It's hard not to be intrigued by what will happen once Albertans head to the polls for upcoming by-elections. Sure, political junkies might be over-blowing the significance of the votes (myself included). But Albertans should be keeping a close eye on all of the races.
Let's face it: the results won't only put new MLAs in seats, but will likely set the stage for an upcoming general election and campaign. And interestingly enough, I think all five parties involved in provincial politics right now seem to have something to lose.
PC Party
Can you imagine if the three by-elections end without a PC party in any of the seats? Or even less than three? You have Premier Jim Prentice, Education Minister Gordon Dirks and Health Minister Stephen Mandel all vying for seats. And if any (or all of them) lose, that would set off quite the firestorm. Do you force another MLA out the door to get another by-election? Do you say goodbye to the appointed ministers and name someone from within caucus to move into those spots? And what if Prentice doesn't win his seat? The perception that he can turn this party around would take a significant hit. But if they sweep the three seats, it would pretty much an end to the opposition belief that Albertans are "fed up".
Wildrose
I've been chatting with a few different people about this and if one party was supposed to take a stranglehold over the political scene thanks to the controversies surrounding the Redford government, it was the Wildrose. Yet, they're not running away with things in all the opinion polls (take that for what it's worth, as we all know how reliable they've been recently). They are in the lead, but some argue it's not as big of a lead as it should be, and it wouldn't take a lot for the Prentice PC's to gain back support. So what happens if the Wildrose get swept or lose the majority of the seats up for by-election? Is that a sign that the Wildrose failed to capitalize on the PC discourse? If it is, who's to blame? Does Danielle Smith take the fall?
Liberals
I know it was a long time ago, but in the 2007 by-election in Calgary Elbow (yes, THAT Calgary Elbow), the Liberals' Craig Cheffens beat the Conservatives' Brian Heninger to replace Ralph Klein. Kind of came out of left field but set the stage for a general election nine months later where some people thought the Liberals would make up some significant ground. They obviously didn't. But it does prove that an opposition party can win in the riding. The Liberals do have something to gain here. A win in any of these races would be massive (and unexpected) for a party that is really struggling to find any footing and could potentially face the loss of a pair of Calgary MLAs to the feds.
NDP
If you look at the history of Calgary-Elbow and Edmonton-Whitemud, neither have been strong spots for the NDP. Almost always in the single-digits when it comes to percentage of popular vote. But they will likely head into these by-elections with a new leader (leadership vote set for October 18th). All four current NDP MLAs are from Edmonton. So depending on who wins that leadership race, it could set a really interesting tone if they pick up the Whitemud seat. It would certainly send ripples up both the PC and Wildrose parties in particular and give the "left" momentum. Although the one thing to keep in mind is the NDP and Wildrose could "vote-split" thanks to popularity and allow the PCs to run up the middle.
Alberta Party
This party is pulling out all of the stops and is being very aggressive in hopes of grabbing Calgary-Elbow. All you need to do is look at the list of people involved in leader Greg Clark's campaign team. Many names will be familiar to Calgary political eyes, having been involved in Mayor Naheed Nenshi's 2010 campaign. You get the sense they just want to get on the political map "officially". They have had a sitting MLA (Dave Taylor), but he wasn't voted in as an Alberta Party MLA. They would probably like to see something like Paul Hinman in Calgary-Glenmore, where he won a by-election in 2009, setting a tone and gaining a lot of momentum. Could this happen for the Alberta Party here, or is it back to square one?
One big question mark that will remain heading into the votes has nothing to do with the parties. What will the voter turnout be? In Calgary-Glenmore in 2009, it was 39.1%. In Calgary-Elbow in 2007, it was 34.6%. Interestingly enough, the last by-election held in the capital was in Edmonton-Highlands in 2000. The winner of that vote? Outgoing NDP leader Brian Mason. The turnout? 41.9%.
Like I said, it will be interesting to see how each party mobilizes its forces and who ends up the big winners. Because the fallout could be detrimental to one or more of the parties.
Thursday, September 25, 2014
Tuesday, September 16, 2014
Time For Compromise
It's amazing to see just how divided 15 people can be on any topic. When they are 100% set in their ways and beliefs, trying to budge them off their pedestal is nearly impossible. Give them an electorate and an idea that they have "consensus", and watch out!
Some will say it's Calgary city council, which has 15 distinct voices and it would be wrong to have everyone singing from the same book of hymns. Others will say it's dysfunctional. The reality is: it's sometimes a bit of both. Call it "middle ground". And it's almost too bad that councillors can't seem to agree on that "middle ground" on some pretty important portfolios. I can point to three in particular.
To me, these three need to be dealt with properly with adult conversations. Proponents on both sides need to take a gander across the room and realize the world doesn't revolve around them. And someone at the council table needs to be the leader. Or at least the mediator. Because talking in circles isn't going to get us anywhere in "building this beautiful city". Those three topics, in no particular order:
#1. Urban vs. Suburban
It's not a sexy topic but people need to realize it's affecting everyone. I know many will look at the past battle between the mayor and the homebuilders. But it's not just there. Look at how the inner-city councillors have banded together, just as much as the suburban councillors have done the same. The trouble is that both sides are kind of right. Calgary needs to start growing UP, as in more high-rise apartment buildings and urban planning to allow people to live, work and play in one area. Because it seems counter-intuitive to have EVERYONE live in the 'burbs and work in the inner city. On the flipside, we need to give people options. Not every family should be pent up in a 15th storey 2-bedroom apartment and not every unmarried person should be forced to own a home at the edge of the city because that's all they can afford. We need options. And pitting each side against one another is doing us no good. Imagine having a solid mix of inner-city and suburb living. Might actually make housing affordable across the city, rather than continue to drive people further and further out. Then we might finally get ahead of the transit shortage and the lengthy commute times as well. Oh the utopia!
#2. Secondary Suites
This one has been in the news for the last couple of days. It's driving some councillors absolutely nuts, forcing them to wonder why we're spending so much time drawing up reports and task forces when it will go all for not when it's voted down anyways. And there's a point to be made there. How many times does this story have to be recycled? As someone who has lived in a secondary suite before, I didn't consider myself the scourge of the earth. I was a good tenant with a back lane parking spot and no desire to invite "unfavorable characters" because I was busy trying to make enough money to get myself through school and out of there to move into a nicer place. I couldn't afford rent in one of those fancy apartment buildings at the time. It was nice to have an option. I can understand some of the concerns by certain neighborhoods or groups of residents. But at the same time, it does beg the question: do you not trust your neighbors, who might set up one of these "unsightly suites"? It's a baffling discussion. And the longer the debate goes on, the deeper the heels are dug in. No one is arguing we have a severe lack of affordable housing in Calgary, even those making "middle income" in the city who seem to be looked down upon because they can't afford to buy a $500,000 house at the moment.
#3. Bike Lanes
This one is a fun one. In one corner, we have the pro-cyclists who believe that bike lanes will be revolutionary for the downtown core and no one will ever need to drive downtown again. In the other corner, we have the anti-cyclists who believe that bike lanes will forever alter the space-time continuum, never to be repaired again because they're too attached to their vehicles. I've talked about this one before and the fact that I actually can't wait for these lanes to be put in for a trial basis. Because we will FINALLY have some ACTUAL evidence to prove one of these arguments to be absolutely false. Again, I go back to the idea of having options. Why shouldn't we give people an option/the ability to cycle? Might take a few vehicles off the road, which would reduce the mass chaos known as "rush hour" in Calgary, which would also lead to less demand for parking, which could mean the price for parking downtown wouldn't cost you one night a week with your wife AND your first-born. It does need to be done in a smart fashion, but where's the negative here? On the flipside, I don't believe for a second that we should choke off vehicle access into the core. That's just plainly naive, especially with the ever-expanding urban sprawl we've been so attached to. Not every neighborhood has convenient transit (or other transportation) options. Some people depend on their vehicle for their job (cough*reporters*cough).
All members of council need to take a deep breath on these files and think for a couple of minutes about the pros and cons for everyone. Stop playing to the tune of your specific special interest group and think of the benefits for Calgary as a whole. We need to have a wide-ranging (and adult) conversation on all three of these topics (and others I'm sure). We're talking about housing affordability, urban sprawl, commuter strategies and the future of Calgary. At the end of the day, each council member needs to answer one very simple question: is the status quo good enough?
Sunday, September 7, 2014
Drink & Fight & Drink & Fight
It has been a rough couple of weeks in one of Calgary's "entertainment districts". At least in the public's eye. But the interesting thing is, it's nothing really new if you actually live around 17th Avenue SW..
A few days ago, media got a hold of a video of a man getting pummeled by a couple of bouncers outside a bar. The video (taken by a bystander) was reportedly taken out of context, as the "victim" had apparently sucker-punched one bouncer and had been kicked out of the bar. As he was kicked out, he allegedly threatened the bouncers and staff that he'd come back, possibly armed. He came back, sucker-punched a bouncer (not sure if it was the same one), and that's when the beatdown happened.
And now this morning, we're hearing word of another assault in the same vicinity as the first one. We haven't heard a lot of the details yet so I hesitate to make any connections except for one. And that is the reaction that has started to funnel in on this Sunday morning: "what is happening to our city?"
The fact of the matter is: talk to any bar staff member or police officer on 17th Ave and they will tell you the same thing. They will tell you that these kinds of attitudes and incidents are nothing new. And it's not just on 17th Avenue but pretty much anywhere when you combine booze and large groups of people. Someone's bound to not like someone else and all you need to do is add some liquid courage to add to the powder keg.
Let's review three of the more high-profile cases where this combination really struck a chord for me:
#1. Lukas Strasser-Hird - police said it all started with some sort of exchange in a bar. The two sides were parted, found each other, were parted again, then Strasser-Hird was beaten to death.
#2. Nicholas Baier - RCMP say the suspect in the case had intentionally driven into a crowd of people at the Texas Mickey Bar after supposedly getting kicked out of a bar.
#3. Matt McKay - this was one of the first major crime scenes I remember going to working in Calgary. McKay was hit in the head with a pickaxe while trying to intervene in a dispute over unwanted guests at a house party.
What bothers me is that there seems to be a lot of attention being paid on the wrong issues. Some have pointed the finger (at least lately) on 17th Avenue as a whole for having too many bars. Others say it has to do with closing time and how everyone's let out at the same time. The issue of "over-serving" at bars is always brought up in this conversation. But no one seems to want to issue the REAL blame. And that should be targeted at us: human beings.
Since when do we have the right to get so drunk that we're belligerent to the point of threatening or harming others? Why is it that women are abused (verbally and physically) when they reject some guy's advances? And then when we do get kicked out of an establishment for being an idiot, it's perfectly fine to threaten, harass and/or come back to get revenge? The sad part is: for each of the examples I have outlined above, there are hundreds of others like it. Maybe not with as dire consequences, but go to a bar in Calgary and stay until the end. You'll likely see someone get kicked out at some point for unacceptable behaviour.
I don't want to be party pooper. But why should complete strangers have to babysit you because you can't handle your alcohol or because you don't like someone or because you got rejected by the pretty girl? Why should complete strangers have to feel the wrath of your anger for getting kicked out of a bar or a party? Why do you feel entitled enough to come back to wage war on those who have "done you wrong"? Own up to your actions. And if you see a friend being obnoxious or worse, tune them in.
I know everyone wants a silver bullet to "make Calgary safe again". We want that always-loved "silver bullet" that can fix the problem. Unfortunately, that silver bullet isn't changing closing times, "cutting people off" from booze after a certain point, or limiting the number of bars on a strip. It's going to depend on the sense of entitlement people seem to have after a couple of wobbily pops. And sadly, that doesn't look like it's going to change any time soon.
A few days ago, media got a hold of a video of a man getting pummeled by a couple of bouncers outside a bar. The video (taken by a bystander) was reportedly taken out of context, as the "victim" had apparently sucker-punched one bouncer and had been kicked out of the bar. As he was kicked out, he allegedly threatened the bouncers and staff that he'd come back, possibly armed. He came back, sucker-punched a bouncer (not sure if it was the same one), and that's when the beatdown happened.
And now this morning, we're hearing word of another assault in the same vicinity as the first one. We haven't heard a lot of the details yet so I hesitate to make any connections except for one. And that is the reaction that has started to funnel in on this Sunday morning: "what is happening to our city?"
The fact of the matter is: talk to any bar staff member or police officer on 17th Ave and they will tell you the same thing. They will tell you that these kinds of attitudes and incidents are nothing new. And it's not just on 17th Avenue but pretty much anywhere when you combine booze and large groups of people. Someone's bound to not like someone else and all you need to do is add some liquid courage to add to the powder keg.
Let's review three of the more high-profile cases where this combination really struck a chord for me:
#1. Lukas Strasser-Hird - police said it all started with some sort of exchange in a bar. The two sides were parted, found each other, were parted again, then Strasser-Hird was beaten to death.
#2. Nicholas Baier - RCMP say the suspect in the case had intentionally driven into a crowd of people at the Texas Mickey Bar after supposedly getting kicked out of a bar.
#3. Matt McKay - this was one of the first major crime scenes I remember going to working in Calgary. McKay was hit in the head with a pickaxe while trying to intervene in a dispute over unwanted guests at a house party.
What bothers me is that there seems to be a lot of attention being paid on the wrong issues. Some have pointed the finger (at least lately) on 17th Avenue as a whole for having too many bars. Others say it has to do with closing time and how everyone's let out at the same time. The issue of "over-serving" at bars is always brought up in this conversation. But no one seems to want to issue the REAL blame. And that should be targeted at us: human beings.
Since when do we have the right to get so drunk that we're belligerent to the point of threatening or harming others? Why is it that women are abused (verbally and physically) when they reject some guy's advances? And then when we do get kicked out of an establishment for being an idiot, it's perfectly fine to threaten, harass and/or come back to get revenge? The sad part is: for each of the examples I have outlined above, there are hundreds of others like it. Maybe not with as dire consequences, but go to a bar in Calgary and stay until the end. You'll likely see someone get kicked out at some point for unacceptable behaviour.
I don't want to be party pooper. But why should complete strangers have to babysit you because you can't handle your alcohol or because you don't like someone or because you got rejected by the pretty girl? Why should complete strangers have to feel the wrath of your anger for getting kicked out of a bar or a party? Why do you feel entitled enough to come back to wage war on those who have "done you wrong"? Own up to your actions. And if you see a friend being obnoxious or worse, tune them in.
I know everyone wants a silver bullet to "make Calgary safe again". We want that always-loved "silver bullet" that can fix the problem. Unfortunately, that silver bullet isn't changing closing times, "cutting people off" from booze after a certain point, or limiting the number of bars on a strip. It's going to depend on the sense of entitlement people seem to have after a couple of wobbily pops. And sadly, that doesn't look like it's going to change any time soon.
Saturday, August 9, 2014
#BrokenNews
"Can we have a meeting involving all media outlets to set standards for what we consider "breaking"? Please? #stopit #broken"
That was a tweet of mine from yesterday. It's been a bit of a crusade I've been on in recent years. Remember when "breaking news" actually meant something? And now it seems to be attached to everything. The stock market closes down? BREAKING NEWS! Severe thunderstorm watch? BREAKING NEWS! "Rappers bare it all in support of #NickiMinaj"? BREAKING NEWS!
The last one actually had a #BreakingNews hashtag beside it. I wish I was kidding.
"Breaking news" is used so often now that I'm starting to wonder if it actually catches the attention of the average reader/listener/viewer anymore. All you needed to do was watch CNN during the Malaysian Airlines flight disappearance a few months back and they were attaching "Breaking News" to virtually every slight change in coverage. I've seen "breaking news" attached to a story that is HOURS old. How is that "breaking". Is that not "broken"? I'm curious if that's drawing more people in to watch or if it's forcing people to flip the channel. Have we become desensitized to the idea of breaking news?
I can say that our newsroom tries to really control how much we use those two words in the same sentence. If something is happening right now (for example: yesterday's surprise guilty plea from the man accused of killing three RCMP officers in Moncton), then that's breaking news. We went on-air to say it was breaking news, then told everyone to listen for more details through the rest of the afternoon. We didn't attach "breaking news" to the story for the rest of the afternoon. I'll use "this just in" when something is just coming into the newsroom (much like breaking news but can be a little later than breaking). We'll throw in a "developing" if it's continuing coverage from a previously reported story or if it's something new with not a lot of details.
A little over a year ago, I made fun of the idea that there's a "consensus media". The idea makes me giggle because it's like some people actually believe that news organizations sit around a table together with our giant wads of money, deciding which stories we will and won't be covering. Laughable at best. But as I said back then, there might be some merit to having a "bat phone" of sorts to be able to chat with other outlets to come to a consensus on how certain things should be done, so that we don't paint our industry with a horrible brush. Having a meeting to set out parameters for what constitutes "breaking news" wouldn't be a bad idea to me.
I do understand that we're all trying to brand ourselves as "the place to go when breaking news is happening". It is about where you stand in the market. This could easily get me into the discussion about whether you'd rather be "second and right than first and wrong". I won't dive into that one. But in our race to be first to everything and branding it as "breaking", we have almost forgotten the entire spirit of what breaking news really is.
I'm waiting for the day that we start each newscast with "BREAKING NEWS: The sun rose this morning. More at 11..."
That was a tweet of mine from yesterday. It's been a bit of a crusade I've been on in recent years. Remember when "breaking news" actually meant something? And now it seems to be attached to everything. The stock market closes down? BREAKING NEWS! Severe thunderstorm watch? BREAKING NEWS! "Rappers bare it all in support of #NickiMinaj"? BREAKING NEWS!
The last one actually had a #BreakingNews hashtag beside it. I wish I was kidding.
"Breaking news" is used so often now that I'm starting to wonder if it actually catches the attention of the average reader/listener/viewer anymore. All you needed to do was watch CNN during the Malaysian Airlines flight disappearance a few months back and they were attaching "Breaking News" to virtually every slight change in coverage. I've seen "breaking news" attached to a story that is HOURS old. How is that "breaking". Is that not "broken"? I'm curious if that's drawing more people in to watch or if it's forcing people to flip the channel. Have we become desensitized to the idea of breaking news?
I can say that our newsroom tries to really control how much we use those two words in the same sentence. If something is happening right now (for example: yesterday's surprise guilty plea from the man accused of killing three RCMP officers in Moncton), then that's breaking news. We went on-air to say it was breaking news, then told everyone to listen for more details through the rest of the afternoon. We didn't attach "breaking news" to the story for the rest of the afternoon. I'll use "this just in" when something is just coming into the newsroom (much like breaking news but can be a little later than breaking). We'll throw in a "developing" if it's continuing coverage from a previously reported story or if it's something new with not a lot of details.
A little over a year ago, I made fun of the idea that there's a "consensus media". The idea makes me giggle because it's like some people actually believe that news organizations sit around a table together with our giant wads of money, deciding which stories we will and won't be covering. Laughable at best. But as I said back then, there might be some merit to having a "bat phone" of sorts to be able to chat with other outlets to come to a consensus on how certain things should be done, so that we don't paint our industry with a horrible brush. Having a meeting to set out parameters for what constitutes "breaking news" wouldn't be a bad idea to me.
I do understand that we're all trying to brand ourselves as "the place to go when breaking news is happening". It is about where you stand in the market. This could easily get me into the discussion about whether you'd rather be "second and right than first and wrong". I won't dive into that one. But in our race to be first to everything and branding it as "breaking", we have almost forgotten the entire spirit of what breaking news really is.
I'm waiting for the day that we start each newscast with "BREAKING NEWS: The sun rose this morning. More at 11..."
Saturday, July 26, 2014
Is There A "Right Response"?
I've always been fascinated by the response of people in the midst of a rally or protest when police are involved. This dates back to my first really contentious gathering involving members of Calgary's Aryan Guard at City Hall. If memory serves me right, it would have gone relatively unnoticed had it not been for a bunch of flyers that were circulated. That led to a couple of hundred people showing up, both neo-Nazis and anti-racists. To say it got "pretty heated" would be an understatement.
But that's where things got kind of interesting. Police were there when they got wind that both sides would be converging on the same spot. I can't remember for sure if any arrests were made in that initial incident, but I do remember the differences in opinion over whether police should have even been there in the first place. Or in some eyes: why wasn't there more police presence?
Those same questions have popped back up recently with the Israeli/Palestinian protests in Calgary. Last week, a clash between the two sides led to a melee, leading to criticism of the police service for its lack of presence. Even Police Chief Rick Hanson admitted on News Talk 770 that they "dropped the ball" when it came to communications. That issue was rectified ahead of last night's rallies, and police say the gathering (with somewhere between 700 and 1,000 people in attendance) went off without a hitch.
Now I know some people will think I'm a police apologist here and I'm ready for that criticism. But one has to wonder what the "right response" is to these rallies and protests. Or maybe there isn't one and you simply have to be okay with the idea that not everyone is going to be happy with what you do.
On one hand, there's the idea that police shouldn't be there. You want to have faith in people that they will be well-behaved on their own and don't need to be "babysat" on the off-chance that something bad might happen. Some will say police should have "better things to do" and "our taxpayer dollars are better spent elsewhere."
On the other hand, there's the idea that police should be there at full attention. Because if ANYTHING bad happens, they should be there to break it up right away without incident. Otherwise, they're "not doing their job" to "serve and protect".
So the reality becomes that the response almost always ends up somewhere in the middle. And when you have those two extremes in hand, someone is going to complain. The answer isn't going to be black or white.
And it's certainly a no-win situation for police, even when it comes to the rights and freedoms issues. In the latest incidents, some people have gone so far as to question police on why they would allow pro-Israeli protesters anywhere near the pro-Palestinian rally. Which isn't a bad point, as the best offense is a good defense so if you can get in the way of a potential conflict, you're being proactive. But there is the right to peaceful demonstration that can't be trampled on. And "innocent until proven guilty" is the way we have to go here as well, so you can't assume the two sides will clash just because they have differing viewpoints. Can you imagine the firestorm that would ensue if police "intercepted" someone if they were only working on assumptions and it turned out to be completely unfounded?
What was nice to see was that despite having both sides at last night's rally and despite it getting very vocal, there were no physical incidents reported and police actually applauded both sides for keeping it civil.
We can only hope it stays that way.
But that's where things got kind of interesting. Police were there when they got wind that both sides would be converging on the same spot. I can't remember for sure if any arrests were made in that initial incident, but I do remember the differences in opinion over whether police should have even been there in the first place. Or in some eyes: why wasn't there more police presence?
Those same questions have popped back up recently with the Israeli/Palestinian protests in Calgary. Last week, a clash between the two sides led to a melee, leading to criticism of the police service for its lack of presence. Even Police Chief Rick Hanson admitted on News Talk 770 that they "dropped the ball" when it came to communications. That issue was rectified ahead of last night's rallies, and police say the gathering (with somewhere between 700 and 1,000 people in attendance) went off without a hitch.
Now I know some people will think I'm a police apologist here and I'm ready for that criticism. But one has to wonder what the "right response" is to these rallies and protests. Or maybe there isn't one and you simply have to be okay with the idea that not everyone is going to be happy with what you do.
On one hand, there's the idea that police shouldn't be there. You want to have faith in people that they will be well-behaved on their own and don't need to be "babysat" on the off-chance that something bad might happen. Some will say police should have "better things to do" and "our taxpayer dollars are better spent elsewhere."
On the other hand, there's the idea that police should be there at full attention. Because if ANYTHING bad happens, they should be there to break it up right away without incident. Otherwise, they're "not doing their job" to "serve and protect".
So the reality becomes that the response almost always ends up somewhere in the middle. And when you have those two extremes in hand, someone is going to complain. The answer isn't going to be black or white.
And it's certainly a no-win situation for police, even when it comes to the rights and freedoms issues. In the latest incidents, some people have gone so far as to question police on why they would allow pro-Israeli protesters anywhere near the pro-Palestinian rally. Which isn't a bad point, as the best offense is a good defense so if you can get in the way of a potential conflict, you're being proactive. But there is the right to peaceful demonstration that can't be trampled on. And "innocent until proven guilty" is the way we have to go here as well, so you can't assume the two sides will clash just because they have differing viewpoints. Can you imagine the firestorm that would ensue if police "intercepted" someone if they were only working on assumptions and it turned out to be completely unfounded?
What was nice to see was that despite having both sides at last night's rally and despite it getting very vocal, there were no physical incidents reported and police actually applauded both sides for keeping it civil.
We can only hope it stays that way.
Saturday, July 19, 2014
What Happens At Stampede, Stays At Stampede
We're now a week removed from the Calgary Stampede, and by all accounts, the "Greatest Outdoor Show on Earth" was another smashing success. After working hard to make sure the 2013 edition went off without a hitch following the flood, 2014 seemed to bring about some sort of normalcy. Yet, there's an uncomfortable truth that is starting to be uncovered as the drunken haze begins to lift.
While no one really questions the fun of the midway, the cowboy heritage in the exhibitions or the majesty of the horse events (outside of a few animal rights activists), there is one side to Stampede that was really thrown into the limelight and might have to be addressed heading into the 2015 edition of the event. And that's the parties.
I'm all for having a good time. But in the last couple of years, I've really been turned off by anything bar/gathering related at Stampede time because of just how ridiculous things get. And I'm not alone.
We've all heard the stories about how much pancake batter and bacon strips are cooked up in the bigger Stampede breakfasts. So a couple of years ago, I went on a mission to find out just how much booze is sold during the ten days. The Stampede itself wasn't able to disclose what it sells on the grounds, so I asked around to the different bars and one of the reps at Cowboys replied. The quote I got was "one of our suppliers say they sell as much beer during Stampede as any major Canadian sports team does in its entire season." That's ONE supplier. That's JUST beer. And that includes the Toronto Blue Jays, who have an 81-game schedule at home. I did the math. Use this as an example: let's say one tent hosts 10,000 people in a day. Average out four beverages per person (I know that's probably conservative). Let's say the drinks are $10/each (tips included). That's $400,000 in a day or $4-million for Stampede. In one tent. I know of some waitresses who claim they can get $10,000 in tips over the ten days without even trying.
So this is big business. It's landed Stampede in magazines and other "top ten lists" for being a top party destination in the world. But with it, comes some pretty big problems when the spirits get flowin'. You have the usual antics of barfights and "public disorder", like puke and other bodily fluids hitting the streets.
Then you have the "other" reputation that's been created with all of the booze. It's the reputation that surrounds news reports about STI rates skyrocketing during Stampede. It surrounds divorce rates rising and a "baby boom" of sorts that happens every March/April. Yet, people read/hear/watch these stories and just kind of giggle about it, like "oh it's just Stampede!" How can this be perceived as being "good, clean, wholesome fun"?
And then there's the whole issue of how women are treated during the ten days. All I needed to do was watch social media to see just how disgusting it really was. Women being touched, fondled, you name it without invites being sent out. These are issues that happen every day, but it seems to be amplified because "it's Stampede so lighten up." A couple of friends of mine went out one night to enjoy a concert and ended up leaving about three songs in because guys couldn't keep their hands to themselves. One of the producers at our radio station shared some of her horror stories on-air one day during Stampede, including a story about a woman who ran into the guys washroom because the ladies room lineup was ridiculously long. The story included a guy trying to break into the stall to get at her. In what world is any of this acceptable behaviour?
Now I get it. Some guys and gals go out with certain "intentions". But does that mean EVERYONE has those same intentions? And that's part of the problem. It's almost as if that you get away with it once and you expect to get away with it every time. It's leading to absolutely dangerous scenarios (rape, abuse, assault among others).
This isn't "western hospitality". Everyone deserves to let down their hair, kick up their boots and have a good time, no questions asked. Stampede is supposed to be a celebration. But there's a line that shouldn't be crossed. We're better than this (or at least I'd like to think we're capable of being better than this). Is it really a good time if you're the only one having a good time or you're forcing it on someone else? No one should have to be looking over their shoulder, wondering what the next stranger they cross paths with will do.
"What happens at Stampede, stays at Stampede." I guess...
While no one really questions the fun of the midway, the cowboy heritage in the exhibitions or the majesty of the horse events (outside of a few animal rights activists), there is one side to Stampede that was really thrown into the limelight and might have to be addressed heading into the 2015 edition of the event. And that's the parties.
I'm all for having a good time. But in the last couple of years, I've really been turned off by anything bar/gathering related at Stampede time because of just how ridiculous things get. And I'm not alone.
We've all heard the stories about how much pancake batter and bacon strips are cooked up in the bigger Stampede breakfasts. So a couple of years ago, I went on a mission to find out just how much booze is sold during the ten days. The Stampede itself wasn't able to disclose what it sells on the grounds, so I asked around to the different bars and one of the reps at Cowboys replied. The quote I got was "one of our suppliers say they sell as much beer during Stampede as any major Canadian sports team does in its entire season." That's ONE supplier. That's JUST beer. And that includes the Toronto Blue Jays, who have an 81-game schedule at home. I did the math. Use this as an example: let's say one tent hosts 10,000 people in a day. Average out four beverages per person (I know that's probably conservative). Let's say the drinks are $10/each (tips included). That's $400,000 in a day or $4-million for Stampede. In one tent. I know of some waitresses who claim they can get $10,000 in tips over the ten days without even trying.
So this is big business. It's landed Stampede in magazines and other "top ten lists" for being a top party destination in the world. But with it, comes some pretty big problems when the spirits get flowin'. You have the usual antics of barfights and "public disorder", like puke and other bodily fluids hitting the streets.
Then you have the "other" reputation that's been created with all of the booze. It's the reputation that surrounds news reports about STI rates skyrocketing during Stampede. It surrounds divorce rates rising and a "baby boom" of sorts that happens every March/April. Yet, people read/hear/watch these stories and just kind of giggle about it, like "oh it's just Stampede!" How can this be perceived as being "good, clean, wholesome fun"?
And then there's the whole issue of how women are treated during the ten days. All I needed to do was watch social media to see just how disgusting it really was. Women being touched, fondled, you name it without invites being sent out. These are issues that happen every day, but it seems to be amplified because "it's Stampede so lighten up." A couple of friends of mine went out one night to enjoy a concert and ended up leaving about three songs in because guys couldn't keep their hands to themselves. One of the producers at our radio station shared some of her horror stories on-air one day during Stampede, including a story about a woman who ran into the guys washroom because the ladies room lineup was ridiculously long. The story included a guy trying to break into the stall to get at her. In what world is any of this acceptable behaviour?
Now I get it. Some guys and gals go out with certain "intentions". But does that mean EVERYONE has those same intentions? And that's part of the problem. It's almost as if that you get away with it once and you expect to get away with it every time. It's leading to absolutely dangerous scenarios (rape, abuse, assault among others).
This isn't "western hospitality". Everyone deserves to let down their hair, kick up their boots and have a good time, no questions asked. Stampede is supposed to be a celebration. But there's a line that shouldn't be crossed. We're better than this (or at least I'd like to think we're capable of being better than this). Is it really a good time if you're the only one having a good time or you're forcing it on someone else? No one should have to be looking over their shoulder, wondering what the next stranger they cross paths with will do.
"What happens at Stampede, stays at Stampede." I guess...
Thursday, July 3, 2014
Enough is Enough
I'm going to deviate from my usual ramblings about the news world to focus on something semi-close to home. And it all stems from an early-morning wake-up call I had today.
It wasn't my usual alarm bells ringing on my cellphone signaling the start of the work day. It wasn't the sound of cars passing by, emergency vehicles screaming off to the scene of something or the typical tomfoolery that happens when you live relatively close to the infamous 17th Avenue SW strip in Calgary (aka the stretch formerly known as the Red Mile).
I awoke at 6am to the soothing sounds of a marital spat. "You f****** b****" and "f*** off and die you piece of s***" were just a couple of the loving gestures hurled at one another. Took me about a minute or so to evaluate the situation, knock the crumbs out of my eyes and realize it was 6am.
Perhaps I was tired and maybe a little cranky, but it got to that point that I felt like I needed to intervene and at least let everyone else on my street enjoy a little more sleep before the work day started. So I stumbled my way to the patio door, walked out onto the balcony and yelled back at them to have some respect for their neighbours, go home and get some sleep. I also told the guy that "that's no way to speak to a lady".
Of course I received the response I was kind of expecting: "go f*** yourself", which set off an interesting exchange of pleasantries. They were both obviously drunk, so it wasn't worth getting too worked up over it, other than to try to prove my point then go back to bed. He persisted for a little bit and I just kept on message that they needed to be adults. Eventually it winded down with a "mind your own business" from him, to which I said "the minute you woke me and the rest of the neighbourhood up, it became my business." I've become pretty good at thinking on my feet working in the media. And that was enough for him to walk away grumbling. They went back inside and I didn't hear a peep out of them for the rest of the morning.
Unfortunately, this story probably plays out a lot more than most would care to admit. What I don't like is when people stand by and watch without doing anything, then grumble about it afterwards. I'm going to be full of cliches here, but we have to be the change we want to see (or something like that). If we don't want a world where spousal abuse, sexual assault or heinous crimes against children happen, then don't stand around and watch it without acting. And I mean anything of the issues that people get up in arms about (oh hi there "bullying", so we meet again). It doesn't matter who "started it". It doesn't matter that it's a nice guy/girl. The excuses don't matter. Cliche #2: if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.
Each and every day, I want to be part of the solution.
It wasn't my usual alarm bells ringing on my cellphone signaling the start of the work day. It wasn't the sound of cars passing by, emergency vehicles screaming off to the scene of something or the typical tomfoolery that happens when you live relatively close to the infamous 17th Avenue SW strip in Calgary (aka the stretch formerly known as the Red Mile).
I awoke at 6am to the soothing sounds of a marital spat. "You f****** b****" and "f*** off and die you piece of s***" were just a couple of the loving gestures hurled at one another. Took me about a minute or so to evaluate the situation, knock the crumbs out of my eyes and realize it was 6am.
Perhaps I was tired and maybe a little cranky, but it got to that point that I felt like I needed to intervene and at least let everyone else on my street enjoy a little more sleep before the work day started. So I stumbled my way to the patio door, walked out onto the balcony and yelled back at them to have some respect for their neighbours, go home and get some sleep. I also told the guy that "that's no way to speak to a lady".
Of course I received the response I was kind of expecting: "go f*** yourself", which set off an interesting exchange of pleasantries. They were both obviously drunk, so it wasn't worth getting too worked up over it, other than to try to prove my point then go back to bed. He persisted for a little bit and I just kept on message that they needed to be adults. Eventually it winded down with a "mind your own business" from him, to which I said "the minute you woke me and the rest of the neighbourhood up, it became my business." I've become pretty good at thinking on my feet working in the media. And that was enough for him to walk away grumbling. They went back inside and I didn't hear a peep out of them for the rest of the morning.
Unfortunately, this story probably plays out a lot more than most would care to admit. What I don't like is when people stand by and watch without doing anything, then grumble about it afterwards. I'm going to be full of cliches here, but we have to be the change we want to see (or something like that). If we don't want a world where spousal abuse, sexual assault or heinous crimes against children happen, then don't stand around and watch it without acting. And I mean anything of the issues that people get up in arms about (oh hi there "bullying", so we meet again). It doesn't matter who "started it". It doesn't matter that it's a nice guy/girl. The excuses don't matter. Cliche #2: if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.
Each and every day, I want to be part of the solution.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)