Andrew Bates

electric newspaperman

July 17, 2013
by Andrew Bates
0 comments

Watch Fort McMurray’s dizzying growth in 28 years of satellite pictures

Fort McMurray has undergone crazy amounts of growth in the last 20 years, ballooning from a population of 36,124 in the 1996 census to 65,565 in the 2011 census. That’s if you don’t count the 39,271 that the municipality says is working in camps in the oilsands. A stunning new Google graphic shows this effect over time. (Fort McMurray itself is at the river junction about two thirds down the picture, as I placed it.)

It’s kind of mindblowing. You can see the Thickwood and Timberlea areas fill in like crayon and the salt-and-pepper dotting of rural community south near Janvier and Anzac. But of course, the real growth is seeing the oilsands projects expand north of town.

(hat-tip van_laar_design/twitter)

July 7, 2013
by Andrew Bates
0 comments

Murray’s laser focus shakes the unshakeable Djokovic in Wimbledon final

Photo Keith Williamson/Flickr

Photo Keith Williamson/Flickr

In the final of the 2013 Sony Open in Miami, Andy Murray refused David Ferrer a calf rub.

This is important because it shows how Murray was able to beat the best fighter in tennis in the Gentleman’s Final at Wimbledon Sunday. Before winning the U.S. Open last year, Murray had made four Grand Slam finals and six semifinals over five years (three of those to Novak Djokovic) before winning his first major. His inability to break into the very top tier of the game, with an expectant Britain watching, was blamed on everything from lack of maturity to lack of masculinity to lack of Britishness.

On this occasion, down 4-1 in the tiebreak of the third set, Ferrer collapsed with cramps during a grueling, two-hour-forty-five-minute final and Murray refused him a second calf rub. Ferrer was left to ineffectually hop on one leg, racket knocked out of his hand as a laser-focused Murray methodically eliminated him on three straight points. The post-match hug was not like two prize fighters leaning against each other. Despite his fatigue earlier in the match Murray, in that moment, was not hurting.

This was a reversal of the Murray that lost to Roger Federer at Wimbledon in 2012. (I swear I’m getting to Wimbledon 2013 soon.) Murray in that match was like a young protagonist in a high-fantasy novel, going up against a wizard much too powerful for him. He was powerless, losing his final three sets; he choked “I’m getting closer!” in his post-match interview, but he didn’t quite seem like he knew how.

He did get closer. 40 days later in the Olympic final, he beat Federer in straight sets, the Swiss magic gone. Though it was at the All England centre court, it was not truly Wimbledon or even a Grand Slam. But his dismantling of Federer, his emotion and his unsteady walk across the scoreboard were building blocks to the belief that he could make it on that level. 36 days after that, he finally did, in the grueling five-hour match everybody thought this final was going to become.

The first point of this match, the slate clear and full of anticipation, was a 20-shot volley won by Murray. But Djokovic survived three break points to take the game. Djokovic in that first set was ready and Murray was frustrated. He was a step ahead; he seemed in control and was running the Brit all over the court. Murray broke, and the Serb broke back. Murray broke again. But Djokovic slipped onto his hand when he had the chance to stay in it, and Murray broke a third time to take the set.

In the second half, Djokovic, known as a steadfast fighter, wavered. He came out clutching his left wrist, and the pains kept mounting. In the eleventh game of the second set, already out of challenges, he screamed at the umpire for not making a call in his favour. (He was wrong.) Murray broke him then to lead 6-5, and went to a 40-0 lead before acing to take the second set.

For those who had hope, Murray broke to start the third. But they traded break points throughout the set. Murray looked dominant, but Djokovic refused to be flattened. He began to look doomed, though, in the ninth game. Tired, Djokovic chipped it down Murray’s right hand line, ball bouncing slowly but well-placed. Murray raced back across and flipped it down the sideline to go up 5-4.

He took the first point of the final game. And the next. And the next. And so he sat, one year after being mastered by Federer, with three championship points in the Wimbledon final. But though Djokovic was angry and tired and hurt, he doesn’t stop. He denied all three points get to deuce. Djokovic took advantage twice, and with each came the sudden realization that perhaps the coronation was over; perhaps we would be here for another two hours, perhaps the power and confidence would be restored to the Serb and the masses on the Hill would be disappointed again.

But Murray, stone-faced, did not wail in disbelief as Djokovic smirked. He had the same laser-sharp focus, and despite the fact that Djokovic did have much more to lose than Murray did, he refused to allow him respite. From deuce, Djokovic flipped a ball high and to Murray’s left corner. The Brit gets it over the net and Djokovic approached, sending it to the right. Murray replied right at Djokovic, and the World No. 1 let it past him.

Advantage Murray, and fourth championship point. The crowd, boiling over, howled at every Djokovic ball that touched the brown grass at Murray’s feet that looked like it could even maybe be out. But Djokovic, for the eighth time in the match, put the ball into the net. Murray had won it.

So much of the anticipation around Murray throughout his career was based on the expectations on him as a British men’s player. So much of his distress in past years has been his disbelief. But on Sunday, that all existed outside of Murray, with his focus on the opponent getting more tired and frustrating by the shot. The match was grueling. In victory, sweat ran off his back and down his shirt, but he did not slouch or slump.

Because unlike Djokovic, Murray was not hurting.

May 15, 2013
by Andrew Bates
0 comments

Turfed Van-West End candidate Herbert strikes back with “Gag me with a spoon” video

After Vancouver West-End candidate Ron Herbert got turfed for a tweet where he used the phrase “Gag me with a spoon, bitch” in regards to Premier Christy Clark, he decided to continue to run as an independent, calling himself an Independent Conservative. But just in case you didn’t really want to hear about his more nuanced policies, he published a self-produced video yesterday referencing the incident. A lot.

I don’t know what I expected to see less in an elections ad this campaign: A candidate breaking into Lady Gaga or a candidate being nuzzled by a bull. I certainly didn’t expect them to both be dismissed Conservative candidates.

I’m covering the Vancouver-West End riding in the 2013 B.C. provincial election for the Vancouver Courier. Check my twitter account for live updates and vancourier.com for stories.

May 14, 2013
by Andrew Bates
0 comments

Vancouver-West End candidates couldn’t stop tweeting on election day

This screenshot was taken at 12:30 p.m.

This screenshot was taken at 12:30 p.m.

It’s now election day, and all the politicos are buzzing on Twitter — including the ones that shouldn’t.

Liberal candidate Scott Harrison and Spencer Chandra Herbert have been updating their Twitter and Facebook accounts today, in contravention of Elections BC rules against candidates posting on election day.

Harrison was tweeting and facebooking multiple times today from 6:00 a.m. to noon, ranging from simple get-out-the-vote messages to promotion of editorials and criticisms of NDP leader Adrian Dix. Chandra Herbert also posted a get-out-the-vote message at 6:30 a.m. (I’ve inserted screenshots at the top and bottom.)

According to Elections BC communications manager Don Main, candidates cannot tweet or post to Facebook on election day, which starts at midnight. Main said that Elections BC would be contacting the parties, who would contact individual campaigns.

I dropped lines to both campaigns. A staffer with the Chandra Herbert campaign said the campaign had been told by Elections BC that the ban extended only to voting hours, which last from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. Scott Harrison replied to me directly, saying this:

Andrew,

This afternoon the BC Liberal Party has received official notice from Elections BC that Candidates could not post on social media today. I was informed of this and as soon as I was able I stopped my scheduled posts & deleted my earlier posts.

I thought social media posts(unpaid posts) would be the same as campaigning on the street at least 100 metres away from a polling station. However, that is not the case as of now. Therefore, I have complied with Elections BC’s request.

Regards,
Scott Harrison

PS – I would have tweeted this back to you but that would have violated their instructions. 🙂

Sometimes, a line can be drawn between straight-up campaigning and non-promotional get-out-the-vote messages. But Main said that anything from a candidate’s social media account, with its picture and information, counts as “promoting or opposing” a candidate, the language used in the Elections Act to define elections advertising.

According to the Act, paid promotion in a periodical or a radio or television program does not count as advertising. Neither do Internet postings that reflect personal political views, which is probably how non-candidates get away with it.

Elections Act section 233 prevents elections advertising on general voting day, which would seem to include the whole day and not just the voting period. It does, however, allow Internet postings made before election day and not changed until the end of balloting, so that’s why the twitter accounts and websites are still up in the first place.

In any case, all of the tweets have been pulled down. Green party candidate Jodie Emery and independent Ron Herbert have not made any posts on election day.

I’m covering the Vancouver-West End riding in the 2013 B.C. provincial election for the Vancouver Courier. Check my twitter account for live updates and vancourier.com for stories.

April 13, 2013
by Andrew Bates
0 comments

Seeing Stars in Vancouver made me feel unreservedly, just like in high school

Myself and Jenelle Davies at Stars at the Commodore in Vancouver. Left: In 2013. Right: Six and a half years earlier, in 2007.

Myself and Jenelle Davies at Stars at the Commodore in Vancouver. Left: In 2013. Right: Six and a half years earlier, in 2007.

It felt so good, just like six years ago.

The Stars concert in Vancouver at the Commodore April 6 was lovely on it’s own. You’ve probably heard they’re amazing live. You have heard correctly. Stars remain my favourite band, although it isn’t like they’re always at the tip of my tongue (though they certainly have been recently.) They’re more of a historical milestone for me, a first love that I’ll always feel for.

The concert was amazing. They played Krush, an EP song from 12 years ago that folded directly into last year’s Loose Ends Will Make Knots like there wasn’t a decade inbetween. They played Midnight Coward and, as if to say “hey, are you the kind of nerd that knows this is a spiritual sequel to Elevator Love Letter?” They played another heartbreaking rendition of Personal, which myself and my concert buddy Dessa Bayrock whispered back and forth to each other. I got to totally lose myself in their music, and it was great.

Stars are a band, I think, that I came to in high school at a time when I was figuring out how to truly express myself. In high school, where I poured myself into a tight group of friends, writing and drama, I learned to relate to other people better, as you eventually do there. But I was really good at not being sure of myself, and I feared making mistakes, especially when it came to romance.

I would sit, listening to concert tapes where they talked about getting drunk and sloppy and making mistakes at Sneaky Dee’s, a bar in Toronto, and realize that good or bad, doing things and learning from them would be the best I could do. I talked about them endlessly.

When the girl who would become my first love asked me out on a date, I stammered and asked for time to think about it. My friends told me what a jerk move that was, and told me to go after her. I ran six blocks to try and catch up, headphones in my ears playing Your Ex-Lover Is Dead. “It’s nothing but time and a face that you lose/I chose to feel it and you couldn’t choose.” It reminded me to trust my feelings. When we broke up, I curled up and listened to Heart to deal with it.

In 2007, I took the bus from Penticton to Vancouver to watch Stars twice in one day, once at a matinee show and once in the evening. My friend Jenelle and I watched from a distance at first. Between shows, we found Evan Cranley and Amy Millan behind the theatre, and they signed our albums. I tried to stammer to them why their music mattered to me, but never managed it, and ask them to play Heart. It was the only change they made on the regular set list between the two shows. She signed herself with the words “Love Harder.”

Stars, more than anything else, are about remembering to love harder. Their music exists at the intersection between sex and death; where desire and conflict seep into personal interaction, the root of everything worthwhile about the human experience. I’m still not perfect at it. The newest single, “Hold on When You Get Love, and Let Go When You Give It” is something I’m still trying to do properly. Loving is big and hard and scary. But live for yourself and for other people, and you can manage it.

January 3, 2013
by Andrew Bates
0 comments

All the Canadians that got real racist in the face of World Juniors defeat

Photo jennkuhn4/flickr

So Canada lost 5-1 in the World Junior Championship semi-final. Could it be because they were bad, or because the goalie was black? If you like to think Canadian hockey fans are tolerant, don’t check Twitter.

June 28, 2012
by Andrew Bates
1 Comment

Science agrees: It was right to pick Ronaldo last in Euro semifinal shootout

Courtesy Kerim Okten/EPA

We all had fun with yesterday’s Euro semifinal, didn’t we? Well, other than the lack of anything like chances over 120 minutes and boring, boring Spain. But Portugese talisman Cristiano Ronaldo looked really sad, and that’s what counts.

The initial reaction from the punters was disbelief that Ronaldo didn’t get to kick in the shootout: slotted as the fifth taker, he was ruled out after poor Bruno Alves hit the crossbar. Shouldn’t they have tried to jiggle the lineup and get him in earlier?

Well, no, according to science. Canadian hero Jason DeVos chimed in on Twitter with a selection from Science and Soccer, a 2003 sports psychology book. As the book points out, the order of your takers is one of the things you actually can plan ahead for in the shootout. Should your best taker be first, to claim the momentum, in the middle, to ensure he kicks, or at the end? Researchers in 2000 ran the combinations in computer simulations, and found that in fact, he should go last.

Analyses indicated that the order of 5-4-3-2-1 represents the best line-up with which to contest a penalty shoot-out–that is, the fifth-best penalty taker should take the first penalty kick, the fourth-best penalty taker the second penalty kick and so on.

So, yeah: if you think Ronaldo (33/34 for club teams since 2007, but had a penalty saved in this year’s Champion’s League semifinal against Bayern Munich) is your best taker, he goes last, regardless of whether or not the team gets to shoot first. But where you can scrutinise manager Paulo Bento’s selection is poor Bruno Alves, whose doomed shaggy mop made all the highlights before he struck the crossbar.

If Ronaldo is the best, he shoots last. But if you don’t consider Alves, a centreback, the second best penalty taker in Portugal, he should be shuffled to the front of the list and they should have chosen Nani or Pepe or another deputy to take the crucial fourth penalty. (We mourn and scorn Alves, but nobody remembers that Joao Moutinho had the first kick saved. It’s less important! Science.)

As DeVos reminds us, Spain picked pretend striker Cesc Fabregas last and if you turn the tables, it would be Ronaldo tasked with closing down the game. But isn’t it nice to watch him squirm? He’ll have to wait for another day.

Somewhere, Lionel Messi is laughing.

June 26, 2012
by Andrew Bates
2 Comments

Penticton loses all credibility, temporarily renames to Westjetville

You know, you can make fun of people that are all “corporations are bad” all the time: it’s a position that lacks nuance and the ability to sift the actual bad things from the other stuff that happens. And then your hometown renames itself after an airline.

WestJet’s April announcement that it was buying planes for a residential service—the airline version of those community buses that serve senior citizens and residence kids—and inviting 30 communities to submit in-person bids to become a stop has got Penticton under the collar. Twitter campaign! Online petition! Okay, I guess. But it’s been getting a little creepy. Watch that flashmob video, where parents zealously force their children to dance on a baggage carrier in Penticton Airport, whose departures room is the saddest place in the Okanagan Valley.

And now Council has issued one of those ridiculous declarations municipalities like to make for the day Penticton city officials travel to Alberta to present the bid, but they’ve skipped right past declaring it a holiday or some bullshit to literally renaming the town to Westjetville:

Mayor Dan Ashton has signed an official proclamation changing Penticton’s name for the same day the city delegation will be giving a presentation to WestJet executives in Calgary.

“WestJet and Penticton are a good fit, and we felt changing the name of the City would be the icing on the cake of our presentation,” said Ashton.

I can’t even start with this. Here are all of the reasons why this is awful:

  • Penticton already has an airport, with an airline. It is the worst, but how many airlines does Penticton need?
  • Seriously, Kelowna is just a 45 minute drive away. Sort out your stuff, BC Transit, and get valley-wide transit.
  • Westjet does not care about you. It is a business making decisions based on how many people will use it. It will break your heart just like every other business that cut fares to Penticton when usage got bad.
  • It won’t make Penticton better. What if you flashmobbed the Regional District until Penticton decided it wanted to work with the regional areas and hook up transit connections across the valley? What if you renamed Penticton to “We Aren’t Afraid Of Youth Under 30-ville” and tried to retain people?
  • Names are important. What the hell is Penticton without it’s name? Names aren’t Dan Ashton’s to change. Penticton is literally selling itself off for a marginally-decent service that will create jobs for almost nobody. You’ve got no soul at this point.

I can’t believe I’m going to be in that goddamn city when it does this. This is the worst. Penticton is the worst.

(Source: Castanet)

June 24, 2012
by Andrew Bates
1 Comment

Truth comes from the mouths of soulless Vancouver Sun condo reviews

Future home of the liquor store, also completely isolated from students. HOORAY! (Illustration courtesy of UBC Properties Trust)

Ah, no form of journalism more pure than the Vancouver Sun‘s condo reviews, where real estate PR flacks unbiased freelance journalists write things about overpriced Vancouver properties that you imagine the developers of those properties would like said about them. But in a review of Wesbrook Village’s Academy condo published in today’s Sun, there’s a nugget of something I can’t decide is true or not. Judge for yourself:

A large traffic circle acts as a boundary between the busy UBC’s student-centred campus region and Wesbrook Village’s dense retail centre, steps away from Vancouver’s iconic Pacific Spirit Park.

IT CERTAINLY DOES. YOU WILL NEVER HAVE TO DEAL WITH STUDENTS, ESPECIALLY STUDENTS THAT WANT LIQUOR. Have you ever wanted the security of a university without the unpleasantness of ever having to deal with the actual people who use it?

Nowhere in this article does it warn you about the villains who want to do things like volleyball tournaments (pages 1, 3 and 10) in the athletic fields hundreds of metres away.

And students, don’t worry! Density, like a condo on the front lawn of the football stadium, is absolutely necessary and won’t impact your university experience at all. The lovely community members want to co-exist with you!

University Town, everybody.

(Source: Vancouver Sun)

June 23, 2012
by Andrew Bates
2 Comments

How every Euro 2012 team must overcome themselves (and Germany)

Courtesy Grzegorz Jereczek

Almost every team at Euro 2012 is at war with itself.

This is how football works, usually: the defense or holding midfield gains control of the ball and passes the ball upwards to the forward-minded midfield, who move the ball either by passing or running with the goal of getting to the opponent’s final third of the pitch. Once successfully there, depending on the defence’s vulnerability, an attacking midfielder tries to cut through the middle or pass to players on the wing. The final phase is for a player with the ball near the boundary of the penalty area to either pass to a striker with a good chance of scoring or to try their luck to see if they can come up with a piece of brilliance themselves. Either they score or lose possession, and then we start all over again.

If there has been a calling-card to this Euro tournament, it is varying levels of belief in a team’s ability to execute that principle, specifically in the relationship between the midfield and the attack–some teams don’t believe in their strikers, and some too much.

As I write this, France is about to play Spain. The world champions have completed a four-year metamorphasis to a passing juggernaut–2,100 passes in this tournament–that centres around playing tiki-taka, a style of short, one-and-two-touch passes that aims to bring the ball into the final third so that a brilliant player can do something good with it.

The problem with this system is that it was invented by club team Barcelona for Argentina’s Lionel Messi, possibly the most brilliant player currently playing soccer. Messi does not play for Spain. This still worked fine when La Furia Roja could rely on brilliant strikers like Fernando Torres in Euro 2008 and David Villa in the 2010 World Cup, who could convert passes into goals with good service. But Torres has lost his magic between then and now, and Villa is injured.

Spanish manager Vincente del Bosque has preferred in this tournament to name Cesc Fabregas, a midfielder, to the striker’s spot over Fernando Torres, creating the much-ridiculed 4-6-0 formation (in soccer, formations are to be read defense-midfield-attack). Spain’s tiki-taka has no longer meant brilliance, but stubborn stifling of movement. Though they still have the best passers in the world, the passes only lead to further passes which nobody can intercept. When Torres does play, he’s uninspiring, so it’s hard to call del Bosque wrong for refusing to believe in him.

But other teams in this tournament are relying wholly on their attackers. This is how Portugal woke up and qualified through the group stage: no longer the team of heroes Luis Figo and Pauleta, the team has looked up to its remaining legend, striker Cristiano Ronaldo. No longer relying on a balance between midfield and attack, they believe entirely in Ronaldo, and their team has been flat or wonderful depending on his performance.

Italy repose on a more gentle but wavering hope that striker Mario Balotelli can create something wonderful, and England have responded to a crushing national self-doubt by refusing to put its belief in anybody and putting less resources into the attack. The elephant in the room is Germany, who has achieved balance. Striker Mario Gomez has lit up the scoresheet rather than pundit’s favourite Meszut Ozil, a midfielder, although the success of both relies on each other. When manager Joachim Loew pulled both Gomez and striker Lukas Podolski for the quarter-final against Greece, the team still created chances and operated appropriately.

France, the opposite number to the world champions today, have a system of players who may not be great but simply very good. Strikers Karim Benzema and old hand Franck Ribery are being counted on to make some sense out of Spain’s sweltering midfield heat.

When asked about them, Spain goalkeeper Iker Casillas scoffed “Benzema and Ribery? Our front line is better.” Spain does not start any strikers. The glaring 0 in its formation is a belief that no front line at all is better than its third-greatest all time scorer Torres. As I write this, midfielder Xabi Alonso has managed to get his head onto a cross and put it into the goal, and France is down 1-0 while not yet seeing a chance.

This Euro tournament is about which team can overcome or ignore their own self doubt.

And Germany.