Sunday, October 14, 2012

OPINION: Why Amanda Todd matters - by Brian Aranas

My son thinks Amanda Todd’s death shouldn’t be such a big deal. Sure, he sympathizes with those left behind but he, along with others, believes all the wrong things she did before dying discredits her. I’m here to say it is a big deal. One that we all better learn from. And quickly.

The tragic story of B.C. teen Amanda Todd has been told over and over this week but in case you didn’t hear: After many instances of bullying, 15-year old Amanda Todd made an anti-bullying video entitled “My Story: Struggling, bullying, suicide and self harm” she posted on YouTube in September. Last week she committed suicide and it set off an online frenzy on social networks around the world. Most people offered sympathy and it also brought bullying to the forefront of social issues again.

Yet there was a vocal minority who didn’t feel the same way. They wanted to bring up the fact that she did many things to tarnish her image. She flashed her breasts, she slept with a guy who had a girlfriend and so forth. Some people even created online groups to show the “real” Amanda Todd.

One person wrote: “Amanda Todd was a whore. If you asked her to show her t--- , she would do so without even thinking twice. If you wanted to f--- her, she'd be bent over before you finished suggesting it to her… She even whored herself out for money. Above all that, she f----- a guy who already had a girlfriend, and Amanda was only thirteen years old at the time. Go ahead and tell us about how she's a hero, an inspiration, an angel. I f------ dare you, you bandwagoning sheep.”

Wow. Really? So for all these reasons we should forget about a teen, not even an adult yet, who took her own life? For all intents and purposes, she was only a girl. At an age where one would be experiencing their first love, their first heartache, their first parties and so on, she was so hurt inside she killed herself.

Yes, we should learn from Amanda and pay more attention to people around us. Look for those signs of depression. Listen to what’s being said. But in no way whatsoever should her death be minimized by anyone, let alone people who didn’t even know her. Her family is hurting badly right now and deserve the dignity Amanda did not get in her lifetime.

I’m sick of bullying, cyber-bullying, and now this post-death bullying. The world is a beautiful place and a few evil souls are stopping some people from seeing that. Shame on them.

And to the bullies out there remember: Karma’s a real bitch.

- Brian

Resources for help:

Centre for Suicide Prevention
Suite 320, 105 12 Avenue S.E.
Calgary, AB T2G 1A1
Phone: 403-245-3900

Catholic Family Services - Counselling Service
#250, 707 - 10 Avenue SW
Phone: 403-233-2360

Distress Centre Calgary
Main Crisis Line:403-266-4357

ConnecTeen: 403-264-TEEN (7336)

.

Sunday, August 12, 2012

OPINION: Canada, did we 'Own The Podium'? Last time I checked, a podium had 3 spots not 13* - by Brian Aranas

Before anyone gets angry at me please know that I’m not dumping on the achievements of our Canadian athletes. This isn’t about their well-deserved medals. Rather it’s about what Canada spent to get those results.

‘Own the Podium’ (for winter sports) and ‘Road to Excellence’ (for summer sports) were both started in 2006 by the Government of Canada after the country scored the dubious record of being the only country to host two Olympic Games (Montreal in 1976 and Calgary in 1988) and not win one gold at either Games. The feds decided that at least $20 million a year would be spent on each program to help boost our medal counts. Did it work for London 2012?

China sent 396 athletes. 38 gold medals/87 total medals. The USA had 539 there representing them. Their gold medal count: 46. 104 total

Canada? 277 athletes in London and only one gold medal. 18 total.

The facts, plain and simple. The lowest gold medal count for Canada since we scored zero back in Montreal. Yes, we did get five silver and twelve bronze too. Good enough for 12th overall.

Here’s the medal counts from previous Summer Games for Canada:

2008 — Gold:3 Silver:9 Bronze:6

2004 — G:3 S:6 B:3

2000 — G:3 S:3 B:8

1996 — G:3 S:11 B:8

1988 — G:3 S:2 B:5

So basically, since these programs started we’ve actually decreased the number of gold and silver medals we’ve won at the Summer Games. Doesn't exactly scream: “Results!”

Sports will always be to the advantage of the wealthy. Whether it’s through parents, sponsorships, scholarships or old-fashioned work-while-you-study-and-train-and-pay-your way, achieving your best in your chosen sports field is expensive. How much should Canadians be willing to finance? Does Canadian pride have a price?

And does $33 million this year justify the number of medals we scored in London? It really is hard to say yes to that.

Let’s face the facts: We will always be stronger at the Winter Olympics. If the government has to finance sports feed the money there. We can never touch the medal counts of powerhouses like China and the United States at the Summer Games. We just don’t have the resources to get to those levels.

Once again, congrats to those athletes, coaches, volunteers and parents. You did a great job. But for millions spent by the federal government this year can we really claim to ‘Own The Podium’? The last time I checked, the podium had 3 places, not 13*.

-bri

* - we fell to #13 after final day results. *sigh*

Wednesday, August 01, 2012

Can you control free speech in social media? - by Brian Aranas

Have you heard of Guy Adams? He's the journalist who was banned from Twitter for publishing an NBC executive’s work email address after lambasting that network’s coverage of the Summer Olympics.

Mr. Adams, a Los Angeles-based correspondent for the UK publication The Independent, has since been reinstated after a very public backlash. It raises troubling questions though: What can or should you censor in social media and should you be ‘banned’ for speaking your opinion?

Let’s face it: Social media is, for all intents and purposes, is still in its infancy and rules are being made every day. There are certain things that will be found unacceptable at all times regardless of what media is being used. The problem here is that ubiquitous “grey area”. Does publishing an email address constitute a ban?

Before you answer that, consider this fact too: Twitter and NBC have partnered up for the Summer Olympics. Was that an underlying reason as to why this journalist was banned? Suddenly, it seems more sinister than a ‘free speech’ issue.

Twitter defended the outcry with the defence that publishing the NBC executive’s email address exceeded “context-relative informational norms”. But did it? The journalist had an issue (as with many others) with NBC’s time-delayed coverage of the Olympics. He chose to make his opinion known. He published an email address he deduced as everyone at NBC/Universal is: FirstName.LastName@nbcuni.com. Not exactly a very private email address.

If your next door neighbour publishes a tweet of you calling you names and publishing your private number or email address you probably could complain based on those “context-relative informational norms”. But we’re talking a billion-dollar corporation which should be able to brush off criticism. Instead of complaining to Twitter, how about addressing the journalist directly? Or ignoring him altogether?

Twitter reinstated the account and is revisiting its rules. But the damage has been done. Now everytime one types in their 140-character tweet they’ll be asking themselves: ‘Could I get banned for this?’

Just like the cost of living, free speech just isn’t quite as free as it used to be.

-bri

Dear Londoners and the rest of the world: The Olympics don't belong to you. They never did. - by Brian Aranas

So after one weekend of the Summer Olympics two gripes have emerged: 1) ALL those empty seats when no one in London could get tickets* and 2) NBC delaying the events to ratings-heavy prime-time (read: advertiser friendly) instead of airing live.

Really? The biggest sports spectacle of the past four years and Joe Public feels slighted? Who'd have thought?

Here's an idea: Get over yourself. The Olympics are a billion dollar industry. It's not your local community sports group. Yes it's quite something to see all those empty seats but did you pay $1.1 billion for sponsorship like Coke did? Take all those empty seats, charge fair price and you still wouldn't hit those numbers. For $1.1 billion Coke and other sponsors should be given a lot of seats.

NBC is being mocked for tape delaying the Games to show during the evening hours instead of showing them "as they happen" (as London is many hours ahead). It does seem ludicrous in this age of instant results to show events late, sometimes as much as twelve hours later. But it’s money, plain and simple: NBC paid $2 billion for the rights to show the Games. The broadcaster makes their money off the advertisers who pay a bigger buck in the evening hours. Seems like simple math here. And if you want instant results NBC is offering free live-streaming, something they did not have to do if they really wanted everyone to watch at night only.

The Olympic brand is worth $47 billion dollars. That's 47 followed by nine zeros. It's a big business people. Sure, they'll throw Londoners some bread crumbs to invoke "community" and "unity" but it's commerce first. Remember that Montreal hosted the Summer Games back in 1976 and LOST $1.6 billion dollars. That debt was finally paid off six years ago!

This is very similar to the Calgary Stampede. We’ll get those “free” events like pancake breakfasts and parades that make us feel like we’re all part of those ten days but don’t fool yourself: The Stampede is a business that makes MONEY. And lots of it.

I won't discredit the hard work of the athletes, trainers, parents, volunteers and so on who did have to work to death to make the Games. In the end that's what the Olympics are all about. Citius.Altius. Fortius. - Faster. Higher. Stronger.

-bri

* - Apparently the masses have been heard and the London organizers were able to free up some of those tickets today. Good on them. Hopefully for the Olympic organizers all those new ticket holders are sitting back sipping on a Coke.

British Columbia's Christy Clark just doesn't get The Game - by Brian Aranas

Remember how popular the National Energy Program was in western Canada in the 80s? Of course it wasn't. Apparently British Columbia Premier Christy Clark forgot that.

Or she has her own motives for forgetting.

The National Energy Program (NEP) was initiated in 1980 during the recession to share the natural resource wealth of the have-provinces (mostly Alberta) with the whole country. As natural resources generally fall under the juristiction of provinces, western Canada saw it as an intrusion into their business affairs. And it was. Alberta's GDP (Gross Domestic Product - market value of all officially recognized final goods and services produced within our province) fell drastically and it took years for Alberta to recover.

And now BC's Premier wants to see that happen again.

Why? Because there's an election in BC. Because it's a gut reaction to show bravado and tell your voters you can make them wealthier. Yes, Enbridge wants to run a pipeline through your province and will pay for that right but how does that entitle Ms. Clark to royalties? It's political grandstanding, first and foremost.

Is there a risk to running a 1,177-kilometre pipeline through sensitive natural areas? Of course. Especially with Enbridge's brutal record of late (another leak this weekend!)

Christy, make THAT your main issue. Win votes THAT way. British Columbia is a beautiful province and should stay that way. Talk about money and it overshadows that important issue.

-bri