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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)