It's time the City of Calgary kicked the bums out!

This knee-jerk reaction to Occupy Calgary and others like it are common. It's a popular viewpoint, and with good reason. It's easy to want a protest of squatting in Olympic Plaza removed as hastily as possible when you read stories of public defecation, drug use, tent burning accidents and above all else when individuals from the movement make statements reeking of entitlement such as demanding the city supply power and heating. If that's all to the story (and despite seemingly more media on hand reporting the story than people actually sleeping in tents, that's all the story ever seems to be) I'd get behind the knee-jerk reactions. But it isn't all to the story, not by a long shot.

Occupy Calgary stems from Occupy Wall Street, a movement started in September to camp out in the financial heart of the United States and make a very strong statement: the middle class is pissed off. They have every right to be with high rates of unemployment (especially amongst youth), hundreds of billions of dollars from tax payers given back to the corporations that failed them and fueled a housing crisis, record budget deficits, extensions to tax-cuts for America's most wealthy. With the middle class taking an obvious backseat to a wealthy elite (it has gotten so absurd that Republicans propose taxing the poor instead of the rich), unprecedented amounts of middle-class working Americans supported the Occupy Wall Street protest. "We are the 99%" had real percievable meaning and I imagine it knocked a lot of people off their seat. Despite being leaderless with few cohesive demands, the movement has showed that many Americans are no longer willing to sit quiet about the economic reality fostered by government that caters to the wealthy minority. In an era of apathy, that is a powerful statement, demands or not.

Canadians seemed to be in strong support of Occupy Wall Street, at least before it came to our home. Finance Minister Jim Flaherty initially expressed sympathy for Occupy Wall Street, but that's unlikely to be the case now. After all, why would Canadians be upset with the current economic situation when we have the soundest financial institutions in the world? It's not like we have record deficits, high unemployment, a government looking to further deregulate our economy (that weathered the storm better than anywhere due to an era of stronger regulation) or a large and getting larger gap between the rich and the poor. Okay, I lied, we do have all those things, but admittedly despite the negative trends we are better off than our neighbours to the south, so we should probably all just shut out traps. I am glad that not all of us are however, as every day there's a story that justifies the Occupy movement. A great example is the recent deal reached by the City of Edmonton to build a new arena for the Oilers. Edmontonians will be paying a billionaire millions of dollars to build a new arena, while the billionaire will pay back the city back in 30 years. The public absorbs the risk, and the billionaire takes the profits - but the Occupy movement has nothing to be upset about, right?

Unfortunately, the only debate now coming out of the Occupy Calgary movement is whether the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms trumps Calgary bylaws against camping in parks or vice versa. While an interesting exercise, it's not the debate that needs to be had. With this in mind, I've called for a peaceful and voluntary end of the Occupy Calgary movement. These are the issues of a generation, and they will not be settled by a park camp out. Raising awareness is a large victory in itself and with that many whom were eager to participate in the movement or just be in support it have left or stood down respectively, not because the issues are any less important but because they are no longer the focus in the minds of Calgarians. The remains of Occupy Calgary in Olympic Plaza appear to be full-time activists and those in poor mental health, likely with nowhere else to be. The average middle class Calgarian has gone home, and with it mainstream support. The opponents of the Occupy movement are now free to move in and show it as not representative of the middle class but rather as a fringe, extremist movement. I understand why there are opponents: many have it good and think there's no reason others can't have it good too. They see Occupiers and their ilk as lazy, and unwilling to make something of themselves. Perhaps many are (I certainly have little sympathy for full-time activists taking up each and every cause as if there isn't a single issue they wouldn't clash with authority on), but it is here where I wish to make what I hope is my strongest point: I understand why some want to exercise a supposed superiority over others by boasting of their hard work, education etc. but simply saying 'get a job' does no one any favours. We do not live in a world where every one has the same access to higher education, the same networking opportunities, or getting more basic: the same healthy meals, the same safe homes to be raised in and the same mental health. As repulsed as I am by a fringe few demanding the city provide them heaters at Olympic Plaza, I'm just as repulsed by those going to Olympic Plaza to film these disadvantaged few. Yes, if you provoke a debate you came prepared for with someone suffering from a drug addiction, or a mental disorder, you're likely to win. Congratulations. Squatting in Olympic Plaza is a problem, but telling the disadvantaged to get jobs brings us no closer to ending the camp out, nor does it diminish the real issues at hand by the Occupy movement.

While I have wanted Occupy Calgary to end in its current form, I don't support the knee-jerk reaction so many are standing behind. Mayor Nenshi, the City of Calgary and our by-law and police enforcement have all done an exemplary job of not 'kicking the bums out' but maintaining the balancing act of freedom of expression and public safety. No matter where you stand on Occupy Calgary and the Occupy movement, tact and balance, not knee-jerk reactions and violence, are the answer to a peaceful outcome - and that is truly what the 99% want.

It seems to be popular conception that news media in Canada has a "liberal bias", that is, it's friendly to so-called "liberal" beliefs and those who uphold them, even at the expense of purely objective truth. It may not be so obvious, often rather a subtle, almost subliminal bias. As a news-addict, reading far too much every day, I'm here to say that any notion of a left-leaning news-media is dead. Those that say otherwise aren't being honest, because afterall, everyone wants to play the role of the underdog, even when they're not.

Remember this?

Another month, another long weekend! If the last article didn’t get you jazzed to hike, well, this one probably won’t either, but you can enjoy the photos!

In case you haven’t noticed, it's nice out! And unlike last year, Alberta might just get a summer. With my attention turned to the outdoors, it's been tough to write about anything else. So I present you with guides and photography of my favourite hikes. If you're new to hiking and looking for tips or a push to get out and do it, in need of trail recommendations, or just like photography, you’re at the right place.

Calgary has been left in a very perplexing state by the decisions of city council. I speak of secondary suites. Secondary suites are a self-contained living space built into a portion of a house for rental purposes. Currently they're not permitted in most of Calgary due to zoning restrictions. Only after considerable effort may you get the chance to have your property rezoned for secondary suites. I strongly support the broad rezoning of Calgary's residential areas to allow for legal secondary suites. It's a real way to create affordable housing, density and diversity in our neighbourhoods.

I took a stroll down my most dreaded of store aisles: the dental aisle. Of all the things I buy, toothbrushes might be the most frustrating. I'm paralyzed by choice. Soft or medium? Tongue brusher thingy or rubber grip handle? Angled bristles or a brush-life indicator strip? There's so many features presented in that aisle that despite beginning my brush shopping experience frustrated by how much choice there was, I leave even more frustrated that I still couldn't get my exact dream toothbrush (not that I dream about these sorts of things). The floss section has no such excess of choice. Infact there used to be a choice in that section that is now strangely absent: Reusable flossers. I used one as a kid as it made flossing really easy for this little tyke, and it didn't need to be thrown away each day (well, except the floss you tie to it each night of course!). It was a great product, yet I can't find it in stores anywhere today. Apparently I'm not the only one who can't find them, as flossing die hards the world over are resorting to ordering them online. So what's pushed the reusable flosser out of the market? Non-reusable flossers! They come in giant packs of a hundred or so, cost next to nothing, and save you that arduous 3.7 seconds you'd otherwise waste wrapping your floss around a reusable flosser or your fingers each night. You use it and toss it in the garbage immediately after. No fuss, no muss.

Except there is a ton of muss. Flashback to 1942. Midway Atoll - a tiny set of reefs and islets - serves as the site of the decisive turning point for the Allies in the Pacific theatre during World War II. In 2011, Midway once again plays host to a turning point in the pivotal conflict of our generation. Except this time, we're losing. The Great Pacific Garbage Patch, an almost indeterminably large water column saturated with plastic debris, occupies a swath of ocean encapsulating Midway Atoll. It's not as graphic as you might imagine, but that's what makes it worse. Although there is large debris like plastic bottles, or say, dental flossers, you don't need an icebreaker to get through it. The real danger lies with what's unseen, plastics breaking down into the tiniest bits of polymers, nearly impossible to clean up and perfect for consumption by the smallest marine life to rise up the food chain to us. This has widespread negative biological consequences that we are just starting to understand (perhaps this article should be titled 'instant gratification castration'). This is but one example of the real, undeniable and unpoliticizable damage our need for instant gratification causes us - the muss of our disposable flossers.

We hate waiting. We hate it so much, it's become the enemy of our generation, and we will stop at absolutely nothing to destroy it. Economic certainty? It often takes a backseat to our desire to not wait. Gas prices are at all time highs, causing the cost of food and essentials to rise around the world, and yet I've seen people idling their cars with the same frequency as ever. Whether these idlers agree with the sentiment or not, they want our gas prices even higher if only to save themselves the inconvenience of the 0.4 seconds to start the engine. Environmental catastrophe? We no longer have to save up the money to make purchases, or wait for things to be delivered and consequently everything has become disposable. We chuck out things we buy in favour of newer models as fast as we buy them. Very little has longevity any more, and it's not just limited to our purchases. The well being of our society takes a pounding from our refusal to wait. We maintain our personal relationships often in the fastest ways possible inviting friends out via a mouse click or a text message. How often do we find ourselves not even responding? Bands rise and fall in popularity with the click of a mouse on iTunes, and while many probably should fade away, there is a ton of great music today, probably more now than ever. But will we ever look back at today's music the way we look back at the music of the past if we jump from album to album within days? While it's debatable any of these societal examples are a bad thing (and I could certainly argue for the opposite), one thing is clear: this is a new cultural shift. Instant gratification is turning us into the disposable generation.

Our society is changing, and with it we are bringing about unnecessary and avoidable economic and environmental problems. Remember waiting for stuff? The Arcade Fire touches on this sentiment quite well (wait, who are they?). Waiting for things was tough, but it brought about the sense that things were worth it. And when they weren't? Our memories of waiting would often be the best part. Patience is a virtue for many reasons, not least of which is that we might just make our actions that much more reponsible if we give ourselves time to. So stop and smell the roses - it just might be one of the best things you do to ensure they'll be around for others to smell too.

Calgary also has many citizens who believe in the power of the free market. That a market where supply is bought and sold at its true cost, bereft of government intervention, is beneficial for consumers and retailers alike because environmental, economic and social abuses will be phased out by market forces. I have argued, and will continue to argue that the benefits described aren't possible when market forces favour short term greed over long term solutions. As such I favour smart government regulation and targeted investment that considers the big, long-term picture, to steer the economy away from problems before they happen.

The issue is this: the City of Calgary is proposing developers of these new communities start footing more of the bill for their development. Developers make new neighbourhoods on the edge of the city, and it's up to the rest of Calgarians to pay for servicing that community with things like roads, transit, water and sewage. As it stands now, developers pay a small fee per house to the City to cover these costs, but the fee isn't anywhere close to recovering the expense, so Calgary plunges into debt. Regardless of your support for government involvement in the market, or their absence from it, I will tackle this issue from both perspectives.

The argument is framed wrong by many. The City has not proposed to hike the levies that developers must pay - the City is considering lowering their subsidies to developers. Developers should no longer rely on the taxpayers' dime to make their communities artifically cheap in order to turn a profit - they will now have to focus on creating liveable communities that people want to buy in to. So whether you believe in a free market or a regulated one, or could care less about markets and just want Calgary to be the best city it can be, these developer subsidies aren't the answer, and you need to make sure city council knows you feel that way.

I knew once I broke my silence on federal politics on this site, the floodgates would open. Rest assured this will be my final article on the topic this election and far more positive than my last one!

For those of you who haven't seen the movie WALL-E, it's a story set in the future where Earth no longer has the capacity to sustain life. The atmosphere is toxic. Garbage dwarfs our infrastructure. Chemical spills plague the Earth. Soils are incapable of yielding plant growth. Humans have rendered the Earth uninhabitable. We only manage to survive the catastrophe by living in an artifical environment aboard a spaceship. Could this really be our future? Due to my affinity for Pixar movies, and that the future presented in the movie is plausible, I often approach issues looking to answer the question "would this bring us a step closer to WALL-E?". I think everyone should take that approach, because there's a lot of evidence to suggest that the future presented in WALL-E is happening right before us.

It's time to talk about the southwest ring road, again

The southwest ring road is a massive infrastructure project for Calgary that has come up time and time again, but no plan has yet to be put in place for it's construction. Calgarians have been presented with five proposed options for it's route, and open houses will be run to seek input on them. Take a look:

After all this time, this is what's on the table. What would you say is the obvious choice? Route number 4? That's certainly the way this study has framed the choices, and many are in support of the route, and why not? The first three options might as well not even be there, as they score two red boxes for the objectives of the ring road itself. Route number 4 only has one red box, the least impacted communities, and the lowest dollar signs. It seems pretty simple on paper. But what is that red box? Well, it represents the destruction of the Weaselhead Flats area, featured at the top of this article, to make route number 4 a reality. Maybe that should justify a darker shade of red, I don't know.

More than a red box

I'm certain those in support of tearing up the Weaselhead Flats to run an eight lane freeway through it have probably never been there. Because if you've been to the Weaselhead Flats, you'd know just how destructive a freeway through it would be. The area is home the largest coniferous forest in Calgary, as well as a fantastic spot for bird watching and wild life sightings. It is Calgary's only wetland river delta. Perhaps the real tragedy is that there are those who are enthusiastic to rip up the area to drive their cars through it at 100kmph that couldn't be bothered to visit the Flats in it's current pristine condition on foot or bicycle.

Fixing bad planning with bad planning

The 'need' for a ring road comes from the large amounts of congestion in southwest Calgary. Poorly planned sprawl of Calgary's south created the problem, so are poorly planned freeways the answer? Geographical confinement of cities leads to better planning and land use, because there's no alternative. Instead of considering plowing through Weaselhead Flats as the easiest option on the table, it shouldn't be an option at all.

There is a need to alleviate congestion in Calgary, but not necessarily a need for a ring road. Mayor Nenshi has agreed the proposed options are no good and is looking at alternative ways to alleviate congestion, and we need to. If we look to freeways as our only traffic solution, and environmental destruction as its easiest implementation, what kind of city will we be left with? I'm all for progress, but progress is not just a freeway and we can't afford to have that narrow minded a vision.

Is social media influential?

If you don't know about the Alberta Party, they are now Alberta's fourth opposition party in the Legislature, after former Liberal Dave Taylor crossed the floor to become their first sitting MLA. They define themselves as a centrist party, 'picking-and-choosing' the best policy of the political spectrum, attracting members from all occupations and of all political stripes, and reaching out to young and disenfranchised Albertans, while no longer playing politics-as-usual. Sounds good doesn't it? It does and it doesn't. Their ability to reach out to Albertans who have never involved themselves in politics is fantastic, but the Alberta Party has marketed themselves as a party that is 'post-partisan', as if they are somehow above the banging-your-head-against-the-wall political game that the other parties engage in. As we've seen today with Dave Taylor's floor crossing, that rosy message is already starting to wilt after one day of the party having an active MLA.

An over-simplification of the political spectrum

The interpretation that the Alberta Party doesn't fit political lines is largely fueled by a media and electorate that constantly defines them in the simplest way possible. Here is the political spectrum as envisioned by a countless army of journalists, bloggers, politicians:

No wonder so many verbally assault each other as a 'liberal' or 'conservative' in derogatory terms. You really are 'with-us-or-against-us' in this model. I feel sorry for those who interpret the political reality around them so one-dimensionally.  Let's look at a policy of supporting oil-sands development: Where on the line would you put it? Generally pro-oil sands policy is considered right-wing, but is it really that simple? Here is the political spectrum defined in a slightly more realistic way:

Yes, two dimensions! Look at all that room. While it still leaves the political spectrum not as three-dimensional as the people we all are, it gets us one more ever-important axis closer. Yet seldom do we discuss politics this way. Where would you put a 'pro-oil sands' policy now? It's generally considered right wing due to it's inherent pro-business nature, but what about government subsidies to oil producers? Starting to sound a little left wing to me. This model can support that conversation, and our discussion is now resembling something a little closer to thoughtful debate rather than just 'left' or 'right'. This is how the Alberta Party appears to want to have the discussion, and it's how the discussion should be had. All the parties fit more accurately on this model, yet most refuse to have the political conversation held in a two-dimensional light. This is a key factor for why the Alberta Party appears to be 'post-partisan'. They would rather talk about politics in two-dimensions, even when many only respond to one.

An over-simplification of their message

Whether being burdened with the unattainable label of being a  'post-partisan party' was intentional, it stands that so far they have benefited from this identity, despite the heat they are now beginning to face. The message sounds great, and they've indulged in it accordingly. We all hate the mindless partisan banter we read about in the news (and it only gets exponentially worse at the Federal level). The message of being above the vitriol would resonate a lot with people, especially those who stray away from politics often for that very reason, which is of course the very demographic the Alberta Party would like to target. But the label, however nice, is insurmountable.

The Alberta Party will be in the partisan political game, and not above it, and as long as they carry a 'holier-than-thou' attitude to the other parties, they will receive a disproportionately large amount of flak for any of their actions that resemble politics-as-usual. As evidenced already with Dave Taylor's stance on crossing the floor, they will break some promises and they will contradict themselves. They will dive into partisan attacks - Dave Taylor was quick to point out on the Rutherford Show, "There's a lot of bitterness and negativity from more established parties'. The parties he referenced would certainly disagree with that statement. Let the partisan games begin.

The party's message is at the mercy of it's followers

Today's political conversation is increasingly social-media driven, and a party's political stance is becoming less defined by official statements and far more defined by the interpretation of those statements by it's followers. This point is particularly true of the Alberta Party, who by a completely unscientific count, appear to dominate their opponents in numbers over social media. Many are willing to engage people on twitter about their party, and yet may not be familiar with the actual positions of the party. This can lead to many of the party's supporters shaping the views of the party to their own specific principles, even when those principles might run counter to what is officially stated.

The propensity for many individuals to mention the Alberta Party's style of 'post-partisan' politics has very much defined how the party is now contentiously viewed, despite a lack of the term any where to be found on the party's official website. I've met some members of the party who reject the 'post-partisan' label outright, and others who swear by it. So as that label begins to hurt the party, it may be difficult to shed it.

Rising above the labels

I write this not as a scathing critique of the Alberta Party, but as a letter of encouragement. The Alberta Party is exciting. When they set their sights on Alberta's political deficit - that 60% of Albertans aren't engaged enough to vote - their message is exactly on target. There is very strong demand for more engagement in Alberta politics: more listening, more reaching out, and more discussion. The fact they've centered their party around this ideology and received very warm support from a segment of the population that's never talked politics before is an early victory for the party that all Albertans should take notice of.

But as evidenced by the questions Dave Taylor's floor crossing raised, it is time to get real. The rose-coloured glasses need to come off, and the Alberta Party needs to emerge with focused policy, a continuing effort to engage disenfranchised Albertans, and steer away from the misguided and misused feel-good statements that many have come to associate the party with. The Alberta Party can play the political game with integrity, and at a level higher than we currently see in the legislature no doubt, but it still has to be played and any illusions that the party is above the game entirely are just that.

For as many people that flocked to the Alberta Party on the impression of 'post-partisan' politics, there are as many like me, on the side lines, waiting for the party to show their true dimensions. I can't wait, best of luck!

If there's one thing people are good at, it's being lazy. And if there's one thing people will go to extremes for, it's to make their lives lazier. Nothing gets people working harder than the prospect of not working at all. It's why we will spend ten minutes looking for the remote control when we could have walked over to the TV and spent ten seconds flipping channels. At least that's what we did before the manufacturers caught on to how lazy we were and stopped putting buttons on the TV at all.

I like to be lazy. I also like to recycle. It helps alleviate a little bit of the guilt I get from all the packaging I'm subjected to in my daily life.

and an environmentally conscious individual, I like to think that technology will help make for a smarter, more sustainable society. That our demand for new technology will bring about new solutions that weren't possible in the past to approach the problems of the present and our future. Unfortunately, I also have my doubts. This is a topic I hold close to me, as sustainability and technology are two of my passions, and often they are at odds with each other. I know these passions hold true for many of you out there reading this as well. This article will raise an issue that we need to address, but often avoid. There are no easy answers, but I'll try to propose some ideas, and I hope you all do too.

"The electronics I buy probably help the planet if anything."

Let's look at the e-Reader example, my beacon of hope that our love of electronics can actually bring us to a more sustainable society:

So are e-Readers still offering hope of a future that uses technology wisely to bring us to a life style more harmonious with our environment? It looks like the answer is no, but not necessarily because of what the device does. 4.6 years for a gadget's lifetime in today's world is becoming increasingly harder a challenge for us, and as long as it is, no technology on Earth will be sustainable. How often have you seen everyone from powerful politicians to lowly commentors on news sites state that we don't need to change our ways because technological innovation will give us the solutions to fix our ecological problems? If we don't change our ways, the right technologies may come by, like e-Readers, but we will be too busy consuming the crap out of it to make a difference. How did we get into this mess? We need someone to blame for it!

"I'm not to blame, It's the tech companies' fault, they keep releasing new models!"

"I'd do anything to upgrade my phone every year!"

"How can I justify making a living off computers?!"

I know this article has really been a heavy one, but it's a heavy issue, and will only be more so if we don't acknowledge and tackle it - the good news is, it's not all bad. Despite all the ugliness I've mentioned, there are obviously many good things that have come from our demand for technology. Innovation. Education. Communication. Health care. These fundamental facets of the human condition have never been better. We wouldn't buy into technology if it wasn't doing good things for us, and it is.

"The way we consume technology causes social, economic and environmental problems."

• Green energy: Harnessing smarter technologies, we have great potential to lower our impact on the environment by shifting away from traditional manufacturing of books, papers, magazines, albums, movies & software to digital media, but only if the power consumed by digital media is powered from sustainable energy sources. If we keep using fossil fuels to power our data centres we do nothing to lessen our environmental impact. It's like buying an electric car but plugging it nightly to a power grid based off of coal, and then somehow feeling good about that.
  
   
• Paying the true cost of our electronics: Many people believe the free-market will solve the problem because products will be more expensive to purchase as they become more unsustainable. That may be true, but we won't know because our market isn't representative of the true cost of our purchases. The gadgets we buy have been subsidized the world over. Workers in the developing world subsidize our products with their poor wages. Our health care system subsidizes our products with treatment for the sick from pollution increases and chemical contaminants, and so on and so on. It may be an impossible task, but we need to be charged for our products closer to the actual price of their impact, with that additional money going towards reducing the impact.
  
   
• Transparent and accountable business practices: Stronger government legislation is needed to ensure that businesses better document their social and environmental impacts to the public at large. We are so isolated from the negative impacts of what we buy that it's tough to make educated decisions. It might sound silly, but printing images of e-waste mountains (like the one featured above) on to the packaging along with some numbers about the problem may get people thinking, just like graphic images on cigarette packages vastly improved awareness of the consequences of smoking. People are smarter than we are given credit for, when we are provided with information, we make better decisions.
  
   
• Responsible buying: We aren't going to stop innovating and developing new technology, and we aren't going to stop buying it either, but we can be responsible about our habits. Buy less often. Stretch out the lifespan of your devices. They may not be as nice and shiny as the latest models, but often the core features you originally bought the product for are exactly the same as the new models. We need to make sharing, and not owning, a more important part of our technology culture. We need to support companies with business models based on less ownership and more sharing. (Netflix Canada, get more selection!). With the wide availability of devices, we personalize our gadgets to our lifestyle, and this has had the severe impact of creating a disposable market place. We need to actively make decisions every day to shift the market place back to something with longevity.

This was originally written much, much differently...

I had begun work on a scathing critique of the level of democracy in Calgary in preparation for the upcoming election. I was ready to pounce on poor voter turn out, electoral ignorance and a genuine lack of intellectual discourse. I was frustrated with how the election was progressing, disappointed with some candidates behaviour, and angry at the media. I had let the negativity get to me. I was wrong, and before the end of the election campaign, I tossed aside what I had written, because I realized none of it continued to make any sense. Something during the Calgary election had changed.

People cared.

It was September 26th when I was so frustrated with what I was seeing around me that I began to rip into the state of Calgary's election. By ripping into it, I mean writing on my computer, and privately, but believe me, it happened, and I typed those keys really hard! All jokes aside, I was upset. I had invested a lot of time and interest in the civic election, only to be disheartened with our democracy the further I got involved. The first thing I found disheartening? Barb Higgins early rise to the top of the polls. Now, those of you who may have supported Higgins are probably groaning and reaching to close the browser, but hear me out. My problem wasn't with her, but the fact that any person could announce their candidacy and be an instant favourite in the race, dominate media attention away from other candidates, and yet not announce any policy. That might be democracy, but it isn't the kind that brings about a great city, it's the kind you found in some sort of junior high school popularity contest. I want a great city. Not a city where candidates discussing policy couldn't get media attention if their lives depended on it.

My next frustration? Well, the media had established who the two 'front runners' of the race were: Ric McIver and Barb Higgins. That's not frustrating (well, perhaps any candidates dominance of the headlines is frustrating, but that wasn't my issue), what was? Civic election forum attendance. The candidates with the shoddiest attendance? The two front runners. I felt awful. The people most involved in the election, who took time from their schedules to attend forums, ask questions, and engage in discussion to genuinely learn about their candidates, were ignored by those favoured to win the race. The forums - the only chance to see candidates not hide behind their PR shields - suddenly seemed moot, the front runners weren't there. I often feel like a minority for caring about politics, and never had it cut so deep as then. When questioned about his lack of attendance to one of the forums, Ric McIver responded that he was at a fundraiser for his campaign. Having already secured the largest campaign war chest of any of the candidates, this explanation only disappointed me further. Ideas should matter more than money, but I know this isn't always (or even often) the case.

My frustration finally culminated with an article I read by Michael Platt from the Calgary Sun, titled 'Desperately seeking reason to care'. The article told me that Calgarians didn't care about the election. I had dedicated my time involving myself in the goings-on of the election, and watched countless others do the same, only to be told that Calgary didn't care about it. That it wasn't our fault, because we had nothing to be angry about, that we weren't 'galvanized' as the article put it. The Calgary Sun was attempting to justify our collective apathy as okay. Somewhere in Canada, a veteran mourns. Politics, believe it or not, doesn't have to be polarizing, but it's very tough to see that sometimes. So the Calgary Sun article was the cherry on top. Only the cherry was rancid, and it wasn't on top of a sundae, but on a malaise of spite and discontent for how I was perceiving Calgarians around me. It made for a very lousy dessert.

So I wrote. Furiously I wrote, but before the election campaign was over, I tossed it all out. I wasn't angry with Calgarians, I wasn't frustrated with the level of democratic involvement I was seeing, but the opposite. Things had changed. I was overwhelmed at how positive the conversation was. Michael Platt was dead wrong, Calgarians did care, and they cared all without needing to be angry. Policy discussion was front and center and propelled a candidate not many had heard of, into a front-runner, all without traditional media support. Calgarians who never talked politics before in their lives joined in the discussion. Even my 32 year old brother voted - for the first time. The political environment in Calgary was thriving to the point that whatever candidate won was going to have to earn it, not through celebrity, but on their vision for the city. That my friends, is one healthy democracy!

Apathy isn't okay

You know that phrase that people get the governments they deserve? It's true. Well, at least in developed world democracies where we are blessed with the freedom to choose our governments. If we support candidates purely on sound bites, we will most likely end up with elected officials that spend more time crafting sound bites that sound good instead of developing a vision forward. If we support candidates only due to their name recognition, and not on their policy, we could end up with some very bad policy. If we support candidates that skip out on forums because they have already achieved popularity, how can we expect them to be accountable and not take the electorate for granted? I often hear the old "I don't vote because politicians are lousy" excuse for political apathy, but politicians will only be as lousy as the political environment they are allowed to thrive in. So, get involved, and get informed. The front-runner candidates in the civic election only disclosed their donors after momentum was shifting to a candidate who already done it, all because Calgarians became aware of the issue and demanded it. The smarter we are on the issues that matter to us, the smarter our politicians will be on the issues that matter to us. Informing yourself before you vote is what stops people from electing candidates like this guy (If the fine people of Stark County didn't bother to come out and see candidates vying for nomination, who knows where Phil Davison could have gone!).

Better Citizens. Better Calgary.

People have coined this increase in civic engagement during this election as 'the purple revolution', but that only takes away from what happened in Calgary. Having a majority of Calgarians care about the future of their city in a meaningful and constructive way shouldn't be tied to just one candidate in one election. That level of engagement should be the norm, but it won't be easy. In the middle of the election campaign, Grant Neufield had mentioned that democracy is a lot of hard work. Being discontent with the state of the civic elecion at the time, I just thought he was an idealist - democracy was demoralizing. Grant is right though, democracy is work, it's about staying engaged and continuing the conversation, sometimes when people don't want to have it. But I was also right, it can be demoralizing, which is exactly why creating and maintaining a healthy democracy is such a challenge. So with the election over, let's capitalize on a Calgary that had a record election turn out, and continue the conversation.

I'll be continuing in the conversation at CivicCamp this Saturday, come be a part of it. Your democracy needs you!