Barring the event that Mr Harper was pulling our legs, we will have an election in the middle of October.
I find it amusing how, we will call an election, run a campaign, vote, and swear in a Prime Minister almost 3 weeks before the Americans vote.
And the scary part of American politics is...the nomination elections are even more of a gong show than the actual election. As if people care more who is running their respective party than who actually gets into the White House.
American election politics and Canadian election politics at the same time might be a little much. Good thing Bill Maher just started a new season.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Sorry, you can't go to the Olympics, we gave all the money to the divers.
As an athlete myself I felt the need to write a counter article to Paul Wiecek's article entitled "Success deserves it's due" with the subtitle "Sport Canada should fund Olympic winners, cut losers loose." It may not be all of Paul's point of view, as it is stated in the article that a certain Alex Baumann will take over a summer games funding program similar to the "Own the Podium" program.
This may be lengthly, but bear with me.
People ask me all the time during the Olympics, what do you think of this, what do you think of that? Most end with a half-sarcastic "oh too bad Canada can't win any medals" comment.
People may wonder in amazement at China's 100+ medal haul. This is because they fund their athletes, plain and simple. There is no extra talent they are producing. There is no superior genetics at play here. When the Chinese government pays for a curling team to live in BC, and do nothing but curl all day, is it any wonder they now have a world-level curling team?
It comes down to funding, as I said, plain and simple. Thus when the prediction of how many medals Canada will or will not win comes into question, another question must be raised, "how badly do we want to win?"
If the answer is "badly" then we have to fund our athletes. If the answer "badly" then creates a $25 000 purse for a gold medal achievement, it is in reality nowhere near "badly" and closer to "we almost don't fuckin care."
I witness on almost a daily basis the lack of funding in my sport. Although a strong community still exists if only because of the love of the sport, without oodles of funding, it will remain that way and rarely produce athletes of considerable skill as after they are finished their 5 years of CIS eligibility they are likely to stop participating competitively.
That said, it takes years and years and years and years and years to develop an athlete. What Paul Wiecek's article suggests is a scorched earth funding structure: you don't get funding if you can't win a medal. Many athletes who are thaaaaaat cloooose to being able to compete better at a world stage would be "cut loose."
One thing is for sure, when a "huge, lumbering white guy running (Eric Gillis) in the 10 000 metres" makes the Olympics, he is not a hobbyist, Paul. Running just over 29 minutes for 10 kilometres is not a hobbyist level, that is full-out dedication. Translation for non-running people is approximately 4 minute 45 second mile pace for 29 minutes.
Why doesn't Eric Gillis doesn't deserve funding?
This is exactly the kind of athletes we SHOULD be funding. Hell, they didn't even want to send him to Beijing. You must also realize that he is running on the same track as the greatest 10 000 metre runner of all time is running on.
Eric is very good, and competes at a world level. No he isn't in the same league as Bekele, but to Eric Gillis, going up against this guy is like going up against Phelps, Bolt, or El Guerrouj.
If we don't fund these athletes, we will not have a diverse range of Canadian athletes who compete. Dozens of athletes who competed at this year's 2008 Olympics would have been shut out and told to stay home. This is, dozens of athletes that, with proper support and funding, could very well be medal contenders in 2012.
Instead of supporting our athletes outright, we (err...the media) jumps on a big negativity bandwagon about how we didn't win any medals for several days. The result is a general negativity feeling about how much Canada "sucks." The ol' "oh the Canadians lost again what's new." A scorched earth approach to funding only the athletes who are likely to win only raises expectations even higher for people like Alexander Despatie, Perdita Felicien, Cindy Klassen and Adam van Koeverden.
Instead of sending a fleet of athletes to the 'Games, we will send a bus.
Towards the end of the article, the suggestion is made to not only spend more money, but to spend it more wisely. This I can agree 100% on. If of course, you extend this invitation for funding and support to people like our various rack and field athletes, our swimmers, our gymnasts, our martial artists.
We don't have to necessarily send them to the Olympic games, but we do have to provide athletes with support and funding so that one day they may be good enough to compete there. Otherwise there is no upcoming field of prospects.
The reason the "Own the Podium" style of funding sits uneasy with me because it is made to seem that, if the athlete in question isn't a Sidney Crosby so to speak, if they don't demonstrate they could the next Wayne Gretzky by the time they are 16 years old, then they may not get funding. They have to be at the top of their game.
I need to repeat that: they need to be at the top of their game.
And you don't get to the top of your game overnight. That is the athlete development part, and that is the part that our government should be funding. Regardless of sport. If Canadians want to fare better at Olympic games, we need to do this. Picking and choosing which sports will be funded based on the chances of winning a medal in that sport is very poor logic.
If funding is increased then there would not need to be any further picking and choosing.
The choosing should be over funding our talented athletes over all sports, or being penny-pinching grandparents with a favourite grandson.
This may be lengthly, but bear with me.
People ask me all the time during the Olympics, what do you think of this, what do you think of that? Most end with a half-sarcastic "oh too bad Canada can't win any medals" comment.
People may wonder in amazement at China's 100+ medal haul. This is because they fund their athletes, plain and simple. There is no extra talent they are producing. There is no superior genetics at play here. When the Chinese government pays for a curling team to live in BC, and do nothing but curl all day, is it any wonder they now have a world-level curling team?
It comes down to funding, as I said, plain and simple. Thus when the prediction of how many medals Canada will or will not win comes into question, another question must be raised, "how badly do we want to win?"
If the answer is "badly" then we have to fund our athletes. If the answer "badly" then creates a $25 000 purse for a gold medal achievement, it is in reality nowhere near "badly" and closer to "we almost don't fuckin care."
I witness on almost a daily basis the lack of funding in my sport. Although a strong community still exists if only because of the love of the sport, without oodles of funding, it will remain that way and rarely produce athletes of considerable skill as after they are finished their 5 years of CIS eligibility they are likely to stop participating competitively.
That said, it takes years and years and years and years and years to develop an athlete. What Paul Wiecek's article suggests is a scorched earth funding structure: you don't get funding if you can't win a medal. Many athletes who are thaaaaaat cloooose to being able to compete better at a world stage would be "cut loose."
One thing is for sure, when a "huge, lumbering white guy running (Eric Gillis) in the 10 000 metres" makes the Olympics, he is not a hobbyist, Paul. Running just over 29 minutes for 10 kilometres is not a hobbyist level, that is full-out dedication. Translation for non-running people is approximately 4 minute 45 second mile pace for 29 minutes.
Why doesn't Eric Gillis doesn't deserve funding?
This is exactly the kind of athletes we SHOULD be funding. Hell, they didn't even want to send him to Beijing. You must also realize that he is running on the same track as the greatest 10 000 metre runner of all time is running on.
Eric is very good, and competes at a world level. No he isn't in the same league as Bekele, but to Eric Gillis, going up against this guy is like going up against Phelps, Bolt, or El Guerrouj.
If we don't fund these athletes, we will not have a diverse range of Canadian athletes who compete. Dozens of athletes who competed at this year's 2008 Olympics would have been shut out and told to stay home. This is, dozens of athletes that, with proper support and funding, could very well be medal contenders in 2012.
Instead of supporting our athletes outright, we (err...the media) jumps on a big negativity bandwagon about how we didn't win any medals for several days. The result is a general negativity feeling about how much Canada "sucks." The ol' "oh the Canadians lost again what's new." A scorched earth approach to funding only the athletes who are likely to win only raises expectations even higher for people like Alexander Despatie, Perdita Felicien, Cindy Klassen and Adam van Koeverden.
Instead of sending a fleet of athletes to the 'Games, we will send a bus.
Towards the end of the article, the suggestion is made to not only spend more money, but to spend it more wisely. This I can agree 100% on. If of course, you extend this invitation for funding and support to people like our various rack and field athletes, our swimmers, our gymnasts, our martial artists.
We don't have to necessarily send them to the Olympic games, but we do have to provide athletes with support and funding so that one day they may be good enough to compete there. Otherwise there is no upcoming field of prospects.
The reason the "Own the Podium" style of funding sits uneasy with me because it is made to seem that, if the athlete in question isn't a Sidney Crosby so to speak, if they don't demonstrate they could the next Wayne Gretzky by the time they are 16 years old, then they may not get funding. They have to be at the top of their game.
I need to repeat that: they need to be at the top of their game.
And you don't get to the top of your game overnight. That is the athlete development part, and that is the part that our government should be funding. Regardless of sport. If Canadians want to fare better at Olympic games, we need to do this. Picking and choosing which sports will be funded based on the chances of winning a medal in that sport is very poor logic.
If funding is increased then there would not need to be any further picking and choosing.
The choosing should be over funding our talented athletes over all sports, or being penny-pinching grandparents with a favourite grandson.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Win for CentreVenture
Ah, now you see, there's a reason why I check out the "Business" section every day. Once in a blue moon there is something that interests me in there.
Today is one of those days. Will this condo development do what Waterfront doesn't? Will it do what Crystal Developers and Mayor Sam don't? Well, somebody needs to do the dirty work. So far it seems like it's been left to Red River College, the oh-so-unlikely hero.
The problem with Waterfront? Too expensive, too separated from the core of downtown. And sheesh, what if people didn't even live there?
Problem with Crystal Development and the Mayor? Oh of course we need people living downtown, but neither of us have the balls to say NO! to a group of people fighting for something that is in more danger of their own plan than it was with an apartment.
And now the possibility of a few condos right smack downtown, right in the sweet spot, right where they, in a perfect idealistic world, should be. And I think the following quote from the article today speaks volumes about the direction of "condos."
But not everyone is convinced that executive condos are the way to go.
There's a reason for that lack of conviction. Who in the hell in Winnipeg who makes that kind of money, wants to live between Garry and Smith? Again like the article says, "...as long as he doesn't have too many of them (condos), it will work," Hart Mallin. Maybe a few will work, maybe a few big boys from the Hydro building will find it convenient to be able to walk across the street to work.
High priced condos may have a place in a functioning downtown but they are far, far, far from the foundation of it. A majority of people living in the core of a healthy downtown are your average joes. Maybe in Winnipeg there would be a lot of students living downtown, between the U of W and RRC. The "hip young professionals" come later.
But it's at least a bit optimistic to see something happen to a downtown building in Winnipeg that better reflects what downtown buildings should be all about.
Today is one of those days. Will this condo development do what Waterfront doesn't? Will it do what Crystal Developers and Mayor Sam don't? Well, somebody needs to do the dirty work. So far it seems like it's been left to Red River College, the oh-so-unlikely hero.
The problem with Waterfront? Too expensive, too separated from the core of downtown. And sheesh, what if people didn't even live there?
Problem with Crystal Development and the Mayor? Oh of course we need people living downtown, but neither of us have the balls to say NO! to a group of people fighting for something that is in more danger of their own plan than it was with an apartment.
And now the possibility of a few condos right smack downtown, right in the sweet spot, right where they, in a perfect idealistic world, should be. And I think the following quote from the article today speaks volumes about the direction of "condos."
But not everyone is convinced that executive condos are the way to go.
There's a reason for that lack of conviction. Who in the hell in Winnipeg who makes that kind of money, wants to live between Garry and Smith? Again like the article says, "...as long as he doesn't have too many of them (condos), it will work," Hart Mallin. Maybe a few will work, maybe a few big boys from the Hydro building will find it convenient to be able to walk across the street to work.
High priced condos may have a place in a functioning downtown but they are far, far, far from the foundation of it. A majority of people living in the core of a healthy downtown are your average joes. Maybe in Winnipeg there would be a lot of students living downtown, between the U of W and RRC. The "hip young professionals" come later.
But it's at least a bit optimistic to see something happen to a downtown building in Winnipeg that better reflects what downtown buildings should be all about.
Monday, August 25, 2008
Bottled Water
I've been trying to wrap my head around an editorial printed over the weekend in the FreeP. It was so terrible and so poorly written, it seemed more like 4 paragraphs of total knee-jerk than anything comprehensible.
This of course all starts with counselor Harvey Smith's proposed "ban on bottled water" which was taken out on the town and condescendingly blasted by a off-the-wall editorial on Saturday.
Let's start with what Harvey said. Banning bottled water on city-run buildings. This of course may be going a bit far, as individual citizens such as you and I should have the right to choose what I want to purchase at a vending machine. But that's not to say that Harvey has lost his marbles.
There's some merit to this...perhaps civic buildings such as City Hall and the Legislative should ban bottled water. After all, if the water isn't good enough for the Mayor and the Premier, then who IS it good enough for?
This might not be the craziest of ideas. More left-wing cities like San Fransisco have banned bottled water in civic offices. The thought process is that the city spends money to make water safe for consumption, but then buys bottled water for city staff...as if the people running the city don't trust the water coming from the lake.
Whether or not a ban will come into play remains to be seen. Personally I don't think it's such a bad idea, and if the Mayor and Premier have to drink city water all day then perhaps in the near future more would be done to solve taste/smell problems.
Now that I've taken care of the issue, I can awkwardly move on to whatever kind of point this editorial was trying to make.
This editorial implies that because soft drinks are 99.6% water, we should ban those too. And flavoured waters. Because there is apparently no evidence to say that people recycle water bottles less than they recycle pop bottles.
I'm still trying wrap my head around that logic.
Because it's not the point. It's irrelevant. The issue is tap water vs bottled water, and thankfully the editorial attempts to address this. It's convenient.
It's convenient to have portable potable fluid. In the recent past, bottlers introduced unflavoured and uncoloured water to the market and guess what. People started buying it by the bucket -- er bottle -- because it was convenient and portable. They stopped buying fake water and went for the real thing, which by any measure is a good thing. And yet, for reasons that can only make sense to the Coun. Harvey Smiths of the world, there is a move afoot to ban the sale of bottled water, to show environmental "leadership" by making it hard to drink water but easy to drink cola.
Yikes yikes. Crickey. Who in the fuck wrote this?
The quoted in question raises the issue of convenience, but conveniently omits the possibility of buying a Nalgene water bottle or something, and then goes back to this "flavoured water" crap. Who bought that stuff anyways? Sheesh, that's sooooooo 2001.
And for reasons that can only make sense to the anonymous editorialists of the world, we shouldn't have bottled water banned in civic buildings because soft drinks are 99.6% water, so it's like you're drinking water anyways whether you want to or not. At the same time, it's good that we moved from flavoured water to unflavoured water, even though flavoured water is 99.6% water.
From Progressive Winnipeg to water editorialist...should we drink...coffee? Beer? Kool-aid? Orange Juice? Margaritas? Protein shakes? Milk? Mmmm...no...we should ban those too, they're all 99.6% water.
I get the sense that this editorial wasn't trying to make some kind of point like most editorials do, but rather just meant to basically make fun of Harvey Smith while completely dodging the issue. Good job boys, good job.
**side note
On the subject of water, our household invested in a reverse osmosis filter that ran us several hundred dollars but holy crap is it ever awesome.
That and maybe those Nalgene bottles aren't so good with the bisphenol-A and all...I bought a few stainless steel bottles from MEC which cost a paltry 9.99 each.
This of course all starts with counselor Harvey Smith's proposed "ban on bottled water" which was taken out on the town and condescendingly blasted by a off-the-wall editorial on Saturday.
Let's start with what Harvey said. Banning bottled water on city-run buildings. This of course may be going a bit far, as individual citizens such as you and I should have the right to choose what I want to purchase at a vending machine. But that's not to say that Harvey has lost his marbles.
There's some merit to this...perhaps civic buildings such as City Hall and the Legislative should ban bottled water. After all, if the water isn't good enough for the Mayor and the Premier, then who IS it good enough for?
This might not be the craziest of ideas. More left-wing cities like San Fransisco have banned bottled water in civic offices. The thought process is that the city spends money to make water safe for consumption, but then buys bottled water for city staff...as if the people running the city don't trust the water coming from the lake.
Whether or not a ban will come into play remains to be seen. Personally I don't think it's such a bad idea, and if the Mayor and Premier have to drink city water all day then perhaps in the near future more would be done to solve taste/smell problems.
Now that I've taken care of the issue, I can awkwardly move on to whatever kind of point this editorial was trying to make.
This editorial implies that because soft drinks are 99.6% water, we should ban those too. And flavoured waters. Because there is apparently no evidence to say that people recycle water bottles less than they recycle pop bottles.
I'm still trying wrap my head around that logic.
Because it's not the point. It's irrelevant. The issue is tap water vs bottled water, and thankfully the editorial attempts to address this. It's convenient.
It's convenient to have portable potable fluid. In the recent past, bottlers introduced unflavoured and uncoloured water to the market and guess what. People started buying it by the bucket -- er bottle -- because it was convenient and portable. They stopped buying fake water and went for the real thing, which by any measure is a good thing. And yet, for reasons that can only make sense to the Coun. Harvey Smiths of the world, there is a move afoot to ban the sale of bottled water, to show environmental "leadership" by making it hard to drink water but easy to drink cola.
Yikes yikes. Crickey. Who in the fuck wrote this?
The quoted in question raises the issue of convenience, but conveniently omits the possibility of buying a Nalgene water bottle or something, and then goes back to this "flavoured water" crap. Who bought that stuff anyways? Sheesh, that's sooooooo 2001.
And for reasons that can only make sense to the anonymous editorialists of the world, we shouldn't have bottled water banned in civic buildings because soft drinks are 99.6% water, so it's like you're drinking water anyways whether you want to or not. At the same time, it's good that we moved from flavoured water to unflavoured water, even though flavoured water is 99.6% water.
From Progressive Winnipeg to water editorialist...should we drink...coffee? Beer? Kool-aid? Orange Juice? Margaritas? Protein shakes? Milk? Mmmm...no...we should ban those too, they're all 99.6% water.
I get the sense that this editorial wasn't trying to make some kind of point like most editorials do, but rather just meant to basically make fun of Harvey Smith while completely dodging the issue. Good job boys, good job.
**side note
On the subject of water, our household invested in a reverse osmosis filter that ran us several hundred dollars but holy crap is it ever awesome.
That and maybe those Nalgene bottles aren't so good with the bisphenol-A and all...I bought a few stainless steel bottles from MEC which cost a paltry 9.99 each.
Progressive China
Ah well the Olympics are over and China has managed to portray itself to the rest of the world in a positive manner.
Most people know that China, if not already, is considered to be the world's economic juggernaut. They have the power to bring the western world to their knees by simply not providing us with clothing and computer chips. And, they require an incredibly immense ammount of energy to do so.
So much so that, any time a summit or conference is held about climate change, concerns are voiced about countries like China single-handedly melting the glaciers by using astronomic amounts of coal and fossil fuels. After all, coal and other such fuels are cheap and convenient...China and other such countries of course may have no other option.
Or do they?
Maybe the thought of China as the world's superpower is scary. But how about the thought of China as the world's superpower, that doesn't need fossil fuels?
The incredible investment of twelve billion dollars a year (and increasing) towards renewable energy is something that perhaps western "developed" countries should think twice about.
This isn't about climate change. The technology exists to produce electricity without having to burn something. Instead of investing in these technologies to develop them further, we're busy investing in hydrogen cars and nuclear power. As a result things like solar energy remain largely untapped, only because a lack of capital investment has kept solar development at a minimum (hey, did you know that you don't need silicone or direct sunlight anymore?)
At some point you have to think that, well, countries like China and Germany will become the new "standards," and countries like the USA and Canada will lag behind.
It will take an unprecedented move by either a Canadian Prime Minister or somebody like Obama/McCain to throw billions at renewable energy and denounce the expansion of nuclear and fossil fuels for North Americans to change the way we consume energy.
Until then, tip of the hat to China. Pledging this much money to renewable development is nothing short of amazing.
Most people know that China, if not already, is considered to be the world's economic juggernaut. They have the power to bring the western world to their knees by simply not providing us with clothing and computer chips. And, they require an incredibly immense ammount of energy to do so.
So much so that, any time a summit or conference is held about climate change, concerns are voiced about countries like China single-handedly melting the glaciers by using astronomic amounts of coal and fossil fuels. After all, coal and other such fuels are cheap and convenient...China and other such countries of course may have no other option.
Or do they?
Maybe the thought of China as the world's superpower is scary. But how about the thought of China as the world's superpower, that doesn't need fossil fuels?
The incredible investment of twelve billion dollars a year (and increasing) towards renewable energy is something that perhaps western "developed" countries should think twice about.
This isn't about climate change. The technology exists to produce electricity without having to burn something. Instead of investing in these technologies to develop them further, we're busy investing in hydrogen cars and nuclear power. As a result things like solar energy remain largely untapped, only because a lack of capital investment has kept solar development at a minimum (hey, did you know that you don't need silicone or direct sunlight anymore?)
At some point you have to think that, well, countries like China and Germany will become the new "standards," and countries like the USA and Canada will lag behind.
It will take an unprecedented move by either a Canadian Prime Minister or somebody like Obama/McCain to throw billions at renewable energy and denounce the expansion of nuclear and fossil fuels for North Americans to change the way we consume energy.
Until then, tip of the hat to China. Pledging this much money to renewable development is nothing short of amazing.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Coyotes Vs Flames....and...Harper Vs Dion
Two quick thoughts for today.
I've heard on multiple radio stations multiple times over the past couple days about the sale of tickets for the pre-season matchup between the Coyotes and the Flames.
I know the Coyotes seem to drag some other Canadian team to Winnipeg for a preseason game. But I want to know who the hell thinks they can bash Winnipeggers over the head with a hockey team that we're supposed to care about? As if we have some kind of emotional attachment to the Coyotes.
They aren't our team. They stole OUR team's history instead of building their own. And they get shipped back here every fall as if they're still the Jets.
The only reason why people buy tickets for this is because it's NHL, not because the Coyotes are coming. And if that doesn't prove we can support a team, I don't know what can. Because honestly, the Jets never sucked as much as Phoenix does. If they did, we would have lost the Jets in 1992.
..........
And now to a different matchup, in the federal arena.
What's with this election crap? This kind of came out of nowhere, didn't it? I mean, there's always squabbling at Parliament but crickey.
It's as if Harper's decided that the ball-less Dion has cried "election!" too many times, so in rebuttal, Harper is saying "fine, I'll call one if you don't." Which in turn has all opposition parties crying foul about the PM breaking his own fixed election dates legislation.
And...just what does Harper think would happen, a conservative majority? I can't see that happening just yet.
So the conservatives walk away with another minority and Harper says "see, I told you so."
I certainly don't want another federal election. And the Liberals had better realize that they don't want another federal election until they get a real leader. In my opinion, I think parliament has been trucking along suprisingly fine under a minority.
In conclusion, squash this threat-of-election garbage and get the Coyotes the hell out of my city.
I've heard on multiple radio stations multiple times over the past couple days about the sale of tickets for the pre-season matchup between the Coyotes and the Flames.
I know the Coyotes seem to drag some other Canadian team to Winnipeg for a preseason game. But I want to know who the hell thinks they can bash Winnipeggers over the head with a hockey team that we're supposed to care about? As if we have some kind of emotional attachment to the Coyotes.
They aren't our team. They stole OUR team's history instead of building their own. And they get shipped back here every fall as if they're still the Jets.
The only reason why people buy tickets for this is because it's NHL, not because the Coyotes are coming. And if that doesn't prove we can support a team, I don't know what can. Because honestly, the Jets never sucked as much as Phoenix does. If they did, we would have lost the Jets in 1992.
..........
And now to a different matchup, in the federal arena.
What's with this election crap? This kind of came out of nowhere, didn't it? I mean, there's always squabbling at Parliament but crickey.
It's as if Harper's decided that the ball-less Dion has cried "election!" too many times, so in rebuttal, Harper is saying "fine, I'll call one if you don't." Which in turn has all opposition parties crying foul about the PM breaking his own fixed election dates legislation.
And...just what does Harper think would happen, a conservative majority? I can't see that happening just yet.
So the conservatives walk away with another minority and Harper says "see, I told you so."
I certainly don't want another federal election. And the Liberals had better realize that they don't want another federal election until they get a real leader. In my opinion, I think parliament has been trucking along suprisingly fine under a minority.
In conclusion, squash this threat-of-election garbage and get the Coyotes the hell out of my city.
Saturday, August 16, 2008
List of World Class
In the light of the following quote from the Letters in the FreeP today about Folklorama:
"Sorry for being successful, for being world class." Grant Nordman
In rebuttal, sorry Grant, but one can certainly understand the feeling of witnessing capitalism rise from what used to be an organic and more underground event.
But now we have one more thing that is apparantly "world class," Folklorama. I will now compile a list that will grow as more world-class destinations in Winnipeg are discovered.
Winni-worldclass-'Peg
Skate Park
Museum
Folklorama
Assiniboine Park
James Richardson Airport
(Future) Water Park
(Future) Stadium?
(Future) UFG Interpretive Centre
Fairly short list now. But safe to say Folklorama does not draw world-class interest. Or our skate park. Or any museum we ever construct. Or our AIRPORT. You can't just BUILD something and claim that it is "world class." It takes time for the rest of the world to come to that conclusion for you.
How long until somebody calls the Forks world class? Lockport? Portage and Main? Provencher Bridge? If Led Zepplin reunites and comes to Winnipeg, people will call the MTS Centre world class. When BRT is announced I'm betting right now that SOMEbody will call it world-class.
Anything else to add to the list?
"Sorry for being successful, for being world class." Grant Nordman
In rebuttal, sorry Grant, but one can certainly understand the feeling of witnessing capitalism rise from what used to be an organic and more underground event.
But now we have one more thing that is apparantly "world class," Folklorama. I will now compile a list that will grow as more world-class destinations in Winnipeg are discovered.
Winni-worldclass-'Peg
Skate Park
Museum
Folklorama
Assiniboine Park
James Richardson Airport
(Future) Water Park
(Future) Stadium?
(Future) UFG Interpretive Centre
Fairly short list now. But safe to say Folklorama does not draw world-class interest. Or our skate park. Or any museum we ever construct. Or our AIRPORT. You can't just BUILD something and claim that it is "world class." It takes time for the rest of the world to come to that conclusion for you.
How long until somebody calls the Forks world class? Lockport? Portage and Main? Provencher Bridge? If Led Zepplin reunites and comes to Winnipeg, people will call the MTS Centre world class. When BRT is announced I'm betting right now that SOMEbody will call it world-class.
Anything else to add to the list?
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Whadya know...
There ARE smart people in this city who can pitch a deal that isn't about filling their cup of ego (or whatever it is they are filling) for the day.
Patience...growing....thin...
"It's all about doing more with this phenomenal green space and truly making Assiniboine Park a world-class destination for Winnipeggers, Manitobans and visitors from all over the world," Richardson said."
Holy fuck, now we'll have a world class PARK and RESTAURANT!
Who do we blame for this ridiculous trend?
I say no Winnipegger knew the term "world class" until the UFG conundrum hit and Gordo Jr bashed us all over the head with terrible columns about building a world-class interpretive centre. Then Ms Asper continued it with her world-class museum and the fad was in full-blown out-of-control get-the-fuck-out-of-the-way-pokemon trendiness.
Next thing you know we're getting a world class stadium, world class water park, world class airport, and now a world class park and restaurant to boot.
Is this a trend? Or does the phrase bother me so much (see previous post) that I end up seeing it everywhere?
Holy fuck, now we'll have a world class PARK and RESTAURANT!
Who do we blame for this ridiculous trend?
I say no Winnipegger knew the term "world class" until the UFG conundrum hit and Gordo Jr bashed us all over the head with terrible columns about building a world-class interpretive centre. Then Ms Asper continued it with her world-class museum and the fad was in full-blown out-of-control get-the-fuck-out-of-the-way-pokemon trendiness.
Next thing you know we're getting a world class stadium, world class water park, world class airport, and now a world class park and restaurant to boot.
Is this a trend? Or does the phrase bother me so much (see previous post) that I end up seeing it everywhere?
Friday, August 8, 2008
Just Like the Polls
Haha, I laughed when I read this this morning.
Sure it's just a couple hundred people in various focus groups. But it's just like a political poll at election time. Maybe just maybe, they are somewhat accurate. They might not hit the "target" per se, but at least they are shooting in the right direction.
So hows those 548 visitors per day looking now?
Forget that. The WORLD CLASS status is at STAKE!
Fuck the world class, we may not be able to draw people from our OWN COUNTRY to come here for this museum! We're too cold and too far away and....TOO BORING...for some people in Canada to even care. What does that make us....local class?
The "world class" thing really amuses me. Saying you're "world class this" and "world class that" is like a professional athlete who isn't humble. You don't SAY that you are world class. You become a world class city by taking pride in your work, working hard, and building something that is of value only to the people who reside in that particular city. Then it becomes attractive to other people who may want to come see what you have built and accomplished.
One thing is for sure, you just don't advertise it. The "world class" thing has clearly shown to be a bad attempt at marketing waste-o-money projects to Winnipeggers to boost our self esteem or something.
Let's do more nation-wide focus groups on our other world class venues and see what the results are.
Haha can you imagine?
A focus group on whether or not you would travel to Winnipeg to see the world class Upper Fort Garry interpretive centre and greenspace?
Sure it's just a couple hundred people in various focus groups. But it's just like a political poll at election time. Maybe just maybe, they are somewhat accurate. They might not hit the "target" per se, but at least they are shooting in the right direction.
So hows those 548 visitors per day looking now?
Forget that. The WORLD CLASS status is at STAKE!
Fuck the world class, we may not be able to draw people from our OWN COUNTRY to come here for this museum! We're too cold and too far away and....TOO BORING...for some people in Canada to even care. What does that make us....local class?
The "world class" thing really amuses me. Saying you're "world class this" and "world class that" is like a professional athlete who isn't humble. You don't SAY that you are world class. You become a world class city by taking pride in your work, working hard, and building something that is of value only to the people who reside in that particular city. Then it becomes attractive to other people who may want to come see what you have built and accomplished.
One thing is for sure, you just don't advertise it. The "world class" thing has clearly shown to be a bad attempt at marketing waste-o-money projects to Winnipeggers to boost our self esteem or something.
Let's do more nation-wide focus groups on our other world class venues and see what the results are.
Haha can you imagine?
A focus group on whether or not you would travel to Winnipeg to see the world class Upper Fort Garry interpretive centre and greenspace?
Thursday, August 7, 2008
What's Next, Boys?
On B3 of the Freep today (Thursday) is a bunch of blurbs about the Mayor on a few issues. One of them is on Transit. Actually two are on Transit.
Mr Katz says: "LRT is the future." Which is fine by me. LRT is pretty cool. Whether or not it is suitable for Winnipeg is a debateable issue but I digress.
What's important in this article is it states that the announcement to how Transit will proceed in this city will wait until September.
So, what are the Winnipeg Rapid Transit Coalition going to do this time? They've covered the Last Spike and they've done Sherlock Holmes. What's next in the list of stunts...Pinocchio?
Moving on...
What do I think of LRT? I think it's cool. And I think it's foolish to invest in big transit corridors. The fact that every time a Transit Corridor is discussed, it's about being in the south end of the city, bothers me, as if the rest of the city doesn't exist or is less important. Does Waverly West have that much pull?
There's already a lying-in-wait LRT or BRT "corridor" along Henderson from about Springfield to Johnson.
You could theoretically, build a (useless) corridor from the Forks to the U of M, and at the same time, use Henderson as the Mayor's LRT pet project. No real land aquisition headaches or anything there. Just removing a lane that few people drive in and that is mostly used for parking camera vehicles.
Of course, in my opinion, all of the above is completely moot if the existing Transit service continues to be sub-standard (Read: suck) . You could put 100 mil into improving existing service and I'd still have complaints.
And of course, all the talk of how a corridor would increase ridership has me as per usual on the skeptic side. Nothing would increase transit ridership more than if the fees went DOWN. 1.50 a ride?
Thinking of Transit like a business....how bout...$1 fares on Mondays? The "Monday Special"?
For that to be effective you'd have to have a kickass existing service. People who would take advantage of "The Monday Special" would then realize that the buses aren't that bad and hopefully become regular monthly subscribers.
Well, the Mayor has me wondering.
Unfortunately by September I'll be in school and will no doubt have to listen to the Student Union whine about Transit in some way shape or form.
Mr Katz says: "LRT is the future." Which is fine by me. LRT is pretty cool. Whether or not it is suitable for Winnipeg is a debateable issue but I digress.
What's important in this article is it states that the announcement to how Transit will proceed in this city will wait until September.
So, what are the Winnipeg Rapid Transit Coalition going to do this time? They've covered the Last Spike and they've done Sherlock Holmes. What's next in the list of stunts...Pinocchio?
Moving on...
What do I think of LRT? I think it's cool. And I think it's foolish to invest in big transit corridors. The fact that every time a Transit Corridor is discussed, it's about being in the south end of the city, bothers me, as if the rest of the city doesn't exist or is less important. Does Waverly West have that much pull?
There's already a lying-in-wait LRT or BRT "corridor" along Henderson from about Springfield to Johnson.
You could theoretically, build a (useless) corridor from the Forks to the U of M, and at the same time, use Henderson as the Mayor's LRT pet project. No real land aquisition headaches or anything there. Just removing a lane that few people drive in and that is mostly used for parking camera vehicles.
Of course, in my opinion, all of the above is completely moot if the existing Transit service continues to be sub-standard (Read: suck) . You could put 100 mil into improving existing service and I'd still have complaints.
And of course, all the talk of how a corridor would increase ridership has me as per usual on the skeptic side. Nothing would increase transit ridership more than if the fees went DOWN. 1.50 a ride?
Thinking of Transit like a business....how bout...$1 fares on Mondays? The "Monday Special"?
For that to be effective you'd have to have a kickass existing service. People who would take advantage of "The Monday Special" would then realize that the buses aren't that bad and hopefully become regular monthly subscribers.
Well, the Mayor has me wondering.
Unfortunately by September I'll be in school and will no doubt have to listen to the Student Union whine about Transit in some way shape or form.
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
It's a New Low
For Gordo Jr.
I thought his UFG garbage took the cake but now he's defending criminals and making the cops seem like bad racist guys.
I wonder what Gordo Jr would do...if he were...confronted by somebody brandishing a knife...or a screwdriver...was threatened to give them his money or something...or if he walked home one day and found this guy doing a B&E...or saw him trying to steal Gordo's car...
It's just a knife, Gordo. I'm sure you could subdue the aggressor...
For fucks sakes, if this "the police did it because he was native" shit keeps going on then eventually natives will be immune to apprehension. Native suspect has a knife and is waving it in your face? Heaven forbid using a taser. Can't shoot him. I guess we'll stand here with one hand in our pocket and the other on our flashlight and ask him nicely and say "please" to stop stealing cars and dealing drugs.
Why do native leaders and people like Gordo attack the cops for this? Like theyre some kind of heroes in shiny silver armour that can just take down anybody with a knife, or a screwdriver, or hey, a GUN. With their bare hands.
Hate to break it to you Gordo but cops are just like you and me. They don't have crazy special-ops/navy-seals training. They've been trained on how to handle a situation exactly like that. And gee golly, they do THE SAME THING EVERY TIME. Native or not.
Don't blame the police for this garbage. We're already one of the highest crime rates in Canada. How low do we want to sink? A lawless Winnipeg isn't a progressive one.
I thought his UFG garbage took the cake but now he's defending criminals and making the cops seem like bad racist guys.
I wonder what Gordo Jr would do...if he were...confronted by somebody brandishing a knife...or a screwdriver...was threatened to give them his money or something...or if he walked home one day and found this guy doing a B&E...or saw him trying to steal Gordo's car...
It's just a knife, Gordo. I'm sure you could subdue the aggressor...
For fucks sakes, if this "the police did it because he was native" shit keeps going on then eventually natives will be immune to apprehension. Native suspect has a knife and is waving it in your face? Heaven forbid using a taser. Can't shoot him. I guess we'll stand here with one hand in our pocket and the other on our flashlight and ask him nicely and say "please" to stop stealing cars and dealing drugs.
Why do native leaders and people like Gordo attack the cops for this? Like theyre some kind of heroes in shiny silver armour that can just take down anybody with a knife, or a screwdriver, or hey, a GUN. With their bare hands.
Hate to break it to you Gordo but cops are just like you and me. They don't have crazy special-ops/navy-seals training. They've been trained on how to handle a situation exactly like that. And gee golly, they do THE SAME THING EVERY TIME. Native or not.
Don't blame the police for this garbage. We're already one of the highest crime rates in Canada. How low do we want to sink? A lawless Winnipeg isn't a progressive one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
