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 2020

The AIH Transcript for March 02, 2020

Hosts: Carol Off and Chris Howden

CAROL OFF: Hello, I’m Carol Off.

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

[Music: Theme]

Prologue

CH: Tonight:

CO: He brokered the deal — and now it's broken. We talk to the man behind a historic refugee agreement between Turkey and the European Union. He tells us the situation at the border today means his deal is dead.

CH: Outbreak and heartbreak. A Seattle-area nursing home has become the epicentre of Washington State's coronavirus outbreak. And a woman whose husband lives in the facility says she's desperate for answers about his health.

CO: Bang for their buck. Five years ago, an American CEO slashed his own salary to finance raises for his entire staff. Now, he tells us the investment has more than paid off.

CH: Moderate Monday. Two of Joe Biden's main rivals have dropped out, which might clear a path for him to be the Democratic nominee. But an Amy Klobuchar supporter tells us she's still deciding who to support next.

CO: With or Without You — but preferably with. A new study says you are integral to the popularity of pop songs. Well, not you the listener... but "you" the second person pronoun.

CH: And... The Canadian Museum of Nature is asking Canadians to choose a national lichen. So get ready to choose between Elegant Sunburst Lichen ... Star-tipped Reindeer Lichen ... and any number of others you might take a lichen to.

CH: As It Happens, the Monday edition. Radio that thinks whoever came up with that campaign sounds like a fungi.

[Music: Theme]

Part one: Turkey-Europe migrants, Democrats: Klobuchar exits, national lichen

Turkey-Europe migrants

Guest: Gerald Knaus

CH: Greece is shutting its doors to asylum seekers for the next month. And last night, nearly ten-thousand people tried, and failed, to enter the country from Turkey. Last Friday, we spoke to Parvin, an Iranian refugee from a Turkish-Greek border crossing. She told guest host Helen Mann that Greek police were firing tear gas.

SOUNDCLIP

PARVIN: It's like a bad situation because they attack us. They’re using gas. I take a video and photo from the gas. And if you need, you can hear. You can hear.

HELEN MANN: So they're firing tear gas at the people who are trying to cross the border?

P: Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. We need emergency help because we have a lot of baby, a lot of child. They’ve lopped off all the people here. We need a help.

CH: Thousands of migrants like Parvin travelled to the Greek border this weekend, after the Turkish government announced its borders to Europe were open. But that announcement severs a crucial deal, signed by Turkey and the European Union in 2016. At the time, Turkey agreed to host millions of refugees, and keep its borders to Europe closed — in exchange for receiving billions of dollars from the EU. Gerald Knaus is the architect of that deal — and even he admits it's dead. We reached him in Berlin.

CO: Mr Knaus, when you hear that woman — when you hear Parvin — talk about what she's faced with, how does it feel for you to hear that kind of desperation?

GERALD KNAUS: Well, what we see at the Greek-Turkish border is the result of fear-driven, irresponsible populist immoral policies by governments that both feel cornered. And the victims are those migrants and refugees. Turkey — the country of most refugees in the world — is under enormous pressure. But to send refugees in winter to a border that you know is closed just to create an image to put pressure on the European Union is immoral.

CO: Do you think that that is what President Erdogan has done is that he is doing this in order to make a scene?

GK: Well, he's doing this for a very legitimate reason with illegitimate measures. I mean, the legitimate reason is that Turkey has, for years, been the country of most refugees in the world. The number keeps growing. And the European Union has promised to Turkey in 2016 — exactly four years ago in March — that it would support with generous financial assistance the integration and lives of these refugees in Turkey. So the EU has mobilized six-billion euros. This has been a great success. It has helped hundreds of thousands of Syrian children go to school. It is paying social benefits to one-point-seven million Syrians in Turkey. And yet, for the last few months, the EU has refused to negotiate as this money has drawn to an end. And the EU has somehow dropped the ball and decided, well, from now on, this might be Turkey's problem — which is astonishing short-sightedness given that everyone Greece, Turkey, the EU and the Syrians in Turkey have an interest in making their life in Turkey as meaningful and as integrated and dignified as possible.

CO: Okay. So what you're seeing in Turkey in recent days and weeks, there is an escalation of violence in the Idlib region. You have seen… We're seeing possibly another million Syrian refugees looking for some place to go. It's desperate for them. Turkey then made the announcement in recent days that the gates to Europe are open. We are no longer going to try and hold all these people as they fled into our country or want to. We are doing this as a gesture of desperation. So can you blame President Erdogan for making this move?

GK: You can blame him for generating the scenes we've seen at the border. But you cannot blame him for pointing out and revealing the hypocrisy of the European Union — because the EU is basically suspending the rights to apply for asylum. That's Donald Trump’s dream. And he hasn't yet been able to do that — to just say we sent soldiers to the border. We used tear gas. And this is a complete failure of policy because all of this is avoidable. Because the bottom line is that Turkey, Greece and the core countries in the EU have a common interest: to reduce this irregular, dangerous migration across the sea; to help Syrians where they are; to implement the agreement between the EU and Turkey — which just broke down four days ago; and to preserve the core values and conventions and right to asylum drafted after World War 2 in 1951 — which is now dying in the Aegean.

CO: So Turkey is creating this scene in order to make it make a statement. What responsibility does Greece have to take for all of this?

GK: These actions are not justifiable, but the motivation behind these actions is desperation. What we are seeing is a situation where Greece proportionally is receiving as many refugees now as Germany did in 2015. There is nothing it can do except engage in these brutal actions of intimidation — which really given how much generosity Greeks have shown is just tragic. And the sooner others in the European Union's step in and help both Athens and Ankara to extricate themselves from this cycle of irrationality, the better.

CO: Now you are, of course, the person who was part of striking this deal between the European Union and Turkey in 2016. It was really key to what degree of stability we've had with migrants and refugees since then. What has failed about that deal? Why is it now not delivering the same results as it was when you started it in the past four years?

GK: Well, in the last three months, the EU has basically said we don't know if we want to keep our side of the bargain. And Turkey, under increasing pressure also popular pressure as it dawns on people that these millions of Syrian refugees are there to stay, Turkey is now increasing the pressure on the EU.

CO: How is it fixable?

GK: Well, it's very easy to fix [dry laugh]. Angela Merkel, I know, has been trying to get the EU to commit to Turkey that the EU will continue to support refugees. There needs to be an offer to Turkey. There needs to be a clear signal that there is a future for refugees in Turkey. The second thing that has gone wrong, of course, is on the Greek islands. This has been an EU failure. We need to be able — the EU needs to be able — to process applications of those who arrive there quickly — which is a matter of resources and organization — and accommodate people under humane, decent conditions.

CO: Is it possible that the ultimate casualty of this moment — of right now — is the actual withdrawal of support for the convention of refugees that we've had since the 1950s? When you look at the United States, when you look at how Europe is responding, is it possible that we're going to see the end of the support of that convention?

GK: Well, it's not only possible, it's happening. It's happening before our eyes, and I don't understand how organizations like UNHCR have not been much more worried and much more proactive. The first government that has declared that from now on, it will not accept any asylum applications anymore, was Hungary. And, of course, Viktor Orban — the Hungarian prime minister — has said in 2015 what his strategy was. He said the age of hypocrisy, where we talk about international human rights, has to end. He's defined people who come to claim asylum as invading armies. And yesterday, he's just suspended this right — which is enshrined in conventions, and treaties, and laws. It's fundamental to the European legal order. If you can do that, and there is no response, it's devastating. Because what you say is that any of these conventions by European democracies can be revoked at the stroke of a pen. And if you do that to the Refugee Convention, what prevents you doing it to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, or any other basic right? The foundations on which post-war Europe was built, after the experiences of the first half of last century, this illiberal era that Orban has talked about is being constructed. And these crises and the inability of mainstream politicians to deal with them humanely are accelerating this destruction.

CO: Mr Knaus, it's a very disturbing analysis. Very important to hear from you, and I appreciate speaking with you. Thank you.

GK: Thank you, all the best.

CH: Gerald Knaus is the chairman of the European Stability Initiative, and the architect of the EU-Turkey deal struck in 2016. We reached him in Berlin.

[Music: Ambient]

Democrats: Klobuchar exits

Guest: Julie Blaha

CH: The once-enormous Democratic field is getting smaller. As you've probably heard on the news, Senator Amy Klobuchar is the latest candidate to drop out of the race for the presidential nomination. She follows Pete Buttigieg, who quit last night. Both are expected to endorse former vice president Joe Biden tonight. Here's what Senator Bernie Sanders had to say earlier today about the new endorsements for Mr Biden.

SOUNDCLIP

BERNIE SANDERS: It is no secret, I mean, The Washington Post has 16 articles today on this, that there is a massive effort trying to stop Bernie Sanders. That's not a secret to anybody in this room. The corporate establishment is coming together. The political establishment is coming together. And they will do everything. They are really getting nervous that working people are standing up.

CH: All this comes as the Democrats head into Super Tuesday. Fourteen states are in play, including Senator Klobuchar's home state of Minnesota. Julie Blaha is the state's auditor. She campaigned for Amy Klobuchar. We reached her in Ramsey, Minnesota.

CO: Julie, you have been out there stumping hard for your friend, Amy Klobuchar. And how are you taking the news that she's leaving the race?

JULIE BLAHA: Oh, well, it's definitely a disappointment. You know, I worked with her for years, and I know how effective she is. I know she would be a tremendous president. So, yeah, it's a tough day. Now, I've been you know working in politics for over 30 years, so this is not something that's an entirely new experience for me. But it's always tough.

CO: And she is now endorsing Joe Biden. We're also hearing that Pete Buttigieg is doing that — some heavy-duty, big names in the Democrat Party, Harry Reid, Susan Rice, others all stepping up to endorse Mr Biden. You just heard what Bernie Sanders has to say, and then he thinks this is the political establishment trying to stop him and try to stop working people. What do you say to Mr Sanders?

JB: Well, I have to say I'm not sure it's quite as dramatic as that. You know, for someone like me, you know I was fully expecting to vote for Amy tomorrow. And I did not expect tonight to be making this decision. So my process, I think, is what most people are doing right now is they're looking at, all right, which candidate can I trust? Which candidate is going to be effective? And which candidate is most likely to be able to win in November so we can have a new president? I can imagine the intensity at that level. But really, for most people, it's a much less dramatic decision than that.

CO: And it's not because Bernie Sanders represents a revolution within the party, a dramatic shift in the way things would be done in the United States should he be president? That's not the issue, it's that there's other factors?

JB: Well, exactly. You know, and what I'm considering tomorrow, I think most people I have talked to over the last year here have been saying things like you know I like all the candidates. I'm ready to unite behind a candidate and win in November. And I think a lot of people have struggled because they have more than one favourite candidate. So I'm not looking at this in those terms. I'm just taking a very simple look at who's getting things done. That's what I loved about Amy, is she got things passed, even with Republicans and independents. I'm looking for somebody who I can trust is going to follow through on what they say. I think that it's that kind of decision, it's, again, much less dramatic than I think it's sounding you know at the presidential candidate level. For most of us, it's a much more concrete down to earth kind of decision.

CO: What's the most important consideration? I'll put to you that people are saying the most important consideration is defeating Mr. Trump. Is that the leading reason why someone would choose which candidate they choose?

JB: A lot of people, that's what I'm hearing. I'm hearing you know people talking about the things that matter to them. You know, when we would have a conversation, you'd always start with what's getting you out to vote this year? And people talk about their kids in school. They'll talk about the roads. They'll talk about climate change — talk a lot about climate change. And then they say, and we have to win. Everyone, I think, has that calculus in their head of how do we win in November?

CO: I guess key to that is winning the so-called “Purple Districts” — so neither necessarily red nor blue — but those who could go either way.

JB: Oh, exactly. And what I think is interesting though, is when you talk to people in those Purple Districts, I live in those Purple Districts. My district, at one point, was the highest number of votes for a professional wrestler for governor of Minnesota. I live in that area. And so what I'm hearing people talk about are things like, again, they want to know someone that’s really authentic. Someone they can trust. And it's not, I think, on those traditional ideological lines. You don't hear people talking about right and left. They talk about, well, I think this will work on health care, and this will work on climate change. And I know people whose first choice might be Bernie Sanders, and second choice will be Joe Biden — or the reverse.

CO: Okay. That doesn't really make sense. Maybe you can explain further that someone could have as their first choice could be Bernie Sanders and this choice Joe Biden. That seems like [laughing] totally different things.

JB: It does, it does, but I think you know that's how people really, I think, think about politics. It's sometimes just so tempting to say we'll put on a nice neat line and say this is where people go. But I was talking to people, I was on vacation in Las Vegas, and I was talking to people who were Trump supporters who were really excited to vote for Bernie this time. And I talked to another Trump supporter that was excited to vote for Elizabeth Warren. And so that's the first woman I can vote for. And so I know it doesn't feel logical, but that's really how people think. Most people don't live in this partisan world and don't see everything through a partisan lens. So when they're making their decision, it's far less ideologically dichotomous than people think.

CO: What do you think went wrong for your candidate, Amy Klobuchar? Why wasn't she able to gain traction?

JB: Well, I think we just didn't get there, right? And so and some of that I think are things like name recognition. As always, you know, money is a thing. As always, how much media attention you can get. In a crowded field, I have to say there's a little bit of randomness to the whole thing too. You know, some of it is just plain luck to pop through.

CO: But is it possible after Super Tuesday, when the dust settles, that this is going to be what people have been saying is going to happen. It has to happen eventually that it comes down to a two way race between Bernie Sanders and the moderate that the Democrats rally around.

JB: It's possible. It seems to be trending that way. However, I never expected that I was going to be, this weekend, on Amy's dream bus running around the state. So, you know what? I'm not going to call it. I'm not going to pick any of those assumptions. I think people are more complicated than that. And I think that things are not quite as clear cut as that. I think it's going to come down to who do people think is authentic? Who do people think can win? And who do people think is smart enough to get things done?

CO: And so for you, who would that be? Who would bring in that excitement? Who are you endorsing?

JB: You know, I am not endorsing anybody yet. I am literally tonight going through and having a good thought about who I'm going to put a dot by tomorrow. So you know anybody listening, if they want to give me their ideas [CO chuckles], I am open for persuasion. This is the first time in a year when people might want to give me a call and have a conversation about who I want to vote for president.

CO: All right, we will leave it there. Julie, I appreciate speaking with you. Thank you.

JB: Thank you.

CO: Bye.

JB: Bye.

CH: Julie Blaha is the state's auditor. She campaigned for Amy Klobuchar. She was in Ramsey, Minnesota.

[Music: Instrumental]

National lichen

Guest: Troy McMullin

CH: We have a national animal: the beaver. A national winter sport: hockey. And there's been a contentious debate over giving the title of national bird to the grey jay. Now, Troy McMullin thinks it's finally time to discuss an important national thing: a national lichen — as in the fungus-like organisms that grow on trees and rocks. Mr McMullin is a research scientist with the Canadian Museum of Nature, who specializes in Lichenology. And he's asking Canadians to vote for one of seven lichens on the museum's website, to determine Canada's national species. We reached Troy McMullin in Ottawa.

CO: Mr McMullin, what's so special about lichen?

TROY MCMULLIN: Oh, the answer is long. They are small, but they're spectacular. They’re colourful, they come in a wide range of shapes and sizes, and they're everywhere in Canada. And they're very ecologically important.

CO: So why do you think Canada needs a national lichen?

TM: For that very reason, that they are so important in Canada. It's quite possible we have the highest abundance lichen in the world. Yet, most people don't know what a lichen is.

CO: Okay, you've set up the logical next question is: what is a lichen?

TM: [soft chuckle] It doesn't fit well into the ecological boxes that we've created in what a species is — because it's actually multiple species working together. The bulk of it is a fungus. And it's a fungus that's somewhat transformed into a greenhouse, where it's growing and farming algae and cyanobacteria. And this union, we recognize as its own species or its own organism. And that is a lichen.

CO: Okay, so it's looks like a plant [laughing]. For most people who are out walking in the woods, they think it's just another plant. But it has fungus properties, so it's kind of like mushrooms, a bit like moss, a bit like mould, a bit like algae, or all of the above, right?

TM: It is quite different than all of those things other than fungus — because it is a fungus. It's just a fungus that’s behaving in a particular way. So it's small, and it hangs out with moss, so it often gets lumped in with them. But it's actually something different, completely different actually.

CO: Can you eat them?

TM: You can. They do have to be prepared before you do that. Otherwise, they wouldn't be very palatable. But the vast majority of them, you can. But they are sponges. So if you're anywhere near a city or a pollution source, they take any kind of air pollution that's around them. So it wouldn't be wise to eat around cities.

CO: And for animals, I guess, especially in the winter?

TM: Exactly. So lichens don't change throughout the year, it's one of the reasons I started studying them. And what's special about them is that they remain the exact same. So in the winter, as a food source for animals, they're available. And caribou are the most famous case because they only really eat lichens through the winter. It's what keeps them going.

CO: Okay. And also, another thing in lichens favour, another reason to like lichens, is that they have great names, right? [they both chuckle]. The ones that are on the short list of possibly going to be Canada’s national lichen, do you want to tell us a bit about those, and some of the names, these wonderful poetic names they have?

TM: Well, we just have a lot of fun, try to make them engaging, bring them to life. I mean, they are spectacular, and they're unusual, and they're very bright and showy. So they deserve spectacular names to go along with them.

CO: Now, the Elegant Sunburst Lichen, that's bright orange.

TM: That's right, yeah. It's really an eye-catching species that grows all over the country. And you really notice it if you're out on the coasts or if you're up in the Arctic. It grows on rocks that birds like perch on. And it really likes the nitrogen left behind by the birds.

CO: Okay, so let's hear you make the case for the Common Freckled Pelt Lichen.

TM: [quick chuckle] I think that one's more of an eye-catching species. It grows across the country. It's really common in the boreal forest. And it really looks like just leafy lobes growing on the ground. But I guess the special thing about that one is that usually there's only one photo synthesising partner within a lichen. And that's an algae or a cyanobacteria, but that species has both. And so it's called the Freckled Pelt because the green part that you're seeing is the algae, but then it’s got little dark freckles all over it. And each of those little freckles is a cyanobacterium.

CO: How will you choose it? How is it going to be chosen which one is going to be our national lichen?

TM: Well, I reached out to lichenologists across the country to nominate species that they thought were worthy of being the Canadian lichen. And so now we've got put it to the public.

CO: Okay, is there going to be a fight about this? Because when we did the national bird, I don’t know if you followed that man? We were we were close on that story, and the grey jay up against the loon. People still aren’t talking to each other, and still hasn't been resolved, so any concerns that among lichen lovers that you're going to have a real battle?

TM: Oh, it's happening. There's all kinds of feedback or anything. You know, why wasn't British Shoulders included? Why wasn’t Old Man’s Beard included? And so there's that feedback already. And then people have their own preferences as to why it should be selected. And so, yeah, that's part of the fun of it. We wanted to get it out there for people to discuss, you know, to put lichens on the map, and give them their due. Just because they're smaller than most organisms, they’re still really important. I mean, our goal is so once we decide on a species, then we're actually going to formally submit it to the proper government agency to consider as an actual species.

CO: Is there any country that has a national lichen?

TM: No, we would be the first [both laugh]. So I was inspired by California. There's a state lichen in California that was recently listed.

CO: Okay, I'm going with the Horse Hair Lichen personally. But anyway, go lichens! [both chuckle] Mr McMullin, it’s great to talk to you. Thank you.

TM: Yeah, thanks.

CO: Bye.

CH: Troy McMullin is a research scientist with the Canadian Museum of Nature. We reached him in Ottawa.

[Music: lullaby]

Pop you

CH: Would "We Will Rock You" still get people going if it were called "We Will Rock Them"? What if the MC Hammer classic was called "One Can't Touch This"? Or if the Bryan Adams song was called "(Everything I Do) I Do It For Nancy and Karen"? It turns out pronouns are everything. And without "you", those songs are nothing. That's the conclusion of a recent study in the journal "Psychological Science", called "Thinking of You: How Second-Person Pronouns Shape Cultural Success". The researchers reviewed the lyrics of one-thousand, 736 songs on the Billboard Top 50 downloads chart from 2014 through 2016. And they found that — no matter what the song was about, or who sang it — songs with more mentions of "you", "yourself", or "yours" in them were more popular. To further prove causality rather than correlation, the researchers edited the lyrics to include the word "you" — and found that the study subjects liked them more. That's not necessarily because we're vain. According to the researchers, "We suggest that second-person pronouns, rather than putting listeners in the singer's shoes, or encouraging them to see the singer's personal perspective...seem to encourage audiences to imagine the narrative in relation to someone in their own lives." So you don't think Alanis Morissette is telling you you oughta know. You think she's telling your ex — or Dave Coulier from "Full House". I guess that's just how we are: we love "you". So if you want us to take your song personally, you'd better write it second-personally.

[Music: up-tempo]

Part two: Coronavirus: Seattle seniors, Seattle company update

Coronavirus: Seattle seniors

Guest: Bonnie Holstad

CH: A long-term care facility in a Seattle suburb has found itself at the centre of the coronavirus worries in the U.S. State health officials confirmed today that six people have died from COVID-19 in Washington — and four of those people came from Life Care Center, that seniors' nursing home in Kirkland, Washington. Ken Holstad is one of the patients at the center. Yesterday, his wife, Bonnie, stood standing outside, holding a sign, asking for information about her husband's health. Today, she still has questions. We reached Bonnie Holstad at her home in Kirkland.

CO: Bonnie, do you have any idea how your husband is at this point?

BONNIE HOLSTAD: I spoke with him a couple of hours ago. He seemed all right. He seemed safe. He's in a single room. I informed him of what the latest is; the terrible fact that there are now six deaths. I instructed him to use the sanitizing every time anybody comes into his room and brings things. He was to see the surgeon today for follow up from his surgery. And the surgeon has been able to transmit instructions to the Life Care Center for my husband. So I'm relieved about that.

CO: Yesterday, you were outside that center holding a sign asking for information about your husband's health. And the sign said, in part, “No one at Life Care is answering the phones. I cannot reach the nursing stations.” What else were you saying in that sign?

BH: I identified my husband, and I said I needed to know what his health condition was; that his temperature would be taken. I reported to them that he had been coughing when I spoke with him on his cell phone. These are worrisome indicators of the virus. They did, in fact, have a nurse go down at that moment and take his temperature. He did not run a fever. I took that I don't know if it's a ridiculous step, but I could not get through for about the past day-and-a-half. They were not answering their phones. So I had no way to ask the nursing staff how he was doing, what his condition was. And I understand that they are taking some calls this afternoon because the doctor's office got through. I still do not know how long he will be quarantined. I do not know if they're testing his respiratory system. I do not know how often they're taking temperatures. I cannot get answers to why everyone there is not being tested. In my opinion, they're sitting in a petri dish.

CO: We heard in a press conference today that four of the six deaths in Washington State came from that health centre where your husband is right now.

BH: That’s correct.

CO: And as far as you know, they are not testing people.

BH: When they spoke to me, they said they're only testing those that show shortness of breath, cough and fever. The others, they're just monitoring.

CO: Okay, That Life Care Center, where your husband is, they've put out a statement. They say they're not allowing visits from families, from volunteers, from vendors. It's placing admissions on hold. And these are things that they do elsewhere with this virus. So does it make sense to you that they are limiting this and that this quarantine is going on at the centre?

BH: Physical limits, but not just regarding their phone calls. If they will not accept phone calls, then they need to be calling us regularly and stating the condition of our loved ones. They sent out a statement that was not at all helpful to family members that had been visiting in the facility in the recent week, as far as whether we should consider being tested, or whether we should be isolating ourselves at home. There's no instructions for us.

CO: Can you just tell us a bit about what your husband Ken is at the Life Care Center for?

BH: He had a fall at home, and had semi hip replacement surgery. And for his rehab, he was not able to walk without assistance. And he needs rehabilitation therapy. So that is why he was there. It was to be about a 14-day stay.

CO: And how long has he been there now?

BH: Just a little over a week. It was a week ago, Saturday the 29th.

CO: So he's not recovered yet. He’s not supposed to come home at this point.

BH: He is not able to transfer himself yet, which is the key thing for coming to be able to live at home.

CO: But you were worried that you could hear that he had a bit of a cough, is that right?

BH: That's correct. Yesterday, he had a cough. I couldn't tell if he had a cough today. I just had short conversations with him. He’s not really a talker [chuckling]. He has Parkinson's disease with mild dementia. And my job in any medical situation is to be his advocate. And I need to be with him to see how he is behaving and how his body is reacting. And I'm not able to do that. So it's really frustrating. I do not know how long he will be in this quarantine state.

CO: Anyone who has a loved one with those conditions knows how important it is to have your advocate with you. So does the facility itself know what he needs, do you think?

BH: Well, I know that the directors of nursing and rehab know because I spoke to them directly. What is unclear, Carol, is who is actually working in the facility now? How many of their staff members are sick or showing symptoms? I don't know what the ratio is right now. So I'm not sure what the level of care is. I really, really believe that they are trying to do everything medically correct. But I don't know what kind of limited resources they have.

CO: The facility where your husband is now is at the centre of a national news story — international news story.

BH: Yeah.

CO: What have these past few days been like for you?

BH: They have degraded from feeling safe to now extreme worry because of the increased number of deaths. So I am now ready to do whatever I could, including going down there in person and holding a sign on the window door. I can't believe I did that, but I did. It's somewhat of a nightmare.

CO: Bonnie, I really appreciate. I know this is a very tense time for you, but I really appreciate you giving us some of your time today.

BH: You're welcome. Thank you for asking.

CH: Bonnie Holstad is the wife of Ken Holstad. He is a patient at the Kirkland Life Care Center. The long-term care home is under quarantine because of an outbreak of the coronavirus. We reached Bonnie Holstad in Kirkland, Washington.

[Music: Sombre]

Charlottetown fire

CH: They say good fences make good neighbours. But in Charlottetown, yesterday, it was a good ladder that made all the difference. Early Sunday morning, a duplex in the city caught fire, trapping two students on the second floor. Luckily they live near Chris Richard, who owns a roofing company. His quick thinking — and the ladder on his truck — helped him save the pair before firefighters arrived. CBC's Travis Kingdon spoke to Mr Richard about the rescue:

SOUNDCLIP

CHRIS RICHARD: My wife went out to start the car and noticed people across the street over there yelling for help. So she came in and told me to call 911. I called the fire department and ran over. They were leaning on the top window, and we went over, me and my wife went over to check out. And I opened up the front door, and there was too much smoke. I couldn't even see in front my face. So then I knew that's why they're out the window. So just came over, grabbed the ladder off the truck. I take it on and off the truck every day, so it came in handy, actually. Put it up to the window, and they climbed down — bare feet and everything. So they need out. It's good that they got out and on time.

TRAVIS KINGDON: And I understand you actually brought some stuff over for them too to kind of keep them warm, I guess, when they were standing in the snow there?

CR: Yeah, just a couple of blankets and a sweater that I had on the bench. They had no shoes or socks or anything on. So it was freezing to come out to — and especially waking up to that.

TK: What did they say to you when they actually got out and they're safe?

CR: They went right in the ambulance [deep laugh]. So, yeah, I didn't get to see much of them. But they got out safe. That's main thing.

CH: That's Chris Richard, who rescued two of his neighbours, after their duplex in Charlottetown caught fire yesterday.

[Music: World music]

Seattle company update

Guest: Dan Price

CH: A few years ago, the CEO of a Seattle-based company gave himself a 90 per cent pay cut. And he says he's the richer for it. In 2015, Dan Price increased the minimum salary at his company, Gravity Payments, to seventy-thousand dollars U.S. for all employees — some of whom made barely half of that at the time. In order to pay for the raise, Mr. Price cut his own salary from one million dollars a year, to seventy-thousand. And we spoke with him at the time. And now, five years later, he says that decision has more than paid off. We reached Dan Price in Seattle.

CO: Mr Price, are you prepared to declare your business model a success?

DAN PRICE: Well, I think I'm pleased that it's worked very well for us. I'm pleased that we're making progress and that people's lives are better. I'm very pleased that our mission of sticking up for independent businesses is continuing to go forward. But I can't really fully declare it a success because in the five years since we've implemented our living wage program, income inequality, wealth inequality and just the disparity of power between the wealthiest and the most powerful and everybody else has continued to grow in an alarming way.

CO: Okay, so the world hasn't changed, but your company did. Let's just go through some of the ways that things are different. First of all, how is it different for your company since you initiated this minimum wage of seventy-thousand dollars a year?

DP: Well, some of the ones that are most meaningful to me is prior to the minimum wage, we had between zero and two babies born amongst people that work at Gravity. And since then, we've had over 40. In fact, we had 15 just last year. People have doubled their savings for retirement. We've had a third of the company announce that they've been able to become either completely or almost completely debt-free. Two-thirds say that they've been able to cut down on the debt that they carry. And we have a lot of first-time homeowners here in Seattle in a very, very competitive market. So that's been great. And along the way, we're serving three times as many independent businesses with their payment processing needs. And so that's really the big measure for us is that we're helping small businesses compete against big businesses and monopolies. And all those things I think tell us that we're on the right track.

CO: Okay, so the wealth of your company increased?

DP: Well, it's true that we operate off of much smaller margins than our competitors do. We're not making as much money as our competitors. And just recently, an executive of one of my competitors told me, Hey Dan, you know, if you go to a more traditional business model, not just with how you pay your employees, but even more so how we treat our clients, you know you could become a billionaire in a few years and wouldn't that be worth it to do? And isn't Dan plus a billion dollars better for the world than Gravity Payments — than what you're doing for your customers and employees? And obviously, it's an intriguing pitch. I'm not completely egoless, and so you know he's telling me that the world needs another billionaire philanthropist, and I just don't know if that's the case [CO chuckles] because we've been relying on billionaire philanthropists for so long, and I don't really think that's working out very well for us.

CO: What kind of criticism did you get? I know that you had Rush Limbaugh in particular said that this was a model of socialism that was not going to work, and you were going to fail. What other comments did you get? What other pushback did you get?

DP: Well, probably the biggest ones was just that it's not fair. And that we're living in a market-based economy, and you have to follow the market. In particular, we had two very valuable employees leave the company, and that was difficult. One of them had said that she had put her time in and worked her way up, and that was valuable to her, and she didn't think it was right that we were shortchanging other people by not having that path. And another gentleman shared how he was just worried people were going be just clocking in, clocking out and getting a paycheck. And you know it's true that we all have some level of kind of entitlement and lack of appreciation. I sure struggle with those things and try to be better at those things. So I don't know that there's anybody that works at Gravity Payments that's completely immune from those struggles. But I think it's worth it to have you know a team that's not distracted. There's a gentleman, Jose Garcia, that that works at Gravity. And Jose lost 100 pounds because he didn't have to commute an hour a day, and he could take that time and invest in his health and exercising. There's just there's so many good things that have come from it. That while those criticisms are valid and are true to some degree, you know the benefit far outweighs the cost.

CO: All right, well you didn't change the world view, did you? Because we're now still in a situation where the CEOs and the top U.S. CEOs are earning 20 times what their workers are making, or 300 times I think in the U.K. The top one per cent is making more than the bottom 50 per cent, and that's even widening. So why do you think you didn't inspire others to do what you did?

DP: Well, we did a few. So I want to give some shoutouts to some other CEOs that did join and appreciation to them. But you're right, and the situation has gotten much worse. And my own views on that have changed dramatically over the past five years. Because I grew up in a conservative Christian family that always voted Republican or more conservative than Republican. And you know I just thought that business was the answer. And businesses and competition and the free markets could solve everything. But what I've come to realize is that that doesn't totally exist because if we take our eye off the ball, if we don't have a strong we-the-people-based system that is making it fair and making it work for everybody, then the people at the top — the wealthy people — they have the lobbyists, they have all the resources to make sure that they get what they need. And so what we need is we need all of us to engage. One of the proposals that recently has come up from Senator Elizabeth Warren here in the United States is a law that any company with over a billion dollars in revenue would have to pay for any harm that they caused to other people or the environment. So examples like that are how we all can get engaged and level the playing field. Because right now, we have all the rich wealthy people participating in the political process, and everybody else just saying, oh, that government or politics stuff that's not for us. You know, we don't want to put our trust in the government. I can understand the skepticism because I grew up right in the middle of that type of environment. But I think that if we really want a better world, we want a better place to be, then we need to get involved and get more active politically. And I've had to learn that hard lesson over the last five years. Because five years ago, I did not want to be involved in politics. I just wanted to run my company. And I thought that would solve the problems that we were dealing with.

CO: Mr Price, once again, is good to talk to you. Thank you.

DP: Thanks for having me on.

CO: Bye.

CH: Dan Price is the CEO of Gravity Payments. We reached him in Seattle. And you can find more on this story on our webpage at: www.cbc.ca/aih.

[Music: Ambient]

James Lipton obit

SOUNDCLIP

JAMES LIPTON: We begin our classroom with the questionnaire that was made famous by Bernard Deveau, and one hundred years earlier by Marcel Proust. What is your favorite word?

CH: You could add another name to those people who made the questionnaire famous — the name of the man whose voice you just heard: James Lipton. For more than 20 years, Mr. Lipton conducted interviews with an A to Z list of movie stars on "Inside the Actor's Studio". His distinctive baritone and idiosyncratic delivery made him easily as popular as any of his subjects — many of his subjects. He was on "The Simpsons", and had a recurring role on the hit series "Arrested Development". And of course he was famously parodied by Will Ferrell on “Saturday Night Live”. James Lipton died today. He was 93. He was also a favourite target of critics. According to the New York Times obit, quote, "critics described him variously as pompous, sycophantic, unctuous, oleaginous and obsequious." Unquote. But long before they came up with terms for him, he had one for a group of them: a shrivel. As in "a shrivel of critics". Back in the '60s, Mr. Lipton published his book on collective nouns — called "An Exaltation of Larks". In 1998, he spoke to As it Happens host Mary Lou Finlay about the nouns' origins, including the collective term for collective terms themselves.

SOUNDCLIP

JL: They're called terms of venery.

MARY LOU FINLAY: Terms of venery.

JL: Or venereal terms.

MLF: [chuckling] fine.

JL: In fact, the venereal terms is correct because when I began my research of them, looking for all the original terms, it took me finally to England, and finally to an inner chamber of the British Museum, where I actually held in my hand The Book of Saint Albans — which was published in the 15th century — and which contains the longest and really definitive list of these terms. But these were all in books of venerate venery. Venery meaning simply hunting.

MLF: Hunting.

JL: They were hunting terms. With all of these terms, and all the hundreds of years of collection of them, there was no term for a collection of collections [MLF laughs]. And so I opted for terms of venery or venereal terms because I had found them in books of venery.

MLF: Fine, okay.

JL: There you are. The point of that, I call my book “The Venereal Game” because it was in the early books — the fifteenth century books that I perused in the great reading room of the British Museum and other places around the world — that I discovered that they had begun in the 15th century making a game of it. You see?

MLF: Yes.

JL: I started with the known words, the ones that drew me to the subject, a gaggle of geese, a pride of lions, a litter of pups. Some we forget about. We don't even think of them as venereal terms, a month of Sundays, a hill of beans, a bevy of beauties, a host of angels, a tissue of lies and so forth, a can of worms. Very playful, and when they invented those terms, a pontipicality of prelates, a discretion of priests. I was looking at pages that were printed in the fifteenth century, and so suddenly, my mind got working. And I came up with a slouch of models, and a wince of dentists, [MLF laughs] and I have a chapter called “People, Places and Things” where you'll find a pound of Englishmen, a pint of Irishman, a fifth of Scots, a goulash of Hungarians, a mass of Bostonians.

MLF: Okay, you have to stop now, all right?

JL: And I challenge you to come up with a term for Canadians. I have a term for French Canadians.

MLF: A blush of Canadian.

JL: Well…

MLF: A bow of Canadians.

JL: Yes, and a bout of Canadians. I'm from Michigan; I talk the way you do. But I have no term for Canadians. The field is wide open.

MLF: A challenge to our listeners.

JL: A challenge of Canadians.

MLF: There you are. Thank you very much, Mr Lipton.

JL: I thank you.

MLF: Nice to talk to you.

JL: Nice to talk to you.

MLF: Bye-bye.

JL: Bye.

CH: James Lipton, speaking with Mary Lou Finlay on this program in 1998 about his book on collective nouns. Mr. Lipton was, of course, best known as host of "Inside the Actor's Studio", in which he interviewed a gawkage of celebrities — which is a collective noun I just invented, in tribute to him. James Lipton died today. He was 93.

[Music: Sombre]

Part three: judges on juries, German ice wine

SOD: Rugby commentator headset

CH: When it comes to radio, there's what you hear. And there's what Carol and I hear — which is mostly the same as what you hear... except for the odd prompt from the other side of the studio glass. Some helpful cues about what's up next. The occasional reminder of how much time is on the clock. And sometimes, when I get distracted by something, which hardly ever — hey, how many times do you guys think I can spin around on this swivel chair in 60 seconds? Two-hundred? Okay, you’re on. Ready? Wha… Huh? I should what? I see. Sorry. That's our director, Kevin, telling me to focus — which can be helpful, or an unwelcome interruption. Regardless, it's why I'm glad I don't work in television — where those in-ear cues are a whole lot more common. So common, in fact, one might describe them as incessant. Take it from Nick Mullins. He's a rugby commentator for BT Sports in the UK. And over the weekend, he shared some of the cacophony he hears during live broadcasts. It's our sound of the day.

SOUNDCLIP

WOMAN: Counting to commentary in 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, zero. And 20 seconds on the scene set.

Man: Hold it there, Chris.

WOMAN: Team sheets.

MAN: Hold on, twelve.

WOMAN: In 5, 4, 3,

MAN: Coming to twelve.

WOMAN: 2, 1, 0

MAN: And go to Quinn’s

WOMAN: Forty seconds on Harlequins team.

CH: That's the sound inside BT Sports commentator Nick Mullins's head — with thanks to the people on the other side of the glass here in our studio for their much quieter approach. And counting to music in five... four... three... two... one.

[Music: Hip-hop]

Judges on juries

Guest: John Struthers

CH: A Toronto judge has written a letter offering Canadian Tire a reminder about the value of Canada's justice system. Mr Justice Robert Goldstein wrote the letter after one of the retailer's employees was called for jury duty in a murder trial. The automotive centre worker told the judge that he couldn't afford to do his civic duty, and he produced a note to explain. It read, "please be advised that he will not be paid for jury duty as it is not a company benefit." Justice Goldstein found that, quote, "completely unacceptable." He wrote, "It is vitally important that citizens be able to participate in the administration of justice in their communities, with the support of their employers." The next day Canadian Tire's wrote back to say that back to say that the worker would be compensated for any time lost. John Struthers is one of the defence lawyers in the case. We reached him at the Toronto courthouse.

CO: Mr. Struthers, what does it take to get a judge to write a letter to an employer about people trying to avoid jury duty?

JOHN STRUTHERS: Frustration. And I'm not sure it was the people necessarily trying to avoid jury duty, as them claiming quite properly that they couldn't afford it. Because if they were in a trial for three weeks without pay, their mortgage payment would go south.

CO: And how often does this happen? When you're choosing people, when people are called up for jury duty, there's different reasons why people say they can't do jury duty. How often is it they'll say that they can't afford to because they won't be paid?

JS: Very regularly, in fact, perhaps one out of four. And the way it works is that everyone is entitled to claim that there would be undue hardship in their lives. So, of course, if they booked a trip with their entire family for the following week, or if they are in a serious round of chemotherapy, of course, it would be undue hardship. But many people feel they can't maintain their life if are without pay for three weeks or sometimes even longer.

CO: Are they allowed to do that? Is that a valid reason, because they say that they their employer won't pay them?

JS: It is because the judge has to determine whether it is, in fact, an undue hardship. And if they have children or if they're in a position where their mortgage is going to be in default if they take jury duty, then people will not be concentrating on what they're supposed to be doing in court. And they'll be far too worried about their personal circumstances.

CO: Okay, so let's go back to what Justice Robert Goldstein did and said — which is that this is a murder trial that's happened in Toronto Superior Court, a very important trial. I guess all of them are, but looking for jurors. And this man says that Canadian Tire — where he is employed — will not pay for him to sit on jury duty. And so the judge gives a blast to the company. Can you just tell us what your sense of what the judge, what message he was sending?

JS: Well, Canadian Tire, of course, is Canadian Tire, and they also read 14-and-a-half billion dollars in sales last year. So he was a little frustrated that so many people were having problems with their finances in order to be jurors. This is one of our two civic responsibilities as Canadians: to vote and to sit on a jury. And it's really not asking too much of individuals, and certainly not asking too much of major corporations to facilitate our justice system. Canadian Tire obviously sometimes gets robbed. Sometimes it's defrauded. And sometimes people shoplift there. And they certainly expect the police and the justice system to look after it. So they very much have a responsibility as well to ensure that our justice system runs fairly, smoothly, and that their employees have an opportunity to sit on a jury. Now, if you're a company with you mom and pop — with two employees — that may be different. But the time may well have come for the government to intervene and to ensure that people are paid properly when they're jurors. And if the employers can't afford it, then the government's going to have to.

CO: In this case, the letter that the juror prospect produced said that his company said, please be advised that you will not be paid for jury duty as it is not a company benefit. What do you make of the language of a company saying we're looking at jury duty as a benefit? What language do you think they should be using [slight chuckle]?

JS: They should be using, yes, of course, will pay for jury duty because it's a civic responsibility [laughing] is the language they should be using. But obviously, having been challenged by the justice, they reconsidered and did the right thing and indicated the person would be paid throughout. That may have had something to do with the fact that the judge actually wanted someone from Canadian Tire to come down and explain it to him. And I don't think they wanted to do that.

CO: Could he have compelled them to come down and explain it to him?

JS: Yes, a Superior Court judge can compel anyone to show up if they choose.

CO: Uh-huh. And so Canadian Tire chose not to. Instead, said that and the misunderstanding I guess had been that this man was that employed by an independently-owned and operated franchisor of Canadian Tire. And it’s now that associate dealer who will compensate for the lost wages. Are you satisfied with that?

JS: Well, of course. But I think in a more general context, we need overarching rules for all employers — especially major corporations — to understand that jury duty is a critical civic duty of everybody in this country. And that people should be facilitated and not prevented from serving on juries.

CO: So why isn't it mandatory to compensate people, if you can, for jury duty?

JS: It should be. But, of course, there is resistance from major corporations as to suggest that this is another wait for it, they're going to call it a tax. Unfortunately, you know individuals should not have their trials decided by people who can afford to be there. Who may have a lot of free time. Maybe students or maybe people that otherwise are at leisure. Because all sorts of people should be represented on a jury, including people that are not wealthy.

CO: Ontario doesn't require employers to pay an employees who’s on jury duty. And if the legislature doesn't think this is important enough to require it, what's the judge talking about? He's publicly shaming a company where they're not required actually to do this.

JS: I understand that. But you know you're also not required to be polite to people, and you're not required to put on your best face for everybody all day long. Is it not a moral requirement of people in this country to do their civic duty and to facilitate civic duty? If you're going to be strictly on the letter of the law, then that's quite right, Canadian Tire it doesn't have to pay. And, of course, they could at the end not have been forced to pay. But they were, in fact, asked to reconsider, and they did.

CO: The fact that you say one in four are saying they can't afford to sit there on jury duty, what effect does that have on the system's ability to do justice?

JS: It's a great impediment. Obviously, people who are charged with crimes are very, very concerned that their juries represent them and represent what they look like and what they sound like and their background, in other words, a jury of your peers. And if you are a very poor person, one would hope the people on that jury would reflect your experience and your background as well, and not only be of one particular financial category.

CO: So can this judge's letter have any impact?

JS: It can because it's now become public. It was part of the public record, and a very industrious reporter was able to get them from the court and to make this public. And so it should be a public debate, and I'm glad we're starting that debate now. Here we are on the CBC talking about it. But employers that have the ability to do so should absolutely pay for jury duty.

CO: All right, we'll leave it there. Mr Struthers, thank you.

CH: John Struthers is the president of the Canadian Criminal Lawyers' Association. We reached him in Toronto.

[Music: Jazzy instrumental]

Ulay obit

CH: You may have seen the video. You may even have been in the room to witness the moment firsthand. The woman sits at a table with her eyes closed. A crowd has gathered around her. Slowly, a man approaches and sits in the chair opposite her. He settles in, and after a few moments, the woman opens her eyes. They light up in a moment of recognition. She smiles coyly, and begins to weep. Eventually, they reach across the table and clasp hands. The woman is the Serbian performance artist Marina Abramović. The man is her former lover and collaborator, Ulay. Their reunion — after decades of not speaking with one another — took place in 2010, at the Museum of Modern Art in New York City. It was captured on video and posted online — and has since amassed nearly 20 million views. Ulay — born Frank Uwe Laysiepen — died today at 76, from lymphatic cancer. Ulay and Ms Abramović famously ended their relationship in the '80s, by meeting on the Great Wall of China. They had started on opposite ends, each walking thousands of kilometres to meet in the middle — only to bid each other a silent goodbye. In 2016, Marina Abramović sat down with the CBC's Tom Power, host of q. In that interview, she touched on her famous reunion with Ulay six years earlier.

SOUNDCLIP

MARINA ABRAMOVIC: You know, I always think that actually when there are things honest. And when they’re really true emotions reach everybody, because it's not our love story. It’s that anybody else love story who can project to our love story, you know? that's what touched people. The moment was like that. You know, he was a big part of my life. And he’s just sitting in front of me unexpected. And I was thinking, you know, he's not any viewer or spectator like anybody else. He was my lover. So I break all the rules I never break and put my hands in the front. And he touched my hands. And this was the moment like eternity. And that people can project. Anybody in the world have that moment in their life.

TOM POWER: You're right.

MA: So we just kind of manifest that love at that moment. And that's why I think it's this kind of reaction. I mean, numbers are kind of pretty frightening. You know, if you just think that even I started in the 70s…

TP: Yeah.

MA: As a young performance artist. The public was ten people, 20, 30, 60 was big public — mostly friends. And then he goes with this all you know 50. I mean, that was 50 years career. Now it’s hundreds of thousands. It's kind of overwhelming.

TP: Millions, millions of people.

MA: Millions [chuckling]. Yeah, exactly. That’s a huge thing. So you know, so that means performers have that kind of if it’s really is true. And it's really kind of give certain message, it's you know people feel it's and accept it.

CH: From 2016, performance artist Marina Abramovic recalling reconnecting with her professional and romantic partner, Ulay after decades — during her New York exhibition. Ulay died today. He was 76.

[Music: lullaby]

German ice wine

Guest: Ernst Buscher

CH: 2019 was a historic year for Germany's ice wine industry. But it's not a milestone worth celebrating. The German Wine Institute has said that last year's vintage will go down in history as the first ever to have "failed nationwide." Ernst Buscher is a spokesperson with the German Wine Institue. We reached him near Bodenheim, Germany.

CO: Ernst, why was 2019 such a failure for ice wine in Germany?

ERNST BUSCHER: Well, the temperature in Germany this winter was really extraordinary warm, so it didn't reach minus-seven degrees — which is necessary to harvest ice wine in Germany.

CO: Uh-huh. Maybe just explain… Because I know it's very specific conditions you need to have ice wine. What is required in order to produce it?

EB: If winemakers want to produce ice wine, the grapes have to be frozen. And this takes place only at the minimum temperature of minus-seven degrees. And then the frozen grapes, they will be put in the press. And the concentrated juice flows out of the press. And the water remains as ice inside of the press. So you get a really high concentrated very sweet must, which is fermented to wine afterwards.

CO: Wow! So you have a very, very small window to make this happen?

EB: Yes. In the last years, there was just one day where it was possible. And generally, it’s in the night grapes are picked, because at 4:00 in the morning, it's the coldest period of the day. So the winemakers go out with a team, yes, in the early morning when it's dark to pick the grapes with frozen hands and bring them home. And if you miss that night, then you can't harvest it for the whole year. It's also a kind of logistic which is necessary to get the people to pick.

CO: Not only does it have to get to that temperature, but they have to be perfectly ripe grapes and waiting for this drop in temperature, right?

EB: Yeah, due to the climate change, the grapes are getting ripe much earlier than in former times. Last year the harvest was finished already at the beginning of October. And the frost nights are coming more and more late, and in January or February. So the grapes have to survive for four to five months in a healthy state. And that's also a problem to produce ice wine in this new times.

CO: Okay, so if the issue is climate change, if it's not just a freak winter, but this is definitely the trend, then what does that mean for the production of ice wine in Germany?

EB: Well, it's hard to predict the weather for the next years. But if the trend really goes on, the ice wine will be much more rare as it is already. Because what the average yield for ice wine is just maybe five hundred litres from one hectare. And from a normal vintage, you have maybe eight to ten-thousand litres per hectare. So that's a huge difference. And you get very, very low yields. And in future maybe you don't have any ice one anymore, and it will be more and more precious.

CO: And is ice wine really that much in demand, I ask with some skepticism?

EB: Well, ice wine is a specialty. The wine winemakers get high prizes in wine competitions for the ice wines. And even Robert Parker, he awarded ice wines from Germany with 100 points several times already. So it's something for the reputation of a winery, and it's something also to show your skill of wine making.

CO: But we know that 2019 was the second warmest year on record, and that's around the globe. And lots of crop problems, right, lots of lots of issues with growing seasons and droughts and everything, so is it the case that Germany, like other places, are going to have to make adjustments given that this may be the trend now?

EB: Germany is still the winner of climate change up to a certain degree because red wines are getting much more concentrated, more deep-coloured. Our Pinot Noir is really now we are competing. The burgundy Pinot Noirs and also the white wines are getting much more right than in the ‘60s or ‘70s — years of the last century. But one problem may be that we won't have any ice wine anymore.

CO: So you think overall Germany will be a climate change winner?

EB: Yes, we have an increase in temperature since 1988. You can really measure it that since then, every year got warmer and warmer. And in the ‘50s and ‘60s or ‘70s, we still had some years when the grapes just reached the minimum ripeness. And ripeness today is no question at all. And we now have to look after not too much ripeness in the grapes, and to keep our duplicity of the maybe Riesling grapes and Riesling wines, the freshness must be kept. We are working on that, but all in all, the advantages overweigh the disadvantages.

CO: Ernst, we're going to leave it there. But thanks for speaking with us.

EB: You're welcome.

CO: Bye-bye.

CH: Ernst Buscher is a spokesperson for the German Wine Institute. We reached him in Bodenheim, Germany. And there's more on this story at: www.cbc.ca/aih.

[Music: Indie rock]

FOA: Freeman Dyson obit

CH: Freeman Dyson did pioneering work in mathematics and physics here on Earth. But he also gave himself the space to think about space. Mr. Dyson spent most of his career as a scholar at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton. His contribution to the theory of quantum electrodynamics — how light and matter interact — is considered one of the greatest achievements in science in the 21st century. And his work extended beyond formulas and numbers to writing — exploring topics that were more like science fiction than real life. Mr. Dyson was a renowned futurist and thinker who was especially curious about space exploration and extraterrestrial life. And while his work in physics was groundbreaking, he did it without having a PhD. Mr. Dyson died Friday. He was 96. In the year 2000, he won the Templeton Prize, the world's largest monetary award. And that year, it was valued at 964,000 dollars U.S. The day he accepted it, he spoke with our host at the time, Mary Lou Finlay. From our archives, here is part of their conversation from March 2000.

SOUNDCLIP

MLF: I'm not sure whether to call you Mr Dyson or Dr Dyson now.

FREEMAN DYSON: Mr is correct, yes.

MLF: I know Mr is correct, but I just learned that you, in fact, had never sort of got a PhD — not the regular way — you have hundreds of honourary degrees. But I just thought how does a fellow who has a bachelor’s degree achieve what you have achieved and become invited to teach at Cornell University and all of that?

FD: Well, it ought to be the standard way of doing it. I was lucky because I came through the system during the war when everything was screwed up. But, of course, I consider the PhD to be an abomination. I'm proud of not having one. And I'm proud of the fact that none of my kids has one either.

MLF: Oh, tell me why?

FD: Well, because it's a terrible waste of time [MLF chuckles]. It keeps people from doing anything useful for about ten years. And by the time they're finished, they're middle-aged and almost unemployable. I think it's a terrible system.

MLF: Well, you have proven that it's unnecessary to achieve great things, so I'll take your word on all of that. Shall we talk about the Templeton Prize?

FD: Yeah.

MLF: Congratulations.

FD: Thanks very much.

MLF: You're in very good company there too.

FD: Undeservedly good, yes.

MLF: This is an award that's given for people the Templeton Group think have aided our understanding of spirituality. So I wanted to ask how do you consider spirituality has informed your work in physics?

FD: Not at all. I mean, of course, my work has been partly physics and partly writing books, and the two things are quite separate. I wouldn't claim that they have done anything to really to increase the understanding of spirituality.

MLF: But you are a man of science who can bridge the gap that sometimes exists between men of science or people of science and people in religious.

FD: Right, and that is what I try to do. And so I write sympathetically about religion. And I think that religion is a very important part of human nature. It's part of the human condition. And it's something that we all have in one way or another — whether we call it that or not. So it is certainly as basic to the human condition as love or virtue or science or anything else. It's just one of many faculties that we have, and we should make the most of it.

CH: From our archives, that was physicist, mathematician, and futurist Freeman Dyson speaking with host Mary Lou Finlay. Mr Dyson died last week. He was 96.

[Music: Ambient]

Mark Bourrie wins

CH: Mark Bourrie was fascinated by the story of Pierre-Esprit Radisson — the fur trader, adventurer... and hustler. The author even described Mr. Radisson as "The Forrest Gump of his time"— because the trader was adopted by the Iroquois as a child, was in England during the Great Plague and played a key role in the creation of Hudson's Bay Company. He was everywhere history was happening in North America. Today, Mark Bourrie won the final RBC Taylor prize for non-fiction for his book, Bush Runner" about Mr. Radisson's life. Last month, Mr. Bourrie joined Carol to talk about his book -- after he had been shortlisted for the Prize.

SOUNDCLIP

CO: what does that mean for you to get that recognition. I know this was quite a labour of love. [she laughs] This was hardly a lovable character to be exploring, but how do you how do you feel about being shortlisted?

MB: Actually, The two books I wrote before, one was on ISIS propaganda. And the other was on Stephen Harper's information controls. Radisson was a delight after that. So I'm like fine, this is really nice. And then all of a sudden, I get this picture of Margaret Atwood with my book. And I thought, wow! This is really something. It's a great pat on the head for me and the book. You just never know. I mean writing a book is such a solitary thing, and then you come out of your little hidey hole, and you have no idea how it's going to go, whether people get to love it or hate it, or even worse, not even know about it. So this prize has made a big difference in in that way. I'm going to miss the prize. It's the last year for it.

CO: And also, you know that someone wrote in The Globe Mail just recently questioning are there too many book prizes in Canada. Now, this one, which was one of the very few for non-fiction writing in Canada, now Noreen Taylor says it's reached its goal of promoting Canadian non-fiction. So what does that mean for writers like yourself? I mean, you're a lawyer. Keep your day job. But what does it mean for you?

MB: Oh, we could do a whole show on this. But the people like us — the five of us who are nominated for the Taylor Prize, who all did research books about other people — that's gone. We won't have that prize anymore. So Writers Trust and the Governor General's Awards are given out now to people who write memoirs. And there are academic prizes and academic jobs, which is really where accounts for the academic writers. But in the middle are the people who are doing what you've used to do or still do with your books. Would I do. What Robin Doolittle does. What Peter Newman does. What Pierre Burton did. Which is basically telling stories about Canada through researched, publicly-accessible history, and nobody cares. And nobody wants it. Nobody wants to pay for it. Nobody wants to give prizes for it. Nobody wants to give grants for it. So what the hell does that mean about this country? And how do we have a country that has a story, a life story, if the only way books like this get written is by me practicing law into the night so that I can afford to write these books? And if you want to look for a patron of the literary arts in Canada, take a look at my wife. She's a federal lawyer. And if it wasn't for her income, I couldn't write. And that's the only way that this works.

CO: You're not alone. That's played out across the country for everyone who's listening to this who’s writer knows your story.

MB: Yeah, and everybody thinks that the writers of Canada are subsidized with these big fat government grants. The writers of Canada are the people who are paying for Canada's identity.

CO: Just back to Bush Runner, What do you what do you want people to take away from this book? Now that possibly this prize gets you a bit more attention, people are talking about it. What do you want to take away from it?

MB: Okay. In terms of a personal thing, I love characters. I did journalism for a long time. I met all kinds of fabulous characters. And I think it's fun to tell the stories of characters. And it's fun to read the stories of characters. It's why we go to the movies, right? And there are these people who live these lives. You know Christiane Amanpour, or somebody like that, who've just seen everything. And Radisson was one of those people you just come across them from time to time. And they have good things about them. And they have bad things about them because they're human beings, and we're all like that. And telling a person’s story that way is a lot better than just looking for heroes and villains.

CH: That was author Mark Bourrie, talking with Carol last month about his book, "Bush Runner: The Adventures of Pierre-Esprit Radisson." Mark Bourrie is the 2020 — and the final — winner of the RBC Taylor Prize for literary non-fiction.

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

CBC would like to acknowledge the support of the Broadcasting Accessibility Fund.

March 02, 2020 episode transcript

More Stories Like This