To Wear or not To Wear

It seems to be a rite of spring, as the flowering of fruit trees and the greening of the grass, comes articles discussing the merits of wearing a bike helmet or not wearing a helmet. This blog was inspired by a recent article in the magazine Spacing. The issue is to whether people should wear a helmet when they bike. If not compulsory, should it be something that is encouraged.

The idea is that wearing a helmet is safe. You're riding a vehicle that is open and if you get hit by a car, or simply fall off it, at least your head will be safe from the impact of hitting the pavement or a vehicle. From one point, it makes sense, after all the brain is an important organ and so you should have a few ounces of foam and plastic on your head will keep you from suffering brain damage.

However many will point out there are detriments to wearing helmets. For example, they will say that people hate wearing helmets and so if compelled to do so will mean they will not ride a bike. Helmets are considered too hot to wear or that wearing one gives the tragic effect of 'helmet head' or 'helmet hair'. Of course we understand there is nothing that makes a person a pariah as helmet head.

Others will point out that nations such as Denmark and the Netherlands are no helmet laws and very little bike riding fatalities. The situation there is the reality of a strong cycling culture and the government has gone out its way to devise special roads and pathways for cyclists. I would question putting these two nations into the mix because they are so bike friendly.

Am I saying that cycling is dangerous? As I consider my own cycling experience I would count the number of falls as being negligible. Mind you, those accidents have been quite good and I still have the scars in my knees to show those accidents. There is something about doing wheelies in a gravel covered parking lot that is not the smartest thing to do. I've done a few endo's in my life, usually when I've hit a rut and couldn't get out.

Others will say that wearing a helmet causes a change in behaviour to the cyclist. They feel they can take greater risks, such a riding faster or not paying closer attention to road conditions or traffic situations. I suppose there is some truth to that, although I would wonder if the same feeling exists with those who wear seatbelts while driving. Does that alone explain for increased speeds? Probably not. I would suggest most people don't consider anything when putting on a seatbelt, they wear it and now its just part of the driving experience.

Others will point to this conclusion:

A widely cited systematic review calculated the effect of helmets on brain injury from three studies of cyclists given emergency treatment, with a total of 347 concussions or other brain injuries (plus many superficial head wounds).16 The data I present are based on 10 479 head injuries severe enough to appear in hospital admissions databases. The lack of obvious benefit from helmet laws may be because helmets (which prevent head wounds) are not designed for forces often encountered in collisions with motor vehicles or other serious crashes that cause most head injuries requiring hospital admission. Helmets may also encourage cyclists to take more risks, or motorists to take less care when they encounter cyclists, counteracting any benefits.3 Cyclists compelled to wear helmets may take less trouble to wear them correctly and ensure they fit well, reducing their effectiveness.w16

So what do we do? I will say that I wear a helmet. I don't think its a problem at all, when I'm doing recreational cycling, or even some bike commuting I wear a helmet. Is it because I feel the activity is unsafe? No, not really. Perhaps a better word would be 'respect', for what could possibly happen. These things are called 'accidents' for a reason, in that there is a risk of something going wrong. Does that statement mean cycling is unsafe, no it doesn't. While I have the scars, I can also say that the last time I had an accident on the bike is about ten years ago. Has my riding decreased over that period of time, I can say it has not. It has been stable, perhaps not as much as Vancouver days, but its still up there.

So why do I wear a helmet? Well for a few reasons, first of all, riding in BC means wearing a helmet. It's the law and so you simply get used to wearing a helmet. Secondly , helmets are cool, there is enough vents to ensure proper air circulation. Also, they are cool to wear. Helmets look nice and while the word 'helmet' may not be the best word, they are great to wear. It's one less worry and while I jokingly will tell people I feel invulnerable while wearing one, I know I still have to have the same precautions while wearing a helmet.

Is there a change? I can say one thing, I do feel safe and that's the bottom line.

The Week after the Night Before

So we are now almost a week into the era of the iPad, the amazing new devise from Apple that is supposed to change how we look at a computer. I must admit it does look shiny, new and groundbreaking.

It has been reviewed and most people have thought it was wonderful. David Pogue wrote an article in the New York Times entitled "Looking at the ipad from two angles".

There is a lot to be impressed by the ipad, certainly it is a large ipod touch, but as pointed out, what's wrong with that? Right now it has bluetooth and wifi, plus the ability to download and install apps from the Apple iTunes store. No doubt by the time I'm finished this blog, there will be ten of thousands available for free or for a price. The screen and images are supposed to be gorgeous. It is a tremendous media player for people who want a straightforward devise that allows them to enjoy media, either music, movies, photographs, games or to surf the web and write email. or at least to tweet.

One person who thought the world of it was Jeff Jarvis. In the recent TWIg podcast, he and Leo were practically salivating over their ipads. I felt sorry for Gina Trepani, who was the lone member of the triumvirate who hadn't succumb to the temptation and purchased one. Seriously, it was embarrassing to watch them go on and on about it.

However, the next day, it seems he had a change of heart, he writes in his blog: "iPad Danger":

The iPad is retrograde. It tries to turn us back into an audience again. That is why media companies and advertisers are embracing it so fervently, because they think it returns us all to their good old days when we just consumed, we didn’t create, when they controlled our media experience and business models and we came to them. The most absurd, extreme illustration is Time Magazine’s app, which is essentially a PDF of the magazine (with the odd video snippet). It’s worse than the web: we can’t comment; we can’t remix; we can’t click out; we can’t link in, and they think this is worth $4.99 a week. But the pictures are pretty.

So we become consumers of media and not creators. This is a step back, since the dawn of the personal computer, it has been about creating. Now that applications are growing in number and ability and sheer computing power is also growing, people can create. They can post, write, create all the content they want, and now it seems Apple wants to bind us tight in a devise that controls us.

What I find annoying about Mr. Jarvis is all his complaints, such as the lack of the USB port, didn't exist prior to Saturday. In fact when he held it and gushed so openly, there was not a USB port to be found. However it wasn't until after the hangover of those 6 or 7 Apple Kool-Aids he downed did he realize the truth. This machine is lacking. I had complained to a person the lack of a card reader as one reason not to buy. If you take digital photographs, you're using a card, either SD or CF, but there's no place to put the cards. However I have discovered that you can buy an attachment for your digital camera and cards, for only $30.00US.

In some ways, Jeff hit the bottom of the tech reviewers and their love of all things Apple. As pointed out to me, Apple could stick its logo on a beat up garbage can and people would line up days in advance to purchase one. Perhaps this is true. Apple does seem to get a free pass when it comes to its products. Jarvis fell for it, and then wakes up the next day and realizes the hottie he picked up, who looked so good after a few beers, isn't that hot in the morning.

Now it has been reported that Jeff plans to return his iPad. No doubt he has taken the pledge not to be so gullible for the next Apple product. We will wait and see.

Perhaps the most honest person is Cory Doctorow, he wrote a piece in Boing Boing entitled: "Why I won't buy and iPad"

Right now the iPad is not available in Canada. It is supposed to come and of course, it will come hamstrung, this is Canada after all.

The question is this, is it worth it? Yes there are a lot of other questions too, such as why buy this when for half the price you can buy a netbook, if you want a small form factor, or for the same price a pretty good laptop. I suppose its up to the person what they want to do and with a full understanding what you can't do with it.

Perhaps the second generation will add what people want.

Earth Hour Brantford

Like the year previous I and my daughter went down to Harmony Square to celebrate Earth Hour. Of course I took my camcorder and recorded the proclamation as read by the Town Crier and the countdown to 8:30PM



The crowd wasn't as good as last year, I suspect the cold weather had much to do with that. Even though the crowd was less, I would say, just in my travels, it seemed people had turned off their lights in solidarity with the entire concept of Earth Hour.

The result for Brantford, as reported in the media, was a 5.6% decrease in energy consumption for that time period. This is about half what it was last year, so there seems not to have been the same enthusiasm and interest. I should point out there is a move to have an "Earth Hour" once a month on the last Saturday. I would say that the young people behind the move have a good thought, I hope people will agree and do something on a monthly basis or at least make a decrease in energy consumption and making the carbon footstep a little smaller.

I wonder if Earth Hour is becoming one of those targets for all sides. After all, it could be viewed not just the symbolic gesture of lowering consumption and being made aware of the fact that ultimately we are simply stewards of this planet we call home. We have borrowed it from the previous generation to hand it over to the next.

Earth Hour is being criticized by some as being one of those fluffy acts of environmentalism, you know it makes us feel good that we have done something, without actually doing something. It is a gesture which might be an empty gesture at worse. It could be seen in the same light as recycling. Please understand I do recycle, I try to be faithful with my recycling, separating my paper and cardboard from metal and plastics. Why I say that it because there are other ways, after all, when did I say I want all those products packed in plastics. Especially those things in plastic that take specialized knifes to cut open. Who officially called that a smart idea, do we need to be so crazy with packaging. So Earth Hour, we turn off some of the lights, sit in the dark for one hour and feel we've done something good for the Planet.

Perhaps we need to look beyond the immediate and consider what it all means, the main webpage has this:

Earth Hour started in 2007 in Sydney, Australia when 2.2 million homes and businesses turned their lights off for one hour to make their stand against climate change. Only a year later and Earth Hour had become a global sustainability movement with more than 50 million people across 35 countries participating. Global landmarks such as the, Sydney Harbour Bridge, The CN Tower in Toronto, The Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco, and Rome’s Colosseum, all stood in darkness, as symbols of hope for a cause that grows more urgent by the hour.

It reminds us we need to do something. It's one act that lowers energy consumption for an hour, but it makes us think that we can consider the fact we don't need to use as much energy. I know one crank suggested a lot of the planet already 'celebrates' Earth Hour because their energy consumption is like their income, next to nothing. Is it simply an act by the West to pretend we care when we really don't?

Or

Is it the first step towards a change in the way we treat the resources of the planet and its environment? I wonder that Earth Hour is the proverbial first step for in the 1000 mile march. It got to start somewhere and some place. However, if we simply get complacent and say that's all we need to do, then it is a failure.

The old saying still holds true: "Think Globally, Act Locally". We need to do more to lower the carbon emissions. I know there will be some who scream "Climategate", well put me on the side that believes we are doing damage to the Planet and we can cut down our consumption of the planet's resources. It is happening by the way, things are starting to get better, bit by bit, but there is still more.

Earth Hour reminds us there is the grassroots desire to do more. What needs to happen is get leadership to see this and get with a climate treaty that does work and not this cap and trade nonsense. Lowering emissions and carbon means just that, not making a deal with another country: 'you keep that tree up and I don't have to stop driving an SUV'.

Earth Hour is a good idea, but let's not get stuck on just doing that.

Clevr is Clever

I've been trying to do some work taking panorama photographs. With software it is possible, then I found Clevr. It seems to be a great website and application to take a group of photographs to make one very nice panorama.

I went to the website, downloaded the Adobe AIR desktop application and started joining the photographs.

Once joined, the results can be downloaded to the computer or to the website. There the panorama can be viewed through its viewer. With the viewer one can examine the result.

Panorama of Kreative Khaos on CleVR.com

CleVR is impressive and I can believe it will be a useful website.

I've got to admit, using AIR is easy and I will do amazing work with my camera and this site. Before the south side of Colborne is changed, it might be a great way of preserving the building through film rather then watching it completely disappear.

Good News on the Environmental Front

I suspect environmentalists don't get invited to too many parties. After all, its hard to have someone over to drinks and hors d'oeuvres when they will only sit there, or stand and remind you how bad things are going and the fact the we humans are on the verge of destroying all life on the planet. This is not a fun group. I mean you try to get to them to commit to a date and all they tell you is , 'why bother, the world will end soon'.

Today, I am pleased to comment about some good news that I discovered recently in my readings.

The first is from BBC News and it has to do with forest loss. It seems that there are attempts to change this and while there is a long way to go, it seems deforestation is starting to slow. The lead paragraph of the article states:

The world's net rate of forest loss has slowed markedly in the last decade, with less logging in the Amazon and China planting trees on a grand scale

There are marked signs of recovery; for example, China has begun a process of massive forestation, which is better then massive deforestation that's for sure. I suspect China has learned a hard lesson on the dangers of moving fast into industrialization without concern.

The Food and Agricultural Organization reports that:

Brazil and Indonesia, which had the highest loss of forests in the 1990s, have significantly reduced their deforestation rates. In addition, ambitious tree planting programmes in countries such as China, India, the United States and Viet Nam - combined with natural expansion of forests in some regions - have added more than seven million hectares of new forests annually. As a result the net loss of forest area was reduced to 5.2 million hectares per year between 2000 and 2010, down from 8.3 million hectares annually in the 1990s.

The world's total forest area is just over four billion hectares or 31 percent of the total land area. The net annual loss of forests (when the sum of all gains in forest area is smaller than all losses) in 2000-2010 is equivalent to an area about the size of Costa Rica.

Obviously, there is still work to do, Brazil, while slowing down, still demonstrates a attitude towards cutting timber from the Rain Forest at an alarming rate. The land is cleared to provide room for livestock and crops, as well as exploration and exploitation of mineral wealth in the region. Mining does cause a great deal of destruction. Still it is good to see there is a slowingn down of the rate, perhaps as things develop this may be reversed the Brazil will actively end the cutting down of the Rain Forest and leave it alone.

The report points out that the reforestation program of China will end in 2020, however that's not to say if the results are positive, it won't be renewed and even more land will be reforested. As well, one has India and Vietnam engaged in the same program.

Another problem is Africa, it still suffers greatly from deforestation and I suspect there are problems from the expansion of the Sahara, encroaching south and killing the forest, as well as deforestation that is uncontrolled because there are, in some regions, no effective government to police these matters.

Still this is good news. After the disaster that was Cop Out 15 it's good to see things are beginning to improve on the planet. One might say we have a long way to go, but still let's celebrate the victories where they are and encourage ourselves to think we can actually do better.

Ann Coulter, Freedom and the University of Ottawa

It all started with a letter:

Dear Ms. Coulter,
I understand that you have been invited by University of Ottawa Campus Conservatives to speak at the University of Ottawa this coming Tuesday. We are, of course, always delighted to welcome speakers on our campus and hope that they will contribute positively to the meaningful exchange of ideas that is the hallmark of a great university campus. We have a great respect for freedom of expression in Canada, as well as on our campus, and view it as a fundamental freedom, as recognized by our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I would, however, like to inform you, or perhaps remind you, that our domestic laws, both provincial and federal, delineate freedom of expression (or “free speech”) in a manner that is somewhat different than the approach taken in the United States. I therefore encourage you to educate yourself, if need be, as to what is acceptable in Canada and to do so before your planned visit here. You will realize that Canadian law puts reasonable limits on the freedom of expression. For example, promoting hatred against any identifiable group would not only be considered inappropriate, but could in fact lead to criminal charges. Outside of the criminal realm, Canadian defamation laws also limit freedom of expression and may differ somewhat from those to which you are accustomed. I therefore ask you, while you are a guest on our campus, to weigh your words with respect and civility in mind. There is a strong tradition in Canada, including at this University, of restraint, respect and consideration in expressing even provocative and controversial opinions and urge you to respect that Canadian tradition while on our campus. Hopefully, you will understand and agree that what may, at first glance, seem like unnecessary restrictions to freedom of expression do, in fact, lead not only to a more civilized discussion, but to a more meaningful, reasoned and intelligent one as well.
I hope you will enjoy your stay in our beautiful country, city and campus.

Sincerely,

François Houle
Vice-recteur aux études / Vice-President Academic and Provost
 Université d’Ottawa / University of Ottawa
550, rue Cumberland Street
Ottawa (ON) K1N 6N5
 téléphone / telephone : 613 562-5737 
télécopieur / fax : 613 562-5103

The Provost had some issues with Ms Coulter coming to his university and spewing her usual right wing rant.

Let's talk about opinion: I am not a fan of Ann Coulter. I have read one of her books but I found it so full of full of that I can't bring myself to read any more of her trite. The problem I have with her, besides being a right wing whack job is that she uses the fears of people and exploits them. She uses the tools demagogues have used throughout history and she's really not that profound a speaker. A few minutes listening to her, or reading her, get all the information you want.

Then the University of Ottawa decides to get involved and then she becomes a martyr of free speech, free expression and freedom as a whole. Even though she would be glad to take away personal liberty and freedom from people she viewed to be not like her. That includes Moslems, Liberals, Immigrants and any one who disagrees with her.

She responded to the Provost:

"Now that the provost has instructed me on the criminal speech laws he apparently believes I have a proclivity (to break), despite knowing nothing about my speech, I see that he is guilty of promoting hatred against an identifiable group: conservatives," Coulter wrote in an e-mail to the Ottawa Citizen on Monday. The Citizen had requested a telephone interview with Coulter but instead received the e-mail from the author.

She questioned whether every speaker booked at the university receives a similar warning, or just the conservative ones.

"The provost simply believes and is publicizing his belief that conservatives are more likely to commit hate crimes in their speeches. Not only does this promote hatred against conservatives, but it promotes violence against conservatives,"

Now she is going to wrap herself as a victim of political correctness and overweening government censorship of Conservatives such as herself. She will say the problem is the fact she is a CONSERVATIVE. That may be the reason but even is she is a right wing nut bar, she should be allowed to speak. Those that don't want to hear her message have the freedom to be some place else on the time she plays. As well, they have the right to stand outside of the meeting place and complain about her words and opinions, that too is called 'freedom of expression'. Now, pulling the fire alarm is an act of vandalism and that should be denounced. That was wrong. She should be allowed to speak because when she does people will recognize her as the vapid lunatic she truly is.

The idea that she spews material that could be considered 'hate crime', is not true. As many have pointed out, while Canada does have laws against hate crimes, the bar as articulated by the Supreme Court is so high that only the most egregious speeches and words fall under that definition.

Now she is the poster girl of oppression. She will milk this for all its worth. Just what we need. She will comment on this again and again. She will tell people what sort of country Canada is, well in some regards she will be correct.

In fact its already started:

Since I arrived in Canada, I've been denounced on the floor of Parliament... My posters have been banned. I've been accused of committing a crime in a speech that I have not yet given. I was banned by the student council -- so welcome to Canada!" Coulter lamented.

"I would like to know when this sort of violence, this sort of protest, has been inflicted upon a Muslim -- who appear to be, from what I've read of the human rights complaints, the only protected group in Canada," she said.

"I think I'll give my speech tomorrow night (in Calgary) in a burqa. That will protect me."

Witty isn't she. I must say that the best way to respond to Ms Coulter and those who would shut her up is the words of Evelyn Beatrice Hall:

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,'

To say that does not mean you agree with her opinion, but rather you believe she has the right to express them. The thing is, when she speaks, she reveals her ignorance. She needs to speak early and often.

But that's my opinion.

Banksy is Right

I was reading Adbusters in the local library. It's one of the things I like to do when I'm there. It's a great magazine and has some interesting articles. Usually the main articles are the ones that are thought provoking, but as I read the most recent issue there was a quote from Banksy. As you probably know, he's a graffiti artist of a great deal of fame. His works are now found in a number of cities around the world.

Let me quote him, and you can find the quotation at the website Wreck and Salvage:

People are taking the piss out of you everyday. They butt into your life, take a cheap shot at you and then disappear. They leer at you from tall buildings and make you feel small. They make flippant comments from buses that imply you’re not sexy enough and that all the fun is happening somewhere else. They are on TV making your girlfriend feel inadequate. They have access to the most sophisticated technology the world has ever seen and they bully you with it. They are “The Advertisers” and they are laughing at you.

You, however, are forbidden to touch them. Trademarks, intellectual property rights and copyright law mean advertisers can say what they like wherever they like with total impunity.

F*** that. Any advert in a public space that gives you no choice whether you see it or not is yours. It’s yours to take, re-arrange and re-use. You can do whatever you like with it. Asking for permission is like asking to keep a rock someone just threw at your head.

You owe the companies nothing. Less than nothing, you especially don’t owe them any courtesy. They owe you. They have re-arranged the world to put themselves in front of you. They never asked for your permission, don’t even start asking for theirs.

The overall theme of the magazine was Altermodern. It seems we are now out of postmodernism and now a new era has begun, an era that:

Altermodern, a compound word defined by Nicolas Bourriaud, is an attempt at branding art made in today's global context as a reaction against standardisation and commercialism.

As I read the quote I have to admit I thought "Banksy is brilliant". Consider what we see, advertisement is based upon our inadequacies. We are not perfect, in fact modern day branding confronts us with our imperfections and mocks us because we do not fit the standard of perfection that is declared by companies such as the Gap, or United Colors of Benetton

This leads to the question, why do we allow them? I know that advertisement is based upon the notion of inventing a need that doesn't exist and filling that need with a product no one actually wants. Which still doesn't answer the question, why do we let them? Wny do we allow them to bombard us with these messages. Why do we allow them to fill our public space with their abuse?

So as I think of the questions I've asked, I can only come to one conclusion: Banksy is Right.

More from Monday

So for this blog I decided I'd post some of the video I shot. There was three speakers, unfortunately I started too late for the first but wised up for the other two. Sadly I totally messed up Lloyd Alter's name and organization. Sorry about that.




The third speech was by David Bornstein:



As you can hear, David's speech did get the crowd fired up for the march. Seems there is some discrepancy on what is being reported and what is the reality.

So the issue is still before the city. There are supporters on both sides of the issue; those that feel the face of the city will be marred by the image of the south side of Colborne as it is right now and those who feel this can be the area of revitalization.

Demonstrate to Save the South Side

A Facebook Group announced that at 5:00PM this Monday, there was to be a demonstration to bring attention the unwanted demolition of the south side of Colborne Street. If you follow any of the links I've posted in the various blogs, you will note that the destruction is not a slam dunk as it once was viewed as such. In fact there seems to be a groundswell of action and attention. It's not that people are for the ending of the south side, probably because there seems to be some cracks in the plans that were once thought of the new reality are falling by the wayside.

I had the privilege of walking down the street to see what was going to happen. I did bring my trusty Insignia digital camcorder to take some videos and photographs of the demonstration. I noticed things are changing along the street, it seems those involved in the demolition have started to perform the deed:





A good group had shown up by the 5 o'clock hour:







The message is clear, there has to be a better way. The answer to the south side is not to raze it all, but to consider the alternatives. As one speaker said, it is better to renovate and restore.

My plan is to post some of the videos I shot tomorrow.

For more information, follow this Facebook group.

Peace all.

Googles has a Picnik

The technology press has been all over the news of the latest Google acquisition: Google has purchased the most excellent photo editing site Picnik. Since the announcement on the first, there has been article after article announcing, discussing and attempting to bring understanding of the event. The question, why did Google do it? I guess one answer could be, they've got the money to do it and so why not. But seriously, Picnik is a fun site, I've used a number of times, it is simple to use and you can do so much, even with the free account. It has been pointed out in the article by PCMagazine, it is one of the first sites to bring photo editing to the cloud. As we know, the cloud is important to Google, they want to make cloud computing as the next step with the computing experience. The thought is that no longer will you need to store anything on your computer's hard drive, you can put it all on the servers which are owned by Google, or some other service.

The purchase, according to Brian Axe, one of the product managers was:

"We're looking forward to collaborating closely with [Picnik] to improve the online photo editing experience on the web," Axe concluded. "In the meantime, we encourage you to head to Picnik, import some of your photos from Picasa Web Albums, Flickr or Facebook and try your hand at photo editing in the cloud."

According to the blog posted on the Picnik site:

And all this leads us to today’s exciting news: we’ve just been acquired by Google! What does this mean for Picnik? It means we can think BIG. Google processes petabytes of data every day, and with their worldwide infrastructure and world-class team, it is truly the best home we could have found. Under the Google roof we’ll reach more people than ever before, impacting more lives and making more photos more awesome.

What does this mean for you Picnikers? Nothing is changing right away, but Picnik now has more potential than ever before. The team that built Picnik from the grass up will continue making advanced and powerful photo-editing easier, more intuitive and more fun, so stay tuned to hear about all the cool new stuff we’re working on. We want to thank you all for being great users, pushing us to grow and do big things. So thank you all for your continued support, and Happy Picniking!

They are quite pumped about the whole thing, the 20 staff members will remain working on this project from their office in Seattle. They will now be employees of Google, I suspect with stock options. The purchase price has not been announced. It can be safe to assume it was a boat load of money.

As I said, I've used Picnik for my own photo editing, both prints I have uploaded and also since it is the editor of choice of my other favourite site Pikchur. When I go to edit a photograph, I click the button and Picnik launches. I hope that doesn't change, while Google wants integration with Picasa, I'm not quite a fan of Picasa. I'ved used it, and I know anything I post to this account goes to Picasa. I've got too many other places to post photographs I suppose.

I hope Google stays true and doesn't change anything with Picnik. Keep it as it is, this is why it was purchased, it doesn't need much in the way of change.

What do I want to say? To the people of Picnik good on you. You know have a lot of money in which to further refine develop and make your site the place to go for photo editing. I hope you had a real fun Monday after the announcement was made, you deserve a very nice dinner for all the hard work you've put into the site.

A Dark Day?

First of all, let me say to the party or parties involved with the posting of the sign: why didn't you do that before I was downtown taking some photographs? I would have gladly included that in my blog posting from yesterday.

With that said, there is a groundswell of interest in what may or may not happen with the south side of Colborne Street. Today the local paper carried an article regarding a letter from the Ministry of Tourism and Culture. There is some concern now being expressed at Queen's Park about the demolition of the south side of the street. The opening paragraphs expressed this interest:

City officials are trying to get to the bottom of a surprise letter from the Ministry of Tourism and Culture, hoping it won't present another unexpected "bump" in plans to demolish 40 buildings on the south side of downtown Colborne Street.

The letter, from Chris Schiller, manager of culture of the ministry's culture services unit, informed the city that the ministry has taken an interest in the city's demolition plans and requests that it conduct a full assessment under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act of the stretch of properties slated for imminent demolition.

According to the letter, obtained by The Expositor, the assessment is to include a "thorough heritage evaluation ... prior to any demolition of the properties noted to satisfy that there is no provincial interest in these properties."

The letter also requests that the city carry out an archaeological assessment "required" under the province's regulations for determining archaeological potential -"prior to any ground disturbances and/or site alterations."

I suspect, among other things, the city leaders must be getting frustrated that there is now all this interest, when for so many years none was being expressed. It seems only when the City has decided to expropriate the property and them come up with the idea of tearing it all down, that people are now coming out and saying the South should be saved. I do confess even written a blog or two about the south side as well.

Recently, a blog regarding the downtown showed up in the Spacing Toronto website. This site is the online presence of the great Canadian magazine "Spacing", for which I do have a subscription to, at least I do remember renewing it, I'll have to check. The article, written by Nigel Terpstra is entitled "Brantford's downtown destruction". Even thought the article features a photograph of part of the north side of Colborne, which was pointed out in some of the comments, Nigel does make some interesting points. He writes:

Both the mayor and the town’s councillors seem to believe that developers will flock to the newly vacated space, but the chances of this happening are slim. Furthermore, when the older structures are torn down, the individual parcels of land upon which they stood will be too small to be developed on their own and will therefore be bundled into bigger and more profitable tracts. The buildings which will be built on these new lots will also be larger and will contain fewer opportunities for individual retailers to establish themselves, changing scale of the street completely. It seems therefore, that what we are faced with is less the surgical removal of a specific set of structures in an effort to revive a larger precinct, than the clear cutting of three blocks at the whim of a pro-development city council.

It is simple enough to say the council is simply pro-development and does believe the notion that the best thing to do with the old is tear down and construct something brand new in its place.

It has been pointed out by many, the south side was not devoid of life, there were shops and restaurants, some that survived years in their location. They had built a strong and loyal customer base and brought some people into the core.





They thrived despite the environment which was not the healthiest.

The response of the City has been to seek clarification and to understand. The same article in the Expositor pointed out none of the properties have ever been declared heritage property, meaning they have been changed.

So what happens now? That is the good question. I wonder if the Ministry responding to pressure, or do they want to ensure all is being done according to the rules. If they are interested in considering the preservation aspect, will they release some money for restoration?

So I ask myself the questions:

1) is the only answer to the problem, raze and rebuild?
2) is the University the panacea to all the ills, or a part of the solution, an important part indeed, but still part.
3) how can the city ensure that the downtown is the fun place to be in Brantford
4) how to bring about the critical mass of people consistently downtown so there is reason for business to become established.

When there is something happening, people do come downtown. The challenge is not only bring people for the special events, but ensure they think of coming downtown when they want to do something.

Buzz Off, Buzz

As you know from reading some of my past blogs, I do enjoy the social aspect of Web 2.0, to use some of the language all the cool kids use. I am now back on Twitter and understanding it a lot more, for example I was able to follow what was happening at the Olympics simply by following the various Olympic based hashtags, so I knew when Canada had won a medal and the nation certainly did win a lot of them. I'm also on Facebook and post a lot there.

If I can go back to Twitter for just a moment, I do understand it and know why it is so popular and has such great press. Just recently it was reported people post something like 600 tweets a second or 50 million a day. That is an amazing number of tweets and while it has also been pointed out a very large majority of them are dumb, the classic "eating popcorn in my beanbag chair", or "today the cat horked up a hairball". There is some good news aggregates happening and the information that can be posted and read is quite amazing, especially if you follow the trends of the day. If something happens that is big, it's going to be on Twitter.

As for Facebook, its for friends and family isn't it? It's where you can post some news, photographs and videos. I know there's a lot of those games, such as Mafia Wars and FarmVille, things I have managed to avoid, thank you very much. So its good way to keep in touch with others and pass on information.

One of my other favourites if Pikchur. it's a good place to post the photographs and send it to all the sites I frequent. It does make life easy for me.

I could go on, Brightkite, Plurk, all places I hang out to post and interact.

As you can expect, when Google announced Buzz, i was interested. When the announcement was made I immediately went to gmail and waited for it to show up in my inbox, or at least on the side of my account. After all, another social network, one simply can't have enough of those.

The information was posted to a google blog with this as part of the pitch:

Google Buzz is a new way to start conversations about the things you find interesting. It's built right into Gmail, so you don't have to peck out an entirely new set of friends from scratch — it just works. If you think about it, there's always been a big social network underlying Gmail. Buzz brings this network to the surface by automatically setting you up to follow the people you email and chat with the most. We focused on building an easy-to-use sharing experience that richly integrates photos, videos and links, and makes it easy to share publicly or privately (so you don't have to use different tools to share with different audiences). Plus, Buzz integrates tightly with your existing Gmail inbox, so you're sure to see the stuff that matters most as it happens in real time.

Yup, waited and when it showed up I quickly got it going in my gmail account. I could go into a long explanation of it, but just follow this link to PCWorld. It lasted a week. After that time, I decided to read up on how to get rid of Buzz.

Yes that is right, I am not using it right now. The reason I had was not the security or privacy concerns that some have pointed out in posts and articles. I simply found it too noisy, which is interesting because that is the one thing Google wanted to avoid. it was too much and very confusing to follow. I didn't care to much for how it was set up and the fact that Buzz was clogging up my inbox. There was also the fact that so many people were following me and I wasn't sure where they were coming from or why did they want to follow me. Not that there is anything wrong with having people following me, but I discover it becomes too much if there are too many following. That is what caused me to give up my first account with Twitter.

There is the privacy issue as well, Molly Wood had a very informative post in her rant about Buzz.

Buzz is no longer a part of my gmail account. Does this mean I'll never use it. I don't know, perhaps in a month or two I may venture back and discern if it has improved. If it has, I may use it in a limited way, if not, I won't use it again.

That is my google blog for today.

You can follow me on all those social network sites I have links to, see you there.

When the Lights go down in the City

Journey made this song a hit a number of years ago:

When the lights go down in the city,
and the sun shines on the bay,
do i want to be there,
in my city,
ohoh ohohoh ohoh

So you said your lonely
well my friend i'm lonely too
i want to get back, to my city
by the rain, ohoh ohohoh ohoh

its sad ohh,
theres been morings
out of the world without you,
without your charm
ohohoh nah nah nah ohoh

when the lights go down in the city
and the sun shines on the bay
do i want to be there, in my city oh oh
ohoh ohohoh ohoh

Now it appears to be the theme for the south side of Colborne Street. Not only is the blue fence of death up, but the lights along the south are coming down. City crews have been busy taking them down, after all, no one is going to be walking on that side for quite a while.



As well, the buildings are starting to look even more run down, if that's possible:



On the other hand, as the song contains words of encouragement, of returning to the City, let's hope life does return to downtown Brantford.

To quote Josh Bean of the Brantford Arts Block:

"I've always been a huge advocate of downtown development, whether we have (refurbished) heritage buildings or new buildings," Bean said.

Now that the demolition is imminent, he said he sees his role as doing whatever he can to hold the city accountable for its decision to build anew.

"Whatever we have (coming in) there had better be heritage 50 years from now. If you're going to sacrifice these (old) buildings -which I still disagree with -you had better make it good."

Look to the Earth! International Year of Biodiversity

I'm going to take some time off from the south side of Colborne Street, after all, I've said my peace it's now up to all who are concerned about the future of the city of Brantford to decide. Who knows, the demolition and rebuilding of the Street may be what the City needs, in the short term it will create a number of construction jobs, which has to be a good thing.

With that, its time to concentrate on the Environment. It's been awhile since I've done anything with this subject. There was Copenhagen, which has to be a disappointment if not a total disaster. If you go to December, you can read some of my blogs, so I will say nothing more.

I have now discovered that 2010 is the International Year of Biodiversity. This year is to celebrate and to protect biodiversity on the planet, since it is very important for this to happen. Nature exists best when it is diverse and not in monoculture. Monoculture is a risk, and its something we cannot afford to continue to develop.

The goals of this year are:

Enhance public awareness of the importance of
conserving biodiversity and of the underlying threats to
biodiversity
Raise awareness of accomplishments to save
biodiversity realized by communities and governments
Promote innovative solutions to reduce the threats to
biodiversity
Encourage individuals, organizations and governments
to take immediate steps to halt biodiversity loss
Encourage dialogue between stakeholders for the
steps to be taken in post-2010

The target for the year is:

To achieve, by 2010, a
signi cant reduction of
the current rate of
biodiversity loss at the
global, regional and
national level, as a
contribution to poverty
alleviation and to the
bene t of all life
on Earth”

It's to make a difference and to protect the rich heritage of life that we all enjoy on this world. All have been created to fulfil a specific role and that means all life is important and essential. We must do what we can to protect the environment. This does mean, among other things, to end the extinction of life. For too long species have been driven to extinction, not by human greed, but often because of neglect, usually through the destruction of habitat.





So now, as we start a cycle which includes Earth Hour and Earth Day. It time to celebrate true diversity, the diversity of life.

Famous Stilt House

With a sunny weekend, it was time to go downtown and find some places to take photographs. After all, with the potential demolition of the southside Colborne Street now only a matter of time, might as well get some photographs as mementos of the place.

As I took pictures, there were other people out with their cameras, obviously the same sentiment is being felt by the others as well. From what I could tell, there was some quite good photographers, with some quite impressive equipment.

I decided to take the camcorder out and find some good shots. I'm not sure about the good part, but here are some photographs from this past Sunday:









There were a few people checking out the buildings as well.



There was also a Chilli tasting festival going on and this brought me to Harmony Square:

And so it is Scheduled


The local paper stated it clearing in the opening paragraph:

Say goodbye to the south side.

Even though it seemed a great deal of interest was beginning to coalesce towards saving if not all, then some of the buildings along the South Side of Colborne, it now appears the Council has decided that such interest is not in the interest of the City.

I suppose it can be said, as a number of councillors have opined, that all this opposition, or perhaps in the positive, suggestions and ideas should have been placed before them at least a year ago when the process was in the early stages.

Perhaps they have a point. I wonder if part of the situation was no one believed it was possible. After all, there was a few road blocks, such as not all the money coming forward from the Province or the Federal governments. Also, the idea that since Brantford Laurier had issues with funding, plus the Y, it may have been seen that this was simply another pipe dream that had no possible way of taking place. If that was the case, then part of the problem can stem from the fact that there was a wide acceptance, or an unwillingness to see beyond the status quo. That is, people were now used to seeing the south side as the collection of dilapidated old buildings that kept people and rats housed.

It was only when the talk of it's demolition began to heat up that people decided to look again at the south side and realize there were some potential architectural gems in those roughs.

Although with the fact that people are coming forward, as well as the fact publicity is now being generated to save at least something of the south side, there still might be time.

Ah article in The Record, the paper of the Waterloo Region, lists groups that are interested in working with the City to halt the total demolition of the area. One professor is quoted as saying:

Rick Haldenby, the director of the University of Waterloo school of architecture, said the old buildings should be carefully assessed and studied to see what they could be used for.

“I was going to send an email to the mayor and council saying, ‘We have a lot of experience in dealing with these kinds of situations here and would be happy to look at it.'

“There needs to be some serious consideration given to this and some serious study done on the options that are available at this point,” Haldenby said. “We should not be demolishing the largest stretch of pre-Confederation architecture in the country.”

The issue can also be brought forward all this publicity seems to be having a bit of a negative effect on the leadership at Brantford Laurier:

The university is trying to distance itself from the controversial move by the City of Brantford.

Leslie Cooper, the vice-president/principal at Laurier Brantford, said the university has “no firm plans.”

“We are not out there pushing the council to demolish south Colborne Street,” Cooper said.

The university is taking no position in the increasingly heated debate.

“They have political processes that they go through in terms of the acquisition of buildings, demolition of buildings, consultation around buildings. They have a democratic process,” Cooper said. “Laurier Brantford respects that process.”

So the question has to be asked, is it all over? Or will this continue to drag for a few more weeks, or months until someone, somewhere comes up with a concrete proposal.

If you go to Colborne, you will notice the blue fence up around the buildings, I guess now it's just a matter of time before the equipment comes along. Apparently the hope is to have everything down and grass planted by July.

The World is Flat: a Review

During my recent trip down to the sun and sand of Cuba, I brought a book to read. Nothing unique about that, since most of the people who were lying by the ocean were reading books. In fact I thinking reading may have been more popular then going into the Ocean, the only thing more popular was the art of lying on the beach.

The book I read was entitled "The World is Flat" by Thomas Friedman. It is subtitled 'A Brief History of the 21st Century'. First of all, let me say at over 600 pages, it is anything but brief, but this is not to say the book is a struggle to read or tedious, in fact with his position as a journalist, Thomas Friedman has garnered his opinions from an interesting worldview, based upon his years of talking to some amazing people from quite a large number of nations.

The book begins with his coming to understand that the world has changed, it has become flat, or as some might describe it, as the playing field being leveled. I should point out that Friedman's thesis has brought about a number of critics who disagree with his points, but that's for another blog, perhaps. Friedman believes the world is flat and it has been the incredible transformation of technology which has brought this about, to him, the flatness can be found in the fact that companies are now being established to read x-rays, tax returns and do customer service, in places such as India, and later on you will read the same services are also expanding into Latin America, for example, to deal with the demand and the downtime on the other side of the world. The flatness is found in the interconnectivity of the world through technology.

The irony is that all this was brought about by the collapse of the tech bubble in the late 20th century. All of a sudden, all the digital infrastructure that had been put in place, such as the fibre optic cable was cheap and because it connected places such as India to North America, it now became possible to establish technology companies in India. Couple this with the fact that India decided to give up it's almost 50 year experiment with a socialist economy and build a more trade friendly one, brought about this massive explosion. It became good to be an entrepreneur, and with the fact that the post secondary education system was filled with some brilliant engineers and computer technologists, the country found itself in a place to take full advantage of the opening created.

At the same time, Friedman warns that the same technology that brought about some incredible change is also being used by groups that are not as benign. The tools are being used by groups such as Al-Quada to flatten the world in a way that is not so positive.

Thomas Friedman believes in globalization. While at times, this world has elicit scorn and anger from many quarters, to him it is the way in which people throughout the planet can raise themselves from the poverty level. He sees globalization as the expansion of jobs into places where such work doesn't exist and lifts people up. His criticism towards those who are anti-globalization is that they have no plan and the fact they tend to centre upon multinationals and not the people and nations that benefit from the jobs.

He discusses the various iterations of globalization; to him it all starts in 1492 when Columbus decided to sail west, rather then east and 'discovered' the new world. To him this is Globalization 1.0, in which nations were the main source of influence, wealth and power. It was during this period the world became round. This period lasted until about 1800, when we entered the stage of Globalization 2.0, this period was marked by the rise of corporations that quickly became multinationals. It was the time of robber barons and colossus, who ruled the world. It was also marked by the rise in both transportation and communication, so the world became small. The period we are in now is Globalization 3.0, and this is marked by the individual using the tools at his or her availability to make a difference in the world. The world is no longer round or small, it is flat.

An important part of the book is the ten forces that flattened the world. To him the great levellers are:

1. Fall of the Berlin Wall
The events of November 9, 1989, tilted the worldwide balance of power toward democracies and free markets.
2. Netscape IPO
The August 9, 1995, offering sparked massive investment in fiber-optic cables.
3. Work flow software
The rise of apps from PayPal to VPNs enabled faster, closer coordination among far-flung employees.
4. Open-sourcing
Self-organizing communities, � la Linux, launched a collaborative revolution.
5. Outsourcing
Migrating business functions to India saved money and a third world economy.
6. Offshoring
Contract manufacturing elevated China to economic prominence.
7. Supply-chaining
Robust networks of suppliers, retailers, and customers increased business efficiency. See Wal-Mart.
8. Insourcing
Logistics giants took control of customer supply chains, helping mom-and-pop shops go global. See UPS and FedEx.
9. In-forming
Power searching allowed everyone to use the Internet as a "personal supply chain of knowledge." See Google.
10. Wireless
Like "steroids," wireless technologies pumped up collaboration, making it mobile and personal

The above list was taken from the interview Wired Magazine did with Thomas Friedman.

The point he does try to get across is China and India are not interested in racing the West to the bottom, they want to race us to the top. They want to experience the comfortable life we now have in the West. They have had enough poverty, it's time for their moments in the sun and they have the resources, because we all do, the drive, desire and brainpower to do just that. If the West is to stay on top, it won't take place through protectionism and isolationism, but rather by educating ourselves with the skills to live in this new century. We need to develop greater strength in mathematics, science and the liberal arts. We need to add innovation and extras to stay on top. He also believes one place the West can stay on top is through the development of green technology. He wants to end dependency on oil, since oil has been a bane not a boon to those nations which possess it. This point is further developed in his latest book "Hot Flat and Crowded", which I did a review of a few months back.

While he is a supporter, he acknowledges the problems of globalization, for example there are still a lot of people who have not been able to enjoy the benefits of the change. These people are on the fringe and there is still a lot of them. They are there because of situations and circumstances- for example the wrong caste or the fact they are sick to give a few examples. They have been shut out because of their poverty. He does say the poor are not angry at the rich, they are angry because the way for their own wealth is block by circumstance probably not of their making. An important reason is also too humiliated. He looks at this point which has led to the rise of radical Islamism and groups such as Al-Qaida. They look at their history and their circumstance and realize they are not where they should be. Whereas at one time they were the dominant world power, they have lost a lot of strength. While much of the Islamic world is wealthy,due to oil, this wealth has not really brought about much innovation. So they seek to blame or return to that period of time when the Muslim world was the world power. Plus when they come west, they are often on the outside still, looking in, taking low end jobs and facing discrimination. This is where the suicide bombers are recruited, because humiliation leads to anger and anger to lashing out against those perceived source of the humiliation.

The book is fascinating. As I said few can have Thomas Friedman's perspective on global issues, since he's the one that talks to the people. He encounters billionaires, on one hand, and grandmothers in Utah taking his Jet Blue reservation in the next. He presents his case, not as either a cheerleader, although he admits as much, nor as someone who hates globalization, he is a realists, giving us the full portrait.

The size may frighten, but it is interesting enough to keep you going throughout the 600 plus pages.

Available through Amazon and other online retailers as well as local bookstores.

A Tale of Two Downtowns

This weekend, the downtown celebrated Frosty Fest, Brantford's Winter Festival. It was celebrated in Harmony Square with some action taking place along Dalhousie Street. By the article in the local paper, it was a success, and as I can attest, there was a lot of people in the Square. The ice rink was filled, the various carnival rides had long line ups, and I have to believe the Coffee Culture store must have been doing an incredible business.

So there it was great, then you look south and see the signs of impending destruction for the south side of Colborne;




It seems the sad legacy of south Colborne will soon be a memory, and while there are many who will be glad to see it all down and gone, there are still other voices lamenting its soon destruction. There are those who will make very good arguments, that the downtown has looked bad for years, or that right now, it is a open sore on the city, something that makes people apologize to outsiders for the horrible way it looks. Or the perception is this must be an area of high crime, because things look so run-down. I don't have the statistics in front of me, I have to say that any time I make a quick perusal of the police blotter in the local paper, its often the north end where are the crime takes place, such as break and entry and other types of robberies.

Other voices are now joining the fray, the noted columnist from the Toronto Star, Christopher Hume, an urban architect has now began to make mention of Brantford's soon to be act of 'urban renewal'. He has written two articles so far this month, the first was entitled: "Brantford aims wrecking ball at its future". This article gives people a quick history of Brantford's downtown and what the plans are for its future restoration, although that may not be the right word for what is planned. He talks about the introduction of the University to the core and how there has been effort to revitalize heritage structures within the core, rather then building new structures. Even right now, the former CIBC is being restored for classrooms, and it's located at the corner of Market and Dalhousie, right across from Market Square, which must be on everybody's list of uglies. I've already got photographs of the place, so I will save you from seeing them again.

His most recent article is more his opinion of the plan and its not nice. He is very critical of Brantford's plan for south side Colborne. He writes in the article "Brantford will live to regret the tragedy of edifice wrecks". It's a pity one can sit down with him and ask the question, now Christopher, tell us how you really feel. To him it is a tragedy that needs to be stopped and stopped now. As you read more of the plans, the scarier it sounds. He quotes from the Mayor of Brantford:

And the notion of heritage, of valuing a building because of its age, holds little sway in these parts. Listen to what Brantford Mayor Mike Hancock told a local newspaper last week: "I think the worst mistake we could make is to have a solid plan. Let's just take it down and look at what we have got. Then we can start deciding together what should go there."

Wreck now, think later. Now that's faith.

The strategy of Council is to get everybody out, tear down four blocks of building and then hope some sort of plan is developed to replace the torn down structures. This makes a person wonder if the strategy of building new structures for the University and the Y is just a pipe dream. So what will that mean for those who live and work downtown, instead of old building we get to stare at plywood sheets and some sort of framing. Will there be blocks of poster covered plywood which will make things even less appealing?

I recall reading that quote and shaking my head. What do they want to do with the downtown then?

I understand there will be time taken for environmental studies and to consider the entire grade of the slope to discover what can and cannot be built. One concern has to be regarding the structures, the problem with institutional construction is that it tends to be ugly and devoid of life. Just consider the average city hall, if there is any building that sucks the life and creativity for a city, it is the municipal structure, its no wonder most cities function in a dysfunctional manner, just look at where they work! They work in a place where life and creativity is destroyed.

Mr. Hume gives this opinion:

As that phase of our evolution now draws to a close, it will be interesting to see what's next for Brantford. Though it's not mainstream yet, the back-to-the-core movement is well underway. The results are transformative. And in fact, Brantford is an attractive, compact city well poised for its next incarnation.

On the other hand, this is also a city that has made every postwar planning mistake in the book and then some. The gospel of growth at any cost turned out to be another lie, and a lot more expensive and destructive than anyone expected.

What is impressive is people do want to come to the downtown. If there's something that is fun and appeals to all ages, people will come and have fun. They can bring money to the core, the renewal can be the reality. Just needs the right vision and plan.