Open, close

By

Peak Web

-

September 16, 2013

0

When someone close tells me they’re a terrible liar,

I can’t help but wonder if they’re a really good liar

and if I would trust-fall into their arms

on a supporting girder under the Lion’s Gate bridge.

if I would let them choose my day’s clothes

from my closet while I stand by, eyes closed.

or if I would ever close off the world,

my head resting on their shoulder

(…or if that would be mutually weird.)

if I could expose my mind to let

it be the most naked,

if I could describe, say, the phantom pounds of guilt

that dog-pile on my back, sometimes

to invite them to the way

I hear, smell,

remember and forget

the world…

Not that she’s asking.

But something about this surrender of her own,

Not just those words,

but her eyes flashing up into mine

cheeks rising

chin tilting down

head slowly shaking to a settle

and I want to surrender, too.

News article revealed to be a cleverly disguised ad for vitamins, and their amazing powers

By

EIC

-

September 16, 2013

0

YOUR REGION — A local news article is being criticized for reportedly just being an ad for Mulligan’s vitamins, a company that manufactures 100 per cent natural vitamins that are said, and confirmed, to have incredible healing powers.

The article reportedly has no real content other than to talk about Mulligan’s and how great they are and includes zero citations or real quotes to back up their claims that they have “incredible healing power” but apparently it should still be completely trusted and you should go buy some right now at mulligansvitamins.biz.

Campus maintenance issues blamed on lack of funding

By

EIC

-

September 16, 2013

0

The decline of the physical state of the SFU Burnaby campus was widely publicized in local media last week, and there is one cause of the problem that both students of the SFU Graduate Student Society (GSS) and SFU administration agree on: reduced funding from the provincial government.

The GSS has been attempting to raise awareness about the maintenance problems on the Burnaby campus through their “I [heart] SFU” Tumblr campaign, a blog that encourages students to post pictures of the decay. The GSS also recently released a report detailing the damages and repair costs of the building.

The blog and the issue of the deferred maintenance caught media attention last week, with stories being run by The Tyee, Vancouver Sun, and Global News. The pictures posted on the blog feature exposed pipes, mouldy walls, and garbage cans used to catch leaks, all found in the halls of the buildings on Burnaby campus. The tagline of the website reads, “Premier Clark: Show Our Crumbling Campus Some Love!”

“What happens when we don’t have enough money to do the routine maintenance that we need is that we defer that maintenance and problems compound . . . and the buildings are in a state of crisis or emergency,” said Julia Lane, Coordinating and External Relations Officer at the GSS, who spearheaded the campaign.

I don’t think the responsibility relies most heavily with SFU administration.”

Julia Lane, GSS Coordinating and External Relations Officer

Lane stated that the report shows the main problem is the reduced funding that the university is receiving from the government annually. “The capital plans estimate that $20 million would be needed yearly . . . to maintain the buildings and do necessary upgrades,” she explained. This number falls below the government’s funding guidelines for buildings of a yearly maintenance allowance of between 1.5 and 3 per cent of the university’s replacement value, $1.8 billion.

The university currently receives much less than that amount, namely $2.2 million annually, a number that was raised from about half a million dollars in the preceding two fiscal years. This lack of funding forces the university administration to seek other sources of funding to do this maintenance, including the operating budget and tuition fees, said Lane.

“I really want to emphasize that at this point I don’t think the responsibility relies most heavily with SFU administration,” Lane said.

Pat Hibbitts, Vice President of Finance and Administration at SFU, said that the primary areas of concern are the infrastructure that ensures that the buildings “continue to be safe and reliable.” Hibbitts did concede that “improvements to roofs, building envelops, electrical and mechanical systems, elevators and seismic improvements are needed in various locations of the Burnaby campus.”

Approximately $33.5 million has been allocated by the university to maintenance needs. Currently, the campus has “fairly immediate deferred maintenance needs of approximately $160 million,” according to Hibbitts.

The university currently receives $2.2 million annually to maintain and upgrade buildings.

Hibbitts calls it “very unlikely” that SFU would be able to provide its own funding to restore all the Burnaby buildings to the GSS report’s suggestion, “‘good’ condition or better.” But the university, she says, has been “actively working with AVED [the Ministry of Advanced Education] for the past several years to make them aware of the need for Provincial funding,” and that “a plan is in place to increase [the Annual Capital Allowance fund] by $1M each year over the next 10 years.”

According to Chardaye Bueckert, the External Relations Officer at the SFSS, she wants to see “big calls to action with, obviously, a large cash-injection” to address the maintenance issues, as well as an inclusion of “maintenance funding whenever building a new building.”

“If you can’t fix a leak, then the leak . . . goes into the wall, then the wall has mould, then the whole wall has to be taken out, and then the insulation needs to be replaced,” Bueckert said. “The problems compound . . . that’s the major consequence of this deferred maintenance.”

UBC Frosh Week Furor

By

Peak Web

-

September 11, 2013

0

Estefania Duran gives her input on the UBC Frosh controversy on “Unfiltered with Jill Krop.”

To be or not to be

By

Peak Web

-

September 9, 2013

0

What if Shakespeare lived today as a university student? What if he studied with Ben Johnson and Chris Marlowe, and what if the head of their school’s creative writing department was Professor Elizabeth Tudor? The new webseries Blank Verse, created by UBC theatre and film graduates, brings Shakespeare into the modern world.

The show had its premiere on August 25 and a new episode is released online every Sunday at blankverse.tv. The first season is divided into five acts, each with four episodes, and every act is created by a different writer and director.

The first season aims to cover the themes of Two Gentlemen of Verona, Titus Andronicus, The Taming of the Shrew, Love’s Labour’s Lost, and Romeo and Juliet. The show doesn’t follow the plots of these plays, but instead they colour the mood and style of each act.

“The show is the brainchild of Amanda Konkin and it was developed by her and Ryan Caron,” explained Xander Williams, who plays William Shakespeare. “The show asks what would these famous historical figures be like if born today . . . with our problems in the artistic scene.”

Williams described one major difference: “It was a hard market for Shakespeare, but it wasn’t as saturated as it is today. There are seven billion people now, and anyone with a word processor can write.”

With a BFA in acting from UBC, experience acting in a few of Shakespeare’s plays, and the opportunity to study with Neil Freeman, “One of the greatest Shakespeare minds in my opinion” (also the director of act five), Williams feels like he is prepared to take on the role of Shakespeare himself.

There are seven billion people now, and anyone with a word processor can write.”

– Xander Williams, William Shakespeare

Aaron Adams, a recent English Literature graduate of SFU and writer for act two of season one, agrees. “What’s really fun is to think if we didn’t have Shakespeare, what would we have? We brought Chaucer forward and now there are lots of Chaucer jokes.” He also talked about the audience that the show will most likely appeal to: “people in their twenties who are just starting out in their lives, they know they have talent, or greatness, and they are trying to figure out how to make it work. I think we assume greatness is automatic, but it comes with a lot of doubt and work.”

Of course there are always things to overcome when working on a creative project. “My computer was destroyed a few days ago, and it is kind of ironic because that happens in the episode we were working on. . . I guess it’s an example of life imitating art,” laughed Adams.

“The general rule is not to look at YouTube comments, but we’ve had nice comments so far,” said Xander Williams. “It’s hard when you’re not there with the audience; it’s difficult to gauge — other than by likes. With film at least you have premieres, but there’s nothing like that for a webseries. . . it’s a funny industry.”

While Shakespeare is the main focal point of the show, Williams assures me that the other characters will be explored as well, creating many perspectives — all the while asking the question “Why Shakespeare?”

“There are a lot of ancillary items surrounding the series. We’re trying to create a world in real time. Usually stories happen in the past, but we’re trying to make it happen in the present,” said Adams. The characters will all have their own twitter accounts, and they plan to tweet before each episode. Some might even start blogs during the series. If you ever wanted to follow William Shakespeare and his friends on twitter, now’s your chance.

Embrace a child’s right to consent

By

Peak Web

-

September 9, 2013

0

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

Peak Web

-

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

Peak Web

-

September 9, 2013

0

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

Peak Web

-

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

Peak Web

-

September 9, 2013

0

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.