<a href="https://the-peak.ca/2013/09/to-be-or-not-to-be/" rel="bookmark" title="To be or not to be">To be or not to be

-

September 9, 2013

With the hype surrounding Robin Thicke’s “Blurred Lines” and the debate of whether it should be interpreted as a rape anthem, I have had a lot to think about in terms of feminism and social activism.

While I hesitate to linger on the problematic nature of Thicke’s performance with Miley Cyrus, it merits mention. The lyrics of “Blurred Lines” raise many questions about the implications of party anthems, not to mention the visual juxtaposition between the two stars. Thicke (a married man of 36), stands fully clothed singing words questioning a woman’s ability to resist him while a scantily clad , 20-year-old Cyrus rubs against him.

I cannot deny Cyrus her right to express her sexuality however she desires, but the combination of Thicke’s song and the image of them on stage exacerbates the lack of respect for women and their choices that the song implies.

We are missing the importance of the ability to refuse.

After watching the performance, I couldn’t help but think of the children who tuned into the Video Music Awards. It made me question the way we educate of the importance of consent from a young age. Though it’s easy to point fingers at the media, there are other factors.

Children are often instructed by family members to physically embrace other people, regardless of their wishes. Though this is definitely not done with ill-intent, it does raise important questions.
If we are so adamant that consent is important, why do we not respect a child’s right to choose who they want to embrace? While it’s easy to dismiss as a different situation, we have to remember children grow up to be adults — some of whom write controversial songs or write off problematic implications in favour of catchy beats.

Children are adorable, particularly when they dole out affection through a heartfelt hug. While the action itself is tied to the idea of compassion and love, we sometimes ask a child to perform such actions in the absence of warm feelings or a genuine desire to do so. This disconnect is similar in theory to teaching young women to keep a man happy with her body, even when she doesn’t desire to do so.

While the latter is greatly opposed by society, the former is acceptable. I do not believe we have fully clarified the blurred lines (excuse the terrible reference) between what actions deserve consent and which actions do not.

In order to change something in society, we need to change the way it is framed. The issue of consent is often reserved to matters purely regarding intercourse, and whether a sexual act is classified as consensual sex or rape.

Why do we not respect a child’s right to choose who they want to hug?

Consent applies to more than just sex, though; one should have the right to refuse touching or being touched by anyone. This includes anything from groping to a pat on the shoulder. Consent is important, and should be thought of as such before the situation escalates to the point in which intercourse is on the table.

This is my reason for questioning why youth are forced to embrace those whom they do not necessarily desire to. These same individuals will one day be adults faced with the option of intercourse and the reality of giving and receiving consent. Though we are not malicious when we ask a child to give an aunt a kiss, we are missing a key time to educate on the importance of consent and the ability to refuse without having to be ashamed.

Though likely unintentional, Robin Thicke has opened up a dialogue about consent that is resonating not just through the feminist communities, but general society also. We need to step back from the specific issue and look at everything as a whole.

Unions are far from irrelevant

By

-

September 9, 2013

1

Dating back to the 1880s, the first Monday of September has been recognized as Labour Day in Canada to celebrate our nation’s workers. Increasingly, however, this weekend has been utilized by writers of certain publications to highlight the supposed futility of an organized workforce, an effort I deem ungrateful and incorrect .

One such article by Brian Lilley was published in the Toronto Sun. In his article “Labour Day: No reason to celebrate,” Lilley lists the many ways in which unions are no longer relevant. He describes how unions now are more about union bosses than about union members — that they tend to care more for the “outrageous salaries” of their top executives than for the well-being of their rank and file workers. This may occasionally be the case, but is certainly not an issue faced solely by large unions.

Lilley also states that the average worker must simply not want to be a member of a union, given that 70 per cent of government workers are unionized, while just under 15 per cent of the private sector are members. After all, according to Lilley (who himself was once a member of the Communication, Energy, and Paperworkers Union), it has never been easier to join a union.

He correctly asserts that labour laws across the country do — at least in writing — tend to favour unions. By law, Canadian workers can usually not be fired for creating, joining, or expressing interest in joining a union. However, Lilley has overlooked the fact that in practice, these laws are far from being carried out to the letter, as seen with large fast food chains and department stores.

The 40 hour work week and vacation pay were fought for by workers.

That all said, it is not about conveniently timed articles or the first weekend of September. The real issue is the rights we all enjoy and take advantage of — or should be able to take advantage of — every single day we go to work.

Things like the 40 hour work week and vacation pay were all fought for by workers who were faced with a loss of livelihood. The first Labour Day was staged in support of workers fighting in favour of a 58 hour work week. Once they had that foot-hold, they rallied for a 54 hour week and so on until we got the most universally accepted and “fair” amount at 40 hours. What this exemplifies is that the modern world has benefited greatly from the work of organized labourers.

The rub, however, is that these laws protecting the rights of workers are by no means set in stone; just because we are able to enjoy them today does not guarantee that they will still be in place tomorrow. Much like SFU’s Burnaby Campus, labour laws will simply fall apart without proper diligence and maintenance.

It is naive to adopt the line of thought that an organized workforce was a great thing back-in-the-day and that we can now just sort of get on with our lives. Not only is there still a long way to go — with many laws and regulations going ignored especially, in minimum-wage workplaces — everything we enjoy can very easily be taken away.

In short, people across the nation have profited far too much from the work of those before them to simply dismiss the relevance of organized workers. To do so would have the effect of, say, deferring upkeep on a large concrete structure that is being constantly exposed to water for long periods of time with inadequate drainage

Is our language becoming reductive?

By

-

September 9, 2013

It’s not unusual to see someone plugged into an electronic device in the form of a smartphone or laptop. We are in an age in which we observe the transformation of culture by technology, rendering the ability to communicate and access information expediently and more efficiently. But with regard to our language, it may prove degenerative, making it so we have to think less as technology does more.

Even before the computer or information age, writers such as George Orwell criticized what he saw as the degeneration of the English language. He observed that modern English contains many bad habits, as people become lazy with it. In his 1946 essay “Politics and the English Language,” he writes that, “the slovenliness of our language makes it easier to have foolish thoughts,” going onto point out that this “slovenliness” is leading to the political and economic degeneration of modern civilization.

Many are probably more familiar with Orwell’s dystopian fictional world created in his book 1984. In his novel, Orwell demonstrates how language can influence peoples’ thoughts and society as a whole, through the simplification of English in what he calls “Newspeak.” Orwell’s Newspeak (his fictitious language) reflects his cynicism expressed in the previously referenced essay, and predicts a decline of language through its simplification via slovenliness.

Newspeak eliminates words deemed unnecessary in order to express a thought in the most simplistic way possible. For example, “bad” becomes “ungood,” and “excellent” or “extraordinary” become “doubleplusgood.” Thus, all complicated words used to express the same or similar meaning are eliminated.

Using this system of language, Orwell surmises that there will be “every year fewer and fewer words, and the range of consciousness always a little smaller.” This simplification limits language, which subsequently limits one’s range of thought as well.

Through our generation’s urge to exuberantly text and tweet, we can observe this simplification of language through what I like to call “Textspeak.” This new language eliminates unnecessary vowels or words, and ignores traditional grammatical rules such as complete sentences and proper spelling. For example, words like “you” are simplified to “u,” and homonyms such as “to” are replaced by the number “2.”

This new language also consists of a series of acronyms (i.e. TTYL or WTF), which can evolve into new words altogether, and the addition of auto-correct, which eliminates the strain of having to know how to spell.

However, not everyone is convinced technology is dumbing down our language, with some in fact claiming the complete opposite. Linguist John McWhorter believes that texting is “an emergent complexity,” and is an evolved type of “fingered speech” which he says has transformed into an entirely new language. For example, the acronym “LOL” has evolved from its original meaning of “laughing out loud” to being an empathetic when written as a word on its own in lower case (lol), according to McWhorter.

With that said, I am not convinced. Yes, new words are emerging, but old words are also being eliminated. In addition, shortened versions of words are replacing more lengthy, complicated ones as well. In order to text faster, or squeeze thoughts into a prescribed 140 character tweet, complex thoughts are becoming degenerated through this simplification, and so is our written language as a consequence.

Though it’s apparent that the English language is changing through the advent of technology, this may not constitute as an evolution as McWhorter suggests, but rather the “slovenliness” that Orwell warned about instead.

Public nursing can still be private

By

-

September 9, 2013

1

I first want to point out that I don’t have a problem with breastfeeding, nor with women who do so in public. I don’t think that breastfeeding is a pre-programmed act in mothers and infants, so the pride and accomplishment you take in being able to feed your child and keep him alive and healthy is something I as a man cannot fathom. Breastfeeding is a beautiful thing, and you are fully within your right to do so wherever you choose.

However, nursing your child on a crowded bus without attempting modesty and proceeding to ream me out for questioning your wisdom is more than a bit offensive. Are you within your rights to proceed as you wish irrespective of my feelings? Perhaps you think so, but you fall into an exasperating sect of nursing mums who self-righteously frame this as a feminist issue. It isn’t.

Should women feed their children in public? There’s no reason why not. Some swear by formula, but that doesn’t mean it should be an expected standard. Pumping and bottling milk is an extremely painful and time consuming alternative, but more often than not, mothers seem to respond best to infants suckling. So breasts become the sacred cow.

Some mommy-bloggers declare smugly that anyone against public breastfeeding is against breastfeeding altogether. Others choose to play the poor, put-upon victim: “Don’t you understand how hard it is being a mother? Why should I have to carry bags of formula and bottles? Can’t you see how exhausted I am caring for my beautiful child? Are you going to deny my angel and I our emotional bond?”

I’m not sure if you’re aware, but nobody rides a packed B-line down Broadway for the hell of it. Exhaustion is not a mental or physical condition reserved for nursing mothers. I’m not asking you to wear a snuggy while you breastfeed. Nursing blankets are a pain, I understand that, but it’s a common courtesy that you extend to fellow riders and other people who dare to exist around you and your cherub when you enter a public space. It’s the same courtesy you were extended when seats were vacated to accommodate your stroller.

I understand mothers don’t want to sit in smelly toilet stalls while they feed their children in restaurants or in shopping malls (though claiming there isn’t enough space carries little water when some women McGyver everything together within the confines of a bus seat), and badgering them to do so is selfish. However, your snooty retort that I can “simply look away” is ridiculous, especially after you bemoaned my disrespect toward your personal space.

I’m not going to compare public feeding and urination (as many opponents do), as they really aren’t the same thing. But it’s odd that breastfeeding acolytes retort that breasts, unlike a penis, aren’t sexual — that feeding renders them purely utilitarian. That’s an absurd argument, given how sexuality, penises and breasts are entwined in global human culture.

However you choose to phrase it, your naked exposure on a bus is discomfiting. I doubt that it would be too long before I got belted across the face if I blatantly stared at your ‘utilitarian’ appendages.

This isn’t a treatise encouraging female repression; I am not a religious or moral zealot or a volcano of barely suppressed sexual frustration that needs to curb some disgusting desires so you can feed your child.

I fully support your right to feed in public, please understand that. I’m only asking that you exercise a modicum of respect before painting yourself as a victim of some patriarchal conspiracy designed in your own mind.

Miley’s not the problem: you are

By

-

September 9, 2013

It was impossible to avoid. She’s been splattered across the front pages of news sites and dominated days of coverage and discourse — a paper thin cover over news holes that could be filled by matters of global importance. But okay, pop culture enthusiasts, I give. Let’s talk about Miley Cyrus for a moment.

I’m not here to tell you that your moral panic would be better spent on Syria or Egypt, because I know you know that you are fucking that up. Nor am I here to say that what can only laughably be called “The Twerking Incident” doesn’t matter. I’m talking to you, aren’t I?

I’m here to ask why on earth you made it matter. Sure, I know why you say you did it: you’re outraged — outraged — that a former Disney child star would publicly show kids how to touch their “hoo-has” with a giant foam finger.

But when a pop star’s lifestyle poses a major threat to the moral character of your child, it’s not time to boycott that pop star; it’s time to seriously reconsider how you’re raising your child to interface with pop culture, and — here’s the rub — how you consume it yourself.

By talking up Cyrus’s twerking as an affront to culture, you’re implicitly condoning the rest of the Video Music Awards as legitimate culture, instead of recognizing it for what it really is: an industry’s self-promotional monument to itself.

The Video Music Awards feature provocative displays on a yearly basis.

When entertainment is dichotomized from meaning or artistry, an environment forms that doesn’t just make shocking, pointless displays possible. It makes them inevitable; vapid spectacles draw ratings.

What exactly did you expect when you tuned in to the VMAs? Has it never occurred to you that only the most popular megastars get nominated for ostensibly artistic accolades? That the whole enterprise might therefore be hollow grandstanding? Yes, Cyrus was being especially lewd, but it was hardly unprecedented; the Video Music Awards feature provocative displays on a yearly basis.

Maybe sex isn’t the real problem, here. While a salacious lyric or Gaga’s bare ass get a few gasps, Cyrus gets a firestorm. You’re offended, but it’s not really because degraded your precious pop culture. It’s because she waved its banality, its intellectual baseness, its totemic emptiness in your face, and there was no longer any way for you to ignore how shallow the whole thing is, and how vapid you are for gobbling it up.

She waved its intellectual baseness, its totemic emptiness in your face.

Cyrus is just a scapegoat for people unwilling to face the fact that they watch lowest-common-denominator garbage. Blaming her is like going to McDonald’s every day and then screaming about how unhealthy their new burger is. Fucking duh. It’s McDonald’s! You think they’ll go healthy if you stick with the quarter pounder?

You have to take responsibility for your entertainment diet. It takes work to actually think about what you and your kids watch. It means stepping outside of your comfort zone of screaming down pop stars, and instead asking yourself “What does all this stand for, and what do I stand for by consuming it?”

Fucking duh. It’s the VMAs.

SFU goes CSI in virtual crime lab

By

-

September 9, 2013

This geo-spatial chart, used in the course, illustrates incidents of violence and property crime in Downtown Vancouver.

An online course offered by SFU’s School of Criminology this fall will give students the opportunity to practice their investigative skills in a one-of-a-kind virtual forensic criminal intelligence analysis lab.

Curt Griffiths, SFU professor of criminology, and one of the creators of the course, spoke to its uniqueness in an interview with The Peak. “This is one of the only instances in North America where a university has been given access to these analytical tools to use in the classroom,” said Griffiths. “Usually they’re reserved for the FBI, the RCMP, totally within the policing realm.”

The online course, Crim 417 — Introduction to Crime and Intelligence Analysis: Theory and Practice — utilizes tools such as ESRI ArcMap Crime Analyst and IBM i2 Analyst Notebook, software that is generally only made available to law enforcement agencies in North America. Griffiths estimated that the value of the donated software is around $500,000.

“Usually [this technology is] reserved for the FBI, the RCMP.”

Curt Griffiths, SFU professor of criminology

In addition to the generosity of multiple vendors, the acquisition of the equipment was made possible through the help of the course instructor, Ryan Prox of the Vancouver Police Department (VPD). Special Constable and Analytic Services Coordinator for the VPD, Prox became involved after Griffiths suggested the students could benefit from a more hands-on approach to learning.

“Dr. Griffiths would have his Critical Issues in Policing class come by the VPD every once in a while and I’d give a guest lecture presentation on analytics and touch on some of the basic training I provide our Vancouver Police analysts,” said Prox in an interview with The Peak. “And at some point he said ‘You know, you have a course here that might appeal to criminology students, you should consider adapting this for SFU’.”

For Prox and Griffiths alike, this course is an essential stepping block for students interested in careers in law enforcement, especially in the VPD, which Prox has described as “cutting-edge globally.”

Commented Prox, “Right now from a law enforcement perspective we have a difficult time finding qualified candidates that have not only the academic background, but some of the hands-on, practical skills that you need for working in the field.”

The SFU course is meant to give students just that by providing them with challenges they would face if they were working in a real police department. Using historical cases that have already gone to court and been fully disclosed, the students will retroactively investigate real crimes and use police technology to solve them.

This complex analysis is made through technology like IBM i2 Analyst Notebook. The program, which focuses almost exclusively on geographic information systems, allows students to hone in on targets with geographic profiling and socio-demographic information that they can then apply to solving crimes.

The same technology was used by Prox in 2010 to help catch a serial rapist.

“The software runs algorithms that evaluate the nature of the relationships that each person has and how many interactions they have with different people and how they fit within the hierarchical structure of a terrorist cell or gang,” explained Prox. “It can identify who the key people are within an organized structure, and from that it can help narrow the focus to the main targets of an investigation far quicker than through traditional techniques.”

The same technology was used by Prox in 2010 to help catch a serial rapist who had been targeting young girls around the Lower Mainland since the 1990s. Using a method known as “geo-profiling,” the program spat out the name Ibata Hexamer, with 99.7 per cent certainty, within six weeks. Hexamer pleaded guilty to four counts of sexual assault last August.

For Griffiths, this example of real-world application shows just how important this course (and others like it) could be for SFU Criminology students.

“It’s opening up for students the opportunity to gain skill sets that are directly applicable for when they graduate.” said Griffiths. “The idea also is for our students who take these courses to be able to write an international certification exam . . . which would allow them to go to work as a crime analyst in any police service in the world.”

In the future, Griffiths hopes to offer similar courses in the undergraduate curriculum that will focus on the area in more detail.

Confident Clan ready to make its mark

By

-

September 9, 2013

At first glance, one might think SFU’s football team was bound for a step back. Gone is quarterback Trey Wheeler, who led the Great Northwest Athletic Conference (GNAC) in total offense — by over 700. Gone is star running back Bo Palmer, lost to graduation. And gone is last year’s offensive coordinator, Jason Beck, now at Division I’s Brigham Young University.

But not gone the team’s confidence or sense of optimism. Walk into the coaches offices in West Mall Complex and you’ll see the argument could be made that it’s higher than ever. And you’ll see the argument is being
made that said confidence is entirely justified.

I knock on new ofensive coordinator Nick Lucey’s office door, and he greets me with a smile, even though we’ve never met. I introduce myself, and he invites me in to chat. Within minutes, he’s gushing about his new team.

Steps were made to replace the teammates that were lost, Lucey assures me from his desk that overlooks the busy central bus loop. Even more were taken behind the scenes that could change SFU’s reputation from a scrappy underdog to a potential GNAC frontrunner.

“We added a running back, Chris Tolbert, from (Div. I) Central Connecticut, who’ll step in and start,” said Lucey. “Most guys drop down from Div. I because they weren’t playing. Chris was playing, and he came here to get the chance to lead. He’s a very accomplished back and a very mature guy.”

“We really, really like the guy we’ve got at quarterback, Ryan Stanford,” he continues. “We think our guy can be as good as anyone else in the league.”

Lost in the shuffle is the fact that much of the offense is returning, including most of the team’s offensive line and receiving corps, led by superstar pass-catcher Lemar Durant. “We have a lot of key players back from last year,” said Lucey, with a smile that hadn’t yet wavered. “We’ll see as we get going here, but our expectations are very high.”

After leading the GNAC in total offense last year, the Clan might be hard pressed to match those gaudy numbers from a year ago with a few fresh faces in offensive skill positions. But new quarterbacks coach Steve Axman will help.

Axman was the offensive coordinator for the University of Washington when they won the Rose Bowl in 2001 over the Drew Brees-led Purdue Boilermakers. He was the quarterbacks coach for Troy Aikman at UCLA, who’s in the NFL Hall of Fame. “To have a guy with so much experience . . . It’s been really good for me,” said Lucey of Axman.

Despite the losses on offense, a string of notable hires and recruits answer most questions. To the casual observer, those departures could have overshadowed the defensive side of the ball, where the Clan struggled last season.

The Clan finished with a 4–6 record last season, and too often those games turned into shootouts. For head coach Dave Johnson, defense had to be a priority for the 2013 season, and he brought in James Colzie III as the new defensive coordinator. Like Axman, Colzie has a resume that speaks volumes.

Colzie began his coaching career in 2000 at Florida International University, coaching cornerbacks and working with returners as the assistant special teams coordinator. From there, Colzie returned to his alma mater, Florida State University — where as a player he won a national title in 1993 — and served as cornerbacks coach from 2004-07.

“He’s got a tremendous background,” says Lucey of his defensive counterpart. “What he’s doing is really, really good.” He continues, “It’s just a matter of taking the time to coach [the new system], and have the guys master it. But I’ve seen a lot of improvement in the defense from spring practice.

“We’ve done so many things and brought in the people to put our guys in the best position possible,” said Lucey, who joined the team officially on April 1. “You go out there and hire a guy like coach Colzie or coach Axman, it’s exciting.”

Lucey’s excitement is infectious. The team will have played its first game by the time you read this, an away game against Humboldt State. No matter the result, it’s easy to tell this team is ready to make its mark in the GNAC.

“I think last year the guys were finally growing up enough to start going toe to toe with the big boys,” said Lucey. “I think we’re just set to take off from here.”

SFU’s beloved mould and leaky buildings infested with grad students

By

-

September 9, 2013

**Evidence of grad students has been found all over SFU. Even this beautiful mouldy wall has been the site of unseemly research paper accumulation.**

BURNABY — Ageing, deteriorating and coming apart at the seams, members of SFU Graduate Student Society have been reported to be “a serious concern” to the well-being of the Burnaby campus and its prized mould and algae deposits, according to concerned students.

Several SFU students have told The Peak that they’ve noticed significant grad student infestation across campus, in classrooms, in stairwells, in the parkade, and even in the recently renovated washrooms where more often than not they’re covering up or obscuring popular campus mould deposits or celebrated structural faults.

Diane Peters, a third-year business student, who lives on SFU’s main campus and has seen the problem first hand brought to attention the grad student infestation problem last week and believes that serious and immediate action must be taken before undergraduates like her become infected with their disease.

“I love the broken stairs, crumbling concrete and mouldy classrooms at SFU . . . those things make me want to get out of here and get a job.” Peters explained, saying that there’s no better motivator to graduate than a serious breathing condition.

“But these grad students are dangerous, if I ever have to spend too long in a room with them I start thinking about getting another student loan, I feel a stirring to spend a couple years really getting to the bottom of ancient Mesopotamian accounting secrets . . . it’s infectious.”

Peters isn’t the only one concerned about the persistence of grad students on campus, SFU’s administration understands and sympathises with students but says that there just isn’t anything they can do.

“We completely get where these students are coming from but they need to realize that having them removed would be an enormous hassle and also extremely expensive” explained one representative for SFU who said that the school only has so much money to spend on non-terrible slogan related projects.

“We just don’t have funding to be able to survive without grad students right now but we’re working on preventative measures to, hopefully, keep them away in the future. We’re hoping to get some more mould growing and maybe expose a couple more particle boards in the washrooms . . . they seem to really hate that.”

While these are surely noble efforts, students are still not satisfied. This ineffectiveness has led Diane Peters and a group of undergraduate students to take action which so far has only sparked the creation of a report that lists things that annoy them about grad students, but this is unlikely to accomplish anything at all.

As for the mould and other rustic qualities of Burnaby campus, SFU is fully intent on preserving them despite grad students’ constant attempts to have them maintain the campus even just a tiny bit, a decision that can be appreciated by all students who come to school as an escape from their awful, clean, hygienic lives.

Researchers discover several forms of humour below puns

By

-

September 9, 2013