Why Michaëlle Jean Needs to Reject Harper's Request

Gov. General Michaelle Jean is, under Canada's system of government, the Queen's representative in Canada and the official head of state. Now it is time for the defining moment of her tenure as Governor General. Jean must decide how 'the Crown' feels about democracy and whether or not the Prime Minister is ultimately answerable to Parliament or to no one at all.

Jean, so far, has shown that she has a mind of her own, a sense of morality and a firm spine. Despite international criticism in May of this year Jean chose cultural sensitivity over optics when she ate with the inuit. She will need that spine again now to say no to the Prime Minister.

Today Stephen Harper asked the Governor General, yet again, to shut down Parliament. According to Harper this is because of the Vancouver Olympics, but it is laughable to think that any government anywhere would shut down democracy over a sporting event.

For over a year now Stephen Harper has been nothing more or less than cowardly. When opposition parties tried to form a coalition (a coalition that represented 67% of Canada) he lied to the Canadian people and said that it was unconstitutional, then he ran to the Governor General and had Parliament suspended. This time it's not over a coalition. This time there are serious questions about the Conservative government's handling of Afghanistan. He has again tried lying. He ran a smear campaign against Canada's diplomatic corps, he has illegally withheld documents and tried to hide behind the military (pretending that it was they and no his Government that were being accused.)

This time though lying, diversion and censorship didn't work so again he's running to the Governor General. Hiding behind the military didn't work so he's trying to hide behind the athletes. The Conservatives claim that Harper and Conservative Cabinet Ministers want to attend the games. It is a pathetic excuse. Not only is it not the real reason for asking for a suspension of Parliament but even if it was - Harper and his government have the most important job in Canada. They are supposed to be the stuards of democracy, they are supposed to be the representatives of the people, carrying out the people's business in Ottawa. I'm sure that there are many people, in many places, with far less important jobs who would like to but can't attend the Olympics because they have to work (or simply can't afford tickets.)

Michelle Jean must find the spine she displayed in May and say no to Stephen Harper this time. She must tell Harper and Canada and the World that Canada won't suspend democracy for a sporting event. She must also announce that the Prime Minister cannot simply call a three month time out because things aren't going his way. The job of Prime Minister is hard, and it was created by and is subject to Democracy. Harper must stop his campaign of lying, secrecy and censorship and he must stop asking the Queen to protect him from Parliament and the results of Democracy.

The popularity of the Monarchy is already slipping in Canada, it will get far uglier if the Queen's representative continues to offer a dictatorial Prime Minister shelter from the elected Parliament.

Carry On Baggage Isn't the Problem

The new airport restrictions on carry on baggage in response to the attempted bombing of a Detroit bound airliner are not going to do a thing, they are not really meant to. It's all a show designed to make people feel better. After all the bomb in question was not in anyone's carry on, it was in his underwear but having come to the conclusion that they didn't want to say or do anything related to searching people's underwear the airlines have decided on the carry on baggage sideshow.

What needs to happen, what really needs to happen, if the world ever finds a leader anywhere is we need to take serious measures designed to realistically solve some problems. International poverty, greenhouse gasses, pollution in general, sustainable development, the endless war in Iraq, the endless war in Afghanistan, the endless war on drugs, the constant turmoil throughout the middle east and Africa are all interrelated and it is working on these problems , not restricting carry on baggage that will ultimately reduce terrorism and solve many of our other woes to boot.

To do this though we need serious leaders who are willing to work to solve problems and not just supply window dressing. It is going to be hard, it is going to require compromise and (as most negotiations do) it will involve everyone accepting things that they aren't necessarily going to like.

Sadly there are no political leaders seriously working on this, not in North America, not in Europe and not in Asia. There haven't been any leaders seriously working on any of this for a long, long time and the longer it's all neglected, the longer people pretend that the problem is carry on baggage, the worse things are going to get.

How Not to Protest: Torch bearer knocked down by protester

I certainly have issues with the Olympics. I don't believe that it's worth the cost of hosting them and I certainly worry about issues of censorship that seem to follow them everywhere - whether it's China or Vancouver.

However there is a way to protest and a way not to, regardless of what you're protesting. Think of it of the perspective of the Milton woman who was knocked down by a protester today. The woman carrying the torch had applied to do so. She was, no doubt, overjoyed to be allowed to carry the torch. Each torch bearer only gets to carry it a short distance and it is a moment they remember for the rest of their lives. Does anyone really think that assaulting her in that moment makes a positive impression on anyone?



It is a bit like PETA who have abandoned science and reason and have become tasteless, cruel and even racist in their pursuit of animal rights. PETA as an organization is now bad for the cause of animal rights, and the actions of the protester today in Guelph are bad for any serious Olympic protest. They reduce any sympathy the public may have and diminish the chances that anyone will listen to the protester's point of view. Cruelty and injustice in the name of protest ultimately work against whatever you are trying to accomplish.

I hope the protester gets some time in jail to think about things and that she ultimately has the class to apologize to the woman she assaulted.

File Under Duh?: Overuse of Disinfectants Creates Superbugs

It's amazing how far simple common sense will carry you when it comes to medicine and science. I have become increasingly disturbed over the last 10-15 years as I've watched more and more disinfectant products hit the market. I've talked to people who spray everything with lysol, boil their children's toys to keep them disinfected, take disinfectant wipes with them everywhere and have hand sanitize strategically placed in their home, office, and car. To me the math always seemed obvious. Most sanitizers claim to kill 99.9 % of germs (or household bacteria, or whatever). When it comes to germs or bacteria 99.9% is a really terrible rate. If you consider that in any given area there are likely billions of bacteria (most of which are benign or even helpful) a 99.9% kill rate turns 10 billion bacteria into only 10 million (which immediately start reproducing). The other obvious problem is that while only one bacteria in 1,000 survive it will likely be the strongest, or best able to survive the disinfectant and it is these stronger bacteria which begin reproducing.

According to the Toronto Star scientists seeking to disprove this theory have found that it is essentially correct:

"Not only can some germs forge a resistance to antibiotics, but they can do it without being exposed to the antibiotics, given the help of a common cleaning agent, the study to be published in January found.

"We were hoping to find there wasn't such a link," lead author Dr. Gerard Fleming told the Star Monday. "As a scientist, it does scare me."

Bacteria for years has been known to develop a resistance to disinfectant and antibiotics. The scientists at the National University of Ireland took the research further to discover that disinfectant can help foster that resistance."

Yes, hygiene is important. Yes, you should wash your hands but trying to disinfect and clean everything, to keep your environment germ free, and trying to keep everything at a hospital level of cleanliness ultimately protects no one - quite the opposite actually.

Kudos to Librivox on 3000 Free Audio Books

I've been following Librivox for years now and it continually amazes me how far they've come. Librivox, for anyone who doesn't know is a Montreal based project that asks volunteers worldwide to read public domain books and turn them into free audio books.

As of Dec. 26, 2009 they have reached 3,000 titles. For details see librivox.org.

The Networks Are Scared, and They Should Be

There is a post on Inside the CBC about the transition to internet TV and how the networks (and cable companies) are running scared over who is going to control it. The sad thing is that it's too late. This is not news. It's not something that snuck up on them. It's something that anyone who has been paying attention knew was coming for years.

The current methods employed by the cable companies - traffic shaping, etc., will not hold. The cable and other internet providers are putting themselves in an adversarial position with the public by doing things like this and no company can hold up long in an adversarial position with their customers. The internet landscape in Canada will become more competitive and traffic shaping will eventually be banned. Content producers need to get used to a world where they compete directly, on a level playing field with all of the other content producers in the world. Networks and broadcasters of other people's content need to get used to being in a subordinate position to those producers. If you aren't producing your own, in house, high quality content then you are youtube (merely a content platform, not a producer). And all platforms and video sites need to be ready to compete with free, ad free file sharing services - like it or not, legal or not, they are here to stay (87% of the audience and climbing isn't going to pay for online content.)

As I said though, none of this is news. It has been readily apparent to anyone who has been paying attention that it was what was going to happen. The decisions made by broadcasters for the last decade should have been in preparation for this transition. If they did not prepare then there is no reason to have sympathy for them over it and no additional funds should be directed at them because of it. Any additional consumer fees or government subsidies should be directed at content producers not platforms and websites to carry content.

The Copenhagen Failure and the Problem with Following the US Lead

Well, the Copenhagen Conference is over and it went pretty much as I expected. Naturally Stephen Harper wouldn't do anything that would jeopardize the tar sands and when he says things like "we'll follow the US lead" what he really means is that "if the U.S. really wants to cut off it's primary oil supply, we'll talk." The problem with 'following the US lead' on anything, other than being disingenuous, is that the US is pretty close to finished for a long, long time. Back in 2007 I posted the following on Hugh McGuire's blog:

I think Chris is being overly optimistic.

The staggering personal debt of the average American is one part of it. Then you add in the the staggering Federal debt

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

which comes to more than 30k per person.

Medicare, medicaid and social security accounted for 39% of Federal Spending in 2000 (before the boomers started to retire). Combine that with the interest on that staggering debt and the military expenditures and soon the US Federal Government will be able to do no discretionary spending whatsoever. (don’t forget even if the US manages to get out of places like Iraq there is still the cost of caring for the thousands of wounded, many of whom are permanently disabled). At the same time the budget must be cut dramatically to avoid further escalation of debt and a larger percentage of the budget having to go to interest payments.

Now if you combine all of that with

- A country with a educational system that is basically not functioning, no health care system, collapsing national infrastructure and a wholly unhealthy environment

- A country designed around cars heading into an age where personal automobiles will be incredibly expensive to own and operate

- A country with an economy built on nothing (at least there are no major industries left that can’t easily be done anywhere).

- A country with rapidly diminishing natural resources in a world where (due to dwindling supplies and soaring demand) all natural resources, especially the non renewable variety are going to increase in price (that will unquestionably cause serious inflation). One point of special concern would be water – large parts of the US are now facing water shortages and there is no relief available for most of them without draining the great lakes.

- A country that (because of it’s debt) is under the diplomatic thumb of countries like China and Saudi Arabia (who hold vast amounts of that debt).

- A country that in 8 short years has spent most of it’s international good will and lost much of it’s diplomatic clout

- Lastly a country that will be hard hit by the effects of climate change because most of it’s major financial centers and most of it’s population are along the coasts.

On top of all of this you have a population that is largely in denial – that wants to get out of Iraq but beyond that doesn’t want serious change, and won’t consider electing anyone who even tells them there are serious problems – much less proposes solutions.

Put all of this together and I believe you have a recipe for collapse – not ‘the great depression’ but a more permanent and lasting collapse – essentially the same kind of collapse that the fall of the USSR brought to Russia.

I think all of that remains pretty accurate, most of it is has gotten worse. The US elected a President who made vague promises about 'hope and change' but they don't actually want any change. The US and their elected representatives have essentially shot down every proposal that might have improved anything and, in a recession caused by debt the US government has gone even deeper into debt ($39,356.90 per capita) and household debt has increased substantially since the recession started to more than 25,000 per capita. So between household and federal debt every single Amercian man, woman and child, young and old, employed or not is almost $65,000 US in debt and that number is going up by the hour. To make matters worse they have nothing to show for it. US infrastructure and US public institutions (social security, education, health care etc.,) are all on the verge of collapse.

To date China has been willing to fund that massive US debt so that they could continue to drain wealth and resources out of the US and so that they had a political trump card to play on the international stage against the US, but how long China will be willing to pour money into the US money hole is anyone's guess.

In short, we should not be 'following the US lead' on anything and should be very, very careful about any dependency on the US.

Electoral Reform and the Problems With the Parties on last night's the National

Last night on the At Issue Pannel portion of CBC's the National they included Rex Murphy with their regular panel and took questions sent in by viewers. They should do this far more often. I normally like the At Issue panel but last nights questions were particularly good. Unfortunately I can't embed the video but you can see it here:

http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/TV_Shows/The_National/At_Issue/ID=1361534451

I'd particularly recommend the section from 7:12 - 12:33 where they discuss electoral reform and the panel pretty unanimously endorse mandatory voting - which is a brilliant idea. There are many ridings where it would make no difference but if everyone, or nearly everyone voted and those votes continued to not count for much the cries for meaningful electoral reform would grow considerably louder.

They also discuss the parties individually and the unite the left suggestions. At one poing Andrew Coyne refers to the Conservatives as a "collection of office seekers without ideological underpinnings" (paraphasing) - sadly I think that the same is even more true of the Liberal Party. I honestly have no idea what the Ignatieff Liberal Party stands for except that they are "not Stephen Harper." I'm glad they are not Stephen Harper but it's not enough - Attilla the Hun, Hugo Chavez and Joseph Stalin were also 'not Stephen Harper.' It's simply not a platform.

Rex Murphy pointed out another problem witch is that the (again paraphrasing) 'core of the left is ideologically frozen in time.' This is also painfully true. As he points out many on the left are still fighting the battles of the 60's and 70's. Some of them are still fighting the battles of the 1920's labour movement. Before 'the left' can move forward there needs to be a rethink, an examination of current problems and a remaining of solutions to those problems.

Personally I think a guaranteed minimum income would be a good place to start - combined with a standard four day work week, a serious environmental policy that has a direct impact on corporations, governments and individuals, and a thorough reexamination of tax policy, the aformentioned electoral reform, corporate policy, regulation of the air waves (and our national bandwidth), arts and culture policy, ... I could go on for awhile.

All in all the panel managed to accurately define our national frustrations, the problems with all of our political problems, what is holding the left back and why our current government (and the Liberal government before it) seemed incapable of actually finding solutions to any serious problem.

Good job panel, more questions from the public please!

NxEW.ca Lessons to Date

I've had many blogs and web sites in the past and will have other ones in the future I'm sure. My current project NxEW.ca though has gotten a ton of attention lately. Started in March the crowdsourced Canadian music site has gone from zero to 180 contributors, has thousands of unique visitors per month, thousands of followers on twitter, thousands more on Facebook , a few thousand folks on Myspace and a few hundred subscribers to the RSS feed and has now been nominated for four Canadian Blog Awards. So far it has all cost a total of $40 CDN.

Five times in the last few weeks I've had conversations about how it was built and how the social media part happened. So here a brief lessons learned. Most of them are not what you'd think.

First of all, obviously, I had to find something there was a need for. In talking to people about music and music media I found that people on the West Coast felt that Ontario and Quebec got all of the attention, People in Ontario and Quebec felt that U.S. and other international artists got too much attention, people everyone else in Canada felt completely ignored. All of them felt that a small handful of Canadian artists got all of the Can -con attention. All of them were right.

So, that is, in essence, where it started. A site entirely and only about Canadian music where anyone from anywhere could contribute and talk about what they liked, what they were listening to and what was going on around them. That site now has contributors in a handful of cities in the US, England and Brazil who signed on to talk about Canadian music.

The first important lesson has to do with rules as in the rules that 'media' usually follows. It is important to remember that all rules are self limiting, so it's important to ask the question "What is this rule guarding against." and if the answer isn't a very good one, pitch it. In the case of NxEW we pitched, for example, the conflict of interest rules (as long as the information is accurate, it doesn't matter if there's a conflict of interest.) We decided not to compete with people but to work cooperatively with anyone we felt was doing good things for Canadian music. We dispensed with editors and style guides, assignments and deadlines. With nearly 200 people we run on a hodge podge of total anarchy and rough consensus.

The next important lesson is to focus on what you're trying to do and creating (or finding) good content that supports that goal, don't get distracted by the other things that people think you should spend your time on. The web site isn't fancy (I'm not a designer) I'm just aiming for functional and informative - no bells and whistles.

Some people will try to tell you that you need to spend time on Search Engine Optimization (SEO). Chances are you don't need to. SEO is the art of tricking search engines into giving you a higher ranking in their searches. Search engines are constantly trying to correct their software so that these tricks don't work, SEO people are constantly trying to find new ways to tweak search rankings. The reality is that if you have good content you will do fine with the search engines. Even with thousands of social media contancts and a few hundred direct subscribers the single largest source of traffic to NxEW.ca is Google. According to websitegrader.com NxEW.ca has a SEO ranking of 93 out of a possible 100 and I have, to date, spent about an hour on search engine optimization. You are far better off focusing your energies on creating good content than trying to tweak search engine results. SEO is, in most cases, a colossal waste of time and resources.

Then there is social media, social media is important, it's very important - most companies have no idea how important it is yet but I'll let you in on a secret: Social media is not hard. You don't really need a social media guru, you don't need someone with a background in marketing or advertising what you need is someone who

Has a basic familiarity with the internet, social media, and internet culture.

Has a deep and profound love for your product or service.

Likes people

and likes talking about your product or service and can do so in an interesting, informed and professional (if casual) manner.

Such a person will do you more good than most social media consultants, gurus and experts. A social media expert may get you more followers on Twitter, more Fans on Facebook etc., than the person I just described but they will likely not be as effective. Cranking up sheer numbers in social media is not hard. It is not hard because of the multitude of people who want alot of social media numbers - finding people who are genuinely interested in your product/service and what you have to say about it is much more difficult but those are the people you want. Having a million Twitter followers will do you no good at all if none of them are really interested in what you have to say.

I'll update I'm sure as things move forward, but since so many people have been interested in how exactly it was all managed I thought I'd lay out some observations.

The truth is that while it has been time consuming it has not been hard. It has not been hard primarily because I didn't make it hard. NxEW and it's volunteers didn't get in our own way with rules and hierarchies that didn't offer any benefit. We didn't worry about competing, we don't have any competitors. We do the best we can at what we do and cheer on and encourage others who are rowing in the same direction. Constantly trying to beat people who are similar to you is a waste of energies better put to improving yourself. We didn't worry about strategy, marketing, search engine optimization, etc., we just talked honestly about what we do and what we want to do and the social web responded positively.

With all of that said I'm very proud of our branding. The goose was/is a brilliant symbol. We get a ton of free advertising from migration alone.

the Harper Government: Is This Really Why the West Wanted In?

The refrain that we all heard from Alberta and a few other hot spots in Western Canada was 'the West wants in'. In 2006 they got in, at least in a minority way - but based on the damage done since the West got in, we're lucky that they've never gone farther than that.

What has the Conservative largely Western (Albertan) Government given us to date?

A cold war between Parliament and the Press

A perpetual attack on the rights of women

Lies about income trusts.

Lies about early election (he actually broke his own law and then walked away unscathed)

Lies about the Constitution.

Record defeceits.

An unrestrained Oil Sands Project that could make most of Alberta Uninhabitable.

Cuts to arts and culture programs

A weak tax credit instead of a strong child care plan

A weakened international reputation on human rights

All of this and of course a complete lack of transparency and accountability, he has refused to give Parliament documents they were legally entitled to, and have hidden every time things started to wrong. The Conservatives prorogued Parliament for the first time in Canadian history rather than face a vote they would lose. Now they want to prorogue Parliament for the second time in Canadian history because they are uncomfortable about the Afghan detainee issue, though they are saying it's for the Olympics (more lies.) They refuse to lead (or apparently do much of anything) on carbon emissions, despite the wishes of the overwhelming majority of Canadians. Hell, they frequently don't even show up for work.

In short this Government, the first Conservative Government with elements of the Reform/Alliance Party involved has been nothing short of greedy, sneaky, dishonest, incompetent, corrupt, short-sighted, mean spirited, lazy and arrogant. (Oddly they are just like the Conservatives before the Reform/Alliance movement.)

Is this really what the West wanted when they said the West Wants In?

Scott Brison's Christmas Card Draws Hate from (closeted) Bigots

Scott Brison's Christmas card is apparently drawing flack from the ignorant. Although it is not unusual for elected officials to send out cards with family photos on them, the card with Brison, his dog and his partner Maxime St. Pierre has caused multiple news outlets to shut down their comments sections because of bigoted hateful remarks.

20 years ago I think there were a great number of people who were homophobic out of pure ignorance. It was the natural - it's different so I don't like it response that humans tend to have to things. Most of those people though have calmed down and realized that other people's homosexuality poses no threat to them.

I have to believe though that anyone who is still homophobic today is homophobic because they are, themselves, gay and want to deflect suspicion by feigning hate. (Sadly some of these people are so deeply in the closet that this entire process is subconscious.)

While hate speech should certainly never go unchallenged, we also should not greet ignorance with ignorance. Challenge people who make homophobic remarks, but also understand that they are deeply psychologically damaged (or at least extremely conflicted) and mix your outrage with some pity.

For more on the whole controversy see the Toronto Star.

Report: Canadian Govt. Actively Defended Human Rights Abusers in Afghanistan

According to the Toronto Star a 2007 report by Richard Colvin indicates that the Government of Canada actually defended an Afghan governor who was specifically and personally accused of torture.

"OTTAWA–A former governor of Kandahar who is accused of personally torturing Afghans might have been removed from office as far back as 2006 if Canadian officials hadn't defended him, according to diplomatic memos that have never been made public by the Canadian government...Colvin's disgust that Canada would support a "known human-rights abuser" was palpable and formed the most incendiary paragraphs of the report. References to Khalid were entirely blacked out in the version of the report publicly released to the Military Police Complaints Commission."

Again, the only way we're going to find out what happened and who was responsible is if we get a public inquiry and the sooner the better.

That About Wraps It Up For Big Media: 87% Won't Pay Online

Via NewTeeVee: It appears that media organizations that are planning on pay per view, or pay per download as a significant part of their revenue stream are out of luck according to a poll conducted in the U.S. and 16 European countries. An entire generation has now grown up on free online content and the likelihood that anyone will start paying appears to be getting less all the time. It is also worth noting that, at this point, 33% won't accept online advertising either - so if media organizations want to keep that stream they had better start convincing the public that it's worthwhile.

Does that necessarily mean that there is no money to be made with content or that all professional media will go away? Not at all. In music, for example, there actually seems to be a resurgence in financial support on a variety of levels for independent artists and small labels. That though is a product of years of creating a relationship with the audience based on mutual respect and understanding. Other media - film, television, newspapers, major label music etc., have no such relationship. To an extent their relationship with their audience seems to be the opposite (a mutual lack of trust, respect and understanding.)

What this means though is that if the media giants of the last century are going to survive that time is running out. They have to adapt, dramatically and rapidly. Costs have to come down and production will have to be clever rather than flashy. Big media will have to renew their relationship with the audience and make it clear that the audience is in the superior position and advertisers will have to pay more than they currently do for ads that are less obtrusive.

Ten years from now it will not matter whether Canadian broadcasters get carriage fees or not. It is also clear that if today's big media companies fold it will have little impact. Humans have created media since our earliest days, if today's giants can't adapt they will be replaced by smaller and smarter companies, by community organizations and by amateur/volunteer organizations. All that we're really waiting to see is if today's media organizations want to survive. So far the answer has been no. - Last chance.

The Mural Vancouver Doesn't Want You To See

Via Art Threat: There isn't anything obscene about it, and it was on the side of a gallery that has been hosting murals for a decade however this particular mural apparently violates a Vancouver anti-graphitti law and therefore can't remain in place. Personally I thought that if you painted something yourself, on your own property, or asked someone else to do it that that, by definition wasn't graffiti?

On the whole it is hard to pretend, from a human rights and freedom of speech standpoint, that Vancouver has handled the Olympics much better than Beijing did and it is becoming harder and harder to muster any enthusiasm at all for the Olympics. Let us hope that Canada is never again afflicted with them - from the exorbitant costs, the negative impact on the lives of local citizens, clampdowns on the press and other potential critics, even the setting aside of normal human rights statutes. I cannot think of a single reason for the Olympics to enjoy any support, anywhere as an institution.

Do I respect Olympic athletes? Definitely! Do I think it is worth censorship, the suspension of the charter, the slashing of arts and culture funding, the unbelievable expense and resulting debt to see them perform? Not really, no.

Toronto City Council Gets it Half Right

The billboard tax, passed by Toronto City Council today was envisioned as a way to get those who make our city uglier to help pay to make our city more attractive. The new law, as it stands, does half of that. It makes those who make our city uglier pay but what they are paying for is unclear. Instead of going to art, culture and the improvement of public spaces it is only being rolled into the general fund.

Arts and culture have been hit hard lately after the Conservatives continual attacks on the arts and the murder of Queen Street West as a culture centre by developers the sector could use a boost. Arts and culture are a bit part of what make Toronto what it is and it has been repeatedly demonstrated that any investment in the arts generates considerably more in economic activity.

Rob Ford, councilor for Etobicoke North Councillor Rob Ford, in council today, clearly demonstrated that he does not understand business, that he does not understand Toronto and that, if he truly represents Etobicoke that it is not part of Toronto and de-amalgamation should commence at once. Ford comments went along these lines:

"Coun. Rob Ford said supporters of the tax shouldn't count on all the money being spent on the arts.

"I've got news for you," he said. "The arts and culture people that think you're getting this money — you're not getting this money."

Ford said billboards help businesses grow and create jobs, and he lashed out at the supporters of the tax who had gathered at city hall's viewing gallery on Monday.

"I'm curious to know if they actually have a job," Ford said. "They obviously don't, if they can sit here every day and heckle those who disagree with them."

I will certainly avoid spending any money at all that goes to any business in Etobicoke North if I can, and I can't imagine the situation where I couldn't avoid it.

Rob claims to be standing up for business, but in Toronto between film, music, visual and performing arts art is business - not only a huge industry in it's own right but a large part of what draws tourists to the city. Every business in Toronto benefits from the arts and culture sector daily and in a variety of ways. By taking the position he has Ford has clearly demonstrated that he is anti-business, anti-art, and anti-Toronto.

As for the Billboard companies who are threatening legal action and claiming that they might go under - good riddance. All they provide to the city is some large and expensive graffiti. I am unconvinced that Billboards, or any traditional advertising, does much for business. We now have social media and it should be all any business needs. If your product or service is really good, people will tell their friends and you won't need to advertise. I am becoming increasingly convinced that there is a negative correlation between traditional advertising and quality. If you have to spend that much telling us how great your product is, how good can it be? If it was as brilliant as you claim your customers would be doing your advertising for you.

My Letter to Google on Pay Sites (and Rupert Murdoch)

Today Google revealed that they are making some moves to appease Rupert Murdoch and like minded publishers.

"'We think that allowing publishers to cap the number of free clicks to five per user per day strikes a good balance between the needs of our typical user and of publishers.''

Google and other search engines have been the subject of savage attacks by newspaper proprietors, who say they steal stories.

Earlier this year, Mr Murdoch said Google suffered from kleptomania, while Wall Street Journal editor Robert Thomson said search engines were ''tech tapeworms in the intestines of the internet''."

If Murdoch (& associates) want to limit access to their news sites that is fine, but I in turn want to limit the number of times their news turns up in a search. This is what I sent to Google as a request regarding not only news but all pay and commercial sites:

---

I read today that Google plans to change it's policies to accommodate the news holdings of Rupert Murdoch. That is fine. Mr. Murdoch can do as he pleases with his content and Google must take some steps to accommodate him.

With that said I would like some concessions to consumers as well. Just as there is a filter which removes adult content from my searches, I would like a filter that removes pay sites from my Google search. I do not mean this as a specific measure to penalize Rupert Murdoch, but all pay sites. If I am going to have to pay to view the content that results from my search I would like to know that before I click on the link and I would, additionally, like to have the option of not having pay sites show up in my results at all.

Ideally this would mean, for example, that if I searched for a book (looking for reviews) that both sites that wanted to sell me the book and sites that were going to charge me to read the review would be (if I chose) omitted from my results.

Thank you for your time and consideration on the matter.
Justin Beach
Toronto, Ontario