Tough-on-crime rhetoric misses the mark
Originally published in FFWD, November 29, 2007 by Drew Anderson in Viewpoint
If you were to listen to the politicians at all three levels of government affecting Calgary, you would reasonably assume that we are under attack by a swarm of bloodthirsty criminals. This comes at a time when the crime rate has dropped significantly in Alberta and across the country, and a recent report from Statistics Canada says our incarceration rate has risen for the first time in more than a decade.
The federal Conservatives recently announced new tough-on-crime measures for identity theft, drugs and youth crime. The provincial government wants more police, to clamp down on repeat offenders and address addiction, while in the city, council approved funding for more bylaw and police officers and increased funding for a drug court.
There is no doubt that crime is an important issue, but it is used far too often as an easy political weapon rather than a well-reasoned policy tool. The federal Conservatives are simply using the issue to appease their party’s right wing and bully the opposition. There is no logic behind introducing mandatory drug sentences of increased length at a time when, according to Statistics Canada, our prisons are at or beyond capacity. It also seems an odd time for a crackdown, given that the national crime rate has fallen consistently and is at its lowest level in 25 years.
Harper and his party also want to start dealing more aggressively with youth crime, trying more young offenders as adults and denying them bail more regularly. It’s not clear why this crowd doesn’t accept that longer prison sentences for young offenders don’t produce model youth, nor the fact that overcrowding in remand centres is directly linked to bail being granted less often.
The provincial government responded to yet another panel report earlier this month entitled Keeping Communities Safe. Unlike many of the other reports that have crossed Premier Ed Stelmach’s desk, he didn’t dare mess around too much with this one. The government accepted 29 of the 31 recommendations laid out by the panel.
There are some good recommendations, including more focus on crime prevention through education and support. Most importantly, there is a call for more treatment beds for substance abusers and the mentally ill, with particular emphasis on youth and young adults.
What is the Alberta government actually going to do? In the next budget it will fund a whopping total of 40 new addiction treatment beds in the province, and 41 beds at hospitals and group homes to deal with mental illness. The 50 detox beds dedicated to youth will have to wait until 2010. The government has yet to announce a timetable or funding structure for a desired increase in policing.
There are good things in all of this. New funding from the city is focused on the rehabilitation of offenders and their connecting with the community. The Calgary drug court, though still small, will allow for treatment in lieu of jail time or a stint in the disastrously overcrowded remand centre. Despite the creation of a pilot project drug court in Edmonton funded by the province, Calgary’s drug court is a city initiative, championed by Mayor Dave Bronconnier.
New funding for bylaw officers will see a return of the popular Community Support Officer (CSO) program for the downtown and Beltline. This program was cancelled a few years ago after provincial funding dried up. Institution of the CSO program means more bylaw officers will deal with minor complaints and interact more closely with the community, freeing up time for police. It is an example of a program that shows smart thinking rather than brute force can help keep crime at lower levels and reduce it further.
Now is the time to focus on treatment and on rehabilitation, on poverty and homelessness — issues that lead to incarceration and repeat offences — rather than on punishment. At a time when the crime rate in Alberta has dropped by six per cent, one of the largest drops in the country, we should be taking the initiative to focus on rehabilitation in our prisons and beyond, not on longer sentences that create overcrowded conditions.
The familiar complaints about Calgary’s economy and those left behind due to housing and increased cost of living all come into play in the debate about crime and punishment, or at least they should. Whenever politicians start to talk about crime, it’s time to dig around and see what’s really going on. Affordable housing and counselling cost a lot less than a new prison, and well-reasoned debate should always trump scare tactic rhetoric.
Sunday, December 16, 2007
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Time Bombs
Canada’s atomic veterans fight for recognition
Originally published in FFWD, November 8, 2007 by Drew Anderson in Television
The federal government has ignored the plight of Canadian veterans dying from exposure to radiation caused by nuclear tests in Nevada in 1957, according to Time Bombs, a new documentary to be aired on Global television November 10.
According to Eric Ruelle, who directed and produced the documentary with Guylaine Maroist, the initial seed for the film was a small article written by two journalists in Montreal in 1957. That article, small on details, spoke of a top-secret mission in the States. It took the duo 10 years to track down the necessary sources and find a television network interested in the project.
That mission was named Operation Plumbbob, the largest nuclear testing project ever undertaken, involving thousands of American soldiers and a handful of unknowing Canadian volunteers. The soldiers were exposed to six nuclear blasts and then ordered to participate in war games amongst the fallout, to test their reactions to orders after the explosion.
Jim Huntley lived through those blasts and helped organize the Canadian Atomic Veterans Association in 1995 to help fight for recognition of the veterans. “We were sent there and they knew we were guinea pigs,” says Huntley, who bristles with anger at the treatment the veterans have received from the government. “We flew in helicopters through that cloud.”
Huntley is leading the charge in the association’s fight against the government, a task bestowed on him thanks in part to his good health. Of 40 soldiers sent to Nevada in the summer of 1957, 22 or more are dead, and the survivors are riddled with cancer and arthritis. Jim is the healthiest surviving member of the unit.
The task has proven difficult. The group has been denied, ignored and shuffled through the storied Canadian bureaucracy, stymied at every turn and lied to by political officials. After years of trying to get information and compensation, the association was finally promised a package by former defence minister Gordon O’Connor, according to Huntley, but the deadline for that package has come and gone without a word.
“There’s no going back. They lied to us. The minister of defence lied to us. He came here in July and told us we were getting a package on the 15th of September. We have nothing, not even a phone call,” says Huntley after a screening of the documentary in Calgary. He says the government is now trying to send the group back to square one. “They told us they’ve never heard of us. I said to the secretary, ‘We’ve talked to you for a year and a half. You don’t know who we are?’” says Huntley.
Anger is pervasive amongst those still alive. The flashes of light, the shockwaves and the dust from the explosions remain seared in their memories. “I get angry and I get more angry… I’m ashamed,” says Bob Henderson, a veteran of the tests, clutching an oxygen tank that resembles a violin case. Most of the participants that he was acquainted with, he says, served in the military long-term. “They served their country with pride, with dignity and most of all with honour. What the hell has the government done for us? Nothing. They’ve tried to sweep us away.”
Henderson echoes a disturbing conclusion shared amongst the survivors: that the government is waiting for all of them to succumb to the radiation they ingested 50 years ago. “They’re holding back because they know we’re falling,” he says wearily.
In 1992, the American government finally admitted its culpability for exposing soldiers to nuclear blasts and awarded compensation. “They finally admitted that it was a human experiment, it’s written in black-and-white — a human experiment. They really wanted to see how they would react in a nuclear war. So they would say to the soldiers, ‘don’t worry about radiation, it’s OK, Mother Nature will take care of you,’” says Ruelle. “I’m now very ashamed of my government, I’m now very ashamed of my country.”
Ruelle and Maroist are not letting go of the story, or the veterans they have befriended while filming Time Bombs, and have pledged to continue fighting for them after the release of the film. “We’ve made a commitment to ourselves… we have a moral commitment to ourselves and to the guys, we cannot let them go,” says Ruelle. “We need to take this to the end, because if we don’t, we don’t succeed. Success is not having everybody clap at the show and everybody say ‘hey, great show.’ No, the success is having the government acknowledge and compensate those guys.”
Originally published in FFWD, November 8, 2007 by Drew Anderson in Television
The federal government has ignored the plight of Canadian veterans dying from exposure to radiation caused by nuclear tests in Nevada in 1957, according to Time Bombs, a new documentary to be aired on Global television November 10.
According to Eric Ruelle, who directed and produced the documentary with Guylaine Maroist, the initial seed for the film was a small article written by two journalists in Montreal in 1957. That article, small on details, spoke of a top-secret mission in the States. It took the duo 10 years to track down the necessary sources and find a television network interested in the project.
That mission was named Operation Plumbbob, the largest nuclear testing project ever undertaken, involving thousands of American soldiers and a handful of unknowing Canadian volunteers. The soldiers were exposed to six nuclear blasts and then ordered to participate in war games amongst the fallout, to test their reactions to orders after the explosion.
Jim Huntley lived through those blasts and helped organize the Canadian Atomic Veterans Association in 1995 to help fight for recognition of the veterans. “We were sent there and they knew we were guinea pigs,” says Huntley, who bristles with anger at the treatment the veterans have received from the government. “We flew in helicopters through that cloud.”
Huntley is leading the charge in the association’s fight against the government, a task bestowed on him thanks in part to his good health. Of 40 soldiers sent to Nevada in the summer of 1957, 22 or more are dead, and the survivors are riddled with cancer and arthritis. Jim is the healthiest surviving member of the unit.
The task has proven difficult. The group has been denied, ignored and shuffled through the storied Canadian bureaucracy, stymied at every turn and lied to by political officials. After years of trying to get information and compensation, the association was finally promised a package by former defence minister Gordon O’Connor, according to Huntley, but the deadline for that package has come and gone without a word.
“There’s no going back. They lied to us. The minister of defence lied to us. He came here in July and told us we were getting a package on the 15th of September. We have nothing, not even a phone call,” says Huntley after a screening of the documentary in Calgary. He says the government is now trying to send the group back to square one. “They told us they’ve never heard of us. I said to the secretary, ‘We’ve talked to you for a year and a half. You don’t know who we are?’” says Huntley.
Anger is pervasive amongst those still alive. The flashes of light, the shockwaves and the dust from the explosions remain seared in their memories. “I get angry and I get more angry… I’m ashamed,” says Bob Henderson, a veteran of the tests, clutching an oxygen tank that resembles a violin case. Most of the participants that he was acquainted with, he says, served in the military long-term. “They served their country with pride, with dignity and most of all with honour. What the hell has the government done for us? Nothing. They’ve tried to sweep us away.”
Henderson echoes a disturbing conclusion shared amongst the survivors: that the government is waiting for all of them to succumb to the radiation they ingested 50 years ago. “They’re holding back because they know we’re falling,” he says wearily.
In 1992, the American government finally admitted its culpability for exposing soldiers to nuclear blasts and awarded compensation. “They finally admitted that it was a human experiment, it’s written in black-and-white — a human experiment. They really wanted to see how they would react in a nuclear war. So they would say to the soldiers, ‘don’t worry about radiation, it’s OK, Mother Nature will take care of you,’” says Ruelle. “I’m now very ashamed of my government, I’m now very ashamed of my country.”
Ruelle and Maroist are not letting go of the story, or the veterans they have befriended while filming Time Bombs, and have pledged to continue fighting for them after the release of the film. “We’ve made a commitment to ourselves… we have a moral commitment to ourselves and to the guys, we cannot let them go,” says Ruelle. “We need to take this to the end, because if we don’t, we don’t succeed. Success is not having everybody clap at the show and everybody say ‘hey, great show.’ No, the success is having the government acknowledge and compensate those guys.”
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Hoping for healthy debate
Alberta’s upcoming legislative session will be lively
Originally published in FFWD November 1, 2007 by Drew Anderson in Viewpoint
The new provincial political season is definitely under way with the recent announcement of the government position on oil and gas royalties. At the opening of the new session of the legislature at the beginning of November, the royalty debate will be the primary source of conflict in what will likely be a lively, if not short, legislature sitting.
The opposition parties surely smell blood and will be doing everything in their power to draw more of it as the still-fresh premier attempts to gain control over his image and garner support from unusually cranky Albertans. So far, his performance has been lukewarm, and his polling numbers remain low. With the Liberals still far behind and the New Democrats further away, each will try to convince the electorate of their worth during this legislative session.
Premier Ed Stelmach, who is decidedly more open to discussion than the tyrant who formerly inhabited the premier’s chair, marks a slight shift to the centre for the Conservatives in Alberta. He could be more willing to compromise on legislation, which might be seen as caving in to the opposition, or as a genuine attempt at conciliation. It will all be an attempt to distance himself from Ralph Klein, despite the fact that Stelmach and all of his MLAs were in government by Klein’s side.
The ongoing rhetoric around government accountability, introduced as a major plank in Stelmach’s policy platform, will be intricately tied to the royalty debate and the move towards a more inclusive legislature. This is especially important after the long, dark rule by Klein, who preferred to govern by decree and without much in the way of public consultation. Actually, even the fact that there will be meaningful debate in the legislature is a hopeful, if not limited, return to democracy in this province.
One fundamental difference in governing style is the adoption of all-party committees, announced in April of this year. As shocking as it seems, government policy was debated mostly behind closed doors and only amongst Conservatives under the Klein regime. Now we have some semblance of a functioning democratic institution that will hopefully strengthen in the upcoming sitting, as opposition members acclimatize to their new roles as participants in the government process.
Klein preferred to make announcements on the go, sometimes catching everyone off guard — even, it appeared, his cabinet ministers. This reckless style rarely included any meaningful debate, and was mostly done outside of the legislature, bypassing the opposition completely. A classic example of his disregard for dialogue was when he threw a Liberal-drafted health policy at a 17-year-old page in the legislature after telling the Liberals if they had any ideas on health care to send them over. The page was delivering the material to Klein.
One thing sure to be debated hotly in the legislature is the government’s response to the royalty review, which discarded a large swath of the panel’s recommendations. One panel member reacted by accusing the premier of “blatant deceit” in an interview with the Edmonton Journal.
Stelmach has said repeatedly that the discussion is over and that he will stay the course on his proposal, which doesn’t inspire much faith in his new accountable approach, or in his respect for expert opinion.
Another sign that government may just be doing a window dressing job on accountability is the contentious Bill 46, which would prevent public input into proposed utilities projects. A government that purports to champion accountability, but stifles public input into projects that could directly affect citizens, reeks of a continuation of old, paternalistic Alberta conservatism.
The fact there is the potential for healthy debate in the upcoming sitting of the legislature is cause for celebration, but also concern that it takes so little to make us happy in this one-party province. It is unclear whether this shift reflects an acknowledgement of new strength in the opposition parties, particularly the Liberals who recently won a by-election in Klein’s old Calgary riding, or whether it is just Stelmach trying to be the consummate nice guy and at least pretending to value everyone’s input. He certainly does like his expert panels, though he often ignores their findings.
The true political debate in this province will happen when the premier finally goes to the people of Alberta to seek a mandate to govern. There are pre-Christmas election rumours swirling on the airwaves and in the papers, but with Stelmach trying to inch his poll numbers up and wanting to push through some more pet policies, we might just have to settle for increased debate in the legislature for a little while longer.
Originally published in FFWD November 1, 2007 by Drew Anderson in Viewpoint
The new provincial political season is definitely under way with the recent announcement of the government position on oil and gas royalties. At the opening of the new session of the legislature at the beginning of November, the royalty debate will be the primary source of conflict in what will likely be a lively, if not short, legislature sitting.
The opposition parties surely smell blood and will be doing everything in their power to draw more of it as the still-fresh premier attempts to gain control over his image and garner support from unusually cranky Albertans. So far, his performance has been lukewarm, and his polling numbers remain low. With the Liberals still far behind and the New Democrats further away, each will try to convince the electorate of their worth during this legislative session.
Premier Ed Stelmach, who is decidedly more open to discussion than the tyrant who formerly inhabited the premier’s chair, marks a slight shift to the centre for the Conservatives in Alberta. He could be more willing to compromise on legislation, which might be seen as caving in to the opposition, or as a genuine attempt at conciliation. It will all be an attempt to distance himself from Ralph Klein, despite the fact that Stelmach and all of his MLAs were in government by Klein’s side.
The ongoing rhetoric around government accountability, introduced as a major plank in Stelmach’s policy platform, will be intricately tied to the royalty debate and the move towards a more inclusive legislature. This is especially important after the long, dark rule by Klein, who preferred to govern by decree and without much in the way of public consultation. Actually, even the fact that there will be meaningful debate in the legislature is a hopeful, if not limited, return to democracy in this province.
One fundamental difference in governing style is the adoption of all-party committees, announced in April of this year. As shocking as it seems, government policy was debated mostly behind closed doors and only amongst Conservatives under the Klein regime. Now we have some semblance of a functioning democratic institution that will hopefully strengthen in the upcoming sitting, as opposition members acclimatize to their new roles as participants in the government process.
Klein preferred to make announcements on the go, sometimes catching everyone off guard — even, it appeared, his cabinet ministers. This reckless style rarely included any meaningful debate, and was mostly done outside of the legislature, bypassing the opposition completely. A classic example of his disregard for dialogue was when he threw a Liberal-drafted health policy at a 17-year-old page in the legislature after telling the Liberals if they had any ideas on health care to send them over. The page was delivering the material to Klein.
One thing sure to be debated hotly in the legislature is the government’s response to the royalty review, which discarded a large swath of the panel’s recommendations. One panel member reacted by accusing the premier of “blatant deceit” in an interview with the Edmonton Journal.
Stelmach has said repeatedly that the discussion is over and that he will stay the course on his proposal, which doesn’t inspire much faith in his new accountable approach, or in his respect for expert opinion.
Another sign that government may just be doing a window dressing job on accountability is the contentious Bill 46, which would prevent public input into proposed utilities projects. A government that purports to champion accountability, but stifles public input into projects that could directly affect citizens, reeks of a continuation of old, paternalistic Alberta conservatism.
The fact there is the potential for healthy debate in the upcoming sitting of the legislature is cause for celebration, but also concern that it takes so little to make us happy in this one-party province. It is unclear whether this shift reflects an acknowledgement of new strength in the opposition parties, particularly the Liberals who recently won a by-election in Klein’s old Calgary riding, or whether it is just Stelmach trying to be the consummate nice guy and at least pretending to value everyone’s input. He certainly does like his expert panels, though he often ignores their findings.
The true political debate in this province will happen when the premier finally goes to the people of Alberta to seek a mandate to govern. There are pre-Christmas election rumours swirling on the airwaves and in the papers, but with Stelmach trying to inch his poll numbers up and wanting to push through some more pet policies, we might just have to settle for increased debate in the legislature for a little while longer.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Examining women’s boom burden
Originally published in FFWD October 25, 2007 by Drew Anderson in City
The Women’s Centre of Calgary will play host to a conference celebrating its 10 years of independent service to women, at a time when issues of poverty, politics and commerce are increasingly important. Our booming economy can be an unforgiving beast for women, and the recent municipal election saw two incumbent female aldermen lose their seats.
Lisa Hari, an education and outreach worker at the centre, and one of the organizers of the conference, says the point is to have women tell their own stories. “We actually went out and said, ‘Hey, we’re planning a conference and what would you like to talk about?” Participants were further asked to look at the media and consider misrepresentations, misinformation and unaddressed issues pertaining to women.
The conference, titled Connections, will feature individual sessions covering everything from connecting with corporate Calgary to sex and gender diversity issues. Each presenter will have a personal connection to the material and a story to tell.
“I think what’s unique about this conference is that it’s women living the issues,” says Hari. “We have a woman that’s a vice-president of a bank coming to talk about women in corporate Calgary. So it’s women that are telling their stories, and I think that’s what is so great about this conference.”
In light of the recent ejection of two women from city council, the session on women and politics is particularly timely. Susan Stratton, co-chair of Equal Voice (Southern Alberta chapter), president of the Alberta Green Party and a Raging Granny, will speak about how women can participate in politics and increase representation. “There are statistics, both federally and provincially, and now at least in Calgary in the civic arena, about the poor representation of women. So we’ll be mentioning those stats certainly, that we may have come a long way, but not in politics,” she says.
Stratton believes that having more women involved in the political process will help soften the often-harsh world of Canadian politics and foster a greater spirit of co-operation. “I just think that the culture of politics as it’s usually practised is an issue. The tendency to attack and pull each other down rather than looking to co-operate and get something done is very obvious in Canadian politics,” she says. “You get more women in, you change the culture and the expectation, so it is kind of a chicken and egg thing.”
According to Stratton, it is not simply a matter of being elected to office, either. Women can participate in politics on a number of levels, she says, citing the rise of Elizabeth May to leader of the federal Green Party through the Sierra Club.
This loss of representation at all levels of government is troubling when so many women are suffering through the boom times in Calgary. According to Hari, there are a lot of women coming to the centre with housing issues. She says there is “definitely an increase because of rental hikes. So that might mean people need more food, or more personal care items, or they can’t afford to do things for themselves.”
Livia Quequezana, a presenter on women and poverty at the conference, knows the dangers of Calgary’s high cost of living from personal experience. After moving here with her family one and a half years ago, Quequezana struggled and was forced to live on welfare before her husband found a job.
“Almost all of the welfare I received went to pay the rent, which is huge here in Calgary,” she says. There was the additional burden of a sick child and the difficulty of establishing themselves in a new city, but she says they were lucky to receive generous help from city agencies including the Women’s Centre.
“That’s why I keep in touch with the Women’s Centre. I am always grateful to them because they provided us with food, clothing, tickets for recreational activities, any kind of information about schooling and supplies, they are a very good support for women in need.”
Quequezana is presenting at the conference in order to encourage other women to speak up. “The only way to have support is to talk about it,” she says. “I would encourage women to talk about their own issues to get the support that they need, because here in Calgary, they will find many kinds of agencies and many good people that will help in many ways.”
Hari hopes that the conference will live up to its name and foster communication between a diverse group of women with unique stories to tell. “That’s why we’re calling it Connections. Not only are people talking about what is their perspective, what’s their current issue, but having the opportunity to listen to other women and building those connections, building some understanding.”
The Women’s Centre of Calgary will play host to a conference celebrating its 10 years of independent service to women, at a time when issues of poverty, politics and commerce are increasingly important. Our booming economy can be an unforgiving beast for women, and the recent municipal election saw two incumbent female aldermen lose their seats.
Lisa Hari, an education and outreach worker at the centre, and one of the organizers of the conference, says the point is to have women tell their own stories. “We actually went out and said, ‘Hey, we’re planning a conference and what would you like to talk about?” Participants were further asked to look at the media and consider misrepresentations, misinformation and unaddressed issues pertaining to women.
The conference, titled Connections, will feature individual sessions covering everything from connecting with corporate Calgary to sex and gender diversity issues. Each presenter will have a personal connection to the material and a story to tell.
“I think what’s unique about this conference is that it’s women living the issues,” says Hari. “We have a woman that’s a vice-president of a bank coming to talk about women in corporate Calgary. So it’s women that are telling their stories, and I think that’s what is so great about this conference.”
In light of the recent ejection of two women from city council, the session on women and politics is particularly timely. Susan Stratton, co-chair of Equal Voice (Southern Alberta chapter), president of the Alberta Green Party and a Raging Granny, will speak about how women can participate in politics and increase representation. “There are statistics, both federally and provincially, and now at least in Calgary in the civic arena, about the poor representation of women. So we’ll be mentioning those stats certainly, that we may have come a long way, but not in politics,” she says.
Stratton believes that having more women involved in the political process will help soften the often-harsh world of Canadian politics and foster a greater spirit of co-operation. “I just think that the culture of politics as it’s usually practised is an issue. The tendency to attack and pull each other down rather than looking to co-operate and get something done is very obvious in Canadian politics,” she says. “You get more women in, you change the culture and the expectation, so it is kind of a chicken and egg thing.”
According to Stratton, it is not simply a matter of being elected to office, either. Women can participate in politics on a number of levels, she says, citing the rise of Elizabeth May to leader of the federal Green Party through the Sierra Club.
This loss of representation at all levels of government is troubling when so many women are suffering through the boom times in Calgary. According to Hari, there are a lot of women coming to the centre with housing issues. She says there is “definitely an increase because of rental hikes. So that might mean people need more food, or more personal care items, or they can’t afford to do things for themselves.”
Livia Quequezana, a presenter on women and poverty at the conference, knows the dangers of Calgary’s high cost of living from personal experience. After moving here with her family one and a half years ago, Quequezana struggled and was forced to live on welfare before her husband found a job.
“Almost all of the welfare I received went to pay the rent, which is huge here in Calgary,” she says. There was the additional burden of a sick child and the difficulty of establishing themselves in a new city, but she says they were lucky to receive generous help from city agencies including the Women’s Centre.
“That’s why I keep in touch with the Women’s Centre. I am always grateful to them because they provided us with food, clothing, tickets for recreational activities, any kind of information about schooling and supplies, they are a very good support for women in need.”
Quequezana is presenting at the conference in order to encourage other women to speak up. “The only way to have support is to talk about it,” she says. “I would encourage women to talk about their own issues to get the support that they need, because here in Calgary, they will find many kinds of agencies and many good people that will help in many ways.”
Hari hopes that the conference will live up to its name and foster communication between a diverse group of women with unique stories to tell. “That’s why we’re calling it Connections. Not only are people talking about what is their perspective, what’s their current issue, but having the opportunity to listen to other women and building those connections, building some understanding.”
Goodbye to the Western Standard
The free market eats one of its own
Originally published in FFWD October 25, 2007 by Drew Anderson in Viewpoint
Woe is the state of conservatism in the world, when those that preach fiscal responsibility seem to have the hardest time keeping their operations in the black, governments and a magazine among them.
Western Standard, the ranting right-wing rag that purported to represent the opinions of our corner of the world, was unable to attract enough attention in its worldview to keep it afloat. According to publisher Ezra Levant, speaking recently to the Globe and Mail, it will likely carry on in some form on the Internet, but we are thankfully without its continued presence at our newsstands. Why is it that conservatives, who constantly lecture on fiduciary responsibility, whether it be from the podium or in print, have such a hard time keeping their own finances in order?
The Conservative provincial government is the highest spender per capita in the country. To give it credit, it is debt-free, but that is largely due to excessive spending cuts in the ’90s, and the sea of oil we happen to live upon. The increased infrastructure, health and social spending we see today is an attempt to make up for those very same cuts, made by the same party, though with a different face. The Conservative provincial government, as indicated by the recent royalty review, has also done a poor job of ensuring Albertan’s financial interests were protected in the extraction of our natural resources. It hasn’t even kept proper records on finances in the tar sands.
Each year, the Conservative provincial government announces larger-than-expected budget surpluses, something now imitated by its federal counterpart and ideological brothers in arms. These surprise surpluses are never really a surprise, and are just a political ploy to curry favour with the electorate by unveiling extra funds, while hiding the fact those funds were available in the first place for social spending. Regardless, it doesn’t instill confidence in their ability to mind the books.
It’s almost too obvious to point out the situation south of us, where a conservative president has turned a large surplus into a terrifying deficit and helped speed his country towards a recession.
In the same Globe interview, Levant says that his magazine’s end is not an indication of a downturn in conservative support in Alberta and across Canada. This point is open for debate, especially in light of the inadequacies of our own government becoming more and more clear. What isn’t open for debate is the fact that Levant’s magazine, for whatever reason, couldn’t pay the bills.
The Western Standard operated for only three years as a print publication, taking up the reins of the also defunct Alberta Report magazine. Alberta Report was started by Ted Byfield, a well-known right-wing curmudgeon who also helped found the Reform Party. That magazine, after passing into the younger right-wing hands of Link Byfield, was also unable to sustain the finances necessary to continue, despite once boasting an impressive distribution.
Perhaps Levant should have followed Byfield’s strange lead and started the Standard as a quasi-religious endeavour, paying its commune-living writers $1 a day. Surely that would have bought some much-needed time and helped build up revenue.
Maybe Levant should have instituted his own spending cuts, like the conservative governments he lauds Levant could have reconsidered his driving practises and pumped some of the money he pours into his Hummer back into the magazine. That car isn’t fiscally responsible no matter how you look at it. But cuts aren’t for conservative leaders or pundits, they are for the rest of us.
Levant, a former National Post columnist and communications director for Stockwell Day’s disastrous stint as Canadian Alliance leader, banked on his showmanship and ability to antagonize in order to keep his marginal magazine afloat.
Decisions like printing the Prophet Muhammad cartoons that sparked such outrage around the world were nothing but irresponsible attention-seeking, couched in free-speech rhetoric. It turns out that being a jerk on a national level doesn’t help sell magazines, it just makes you look like a jerk.
In the Globe and Mail article, Levant says the publication was never purely an economic enterprise, but a moral one as well. It’s a good thing, too, because it never did turn a profit. Many would also argue his claim about the moral returns he insists it engendered.
This is what he had to say to Fast Forward in August 2006, while defending some of the blogs that were supported on his magazine’s website: "Sometimes people are rude and bigoted and sometimes people are anti-Muslim and anti-Semitic and that entire spectrum is allowed on our website, because unlike in Fast Forward, I believe that in the marketplace of ideas the good ideas will beat out the bad ideas." Turns out that in the marketplace of ideas, or just in the plain old-fashioned marketplace of which Levant is such a fan, being a jerk is just being a jerk, and being conservative does not mean you’re good with your money.
Originally published in FFWD October 25, 2007 by Drew Anderson in Viewpoint
Woe is the state of conservatism in the world, when those that preach fiscal responsibility seem to have the hardest time keeping their operations in the black, governments and a magazine among them.
Western Standard, the ranting right-wing rag that purported to represent the opinions of our corner of the world, was unable to attract enough attention in its worldview to keep it afloat. According to publisher Ezra Levant, speaking recently to the Globe and Mail, it will likely carry on in some form on the Internet, but we are thankfully without its continued presence at our newsstands. Why is it that conservatives, who constantly lecture on fiduciary responsibility, whether it be from the podium or in print, have such a hard time keeping their own finances in order?
The Conservative provincial government is the highest spender per capita in the country. To give it credit, it is debt-free, but that is largely due to excessive spending cuts in the ’90s, and the sea of oil we happen to live upon. The increased infrastructure, health and social spending we see today is an attempt to make up for those very same cuts, made by the same party, though with a different face. The Conservative provincial government, as indicated by the recent royalty review, has also done a poor job of ensuring Albertan’s financial interests were protected in the extraction of our natural resources. It hasn’t even kept proper records on finances in the tar sands.
Each year, the Conservative provincial government announces larger-than-expected budget surpluses, something now imitated by its federal counterpart and ideological brothers in arms. These surprise surpluses are never really a surprise, and are just a political ploy to curry favour with the electorate by unveiling extra funds, while hiding the fact those funds were available in the first place for social spending. Regardless, it doesn’t instill confidence in their ability to mind the books.
It’s almost too obvious to point out the situation south of us, where a conservative president has turned a large surplus into a terrifying deficit and helped speed his country towards a recession.
In the same Globe interview, Levant says that his magazine’s end is not an indication of a downturn in conservative support in Alberta and across Canada. This point is open for debate, especially in light of the inadequacies of our own government becoming more and more clear. What isn’t open for debate is the fact that Levant’s magazine, for whatever reason, couldn’t pay the bills.
The Western Standard operated for only three years as a print publication, taking up the reins of the also defunct Alberta Report magazine. Alberta Report was started by Ted Byfield, a well-known right-wing curmudgeon who also helped found the Reform Party. That magazine, after passing into the younger right-wing hands of Link Byfield, was also unable to sustain the finances necessary to continue, despite once boasting an impressive distribution.
Perhaps Levant should have followed Byfield’s strange lead and started the Standard as a quasi-religious endeavour, paying its commune-living writers $1 a day. Surely that would have bought some much-needed time and helped build up revenue.
Maybe Levant should have instituted his own spending cuts, like the conservative governments he lauds Levant could have reconsidered his driving practises and pumped some of the money he pours into his Hummer back into the magazine. That car isn’t fiscally responsible no matter how you look at it. But cuts aren’t for conservative leaders or pundits, they are for the rest of us.
Levant, a former National Post columnist and communications director for Stockwell Day’s disastrous stint as Canadian Alliance leader, banked on his showmanship and ability to antagonize in order to keep his marginal magazine afloat.
Decisions like printing the Prophet Muhammad cartoons that sparked such outrage around the world were nothing but irresponsible attention-seeking, couched in free-speech rhetoric. It turns out that being a jerk on a national level doesn’t help sell magazines, it just makes you look like a jerk.
In the Globe and Mail article, Levant says the publication was never purely an economic enterprise, but a moral one as well. It’s a good thing, too, because it never did turn a profit. Many would also argue his claim about the moral returns he insists it engendered.
This is what he had to say to Fast Forward in August 2006, while defending some of the blogs that were supported on his magazine’s website: "Sometimes people are rude and bigoted and sometimes people are anti-Muslim and anti-Semitic and that entire spectrum is allowed on our website, because unlike in Fast Forward, I believe that in the marketplace of ideas the good ideas will beat out the bad ideas." Turns out that in the marketplace of ideas, or just in the plain old-fashioned marketplace of which Levant is such a fan, being a jerk is just being a jerk, and being conservative does not mean you’re good with your money.
Saturday, October 20, 2007
Contradictory Calgarians
By: Drew Anderson
Originally publihsed in FFWD, October 4th, in City.
According to two recent reports looking into the state of affairs in our city, Calgarians are a contradictory people. We are concerned about the environment, but do little to reduce our impact, we are concerned over traffic, but continue to drive. We are concerned about crime but feel safe in our neighbourhoods. We are considered conservative but have priorities and concerns more in line with a socialist.
The Calgary Foundation released Vital Signs, which asked participants to grade the city in various areas of concern, including the environment, while the Canada West Foundation, in its report Looking West 2007, examined citizens views on their city, with research in all major western cities and Toronto. Both studies asked respondents to rate priorities and asked for their perception of the city.
The results can be confounding. Despite ranking crime as the fifth priority out of 13 in Looking West, 81 per cent of us feel very or somewhat safe in our neighbourhoods after dark, the highest rating in the country.
Traffic and roads were rated priorities number one and two respectively, and in Vital Signs, our livable/walkable city grade was C-. However, individual citizens continue to drive. 78 per cent of us drive our own vehicle to work instead of taking transit according to Vital Signs.
Loleen Berdahl, the lead researcher on Looking West, says Calgarians want change, they just don’t necessarily want to pay for it. Although transportation was rated a top priority, later in the study respondents shunned almost all methods of funding the necessary improvements.
“I think that’s human nature. I’d love everything for free too, but it’s a big problem. I think the electorate needs to realize that if they want the city that they claim to want, they’re going to need to make some choices with that and there’s going to be some costs to be paid. Not only in terms of actual tax dollars or user fees, but also costs to be paid in terms of…some policy options that restrict types of growth or that provide incentives for certain types of growth or things like that,” she says.
Others see the need for the municipal government to step in and do a better job of addressing Calgarian’s concerns.
“People have aspirations of how they want our city to be, but a lot of it hinges on our government taking action,” said Noel Keough, a senior researcher with Sustainable Calgary who helped research indicators for Vital Signs. “It’s got to do with how we build the city, it’s not an individual’s choice really.”
With a municipal election scheduled for October 15th, the timing of the two reports is fortuitous; revealing the priorities, concerns and perceptions of ordinary Calgarians. It is hoped that the reports will spur discussion on the issues.
“It’s a citizens engagement exercise - the report, and the issues that citizens identified - the election will be over October 15th, but these issues will all be with us for much longer,” says Eva Friessen, President and CEO of The Calgary Foundation.
The reports, however, both highlight another significant issue with the contradictory nature of the municipal citizen, our political apathy despite the realization that the civic government affects our lives deeply.
According to Looking West, 48.7 per cent of us think that of the three levels of government, the municipal variety has the greatest impact on our lives. Yet in the last election only 19 per cent of us voted; one of the lowest turnouts in the country and earning us an overall grade of C in the leadership and belonging section of Vital Signs.
“Who knows how to interpret it,” said Keough, “but you might interpret it as people have not seen a local government that is effective in dealing with these issues, so why vote. That’s a bed set of decisions to make, but perhaps that’s what people are seeing.”
Dr. Keith Brownsey, a political scientist at Mount Royal College isn’t surprised by the apathy and doesn’t see these reports changing anything soon.
“We have very little interest, although people understand that civic politics affects their lives every day,” he says.
“They (citizens) couldn’t care less, the water comes. They only get upset when taxes go up, I mean gosh there’s a tax revolt if your property tax goes up by three dollars a year…I mean that’s where people get animated.”
Yet despite this, Calgarians appear more socially progressive than normally portrayed, and rated property taxes 11th out of the 13 priorities in Looking West, far behind affordable housing and homelessness.
“Every time we do priorities (in a study), lowering taxes ends up in the middle, never the top,” said Berdahl.
“I wasn’t surprised to see Calgary sitting very similar to the other cities, I actually think that despite its national reputation, Calgary is, in many ways, very progressive on a lot of issues.”
Originally publihsed in FFWD, October 4th, in City.
According to two recent reports looking into the state of affairs in our city, Calgarians are a contradictory people. We are concerned about the environment, but do little to reduce our impact, we are concerned over traffic, but continue to drive. We are concerned about crime but feel safe in our neighbourhoods. We are considered conservative but have priorities and concerns more in line with a socialist.
The Calgary Foundation released Vital Signs, which asked participants to grade the city in various areas of concern, including the environment, while the Canada West Foundation, in its report Looking West 2007, examined citizens views on their city, with research in all major western cities and Toronto. Both studies asked respondents to rate priorities and asked for their perception of the city.
The results can be confounding. Despite ranking crime as the fifth priority out of 13 in Looking West, 81 per cent of us feel very or somewhat safe in our neighbourhoods after dark, the highest rating in the country.
Traffic and roads were rated priorities number one and two respectively, and in Vital Signs, our livable/walkable city grade was C-. However, individual citizens continue to drive. 78 per cent of us drive our own vehicle to work instead of taking transit according to Vital Signs.
Loleen Berdahl, the lead researcher on Looking West, says Calgarians want change, they just don’t necessarily want to pay for it. Although transportation was rated a top priority, later in the study respondents shunned almost all methods of funding the necessary improvements.
“I think that’s human nature. I’d love everything for free too, but it’s a big problem. I think the electorate needs to realize that if they want the city that they claim to want, they’re going to need to make some choices with that and there’s going to be some costs to be paid. Not only in terms of actual tax dollars or user fees, but also costs to be paid in terms of…some policy options that restrict types of growth or that provide incentives for certain types of growth or things like that,” she says.
Others see the need for the municipal government to step in and do a better job of addressing Calgarian’s concerns.
“People have aspirations of how they want our city to be, but a lot of it hinges on our government taking action,” said Noel Keough, a senior researcher with Sustainable Calgary who helped research indicators for Vital Signs. “It’s got to do with how we build the city, it’s not an individual’s choice really.”
With a municipal election scheduled for October 15th, the timing of the two reports is fortuitous; revealing the priorities, concerns and perceptions of ordinary Calgarians. It is hoped that the reports will spur discussion on the issues.
“It’s a citizens engagement exercise - the report, and the issues that citizens identified - the election will be over October 15th, but these issues will all be with us for much longer,” says Eva Friessen, President and CEO of The Calgary Foundation.
The reports, however, both highlight another significant issue with the contradictory nature of the municipal citizen, our political apathy despite the realization that the civic government affects our lives deeply.
According to Looking West, 48.7 per cent of us think that of the three levels of government, the municipal variety has the greatest impact on our lives. Yet in the last election only 19 per cent of us voted; one of the lowest turnouts in the country and earning us an overall grade of C in the leadership and belonging section of Vital Signs.
“Who knows how to interpret it,” said Keough, “but you might interpret it as people have not seen a local government that is effective in dealing with these issues, so why vote. That’s a bed set of decisions to make, but perhaps that’s what people are seeing.”
Dr. Keith Brownsey, a political scientist at Mount Royal College isn’t surprised by the apathy and doesn’t see these reports changing anything soon.
“We have very little interest, although people understand that civic politics affects their lives every day,” he says.
“They (citizens) couldn’t care less, the water comes. They only get upset when taxes go up, I mean gosh there’s a tax revolt if your property tax goes up by three dollars a year…I mean that’s where people get animated.”
Yet despite this, Calgarians appear more socially progressive than normally portrayed, and rated property taxes 11th out of the 13 priorities in Looking West, far behind affordable housing and homelessness.
“Every time we do priorities (in a study), lowering taxes ends up in the middle, never the top,” said Berdahl.
“I wasn’t surprised to see Calgary sitting very similar to the other cities, I actually think that despite its national reputation, Calgary is, in many ways, very progressive on a lot of issues.”
Voter apathy is where the heart is
Calgarians ignore government that affects us most
Originally published in FFWD October 11, 2007 by Drew Anderson in Viewpoint
A civic election is upon us, and candidates for alderman and mayor are laying out the issues in a city overwhelmed. Transportation, development, the environment, crime and housing are all on the lips of potential municipal decision-makers, but does anyone even care? Based on the 19 per cent turnout rate in the previous election, the answer is no.
It is boring now to point out that we are in the midst of unparalleled growth, with our city facing enormous pressures due to an overheated economy and a population surge. It’s boring, but it’s true. This makes our choice of civic leaders all the more important. These people will be guiding development in our communities, closing streets in our downtown and coming to grips with our excessive environmental impact. They will manage our growth, open up green space and build our recreation centres. When the neighbours are pissing you off, it is their bylaws you turn to.
Last election we had one of the lowest voter turnouts in Canada. The one government that is the most accessible to us, that affects our lives more intimately than the provincial or federal versions, is the one that commands the least attention.
So far many of the campaigns for alderman and for mayor have focused on a select set of issues: transportation, housing, development, crime and the environment. There are other issues being raised, and some candidates who just rant incoherently (you know who you are), but almost every campaign lists these as priorities.
Our current city council has tackled all of these issues through the course of their present term, though with a checkered success rate. Homelessness and affordable housing are clearly growing out of control. Piecemeal solutions to shelter in the winter months have angered residents with not-in-my-backyard attitudes, and have provided only temporary relief to a situation that continues unabated. There has to be a commitment to solutions that last longer than a couple of months — like the recent conversion of the old Brick building on 16th Ave.
We need committed leadership in the realm of affordable housing. Mayor Bronconnier is promising incentives to private developers and rent supplements to those struggling with housing costs. This is not the recipe for a permanent solution to the housing crisis. There has to be pressure on the provincial government from all our civic leaders to impose rent controls and protect those on the edge from unreasonable rent increases. We need a council and mayor that realize we can’t simply build more affordable housing without addressing the issues that make the rest of our housing unaffordable.
Both the homelessness and housing issues would benefit from scrapping the ward system and instead electing councillors that answer to the city as a whole, and not communities focused on their own self-interest.
The environmental footprint of Calgary is an embarrassment that needs immediate remedy. Our sprawling suburbs and car-centric planning has gobbled up as much land as New York City, despite the fact we have over seven million less residents. Our infrastructure is taxed from servicing such a large area, while our emissions and energy consumption continue to rise in excess of our population growth. We need to focus on building up rather than continuously out. According to a recent report by the Calgary Foundation, 78 per cent of Calgarians use their car to get to work — not surprising considering the city’s layout.
Transportation is an important issue for this city. Roads are clogged with excess cars, construction can’t keep up, thousands move here every year and transit seems unable to match demand with drivers and routes. It is heartening that candidates, specifically in the mayoral race, are promising movement on the west leg of the LRT and beyond. What is disappointing is the lack of infrastructure around alternative forms of travel in our communities and downtown; walking and cycling in this city can be challenging.
There is concern about a perceived crime increase, when all statistics show a continuing drop in crime rates. The current council approved a new bylaw and additional police officers in one of their last moves before the election campaign, but it still remains to be seen if the money for those officers or the bodies to fill those positions will be found.
As reported in Fast Forward last week, a major issue that needs addressing is accountability. Campaign financing regulations are largely non-existent, and the potential for corruption is enormous. Mayoral candidate Alnoor Kassam is the one contender making the biggest noise around accountability and ethics at city hall. There are questions, however, surrounding his escape from Kenya amidst fraud charges and his economic eviction of tenants with a rent increase of almost $2,000. Kassam says he was vindicated on the fraud charges at his immigration board hearing and that he offered free rent to his tenants for three months before the new rates took effect.
And through it all there is one lone voice in the electoral soup that is focusing on apathy, mayoral candidate Jeremy Zhao. So while all the bluster carries on about cars and roads and crime and infrastructure, it is fitting that nobody can hear Zhao through the din. Probably for the best; if we took an interest in our municipal affairs, what would we bitch about over the next round of drinks at a smoke-free bar?
Originally published in FFWD October 11, 2007 by Drew Anderson in Viewpoint
A civic election is upon us, and candidates for alderman and mayor are laying out the issues in a city overwhelmed. Transportation, development, the environment, crime and housing are all on the lips of potential municipal decision-makers, but does anyone even care? Based on the 19 per cent turnout rate in the previous election, the answer is no.
It is boring now to point out that we are in the midst of unparalleled growth, with our city facing enormous pressures due to an overheated economy and a population surge. It’s boring, but it’s true. This makes our choice of civic leaders all the more important. These people will be guiding development in our communities, closing streets in our downtown and coming to grips with our excessive environmental impact. They will manage our growth, open up green space and build our recreation centres. When the neighbours are pissing you off, it is their bylaws you turn to.
Last election we had one of the lowest voter turnouts in Canada. The one government that is the most accessible to us, that affects our lives more intimately than the provincial or federal versions, is the one that commands the least attention.
So far many of the campaigns for alderman and for mayor have focused on a select set of issues: transportation, housing, development, crime and the environment. There are other issues being raised, and some candidates who just rant incoherently (you know who you are), but almost every campaign lists these as priorities.
Our current city council has tackled all of these issues through the course of their present term, though with a checkered success rate. Homelessness and affordable housing are clearly growing out of control. Piecemeal solutions to shelter in the winter months have angered residents with not-in-my-backyard attitudes, and have provided only temporary relief to a situation that continues unabated. There has to be a commitment to solutions that last longer than a couple of months — like the recent conversion of the old Brick building on 16th Ave.
We need committed leadership in the realm of affordable housing. Mayor Bronconnier is promising incentives to private developers and rent supplements to those struggling with housing costs. This is not the recipe for a permanent solution to the housing crisis. There has to be pressure on the provincial government from all our civic leaders to impose rent controls and protect those on the edge from unreasonable rent increases. We need a council and mayor that realize we can’t simply build more affordable housing without addressing the issues that make the rest of our housing unaffordable.
Both the homelessness and housing issues would benefit from scrapping the ward system and instead electing councillors that answer to the city as a whole, and not communities focused on their own self-interest.
The environmental footprint of Calgary is an embarrassment that needs immediate remedy. Our sprawling suburbs and car-centric planning has gobbled up as much land as New York City, despite the fact we have over seven million less residents. Our infrastructure is taxed from servicing such a large area, while our emissions and energy consumption continue to rise in excess of our population growth. We need to focus on building up rather than continuously out. According to a recent report by the Calgary Foundation, 78 per cent of Calgarians use their car to get to work — not surprising considering the city’s layout.
Transportation is an important issue for this city. Roads are clogged with excess cars, construction can’t keep up, thousands move here every year and transit seems unable to match demand with drivers and routes. It is heartening that candidates, specifically in the mayoral race, are promising movement on the west leg of the LRT and beyond. What is disappointing is the lack of infrastructure around alternative forms of travel in our communities and downtown; walking and cycling in this city can be challenging.
There is concern about a perceived crime increase, when all statistics show a continuing drop in crime rates. The current council approved a new bylaw and additional police officers in one of their last moves before the election campaign, but it still remains to be seen if the money for those officers or the bodies to fill those positions will be found.
As reported in Fast Forward last week, a major issue that needs addressing is accountability. Campaign financing regulations are largely non-existent, and the potential for corruption is enormous. Mayoral candidate Alnoor Kassam is the one contender making the biggest noise around accountability and ethics at city hall. There are questions, however, surrounding his escape from Kenya amidst fraud charges and his economic eviction of tenants with a rent increase of almost $2,000. Kassam says he was vindicated on the fraud charges at his immigration board hearing and that he offered free rent to his tenants for three months before the new rates took effect.
And through it all there is one lone voice in the electoral soup that is focusing on apathy, mayoral candidate Jeremy Zhao. So while all the bluster carries on about cars and roads and crime and infrastructure, it is fitting that nobody can hear Zhao through the din. Probably for the best; if we took an interest in our municipal affairs, what would we bitch about over the next round of drinks at a smoke-free bar?
Oil change
Albertans hungry for a fair slice of our petrochemical pie
Originally published in FFWD October 4, 2007 by Drew Anderson in Viewpoint
There has been a great deal of debate, gnashing of teeth and pulling of hair since the provincial government-appointed panel on oil royalties released its report: Our Fair Share. Oil companies are dusting off their doomsday arguments, left over from past royalty reviews, while regular Albertans wait patiently for the government to answer the report sometime in October.
Premier Ed Stelmach, in an attempt to demonstrate his Conservative government’s commitment to transparency and democracy, convened the panel to avoid the government confronting the oil sector on its own; a clear step away from the shoot-from-the-hip, thoughtless and perpetually destructive style of the former leader. Now we see the kinder, gentler, wimpier leader, always looking for an excuse to act.
That excuse came out with a bang on Tuesday September 18, with the proposal (gasp) to increase the royalties paid out by multibillion dollar corporations to us lowly Albertans; or as the report succinctly defines us: owners. There would also be some royalty reductions for low-producing conventional oil and gas wells, but increases would be seen across the board. In all, if approved, the higher rates should mean an extra $1.9 billion for the province’s coffers annually.
It turns out we’ve been getting a bum deal for quite some time, though exactly how badly we’ve been ripped off can’t really be answered, because the government, apparently, isn’t doing such a good job of keeping track of things like that. What we do know for sure is that we are below Texas, Alaska, New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming, Norway, the U.K.; well, just about everybody. With the increases, we would still be near the bottom of this list.
It surely doesn’t come as a surprise to anybody that the government in Alberta is cozy with the oil interests that dominate our economy, but surely there was the assumption that it was keeping track of it all; adding up the figures. It wasn’t, particularly in the tar sands. This also leads to a situation where the royalties that were supposed to be collected may not have been.
According to the report: “In clear language, it seems that achievement of expected, intended royalty collections falls short of the actual amounts collected.” In other words, the report’s authors think we lost out on even more money, but they don’t have accurate enough numbers to know for sure.
In a testament to the lack of transparency and the sense of entitlement endemic to the Alberta Conservative dynasty, the panel isn’t even sure, given the lack of pertinent data, how decisions are being made in the tar sands.
“How the administration or public leaders make informed decisions in this vital arena is open to question,” says the report. That’s a polite, government panel way of saying things are insanely messed up with relation to one of the largest and most environmentally destructive industrial developments in the world. This is unacceptable.
The panel also took issue with the fact the same government department (Alberta Energy) is responsible for “maximizing activity in the energy sector and also ensuring that Albertan’s receive their ‘fair share’ from energy development….” This is seen as a fundamental conflict of interest.
To hear the oil companies tell it, these increases would spell the end of the “patch.” Billions of investment dollars would pull out and head for other territories. It seems too obvious to point out that the cost of production in these other oil and gas producing jurisdictions is greater than it is here. As well, almost all, including Angola, Nigeria, even Mexico, lack Alberta’s political stability and quality publicly funded infrastructure.
There is one concern that may prove accurate, and one the panel itself acknowledges: development in the tar sands may slow down as a result of the increase in royalty payouts. The panel wasn’t sure why this was such a bad thing, and I’m sure most Albertans will agree.
It’s only natural that an industry accustomed to reaping enormous profit would decry losing some of that income, but it’s not credible. It will continue to profit handsomely. Even if costs continue to rise, these will be considered a business expense. The oil and gas industry in Alberta has the advantage of operating in an environment that is not only stable, but in the case of the tar sands provides no exploration risk. As stated in the report: “In Alberta, we already know where the deposits are.”
In terms of cost, the panel called for both the government and the industry to improve their reporting and accountability of what constitutes a true business expense. As it stands, the regulations governing appropriate costs are ineffective.
“…Albertans need and deserve much more information on how costs are accounted for, and verified, in this system,” according to the report. These costs, after all, remove money from royalty payments. This applies as much to expansion of operations as it does to the gold watch given to the foreman on his last day. I hardly think Albertans want to pay for that. Though if this government refuses to implement the recommendations laid out in the report, we could spring for a few more after the next election.
Originally published in FFWD October 4, 2007 by Drew Anderson in Viewpoint
There has been a great deal of debate, gnashing of teeth and pulling of hair since the provincial government-appointed panel on oil royalties released its report: Our Fair Share. Oil companies are dusting off their doomsday arguments, left over from past royalty reviews, while regular Albertans wait patiently for the government to answer the report sometime in October.
Premier Ed Stelmach, in an attempt to demonstrate his Conservative government’s commitment to transparency and democracy, convened the panel to avoid the government confronting the oil sector on its own; a clear step away from the shoot-from-the-hip, thoughtless and perpetually destructive style of the former leader. Now we see the kinder, gentler, wimpier leader, always looking for an excuse to act.
That excuse came out with a bang on Tuesday September 18, with the proposal (gasp) to increase the royalties paid out by multibillion dollar corporations to us lowly Albertans; or as the report succinctly defines us: owners. There would also be some royalty reductions for low-producing conventional oil and gas wells, but increases would be seen across the board. In all, if approved, the higher rates should mean an extra $1.9 billion for the province’s coffers annually.
It turns out we’ve been getting a bum deal for quite some time, though exactly how badly we’ve been ripped off can’t really be answered, because the government, apparently, isn’t doing such a good job of keeping track of things like that. What we do know for sure is that we are below Texas, Alaska, New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming, Norway, the U.K.; well, just about everybody. With the increases, we would still be near the bottom of this list.
It surely doesn’t come as a surprise to anybody that the government in Alberta is cozy with the oil interests that dominate our economy, but surely there was the assumption that it was keeping track of it all; adding up the figures. It wasn’t, particularly in the tar sands. This also leads to a situation where the royalties that were supposed to be collected may not have been.
According to the report: “In clear language, it seems that achievement of expected, intended royalty collections falls short of the actual amounts collected.” In other words, the report’s authors think we lost out on even more money, but they don’t have accurate enough numbers to know for sure.
In a testament to the lack of transparency and the sense of entitlement endemic to the Alberta Conservative dynasty, the panel isn’t even sure, given the lack of pertinent data, how decisions are being made in the tar sands.
“How the administration or public leaders make informed decisions in this vital arena is open to question,” says the report. That’s a polite, government panel way of saying things are insanely messed up with relation to one of the largest and most environmentally destructive industrial developments in the world. This is unacceptable.
The panel also took issue with the fact the same government department (Alberta Energy) is responsible for “maximizing activity in the energy sector and also ensuring that Albertan’s receive their ‘fair share’ from energy development….” This is seen as a fundamental conflict of interest.
To hear the oil companies tell it, these increases would spell the end of the “patch.” Billions of investment dollars would pull out and head for other territories. It seems too obvious to point out that the cost of production in these other oil and gas producing jurisdictions is greater than it is here. As well, almost all, including Angola, Nigeria, even Mexico, lack Alberta’s political stability and quality publicly funded infrastructure.
There is one concern that may prove accurate, and one the panel itself acknowledges: development in the tar sands may slow down as a result of the increase in royalty payouts. The panel wasn’t sure why this was such a bad thing, and I’m sure most Albertans will agree.
It’s only natural that an industry accustomed to reaping enormous profit would decry losing some of that income, but it’s not credible. It will continue to profit handsomely. Even if costs continue to rise, these will be considered a business expense. The oil and gas industry in Alberta has the advantage of operating in an environment that is not only stable, but in the case of the tar sands provides no exploration risk. As stated in the report: “In Alberta, we already know where the deposits are.”
In terms of cost, the panel called for both the government and the industry to improve their reporting and accountability of what constitutes a true business expense. As it stands, the regulations governing appropriate costs are ineffective.
“…Albertans need and deserve much more information on how costs are accounted for, and verified, in this system,” according to the report. These costs, after all, remove money from royalty payments. This applies as much to expansion of operations as it does to the gold watch given to the foreman on his last day. I hardly think Albertans want to pay for that. Though if this government refuses to implement the recommendations laid out in the report, we could spring for a few more after the next election.
Drabinsky's Triple Sensation
Garth Drabinsky lets young hopefuls compete for cash and glory in Triple Sensation
Originally published in FFWD October 4, 2007 by Drew Anderson in Television
Garth Drabinsky is a story unto himself. He’s wanted by the law in the United States on fraud charges, and faces similar charges here in Canada. He is the creative force behind the Broadway musical Ragtime, the producer of The Changeling and has been cited as one of the reasons for the resurgence in Canadian theatre.
His latest challenge is to convince us that his new CBC reality show, Triple Sensation, is worth watching and not just a copy of the uninspired dribble that too often graces our small screens.
Sitting in Catch, and speaking in a deep New York accent, Drabinsky proves three things over lunch: he’s charming, he’s passionate about his latest project and he’s not just mimicking “other shows.”
“They’ve bastardized the whole idea of what this sort of television could be,” he says, never once referring to other reality shows by name.
Triple Sensation follows a familiar premise: travel Canada holding auditions to look for talent that will compete for a prize. It is different on a few levels, however. The title refers to the fact that participants must be able to sing, act and dance and do it all extremely well. There is also a strong focus on training and growth of the performers, without the unnecessary cruelty seen on other reality shows.
Drabinsky was determined from the outset to present Canadian talent and not make a show that is intended to denigrate its participants or to promise them a fleeting moment in the spotlight. “It’s not that the panel pulls any punches. We’re rigorously honest in our assessment of the kids’ talent, but not mean in the process. Constructive criticism you learn from, constructive criticism is enlightening. Constructive criticism, in fact, can be very entertaining,” he says. “It’s not about making some profoundly inflammatory comment, baseless often, just for the sake of thinking that’s good television I don’t think that’s good television.”
The prize for the winner of the show is also something that sets it apart. Rather than promising fame, the winner gets a scholarship worth $150,000 for the institution of their choice — in other words, more training. “The only way to have longevity and be able to sustain a career creatively and economically is hard work, nothing short of hard work,” he says. “The scholarship is also part of the nobility of the show. I don’t dangle a walk-on part on Broadway. I say, ‘Here, I’m going to help you become greater. I’m going to let you study anywhere in the world that you want to study, but I want you to come back to Canada, and I want Canadian audiences, and ultimately world audiences, to stand and cheer for just who you are.’”
Drabinsky has managed to coax some big names onto his jury, and the cream of the performing arts crop to be trainers of the chosen few selected from thousands of initial hopefuls. The jury (or marquee panel as it’s called) consists of Marvin Hamlisch, Cynthia Dale, Adrian Noble, Sergio Trujillo and, of course, Drabinksy.
Once the field is narrowed to 12 competitors, they will be housed in the National Ballet building and trained by elite coaches from institutions like Julliard, the Metropolitan Opera and the Royal Shakespeare Company. Even the acting coach for Brad Pitt and Hillary Swank has a turn with the competitors. “This (the training) represents the only way you can be great in the performing arts, not an ephemeral moment of instant stardom, whatever it is the other shows try to give. One moment you’re something and the next moment you’re serving coffee at Starbucks,” he says.
Our waitress engages in a few playful exchanges with the producer, still unsure, but opening up about her piano playing, singing and tap dancing. She has stage fright, though. It seems too perfect, but Drabinsky insists she’s not a plant. You just know a performer when you see one, he says.
There is no doubt that Drabinsky, though usually behind the stage or the camera, is a performer himself, travelling across Canada convincing skeptical journalists of his show’s merit. He does a pretty good job.
One thing is clear — this show represents a truly Canadian attitude towards how we should showcase and cultivate young performers and not, as Drabinsky puts it, “make a mockery of the talent.”
Originally published in FFWD October 4, 2007 by Drew Anderson in Television
Garth Drabinsky is a story unto himself. He’s wanted by the law in the United States on fraud charges, and faces similar charges here in Canada. He is the creative force behind the Broadway musical Ragtime, the producer of The Changeling and has been cited as one of the reasons for the resurgence in Canadian theatre.
His latest challenge is to convince us that his new CBC reality show, Triple Sensation, is worth watching and not just a copy of the uninspired dribble that too often graces our small screens.
Sitting in Catch, and speaking in a deep New York accent, Drabinsky proves three things over lunch: he’s charming, he’s passionate about his latest project and he’s not just mimicking “other shows.”
“They’ve bastardized the whole idea of what this sort of television could be,” he says, never once referring to other reality shows by name.
Triple Sensation follows a familiar premise: travel Canada holding auditions to look for talent that will compete for a prize. It is different on a few levels, however. The title refers to the fact that participants must be able to sing, act and dance and do it all extremely well. There is also a strong focus on training and growth of the performers, without the unnecessary cruelty seen on other reality shows.
Drabinsky was determined from the outset to present Canadian talent and not make a show that is intended to denigrate its participants or to promise them a fleeting moment in the spotlight. “It’s not that the panel pulls any punches. We’re rigorously honest in our assessment of the kids’ talent, but not mean in the process. Constructive criticism you learn from, constructive criticism is enlightening. Constructive criticism, in fact, can be very entertaining,” he says. “It’s not about making some profoundly inflammatory comment, baseless often, just for the sake of thinking that’s good television I don’t think that’s good television.”
The prize for the winner of the show is also something that sets it apart. Rather than promising fame, the winner gets a scholarship worth $150,000 for the institution of their choice — in other words, more training. “The only way to have longevity and be able to sustain a career creatively and economically is hard work, nothing short of hard work,” he says. “The scholarship is also part of the nobility of the show. I don’t dangle a walk-on part on Broadway. I say, ‘Here, I’m going to help you become greater. I’m going to let you study anywhere in the world that you want to study, but I want you to come back to Canada, and I want Canadian audiences, and ultimately world audiences, to stand and cheer for just who you are.’”
Drabinsky has managed to coax some big names onto his jury, and the cream of the performing arts crop to be trainers of the chosen few selected from thousands of initial hopefuls. The jury (or marquee panel as it’s called) consists of Marvin Hamlisch, Cynthia Dale, Adrian Noble, Sergio Trujillo and, of course, Drabinksy.
Once the field is narrowed to 12 competitors, they will be housed in the National Ballet building and trained by elite coaches from institutions like Julliard, the Metropolitan Opera and the Royal Shakespeare Company. Even the acting coach for Brad Pitt and Hillary Swank has a turn with the competitors. “This (the training) represents the only way you can be great in the performing arts, not an ephemeral moment of instant stardom, whatever it is the other shows try to give. One moment you’re something and the next moment you’re serving coffee at Starbucks,” he says.
Our waitress engages in a few playful exchanges with the producer, still unsure, but opening up about her piano playing, singing and tap dancing. She has stage fright, though. It seems too perfect, but Drabinsky insists she’s not a plant. You just know a performer when you see one, he says.
There is no doubt that Drabinsky, though usually behind the stage or the camera, is a performer himself, travelling across Canada convincing skeptical journalists of his show’s merit. He does a pretty good job.
One thing is clear — this show represents a truly Canadian attitude towards how we should showcase and cultivate young performers and not, as Drabinsky puts it, “make a mockery of the talent.”
Cyber-store
Community Cloth gives indie designers their own online boutique
Initially published in FFWD October 11, 2007 by Drew Anderson in Fashion
At 25, David Robert is young, but certainly not lazy. A web designer by trade, Robert has spent a good 480 hours of his own time over the last year or so designing a website intended for, well, designers — the clothing variety.
Community Cloth is a new Calgary-based website that, once complete, will host pages for independent fashion designers in the United States and Canada. It is intended as a place where those interested in obscure designers can find unique pieces and buy them in a stylish cyber-atmosphere, and where those same independent designers can find clients and boutiques.
The idea was hatched when Robert was helping his mother on a project for the children’s clothing store she used to operate in Kensington. “I was working on a few things for her and noticed all of the designers that were supplying her store didn’t have very good sites,” he says. But it’s not just the kid’s designers that are lacking an online style.
“Some designers have MySpace pages or Facebook pages and if they want to sell their clothes, they sell them on ebay. It’s the worst process and it’s ugly.”
Since coming to the realization that there was an opening in the market, it took two years before Robert began to put his ideas into motion. “I woke up one day and had an idea for the branding of the site and for me that just starts everything, a visual motivator.”
Designers will have the opportunity to set up their own page on the site, complete with pictures and logos, links and customer ratings. There will be a store that sells all wares featured on the site that will have a unique advantage over other online shopping venues. Robert and his two compatriots are working on something called a fitting tool which, once complete, will allow shoppers to profile their body on the site and go shopping for items by fit — one innovation designed to bypass the obvious issues associated with shopping on a screen rather than in person.
“We haven’t made a working concept, it’s just calculations and mock-ups, but essentially you would be able to create, without a tape measure, your body’s profile. Then what you can do, if you’re searching for a pair of jeans, because jeans are impossible to fit, you would be able to search for jeans that fit you instead of searching for jeans that are low-rise, 32, boot-cut,” he says.
A second concept that will be used to ensure a good shopping experience is sample material with stitching and button samples provided by each designer as a mark of their craftsmanship.
The first phase of the site will be up and running before the end of the month and will feature street fashion photos uploaded by guests on the site. There will be space for commentary on the styles either of individuals or designers clothing with the intent to create interest in the site and independent fashion. “What we’re launching this fall is basically editorial and user-contributed articles and user-contributed street fashion photos,” says Robert.
Currently the site has a stable of 30 interested designers, nine of which are from Calgary. The target, however, is 500 by the time the site is fully functional, something Robert thinks is doable. “Every time we get in touch with a designer, they’re excited about it because there’s nothing out there right now,” he says.
The site has already hosted one street fashion show on an underpass walkway downtown, and may be hosting a Plus-15 show in February if all goes according to plan. With a site dedicated to independent designers, the hope is that Calgary’s fashion scene will continue to expand. “Personally, I’m really concentrating on Calgary and trying to work with what’s around right now,” says Robert. “Calgary’s fashion scene is growing really fast.”
Initially published in FFWD October 11, 2007 by Drew Anderson in Fashion
At 25, David Robert is young, but certainly not lazy. A web designer by trade, Robert has spent a good 480 hours of his own time over the last year or so designing a website intended for, well, designers — the clothing variety.
Community Cloth is a new Calgary-based website that, once complete, will host pages for independent fashion designers in the United States and Canada. It is intended as a place where those interested in obscure designers can find unique pieces and buy them in a stylish cyber-atmosphere, and where those same independent designers can find clients and boutiques.
The idea was hatched when Robert was helping his mother on a project for the children’s clothing store she used to operate in Kensington. “I was working on a few things for her and noticed all of the designers that were supplying her store didn’t have very good sites,” he says. But it’s not just the kid’s designers that are lacking an online style.
“Some designers have MySpace pages or Facebook pages and if they want to sell their clothes, they sell them on ebay. It’s the worst process and it’s ugly.”
Since coming to the realization that there was an opening in the market, it took two years before Robert began to put his ideas into motion. “I woke up one day and had an idea for the branding of the site and for me that just starts everything, a visual motivator.”
Designers will have the opportunity to set up their own page on the site, complete with pictures and logos, links and customer ratings. There will be a store that sells all wares featured on the site that will have a unique advantage over other online shopping venues. Robert and his two compatriots are working on something called a fitting tool which, once complete, will allow shoppers to profile their body on the site and go shopping for items by fit — one innovation designed to bypass the obvious issues associated with shopping on a screen rather than in person.
“We haven’t made a working concept, it’s just calculations and mock-ups, but essentially you would be able to create, without a tape measure, your body’s profile. Then what you can do, if you’re searching for a pair of jeans, because jeans are impossible to fit, you would be able to search for jeans that fit you instead of searching for jeans that are low-rise, 32, boot-cut,” he says.
A second concept that will be used to ensure a good shopping experience is sample material with stitching and button samples provided by each designer as a mark of their craftsmanship.
The first phase of the site will be up and running before the end of the month and will feature street fashion photos uploaded by guests on the site. There will be space for commentary on the styles either of individuals or designers clothing with the intent to create interest in the site and independent fashion. “What we’re launching this fall is basically editorial and user-contributed articles and user-contributed street fashion photos,” says Robert.
Currently the site has a stable of 30 interested designers, nine of which are from Calgary. The target, however, is 500 by the time the site is fully functional, something Robert thinks is doable. “Every time we get in touch with a designer, they’re excited about it because there’s nothing out there right now,” he says.
The site has already hosted one street fashion show on an underpass walkway downtown, and may be hosting a Plus-15 show in February if all goes according to plan. With a site dedicated to independent designers, the hope is that Calgary’s fashion scene will continue to expand. “Personally, I’m really concentrating on Calgary and trying to work with what’s around right now,” says Robert. “Calgary’s fashion scene is growing really fast.”
Friday, September 28, 2007
Nuclear debate on wrong track
‘Clean’ energy source doing ‘dirty’ work
Originally published in FFWD September 13, 2007 by Drew Anderson in Viewpoint
On the same day the Calgary Herald ran a front-page story on Energy Alberta Corp. applying for a licence to build Western Canada’s first nuclear reactor, it also ran a short story, tucked into the back of the front section, detailing lingering fallout issues in Finland stemming from the Chernobyl disaster more than 20 years ago.
Over the course of the next couple of days, there was debate around the positive and negative implications of going nuclear, but the debate was on the wrong track right from the beginning. It is premature to discuss the issues of clean power and environmental sensitivities in relation to the plant. Rather, it is the issue of where that energy is going, and for what purpose, that ought to be the initial focus of dialogue.
Energy Alberta is seeking a permit from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission to build two twin Candu ACR-1000 reactors on Lake Cardinal, just west of Peace River. The cost of the project is estimated to be $6.2 billion, though nuclear development is notorious for cost overruns. According to Energy Alberta president and co-chairman Wayne Henuset, 70 per cent of the energy (2,200 megawatts from the first reactor alone) produced by the facility will go to an unspecified corporate customer, most likely a tar sands operator.
Debate so far has focused on the costs and benefits of nuclear power, specifically as it relates to the environment. Some claim nuclear energy is the cleanest solution to meet our energy needs, while others say it is a lesser-of-two-evils solution and leaves a toxic legacy in its wake. There are valid arguments on both sides. While nuclear energy does not produce carbon emissions through its production of energy, it still generates harmful waste that lingers for millennia, and the reactor drinks enormous amounts of water. The true debate, however, is how far we want tar sand development to progress and at what cost.
Development is now leading debate in this province rather than the more rational direction of debate leading development. It is often difficult to see the long-term repercussions of the decisions that we make, but this is not one of those times. There are already immense problems in the northern communities that border the tar sands: insufficient infrastructure, lack of housing, health problems and environmental degradation on par with the worst the rest of the world has to offer. According to the government of Alberta, this is only the tip of the iceberg.
While the tar sands cover an area twice the size of New Brunswick, only around 10 per cent of the resource has been exploited to date. While in 2005 the tar sands produced 966,000 barrels of oil per day, the provincial government forecasts three million barrels per day by 2020 and five million by 2030.
What are we going to do with the majority of that supposedly clean power spewing out of the nuclear reactors? We are going to dig up more earth and inject steam deep into crevices to produce more oil to feed the North American petroleum diet.
Albertans are being asked to risk nuclear power — the potential costs, the toxic waste and the jitters that accompany a power plant that could kill a great number of us if not managed properly — all for the benefit of another tar sands operator reaping billions in profits. Regular Albertans will only get 30 per cent of the energy, but will have to bear all of the social costs that accompany it.
Once we decide whether we want to expand tar sands development to the point where pit mines and tailing ponds cover the full extent of Alberta’s deposits — 140,200 square kilometres underlying boreal forest — then finally, the debate can turn to whether we want nuclear energy to power it.
Originally published in FFWD September 13, 2007 by Drew Anderson in Viewpoint
On the same day the Calgary Herald ran a front-page story on Energy Alberta Corp. applying for a licence to build Western Canada’s first nuclear reactor, it also ran a short story, tucked into the back of the front section, detailing lingering fallout issues in Finland stemming from the Chernobyl disaster more than 20 years ago.
Over the course of the next couple of days, there was debate around the positive and negative implications of going nuclear, but the debate was on the wrong track right from the beginning. It is premature to discuss the issues of clean power and environmental sensitivities in relation to the plant. Rather, it is the issue of where that energy is going, and for what purpose, that ought to be the initial focus of dialogue.
Energy Alberta is seeking a permit from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission to build two twin Candu ACR-1000 reactors on Lake Cardinal, just west of Peace River. The cost of the project is estimated to be $6.2 billion, though nuclear development is notorious for cost overruns. According to Energy Alberta president and co-chairman Wayne Henuset, 70 per cent of the energy (2,200 megawatts from the first reactor alone) produced by the facility will go to an unspecified corporate customer, most likely a tar sands operator.
Debate so far has focused on the costs and benefits of nuclear power, specifically as it relates to the environment. Some claim nuclear energy is the cleanest solution to meet our energy needs, while others say it is a lesser-of-two-evils solution and leaves a toxic legacy in its wake. There are valid arguments on both sides. While nuclear energy does not produce carbon emissions through its production of energy, it still generates harmful waste that lingers for millennia, and the reactor drinks enormous amounts of water. The true debate, however, is how far we want tar sand development to progress and at what cost.
Development is now leading debate in this province rather than the more rational direction of debate leading development. It is often difficult to see the long-term repercussions of the decisions that we make, but this is not one of those times. There are already immense problems in the northern communities that border the tar sands: insufficient infrastructure, lack of housing, health problems and environmental degradation on par with the worst the rest of the world has to offer. According to the government of Alberta, this is only the tip of the iceberg.
While the tar sands cover an area twice the size of New Brunswick, only around 10 per cent of the resource has been exploited to date. While in 2005 the tar sands produced 966,000 barrels of oil per day, the provincial government forecasts three million barrels per day by 2020 and five million by 2030.
What are we going to do with the majority of that supposedly clean power spewing out of the nuclear reactors? We are going to dig up more earth and inject steam deep into crevices to produce more oil to feed the North American petroleum diet.
Albertans are being asked to risk nuclear power — the potential costs, the toxic waste and the jitters that accompany a power plant that could kill a great number of us if not managed properly — all for the benefit of another tar sands operator reaping billions in profits. Regular Albertans will only get 30 per cent of the energy, but will have to bear all of the social costs that accompany it.
Once we decide whether we want to expand tar sands development to the point where pit mines and tailing ponds cover the full extent of Alberta’s deposits — 140,200 square kilometres underlying boreal forest — then finally, the debate can turn to whether we want nuclear energy to power it.
Cops at the core
Seeing Calgary’s downtown through police eyes
Originally published September 20, 2007 in FFWD by Drew Anderson in City
On September 10, Calgary city council unanimously approved a motion by Mayor Dave Bronconnier that called for an increased police presence in the downtown core and Beltline. His plan, which still must go through budget negotiations, would see 25 new bylaw officers, 10 new police officers and possibly closed-circuit cameras on the downtown beat — known as District One to the police that call this area their workplace.
Riding through the darkened streets of the district with Constables Gord Denison and Roland Stewart is like looking at your city through a television camera. The streets you ride on, walk past or drive by seem a little more menacing through the perceptive eyes of the police.
Police maintain a fine balance, acting as punishers and guardians, disciplinarians and social workers, a balance played out in every individual encounter and at the discretion of the officers. Sometimes that discretion is good, and sometimes it’s bad.
Before the van even leaves the alley behind police headquarters on Sixth Ave. and First St. S.E., a call comes over the radio about an assault — something about pepper spray. In less than 10 minutes the van pulls into an alley behind the bottle depot on Ninth Ave. S.E. in Inglewood and finds a distraught man, with a sore face, angrily moving shopping carts around. In a turf dispute, he has trespassed from his alley home into a nearby yard and gotten dosed for it.
Crime rates have been dropping across Canada for a few years now and Calgary is no different. According to Statistics Canada, the national crime rate hit a 25-year low in 2006, largely due to a drop in non-violent crime. Alberta witnessed one of the largest drops in the country at five per cent from 2005. Total drug crimes across the country increased by two per cent.
Steward and Denison have a keen eye and a deep understanding of what happens — who knows who and what looks out of the ordinary — on streets where everything appears to fit that description.
A suspicious car passes the paddy wagon on a seedy stretch of 14th Ave. Just east of Fourth St., Steward notices a passenger not wearing a shirt, unusual given the low-teen temperature on this late-summer night. After a quick U-turn, the van is speeding down the narrow street to find the vehicle, now pulled over and with its occupants hunching below the head rests. Soon, the trunk of the police car is littered with the tools of the trade: a homemade crack pipe, butane, bent spoons, needles, a car antennae (perfect as a whipping weapon) and an empty Tylenol container — a typical haul for the area according to the officers.
There are no actual drugs, and after issuing some tickets to the occupants, they are let allowed to drive away, only to be stopped a few blocks later when the car is reported stolen. Apparently the driver’s sister is not as generous as the man led officers to believe.
“It’s frustrating,” says Denison at the end of the night. “The courts don’t take the drugs seriously.” Both partners agree that the revolving door they see operate between the street and the courts is the least enjoyable part of their job.
At the Calgary Remand Centre, issues of overcrowding are putting a strain on the justice system. Recently, a man convicted of sexual assault of a minor was released upon sentencing after his time served in remand was measured as three times the length it would be in a regular prison. The credit was based on the overcrowded conditions of the centre, where three men are often crammed into rooms designed for two. Based on this calculation, the man had already surpassed his sentence.
This isn’t the only place in the city with a space crunch. At 11:30 p.m., the Calgary Drop-In Centre is at capacity, with men sleeping shoulder to shoulder on makeshift mattresses on the floor. The officers are there to wake up a man missing from the Rockyview General Hospital psychiatric ward; they say to stay close. There are people out front, waiting for a bed, sleeping on the ground. A man shivers on the concrete, but it’s impossible to tell if it’s because of the air temperature.
Halfway to the hospital, the officers are told the psychiatric patient has actually been discharged and it’s back to the Drop-In Centre, where his bed is, luckily, still available.
After a spate of violence in August, and with a civic election campaign right around the corner, crime has become a major issue in the city and, therefore, local politics. A new police chief, Rick Hanson, was named on September 10, coinciding with the approval of the new bylaw and police officers.
Spending four hours with Constables Steward and Denison, there are no arrests, no handcuffs, no fights, no serious crimes; their job almost seems like a dangerous, beefed-up, gun-toting hall patrol. Both men say their primary job is driving around and looking for stuff, keeping an eye out in case something does happen or a suspicious car drives by.
“Where are we supposed to put these guys?” asks Denison after calming the early evening turf war in the Inglewood alley, reflecting a general frustration with the city’s homelessness problem and an inability to stamp out crime. Whether it is in the downtown, the Beltline, Ramsay or Inglewood, the officers agree they are just pushing the problem from one area to another and back again.
Originally published September 20, 2007 in FFWD by Drew Anderson in City
On September 10, Calgary city council unanimously approved a motion by Mayor Dave Bronconnier that called for an increased police presence in the downtown core and Beltline. His plan, which still must go through budget negotiations, would see 25 new bylaw officers, 10 new police officers and possibly closed-circuit cameras on the downtown beat — known as District One to the police that call this area their workplace.
Riding through the darkened streets of the district with Constables Gord Denison and Roland Stewart is like looking at your city through a television camera. The streets you ride on, walk past or drive by seem a little more menacing through the perceptive eyes of the police.
Police maintain a fine balance, acting as punishers and guardians, disciplinarians and social workers, a balance played out in every individual encounter and at the discretion of the officers. Sometimes that discretion is good, and sometimes it’s bad.
Before the van even leaves the alley behind police headquarters on Sixth Ave. and First St. S.E., a call comes over the radio about an assault — something about pepper spray. In less than 10 minutes the van pulls into an alley behind the bottle depot on Ninth Ave. S.E. in Inglewood and finds a distraught man, with a sore face, angrily moving shopping carts around. In a turf dispute, he has trespassed from his alley home into a nearby yard and gotten dosed for it.
Crime rates have been dropping across Canada for a few years now and Calgary is no different. According to Statistics Canada, the national crime rate hit a 25-year low in 2006, largely due to a drop in non-violent crime. Alberta witnessed one of the largest drops in the country at five per cent from 2005. Total drug crimes across the country increased by two per cent.
Steward and Denison have a keen eye and a deep understanding of what happens — who knows who and what looks out of the ordinary — on streets where everything appears to fit that description.
A suspicious car passes the paddy wagon on a seedy stretch of 14th Ave. Just east of Fourth St., Steward notices a passenger not wearing a shirt, unusual given the low-teen temperature on this late-summer night. After a quick U-turn, the van is speeding down the narrow street to find the vehicle, now pulled over and with its occupants hunching below the head rests. Soon, the trunk of the police car is littered with the tools of the trade: a homemade crack pipe, butane, bent spoons, needles, a car antennae (perfect as a whipping weapon) and an empty Tylenol container — a typical haul for the area according to the officers.
There are no actual drugs, and after issuing some tickets to the occupants, they are let allowed to drive away, only to be stopped a few blocks later when the car is reported stolen. Apparently the driver’s sister is not as generous as the man led officers to believe.
“It’s frustrating,” says Denison at the end of the night. “The courts don’t take the drugs seriously.” Both partners agree that the revolving door they see operate between the street and the courts is the least enjoyable part of their job.
At the Calgary Remand Centre, issues of overcrowding are putting a strain on the justice system. Recently, a man convicted of sexual assault of a minor was released upon sentencing after his time served in remand was measured as three times the length it would be in a regular prison. The credit was based on the overcrowded conditions of the centre, where three men are often crammed into rooms designed for two. Based on this calculation, the man had already surpassed his sentence.
This isn’t the only place in the city with a space crunch. At 11:30 p.m., the Calgary Drop-In Centre is at capacity, with men sleeping shoulder to shoulder on makeshift mattresses on the floor. The officers are there to wake up a man missing from the Rockyview General Hospital psychiatric ward; they say to stay close. There are people out front, waiting for a bed, sleeping on the ground. A man shivers on the concrete, but it’s impossible to tell if it’s because of the air temperature.
Halfway to the hospital, the officers are told the psychiatric patient has actually been discharged and it’s back to the Drop-In Centre, where his bed is, luckily, still available.
After a spate of violence in August, and with a civic election campaign right around the corner, crime has become a major issue in the city and, therefore, local politics. A new police chief, Rick Hanson, was named on September 10, coinciding with the approval of the new bylaw and police officers.
Spending four hours with Constables Steward and Denison, there are no arrests, no handcuffs, no fights, no serious crimes; their job almost seems like a dangerous, beefed-up, gun-toting hall patrol. Both men say their primary job is driving around and looking for stuff, keeping an eye out in case something does happen or a suspicious car drives by.
“Where are we supposed to put these guys?” asks Denison after calming the early evening turf war in the Inglewood alley, reflecting a general frustration with the city’s homelessness problem and an inability to stamp out crime. Whether it is in the downtown, the Beltline, Ramsay or Inglewood, the officers agree they are just pushing the problem from one area to another and back again.
CSO in Calgary
Originally published in Beltline Buzz
By: Drew Anderson
City Council unanimously approved a motion to have 25
more bylaw officers and 10 more police officers patrol
downtown and the Beltline. The resolution marks the
resurgence of a successful pilot project that was cancelled
two years ago.
The pilot project was centered on bylaw officers, known as
community support officers (CSO), walking a beat through
the core and the Beltline. They deal with complaints and
make their presence known.
“It was an extremely successful program. In fact, even now,
people are approaching me asking when are they going
to bring back this project?” said Marilyn Arber, executive
director of the Community Life Improvement Council (CLIC),
an organization that helped initiate the idea. “CSO gives
people a much greater perception of safety.”
CSO is based on the broken window theory, the idea that
when you maintain an area and reduce the perception of
crime and degradation, major crime also subsides.
Preventing things like graffiti, vandalism and public drinking
helps give a sense of safety to an otherwise threatening area.
It also allows police officers to focus on more serious issues.
“We found that when the bylaw guys got things under
control, it helped free up some police time. It also helped
restore the faith of the citizens in that the perception of crime
stopped,” said Bill Bruce, director of bylaw services for the
city.
If the new officers are approved through city council, Bruce
said, they will be on patrol by January of 2008 and will
function much as before, though with some lessons under
their belts.
“We learned a few things, so we’ll be sitting down between
October and November, working this out.” he said.
Inspector Bob Ritchie from District 1, which includes the
Beltline, echoes support of the pilot and the potential of the
program.
“I think that bylaw working in consultation with our officers
will only enhance our ability to effectively patrol the area,”
he said.
“We enjoyed that collaboration, and we look forward to it in
the future.”
Terminating the CSO project after the pilot was contentious.
CSO was universally accepted as successful.
According to Bruce it was a funding issue.
“The program was a joint project between the Province
of Alberta, the solicitor general, and the City of Calgary
and Calgary Police Service. So basically the funding from
the province was limited and there was no more money
forthcoming. So we were kind of stuck,” he said.
“There was an interest in continuing it, but then the province
changed solicitor generals after Harvey Cenaiko was set to
go with a two year extension.”
Arber also said that there was talk of extending the
program to better evaluate its success before the change in
government.
“Mr. Cenaiko had indicated that sustainable funding was
going to be provided and then, of course, with the change
in government and in cabinet positions, it just fell by the
wayside,” she said.
This fact is denied by the office of the Solicitor General.
“I’m going to have to disagree with that statement,” said
Andy Wiler, a spokesperson for the solicitor’s general’s
office. “What we did, is we funded the initial pilot projects
both in Edmonton and in Calgary, and really the pilot
projects were set up to allow the cities to determine the
effectiveness of the program.”
Wiler said that specific programs are under the purview of
the cities and that those decisions are not a provincial matter.
“While we support enforcement efforts in Calgary through
municipal policing assistance grants and by returning fine
revenue, enforcement options within the cities is a city
responsibility. They have to decide whether it’s a program
they feel is worthwhile.”
He said that a similar program in Edmonton was maintained
after the end of the pilot phase.
“CSO worked very well in our community,” said Beltline
president Rob Taylor. “We really need it back.”
The new program is not dependent on dedicated provincial
funding.
By: Drew Anderson
City Council unanimously approved a motion to have 25
more bylaw officers and 10 more police officers patrol
downtown and the Beltline. The resolution marks the
resurgence of a successful pilot project that was cancelled
two years ago.
The pilot project was centered on bylaw officers, known as
community support officers (CSO), walking a beat through
the core and the Beltline. They deal with complaints and
make their presence known.
“It was an extremely successful program. In fact, even now,
people are approaching me asking when are they going
to bring back this project?” said Marilyn Arber, executive
director of the Community Life Improvement Council (CLIC),
an organization that helped initiate the idea. “CSO gives
people a much greater perception of safety.”
CSO is based on the broken window theory, the idea that
when you maintain an area and reduce the perception of
crime and degradation, major crime also subsides.
Preventing things like graffiti, vandalism and public drinking
helps give a sense of safety to an otherwise threatening area.
It also allows police officers to focus on more serious issues.
“We found that when the bylaw guys got things under
control, it helped free up some police time. It also helped
restore the faith of the citizens in that the perception of crime
stopped,” said Bill Bruce, director of bylaw services for the
city.
If the new officers are approved through city council, Bruce
said, they will be on patrol by January of 2008 and will
function much as before, though with some lessons under
their belts.
“We learned a few things, so we’ll be sitting down between
October and November, working this out.” he said.
Inspector Bob Ritchie from District 1, which includes the
Beltline, echoes support of the pilot and the potential of the
program.
“I think that bylaw working in consultation with our officers
will only enhance our ability to effectively patrol the area,”
he said.
“We enjoyed that collaboration, and we look forward to it in
the future.”
Terminating the CSO project after the pilot was contentious.
CSO was universally accepted as successful.
According to Bruce it was a funding issue.
“The program was a joint project between the Province
of Alberta, the solicitor general, and the City of Calgary
and Calgary Police Service. So basically the funding from
the province was limited and there was no more money
forthcoming. So we were kind of stuck,” he said.
“There was an interest in continuing it, but then the province
changed solicitor generals after Harvey Cenaiko was set to
go with a two year extension.”
Arber also said that there was talk of extending the
program to better evaluate its success before the change in
government.
“Mr. Cenaiko had indicated that sustainable funding was
going to be provided and then, of course, with the change
in government and in cabinet positions, it just fell by the
wayside,” she said.
This fact is denied by the office of the Solicitor General.
“I’m going to have to disagree with that statement,” said
Andy Wiler, a spokesperson for the solicitor’s general’s
office. “What we did, is we funded the initial pilot projects
both in Edmonton and in Calgary, and really the pilot
projects were set up to allow the cities to determine the
effectiveness of the program.”
Wiler said that specific programs are under the purview of
the cities and that those decisions are not a provincial matter.
“While we support enforcement efforts in Calgary through
municipal policing assistance grants and by returning fine
revenue, enforcement options within the cities is a city
responsibility. They have to decide whether it’s a program
they feel is worthwhile.”
He said that a similar program in Edmonton was maintained
after the end of the pilot phase.
“CSO worked very well in our community,” said Beltline
president Rob Taylor. “We really need it back.”
The new program is not dependent on dedicated provincial
funding.
Sunday, September 9, 2007
Lobbyist Act may cause paralysis
Transparency legislation could hinder rather than help democracy
Published in FFWD August 30, 2007 by Drew Anderson in News
The provincial Conservative government’s flagship accountability bill is causing concern among not-for-profit groups as the consultation process comes to a close and the new session of the legislature nears. Bill 1, or the Lobbyists Act, was introduced by Premier Ed Stelmach in March of this year, trumpeted as an important step towards greater transparency, but the not-for-profit sector is concerned it will limit access to decision-makers and paralyze many organizations.
“Public Interest Alberta (PIA)… has been calling on the provincial government to establish a very clear, transparent lobbyist registry with our concern about how so many decisions are influenced behind closed doors,” says Bill Moore-Kilgannon, executive director of PIA. “But the more we looked at the details, the more we got concerned about how, at the end of the day, these regulations that they’re putting in place may limit democracy and people’s access to decision makers, rather than enhance it.”
The act will establish a lobbyist registry and an index of government contact information, both of which will be free and easy to access for citizens, as well as a ban on lobbying and providing paid advice to the government on the same issue at the same time.
However, it is the scope and the broad definitions in the bill that are causing furrowed brows in the not-for-profit sector. These concerns are highlighted in a report prepared by the Legal Resource Centre and commissioned by the Muttart Foundation, which funds not-for-profit organizations and engages in policy research and awareness.
One of the central issues raised in the bill, as it’s currently written, is the amount of work and resources necessary to prevent violations. “A major problem in the Alberta act is the concept of associated persons,” said Bill Wyatt, executive director of the Muttart Foundation. “So if the Muttart Foundation wants to lobby the provincial government on something related to charities, I would arguably have to go to all of my directors and all of my staff members and say, ‘You have to tell me what you’re doing and what your spouses are doing and what any other organization you’re involved with is doing.’”
If any of those people are giving paid advice to the government on the same issue, the foundation would be unable to engage the government. The definition of public office holder in the legislation is also very broad, encompassing bureaucrats and advisors. In some instances a public office holder, as defined in the act, could sit on the board of a not-for-profit, meaning internal conversations might contravene the new regulations and would have to be reported. Some executive directors could be put in a position where they are unable to communicate with their own staff on the operation of their organization. This transparency and reporting also raises the issue of privacy, within an organization and amongst its staff and members.
“Public Interest Alberta would be fine being very transparent with who we are and what we’re trying to do, but the question comes in whether or not there’s potential for abuse once the government has all that information,” says Moore-Kilgannon.
This may discourage some watchdog groups or those representing refugees from authoritarian countries from engaging with the government, according to the Muttart report.
“It creates an environment that is ever more complex. I think it’s unintentional that it could have the kind of implications that it might have,” says Katherine van Kooy, president and CEO of the Calgary Chamber of Voluntary Organizations.
Sandi Walker, a spokesperson for Alberta Justice, believes the rules governing compliance with the act will be clear once the bill is passed. “There will be educational materials that are put out for the public, so people will understand what their responsibilities are and whether or not the act will apply to them,” she says.
Another issue raised in the Muttart report is the ability of government officials to circumvent the act. If a lobbyist is approached by a government official for advice, the rules relating to conflict do not apply, thereby potentially furthering favouritism of one organization or company over another.
“We wanted to be able to continue to consult with our stakeholders, so it’s important that we have the ability to ask people who may be affected by government decisions, and who have experience and knowledge about an issue, their opinion on it,” says Walker.
This applies to all sectors, including the not-for-profit.
All of these issues hold the very real possibility of preventing some advocacy and charitable organizations from conducting their business. “For most organizations, they’ll become very concerned about jeopardizing their positions, so they’ll be very reluctant to engage in something for fear that it might contravene the rules,” says van Kooy. “It almost becomes a self-imposed chill.”
Fines for contravention of the act range from $50,000 for an initial offence, and up to $200,000 for any offence after that. The bill has already passed second reading in the legislature and is now with the standing committee on government services, which will report back to the government in November. The Muttart report, signed by 81 different organizations to date, will be forwarded to the committee. “I think it’s incredibly important that people take a look at the implications of this and get ready to speak out on it as the regulations get put into place,” says Moore-Kilgannon.
Published in FFWD August 30, 2007 by Drew Anderson in News
The provincial Conservative government’s flagship accountability bill is causing concern among not-for-profit groups as the consultation process comes to a close and the new session of the legislature nears. Bill 1, or the Lobbyists Act, was introduced by Premier Ed Stelmach in March of this year, trumpeted as an important step towards greater transparency, but the not-for-profit sector is concerned it will limit access to decision-makers and paralyze many organizations.
“Public Interest Alberta (PIA)… has been calling on the provincial government to establish a very clear, transparent lobbyist registry with our concern about how so many decisions are influenced behind closed doors,” says Bill Moore-Kilgannon, executive director of PIA. “But the more we looked at the details, the more we got concerned about how, at the end of the day, these regulations that they’re putting in place may limit democracy and people’s access to decision makers, rather than enhance it.”
The act will establish a lobbyist registry and an index of government contact information, both of which will be free and easy to access for citizens, as well as a ban on lobbying and providing paid advice to the government on the same issue at the same time.
However, it is the scope and the broad definitions in the bill that are causing furrowed brows in the not-for-profit sector. These concerns are highlighted in a report prepared by the Legal Resource Centre and commissioned by the Muttart Foundation, which funds not-for-profit organizations and engages in policy research and awareness.
One of the central issues raised in the bill, as it’s currently written, is the amount of work and resources necessary to prevent violations. “A major problem in the Alberta act is the concept of associated persons,” said Bill Wyatt, executive director of the Muttart Foundation. “So if the Muttart Foundation wants to lobby the provincial government on something related to charities, I would arguably have to go to all of my directors and all of my staff members and say, ‘You have to tell me what you’re doing and what your spouses are doing and what any other organization you’re involved with is doing.’”
If any of those people are giving paid advice to the government on the same issue, the foundation would be unable to engage the government. The definition of public office holder in the legislation is also very broad, encompassing bureaucrats and advisors. In some instances a public office holder, as defined in the act, could sit on the board of a not-for-profit, meaning internal conversations might contravene the new regulations and would have to be reported. Some executive directors could be put in a position where they are unable to communicate with their own staff on the operation of their organization. This transparency and reporting also raises the issue of privacy, within an organization and amongst its staff and members.
“Public Interest Alberta would be fine being very transparent with who we are and what we’re trying to do, but the question comes in whether or not there’s potential for abuse once the government has all that information,” says Moore-Kilgannon.
This may discourage some watchdog groups or those representing refugees from authoritarian countries from engaging with the government, according to the Muttart report.
“It creates an environment that is ever more complex. I think it’s unintentional that it could have the kind of implications that it might have,” says Katherine van Kooy, president and CEO of the Calgary Chamber of Voluntary Organizations.
Sandi Walker, a spokesperson for Alberta Justice, believes the rules governing compliance with the act will be clear once the bill is passed. “There will be educational materials that are put out for the public, so people will understand what their responsibilities are and whether or not the act will apply to them,” she says.
Another issue raised in the Muttart report is the ability of government officials to circumvent the act. If a lobbyist is approached by a government official for advice, the rules relating to conflict do not apply, thereby potentially furthering favouritism of one organization or company over another.
“We wanted to be able to continue to consult with our stakeholders, so it’s important that we have the ability to ask people who may be affected by government decisions, and who have experience and knowledge about an issue, their opinion on it,” says Walker.
This applies to all sectors, including the not-for-profit.
All of these issues hold the very real possibility of preventing some advocacy and charitable organizations from conducting their business. “For most organizations, they’ll become very concerned about jeopardizing their positions, so they’ll be very reluctant to engage in something for fear that it might contravene the rules,” says van Kooy. “It almost becomes a self-imposed chill.”
Fines for contravention of the act range from $50,000 for an initial offence, and up to $200,000 for any offence after that. The bill has already passed second reading in the legislature and is now with the standing committee on government services, which will report back to the government in November. The Muttart report, signed by 81 different organizations to date, will be forwarded to the committee. “I think it’s incredibly important that people take a look at the implications of this and get ready to speak out on it as the regulations get put into place,” says Moore-Kilgannon.
Skinning a Kat
Kat Von D brings tattoos to the TV screen
Published in FFWD September 6, 2007 by Drew Anderson in Visual Arts
The ever-popular tattoo star Kat Von D
She’s 20 minutes late. Kat Von D, the hung-over diva of television tattoo looks to be a no-show. Back Alley and Snatch (no joke) have apparently slowed her down from the night before.
Then, at the end of the Roundup Centre hallway, the gruff voice and undoubtedly attractive figure of Von D appears, the star of LA Ink and the proprietor of High Voltage Tattoos in L.A.
At this point, the temptation is to be snarky, to mock the prima donna that has taken tattoos to the television and lives a rock ’n’ roll lifestyle under the glare of The Learning Channel and its millions of viewers. There are a few problems though: she’s really nice, down-to-earth, is comfortable to speak with and has paid her dues — and the same is true of her co-star and fellow artist, Corey Miller. Oh, and they can ink skin with the best of them.
Von D, covered from legs to neck in tattoos, alternately lays and sits on the couch, showing off her canvass of skin, while Miller, the only man on the show and in the shop, sits stoically to one side.
One common misconception about the shop and its matron is that it is a television set of sorts, owned somehow by TLC. “She did all of that shit on her own. She got the shop up and running literally in the time it took me a year to do. It’s amazing how much shit she got done,” says Miller.
“Before I even signed my contract with TLC for LA Ink I was already in the process of building the shop,” adds Von D. “It’s a real tattoo shop, I work there every day.”
Both Miller and Von D have been around the tattoo scene for many years, starting in the industry in their early teens, back when tattoos were not something showing up on family TV screens. “It was crazy, it was in the ghetto, San Bernadino, it was a really bad part of town,” says Von D of her first apprenticeship at the age of 16.
“I think she’s really lucky to come into the old timers that she had. A lot of people don’t realize, and not that it should be there, but a lot of people don’t realize how fucked up it was. Even 20 years ago, I had the same experience with the dirty, shady shit. I’m so glad we’re out of that, but it’s such a good thing to have a taste of,” says Miller.
So what of the new image of tattoos, and its dissemination on shows like theirs? “It’s just like music. Remember Nirvana? Everyone wanted to keep it to the little junkie kids under the bridge, but once you put it out to America, everybody loved it,” says Miller. “Me, myself, and this is my opinion, I’m a tattooist, but I don’t fucking own it.”
The filming for the first season of LA Ink has just wrapped up, but the two artists have to wait with the rest of us to see how it actually turns out. “We don’t get approvals, we get to see it when you guys see it,” says Von D. “There’s been a little drama between the production and the cast, but I’m proud of all the tattoos we’ve been busting out.”
Published in FFWD September 6, 2007 by Drew Anderson in Visual Arts
The ever-popular tattoo star Kat Von D
She’s 20 minutes late. Kat Von D, the hung-over diva of television tattoo looks to be a no-show. Back Alley and Snatch (no joke) have apparently slowed her down from the night before.
Then, at the end of the Roundup Centre hallway, the gruff voice and undoubtedly attractive figure of Von D appears, the star of LA Ink and the proprietor of High Voltage Tattoos in L.A.
At this point, the temptation is to be snarky, to mock the prima donna that has taken tattoos to the television and lives a rock ’n’ roll lifestyle under the glare of The Learning Channel and its millions of viewers. There are a few problems though: she’s really nice, down-to-earth, is comfortable to speak with and has paid her dues — and the same is true of her co-star and fellow artist, Corey Miller. Oh, and they can ink skin with the best of them.
Von D, covered from legs to neck in tattoos, alternately lays and sits on the couch, showing off her canvass of skin, while Miller, the only man on the show and in the shop, sits stoically to one side.
One common misconception about the shop and its matron is that it is a television set of sorts, owned somehow by TLC. “She did all of that shit on her own. She got the shop up and running literally in the time it took me a year to do. It’s amazing how much shit she got done,” says Miller.
“Before I even signed my contract with TLC for LA Ink I was already in the process of building the shop,” adds Von D. “It’s a real tattoo shop, I work there every day.”
Both Miller and Von D have been around the tattoo scene for many years, starting in the industry in their early teens, back when tattoos were not something showing up on family TV screens. “It was crazy, it was in the ghetto, San Bernadino, it was a really bad part of town,” says Von D of her first apprenticeship at the age of 16.
“I think she’s really lucky to come into the old timers that she had. A lot of people don’t realize, and not that it should be there, but a lot of people don’t realize how fucked up it was. Even 20 years ago, I had the same experience with the dirty, shady shit. I’m so glad we’re out of that, but it’s such a good thing to have a taste of,” says Miller.
So what of the new image of tattoos, and its dissemination on shows like theirs? “It’s just like music. Remember Nirvana? Everyone wanted to keep it to the little junkie kids under the bridge, but once you put it out to America, everybody loved it,” says Miller. “Me, myself, and this is my opinion, I’m a tattooist, but I don’t fucking own it.”
The filming for the first season of LA Ink has just wrapped up, but the two artists have to wait with the rest of us to see how it actually turns out. “We don’t get approvals, we get to see it when you guys see it,” says Von D. “There’s been a little drama between the production and the cast, but I’m proud of all the tattoos we’ve been busting out.”
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Radiant City
Originally published in Swerve Magazine
By Drew Anderson
Radiating out of the city’s core, past the strip malls, porn shops and gas stations of Macleod Trail, through countless lights, beside countless cars, under the overpasses that truly demarcate the line of what has been and what will be. This is where you find yourself in Gary Burns’ new documentary, Radiant City.
The celebrated Calgary filmmaker partnered with friend and CBC radio Eyeopener host Jim Brown to tackle the subject of modern North American suburbs. “We didn’t want to make a didactic doc—here’s the good guys, here’s the bad guys, here’s the victims and here’s the solution,” says Burns. “That melancholy—‘this is the best we can do’—I think that’s what we were trying to achieve.” It’s what propelled the duo, as they followed the Moss family and some of their friends and neighbours through the suburban experience, resigned to their fate or trying to embrace it.
The film sets beautifully coloured cinematography against the sparse environment in which the families live. The Moss children take the filmmakers on a quirky and funny tour through their surreal community; the father, Evan, resigns himself to his new reality and Ann, the mother, just stresses out.
“To me, it’s one of the biggest tragedies in North America—the way we’re building our cities and people are just kind of going along with it. People should be fighting for a decent place to live,” says Burns by way of telephone, sitting on his porch in Sunnyside.
Navigating through Calgary’s suburbs is like vertigo to the uninitiated; gone are the grids of the core, the only straight line is the hyperbolic trail that brings you out this far. But there is variety here: artists who can no longer afford the luxury of downtown; families that can’t fight the urge to own a yard, a mud room, an attached garage.
Here, on the edge, there is hope of an end, confinement of Calgary’s ecological footprint, the largest in Canada. The sky reaches out to still extant countryside, rolled hay bails in fields. Trees even.
But next to the billboard proclaiming a new, idealized marketing vision—Happy Hills, Paradise Gardens, Once-Had-Trees Ville or Babbling Brook Estates—is a mound of dirt and idle equipment designed to plow and dig and smooth.
Though the critics peppered throughout the movie either pan the whole suburban project, speak of its promise, or of its inevitability, the filmmakers just wanted to make people stop and think; to show the suburbs as they see it.
“This is it, this is the best you can do for people living?” says Brown. “You want to get an actual cup of coffee you have to get in your car and get on the freeway and drive for ten minutes. Is that living?”
By Drew Anderson
Radiating out of the city’s core, past the strip malls, porn shops and gas stations of Macleod Trail, through countless lights, beside countless cars, under the overpasses that truly demarcate the line of what has been and what will be. This is where you find yourself in Gary Burns’ new documentary, Radiant City.
The celebrated Calgary filmmaker partnered with friend and CBC radio Eyeopener host Jim Brown to tackle the subject of modern North American suburbs. “We didn’t want to make a didactic doc—here’s the good guys, here’s the bad guys, here’s the victims and here’s the solution,” says Burns. “That melancholy—‘this is the best we can do’—I think that’s what we were trying to achieve.” It’s what propelled the duo, as they followed the Moss family and some of their friends and neighbours through the suburban experience, resigned to their fate or trying to embrace it.
The film sets beautifully coloured cinematography against the sparse environment in which the families live. The Moss children take the filmmakers on a quirky and funny tour through their surreal community; the father, Evan, resigns himself to his new reality and Ann, the mother, just stresses out.
“To me, it’s one of the biggest tragedies in North America—the way we’re building our cities and people are just kind of going along with it. People should be fighting for a decent place to live,” says Burns by way of telephone, sitting on his porch in Sunnyside.
Navigating through Calgary’s suburbs is like vertigo to the uninitiated; gone are the grids of the core, the only straight line is the hyperbolic trail that brings you out this far. But there is variety here: artists who can no longer afford the luxury of downtown; families that can’t fight the urge to own a yard, a mud room, an attached garage.
Here, on the edge, there is hope of an end, confinement of Calgary’s ecological footprint, the largest in Canada. The sky reaches out to still extant countryside, rolled hay bails in fields. Trees even.
But next to the billboard proclaiming a new, idealized marketing vision—Happy Hills, Paradise Gardens, Once-Had-Trees Ville or Babbling Brook Estates—is a mound of dirt and idle equipment designed to plow and dig and smooth.
Though the critics peppered throughout the movie either pan the whole suburban project, speak of its promise, or of its inevitability, the filmmakers just wanted to make people stop and think; to show the suburbs as they see it.
“This is it, this is the best you can do for people living?” says Brown. “You want to get an actual cup of coffee you have to get in your car and get on the freeway and drive for ten minutes. Is that living?”
Friday, July 13, 2007
Dan's Not Calm
Originally published in BeatRoute Magazine
By: Drew Anderson
Standing watch on the corner of 11th Avenue and MacLeod Trail is a strange object made of old trinkets. Most people drive by, too busy commuting to take a second look at the sculpture and the store that it fronts. Those with a healthy amount of curiosity will be satisfied when they walk under the gaze of a plastic clown, through the door, and enter the wonderful world of Dan's Not Calm.
Passing through the threshold, senses are overwhelmed. The walls and counters are covered in velvet paintings, coconut monkey sculptures, a plasma buddha, old-school naked lady pens, politically incorrect black Americana, lava lamps and a multitude of other collectibles. CBC radio plays over the speakers and the smell of smoke envelopes the thick air. Dan, silver haired and casual, relaxes, leaning back with his feet on the counter and a cigarette between his fingers.
Dan Moore has run this store for the past four years, but has been collecting his impressive horde of goods for the past twenty. His store-front, a former donair shop, is located in a sort of pedestrian no-man's land on MacLeod Trail, right next door to the new Haymarket café and bookstore.
Moore is on the friendly side of eclectic store owners; not imposing or ingratiating, just friendly. As two punked-out kids walk through the door, Moore greets them with a friendly hello and then continues to relax behind his well worn desk. He even runs what he calls a "professional concierge service," keeping requests for items in a rolodex in case he tracks something down.
He estimates that there are around 200 people in that rolodex at the moment, waiting for Johnny Seven One Man Army weapons, Star Wars memorabilia and every other hard-to-find trinket you can think of.
"Treat people as you want to be treated," says Moore, "it's a very simple rule. Sometimes it's very hard to do…"
"I can't fire myself, so I might as well do something I think is actually worthwhile."
This store is meant for browsing, for losing yourself in the clutter. And you can certainly do just that.
"That's the trick of the store," says Moore, "I have to pack it up really big, really dense. So when you come in, you can come in five or six times, look at exactly the same stuff and see a different thing."
Moore's favourite piece at the moment is a collapsible nickel-plated puzzle bank from 1897. It also happens to be one of the more expensive items on display, checking in at about $250. It is placed in a large glass cupboard at the back of the store along with other cherished items: an autographed Leave it to Beaver, Beav and Wally photograph signed when they were still young, a plaster of paris stuffed beaver tale with hair still clinging to its base among others.
These are among the rare items, not just for what they are, but also for their price. Dan's Not Calm is not an upscale boutique, and its prices reflect the more down to earth atmosphere.
Some of his items even end up on movie sets.
"I had a lamp make it into Brokeback Mountain," says Moore, obviously amused. Other items end up on sets, though he doesn't keep track.
Moore clearly enjoys his work, though he didn't set out to run an eclectic pop culture emporium.
After working in a design studio, doing computer and IT work as well as taking physics engineering at school for two years, Moore finally gave in to his ability to find unique objects that other people wanted.
"I'll pick it up because it's unusual; people seem to like my sensibilities when it comes to picking up things," he explains.
As for the name: "I wanted to have a store that sounded like a website that wasn't - so that in the event that I ever do put a website together, it will be Dan's Not Calm dot com," explains Moore with a chuckle.
And the name messes with people.
"Weirdest one I ever had. Some poor guy, I think he had dyslexia, said: 'So why's the store Dan's Not Clam?' And I didn't have the heart to say, read that carefully. I just said 'I don't sell seafood.'"
With Christmas carols already assaulting eardrums in the malls, Dan's Not Calm is an oasis of shopping, with fare that you will not find anywhere else.
"Goat hair pictures of shepherds. Who comes up with these things?" asks Moore, looking at a wall hanging.
By: Drew Anderson
Standing watch on the corner of 11th Avenue and MacLeod Trail is a strange object made of old trinkets. Most people drive by, too busy commuting to take a second look at the sculpture and the store that it fronts. Those with a healthy amount of curiosity will be satisfied when they walk under the gaze of a plastic clown, through the door, and enter the wonderful world of Dan's Not Calm.
Passing through the threshold, senses are overwhelmed. The walls and counters are covered in velvet paintings, coconut monkey sculptures, a plasma buddha, old-school naked lady pens, politically incorrect black Americana, lava lamps and a multitude of other collectibles. CBC radio plays over the speakers and the smell of smoke envelopes the thick air. Dan, silver haired and casual, relaxes, leaning back with his feet on the counter and a cigarette between his fingers.
Dan Moore has run this store for the past four years, but has been collecting his impressive horde of goods for the past twenty. His store-front, a former donair shop, is located in a sort of pedestrian no-man's land on MacLeod Trail, right next door to the new Haymarket café and bookstore.
Moore is on the friendly side of eclectic store owners; not imposing or ingratiating, just friendly. As two punked-out kids walk through the door, Moore greets them with a friendly hello and then continues to relax behind his well worn desk. He even runs what he calls a "professional concierge service," keeping requests for items in a rolodex in case he tracks something down.
He estimates that there are around 200 people in that rolodex at the moment, waiting for Johnny Seven One Man Army weapons, Star Wars memorabilia and every other hard-to-find trinket you can think of.
"Treat people as you want to be treated," says Moore, "it's a very simple rule. Sometimes it's very hard to do…"
"I can't fire myself, so I might as well do something I think is actually worthwhile."
This store is meant for browsing, for losing yourself in the clutter. And you can certainly do just that.
"That's the trick of the store," says Moore, "I have to pack it up really big, really dense. So when you come in, you can come in five or six times, look at exactly the same stuff and see a different thing."
Moore's favourite piece at the moment is a collapsible nickel-plated puzzle bank from 1897. It also happens to be one of the more expensive items on display, checking in at about $250. It is placed in a large glass cupboard at the back of the store along with other cherished items: an autographed Leave it to Beaver, Beav and Wally photograph signed when they were still young, a plaster of paris stuffed beaver tale with hair still clinging to its base among others.
These are among the rare items, not just for what they are, but also for their price. Dan's Not Calm is not an upscale boutique, and its prices reflect the more down to earth atmosphere.
Some of his items even end up on movie sets.
"I had a lamp make it into Brokeback Mountain," says Moore, obviously amused. Other items end up on sets, though he doesn't keep track.
Moore clearly enjoys his work, though he didn't set out to run an eclectic pop culture emporium.
After working in a design studio, doing computer and IT work as well as taking physics engineering at school for two years, Moore finally gave in to his ability to find unique objects that other people wanted.
"I'll pick it up because it's unusual; people seem to like my sensibilities when it comes to picking up things," he explains.
As for the name: "I wanted to have a store that sounded like a website that wasn't - so that in the event that I ever do put a website together, it will be Dan's Not Calm dot com," explains Moore with a chuckle.
And the name messes with people.
"Weirdest one I ever had. Some poor guy, I think he had dyslexia, said: 'So why's the store Dan's Not Clam?' And I didn't have the heart to say, read that carefully. I just said 'I don't sell seafood.'"
With Christmas carols already assaulting eardrums in the malls, Dan's Not Calm is an oasis of shopping, with fare that you will not find anywhere else.
"Goat hair pictures of shepherds. Who comes up with these things?" asks Moore, looking at a wall hanging.
Rant on oil subsidies
Won’t someone please think of the oil companies? Battered on all sides, these behemoths are desperate for love and to retain the generous amounts of money the government has customarily bequeathed them.
In the recent federal budget, Alberta’s would-be and current operators in the tar sands were told that the free ride was over…in 8 years. Notice that anyone with a job would love to receive. The government announced the phasing out of the Accelerated Capital Cost Allowance (ACCA) which gave companies tax incentives to destroy the north of our province.
Hal Walker, Chairman of the board of directors for the Chamber of Commerce in Calgary, speaking to the Calgary Herald said: “A change to the ACCA for oilsands developers undermines the single biggest contributor to Canada’s economic prosperity.”
Let’s think about that comment for a minute.
Walker is furious because the single largest contributor to Canada’s economic prosperity is no longer going to receive government money to help it increase it's billion dollar bottom line.
What do you suppose Mr. Walker would say if the government lowered the already desperately low social assistance money it pays out? We won’t even mention provincial AISH payments.
Are these the same people that say we should all pull ourselves up by our bootstraps? Maybe it only applies to people with no money. It’s confusing but I’m trying to understand.
Let’s recap.
The government has decided to scrap an outdated corporate welfare program designed to encourage growth in the tar sands when oil prices were low and the industry needed incentives.
Now growth in the region is likely to destroy the ecosystem, specifically the Athabasca river, and is already overwhelming northern infrastructure due to the pace of development. Sites have trouble recruiting enough workers.
Remind me again what I’m supposed to be outraged about.
In the recent federal budget, Alberta’s would-be and current operators in the tar sands were told that the free ride was over…in 8 years. Notice that anyone with a job would love to receive. The government announced the phasing out of the Accelerated Capital Cost Allowance (ACCA) which gave companies tax incentives to destroy the north of our province.
Hal Walker, Chairman of the board of directors for the Chamber of Commerce in Calgary, speaking to the Calgary Herald said: “A change to the ACCA for oilsands developers undermines the single biggest contributor to Canada’s economic prosperity.”
Let’s think about that comment for a minute.
Walker is furious because the single largest contributor to Canada’s economic prosperity is no longer going to receive government money to help it increase it's billion dollar bottom line.
What do you suppose Mr. Walker would say if the government lowered the already desperately low social assistance money it pays out? We won’t even mention provincial AISH payments.
Are these the same people that say we should all pull ourselves up by our bootstraps? Maybe it only applies to people with no money. It’s confusing but I’m trying to understand.
Let’s recap.
The government has decided to scrap an outdated corporate welfare program designed to encourage growth in the tar sands when oil prices were low and the industry needed incentives.
Now growth in the region is likely to destroy the ecosystem, specifically the Athabasca river, and is already overwhelming northern infrastructure due to the pace of development. Sites have trouble recruiting enough workers.
Remind me again what I’m supposed to be outraged about.
Stampede picture series
The Calgary Stampede has taken over the city once again. Though I'm not the biggest supporter, there is still a charm to the midway.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Phone news conference with Jack Layton, Feb. 2007
Originally published in The Weal, February, 2007
Interview By: Drew Anderson
The federal NDP is presenting a bill to the House of Commons on Monday Feb. 5, outlining the role they would like to see the federal government play in funding post-secondary education.
The act would call for stable federal funding to the provinces in response to promises of lowered tuition and increased quality, changes to the Canada student loan program, and implementation of a comprehensive needs-based student grant program for all years of study.
In lead up to the bill, Jack Layton, leader of the federal NDP held a virtual news conference with student journalists
This is what he had to say to The Weal’s news editor, Drew Anderson:
DA: How would you ensure provincial cooperation in return for these reliable federal funding policies that you propose? I’m thinking particularly of Alberta and Quebec. And would this help the patchwork of post-secondary costs and quality across the provinces?
JL: “Well I hope that this would help, and or course, ultimately there’s jurisdiction issues that you have to work through in the Canadian context. As you know we have certain constitutional divisions of responsibility that have to be respected. However, when you are able to offer funds, then you are opening the door to some influence over the way in which those funds are used and it takes a diligent government to make sure that those (assurances) are honoured.”
DA: Your website speaks of a looming skills shortage. Alberta is already in the middle of such a crisis. Does your party have any immediate solutions for increase training opportunities in post-secondary education?
JL: “Precisely how the training is delivered would inevitably have to be up to the provinces, but we believe that training, and I haven’t spoken specifically about jobs and skills training here, that’s a separate area of work for us and we’re working with the labour movement and business sectors in making sure that that issue is front and centre. Certainly you’re right about Alberta, it’s just an enormous shortage of the kind of labour that’s needed; and we’ve proposed in past election platforms, major investments in training and we’re calling on the federal government in their budget, which is coming down in two months, to address that question as a major priority.”
DA: You’re talking about substantial increases in federal transfers, so provinces can roll back tuition and re-invest in faculty and resources. How much would it cost to implement these federal transfers to the provinces?
JL: “Well, it’s something that has to be phased in of course with the financial capabilities of the federal government and that’s why, for instance, when we had the opportunity to force the federal Liberals into action we were able to construct a proposal that was a $1.6 billion investment. We are crunching the numbers now as to what the dollars would be that we could put forward in this particular budget. Of course that requires Mr. Harper to get off his massive tax cutting approach to running the government. If he continues to cut the taxes then that means you haven’t got the funds available to invest.
We’re trying to urge him not to reduce taxes further, we think that in fact that is jeopardizing our ability to make these kinds of investments.”
I can’t give you a specific dollar figure for this year’s budget right now for example.”
Interview By: Drew Anderson
The federal NDP is presenting a bill to the House of Commons on Monday Feb. 5, outlining the role they would like to see the federal government play in funding post-secondary education.
The act would call for stable federal funding to the provinces in response to promises of lowered tuition and increased quality, changes to the Canada student loan program, and implementation of a comprehensive needs-based student grant program for all years of study.
In lead up to the bill, Jack Layton, leader of the federal NDP held a virtual news conference with student journalists
This is what he had to say to The Weal’s news editor, Drew Anderson:
DA: How would you ensure provincial cooperation in return for these reliable federal funding policies that you propose? I’m thinking particularly of Alberta and Quebec. And would this help the patchwork of post-secondary costs and quality across the provinces?
JL: “Well I hope that this would help, and or course, ultimately there’s jurisdiction issues that you have to work through in the Canadian context. As you know we have certain constitutional divisions of responsibility that have to be respected. However, when you are able to offer funds, then you are opening the door to some influence over the way in which those funds are used and it takes a diligent government to make sure that those (assurances) are honoured.”
DA: Your website speaks of a looming skills shortage. Alberta is already in the middle of such a crisis. Does your party have any immediate solutions for increase training opportunities in post-secondary education?
JL: “Precisely how the training is delivered would inevitably have to be up to the provinces, but we believe that training, and I haven’t spoken specifically about jobs and skills training here, that’s a separate area of work for us and we’re working with the labour movement and business sectors in making sure that that issue is front and centre. Certainly you’re right about Alberta, it’s just an enormous shortage of the kind of labour that’s needed; and we’ve proposed in past election platforms, major investments in training and we’re calling on the federal government in their budget, which is coming down in two months, to address that question as a major priority.”
DA: You’re talking about substantial increases in federal transfers, so provinces can roll back tuition and re-invest in faculty and resources. How much would it cost to implement these federal transfers to the provinces?
JL: “Well, it’s something that has to be phased in of course with the financial capabilities of the federal government and that’s why, for instance, when we had the opportunity to force the federal Liberals into action we were able to construct a proposal that was a $1.6 billion investment. We are crunching the numbers now as to what the dollars would be that we could put forward in this particular budget. Of course that requires Mr. Harper to get off his massive tax cutting approach to running the government. If he continues to cut the taxes then that means you haven’t got the funds available to invest.
We’re trying to urge him not to reduce taxes further, we think that in fact that is jeopardizing our ability to make these kinds of investments.”
I can’t give you a specific dollar figure for this year’s budget right now for example.”
Book review - The Italian Letter
Originally published in FAST FORWARD, July 5, 2007
By: Drew Anderson
It is shocking when a known truth is revealed to be a great deal more sinister than originally believed, or when an assumption is turned to fact and presented with mountains of evidence. That is precisely what investigative journalists Peter Eisner and Knut Royce have accomplished.
We now know that the war in Iraq was based on faulty intelligence and hinged on the intentions of the executive administration in the U.S. What Eisner and Royce have done is collect all the strands of that shady endeavour and woven them into a compelling, though often repetitive, retelling of the facts.
As though out of a movie, the book begins and continuously returns to an Italian journalist named Elisabetta Burba-portrayed as earnest, hard working and misled-and her dealings with a shadowy trafficker of information. This relationship brings forth the Italian Letter, a forged document that would ultimately send Iraq into chaos.
In the letter, purportedly sent from the former president of Niger to Iraqi president Saddam Hussein, is confirmation of a deal to sell 500 tonnes of yellowcake uranium to Iraq. The problem with the letter, and the rest of the information included in a package of documents, is that it was a clear fraud, easily discovered with a simple Google search.
It is this package of information that Burba brings to the Americans for vetting. It is this information that finally ends in the lap of George W. Bush and his cadre of neo-conservative believers.
From this beginning, the authors expose the politicization of intelligence, the failure of the storied American system of political checks and balances and the astonishing delusion of those in the administration. They expose the links between actors, interview countless participants in the system and lay bare devastating institutional failures in the intelligence community, governments and journalism.
Readers are left to wonder at the conspiracy theory feel to it all, and no doubt fans of that particular genre of thinking will take this information and run. What is startling is that it doesn’t need any more information or intrigue to make it terrifying.
Plato once proposed the need for a noble lie, a secret vested in the ruling class that would benefit society. In this book we are presented with the rise of public relations in manipulating the opinions of the citizenry, the presentation of untenable facts spun into a cohesive deception; the ignoble lie and its devastating consequences for a democracy. The U.S. administration used fear, based on cooked information, to entice a nation into war.
Andrew Card, the White House Chief of Staff, illustrated the attitude of the administration when discussing the PR campaign that was launched to build support for the war in September of 2002 (three days before the first anniversary of 9/11). He told the New York Times: “From a marketing point of view, you don’t introduce new products in August.”
This book reveals the slow decline of American and British democracy and the important role that journalism plays in the dialogue of a society. It also makes it frustratingly clear that institutions can take on a life of their own and that information sometimes isn’t exposed in time.
As the book progresses through the entanglements of nations, administrations, editors and spooks, the truth becomes overwhelming and clear. Though decidedly on the side of overkill, the information proves too important to lay out in a few pages and move along. It requires the affirmation and double confirmation from many sources, and the authors expertly track the links and the movements of documents and failures as they snake their way across the globe.
For anyone opposed to the war in Iraq, this is essential reading. To understand just why this war is wrong requires a lesson in its original failings. For anyone that still supports the war, the information is driven home so often and so well in this book, it might just lift that veil from your eyes.
By: Drew Anderson
It is shocking when a known truth is revealed to be a great deal more sinister than originally believed, or when an assumption is turned to fact and presented with mountains of evidence. That is precisely what investigative journalists Peter Eisner and Knut Royce have accomplished.
We now know that the war in Iraq was based on faulty intelligence and hinged on the intentions of the executive administration in the U.S. What Eisner and Royce have done is collect all the strands of that shady endeavour and woven them into a compelling, though often repetitive, retelling of the facts.
As though out of a movie, the book begins and continuously returns to an Italian journalist named Elisabetta Burba-portrayed as earnest, hard working and misled-and her dealings with a shadowy trafficker of information. This relationship brings forth the Italian Letter, a forged document that would ultimately send Iraq into chaos.
In the letter, purportedly sent from the former president of Niger to Iraqi president Saddam Hussein, is confirmation of a deal to sell 500 tonnes of yellowcake uranium to Iraq. The problem with the letter, and the rest of the information included in a package of documents, is that it was a clear fraud, easily discovered with a simple Google search.
It is this package of information that Burba brings to the Americans for vetting. It is this information that finally ends in the lap of George W. Bush and his cadre of neo-conservative believers.
From this beginning, the authors expose the politicization of intelligence, the failure of the storied American system of political checks and balances and the astonishing delusion of those in the administration. They expose the links between actors, interview countless participants in the system and lay bare devastating institutional failures in the intelligence community, governments and journalism.
Readers are left to wonder at the conspiracy theory feel to it all, and no doubt fans of that particular genre of thinking will take this information and run. What is startling is that it doesn’t need any more information or intrigue to make it terrifying.
Plato once proposed the need for a noble lie, a secret vested in the ruling class that would benefit society. In this book we are presented with the rise of public relations in manipulating the opinions of the citizenry, the presentation of untenable facts spun into a cohesive deception; the ignoble lie and its devastating consequences for a democracy. The U.S. administration used fear, based on cooked information, to entice a nation into war.
Andrew Card, the White House Chief of Staff, illustrated the attitude of the administration when discussing the PR campaign that was launched to build support for the war in September of 2002 (three days before the first anniversary of 9/11). He told the New York Times: “From a marketing point of view, you don’t introduce new products in August.”
This book reveals the slow decline of American and British democracy and the important role that journalism plays in the dialogue of a society. It also makes it frustratingly clear that institutions can take on a life of their own and that information sometimes isn’t exposed in time.
As the book progresses through the entanglements of nations, administrations, editors and spooks, the truth becomes overwhelming and clear. Though decidedly on the side of overkill, the information proves too important to lay out in a few pages and move along. It requires the affirmation and double confirmation from many sources, and the authors expertly track the links and the movements of documents and failures as they snake their way across the globe.
For anyone opposed to the war in Iraq, this is essential reading. To understand just why this war is wrong requires a lesson in its original failings. For anyone that still supports the war, the information is driven home so often and so well in this book, it might just lift that veil from your eyes.
Calgary's new water centre
Originally published in FAST FORWARD, June 7, 2007
By: Drew Anderson
Following the curved roadway of 25th Ave., itself a mimic of the old CN rail line that forged this route, the City of Calgary’s newest building, the Water Centre, stands along its curb and almost distracts the driver right off the road. A looming curved wall of galvanized aluminum rises on the edge of the city’s Manchester yards evoking a sense of the water that will be the occupants primary concern.
The building will house approximately 800 Water Services and Water Resource employees, bringing them together in one building for the first time.
Rounding the bend in the road the first question that comes to mind is: what is that? Quickly followed by a sense of architectural hope, a sense that perhaps Calgary is not doomed to a sort of design purgatory, brutalized on all sides by four walls and a roof.
“I was very interested, and have been for a long time, in the curvilinear nature of 25th Ave.,” says lead architect Jeremy Sturgess, whose firm Sturgess Architecture collaborated on the project with Manasc Isaac Architects of Edmonton.
He wanted to pay homage to the historical nature of that curve as the former path of the railway, to maintain and reinforce it while also cupping the yards and the green space that will nestle into the building’s south side.
“So not only is the building, by its location, creating a garden that is going to be very useful to the users of the building and also to the public, but it is also defining and establishing 25th Ave. as an important piece of Calgary’s fabric,” he says.
While motorists will be confronted with a sloping quarter circle roof slashed with long banks of tempered windows, the south side will be a massive wall of glass with alternating blue and green hues - another water-inspired design feature - facing a landscaped area.
Resting comfortably within its protective embrace, the green space will feature meandering stone walkways with simulated creek beds rushing water run-off from the roof, to ponds and cisterns in the yard. The collected water will be used for irrigation.
The centre was inspired by American architect Stephen Holl’s Kiasma Museum of Contemporary Art in Helsinki, and mimics both its curved design as well as its ready supply of natural light.
“One of our features that we want to provide people, is access to a window and access to daylight while they’re at work,” says Russ Golightly, project manager of the water centre for the City of Calgary corporate properties and buildings.
This, along with the landscape design is part of meeting the city’s new sustainable building policy, approved in 2003, which calls for all new city projects to be certified LEED (Leadeship in Energy and Environmental Design) silver or above.
LEED is the industry standard certification system that monitors and certifies buildings based on 70 established points, including access to public transportation, energy efficiency, water use and innovative design. Levels of certification are: certified, silver, gold and platinum. A building that achieves 33-38 of those available points will be certified silver.
The impressive exterior of the building is a fitting shell for the environmental innovation contained within. According to the City of Calgary website, the building will be day lit, recycle 95 per cent of excess construction material, reduce water use by 59 per cent, waste water by 72 per cent, and save 58 per cent in annual energy consumption.
Over 700,000 kilograms of reinforcing steel used in the construction was recycled product.
Wider on the west end and narrowing as it flows east towards the industrial heart of the city, the building is long and narrow, an intentional design to foster community by encouraging walking and talking all while avoiding elevators.
Inside, all four floors are open on the south side, each railed with recycled wheat stock boards, creating an atrium feel to the interior. The design team made the space open, hoping to foster not only communication, but also air-flow and movement.
“We were very strong that it should not be a high rise,” says Sturgess, “because if we’re going to make a building that is a collaboration we want to make as much public space in the building as we can.”
Alderman Bob Hawkesworth, who introduced the motion for the new building policy is thrilled with the centre, in terms of its environmental prowess and its architectural beauty.
“I think that’s where we have to go (innovative design), we have to raise the bar. If we’re going to get the private sector to go beyond the mediocre, the city first has to go beyond mediocre and raise the bar for itself,” he says.
“It’s saying to the rest of Calgary and the private sector, we can do it and we expect you to be able to do it too.”
The project, though impressive, is estimated to cost only 2 per cent more than a conventional building, and will bring significant savings in terms of energy and water use, it is expected to pay for itself in 15 years.
By: Drew Anderson
Following the curved roadway of 25th Ave., itself a mimic of the old CN rail line that forged this route, the City of Calgary’s newest building, the Water Centre, stands along its curb and almost distracts the driver right off the road. A looming curved wall of galvanized aluminum rises on the edge of the city’s Manchester yards evoking a sense of the water that will be the occupants primary concern.
The building will house approximately 800 Water Services and Water Resource employees, bringing them together in one building for the first time.
Rounding the bend in the road the first question that comes to mind is: what is that? Quickly followed by a sense of architectural hope, a sense that perhaps Calgary is not doomed to a sort of design purgatory, brutalized on all sides by four walls and a roof.
“I was very interested, and have been for a long time, in the curvilinear nature of 25th Ave.,” says lead architect Jeremy Sturgess, whose firm Sturgess Architecture collaborated on the project with Manasc Isaac Architects of Edmonton.
He wanted to pay homage to the historical nature of that curve as the former path of the railway, to maintain and reinforce it while also cupping the yards and the green space that will nestle into the building’s south side.
“So not only is the building, by its location, creating a garden that is going to be very useful to the users of the building and also to the public, but it is also defining and establishing 25th Ave. as an important piece of Calgary’s fabric,” he says.
While motorists will be confronted with a sloping quarter circle roof slashed with long banks of tempered windows, the south side will be a massive wall of glass with alternating blue and green hues - another water-inspired design feature - facing a landscaped area.
Resting comfortably within its protective embrace, the green space will feature meandering stone walkways with simulated creek beds rushing water run-off from the roof, to ponds and cisterns in the yard. The collected water will be used for irrigation.
The centre was inspired by American architect Stephen Holl’s Kiasma Museum of Contemporary Art in Helsinki, and mimics both its curved design as well as its ready supply of natural light.
“One of our features that we want to provide people, is access to a window and access to daylight while they’re at work,” says Russ Golightly, project manager of the water centre for the City of Calgary corporate properties and buildings.
This, along with the landscape design is part of meeting the city’s new sustainable building policy, approved in 2003, which calls for all new city projects to be certified LEED (Leadeship in Energy and Environmental Design) silver or above.
LEED is the industry standard certification system that monitors and certifies buildings based on 70 established points, including access to public transportation, energy efficiency, water use and innovative design. Levels of certification are: certified, silver, gold and platinum. A building that achieves 33-38 of those available points will be certified silver.
The impressive exterior of the building is a fitting shell for the environmental innovation contained within. According to the City of Calgary website, the building will be day lit, recycle 95 per cent of excess construction material, reduce water use by 59 per cent, waste water by 72 per cent, and save 58 per cent in annual energy consumption.
Over 700,000 kilograms of reinforcing steel used in the construction was recycled product.
Wider on the west end and narrowing as it flows east towards the industrial heart of the city, the building is long and narrow, an intentional design to foster community by encouraging walking and talking all while avoiding elevators.
Inside, all four floors are open on the south side, each railed with recycled wheat stock boards, creating an atrium feel to the interior. The design team made the space open, hoping to foster not only communication, but also air-flow and movement.
“We were very strong that it should not be a high rise,” says Sturgess, “because if we’re going to make a building that is a collaboration we want to make as much public space in the building as we can.”
Alderman Bob Hawkesworth, who introduced the motion for the new building policy is thrilled with the centre, in terms of its environmental prowess and its architectural beauty.
“I think that’s where we have to go (innovative design), we have to raise the bar. If we’re going to get the private sector to go beyond the mediocre, the city first has to go beyond mediocre and raise the bar for itself,” he says.
“It’s saying to the rest of Calgary and the private sector, we can do it and we expect you to be able to do it too.”
The project, though impressive, is estimated to cost only 2 per cent more than a conventional building, and will bring significant savings in terms of energy and water use, it is expected to pay for itself in 15 years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)