Justin Beach2013-05-21T09:22:30-04:00Justin Beachhttp://www.huffingtonpost.ca/author/index.php?author=justin-beachCopyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc.HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Justin BeachGood old fashioned elbow grease.Fixing the CBC Means More Than Stopping Harpertag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.32168722013-05-06T11:03:28-04:002013-05-06T12:43:51-04:00Justin Beachhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/justin-beach/Stephen Harper's plan to control the CBC. The thing is that the CBC is horribly broken already and Stephen Harper's latest authoritarian power grab is the least of their worries.
As I understand it, Harper's plan is to place someone on the CBC's board to monitor and participate in labour negotiations on behalf of the government. This is part of Harper's broader anti-labour, anti-working people agenda and because of that I'll oppose it. It is, however, different than having a government representative in the newsroom vetting stories. The people and organizations who are claiming that this is an attempt at editorial control by the federal government need to be careful how often they cry wolf. There are countries in the world where journalists are being censored, arrested and assassinated.
The reality though is that the CBC is in desperate need of repair, possibly to the point of being reinvented. The CBC's mandate has, since the beginning, been overly broad. It allows the CBC to do virtually anything and claim it is part of the mandate and, at the same time, allows just about anyone to find places where the CBC is not fulfilling its mandate to their satisfaction. More recently, over the last few decades, the CBC has been slowly starved to death with each successive government cutting the Mother Corps funding a little further.
As the company's funding dwindled they've been forced to seek new sources of funding. This came, for the most part, in the form of additional advertising on the air and on the website. The end result, on the television side especially, is something that bears little resemblance to a public broadcaster. It has become essentially a publicly funded commercial broadcaster competing with privately owned commercial broadcasters.
Adding to all of this is the indisputable fact that the broadcast television model and the cable television model are broken. It is not a question of if they will become financially unsustainable, but when. Netflix now has more customers than any U.S. cable provider, more customers than HBO and is growing rapidly on both sides of the border. Amazon, Hulu and Netflix are now starting to produce their own programming that is only available through their websites. These services have become so popular that they are successfully competing even with free torrent sites. Soon all of the power will be in the hands of production companies that produce quality content. They will have the ability to license content to streaming sites or simply sell their content direct to consumers.
Overall the CBC is underfunded, more a commercial broadcaster than a public broadcaster and produces little original, in house, content. That is, perhaps, why VP of all English services Kirstine Stewart left that position to sell ads for Twitter last week. Harper's plans should definitely be thwarted but that is, ultimately, only a tiny step toward actually fixing the CBC.
Ultimately the CBC needs to have its mandate rewritten to force it to behave more like a public broadcaster and prevent it from competing for ad dollars with other struggling broadcasters. The company's funding must be increased and stabilized and new options must be opened to it including grants and listener/viewer support. Much like other public broadcasters, the CBC should work as a local-national partnership with a certain amount of independence granted to local stations. They should work with partners including provincial public broadcasters, universities and museums to create informative and educational programming. They should work with arts and cultural organizations to deliver arts programming and with other public broadcasters around the world to supplement their current affairs programming.
As a 21st century public broadcaster, the focus should be on educational programming, current affairs, documentary and the arts and above all, the focus should be on content creation and not distribution or broadcasting.
So, it is disturbing that Stephen Harper wants to interfere in labour relations at the CBC. He should not be allowed to proceed but if the CBC continues down its current path the Collective Bargaining Agreement, any agreement, will cover fewer and fewer people every year and that is the greater concern.
]]>New Media to Old Media: Adapt or Perishtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.30037342013-04-03T17:05:46-04:002013-04-03T17:35:52-04:00Justin Beachhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/justin-beach/On the Media, so I was extremely disappointed by Bob Garfield's pointless rant in the Guardian. The piece, sadly titled, "Comment is free," was published on March 27 so it couldn't possibly be an April fools stunt. Garfield displayed a knowledge of one side of the (old) news industry but showed an ignorance of the landscape and the history of media, including the recent history of news media.
Among other things, Garfield referred to those who read news for free as "looters" and continues with:
"Here's all you need to know. Lucrative classified advertising has disappeared, thanks to Craigslist, and display advertising rates online are extremely low. That's thanks to the pesky law of supply and demand: there's an infinite amount of online content, and therefore an infinite amount of advertising inventory, and therefore prices are driven inexorably downward.
The resulting revenue can't sustain robust news organizations. The revenue can't even sustain feeble news organizations."
The above quote almost speaks for itself. Garfield says that there's an "infinite amount of online content" but somehow believes that the news industry, as a whole, is in danger.
He conveniently doesn't mention that the organization he works for, National Public Radio, has always been listener-supported (plus a small contribution from the government). Fortunately, even if all other news organizations fail, there are a variety of publicly funded and/or listener-supported radio and television services around the globe (including the CBC, BBC, ABC, PBS, etc.).
He ignores the fact that the corporate news agencies began to fail long before the rise of the Internet. For verification you can check Ben Bagdikian's The Media Monopoly which was originally published in 1983 or Project Censored which originally launched in 1976. Most news organizations long since stopped seriously investing in investigative reporting. This was clearly demonstrated by the corporate media's cheerleading for and complete failure to ask questions about the Iraq War.
For further evidence, watch a commercial newscast or read a newspaper. Take out the human interest (cat in a tree) stories, take out the celebrity gossip, the sports scores and weather report (which are easily obtainable from a variety of sources), take out the trivia, then take out the wire stories, rewritten press releases and stories that they got from Twitter and Facebook and you'll be left with not very much at all.
It is true that the Internet is changing the media, very rapidly but those who claim that it is "killing the media" or any part of it are generally those who haven't been able to adapt. Overall the music industry is still profitable and the film industry has never been more profitable. Exciting new business models have also emerged in both the music and film industries. The news industry has been slow to evolve but it is not dying. Investigative journalism, long neglected by corporate journalism, has found new life on the Internet and has been financially supported by users.
Anything that there is a demand for on the Internet, will exist on the Internet. If the old news media is unprofitable and disappears, it will be replaced by something new and probably better.
If nothing else, I wish Garfield and everyone else in the media would learn that ranting at the end user and calling the audience names changes nothing. Garfield can be excused for missing this. The music, film and television industries do not seem to understand this yet either. To the best of my knowledge though it has never helped a single individual, company or industry to squeeze an extra dollar out of the Internet.]]>How to Replace Record Labelstag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.29420772013-03-25T11:32:14-04:002013-03-25T12:10:08-04:00Justin Beachhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/justin-beach/reported this week that doctors have urged Morrissey to stop touring. The singer also apparently feels that record labels aren't interested in him because of his age: "[Major record labels] are only interested in very young people who will fly by and ask for nothing in return."
The odd thing is that none of this should be a concern for Morrissey. Kristen Hersh, of Throwing Muses fame, maintains her solo work and two bands (Throwing Muses and 50 ft Wave) through her fan funded Strange Angels program.
The truth is that if Hersh can do it, and Palmer can do it then surely Morrissey can do it. Even if he can't tour, he could live stream shows from wherever he happens to be and fans would pay to watch. He could get new albums crowdsourced and/or simply sell music online. If he doesn't want to do it himself he could always hire someone to run his online presence.
The primary function of record labels has always been production, publicity and distribution. The labels are no longer needed for production or distribution and Morrissey no longer needs publicity. This isn't rocket science. In fact Morrissey's apparent lack of knowledge of the internet combined with this tweet from Amanda Palmer made me wonder why established music stars all running "labels" of their own?
If Kristin Hersh and Amanda Palmer can sell their own music online, surely they could also draw attention to less established acts. If Palmer created a website to sell no only her own music, but also the music of less establish acts who she endorsed, those acts would sell more music and get far more attention than they would on their own.
Adding the work of 5-10 additional artists to her site would cost Palmer almost nothing, the artists in question would see an immense increase in sales and Palmer could take a small commission as compensation. So, assuming this would work for Amanda Palmer immagine what Morrissey, Prince, Madonna, Paul McCartney, Lady Gaga or Elton John could do?
This would effectively create Palmer's "village" where established acts could help younger acts along. This would help pay for their retirement, if they needed help, after they stopped playing and touring. Presumably some of the acts they helped would eventually become established themselves and could form virtual labels of their own. It sets up a cycle where there is a path to self sufficiency for new artists and a path to new revenue for older artists. In other words everyone, except the labels, wins.
One final note: If this works for musicians, there is no real reason why it shouldn't also work for authors and filmmakers.]]>3D Printing: The Most Disruptive Technology Yet?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.28344262013-03-08T17:40:59-05:002013-05-08T05:12:01-04:00Justin Beachhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/justin-beach/
"Well, maybe some objects. As we've pointed out here before, most consumer 3-D printers can only work with a limited range of materials, and are far from able to perform the sophisticated manufacturing processes that lead to many of our favorite products."
That is true, but somewhat short sighted. We know that in 2013 new technologies develop incredibly quickly. Just look at the cell phone or the computer as examples. Both moved incredibly rapidly from large, slow, expensive machines with few functions to small, fast, affordable and incredibly multi-functional in a matter of a few decades. It is likely that 3D printing will evolve even more rapidly both because of the promise of the technology to improve lives and because new players from countries like China and India will increase the intensity and pace of competition.
Even now 3D printers can create a wide range of products the major challenge lies in making those technologies realistically affordable for consumers.
Orcutt also points out that:
"...the catalogue of 3-D-printable objects is small, especially when compared to the trove of music that became available for free thanks to MP3s and file sharing."
That is true, for now but again give it time. I don't believe that, as of today, most people even know what a 3D printer is. As the technology spreads and evolves so will the number of 3D printed objects.
As far as the Napster-fication goes, it will not be quite like Napster. For a time I expect that people will share designs for Nike shoes, Apple iPhones and Toblerone candy bars and the inevitable law suits that go with such things but that will be short lived. File sharing, after all, is not what was disruptive for music or movies. What was disruptive was the lowering of the barriers to entry to almost zero.
As far as I can tell from the various data gathered on file sharing and the financial information of various industries, what happened was that the number of players in the marketplace increased exponentially. File sharing made an easy scapegoat because you cannot sue people over increased competition. Currently there is more music being produced and there are more films being made than at any point in history. Both industries are both enjoying healthy and rising profits. Some of the players have changed, some formerly successful companies and individuals have done poorly and some new players have done incredibly well but that is not a harbinger of doom for an industry.
Roughly the same thing will happen when file sharing is applied to physical objects especially when combined with the open source movement. Currently the barriers to entry for manufacturing are incredibly high. You must build or hire a factory and mass produce the object you want to manufacture. When you can design an object and make just one at a time just about everyone can and will get into the game, at least to some extent. The number of people who like to tinker, to some extent on something (ranging from engines to cookies) is vast compared to the number of people with the skills to make music or films.
The open source movement has been very successful, primarily in software. Projects like Linux and Firefox have not only provided free software to millions but have been improved upon year over year by people who like to tinker with code. They have also forced commercial software companies to step up their game in order to compete with free.
Now if we apply open source and 3D printing to other areas, the implications are obvious. For example, if all of the people who like to tinker with engines start building and designing, then share their ideas and try to improve on one another's work they can probably come up with something that would rival any current auto manufacturer. The same example could easily be applied to home appliances, clothing design, furniture, electronics, recipes, household cleansers, personal grooming products and nearly everything else you might buy in a store. The need to "share files" or steal the "intellectual property" of existing companies will be short lived.
When free is an option for all consumer goods it will have a greater disruptive impact than anything since, at least, the industrial revolution. When it happens it will not be music, film or book publishing that will be impacted it will be manufacturing, shipping, retail and, any and all industries that are closely tied to such activities (advertising for example).
How disruptive it might be, or what the social implications might be is difficult to predict this far out from the event. However, in the world of science fiction, 3D printing is similar in concept to the replicators of Star Trek. In Gene Roddenberry's fictitious universe culture on Earth had evolved beyond the desire to accumulate material possessions, had no poverty and had done away with currency entirely. In stands to reason that in a world where anyone can simply "print" anything they want that the desire to accumulate material possessions would greatly diminish, otherwise everyone would be a "hoarder" of epic proportions. It is not only possible but obvious that economics would look very different than they do now in a world where the making, moving, buying, selling and servicing of "stuff" is not much of a concern.]]>Was Wikileaks the Root of Aaron Swartz's Problems?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.25237932013-01-22T17:22:00-05:002013-03-24T05:12:02-04:00Justin Beachhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/justin-beach/Mashable, Aaron Swartz may have been a source for Wikileaks:
"In a series of tweets, Wikileaks claimed Saturday that late Internet activist and hacker Aaron Swartz was an ally and possible source for the organization.
It also disclosed that Swartz, who committed suicide last week, was "in communication" with founder Julian Assange during 2010 and 2011."
Add to that the revelation that, in the course of the investigation into Swartz's activities MIT handed documents not to the Justice Department or the FBI but to the Secret Service.
So we have a young man who used a computer network, at a school he did not attend, to download academic papers which he was accused of planning to distribute. In response the Secret Service gets involved and federal prosecutors seek up to 35 years in prison? Even the most conservative individual, who considered what Swartz did reprehensible, would have to call that a overreaching and disproportional response. That is unless there was more to the story.
The US Government's response to Wikileaks has been nothing less than rabid. They have gone so far as to classify the organization as an enemy of the United States (for the crime of spreading information about government in a free society.) The UN has called the treatment of (confirmed leaker) Bradley Manning "cruel and inhumane." There is little doubt that they will pursue Julian Assange until the day he dies and there was a massive international effort involving governments and private corporations toprevent donations to Wikileaks.
If looked at in light of the US vendetta against Wikileaks their extreme overreaction to Aaron Swartz 'copyright violations' involving academic journals suddenly makes sense. It is, in fact, the only way it makes any sense.
]]>A Teacher's Porn Star Past Shouldn't Be Grounds for Firingtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.24987972013-01-17T16:30:05-05:002013-03-19T05:12:01-04:00Justin Beachhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/justin-beach/Stacie Halas starred in pornographic movies. According to her attorney, she did this because of financial problems. She went on to become an accredited science teacher, but was fired from her job at a public school in Oxnard, Calif. when it was discovered she used to appear in pornography. On Friday, January 11 a three-judge panel unanimously denied Halas's appeal and upheld the firing.
Halas has committed no crime; there is a huge difference between being a sex worker and a sex offender. Pornography, so long as it does not involve children, has been repeatedly protected by U.S. courts as a form of free expression. So, in effect, Halas has lost a government job because of her past legal speech. What's more she has lost her job at a time when California has repeatedly said it has a huge shortage of teachers, especially math and science teachers.
"Although her pornography career has concluded, the ongoing availability of her pornographic materials on the Internet will continue to impede her from being an effective teacher and respected colleague."
In 2013 this seems to an unreasonable standard. Because of the Internet, virtually anything anyone has ever done will now have "ongoing availability" forever.
"[Halas] had hoped to set a precedent for people looking to escape an embarrassing past, but a three-judge commission was unanimous in its decision. They said Halas, 32, was continually deceitful about her past."
That Halas was less than forthcoming about her past should have had no bearing on the decision. If she had been "deceitful about her past" as a bartender or a musician, would that have justified removing her from her position as a science teacher? No, it's obvious that it's the nature of the past work that cost Halas her job, and it's also obvious that that past work was both legal and constitutionally protected.
It seems to me that this is a case for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Allowing an individual to lose a government job because of past legal work, or because of past legal expression, is a dangerous precedent. It is, in a way, similar to the blacklisting of suspected communists in the mid-20th century. Add to that that if a person can't reinvent themselves after doing a completely legal job, what hope is there for employment for the 7 million Americans in prison or on parole?
]]>"Rock N Roll Mamas:" The Art of Mothering on a Tourbustag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.22015932012-11-29T17:05:40-05:002013-01-29T05:12:02-05:00Justin Beachhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/justin-beach/ Rock N Roll Mamas is a new documentary that tells the story of three mothers who maintained their musical careers while raising children. These are not women like Madonna or Beyonce who have an entourage and travelling day care providers. They are indie musicians, from the DIY school.
For six years, director Jackie Weissman followed Kristen Hersh (Throwing Muses, 50 Foot Wave), Zia McCabe (Dandy Warhols), hip hop artist Ms. Su'ad and their children. According to Hersh these are her "only home movies." Weissman says that she began the project with the hope of better understanding how to balance her family life with her creative endeavours.
What she found was that there are no easy answers and that everyone, regardless of their career is just doing the best they can.
"I thought the thesis would be that these strong women are a great example because they can do it all; but after filming them over the last six years, I saw that no one, not even strong women, can do everything well... Instead of doing it all perfectly, these women struggle and make mistakes but persevere as they strive to live their lives on their own terms -- and this is why they set a great example. Celebrity or not, ultimately all women must labour with the stadium-sized challenges of parenting. ROCK N ROLL MAMAS' new thesis, or "mamafesto," is that all moms who get through the day-to-day doing the best that they can are "rock stars."
Rock N Roll Mamas is expected to hit festivals in 2013, you can find out more, and watch a trailer at the website rocknrollmamas.com and stay updated about when and where it is playing by liking the Facebook Page and/or following on Twitter @rockmamafilms.
]]>Is a Free Education Your Next Download?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.21760362012-11-23T12:02:51-05:002013-01-23T05:12:01-05:00Justin Beachhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/justin-beach/
Just as students, seemingly, throughout North America and Europe are reaching their breaking point with constantly rising tuition and fees, punitive student debt and an economy that offers few professional level jobs in most industries the Internet is dealing a broadside to that system.
Coursera and iTunes University have offered free courses for several years. Many of these courses though were simply free lectures and perhaps some supplemental material. It's great for learning for the love of learning but not a real threat to any university. As all things do though, free courses evolved. Many of those courses now offer various kinds of certificates. There are even ongoing attempts to create (nearly) free online universities with full degree programs.
The latest blow to academia though comes in the form of free textbooks for students attending existing bricks and mortar universities. According to MIT Technology Review, textbook prices have been going up at three times the rate of inflation since the 1980s. Boundless.com has found a way around the high price of textbooks. When a student searches a textbook title on Boundless, the site examines the books table of contents and then crawls the internet for public information on the topic. It assembles that information into an electronic book which covers the same topics as the textbook. It may not be exactly the same, but should be similar enough to give students the information they need.
For example (from Tech Review):
In the case of Mankiw's Principles, Boundless offers a stripped-down text covering the same core economic concepts. Mankiw is a snappy writer who starts off his chapter on taxes with an anecdote about Al Capone. Boundless's version reads more like a reference text, but its organization closely apes that of Mankiw's. Both have 36 chapters and even share the same first sentence: "The word economy comes from the Greek word oikonomos, which means one who manages a household."
The company is currently being sued by several large college publishers. You would think that being in academic publishing, they would be a bit smarter or at least learn from history. Suing someone has been the almost totally ineffective, knee jerk reaction of the music and film industries as well. It is highly doubtful that publishers will be able to make the case that scanning a table of contents is the same as copyright infringement. A book is, or at least should be, more than a list of the topics it covers.
It was inevitable that the Internet, which has changed all publishing, would change academic publishing. It was inevitable that the information age would change education and anyone currently paying for higher education or paying off the debts from it will tell you that it has been ripe for change for a long time. It is time for academia to answer the 'dinosaur or mammal' question.
]]>Most People Only Read the Grabby Headline...tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.21413132012-11-16T12:35:21-05:002013-01-16T05:12:01-05:00Justin Beachhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/justin-beach/National Post on November 15 provides an example of how a completely factual news story can be misleading, with potentially dire consequences.
As late as June of this year 63 per cent of U.S. Republicans polled still believe that Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction. In September of 2011, 10 years after the events of 9/11, 15 per cent of Americans believed that Iraq was directly involved in the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. To people who know better these beliefs are baffling. No credible media outlet has ever reported that WMDs were found and there has never been any evidence of Iraqi involvement in 9/11.
Part of the problem may very well lie in how thoroughly people read or watch the news. People are busy and many do not devote much time to the news. They may simply read or hear a headline, they may only read the first paragraph of a story. Journalists know that this is true. In a written news story, only a fraction of the people who read the first paragraph will read the last paragraph. That is why news is written the way it is.
The traditional model for writing a news story is called the inverted pyramid. Using this structure the information is organized in order of importance. The most important parts of the story are at the top and less important details are filled in at the end.
When 9/11 first happened there was speculation about Iraqi involvement, though no evidence for this was ever found. When the War in Iraq started there were many stories about "possible" WMD finds, though no actual weapons were ever found. However, in an effort by media outlets to grab readers and/or viewers the fact that there were no WMDs or that there was no evidence of Iraqi involvement in 9/11 may have been pushed down past the point where casual readers would have noticed.
Take, for example, an Associated Press story in the National Post: The story is titled "Iran could have enough uranium for a nuclear weapon in three months: Officials" might lead some to believe that Iran is three months from having a bomb. Having enriched uranium and having a nuclear warhead are two very different things, but it is unclear how much of the population knows that.
The opening paragraphs of the story, where the most important information should go, certainly do nothing to dispel the idea that Iran almost has the bomb:
Iran is on the threshold of being able to create weapons-grade uranium at a plant it has heavily fortified against Israeli attack, diplomats told the Associated Press on Thursday, calling into question an Israeli claim that Iran had slowed its nuclear time table.
One of three diplomats who discussed the issue said Iran was now technically ready within days to ramp up its production of 20 percent enriched uranium at its Fordo facility by nearly 700 centrifuges. That would double present output, and cut in half the time it would take to acquire enough of the substance needed to make a nuclear weapon, reducing it to just over three months.
It is not until the last sentence of the fifth paragraph that the following vital bit of information is included: "They say that Tehran is believed to be years away from mastering the technology to manufacture a fully operational warhead." This seems to be an important bit of information. It says to the reader "this is something worth watching but there is nothing to be alarmed about at the moment." Of course alarming people sells more papers.
In the United States and Canada violent crime has been declining steadily for some time. You would never know that from watching network news though.
The phrase "If it bleeds it leads" describes a common, even pervasive, approach to commercial news where the most horrific, violent stories of the day are given centre stage. This approach creates unnecessary fear amongst the public, but it also works if you're trying to sell papers or grab viewers. Everyone complains about 'rubber-necking' but if you get near an accident on the freeway it appears that everyone stops to look.
In the case of crime the consequences may be increased alarm sales, increased attendance at self defense classes, a reluctance to go out at night, a general paranoia about your neighbours and increased support for police and prisons. In the case of Iran and nuclear weapons though the results could be far more dire. In the lead up to the U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq the American media did a poor job of asking questions and delivering factual information. As the war hawks begin to turn their gaze on Iran there is a danger of it happening again.
War is not an acceptable price to pay for newspaper sales and ratings. It is vital in cases like this that journalists and editors remember the public service aspect of their profession and deliver timely, accurate information about what is going on. For the casual news consumer, many of whom stopped reading this after the first few paragraphs, it is a good idea to carefully read the entire story when it comes to important issues.]]>American Politics Are All Shook Uptag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.20906862012-11-08T12:46:28-05:002013-01-08T05:12:01-05:00Justin Beachhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/justin-beach/
The last time this happened was in 1980 when Ronald Reagan was elected and the United States shifted to the right. Since that time we've seen the rise of Fox News and talk radio, the Republican "revolution" in congress in 1994, the Presidency of George W. Bush and the war on terror. Tuesday's election marked the end of that era.
Republicans, desperate to regain power, threw everything they had at President Obama. There was subtle, and more overt, racism. There were scare tactics and appeals to jingoism. Attempts were made to label Obama as a communist, a muslim and even an illegal immigrant. Conservative candidates and pundits warned of economic collapse, mass un-employment, Sharia law in the United States and muslim nations with nuclear weapons. Wealthy individuals and corporations threw billions of dollars into Romney's coffers and none of it worked.
Americans voted for the African-American President they had elected four years earlier. They voted for the President who had implemented national health care, the President who had allowed gays to openly serve in the military and endorsed gay marriage. They voted for the President who ran on increasing taxes, for those who could afford the increase. All of this would have been unthinkable less than a decade ago.
To reinforce the point voters in Maine, Maryland and Washington voted to allow same sex marriage. Voters in Washington and Colorado voted to legalize marijuana outright and Massachusetts voted to allow medical marijuana. Voters in Florida rejected a ban on public funding for abortions and voters in California appear to have voted to increase their own taxes to improve education in that state.
Voters in Wisconsin, the home state of Paul Ryan, elected Tammy Baldwin. She becomes the first openly gay Senator in U.S. history. In Puerto Rico voters passed a referendum asking to become the 51st U.S. state and Obama and the Democrats could win new friends and, possibly, additional seats in the House and Senate by granting that request.
The ground has definitely shifted and liberals and Democrats will have ample opportunity to build on these gains. Republicans have to reinvent themselves. The tactics and issues that have worked for them for more than three decades have failed. Republicans, at present, must take positions and make statements in order to win primaries that prevent them from winning in general elections. The only obvious way around this is to run more moderate candidates and risk losing the support of social conservatives, evangelical Christians and Tea Party supporters. When combined those three groups make up a substantial part of current Republican voters.
The day after the election, despite clear signals that America is not socially conservative, those factions are threatening to drag the party even further to the right. To make matters worse, after pumping billions of dollars into Republican coffers with no significant gains, potential donors may not be as generous until the party can find a winning formula again.
Unless they waste their momentum or do a horrible job of governing in the near term, the Democrats should be able to make significant gains in Congress in 2014. In 2016 the next Democratic nominee will take to the campaign trail flanked by Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, two popular and influential former presidents with a gift for fundraising. The Republican nominee will have little to counter with unless it's George W. Bush, same sex marriage supporter Clint Eastwood and his talking chair.
Democrats and progressives have a rare opportunity to permanently shift the debate on several key issues. It is not a free pass though. Democrats have to be bold in their thinking and propose real solutions, not simply pander to key constituencies. They have to be decisive and persuasive without going too far too fast. Republicans and conservatives, particularly those in the House of Representatives will attempt to obstruct them every step of the way. Conservative pundits and activists will do their best, as always, to frighten and intimidate the electorate.
It will not be easy, but it is a rare opportunity. America is at a crossroads, more divided than ever and trying to decide what kind of nation it wants to be now that it is no longer the world's lone superpower. The hands of historians around the world are poised over their keyboards waiting to see if Obama and his party can find a way forward.]]>Oshawa Must Put the "No" in Ethanoltag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.17933622012-08-20T17:37:51-04:002012-10-20T05:12:04-04:00Justin Beachhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/justin-beach/NIMBYism which motivates my opposition. No one should have an ethanol plant in their community, particularly not on the lakeshore, and mere feet from the city's largest park and public swimming area.
Ethanol is not "green," it is not an environmental solution to anything. This is particularly true of corn-based ethanol. As National Geographicpointed out in 2006, corn-based ethanol produces only slightly more energy than it takes to produce it. Ethanol plants also have a serious environmental impact on the areas where they are operated, though no environmental impact study was done in the case of Farmtech's proposed Oshawa plant.
In addition to the negative environmental impacts, ethanol creates another problem. It contributes to increasing food prices and food shortages. Recently the United Nations urged the United States to suspend ethanol production to fend off a looming food crisis. With most of U.S. croplands experiencing serious drought and Ontario's corn crop in jeopardy, increasing ethanol production has to potential to drive up food prices without reducing energy consumption or greenhouse gasses. Those food prices increases, by the way, extend far beyond corn.
Clearly the public costs of ethanol production is too great to justify the 50 permanent jobs that the plant is supposed to create.
That is not the only problem with the proposed plant though. The other problem is obvious cronyism. The decision to build the plant was made, behind closed doors, by Conservative Party members, for the benefit of Conservative Party donors with the Oshawa public and the Oshawa city council in opposition. In 2011, Oshawa-Whitby MP Jim Flaherty said that the decision on whether or not to approve the plant was between the city and the port authority. However, five months later Flaherty himself chose, Gary Valcour, the president of Flaherty's own Oshawa-Whitby riding association to head that port authority. That riding association also includes Tim O'Connor, brother of Dan O'Connor the president of Farmtech Energy Corporation, the company that applied to build the plant. Tim O'Connor is also a former board member of the board of directors of Farmtech and served as campaign director for Flaherty's wife, MPP Christine Elliott.
All charges of cronyism are, of course, dismissed out of hand by Flaherty and the Conservatives. According to Flaherty he was not involved in the decision to go ahead with the ethanol plant. Even if all of that is taken at face value though it does not mean that the federal government cannot intervene to stop the plant or, at the very least, demand a environmental assessment be done.
When they first came to power Stephen Harper, Jim Flaherty and the Conservative Party of Canada promised to deliver power to the grass roots. They promised, never delivered, reforms that would put power back in the hands of ordinary people. However, in 2012, Jim Flaherty is willing to throw up his hands and claim impotence when the wishes and best interests of his constituents come directly into conflict with a branch of the federal government (a branch that is part of his portfolio).
He is willing to look the other way on a decision that compromises the safety and wellbeing of the people who elected him, when that same decision financially benefits personal friends. Under the circumstances, it is safe, without a touch of cynicism to ask serious question and even to assume the worst until some reasonable answers are given or concrete actions are taken.]]>A Modern Approach to the Olympics: Have Multiple Cities Host Instead of Onetag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.17676692012-08-13T10:08:30-04:002012-10-13T05:12:11-04:00Justin Beachhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/justin-beach/Toronto Star yesterday discussed the possibility of the "first binational Olympics." This is both a wonderful and a terrible idea.
It is a terrible idea because it is a terrible idea for any modern city to host the Olympics. The price tag alone should cause the mayor of any city to run screaming. According to the Guardian the London Olympics cost more than 11 billion British pounds (roughly $17 billion Canadian). Toronto's entire operating budged for 2012 was $9.4 billion and even with Buffalo's participation, the cost is too high and the conventional wisdom that the games pay for themselves is debatable at best.
It is a terrible idea for Toronto in particular for a variety of reasons. Toronto, generally, is difficult to navigate, crowded and has no room to expand roads and thoroughfares. The G20 though should serve as an example of why the Olympics in Toronto is a bad idea. The G20, after all, was a very small event compared to the Olympics. The Olympics, the costs associated with them and the negative impacts on the host city's poor always bring out protesters and the people of Toronto like to protest. The protests would obviously be countered by notoriously heavy handed Olympic security.
If nothing else came out of the G20, we learned that the Toronto Police, along with their counterparts in the Ontario Provincial Police and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) are completely unprepared to handle large international events. At least they were unprepared to do so in a way that respects public safety and civil rights. If security for the Olympics is extra heavy handed and tries to do things like enforce the rights of Olympic sponsors, Toronto could look more like a war zone than an Olympic host city before the games are over.
If anyone on the International Olympic Committee is reading this, please don't even bother to read Toronto's application.
I did say though that the idea of a "binational Olympics" was both a wonderful and a terrible idea.
Although not much of a sports fan, or of the games as they stand, I have great respect for the Olympians themselves. The Olympic Games, ideally, are supposed to be about the world coming together, to promote peace and understanding. They are supposed to be about young people, who have trained their entire lives, pitting their skills against the best athletes in the world. All of that though is being lost behind a cloud of multi-billion dollar budgets, Draconian sponsorship rules, inadequate media coverage and police state security.
It seems to me that the best way to put the focus back where it belongs is to break up the Olympics. This isn't ancient Greece. We have airplanes and telecommunications now. Break up the location of the games themselves, break up the sponsorship deals and break up the media coverage.
Allow cities to bid on specific events that they already have facilities for. Allow sponsors and media companies to bid on specific events as well. This would reduce the cost, the impact on the cities themselves and the need for the military to be involved in security.
With events in different locations, everyone in the world should be able to see at least some events live in a time zone that matches their own. With different media companies covering different events, nearly everything should be available to the people who want to watch and with companies sponsoring specific events rather than the Olympics as a whole, sponsors would take a back seat to the athletes again.
All of this would reduce the income of the Olympics but it would also dramatically lower the costs. It would make the Olympics a truly international event rather than a local one being watched by the world. The Olympics Games would take place all over the world, simultaneously. The focus would be on dozens of international cities rather than one and the games would once again be about the world coming together and about athletes pushing themselves to be the best in the world.
Maybe one day Toronto, along with Buffalo can host Olympic hockey or speed skating. Maybe Toronto can host Olympic baseball or basketball, while Las Vegas hosts boxing, Athens hosts track and field, and Moscow hosts swimming. The key, I think, is to stop trying to make modern cities fit the Olympics and make the Olympics fit the modern world.]]>A Vegetarian's Defence of The Seal Hunttag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.17081762012-07-31T20:30:40-04:002012-09-30T05:12:04-04:00Justin Beachhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/justin-beach/taken on the seal hunt as a pet cause.
First, his position smacks of PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals). Maher probably isn't aware of this but, in most of Canada PETA has a reputation rivaled only by the Westboro Baptist Church.
Some don't like PETA for their blatant and repeated racism. Other people dislike them for their attacks on people who are overweight, their patriarchal celebration of thin, nude, often abused women and the implication that meat is somehow the difference between the two.
Personally I do not even consider PETA a credible organization.They claim to be supporters of animal rights, but they do not get involved in issues around disappearing habitat, or protection of endangered species. They do not even seem interested in the thousands of animals euthanized at animal shelters daily. What I see is an organization that shows pictures of cute animals to wealthy, gullible young people and rakes in donations. I have been a vegetarian since 1991 but, thanks to PETA's influence, I now tell people that I don't eat meat, except for seal.
All of that though is about the organization, not the issue. On the issue of the seal hunt, Maher is simply ignorant. Seals are hunted for food, fur, fat and bone in parts of the world where very little agriculture is possible and where very few things live. They have been a part of the Inuit diet for thousands of years, at a minimum. The people who hunt seal "commercially" primarily in Labrador also have a long history with the seal. Most of the individuals involved come from families that have been hunting seal since the dawn of North American settlement and whose families have earned their living from the sea for longer than that.
In the areas of the world where seals are hunted there are few, perhaps no, viable alternatives. There are limited economic opportunities and few other food sources. Food imported from southern regions, by small planes when weather permits, is prohibitively expensive. With "$105 cases of water, $28 heads of cabbage and $55 boxes of infant formula," a week's groceries might cost as much as a seal skin coat.
The fact that seals have been killed for hundreds of years is no excuse for continuing to kill them. For thousands of years, people held slaves and treated women and children like property, but tradition is no justification for cruelty.
I agree with the sentiment, tradition does not justify cruelty, however there is absolutely no basis to make a comparison between the situation Maher describes and the seal hunt. In the case of slavery, there was the option of paying people for their labour. In the case of treating women and children as property there was the option of simply not doing that. For the people who hunt seal there are few viable options short of the government paying them a substantial salary to not hunt seal. Maher's comparison of the seal hunt to slavery is simply another example of the kind of over-the-top, ignorant rhetoric that has caused PETA to be vilified, even among many vegetarians and animal advocates.
The reality is that the seals being hunted are not an endangered species and are not being hunted in numbers that might cause them to become endangered. I find it sad that someone with the profile and obvious intelligence of Maher has chosen this issue to become vocal about. Personally I think America's endless wars, culture of violence, domestic and international human rights record, the shredding of its constitutional protections, its vast disparity of wealth, growing poverty rate and record rates of incarceration seem more worthy of attention.
If it is animals that he is concerned about Maher might want to get involved with organizations working to preserve habitat and protect endangered species. He might work to raise funds for shelters and sanctuaries or simply encourage people to spay and neuter their pets. He might even decide to work on global warming, as an issue because it poses a greater risk to seal populations than hunting does. It is his decision to make, obviously, but choosing the seal hunt as an issue from his home in Los Angeles simply makes him look like another out-of-touch, over privileged and entitled Hollywood celebrity.
I personally have never been to Nunavut, or Labrador. They are not easy places to get to and I would need a good reason to go. However, before I asked the people there to dramatically change their lifestyles, traditions, occupations, incomes and diets I would feel obligated to go, to meet the people and to talk to them about the seal hunt first. I would encourage Bill Maher to do the same.]]>Catholic Schools Are Not Free to Bully Gaystag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.15750512012-06-08T16:02:14-04:002012-08-08T05:12:10-04:00Justin Beachhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/justin-beach/passed its controversial anti-bullying law. The law, among many other things, forces Ontario's Catholic schools to allow Gay Straight Alliances (GSAs) and allow them to be called GSAs. Response from religious conservatives was swift, they claimed that the bill infringes on religious freedom and the rights of parents to raise their children.
Although I am agnostic, I have contemplated during discussions over this bill where the rights of a child start and the rights of a parent end. What happens when religious freedom is pitted against other fundamental human rights? The answer, once I found it, was really quite simple. If we were discussing any religion other than Christianity, the answer for most, including anti-gay Catholics, would be easy.
There are religions and religious sects in the world that do not believe that girls should be educated. There are groups that still view women as, essentially, property, and Ontario parents would never stand for those views being upheld in schools or by the legislature.
There are groups that believe that certain ethnic or religious groups are inferior and groups that believe in the caste system, that the social class of their parents should limit individuals. In fact, at various points in history, Christianity has firmly endorsed all of these beliefs.
In all cases, Christianity has been forced to change these views due to societal pressure, not by internal debate. It goes without saying that none of these beliefs, regardless of any questions of religious freedom or parental rights, would be acceptable in Ontario in 2012. This is especially true of these beliefs being espoused in a publicly-funded school system.
The reality is that Catholic schools created an unsafe and unwelcoming environment for gay students. While there is evidence to support this the only evidence that is really needed is that gay students, or a sufficient number of them, did not feel safe or welcome.
While some wanted the Ontario government to allow the Catholic school boards to try again to find a way to make schools safer within the confines of Catholic teaching, the reality is the Catholic Church does not have a strong track record when it comes to tolerance and human rights.
While the church would like us to believe that witch hunts, inquisitions and neutrality on the Holocaust are part of ancient history and a different church, actual evidence offers little hope. Corporal punishment is synonymous with most people's impressions of Catholic schools. Child abuse by clergy, and the subsequent cover-ups of that abuse continue to make headlines and, while some have said that Bill 13 is the equivalent of residential schools, those schools were run by Catholics and other Christian churches.
Currently the Catholic church and other religious conservative groups continue to lobby worldwide against gay rights. Given the track record and their views on homosexuality, it should come as no surprise that elected representatives felt the need to intervene and be very specific about what was required.
So, is the Ontario government interfering with religious freedom and the rights of parents? It could certainly be framed that way, but the teaching of hate, bigotry and intolerance is irresponsible to the point of being abusive. It is damaging to children who will live as adults in a tolerant, diverse, multicultural society.
Teaching gay children that they are somehow inferior or immoral because of the way they were born, in the name of religion or otherwise, is also abusive. Regardless of your religious or cultural beliefs, if you are raising your children on hate, bigotry and intolerance, in my opinion the government can and should intervene.
While they may not be able to vote yet, children too have rights. In cases where the religious beliefs of a parent come into conflict with a child's basic rights to safety, a quality education, freedom from prejudice and free association with their peers, the rights of the child should win out every time.
Every person in Ontario is entitled to believe anything they choose to believe. They do not, however, have the right to use those beliefs to cause harm to or interfere with the basic, guaranteed human rights of others who do not share the same beliefs.]]>Dear Toronto Police, Stop Blaming Victims of Sexual Assaulttag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.10298052011-10-27T09:30:07-04:002011-12-27T05:12:02-05:00Justin Beachhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/justin-beach/ told a York University safety forum that women would reduce the risk of sexual assault if they avoided dressing "like sluts." These statements sparked an instant outcry, and on April 3 the first SlutWalk was held in Toronto. Since that time, SlutWalk has grown into an international movement to denounce victim-blaming in sexual assault. SlutWalks founders, Heather Jarvis and Sonya JF Barnett were named Utne Reader visionaries in 2011.
Despite all of this the Toronto Police Department seems to have learned nothing from the experience. According to reports, two students from the Toronto private high school Greenwood College were harassed on the way to school. An individual followed the girls and looked up their skirts. According to CNews, an Toronto police officer told the schools principle that "Students, especially females, should consider not wearing their school uniform when riding the TTC (public transit system)." Sadly the school principal, Allan Hardy, agreed and relayed the officer's advice to parents via email.
In 2011, it is many years past the point where any of the blame for sexual assault or sexual harassment should be pinned on the victim. It is the equivalent of telling victims of domestic violence that if they had dinner ready on time and stopped talking back they wouldn't have been beaten. Sexual harassment and violence, after all, occur even in countries where women are traditionally covered from head to toe. That victims are in any way responsible is not the kind of message that police should be sending to the community and is certainly not a lesson that should be taught in schools.
Although launching an international movement does not seem to have driven the point home for Toronto's police, an online petition is being circulated to attempt to reinforce this message. The petition, addressed to Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair, has gathered 1,000 signatures as of Monday night. It states that
"According to the U.S. Department of Justice, rape and sexual assault are crimes of violence and control that stem from a person's determination to exercise power over another. Neither provocative dress nor promiscuous behavior are invitations for unwanted sexual activity. Toronto police officers should know this, as they are public servants in charge of protecting city residents from sexual assault and harassment."
Hopefully this time Toronto's police will listen, if not the first annual SlutWalk will, no doubt, be there to remind them in the spring. ]]>