Recently, I’ve been trying to manage my inbox better. And part of that has been helping other people manage their inboxes better. I do this by being more conscious of the emails that I send.
The biggest thing is, I try to let people know what the email is about without them having to open it. I do that by treating the subject line like a Tweet: short, and to the point. No “fwd: fwd: re: FYI: hi” for me. More like “I vote yes on having lunch at Sassafras.” More details may be in the body, but you get the point in the subject.
This is not my own original idea (see here and here), but it is one that I’m trying to spread. It makes things a lot easier, both in terms of getting information right away, and for reference purposes (how many times have you been stuck opening a whole bunch of “re:” emails trying to find the relevant subject). Email is a great tool, but only when used properly. This is one way to make sure it is.
I wrote this on my phone, so I apologize for any spelling errors and the fact that I’ve pasted full urls instead of just hyperlinking text. update: fixed
One of the things I’ve come to appreciate about blogging is having an outlet to write and work out my own thoughts on some difficult and not-so-difficult subjects. So I appreciate it if you’ll indulge me in another piece about something that’s stayed at the top of my mind for the last few days: the Vancouver riots.
I’ve already written about how for all the good intentions and kind actions that have come out in an effort to clean up the mess, these riots shook up my existing fears about the darker side of human nature– fears that won’t easily go away. But today I’m going to try and work out how I feel about social media’s role in all this– and the whole new set of fears it brings with it.
First of all, and this is more an observation than anything else, social media brought this to me in real time. While CBC TV was still showing Boston Bruins taking turns hoisting the Cup, Twitter told me that a car was turned over just outside the CBC building. Radio and TV were on it soon after, but I didn’t feel like I could get a full picture without hearing from those in the thick of it.
Secondly, Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr et al. were once again shown to be completely neutral tools. While people have written about the idiocy of those broadcasting their actions through social networks (and speculated that the implicit audience on the other end of those networks helped egg the idiocy on), that desire to broadcast actions has made it easier for rioters to be caught.
As a sidebar to that thought, I have to say there was definitely some mixed messaging going on that those in positions of authority (or “authority”) will need to address at some point. Almost immediately, I saw traditional media outlets on their Twitter accounts with messages like, “Are you downtown? Send us your pictures!” Soon thereafter, the Vancouver Police were warning against stopping to take pictures and instead telling everyone and anyone to get out of there as soon as possible. Shortly after THAT they were urging anyone downtown taking pictures to hold onto them, as they could be used to help identify the rioters. Meanwhile, traditional media was, of course, on the scene documenting what was going on, all while repeating the police message that people shouldn’t be on the scene documenting things, but if you ARE on the scene documenting things send your pictures into police– and us, too, while you’re at it.
But the aspect of all this that I’m having the most trouble with is how social media has affected things in the aftermath. While cleanup efforts organized online are undoubtedly good, it’s the “Let’s figure out who did this and go get ’em!” aspect that’s leaving me leery. Here’s why:
Yes, in this case, the people breaking the law were involved in highly negative behaviour and need to take responsibility for their actions. And unlike in past incidents of mass mayhem, social media has provided the silent majority with a voice to express their upset and disbelief while at the same time working to de-anonymize the crowd and identify individuals within it. And now these individuals will be punished (maybe).
But there’s at least two problems that I can see. One: innocent until proven guilty. Posing in front of a burning cop car may be stupid, but it doesn’t necessarily mean you’re the one who set it on fire. I’m seeing a lot of pictures of people who may have thought cavorting through the destruction was all a bit of fun, but that doesn’t mean they were taking part in actually doing the destroying. Even photos and video that seem drop dead obvious deserve to go through the mechanisms of the law before crowd justice is meted out. That’s why the process is there: to avoid trial by a mob looking for someone to punish. Outraged as we all are, we may be too quick to unleash our fury on the first person who looks like they halfway deserve it.
Second, a strong current of vigilantism is cropping up here. We’re already hearing the courts may be too clogged up to try everyone identified, so there’s a temptation to take it into our own hands. Facebook profiles are being publicly outed, names are being disseminated, and in at least one case someone has lost their job. Even our premier is urging public shunning.
I’m upset by the physical and emotional damage caused by the rioters, but that doesn’t mean I’m prepared to turn my back on the principals of rehabilitation I believe should be at the core of any system of justice. If I believe in second chances for convicted criminals provided they are working through their actions and don’t pose public risk, how can I be comfortable with the firing and isolation of people before they are found guilty of any wrongdoing? I’m not saying these people shouldn’t be made to feel ashamed of what they did, I’m just saying it needs to be managed. Lock then up and throw away the key hasn’t traditionally worked out in the creation of a better society.
Finally, I’m concerned about the light this has shone on the potential for future uses of crowd-sourced justice. In China, there was (is?) a system of governments paying neighbourhood “grannies” to keep an eye on their neighbours for immoral or questionable behaviour. Imagine if those grannies were armed with cameraphones and face-recognition software (maybe they are, for all I know). We have things like Blockwatch and Crimestoppers to anonymously report suspicions directly to authorities, but the accused are not publicly outed and have to go through the process of the law. I’m concerned about the potential for crowdsourcing not just accusations, but punishments as well. Today it’s rioters, tomorrow it’s grafitti artists, or public figures involved in homosexual relationships, or reading the wrong books and hanging out with the wrong people in the wrong places at the wrong time.
I’m not saying none of these problems came into being because of social media, and there’s certainly room for social media to lessen the problems. But it’s just as possible for it to amplify them, as photos and phone numbers and addresses are disseminated among hundreds and thousands of people looking to eke out their own sense of justice on those deemed worth of punishment. And that’s where we have to keep our cool. If the Vancouver riots prove anything, it’s that a few hotheads have the potential to influence a larger crowd enough to do incredible damage. In looking for justice, we have to be careful not to do the same.
Addendum:
I started thinking about all this almost immediately following the riots, but haven’t written it all out until now. In that time, some great pieces have already been written on the subject. The ones I’ve read are:
Wave the Stick: Things That Make Me Angry
Matthew Ingram: Social Media Brings Out the Snitch In All Of Us
David Eaves: Social Media and Rioters
Alexandra Samuel: Troubling Signals of Citizen Surveillance
I’ve added a few more details to my Kin 4 post, including stories from PGTV, HQ Prince George, and interviews on Daybreak North. You can read it in all its civic glory right here.
It’s ironic that I spent part of game six discussing man’s inhumanity to man.
I was at a pub watching with some friends. As Vancouver failed to rally, we started talking real estate, which of course led to a discussion of a post-apocalyptic society (caused by some sort of physical disaster or complete economic collapse worldwide). On the one hand was the optimistic view that even in the face of this sort of thing, people were generally good and would rally together. On the other hand, and the side I was arguing for, was the view that all it would take is a few bad apples to take the lead and the rest would follow.
Who knew that game seven would provide a case study into this discussion?
I may be reading too much into this. Many people have argued most of the destruction was at the hands of a minority, that it’s not indicative of the “true Vancouver” and that many people have rallied around the city to help identify the troublemakers and help clean up the destruction.
Fair enough. But I don’t think you can ignore what happened.
Alcohol aside, angry-young-man syndrome aside, here’s what we have. For several hours, a city that is consistently ranked as one of the best in the world, in a country that prides itself on freedom, equality, and non-violence descended into a scene of looting and destruction. Over a hockey game.
If these people, minority though they may be, turned that dark that quickly over something so trivial, what do you suppose the odds are they would keep their heads in the event of a real disaster? Or in the face of a prolonged period of chaos? These people were doing this while they (presumably) had homes to go to, jobs to attend, ready access to food and fresh water, and the visible presence of law enforcement. How would they behave in a darker situation? How many others would join them?
It’s not nice to think about, but there is a darker side to human nature. If there wasn’t, we wouldn’t need laws because situations would never arise where we need to punish people. And it may be a minority of people, but the historic and global balance shows that even this supposed minority are able to tip things enough to create very bad situations for large portions of their fellow human beings. Discrimination. Oppression. Ethnic cleansing.
At my most optimistic, I like to think that there are some bad people, some good people, and the rest fall in-between. They keep their heads down and do what seems to be the best route to survival. We saw that last night. We had the rioters: those destroying buildings, overturning cars, starting fires. We had the heroes: the people who, unarmed and unpaid, stepped in the way of the destruction, asked and demanded that the rioters stop, appealed to reason.
Today, in this country at least, it’s those people with reason who have largely won. The law prevailed, the mess is being cleaned, and justice is hopefully being served. But again, this was an isolated incident, a temporary flash over a trivial subject in a city and country with the means to do something about it. I’d like to believe that if those means, if those resources, if those laws and rules were to erode or disappear the crowd would gravitate towards those asking for reason. And there is evidence to think they would.
But in light of what we saw last night the question we need to ask ourselves– how dark would it get before we saw the light?
It’s rare that a Prince George city council decision breaks out of the local newspapers and starts appearing in my Facebook and Twitter feeds. But that’s just what happened with a Monday evening decision to build a new stand-alone ice arena.
Some quick background: as part of the 2015 Canada Winter Games bid, the city agreed to fix up existing ice facilities. That money, incidentally, comes out of a special tax levy the city created to pay for the games. So, money was budgeted to upgrade, at an expected cost of just under $16 million.
But ice rink users didn’t like that. They had been finding that ice time was slim and felt that the city needed to build a new arena. They showed up at council meetings and sent emails. It was enough for city council to ask for a report outlining a cost comparison between upgrading existing arenas and building a new standalone one. Staff warned that the report would add costs and push back an already tight timeline, but went ahead and did it. In the end, the original plan was estimated at $15.8 million. The new plan came in at just under $22.2 million. That’s an extra $6 million that isn’t being budgeted for. Council chose the more expensive option, and has now started a committee to find ways to cut costs and possibly delay other capital projects (such as upgrading taps at city hall) so they don’t have to raise taxes or borrow money.
Regardless of whether a city with three kin centres, the CN Centre, the coliseum, the Elks Centre, the outdoor ice oval plus numerous outdoor rinks really NEEDS to spend $6 million building yet another rink is necessary, there are a few things worth considering here. First, from the report, it says that in building a new arena the city would be committing to $16.8 million in capital costs. It goes on:
“City Council has currently approved the creation of a special tax levy to provide the approximately $11.1 million funding needed for Option A in addition to the improvement to other civic facilities. Option B would require an additional contribution of approximately $5.7 million, plus applicable taxes, to the 2015 Canada Winter Games capital budget in order to meet all the requirements in civic facilities.”
That extra $5.7 million? Well, as the Prince George Free Press points out:
“To put things in perspective, the extra money it would take to build Kin 4, if applied to the road rehabilitation budget, would double the amount of paving work for the next two years.”
But beyond that, there’s the ongoing operating costs. The report estimates that in order to operate the new arena the city will have to spend an extra $200,000 a year. Every year. Forever.
The Free Press goes on:
“This comes after a $35,000 study that recommended against building Kin 4.”
“Do we really need yet another ice sheet in Prince George? Those who use the ice sheets we have now will obviously say yes, but are they going to buck up and help fund it? The decision to build another arena has to be weighed against what we can afford and what the other needs of the community are. Another ice sheet is more of a want, than a need. We need better roads. We need our taxes to halt their exponential race to the sky. We need city council to realize there is an end to how much we can pay. We need city council to understand that the best “legacy” they can leave is to be responsible with the dollars they get from the taxpayers, not build monuments.”
For his part, Mayor Dan Rogers is concerned about cost overruns so early on. As he says in today’s Citizen:
“The city is on the hook for any overruns in operations or capital… I’ve been involved in organizing several major sporting events. Be conservative early on, because there are unknowns that will creep in.”
Ben Meisner is even more critical:
“The price tag for this one capital item has increased by about 30%. There will need to be upgrades to other facilities to meet Games standards but those details have yet to be determined.
What were they thinking?
Never mind the fact the City has entered into a contract with the Canada Games Council to provide the facilities as outlined in the bid.Never mind the fact that inflation is creeping up, and that means we can expect higher interest rates for any money borrowed.Never mind the fact that a new stand alone facility will cost more than $200 thousand a year to maintain and operate.Never mind the fact that we have an aging population and in all likelihood demand for such a facility will decrease.Never mind the fact that we have fewer children in the community which has resulted in the closure of schools.”
“There was never an opportunity for the electorate to evaluate the full costing and ongoing carrying costs of a winning bid… Council, IPG and the bid committee mislead the public by only talking about the positive (projected) benefits, and never fully outlining the real, immediate and ongoing costs (which clearly have no limit and are going up, up, up). There isn’t even a full business plan in place.
…
The fact is IF anything is to be built, based on 30 years of surveys of the citizenry and useage data and new economy realities, it should be creative infrastructure, not the second most expensive kind of sport infrastructure (behind a pool). Frankly, it was the Arts’ turn, in the form of a Performing Arts Centre, and a huge benefit to all.
Why do I know that? because unlike the unethical, bait-and-switch process we call winning the Canada Winter Games (see above) the Performing Arts Society spent months and months fully articulating the usage needs, opportunities, costing, business planning and partnering options, and fully disclosed that to everyone, even to their disadvantage (as much was misunderstood, especiallly what the city’s portion of the bill would be).
It’s fair to disagree with a PAC, but at least you have FACTS to disagree with.
Maybe you feel now is not the time (as we’ve collectively been saying for 30 years), and that’s fair.
Maybe you want nothing built (even the Library expansion should go ahead of another rink), and would prefer taxes come back down to earth and that City Hall focuses on cleaning up its own act.
That’s fine. But you MUST appreciate the process and transparency the Regional Performing Arts Centre Society has achieved, and continue to do so.
The Kin 4 proponents should feel like they cheated, not feel that they won. It simply wasn’t your turn. And council should have nipped this in the bud, and then when they did send it to administration for their opinion, actually listen to it.”
The Prince George Citizen’s Frank Peebles is more supportive of spending money on rinks because what we have isn’t good enough:
“The number of facilities is not the deciding factor, their quality is. You need multiple, preferably conjoined rinks (CN Centre, plus) that have ample seating space, commodious dressing rooms, effective equipment storage, attractive hospitality features, high-grade technical systems, telecommunications abilities, etc…”
But not necessarily a new one:
“A grassroots contingent has emerged that strongly advocates building additional ice space. They will be at City Hall on Monday night to press their case to council.
They are correct. The scheduling pressure from figure skating, ringette, speed skating and hockey groups is becoming legitimately claustrophobic. We have a demonstrated need.
Let’s pause for a moment to stress that user groups should never be put on the hook for the capital costs of such facilities. A moderate rental fee is appropriate, but they shouldn’t have to take out the mortgage to build the thing (yes it has been suggested). It is City Hall’s job to provide the cultural and recreational facilities that will engage and retain a happy set of citizens and we all have to accept the tax bill for that. The benefits are massive, even if you choose to not be a user. Your doctor or teacher or plumber is.
This group’s excellent point is the cart, however, and the reconstruction of Kin 1 is the horse.”
One other aspect to this story is the reaction from the Prince George Exhibition, who at the time of this decision, were not consulted on the plan despite it directly affecting them.
On Facebook and Twitter I have seen mixed reaction. Sames goes for the comments sections of news sites. It’s early days on the Canada Games capital costs and we’re already seeing this level of debate and reaction. It’s obvious there is a passionate group of people who feel we need a new rink. They are organized, and they are sizable. There’s also a passionate group who think we don’t need one (now), and they are mixed between those who think the city shouldn’t be taking on more costs, period, and those who think they should be going elsewhere.
Either way, if you pay taxes in this city it’s your money at stake. How that money is spent is being fiercely debated. With municipal elections in November, it’s probably a good time to do some research and decide which side, if any, you’re on.
For more on this, CBC Daybreak North did a number of interviews, which you can listen to below. PGTV News also did a nice wrap-up, which you can watch here. If you’d like to watch the discussion in all its glory, streaming video is available from the city here (scroll down to item G6).
[audio:http://dl.dropbox.com/u/29153527/Kin%204%20Debate%20%231%20Deborah%20Munoz%20on%20Daybreak%20North%2C%20June%2015%2C%202011.mp3]
Prince George City Councillor Deborah Munoz on Daybreak North, June 15, 2011
[audio:http://dl.dropbox.com/u/29153527/Kin%204%20Debate%20%232%20Terri%20McConnachie%20on%20Daybreak%20North%2C%20June%2016%2C%202011.mp3]
Prince George Exhibition Manager Terri McConnachie on Daybreak North, June 16, 2011
[audio:http://dl.dropbox.com/u/29153527/Kin%204%20Debate%20%233%20Shari%20Green%20on%20Daybreak%20North%2C%20June%2017%2C%202011.mp3]
Prince George City Councillor Shari Green on Daybreak North, June 17, 2011
Peter Mansbridge joined Twitter recently. It caused a minor tizzy in the Canadian Twittersphere, as people speculated over whether or not this was the real thing. Hesitation to believe was particularly high as we’d been down this road before– a fake Mansbridge account had fooled people back in 2009.
You know what would have helped? A verification badge. Verifications are little blue checkmarks that appear next to accounts that indicate that yes, this is indeed the real deal. Twitter says:
Any account with a Verified Badge is a Verified Account. Twitter uses this to establish authenticity of well known accounts so users can trust that a legitimate source is authoring their Tweets.
…
Verification is used to establish authenticity for accounts who deal with identity confusion regularly on Twitter. Verified Accounts must be public and actively tweeting.
The moment @CharlieSheen joined Twitter, he had a verification badge.
Two months on, and we’re still taking @PeterMansbridge at his word:
Of course, more people follow tabloids than news, so maybe it’s just that Twitter isn’t interested in verifying news anchors. Except a quick search finds no shortage of U.S.-based news anchors and correspondents with verified accounts. Reporters I’ve never heard of get that little checkmark.
Even if CBC’s national news anchor doesn’t get one, their national late-night host does:
But not:
A search for “governor” comes back with a slew of U.S. state leaders with the little checkmarks, but not a single provincial premier gets one.
They shouldn’t feel bad. In Canada, it seems the only politician worth verifying is Prime Minister Harper. Jack Layton may be the leader of the official opposition and one of the country’s longest-serving parliamentarians, but that doesn’t mean he warrants an identity check on Twitter.
Which means he’s not yet achieved the level of fame (or identity theft) associated with Justin Bieber:
Or even the CFL:
If you ever want some perspective on where various well-known Canadians sit on the global consciousness scale, that little blue badge (or lack of one) is a good way to get it.
By the way, you can follow me unverified as @akurjata.
I’ve been thinking about Brigette DePape. She’s the parliamentary page who pulled out the “Stop Harper” placard during the Throne Speech. She was fired.
I’ve seen a lot of people cheering her on, glad she’s standing up for what she believes in. Never mind she’s breaking the rules of the page program. Never mind she’s decided her own politics override the decorum of our political system.
You may support DePape. But as far as I’m concerned in doing so, you void all rights to be upset with any rules Harper or anyone else breaks, so long as they are standing up for what they believe in. I wonder how many people cheering for DePape’s “Stop Harper” sign would be just as vocally defending her if the placard read “Get the socialists out of Parliament”, “More Military Funding”, or “Stop Abortion Now.” It’s all good as long as she’s exercising her right to free speech, right?
She was not breaking the rules to stop some massive conspiracy. She had not uncovered some sinister plot that only she knew about and decided to blow the whistle. No, she’s upset that the election didn’t go her way and decided to disrupt the throne speech in order to get a few minutes of fame.
One of the key lessons to living in a democratic system is recognizing the legitimacy of the government you didn’t vote for. DePape has said ‘three out of four eligible voters didn’t even give their support to the Conservatives’, but guess what? That’s more people than gave their support to any other party. It’s not that three out of four people voted for another party and the ballots were tampered with or something like that. In most cases, they just didn’t bother to vote.
Again, you may make the argument that our overall system is flawed. But I don’t see pictures of DePape holding up a “Stop First-Past-the-Post Majority Voting.” And I seriously doubt that if the election had gone another way with similar numbers, she’s be proudly holding up “Stop Layton” signs. If she did, I wonder if the same people would be cheering.
I am not a hockey fan.
There. It’s out there. I have never been one to follow draft picks, know who’s leading the Eastern Conference or even, until recently, fully grasp all the rules.
I say “until recently” on that last one because a few years ago I decided to develop a working knowledge of the sport. I did this for a couple of reasons.
The first one is fully pragmatic or, more cynically, self-serving. I was moving to a new city with a new job where I would be working and socializing with people I didn’t know. The city was Victoria and the job was within the easily divided world or provincial politics, a place where it seemed one of the few common grounds was rooting for the Canucks (or disparaging the rogue Toronto or Chicago fan). Vancouver was on what looked to be a good run towards the playoffs and it was a primary point of conversation when meeting new people, which was happening a lot. It was a lot easier to spend a few minutes here and there figuring out what was happening with the team and use that as an icebreaker than it was to chat about, say, the weather.
The second reason shows what I’d like to say is a little more growth on my part. Early on, my non-interest in the sport was just that– simple non-interest. But as time went on, it congealed into something else. It marked me, in a small way, as different. In a country made up of hockey fans, not watching hypothetically sets you apart. Put another way, I eventually began willfully ignoring the sport for the sole reason that everyone else was watching it. I could get behind random soccer teams in the World Cup, but couldn’t find a way to root for any of the teams in the NHL, in part because it was “too mainstream.”
I think what opened my eyes to the hypocrisy of this was an exposure to the darker side of soccer. One of the things I thought I disliked about hockey was its crushing dominance on our culture and the inclinations towards jingoism it could sometimes take on. Soccer I enjoyed because I had played it in the North American tradition: a sport not given to the extreme emotions of hockey here in Canada or football and baseball down in the United States. It was a sport focused more on participation and fair play than the violence and fights seen in the NHL.
Then two things happened. First, I joined a more competitive soccer league speckled wiith players who were given to the violence and fights more traditionally associated with the NHL. Second, I took on an academic study of soccer’s place in world politics and became acutely aware of the fact that the negative aspects of hockey I saw here in Canada were expressed on a far greater scale in the soccer world abroad. Between these two things I came to the conclusion that, had I been raised in England or Brazil, I would probably disparage soccer as crushing, violent and jingoistic and may well enjoy the outsiders status of hockey.
Sport is sport is sport and just like anything else it can be used for positive or negative. Embracing hockey has been largely positive. It’s fun to get on a bandwagon with a bunch of strangers and root for a common goal, however pointless it might be. Most exchanges on hockey don’t need to last long– “Did you see that goal?” “Did you see that miss?” “Go Canucks!” It’s pointless, but fun. And it doesn’t take much. If you’re like I once was, here are some steps to take to understand how to like hockey.
1. Embrace a team. I live in B.C. so I chose the Canucks. Most other people around here cheer for them, and they are by far the easiest to glean information on, which is useful in conversation. Once you get over the inherent pointlessness of choosing one well-paid group of foreign nationals over another, it’s fun to have a team to root for. Also, it limits what you need to follow. Honestly, I can probably name ten players on teams outside of the Canucks. It just doesn’t come up that often.
2. You don’t have to watch much. I don’t like watching TV, and I still have a hard time just sitting through a whole game. But guess what? Same goes for most other people. Put it on the background while doing other work, catch the highlights, or listen on the radio (I’ve actually found I prefer the radio commentary as I do other work).
3. Read some good hockey literature. “The Game” by Ken Dryden is a great piece of writing that goes beyond the world of sport. “Tropic of Hockey” sees author Dave Bidini traipsing around the globe seeking pockets of hockey in the last place you’d expect to see it. Greatest Hockey Legends is a good blog for putting the games of the day into context (for example, see this piece on why the Canucks victory over the Blackhawks in the first round of the series was such a big deal) and the Walrus magazine has had some interesting pieces over the years. And this article in the Vancouver Sun is an interesting read for anyone in Canucks land.
4. Play. I can’t skate backwards, but recently a group of us have started playing pick-up road games throughout the summer. There are no teams, no elite players, and it does help you appreciate the skills more, which makes watching more enjoyable. It’s pretty easy to get road hockey games going, too– I think everyone’s played street at some point and it’s a great way to get people out there.
The other day it was raining and my significant other didn’t need the vehicle. She asked if I wanted to drive it. In the past, I would have done it for sure. But not this time. This time, I put on my raincoat and I biked.
This is a relatively new development for me. I used to have a car. I still have it, actually, but it doesn’t run at the moment. I put it on parking insurance when we moved to Vancouver Island, and never took it off when we came back.
At first I thought I would only temporarily be without my own vehicle, just until we got some footing. Bought a house, got a steady paycheque, then I would be able to afford it. But that sort of thing takes a while, and I needed to get around. So I got out my bike I’ve had since high school, bought a bus pass, and that’s where I’ve been ever since (except I don’t bother with the bus pass once the snow is gone).
It’s not that I don’t ever use a car. Just not for my daily commute. I am a twenty minute bike ride away from my job, and it’s right on a bus route.
The thing is, at this point I don’t even see it as a hardship. I’ve gotten used to the daily dose of exercise. It helps wake me up for work, and helps transition me out of it on the way home. If I DON’T bike, I feel off. Driving can make me downright grumpy.
I’ve now made it two years without my own car, and as long as life circumstances stay the same I really don’t think I’ll be getting another one. We’re a two-person household and one vehicle is all we need. Our one vehicle was recently in for repairs, and it would have been nice to have another one to fall back on, but the fact of the matter is for the number of times we could possibly NEED a second vehicle, it is far cheaper to rent then it would be pay for insurance, let alone everything else.
Once you make it through a winter like the one we just had on public transit, you realize how unnecessary a vehicle is for most days of your life. Don’t get me wrong, there are days where I definitely wished I had my own, and the fact that we have a car makes a big difference. I don’t think I could go without completely given our current lifestyle (1. it gets cold, 2. we like to go camping, and 3. the bus system still needs a lot of improvements to be the only mode of transport in the winter– especially if you like to go out at night at all). But the costs off gas, insurance, maintenance, not to mention the PURCHASE of even a used vehicle– these are all things I’m happy to do without. The fact that it’s good for my health and the environment doesn’t hurt, either.
Today is the first day of bike to work week. Hopefully, lots of people out there will be breaking their habit of using cars and be pedalling themselves along. At first, some of them will probably hate it. But hopefully by the end they get used to it and keep going.
If you are among those who keep going, I will tell you now it’s easy to backslide. If you want to sleep in a bit more, or the days get shorter and it’s kind of dark, or you have a late meeting after work. All of those can make you go back to your car. But stick with it long enough, and eventually you’ll get to a point where you see some dark clouds, put on a rainjacket, and bike anyways.
I’m hoping to do a story on the nightlife (or lack thereof) in Prince George. As I envision in it, I need the voices of residents past and present with their take on what the bar scene is like in the city. I’m not looking for experts, just “average” people for a voice montage. And since this is a radio project, I need it to be audio. Lengthwise, anywhere between ten seconds and a minute and a half is great, but whatever you feel you need is fine.
If you’d like to chime in (and I hope you do), here’s how you can help.
1. You can send me a message at this email address or on Twitter with your thoughts and a way for me to call you so I can record your thoughts.
2. Or you can skip that and call 1-866-340-1932 and leave a voicemail. Just say your first and last name and let us know that this is about the nightlife in Prince George.
3. Or you can get fancy and record/upload your voice using your computer/smartphone and sending it to my Soundcloud dropbox, which is right below. Thanks in advance!
Send me
your sound
Over the weekend, we visited Dawson Creek to see some of my family. While there, we took a hike out the Bear Mountain Windpark, a semi-controversial project that put a bunch of windmills up beside a hiking trail. While they are certainly quieter than a lot of other power projects, they have a kind of spooky feel to them. They tower over the trees, the blades move faster than you would think, and they sound like this.
Bear Mountain Windpark near Dawson Creek (May 22 2011) by AndrewCellsOut
It’s tough to get across the size, but that blimp-shaped part? That can fit a truck in it.
If you want a better idea of what it’s like to be there, here’s some video I took. Check the shadows in the first one:
Below are a series of interviews on both Daybreak North and Daybreak South surrounding a recent announcement from the Pacific Carbon Trust. I was involved in setting up all of the Daybreak North interviews and helped with the Daybreak South ones.
The stories came out of an announcement on May 5 that the Carbon Trust had “purchased 84,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas emission offsets from the natural gas developer Encana Corporation – a reduction equivalent to taking about 22,050 cars off the road for one year.”
The problem is that not everyone likes where the Carbon Trust gets its funding. The Prince George Citizen reported back in February that “the Northern Interior branch of the B.C. School Trustees Association [had] passed a resolution calling on Victoria to ensure public funds paid to the Pacific Carbon Trust (PCT) are used to fund public projects only.” School boards had raised issues, as had health authorities.
The issue stems from the fact that the Trust is a provincial crown corporation whose major client is the public sector. School boards, health authorities and other public bodies are required to be carbon neutral for 2010, and any emissions over zero (with some exceptions) are to be offset by them paying $25 a tonne into the Pacific Carbon Trust. The Trust then buys offsets from the private sector, including a variety of hotels, spas, and a cement plant.
The difficulty in putting these stories together for breakfast radio is you have a limited amount of time, and people are listening while distracted. As soon as you start talking financing structure and carbon offset tonnes, there’s a good chance they’ll tune out rather than try to piece it together. I’m happy with what came out of it and hope people with a stake (which is basically everyone in the province) are able to learn more about this issue. It’s somewhat complex, but important.
I’d also like to note that I’m not taking a stance on this, just presenting the interviews. As always, here’s my disclaimer.
[audio:http://dl.dropbox.com/u/29153527/Pacific%20Carbon%20Trust%20CEO%20%20D.%20Scott%20MacDonald%20on%20Daybreak%20North%20on%20May%206%202011.mp3]
Pacific Carbon Trust CEO D. Scott MacDonald on Daybreak North, May 6, 2011
[audio:http://dl.dropbox.com/u/29153527/Independent%20MLA%20Bob%20Simpson%20on%20Daybreak%20North%20May%209%202011.mp3]
Independent MLA Bob Simpson on Daybreak North, May 9, 2011
[audio:http://dl.dropbox.com/u/29153527/BC%20School%20Trustees%20Association%20President%20Michael%20McEvoy%20on%20Daybreak%20South%20May%209%202011.mp3]
BC School Trustees Association President Michael McEvoy on Daybreak South, May 9, 2011
[audio:http://dl.dropbox.com/u/29153527/BC%20Environment%20Minister%20Terry%20Lake%20on%20Daybreak%20North%20May%2011%202011.mp3]
BC Environment Minister Terry Lake on Daybreak North, May 11, 2011
[audio:http://dl.dropbox.com/u/29153527/BC%20Environment%20Minister%20Terry%20Lake%20on%20Daybreak%20South%20May%2011%202011.mp3]
BC Environment Minister Terry Lake on Daybreak South, May 11, 2011
I am involved in animal rescue– specifically, Ferrets North Information and Rescue Society. It’s an organization set up by my partner. The intention is to raise awareness about the care and treatment of ferrets. They are quickly growing in popularity but there is still a lot of misinformation about them (more details here). Another aspect of the organization is trying to provide foster and permanent homes for animals that are given up.
Unlike cats or dogs, there are rarely stray ferrets. Every animal that has come into the organization’s care was, at some point, sold. A few came directly from breeders, most were distributed through pet stores.
Every time a new group of ferrets comes into a pet store in Prince George, there’s a bit of dread. If it’s someone who can’t handle them as a pet, it’s a new opportunity for them to make an impulse buy. Then they hopefully either find a good home or surrender it to us or a rescue. If the ferret does find a new home, or is sold to a good home, that’s one less place for animals already in our (or another rescue’s) care to go. If they come to us or another rescue, that’s additional resources being taken from volunteers. I don’t know what happens to ferrets who don’t get sold.
Either way, pet stores are playing supply-side economics with living creatures that need care and attention. If they get ferrets and they all sell, they are encouraged to bring in more. They will continue to do this until ferrets stop selling. From what I’ve seen, they’ll rarely make the decision to under-supply. In that case, they’ll eventually have excess ferrets. Again, I don’t know what happens to them after that. I hope it’s good, but it’s probably not ideal.
Obviously, we don’t want to do away with ferret suppliers altogether. Someone somewhere needs to be breeding them, or they would disappear. And they have to be distributed somehow. But it doesn’t strike me that pet stores, at least as they are currently set up, are the best way to do this.
Note: It probably doesn’t help my views that a lot of the pet stores don’t seem to know how to look after ferrets. Like I said, a lot of people don’t know much about them. It’s a growing market. But it would be nice if companies making money off of them would make more of an effort to educate themselves and their employees about basic things like health concerns and proper housing.
Note 2: Most pet store employees in Prince George have been very responsive to any concerns raised by Ferrets North about the care of individual animals, and have adjusted their treatment of animals based on advice coming from the organization. But it would be better if the companies were making the effort to educate their employees, especially when they have multiple stores across the country/continent.
Note 3: I wonder if anyone can tell me what happens or is supposed to happen to unsold animals in BC/Canada.
Ad nauseam
twitter
tumblr
linkedin
facebook
flickr
medium
instagram
google +
foursquare
quora
pinboard
* Views expressed in this blog are my personal opinion, and do not reflect the views of any of my
employers,
clients,
or pets.
Full Disclaimer→
Original content is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5 Canada License.
For more information visit https://andrewkurjata.ca/copyright.
Powered by WordPress using a modified version of the DePo Skinny Theme.
June 21 2011 | ∞
Let me preface this by saying that my exposure to issues facing Aboriginal* people in Canada is as close to purely academic as you can get. I cannot and would not claim to speak for anyone from those communities.
But I would like to talk about the stereotypes they have to face.
Drunk. Lazy. Waiting around for the next welfare cheque. I’ve heard them all. You probably have, too.
Again, I’m not Aboriginal. So how do I know these stereotypes exist?
Because I’m a white male whose exposure to issues facing Aboriginal people in Canada is as close to purely academic as you can get. And even if people holding these prejudices will never express them to the faces of those they are stereotyping, they’ll say them to me. And they have. More often than one would like in an inclusive, tolerant society.
Sometimes, but not often enough, I will challenge those stereotypes. I come armed with a number of academic courses on the subject. I come armed with a list of historical injustices, many of which were incurred on people still living and walking among us today. But I’m always met with a supposed trump.
“You don’t see what I see.”
That comes to me from a variety of sources. Front-line providers dealing with crime, medical care, or education. Retail workers. People whose daily route takes them past a litany of pan-handlers. Aboriginal people are a minority. And so the rest of society bases their impressions of a diverse and far-reaching group of people on the few or even the many they encounter in their daily lives. And those they encounter apparently serve to reinforce the prejudices that already exist in their own mind.
I can’t pretend problems don’t exist. I will say that the fact they exist in such a high number within a particular racial group points to some systemic problem that needs to be addressed, but that’s another issue for another day for people more qualified than I. But what I would really like to say is this:
You don’t see what I see.
Because in my job, that of finding interesting people doing interesting things in northern BC, I have been privileged to learn about and speak with some amazing individuals. And among those amazing individuals are more than a handful of Aboriginal people.
They are using limited resources to do incredible things. Everything from re-learning and re-imagining traditional culture to creating iPhone apps that teach native languages to negotiating with multi-billion dollar companies over how best to distribute resources. Rappers, politicians, business-people, teachers, doctors, athletes. They are no better and no worse than anyone else, but they are doing it within a system that until recently was explicitly against them and still has more barriers to entry than you may believe. They are having to fight against prejudices and stereotypes. They are not alone in having the odds stacked against them, to be sure, but it has been my own experience that the rest of the country views Aboriginal people with more apprehension than they do any other ethnic group.
Chimamanda Adichie says, “The problem with stereotypes is not that they are untrue, but that they are incomplete. They make one story become the only story.” She is speaking of Africa, but here in Canada I feel like this statement applies equally well to society’s view of Aboriginal people.
What I’m trying to say is this: when you tell me that your characterization of the drunk, lazy native is defensible because of what you’ve seen with your own eyes, you’re asking me to form my opinion based on your experiences. And if you want me to do that, you’ll have to do the same for my ever-growing roster of Aboriginal people doing extraordinary things all over the place. And maybe then we’ll have a story that’s halfway complete.
See also
Filed under: Best Of, Canada, Indigenous | Discussion