here's why it's been a little weird to me: I remember a time when different schools/programs were facing closure because they didn't have the numbers to support keeping the schools open.  And yet, the local school boards are still begging for more schools (in the 'burbs).  To me, this begs a couple of questions:
#1. Are the school boards trying to close down schools in the "inner-city" because they can then move those kids to other schools and maximize the capacity at those schools to convince the province they need more spaces?  I believe the magic number is 85% capacity, so if you can stuff as many kids into a school as possible and get that capacity to 95% or 98% or 102%, it makes a bigger and better case for getting new schools.
#2. Are the school boards and the province in close enough discussions with city planners on how new communities are being built and do they have a pretty good idea on where a school COULD go should it be built?  Because if you look at what's happening in regards to my #1 question, one could argue the City of Calgary is being made to look like a donut when it comes to schools.  As the city's urban sprawl gets bigger, more attention is paid on getting new schools in the fringes and attention is lost on keeping people in the inner-city.  It seems to be a vicious cycle with no end in sight, especially when you consider how expensive living is as you get closer to the downtown.  What new family wants to live there when they can get a cheaper house in the 'burbs?

Maybe I'm over-simplifying this.  By no means am I accusing anyone of being negligent in their duties.  No one's questioning that population growth is a major issue.  All I'm saying is something seems to be amiss here when we can't seem to keep up with growth yet we're not able to utilize the space we have at our fingertips.

Here's another thing I'd love some insight on: did we stop teaching the basics in grade school?  I'm a really simple boy who grew up in a simple world.  But I started to notice this in the difference between what I learned in Grade 12 compared to what my youngest sister learned when she went into Grade 12 (seven years difference between us).  What I learned that year was what she later learned in Grade 9.  I know school boards are really going after this "education for every student" philosophy so that each child is feeling engaged.  Is it possible that we have forced our education system into becoming TOO specialized/personalized that the kids have no choice but to go to a particular school to get the education they need, rather than simply go to the one that's closest to them?  Whatever happened to having math, language arts, social studies, the sciences, gym and maybe a few electives, like shop or foods?  Last year I remember doing a media tour of a high school that was made specifically for different careers and trades.  It was mind-boggling to see kids in Grade 9 learning about TV and radio.  I paid college dollars to do that!

Again, maybe I'm over-simplifying this, but I grew up in a town of 250 people.  We could have gone to Claresholm or Vulcan for high school, which was anywhere from a 20-30 minute drive.  That's rural Alberta.  Am I wrong to think that it's bizarre that kids are having to be on a bus for 45-60 minutes in the "big city", especially when they have a school three blocks away?

This doesn't seem very elementary, my dear Watson...

The Rob Ford Conundrum

It's been an interesting few weeks in Toronto.  I don't think I need to go through it play-by-play and blow-by-blow.  But it's created a bizarre conundrum for those of us media types outside of Toronto: how much time should we devote to Rob Ford coverage?

It had the opportunity to anchor a few newscasts over the last week and I made the point of not including a Rob Ford story in a couple of newscasts, even joking on Facebook and Twitter that I did something "un-Canadian" by doing that.  By that point in the day (late afternoon), there was nothing "new" to the story as Ford hadn't spoken to the media since 8am.  My posts came with a mixed reaction.  Some loved the fact that a Calgary radio station went an entire six minutes without talking about Toronto's mayor.  Others hated it because they want to hear the latest, regardless of how small the story is.

Frankly, I can see both sides of this argument.  On one hand, if you don't live in Toronto, how does this really affect you?  You didn't vote for or against Ford.  He's not making any decisions directly impacting you.  And are we going to have put up with hearing the breath-by-breath from Ford until he either steps down or the next municipal election in Ontario?  It's no wonder some people are quite tired of hearing about this story and want to move on.

On the other hand, this is a story that EVERYONE is talking about.  It was on SNL last night.  It's the fodder on all the late-night talk shows.  Every news outlet is spending time on this story.  It is the water-cooler talk of the country, as this IS the mayor of Canada's largest city.  So it would be ill-advised to throw up your hands and avoid the story completely as it would appear that you're not in tune with what's going on in the world and what's being talked about.

I know I say this a lot, but I do believe there's a delicate balance that can be reached.  A city like Calgary or Edmonton probably doesn't need the play-by-play and in-depth coverage every hour on the hour.  But we are in the business of broadcasting news, information and stories that you are and will be talking about, so we will continue to talk about this saga as it continues to unfold...

Living in a Post-Conservative World

Took me a lot longer than I'd hoped to be back on the blogging train.  It has been an intense couple of months acclimatizing to my new role.  Looking forward to seeing things calm down again and we can get back to some semi-sense of normalcy.

A little while ago, I asked people on Facebook what they would want to see me blog about and I had a number of options thrown at me.  The one that seemed to stick out in my mind was the youth movement that seems to be going on in Alberta politics, especially as witnessed in the recent municipal election.  It's an interesting topic that will likely expand into something unexpected.  Let's begin.

Frankly, it's been a long time coming in Alberta politics to see young(er) political hopefuls get some attention.  Don't get me wrong: I 100% respect what the veterans have done, putting themselves into the public eye term-after-term.  It can't be easy to give up all of that time.  Especially when it's always the "wrong" choices that get the attention while most of the good work you do ends up largely ignored.  But I think Albertans were hoping for something new.  Something fresh.

A lot of that "old guard" that some refer to could be considered conservatives.  It's not that they align with a particular political party.  But they know what their bread-and-butter is that will get them re-elected.  They don't upset the apple cart, make sure their friends stay faithful, and they're in.  They don't need to make bold, outrageous campaign promises because they're institutions to their constituents.

But something changed.  People are no longer okay with the status quo.  Things need to keep improving and progressing, especially at the municipal level.  Otherwise, you're getting left in the dust.  And so when there's an opportunity for change, Albertans have seemed to embrace it (at least at the local level).  When was the last time we saw so many mayors who are under the age of 40?

And I do believe it has something to do with the idea that things can be even better.  No longer is it acceptable in the eyes of most voters to stand by what's made you successful.  They want to know wha'ts next.  Politicians seem to love the idea of no tax hikes for a decade.  But then when you ask residents how they feel, they wonder why nothing's changed with poor snow removal, broken-down city services and the like.  The good economy in Alberta created an interesting environment where people started to realize that you have to spend money to make money.  Of course, the hope is that the money will be spent wisely.

That's why I think it's more acceptable nowadays to see higher tax increases than we've seen in the past.  Part of it is that many communities are trying to catch up from years of no funding (aka falling behind) for necessities like infrastructure.  I think that's why there's an acceptance, even on the provincial level, that going into debt isn't necessarily a bad thing in the eyes of some taxpayers, because they will be able to physically see what they're getting in return (in theory).  It's a lot like what they're doing at home, getting mortgages and borrowing money for a better future.  Does this mean Alberta is losing its "Conservative" to get a little more "Progressive"?  Maybe.

Don't get me wrong: I don't believe Alberta is giving its politicians a blank cheque.  I do believe there is a hope that money will be spent wisely and on the things we need, rather than the things we want.  The difficult balancing act has been (and I've written about this before) is that EVERYONE will come at a politician with demands.  We are a needy crew here and we want EVERYTHING now and in most cases, we don't actually want to pay for it.  It's up to the politician to decide what's needed now and what's not.  You can't make everyone happy.  And it's pretty obvious who has been caught trying to do too much and who hasn't.

The one side of any government's economy that I've been thinking a lot about lately has been those "rainy day funds".  I know Alberta has its Heritage Savings Trust Fund and many communities have their own little pot of gold sitting around somewhere.  What intrigues me about having all these young(er) politicians is, how will they handle these "untouchable assets"?  I love the political hot potato that these funds have become.  Many will say "these are savings for future generations" or they will say "this is for when we hit a bad patch".  And yet, when we actually use it during a rough patch (remember that recession we just went through), the governments/councils get raked over the coals for it.  Am I wrong to think that the average taxpayer would actually be okay with dipping into a rainy day fund during something like this summer's flood?  Or like the massive fire in Slave Lake?  Or even something minor that we couldn't have predicted?  Why does the money just have to stay there?  For the future?  Which future?  The one where we wait long enough for the next generation of politicians to stand by and say "whoa whoa whoa, you can't touch that, we have to save it for the future!"

Yes I realize the issues around government finances are more complicated than I've made them out to be.  But what's so wrong with making it more simple?  The average Joe or Jane on the street is having a hard enough time trying to wade through the political BS.  They don't care anymore about what's worked in the past or why things have been done a certain way for so long.  The insider baseball of who likes who and who has helped who out or why so-and-so has been in the job for as long as they have just doesn't matter anymore.  People want to see action.  And the opportunity has come where they have a choice to vote for new candidates who are bringing fresh ideas to an old system.  Which is why I think we're seeing quite the shift in the way politics are being done in Alberta.  And by which generation.

Until next time, my friends...