Author: dave Page 17 of 75

I remember the excitement of space travel, the awe of those first launches and the thrill of watching a man land on the moon. But the thrill is gone, as they say, for most people. Today, NASA struggles to justify its existence and the future of space exploration remains uncertain.

That’s why I recommend that you take a look at The Big Picture this week. They’ve got a bunch of photos from the Space Shuttle mission to repair the Hubble Space Telescope. If you need a good reason to justify spending money in space, look no further than the Hubble. We’ve all marvelled at those amazing images that we’ve seen over the years. I really hope this repair mission works.

The pictures of the mission are outstanding. You can’t look at them, especially on a large screen, and not feel that old magic rising up again.

Go ahead, take a look and see if you don’t agree. It may not make financial sense, but there’s a lot to be said for being breathtaking as a reason for doing something.

Here’s the link.

I’ve written before about the evolution of the news business, particularly the problems facing newspapers and TV – the so-called mainstream media – in these tough financial times.

While I am a fan of the increasing use of social media for getting messages out, creating conversations and analyzing important issues, I am not comfortable with the argument that old-style journalism is increasingly irrelevant.

Shel Holtz is an influential PR professional, who is well-known as an early adopter of social media and a popular blogger, podcaster, author and speaker in the PR and communications fields. In a post today, called “The continuing need for professional journalism,” Shel lays out his views on why bloggers and other forms of social media (as important as they are) are not a substitute for professional journalists.

It’s a great post and I recommend you read it yourself. But if you just want the wrap-up, Here’s his conclusion:

The bottom line: Professional journalism is still sorely needed and won’t be replaced by social media. Instead, they will co-exist, complement one another, and ultimately produce a new ecosystem of news in which both forms of reporting play an integral part. The notion that bloggers eliminate the need for voices like Seymour Hersch, Ernie Pyle, or Edward R. Murrow (go rewatch “Harvest of Shame” and tell me anybody without training and professional standards could duplicate it.)

Where great journalism will be practiced remains an open question…. I’m confident that one or more models ultimately will prove effective and the rigor and professionalism journalists bring to the table will continue to provide a valuable mix to the enlarged world of news coverage. I hope I’m right. Without it—despite the smug assertions by bloggers that they can pick up the mantle and deliver us to a true golden age of journalism—we’re sunk without it.

Good stuff.

The photo was taken from Shel’s post.

The proposal to switch to electing BC MLAs using proportional representation was defeated in yesterday’s provincial election, much to my and others’ disappointment.

Although pollsters had predicted the loss, I was holding out hope that voters would surprise us. But it didn’t happen.

And now it looks like electoral reform is unlikely here in BC, or anywhere else in Canada, for the foreseeable future.

I’m not sure why voters weren’t interested in changing the existing first past the post system. But I suspect that the recent federal experience with minority governments, especially the failed attempt at forming a Liberal/NDP coalition supported by the Bloc Quebecois, played a role. I heard people talking about how they didn’t want the uncertainty that comes with minorities. And they figured that STV would give small, fringe parties control over government.

What seems fairly obvious is that the issue as not debated on its merits. For example, read the comments that follow this story on the CTV website. You’d think that the proposal was being put forward by communists and green supporters – instead of a group of ordinary citizens who spent a year of their lives coming up with this alternative. But that history got shunted aside during the referendum.

Ironically, Premier Gordon Campbell used his acceptance speech to talk about how important it is for political parties to work together to find solutions to the tough problems facing us during this economic downturn. But thanks to the existing system, which gave him a solid majority government with about 42% of the vote, he doesn’t need to build consensus. He has a clean slate to proceed with anything he wants to.

The referendum campaign never caught fire. It did end up being supported by some prominent figures but that support came late and didn’t attract a lot of attention. Overall, the No campaign’s message that STV was too complicated and would dilute voters’ connection to their MLA carried the day. That’s democracy – the people have spoken and electoral reform is off the table for now.

Too bad. It would have made politics really interesting again.

Perhaps its because I’m now a homeowner again, after a few years of renting, that I’ve been thinking more and more about the long-term benefits of various building options, such as improving windows, insulation, lighting, etc.

One thing I’ve been intrigued by for a long time is the “Living Roof” or Green Roof, as it’s also know by. There are getting to be more and more buildings that are adding natural elements to their roofs, like plants and grasses. And in some countries, the law mandates that new buildings incorporate designs into their structures.

I came across a good article at the National Geographic’s website on this topic, which I enjoyed and I thought you might too.

And if you’re interested in the subject, there are some other websites out there to explore, such as:

– Wikipedia article on green roofs

– City of Toronto article

– Centre for Architectural Ecology – Collaborations in Green Roofs and Living Walls

And here’s a video about the Vancouver Convention Centre’s Green Roof, which is mentioned in the Geographic article.

Photo Credit: Victoria’s Marriot Hotel from pnwra on Flickr

There’s an interesting subtext to BC’s referendum on the current system of electing MLAs.

The government decided that in order to be fair, they’d give each side of the debate – those in favour of changing the current system to one using a single transferable vote (STV) and those against changing from the current First Past The Post system.

Each side received $500,000 in funding. The Yes side (disclosure – I’m in support of STV – I’ve even got a lawn sign) has used a lot of its money in building a website, organizing people on the ground, holding local meetings, recruiting and training volunteers, printing pamphlets and lawnsigns and generally employing “people power” to get the word out. Social media also figures prominently, through their website, email updates, twitter posts, YouTube and on Facebook (There are over 100 groups, most Yes, but some No.)

The No side decided not to organize at a local level, choosing to spend almost all of it’s money on TV and radio ads, as well as a website. Here’s their rationale, according to No-STV President Bill Tieleman. He wrote this in a letter to a No supporter who wondered why there was no local presence in the campaign:

The Yes STV side has a great many volunteers organized for the past several years through Fair Voting BC. No STV has approached the referendum completely differently and is putting almost all resources into television, radio and print advertising – TV starts today. We do not have lawn signs and you will not see any this campaign unless individuals make their own, which would be great. But the Yes STV side has spent an awful lot of their money on leaflets, signs, offices, staff, etc., more than half of their $500,000 government funding. We believe we can reach far more people through advertising and our website.

The No side doesn’t seem to be making much use of social media, although individuals are starting to do it. But in some ways, their reliance on mainstream media ads makes for an interesting comparison to the Yes side, which is putting a lot of faith in brining its supporters together using new media, on the Barack Obama model.

Of course, there’s a lot more to any campaign than just the ads. But it’s interesting to note that the No side of the debate seems to consist entirely of talking about how the BCSTV proposal is a bad one. “We are in favour of reform, just not this version,” is their standard statement. I have yet to hear anyone defend the current system. The last 12 days are going to be interesting.