Note: Transcripts may contain errors. If you wish to re-use all, or part of, a transcript, please contact CBC for permission. Please check the corresponding audio before quoting in print. Copyright © CBC 2023

The AIH transcript for January 24, 2023

NIL KÖKSAL: Hello, I'm Nil Köksal.

CHRIS HOWDEN: Good evening, I'm Chris Howden. This is "As It Happens."

[music: theme]

Prologue

CH: Tonight:

NK: Acting in concert. U.S. senators from both parties come together to blame Ticketmaster for bungling ticket sales. But the company's former CEO argues that fans need to take a good, hard look in the mirror.

CH: History in the Unmaking. A black professor says Florida's new “Stop Woke” law won't stop him from teaching people the ugly truth about Black history. And if the state comes after him, so be it.

NK: Bringing in the big guns. The Estonian ambassador to Ukraine says there is relief and appreciation in response to word that Germany and the U.S. are preparing to deliver battle tanks.

CH: Radioactive duty. Japan says it's totally safe to release wastewater from the Fukushima nuclear disaster into the ocean. But nearby residents of Pacific Island nations say those assurances don't hold water.

NK: Short notice. Two Canadians are nominated for an Oscar for their animated short about a sailor who survived the Halifax explosion. One of those filmmakers tells us about what the near-death tale can teach us about life.

CH: And… harvest. boon. Peas will be on the menu at the Regina Food Bank for the foreseeable future, thanks to a farmer who just donated 25 tons of his crop to the charity.

CH: As It Happens, the Tuesday Edition radio that urges if you want to donate, speak now or forever hold your peas.

Part 1: Ticketmaster Ex-CEO, Estonia Ukraine Ambassador, Oscar Nominated Short

Ticketmaster Ex-CEO

Guest: Fred Rosen

CH: You wouldn't necessarily have predicted that U.S. Democrats and Republicans would come together on any issue in 2023. But they have. And the issue is: Taylor Swift tickets. That unexpected alliance was on display today at a Senate hearing, two months after a disastrous mess-up over Ms. Swift's latest tour. Politicians from both sides of the aisle quoted pertinent lyrics, and took aim at Ticketmaster, the company that presided over the Taylor Swift fiasco. Ticketmaster sold the tickets to that tour, and pretty much any tour involving arenas. Here's Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal.

SOUNDCLIP

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL: It's basically it's not us. It's everyone but us. And the fact of the matter is that Live Nation, Ticketmaster, is the 800-pound gorilla here. You have clear dominance, monopolistic control. Ticketmaster had the temerity to imply that the debacle involved in pre-ticket sales was Taylor Swift's fault because she was failing to do too many concerts. And may I suggest respectfully that Ticketmaster ought to look in the mirror and say, I'm the problem. It's me.

CH: Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal. Today's hearings also saw Joe Berchtold, the head of Live Nation -- which owns Ticketmaster -- apologize to the singer and her fans. Fred Rosen is the former CEO of Ticketmaster. We reached him in Toronto.

CO: Fred, is Ticketmaster the problem? Are fans directing their frustration to the right spot?

FRED ROSEN: I'm not going to sit in a room and, you know, tell a senator that he has misinformation. And it's easy to throw Ticketmaster under the bus. But let's just deal with facts and take this backwards. There were 3.6 billion attempts to get into the Ticketmaster system. No system on the face of the Earth can do that. At the end of the day, Ticketmaster sold $500 million worth of tickets. Yes, there were problems. Should there have been a circuit breaker like there is on the New York Stock Exchange when things are out of line? Yes. Should the sale have been shut down, like you can't have a run on the bank? Yes. But no one really understood, I think, the demand that was put on a system so rapidly and so quickly. And the fact is it's easy to blame Ticketmaster and say it's their fault. But here's the truth. I'm fairly sure that the representatives of the act were told not to put all the shows on sale at one time. And they chose to do it anyway. And the truth is that in the normal course of events, if there's enough tickets and enough events and enough times, enough evenings that the acts playing, you would handle that. Look at Garth Brooks. I don't think the demand for this is any greater than Garth Brooks. But --

NK: So, well, we won't go into comparing Garth Brooks and Taylor Swift. They… they have both…. they have big fanbases.

FR: But because Garth Brooks was playing stadium shows and there was a lot more supply to deal with the demand. And so --

NK: So again, you're saying you're saying Taylor Swift's team, or Taylor Swift herself, put too many of these shows on the market all at once?

FR: I would have not put all the shows on sale when you knew the demand was going to be that excessive. And here's the fact of life. How many people make $300 million in one day? They took in $500 million. She will get north of $300 million out of that tour. And everybody thinks it's a fiasco. I don't.

NK: Ticketmaster's issues, the issues that fans have with Ticketmaster, predate any Taylor Swift issues. Ticketmaster was ordered to pay a $4 million penalty and $500,000 in costs incurred by the Competition Bureau here in Canada after it investigated allegedly misleading price claims in online ticket sales in 2018. CBC News investigated Ticketmaster for allegedly recruiting scalpers at a scalpers conference.

FR: You know. I have to do something.

NK: Yes.

FR: Please, listen to me. [NK scoffs disgustedly] You listen to me. When you asked me to come on this call.

NK: Yeah.

FR: You asked me to discuss Ticketmaster.

NK: Yes.

FR: Not what happened after I left. I wasn't around for any of that.

NK: Well, I wasn't going to… I wasn't asking if you were directly involved. I'm just saying fans have the history of mistrust because of those issues in addition to the Taylor Swift incident. So, I brought those up so people know that it's about more than Taylor Swift because they may have tried to buy tickets at different times. But you've said… you said… you told the Los Angeles Times, sir, that… that you believe fans are in large part to blame for what's happening with pricing. So explain why you feel they're to blame?

FR: It's really simple. They stole all the music, so 90 per cent of an artist's revenue comes from live ticket sales. You know what I love? This is what I really love. I find it really fascinating.

NK: Yeah.

FR: You get on the phone, or you want to do these interviews, and everybody wants to take a shot at Ticketmaster. Ticketmaster doesn't set prices. Ticketmaster doesn't determine how many tickets go on sale. And the net effect of this is when I was in the business, about 50 to 60 per cent of an artist's revenues came from recorded music. When Napster came along, and all the music, all the recorded music and all the artists revenue went away, except for the superstars. It has to go somewhere. It's physics. Is a Taylor Swift concert worth any less than the floor seats of any NBA game? No. The truth of the matter is… and this hasn't changed in 40 years. Nobody pays more for a ticket than they want. And two-thirds of what any ticket company sells, nobody wants to sit in. So you can't be user-friendly by the very essence of the business you're in because people are sitting in the last 20 rows or 30 rows, and you want to blame somebody. So who is going to blame? You're not going to blame the venue owner. You're not going to blame the promoter. You're not going to blame the artist. You blame the ticket company.

NK: There's a University of Chicago professor quoted in the LA Times, Eric Budish, who says, quote, Ticketmaster effectively paid to be a punching bag. But why do you think then people focus on Ticketmaster and not the artists? If you made more transparency about where the money goes, or is Ticketmaster just okay with being the punching bag at this point?

FR: I created it so that Ticketmaster would take the heat for everyone, but Ticketmaster never got all the money. Do you not understand this is a business? And it's a basic level of deflection. So, everybody gets mad at Ticketmaster, okay. So let's say Ticketmaster is out of business, and now it's your ticket company. You think they'd like you any better? In all due respect, whoever does it, every venue operator knows the following. It's a thankless job. Why do you do it? Because it's economically profitable and because somebody has to do it. And the truth of the matter is when people write stories, they never tell the truth. So you go, Ticketmaster cancelled the second day on sale for the Taylor Swift concert. Ticketmaster doesn't have the power to do that. You know who has the power to do that? Only the act and the promoter.

NK: You said you built it that way for Ticketmaster to take the heat, but you sound really angry about it all these years later.

FR I'm not angry about it. I just find it absurd that people aren't smart enough to understand that's the game. I find it absurd that you sit in a room, you go the fans are angry. Well, okay. The fans are angry. Can we put everybody in the first 20 rows? Is it Ticketmaster's fault that demand is 10 times greater than the number of seats they have to sell?

NK: But is Ticketmaster helping fuel that demand, sir, if they have people --

FR: We don't fuel --

NK: Well, let me ask the question. First of all, I listen to you, and I want to… I'm very excited that I get to speak to you because we want… I love live events. I know many people who do. And we have to make those decisions as we're buying the tickets. I really want to see this person. Can I afford it? So, I'm pleased to have the opportunity to talk to you. It's not an attack at all. I genuinely want answers, and I want to give you the.

[crostalk]

NK: Let me just ask the question. I'm just saying Ticketmaster has the ability to take away the dynamic pricing or the quote/unquote verified buyers, who, for a lot of ticket purchasers, it doesn't seem like they're verified buyers. It seems like they're scalpers scooping up a lot of tickets that the next day will be so many multiples higher than the original price that the artists had set. So Ticketmaster does have control of that, don't they?

FR: No. No, they don't. They don't. You give the artists options. You go into a store to buy a blouse, you say, I want the red one instead of the blue one. I want the orange one instead of the yellow one. These are all options the Ticketmaster system allows. That's the technology. The artist decides that, not Ticketmaster. You're totally wrong.

NK: Well, I'm asking you to find out the answer. [chuckling]

FR: I just gave you the answer. The artist and the promoter determine what tickets go on sale, what the prices are, whether they use dynamic pricing or not. It's a set of options that Ticketmaster offers those people.

NK: So, should we, as fans, then be demanding of the artists? I'm talking about the big not the smaller acts, but the big, big acts that they should say no to dynamic pricing and verified resale?

FR: I would say that in the end, the anger is misplaced because let me ask you this question. Who's the recipient of all the money? The recipient is the act.

NK: On the issue of what the senator was saying in that initial clip, and others have said it as well, that it's monopolistic and it controls the market. Live Nation working with Ticketmaster. If Ticketmaster is doing everything as it should, what's the harm, do you think, in having more competition and some oversight, some regulation?

FR: First of all, it's called capitalism. Second of all, this is the great mistake that everybody makes. More ticket companies don't change pricing. What determines pricing is demand. You can have 400 ticket companies, and the same number of tickets and the prices wouldn't change. And, by the way, when Ticketmaster started, and I was there for that, there was one big ticket company. It was Ticketron. I took them on. I lost money. I worked really hard. I built a better system. If someone can do that better than Ticketmaster, then they'll win.

NK: I just want to ask you personally, what about when you try to buy tickets? Do you still? Do you get frustrated when you're trying to buy tickets?

FR: I don't go to very many events. I didn't go to many events when I ran Ticketmaster. Can I… can I ask you a question? It's a really simple question. When we started, 80 per cent of all the tickets were sold at the box office. We created a big outlet network. We created a big film business, and we changed the business. And then we came with the cost. And then people started complaining about the cost. Then when we did all-in-ticketing for a number of shows in the nineties, people complained that we were hiding the service charges. So now everybody wants all-in tickets. Listen, I got to tell you something, and I mean, you're a very nice woman. People got to grow up. People have to recognize it's a business. And the fact of the matter is, whether Ticketmaster did it, whether Joe Jones did it, whether you did it. It's not going to change. People are always going to be angry because there's no good way to do this. And here's what nobody wants to deal with: is nobody pays more for a ticket than they want because you don't have to go. And it's not noblesse oblige. The fact of the matter is, it's entertainment. And here's the thing that the Internet did that changed: every artist is a brand. And they have a right to determine what they're worth. And dynamic pricing, for whatever it's worth, If the artist chooses that, that's what the market will bear. That's what a free market is. When the Philadelphia Phillies were in the playoffs, I don't know if they were in the World Series. I forgot. The people in Philadelphia were proud of the fact that all the tickets for the Phillies games were over $1,000 a ticket. Because in sports, if prices go up, it's a badge of honour. In concerts, if prices go up, it's the end of the world as you know it. And the ticket company is accused of everything except kidnapping the Lindbergh baby. It's absurd!

NK: Fred, we do have to leave it there, but I really do appreciate your time. Thank you.

FR: You're welcome. You have a good day.

NK: You, too.

CH: Fred Rosen is the former CEO of Ticketmaster. He's in Toronto. And you can find that interview on our website: cbc.ca/aih. I imagine you may have something to say about that conversation. If so, you can email us at: aih@cbc.ca, or call talkback at: 416-205-5687.

[music: chill]

Estonia Ukraine Ambassador

Guest: Kaimo Kuusk

CH: This afternoon, a Ukrainian journalist tweeted, "Big kitties are coming. And they are angry." Now, that doesn't sound like a tweet related to the war, but it is: the big kitties he's referring to are German Leopard tanks. Today, multiple media outlets reported that German Chancellor Olaf Scholz will soon approve the export of tanks to help fight the Russian invasion. The Associated Press also reported that the Biden Administration is preparing to approve American M1 Abrams tanks for Ukraine. Estonia has been pushing its European allies to send the tanks, and other advanced military hardware. It has announced that it would send all of its 155-millimetre howitzers to Ukraine. Kaimo Kuusk is Estonia's ambassador to Ukraine. We reached him in Kyiv.

NK: Ambassador, Estonia, as you know, has been pushing Germany to send these Leopard tanks. But you were getting resistance on that. What do you think changed Germany's mind today?

KAIMO KUUSK: Well, I think what Germany has seen is that Russia will not stop if they are not stopped, and other allies just are very strong in their position that Ukraine has to be helped. And not only in words of grave concern. So, yeah, we have to do it.

NK: So now, Germany and the United States, it seems, are about to send these battle tanks that Ukraine says it needs. What difference do you think these tanks, in particular, will be able to make on the battlefield?

KK: First, they are absolutely new-generation weapons. Second, why Ukraine needs Western tanks? Mainly it's because they will run out of old ammunition, old ammunition which is needed for old tanks, the Soviet region tanks. So if you don't ammunition, your tank turns into a tractor.

NK: We know, though, that it's going to take some time for these tanks to get to where they need to be and actually see any action. Do you worry, sir, that Germany and the United States waited too long to take this step?

KK: Sitting in Kyiv, knowing Ukrainians are looking at the news, we all… I think we look and worry about the situation in the battlefields. For Ukrainians, it's always a little bit too late, but it's better late than never. It could have been the summer when the Western tanks could have arrived. All right.

NK: I wanted to ask you about Estonia's commitment right now. The country has announced it's going to be sending all of its 155-millimetre howitzers to Ukraine. It's unusual, certainly, for a country to send its entire stock of a crucial weapon like this. So, why is Estonia doing this?

KK: Our logic is that in our region, there's only one threat against our country, our country's independence or territorial integrity. And it's Russia. So really, these weapons have been bought to fight Russians. So, we are giving it to Ukrainians who are fighting against Russia.

NK: And what are you hearing from your Ukrainian counterparts in Kyiv today about what… what Germany and the U.S. are doing, but also about Estonia's contribution?

KK: They were really touched, really touched. So, sincere. So, at the moment also, the ones who know me come to shake hands basically on the streets. In case of tanks, Ukrainians are crossing fingers. But actually, they are quite self-confident. They now, of course, look dynamic since the spring when, you know, just giving howitzers were… were going to double. Now, they are coming. So, Ukrainians are actually self-confident that the tanks will come.

NK: Well, I was… I was going to ask you about that because tanks were unthinkable a few months ago. What do you think is next? What… you know, we've… we've crossed many thresholds to this point as we approach the one-year mark of this… of the invasion. What could come next?

KK: I mean, Ukrainians are absolutely in need and interested in fighter airplanes.

NK: So that could come next.

KK: At least they will work in that direction.

NK: I wanted to ask you as well, sir, you know well that there's there's a concern that, you know, on one hand, Ukraine needs help to fight Russia, but on the other hand, if Western countries, you know, could be giving Russia what it wants in a way as well by being dragged into this war further. There was concern that sending things such as tanks could provoke the Russians as well to escalate their conflict with NATO. So, how worried are you about those aspects of this?

KK: Well, we were among one of the first ones who sent the javelins and who started to send howitzers. So, we actually live in neighbouring Russia. We have acknowledged the threat Russia… Russia has. In neighbourhood with Russia, we are always concerned, but we are not, in that case, worried, actually. So, in Ukraine, it's already… it's full-scale war, actually. So… so, I'm… I'm very confident about NATO.

NK: We've certainly seen Ukrainian resilience, civilian, you know, resilience just with… with what people have to deal with in Kyiv and elsewhere in the country. We've seen what the military, the Ukrainian military, is capable of, you know, at least to this point. But do you think the Ukrainian military, sir, has what it takes, has the means to win this war?

KK: We need to support them more. That's why we are sending our howitzers to them, actually. So, they… they have all the courage they have ready to… to fight. They are tired, but they're not exhausted, let's say. And so, they will continue. They know that there can be more losses. Not… not can. There are, there would be, more losses on the occupation of Russia in case of fighting. That's coming from our Estonian history as well. During the Second World War, up to the Second World War, how many lives we lost under Soviet Russian occupation. So… so, they will definitely continue in the Ukrainians.

NK: Ambassador, thank you very much for your time.

KK: Thank you.

CH: Kaimo Kuusk is Estonia's ambassador to Ukraine. We reached him in Kyiv.

[music: orchestral]

Oscar Nominated Short

Guest: Amanda Forbis

SOUNDCLIP

RIZ AHMED: And now, the nominees for "Best Animated Short Film. The Boy, the Mole, the Fox and the Horse. [clapping and cheering] The Flying Sailor. [clapping and cheering] Ice Merchants. [clapping and cheering] My Year of Dicks. [clapping and giggles] And An Ostrich Told Me the World Is Fake and I Think I Believe It. [more clapping and giggles]

CH: Some laughter today as the Academy Award nominations for "Best Short Animated Film" were announced. Two Canadian animators were definitely laughing, when they weren't high-fiving. Well, they can probably do both at once. For the third time, Amanda Forbis and Wendy Tilby are vying for the prize for "Best Animated Short". The Flying Sailor tells the story of a sailor who survived the Halifax Explosion. We reached Amanda Forbis in Park City, Utah -- where she's attending the Sundance Film Festival.

NK: Amanda, we just heard what it sounded like as the nominations for your category were announced. What did it sound like where you and Wendy were?

AMANDA FORBIS: Well, it was hard to tell because we were yelling. [both laughs] Yeah, yeah. So, the title My Year of Dicks cracks them up every time.

NK: Sure.

AF: And we just barely caught that because we were so busy celebrating, you know? Yeah. Woo hoo! Kind of noises. [chuckling]

NK: I bet. I bet. You've been nominated twice before for Wildlife in 2012. And When the Day Breaks back in 2000. Does it ever get old?

AF: No. [NK chuckles] And it's wonderful and terrifying at the same time.

NK: What's terrifying about it?

AF: Well, I liken us to a couple of shaggy ponies out in the back 40, just minding our own business. [NK chuckles] And then, somebody says, hey, you're going to the Kentucky Derby. So, it's a little overwhelming.

NK: That's a film, maybe to come. Have you made that?

AF: [chuckling] Yeah.

NK: Well, let's talk about this nomination. It's a beautiful film. Eight minutes long. The Flying Sailor. Who was the Flying Sailor? Well, he's a real person. His name was Charlie Myers, and we don't know much about him except that he was in Halifax on that morning in 1917. And the explosion threw him two kilometres, where he landed wearing one boot only. That's all he had on. But he was otherwise okay. And it's such an extraordinary story. It caught our eye many years ago at the Maritime Museum in Halifax.

NK: Yeah, it's moving to watch. You know, there are whimsical moments and funny moments, but it's a meditation, I think, on life and the little moments as well that you interspersed throughout the film. How did you decide what to include?

AF: Well, the idea was to not have it be greatest hits. When you talk about near-death experiences, invariably, they talk about the white light. Then they talk about your life passing before your eyes. But we wanted it to be the kinds of things that would never get into your obituary. Because every human has within them all of these memories that will never be expressed or seen by anybody else and that… those were the kinds of memories we wanted to have in there, those very intimate moments that are not when you get married or when you lost your job or in the sailors case when you were keel hauled or whatever. So, we wanted that subtlety to express his internal experience.

NK: It is at times, as I said, there's levity in it. It's playful in the beginning, very, very light and fun even before the explosion happens. Why did you want to make sure there was levity to the story and this moment in history?

AF: Well, the beginning of the film, that... that tonal change you're talking about, it was important to set it up as any other day and also as a cartoon day where nothing bad can really happen. And so there may be a ship loaded with dynamite, but surely nobody will get hurt by it if it's a cartoon. And then, when it suddenly radically shifts to something more serious, we were trying to illustrate that moment that comes in everybody's life where something happens, and you mark your life as the before and the after. And very often, you wish it was the before time because your entire landscape has changed. So, that was the reason for that. But as for the humour in general, it's always important for us to have humour in our films. It.. it keeps you going. It's sort of the fun of the thing, really.

NK: I mentioned your previous Oscar nominations. What would it mean this time to actually take home that statue and to win?

AF: I guess it would be nice. I have to admit. [both chuckle] We… we like to say that at the Oscars, we're always the bridesmaids, never the brides. So, we could… we could keep going with that. But it would be nice to have the statue, it's true.

NK: There's lots of women in your… in your field, but we don't always hear about them. So, I just wondered how it is for you in the industry now as it's grown and more and more women have come into the field?

AF: Well, it feels like there's a revolution underway. We've always had the privilege of working with the film board… the National Film Board, who has always been 100 per cent supportive of us. I've never, ever felt that men were privileged over me working at the film board, which is an amazing thing because I've been working with them for about 30 years. But in the industry itself, we're seeing more women and more women's voices, and they're saying some pretty fantastic and original things. For instance, that film My Year of Dicks is… is a fantastic portrayal of a teenage girl's mind, as is the feature film Turning Red.

NK: Yes.

AF: Which is nominated in the… in the "Animation" category, "Feature Animation".

NK: Domee Shi.

AF: And it's just wonderful. Yeah, that's right. It's just wonderful to see this stuff coming out.

NK: Well, Amanda, thank you so much for letting us be a small part of your celebrations, or to interrupt them at least. I hope there's… there's more celebrating to come.

AF: Thank you, Nil. It's lovely to talk to you.

NK: Take care.

AF: Bye-bye.

CH: Canadian filmmaker and Oscar nominee Amanda Forbis in Park City, Utah.

[music: bright piano]

Part 2: FLA Stop Woke Act Prof, Fukushima Pacific Islands

FLA Stop Woke Act Prof

Guest: Marvin Dunn

CH: We can all learn lessons from history. What history we learn from, though, is another matter. This month, Florida's Education Department said it would not approve an advanced placement African American studies class offered by the College Board, saying it lacked "educational value" and contravenes Florida law. Specifically, a law called the "Stop Woke Act", which requires race to be taught in what it calls "an objective manner" that doesn't "indoctrinate" students to a particular point of view or make them feel guilty. Critics say the wording of the law is purposefully vague to create a chilling effect. But at least one educator says it won't stop him. Marvin Dunn is a professor emeritus at Florida International University, a public university affected by the law. He's also been leading high school students on a tour of Florida's history of racial violence. We reached Professor Dunn in Miami.

NK: Professor, what are some of the stops on your "Teach the Truth" tours?

MARVIN DUNN: We stop in Mims, Florida which is where Harrity More and his wife were killed by the Klan. They put a bomb beneath their house in 1951 -- Christmas night, as a matter of fact, their anniversary night, and killed them. He was the foremost civil rights leader in Florida at the time, 1951. We stop in Newberry, Florida, central Florida, where the largest lynching we know of in Florida history took place in 1916. They lynched eight people at one time, including two women, one of whom was pregnant. We go to the cemetery where some of those victims are buried. And we visit the historical marker where that event is recognized.

NK: How do students react when you share the stories that you've just told us about?

MD: Some of them cry, which is expected. You can't take kids to a grave of a woman who was pregnant when they lynched her and not have people feel things. And they should feel things, but they shouldn't feel anger. Those students who are white should not feel guilt about this. So, the students have the kind of a reaction that any adult person would have, I think, which is to understand this was wrong and… and hurtful and that it should be remembered. And that's what they tell us as we debrief on these stops. And then, they seem to be grateful because they say, they tell me, and I know this anyway, that they don't get exposure to this material in schools. They're not taught about anti-Black violence in Florida. They're not taught about the oppression of Blacks economically in Florida, politically in Florida. Those lessons are kept away from students. And therefore, in my opinion, they are handicapped educationally.

NK: Under this new law, the things that you just discussed, the historical facts and truths that you just shared with us, are those things you could teach in your classroom under this law?

MD: Well, you can teach the facts. For example, I could tell students that six Black people were lynched in Newberry in 1916 for allegedly stealing hogs. I can't tell them that the people who lynched them were white. I can't tell them that race was a factor. I can't tell them how I feel about looking at a photograph, and we do have a photograph of six of the victims laying on the ground at the feet of a white men, standing around smiling. So, you can teach the facts, which is what DeSantis says, teach the facts, but keep your feelings out of it. How dare him! I'm old enough to tell you I sat in the back of the bus because I'm Black. I can't share that with my students. So, you know, you can teach the facts. They say the facts of slavery. You can teach that. But you can't say that it was wrong. You can't say that Black people now have problems that go back to that era of existence.

NK: Why not? Why can't you say those things, do you think?

MD: They say because some students may feel uncomfortable. Some just might feel guilty if you tell them these things. So, you can't take things that might make some students uncomfortable. Now, if you apply that rule, there's a lot of stuff you can't teach. I mean, suppose that you have Japanese American students in your school. Can you not teach Pearl Harbour? Do we leave that out because, obviously, that could present a problem for them? So, they're trying to parse this thing in such a way that the law is impossible to enforce. Not to mention the morality of it.

NK: Earlier this month, Florida's Department of Education rejected an AP, or advanced placement, African American studies course, saying it is illegal under this law. And that it, quote, lacks educational value.

MD: Um-hmm.

NK: You grew up in the Jim Crow era. You talked about that. You spent 50 years researching and sharing these stories in Florida. What do you think when you hear that decision?

MD: The first thing is what I feel, which is insulted. Insulted. I doubt if a Black person in the Florida Department of Education made that call. My guess is that a white person made the call, and politics outweighed anything else. It was injurious to my sense of well-being as a Black person. And I felt it to be a great encroachment on academic freedom. This is what they did and do, in fascist regimes and autocratic regimes. Go after the press first, which is what has happened in our country, and then go after the kids. Get the kids into a regime of education that supports the state. And that is what's happening in Florida. And if DeSantis becomes president of the United States, this will go nationwide.

NK: You're one of the plaintiffs in a lawsuit challenging this law. In November, a federal judge issued a temporary injunction. If you end up losing this challenge, is that going to change the way you teach?

MD: It will not change one syllable. I will not make any accommodations to this parent. No, it can drag me out of the classroom screaming in handcuffs. I will not change anything that I teach based on DeSantis's intrusion into my classroom.

NK: What about university administrators? What have they been saying about the law?

MD: They've been caving in. And that's expected. DeSantis is their boss. The legislature is their boss. They can't go against what these people say. We'll take money from you. You can let Dunn teach you about institutional racism, but we're going to cut your budget. So what do you university presidents are going to? Ah… well…. they kowtow to the powers that be.

NK: You mentioned that students are so receptive. It's difficult for them, but white and Black students are grateful to you when you take them on these tours. Have you heard from students who, you know, feel differently?

MD: No, not really. And we have a diverse group. So, we have white, Black, Hispanic students in these groups. I would be very concerned if there was a student, for example, who felt so bad that he or she was crying and relating that this was something that my people did. I'd have a lot of trouble with that. We've not experienced that. I don't expect to experience that, although that could happen.

NK: Um-hmm.

MD: But if a student feels that I'm responsible, I feel bad that my ancestors did that. The first thing that we as teachers should tell them is don't feel that way. We're not telling you to feel anything. We expect you to know the facts, and your feelings will follow the facts.

NK: Where do you think this goes next, Professor?

MD: I'm sure our case will make it all the way to the court, and it will be decided there. In the meantime, do I expect to be arrested or to have the school that allows me to teach this material to have some financial penalties? Yes, I expect that. I expect at least the school to be punished. Coming after me individually, which so be it, I don't expect that that'll happen. But bring it on.

NK: Who do you have in your corner in terms of students and other teachers? Are they backing you up?

MD: Well, that's a good question. You know, I think teachers are understandably afraid to speak up. They have jobs. They have kids. They have bills. And then, I guess beyond that, the political landscape in Florida is such that DeSantis is such a powerful figure in Florida that who's going to challenge him? Who's going to come out and challenge DeSantis? It's not going to go anywhere politically… in Florida, anyway. This is going to be a rough road ahead. Ultimately, I think most of these decisions will end up at the Supreme Court. And the present constitution of our court will suggest that we stand to lose some basic rights here, including academic freedom.

NK: Well, Professor Dunn, thank you very much for this conversation. And I hope we speak again as the case goes forward.

MD: You're quite welcome. Bye

CH: Marvin Dunn is a professor emeritus at Florida International University. He's also on the steering committee for the Miami-Dade Truth Education And Reconciliation Initiative. We reached Professor Dunn in Miami.

[music: ambient instrumental]

Large Pea Donation

CH: I don't know how many bowls of soup you can make with 25 tonnes of peas. But my napkin math suggests, yup, it's… it's a lot. So, it's fair to say that Ken Tatarliov's donation is going to go a long way. The Saskatchewan farmer owns Surprise Valley Farm. Last growing season, the farm was fortunate and had a healthy pea crop. And this morning, Mr. Tatarliov told the CBC why he is donating 20 per cent of that bumper crop -- 25 tonnes of peas -- to the Regina and District Food Bank.

SOUNDCLIP

KEN TATARLIOV: It's just a… just a joy to do peas. We love growing peas. Accidentally, some… some years, we're good at it. [both chuckle] And it's just nice to share, right?

PETER MILLS: Ken, I'm horrible at growing peas in just my backyard. Why do you love growing them?

KT: I love eating them. And they're good for the soil. You know, they help improve our soil quality. They fix nitrogen, and they're a wonderful food source.

PM: Well, Ken, speaking of that, I mean, he had a better yield than usual. What got you thinking about donating some of your crop to the food bank instead of, you know, just saying, hey, great, good for us. We can, you know, make some more money off this.

KT: Yeah, well, it kind of started for me a couple of years ago, or a year or more ago, I heard a story about a farmer who sent a load of oats in to be milled for a food donation. And I thought, wow, if I'm lucky, someday I'll meet this man or this person. Now, like I say, we don't grow a lot of oats here. We do grow some for our cattle, but it's not our main crop. And we grow peas. We grow peas every year. And we found out that they can be locally processed and placed on a table for human consumption quite easily. And, well, like most of us, I have a mortgage too. The difference for me was I never got laid off. I never lost my job. I always had work, and I had a bit of income coming in. Can you imagine making your mortgage or your rent payments from your life savings? Oh Lord!

PM: Yeah.

KT: You lose your livelihood. Your freedom. And the shortages that come along with that, you know?

PM: Yeah.

KT: These… these are hard times for some people. [beginning to cry] Um, don't get me wrong, farming has been difficult too. You know, I honestly, I can't remember a time where our cost of production was any higher than it is right now, and it's choked us, too. But, you know, like I said before, you know, I never went hungry. Um, I firmly believe that everyone's goal would be to, you know, support our local food banks with their food security because they help so many people. Um, I guess the events of COVID opened my eyes to how hard times are for some people. Over the last couple of years, I've become emotional. [chuckle] You know, it's… it's the people around you that… that bring your heart out. You know, I can think of like… like the… the stream that we have here for these… these peas. We wouldn't be anywhere without farm Credit Canada, um, or our local food bank community. And, you know, the amazing local processor at H&T Foods, I mean, they cleaned, split, processed and packaged the peas. And guess what? Now, for a short time, we might be having split peas in soups and maybe a few stews at our… at our food banks. You know, how wonderful is that huh?

CH: Ken Tatarliov speaking with Peter Mills, host of The Morning Edition. The Saskatchewan farmer just donated 25 tonnes of peas to the Regina and District Food Bank.

[music: banjo]

Fukushima Pacific Islands

Guest: Bedi Racule

CH: It's been almost 12 years since the waves of the tsunami crashed into the Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan -- sending radiation into the atmosphere and the ocean. Now, the Tokyo Electric Power Company, or Tepco, needs to dispose of the nuclear wastewater that's been sitting in tanks on-site ever since. One million tonnes' worth. And the plan is to dump it in the ocean. Japanese officials insist the water will be "treated", and will not pose a threat to human health or the marine environment. But nations that share the Pacific Ocean with Japan aren't so sure. Bedi Racule is a climate activist with the Pacific Conference of Churches. We reached her in Suva, Fiji.

NK: Bedi, as you know, Japan says there's… there's no threat here. You obviously don't agree. What are you most worried about?

BEDI RACULE: As many people know, the Pacific Islands have already been a testing ground for nuclear weapons, so there is already a lot of those harmful effects of radiation in our region. For example, in the Marshall Islands, we had tests a thousand times the size of the bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. So, cancer is something that we are dealing with, still dealing with as the aftermath of those tests. And also, radioactive waste is being stored in our islands still from the U.S. tests. We are not new to, you know, this… the nuclear issue and the impacts. And so, that's what's concerning is that people will continue to be impacted.

NK: You've described it as a history of nuclear colonialism. Can you describe what you mean by that?

BR: In the Pacific, there were over 350 nuclear tests conducted by the U.S., U.K. and France, all… all throughout the region, in Niue, French Polynesia, Marshall Islands, Kiritimati, Australia. So, they're still victims of nuclear testing, waiting for justice and compensation.

NK: And what time period did that happen?

BR: This was in the fifties, all throughout until the 1990s. They were still conducting tests. Even after I was born, they were still tests being conducted in French Polynesia.

NK: The International Atomic Energy Agency, or the IAEA, has… has backed up Japan here in saying that the planned release meets international standards and, quote, will not cause any harm to the environment. Does the agency's words there, does that give you any reassurance?

BR: Not really. And our panel of scientific experts have cautioned and concerned with the IAEA response, you know, saying that they haven't insisted on scientifically-sound knowledge of the tank contents or the treatment, the data quality control. And they also said that sampling the water just before you discharge it will be sufficient protection for the public and the environment. But there's a lot of water that they would have to dump over 30 years.

NK: How do you hope Pacific Island nation governments will respond?

BR: As a someone who represents a CSO, a civil society organization, in the Pacific, we really want them to take a more serious approach, have a more serious response to this issue. They've been very diplomatic, but we have to show them that we're serious. And possibly to tell Japan, if you can't respect our ocean, you lose the right to fish in our waters. How can we claim to have all these partnerships and multilateral partnerships like the Indo-Pacific strategy, where we all help each other, help one another out? That's not happening if we are only expected to help, you know, these big colonial powers, while they continue to use our ocean and our islands as a nuclear dumping ground.

NK: What have other Pacific Island nations said so far? You said they're being diplomatic, it sounds like. But… but you want them to take a firmer stance. What are they saying so far?

BR: Right. The Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat has advised that they hold off on the dumping or, you know, that we find more information. That they don't oppose the dumping, but they just need more information for it to be safe. And you know, to that, I say that's… that's silly. We should oppose any and all forms of nuclear waste dumping.

NK: What kind of timeline are you working with? What happens next in terms of your push to… to try to stop this?

BR: The plan is to release the wastewater in April. And they've already started building the pipeline since last year, even after all this opposition from Pacific Island countries, fisheries, industries, fishermen from all over the world have been opposing this. Even their own fishermen, their own citizens, are opposing this decision. But the timeline is that in April, it will begin.

NK: And if it does, what will it mean?

BR: Back then, when the nuclear testing was happening, we didn't have any scientists to go in and say, oh, you know, we… we don't think this is safe. We would like to look at it with our own data. We didn't have the self-determination to do that. But now that we have the ability to, you know, take some time and say, okay, we want to make sure this is safe, and we say no, and they still don't respect it. This is not just a matter of nuclear power. It's… it's a matter of self-determination. And big colonial powers not respecting what the Pacific has to say or what small island countries have to say about self-determining their own future. So, if this does happen, there's no future for our partnerships with countries that continue to do this to us.

NK: Bedi, thank you very much for your time.

BR: Thank you.

CH: Bedi Racule is a climate activist from the Pacific Conference of Churches. We reached her in Suva, Fiji.

[music: ambient]

B.C. Hair Relaxers Suit

CH: "Dangerous, defective and not fit for purpose." Those are the allegations in a proposed class action lawsuit, filed in B.C. over popular hair-relaxing products. The plaintiffs say that they're primarily marketed to Black women -- and contain chemicals linked to cancer. So far, the allegations have not been proven in court, and the case has not been certified as a class action. The companies that make the products have not yet filed responses to the claims. Elle Wayara and Shamara Hutchinson are the two lead plaintiffs in the case. Here is part of their conversation with Gloria Macarenko on The Early Edition.

SOUNDCLIP

ELLE WAYARA: I saw the lawsuits coming out of America, how there was these class actions related to their products, and I was thinking that it could be a link to me. I know a lot of Black women and femmes and people with uteruses who are friends of mine who have also had these issues. I know our non-Black counterparts aren't having these issues as much as possible. So it made sense that we were all using this as kids, and now we're having… dealing with these issues now.

GLORIA MACARENKO: Okay, Shamara, what about for you? What was your motivation here?

SHAMARA HUTCHINSON: So, my motivation was I have a similar kind of story. I found out about the lawsuits that were happening in America over social media. My sister actually brought it to my attention. And so it highlighted that these products were related to reproductive illnesses. And I had… I knew that I had been using these products for years, from a very young age. And soon after, at the age of 15, I was diagnosed with stage four ovarian cancer. So, it was a real possibility for me that, like, this is the cause, yeah.

GM: Well, how did… how does it make you feel knowing about these potential links now, Shamara.

SH: It just is… it just seems like clear negligence to me because we know that these products have these chemicals in it that can cause reproductive issues. And you can still walk into the stories and find these on the shelves. And there's no warning. These products are targeted towards Black women, and we're the ones seeing the negative effects of these products.

CH: Elle Wayara and Shamara Hutchinson speaking with Gloria Macarenko, guest host of The Early Edition. They're the lead plaintiffs in a proposed class action against the manufacturers of popular hair-relaxing products that the lawsuit claims is linked to health problems. The allegations have not been proven in court.

[music: sombre instrumental]

Part 3: Wisconsin Wildlife Cameras, Kosher Lab Meat

Wisconsin Wildlife Cameras

Guest: Neil Gilbert

CH: In one photograph, a turkey trying to frame a decent headshot is rudely interrupted by a fawn running by in the background. In another, a bobcat and a raccoon face off. My money is on the raccoon. Those photos come from a collection that Neil Gilbert and his colleagues analyzed, as part of a study on encounters between different species of animals. They looked at footage captured by over 2,000 wildlife cameras in Wisconsin. And the paper on their findings was published recently in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Neil Gilbert is the lead author. He's a post-doctoral research fellow at Michigan State University. We reached him in Duluth, Minnesota.

NK: Neil, there's that picture of the turkey and the fawn. I can't tell who's photobombing who in that one. [chuckle] What are some of your favourites?

NEIL GILBERT: Yeah, you know, I think my favourite photos are those unexpected ones where there's action. It's not, you know, not super clear what's going on. You know, I love that deer and turkey one, but I was just scrolling through some before I got on the call here, and there's a sequence of photos of sort of a coyote running down the trail and sort of a bear sort of lumbering after it. You know, I don't know if that's an active chase going on or not. [NK chuckles] And then just some pretty funny, like, face offs between deer and raccoon. You know, maybe there's a couple of photos of them that sort of at the edge of a pond and the deer is kind of nosing down and the raccoon is there, too. So, it's just… it's just funny.

NK: There's two there's one of two foxes.

NG: Oh yeah.

NK: Just face-to-face, either shaking hands or about to kill each other. Not sure. [both chuckle] So, what kind of animals in Wisconsin was the goal to look at here as part of the study?

NG: Our study considered 18 different species. And that's sort of big advantage of camera traps is that they're, you know, motion-sensing, and they're kind of a broad spectrum sort of way of monitoring biodiversity. So they'll take a picture of whatever walks in front of them. So, you know, we looked at basically all species that are large enough to sort of trip the motion sensor that includes coyotes, black bear, lots and lots of deer, of course, squirrels, and then also a couple birds turkey and sandhill cranes, but mostly mammals.

NK: More than… more than 2,000 wildlife cameras were used. That's where you got all this footage from. Just tell me about the logistics of setting all of those up?

NG: Yeah. So, this is a pretty massive effort, and it's… it's a community effort. So, like you said, there's over 2,000 of these cameras deployed across the state of Wisconsin. And this is through the program Snapshot Wisconsin, which is an effort that's led by the Wisconsin Department Natural Resources. Essentially, they solicit volunteers to get one of these cameras and put it out and sort of take care of it and, you know, get the photos from the cameras, replace the batteries and then they also help in processing all those photos that roll in.

NK: So, it's not necessarily professionals who are setting up these cameras, the volunteers?

NG: No. Yeah, it's, you know, anyone who's… who's interested. There's a… there… the DNR has a sort of application form. If you live in a sort of part of the state where there isn't a camera yet, you can fill out the form and, you know, put it out on your property or on public lands. You know, kind of anyone who… who is interested is a part of this.

NK: Well, when you're sorting through all this footage, looking through the images, what were you looking for?

NG: So really, the… the strength of these cameras is that they're out there continuously monitoring. So we get these photos, and then we also essentially have these… since these photos have date and time stamps associated with them, we essentially have a timeline of what species was at this, you know, very precise point in space. And so, with this study, we're interested in that timeline and essentially looking at the time separation between photos of different species.

NK: And you found that if there's less time between two different species showing up in front of that same camera, the likelihood of them interacting is higher. Is that right?

NG: That's sort of the assumption we're operating under, is that there's less time between photos at a camera, it's more likely that those two species in those photos will encounter each other and interact. It's not something we can observe directly. But, you know, I think it's a pretty good index of that occurring. And so what we do then is we have that for all those individual cameras and we're comparing across cameras sort of that time between photos and basically finding that in areas that have sort of more of a human influence, more of a human footprint, the areas like sort of suburban areas and intensive agricultural areas, in those areas, there's less time between photos of different species. Which coming back to the interaction component, we think that that probably means that in those more sort of human-influenced areas, you know, there may be more encounters between species.

NK: Why do you think that is?

NG: One possibility is sort of changes in the abundance of species across this sort of human sort of footprint in the landscape. If you think about it, species like raccoons are much more common in sort of human-dominated landscape.

NK: [chuckling] We know that in Toronto.

NG: Right. Yeah, sure.

NK: I have… I have a very complicated relationship with raccoons. So the team always loves to put raccoon questions in there. [NG chuckles] But go on, yes. Sorry to interrupt

NG: Yeah. Yeah. So raccoons are a great example. And, you know, other species, too. Species like deer sort of in the southern half of Wisconsin, there's a lot more agriculture and deer love sort of waste grain. So, increases in species abundances is one driver. And we found… we found evidence for that in our study. But I think there's more as well. I think there's a behavioural component. You know, species in these human-influenced landscapes are perhaps maybe moving less and maybe being active sort of at a different sort of time of day.

NK: It's so fascinating, and the images are starting to look kind of as well. What kind of consequences, though, as you look at this data, what kind of consequences do you think we should be thinking about?

NG: Yeah, that's a really great question and one that I'm, you know, wondering about myself is, you know, what does this mean biologically? We're showing that there's sort of this less time between these photos of different species and does that actually translate to change species interactions? You know, what I think about a lot is possibilities for, you know, change to disease transmission. That's something that I think about. And then I also think about for these individual animals, I wonder about, you know, maybe changes to physiology and behaviour. If you're a prey species, like, you know, maybe a squirrel or a rabbit, if, on average, you know, a coyote is four days away instead of, you know, seven days away for a particular location, you know, that may change your your stress level and change your physiology. So, I also wonder about that. But that's sort of a difficult biological consequence to get out and study.

NK: Neil, thank you very much for this.

NG: Yeah, of course.

CH: Neil Gilbert is a postdoctoral research fellow in the Department of Integrative Biology at Michigan State University. We reached him in Duluth, Minnesota.

[music: pop]

Bullet Soup

CH: Tonight Jodi Robson is making one of her Kokum's specialties -- bullet soup. The chef -- who appeared on Season three of The Great Canadian Baking Show -- is giving a series of cooking lessons through the Regina Public Library, aimed at sharing a deeper understanding of truth and reconciliation in the city. So far, she's taught people how to make fried bannock and pizza buns. And tonight, she'll be sharing her recipe for bullet soup -- which is a thin broth with meatballs. Ms. Robson is a member of Okanese First Nation, a Cree community about 80 kilometres from Regina. And she told our colleagues in Regina why she'll be thinking of her Kokum -- or grandmother -- as she's cooking tonight.

SOUNDCLIP

JODI ROBSON: So, my Kokum, Beanie, made bullet soup only one day every year. So, this is going to be a treat tonight because I have never had bullet soup on any other day.

PETER MILLS: Wow!

JR: Aside from January 1st. It's the New Year's Day soup. Typically back at home on the rez, on New Year's Day, different elders throughout the reserve would cook a big meal. And community members would travel from elder’s house to elder’s house to go and visit and have a bowl of soup. It's how we welcomed in the New Year, with celebration and visiting. And I think it really just gave everybody an opportunity to… to… to spend time with people they maybe didn't have time to any other time of the year.

PM: So, what's that like when you sit down to have a meal you only experience once a year?

JR: Well, first off, it's very exciting because I love food and I love bullet soup. And nobody… nobody cooks better than an elder because those recipes are tried and tested through our entire lifetime. My kokum was cooking for as long as I can remember. And I've been cooking for longer than I can remember. Like, I was underfoot in the kitchen when I was just learning how to walk. And she ended up taking her love for cooking all the way to… likem she went through culinary school. She was a… like, a field chef. And she… she cooked at the last residential school that was located in Lebret. So, like, she had formal training and all of my training just came from her. Informally, of course. I've learned many neat tricks and recipes that aren't written down. Like, it’s just you do it so many times mimicking somebody and it just… it becomes muscle memory.

PM: Now, Jodi, what does it mean to you to be able to, you know, teach others and share this family history and this experience with others?

JR: It's really, really an honour to have other people want to cook the same recipes that I grew up eating because they hold such warm memories for me. And to have other people say, well, hey can you tell us the story behind this soup? And you know what? I'm going to start cooking this with my family. That's so exciting because that food was so good for me growing up. And to be able to continue making it and know that other people might be doing the same thing and get to experience those those moments of like happiness with the food, it just… it means so much.

CH: Chef Jodi Robson -- who you might know from The Great Canadian Baking Show -- speaking with Peter Mills, guest host of "The Morning Edition" in Regina.

[music: ambient instrumental]

Kosher Lab Meat

Guest: Wayne Allen

CH: Last week, Israel's Chief Rabbi issued an important new ruling. He announced that meat grown in a laboratory should be considered kosher. However, he held that -- even though lab-grown meat would be considered neither meat nor dairy -- it would still be against the rules to eat the lab-grown product with dairy. Meaning that a lab-grown hamburger is kosher -- but a lab-grown cheeseburger is not. Rabbi Wayne Allen has written extensively on this question. And he thinks recognizing lab-meat is just the first step. We reached him in Toronto.

NK: You've been writing about this… Rabbi, this question, long before many Jewish scholars were. Just to break it down for us. In simple terms, why do you think lab-grown meat should be considered kosher?

WAYNE ALLEN: The easiest way to approach the question is that, in general, there is a principle that a judge determines the answer to a question based on what his eyes may see. And that means that from the perspective of Jewish law, those things that cannot be seen by the naked eye are not subject to any kind of prohibition. So, micro-organisms that cannot be seen unaided. Microscopic organisms are, therefore, not a problem. Now, since the laboratory-grown meat starts off with cells that are not visible to the naked eye, then in general, we would say that the laws of kashrut, the dietary laws, would not apply in this instance. So that's the general heading under which we would categorize laboratory-grown meat. There are subordinate issues as well, such as the prohibition in the Bible that says that we're not supposed to eat the limb of a living animal. So, is a cell that is harvested from a living animal considered to fall into this category? The authorities will have to analyze that.

NK: Mm-hmm.

WA: And also, the suffusion that is used in order to cultivate the cells that are grown in the laboratory meat, what constitutes the nature or the ingredients of those things? Because they, too, may fall under some prohibition. So we're looking at all of those elements. And when I first learned of the process that was being used as it was described to me in detail, and I had an opportunity to examine it, I came to the conclusion that there… there was no concern on my part.

NK: But you thought it was important because these are questions the community will have.

WA: More than that. I think this is the future of humanity. When we take a very broad-based view of things, one of the chief concerns that we have for the environment is reducing carbon emissions. And cows are a particularly large segment of carbon emissions and gaseous emissions, and the elimination of that would serve humanity far better. So if we can find a tasty, nutritious alternative, not only will that make the vegetarians happy and those concerned for animal welfare happy, it will make the environment happy.

NK: The Chief Rabbi of Israel, you may have heard, agrees with you in part about lab-grown meat being considered kosher. Though, he believes there should still be a rule against eating lab-grown meat with dairy products. You… you disagree? Can you explain why?

WA: When new technologies, new products, new inventions come to market, the initial reaction of many Jewish experts is no. And then, later on, upon further thought and exploration, when things are clarified, usually the authorities will come to yes. My personal view is that the Chief Rabbi is trying to satisfy different elements of his clientele. And there are some, no doubt, who have this very conservative small c view of something new and are distrustful of it until they perhaps learn more. My view is that unless they know something I don't know, those restrictions will evaporate over time.

NK: So a cheeseburger, for example, would be kosher, in your view, as long as it was grown under the right conditions?

WA: That's right. The process of the manufacture would be of concern to me. But if I were assured that it's done in the way that I am familiar with, then I would have no hesitation of saying that, yes, you could eat a cheeseburger. And by the way, I have to say it's very interesting to me to hear that the Chief Ashkenazi Rabbi of Israel is following my opinion. [both laugh] It's… it's somewhat… you know, it's funny to me. Usually, you would think that it would be the opposite. But let me say one more thing. The Chief Rabbi's opinion carries no more weight than any other rabbis opinion.

NK: Um-hmm. Yes.

WA: And it will only be a matter of time in which the consensus of rabbinic opinion will come to some kind of conclusion. So right now, we have a number of opinions that are out there. Some are restrictive. Some are more expansive. Then others are taking the position of wait and see. We don't know enough yet.

NK: The other thing people will think about certainly is the issue of meat grown from cells of a pig. Would that be kosher, in your opinion?

WA: Right. So, cells are cells, no matter their source. So, if, on the cellular level, the cells are being harvested from non-kosher animals, the results would still be the same based on the same principle. So, we're not concerned about that.

NK: I wonder how you think in the future this may change traditional cuisine? How you see the table changing?

WA: I'm not sure that for Jews it's going to change dramatically. And frankly, I don't know that how many Jews will take yes for an answer. That even though the answer may be that laboratory-grown meat is acceptable and it's kosher. I'm not sure how many that are in the kosher observant camp are actually going to want to do it. There's a difference between saying that it's permitted and then seeing that it becomes popular. I have my suspicions, but I'm going to wait for history to be the arbiter.

NK: Rabbi, we will leave it there. Thank you very much.

WA: You're very welcome.

NK: Take care.

WA: Okay. Bye.

NK: Bye.

CH: Wayne Allen is a Rabbi with a PhD in Philosophy. We reached him in Toronto.

[music: jazz]

NS Rare Bird

CH: About two weeks ago, Lynette Barnes went out to take pictures of the sunrise over the ocean in front of her house in Green Bay, Nova Scotia. As she usually does when she wakes up. But that day, something very unusual happened -- although Ms. Barnes didn't know it in that moment. She saw a bird that she thought was a starling. But when she posted a picture of that bird on a Nova Scotia birding page, she learned it was, in fact, a gray-crowned rosy finch -- a bird normally only found in western North America. Wildlife photographer Jason Dain saw the post on social media almost immediately after it went up. And soon, he was in his car driving 100 kilometres to get to Lynette Barnes's place. He told CBC host Bob Murphy about that moment -- and Lynette Barnes joined them.

SOUNDCLIP

JASON DAIN: I was just making lunch and happened to check Facebook. And I think it was about eight minutes after the Post went up. And it was all I could be relieved from my lunch to finish cooking and eat it so that I could get on the road.

BOB MURPHY: And so, when you got there, you were able to see the bird quite readily?

JD: It took about an hour and maybe a little bit longer for it to turn up. You know, usually birds come and feed and then they go hang around in the trees for a bit and then they kind of just go in cycles. So, it took a bit for it to show up, but it wasn't too long.

BM: And for non-birders, jason can you describe the gray-crowned rosy finch to us. I mean, Lynette has talked about it being rosy and gold. Why don't you just explain a little bit more what the bird looks like?

JD: Sure. Yeah. And a fellow birder, Mark Dennis, gave a great description, which… so, it's got kind of a chocolate milk-coloured body with kind of rosy pink fringes to the chest and to the wings. And then it has a gray head with just the black forehead and then sort of an orange beak. So, it's really unique looking.

BM: And you've snapped some beautiful pictures of it. We're putting that up on our social media feeds for everybody to see. But this is a sighting so rare, you say, Jason, that it's categorized as mega. What does that mean exactly?

JD: Well, usually the term mega is reserved for, you know, the first incident of a certain species or a species that, you know, just has no business being here, doesn't breed here, doesn't breed anywhere near here. It's more than unexpected. It's like… it's mega, you know what I mean? It's like, it's just so far out there that birders just don't expect it to happen. I mean, one little tidbit that I read before coming on the call, and this aligns with my previous experience with the species, was they are the highest breeding bird in North America. So there have been recorded breeding at the top of Denali Mountain at, you know, 10,000 feet elevation. I saw my first one in Montana on Logan Pass, which is about 2,500 metres or 7,000 feet above sea level, you know, on a snowbank in July… in July. So, you really have to go to high altitudes to see these birds.

BM: So, Lynette, why or how do you think it came to be that the bird is so far away from its usual territory and on your property?

LYNETTE BARNES: Well, that's been the ultimate question, and I wish I could ask it and be the bird whisperer. But I think my best guess would be with all these incredible storms that we have had coming across the U.S. in the past month, he's probably been blown here by one or two of those storms.

BM: I understand, though, you have seen a lot of birders since Saturday. Tell us about who's shown up to take a look at this creature.

LB: [laughing] Well, I joke that we own a wildlife preserve here with all the animals and the birds that show up. And I've had my newest version, which is all these birders. We've had about 150, 160 people come. It's been incredible. I've met some great photographers, incredible, well-renowned birders, who know more about all of this than I do. It's been fun, I have to say. And we're very happy to have anybody come to see this bird any time they want.

CH: Bob Murphy, host of Maritime Noon, speaking with Nova Scotia's Lynnette Barnes, about the gray-crowned rosy finch near her home -- and before her, wildlife photographer Jason Dain.

[music: industrial]

Splash Mountain Shuts Down

CH: In 1989, Disney released this video, which might be the 1989-est thing that happened in 1989.

[music: “Splash Mountain” theme]

SINGERS: You know it is a thrill when you go down hill because you’re riding on the mountain of your own free will. And you’re zipping in a flash on a daring dash. Down a waterfall so rapid that you’ll go splish, splash.

GIRLS: Splash Mountain.

GUYS: Zipa-de-do-da

GIRLS: Splash Mountain.

GUYS: Zip-a-de-day

ALL: My, oh my. What a wonderful day.

GUYS: Plenty of sunshine. zip

GIRLS: Splish Splash.

GUYS: Heading my way.

CH: That absolute banger heralded the imminent arrival of Splash Mountain at Disney's theme parks. That's how it started -- and now, we've seen how it ends: with people bottling and attempting to sell precious Splash Mountain water. For 30 years, the flume ride whetted people's appetite for being wetted, at both Disneyland and Disney World. The problem was, it was based on the 1946 movie Song of the South. A movie so widely acknowledged as racist that it's never been released it on video. And when Disney's not trying to make money off something, you know it's bad. Now, though, Disney World has finally shut it down. Yesterday was Splash Mountain's last splash. Hundreds gathered to ride the ride for the final time -- their faces drenched with tears. Or gross flume water. Depending. I mean, you have to imagine the flume water is gross, right? It’s full of sweat and spilled Mountain Dew and shredded Mickey Mouse ears. And yet, today, dozens of people are selling jars of this now-precious Splash Mountain water online. So far, prices on eBay range from 99 cents for four ounces to one thousand dollars for six ounces. Which is probably a joke. And I said "jars", but in one case the water appears to be in a Ziploc bag. This seems weird. But there's no right way to mourn, I guess. And I'm sure all these prices -- like a log on Splash Mountain itself -- will drop precipitously. It's early days. And the situation is fluid.

January 24, 2023 Episode Transcript

Social Sharing