Home Blog Page 1289

Voting is not irrelevant, but it sure feels like it

1

web-voitngstats-g8

Average voter turnout from 1945 to 2001 within the G8 nations

By Mohamed Sheriffdeen
Photos by Eleanor Qu

As is often the case given an article on this subject, I should preface it by stating that I did vote in the recently completed Provincial elections — though I neglected to update my Facebook status accordingly — before settling down on my couch to gaze in abject disbelief as the Liberals made off with an absolute landslide at the polls. The resultant beating was so thorough that it cast into doubt whether the outcome was actually an upset at all; the underdog rarely crushes the Goliath in such a devastating manner, so maybe we were simply misled by some shadowy Liberal-pollster conspiracy all along.

Given the events, politically bent minds within the media, social media and blogosphere erupted in a series of frenzied questions targeted at digging out the buried truth; specifically “What the hell happened?” A number of valid concerns regarding campaign strategies were raised by an array of sources, but the quickest point to catch on was the once again abject voter turnout. More significantly was the absolute void of eligible voters under the age of 35 who apparently had far better things to do than show up to the polls to perform their civic duty.

Public nattering has been palpable, and has easily stolen the thunder from Clark’s thunderous win. The venomous reaction targeted towards young voters has been swift and merciless, almost to the point of sheer mockery. Busier categorizing youths as lazy, slovenly, ineffectual primitives with little or no connection to the important events of the day, these cackling condemnations rarely made any headway into questioning why voter turnout was so low, preferring to scribble with a broad pen. Sadly, this blanket “Why the hell aren’t you voting? What’s wrong with you people?” mentality has sprouted legs everywhere, even University newspapers.

The Peak itself published two articles last week that commented on voter apathy in tones varnished with eloquence but seething with pure bile and presumed civic outrage. “Instead of directing anger at those who opted to vote for one of the smaller parties, blame should be rightfully placed on the shoulders of those who elected not to cast a ballot” fumed Gloria Mellesmoen, while trying to allocate blame for the Liberal win.

Alison Roach, of the same paper and apparent doomsayer apostle, sighed “Overall, the election seems to be saying that BC doesn’t care much about change; or rather, that we don’t care much about any of this.” In scrawling through message boards and comment threads on various websites, multiple commenters appeared to come up with variations on the same brilliant joke independently (“We should put a Like button next to each candidate on Facebook, maybe the kids could vote between status updates!”) while laughing churlishly, wiping their monocles and sipping on cups of not-too-hot tea.

Voter participation has been on a downward trend in BC for a number of years, so allow me to immerse you in a few more (fun!) facts and figures by way of Elections BC. While numbers for the most recent election are still not fully available, overall voter participation (across all age groups) has declined from 70.34 per cent in 1983 to 50.99 per cent in 2009, falling every year. In the 2009 general election, an abysmal 26.88 per cent of voters between the ages of 18 and 24 decided to cast a ballot (25–34 year olds won the silver in this dubious category, logging votes from only 33.69 per cent of all those eligible.) So why the apathy with young voters?

First of all, let’s stop pretending that this affliction is limited to youth in BC. During their presidential election in 2012, the US grappled with the same issues despite record turnouts in 2008. Disaffection in Japan has reached a modern high as fewer than 50 per cent of young voters turned out in their December 2012 election.

In an excellent article published in ThinkAfrica Press in October 2011, Celeste Hicks interviewed young adults in Tunisia with higher educations, who “tearfully clutched” at their diplomas as they bemoaned the state of their job market in the aftermath of the Jasmine Revolution. “I’ve got no confidence in these elections at all. I’m not going to vote” proclaimed 26 year old Neila Herela, qualified in publicity and marketing but living on the street.

For the sake of our discussion however, let’s limit our focus to the so-called infotainment addicted, attention-span-compromised youth of BC who are attached by the hip, heart and mind to their smartphones. Truly, if you are a young voter, there is very rarely any good reason provided to actually impel you to vote, despite the proclamations of those voting-snobs out there who thumb their noses as they rifle off inane lines of dignified disbelief that do nothing to get at the real heart of the issue — “If you do not vote you don’t get to complain about decisions made in government;” “there are people out there your age dying for the right to vote;” “show these crusty old politicians that you matter and make your voice heard!” — let’s address the first and last comments first.

An individual’s voice is not nullified just because they don’t exercise their right to participate in a democratic forum. Often those who decide not to vote feel marginalized, as if their thoughts already don’t matter to the outcome. By adopting such a divisive tactic, we further drive those individuals out of the social arena without addressing why they feel their voices carry no timbre.

Furthermore, a selective decision to not vote can be made as a form of silent protest. I say that because I have done it in the past. Why vote for a party you consider the lesser of two evils? A party that does not represent your moral, economic or social viewpoints? A vote cast for the sake of voting by an uneducated individual with only the most basic understanding of a party’s platforms is, by this ridiculous statement, elevated as much grander than an individual who exercised their own choice to sit out an election — a vote in and of itself.

In a sense, this resounding echo heard by those politicians vanquished in an election is the voice of the people. In an election where less than 30 per cent of the eligible members voted, that is a loud bloody noise.

As far as kids our age dying for this right, that is an indisputable truth. One needs only to flip open a newspaper and cast a glance at the atrocities committed in Syria to witness the plight of the disenfranchised. However, just as it would be impossible for us to explain the internet to a cryogenically frozen and revived Walt Disney today, it is impossible to communicate that viewpoint to a youth who has grown up in North America with all the benefits of a free and modern society. Individuals here need to be reached with a message that they understand. One which is sadly absent in politics today: passion.

Paul Kershaw aptly labeled the Millennial generation when he founded the Generation Squeeze campaign. His driving point is simple: parties in power don’t feel the need to court the youth vote because the youth vote doesn’t affect campaign results. As a result, the youth stay away from the polls because public policy is rarely shaped in a manner that affects them. And because they stay away, they are not counted.

It is an absurd cycle that most politicians appear uninterested in breaking despite the ridiculously vast pool of untapped voters that they are allowing to fall by the wayside (ask Obama how much the youth vote helped his 2008 campaign before you claim that an investment in this age group is a waste of time.) Public policy is almost invariably catered to middle class earners, families and older people. Individuals trying to afford school or crack the job market are routinely ignored by lawmakers, yet our taxes are diverted to fund social systems for people already of retirement age who, in today’s economic reality, cannot afford to leave their jobs.

This creates a simultaneous shortage of opportunities and support systems for those much maligned and chastised youth. We get squeezed at the pump by an uncaring and distant government, and are castigated when we choose not to elect one that continues to pretend we don’t exist.

Furthermore, the current political system has bred an enormous disconnect between government and the average working and voting Canadian. Politicians are no longer feted on high as honourable civil servants, but viewed as walking scandals, punchlines and pompous gasbags squabbling amongst one another in an environment that breeds complacency and reduced accountability. Political viewpoints and party outlines are no longer a means to an open and pragmatic discussion of views in the interest of provincial and national agendas.

Every event, idea or platform is politicized in an endless display of exhausting one-upmanship and chicanery that means nothing to the voting public. Very little information about important and vital social programs ever seeps down the ladder to the information starved masses; instead, we are deluged by vulgar attacks on candidates by candidates.

Is it any wonder that 18–24 year olds (every marketing analyst’s indicator of broad population trends) are tuning out in droves? Here’s a crazy idea: maybe Adrian Dix didn’t lose the unlosable election because youth voters didn’t turn out. Maybe he lost it because he centered his entire campaign on attacking the bloated and hobbling Liberal government without discussing what his own party would do while in power. Maybe he was unable to allay voters’ fears about the disastrous NDP governments of the 90s, an attack line the Liberals have trotted out in every single election over the last twelve years.

In a rant on March 29, 2011, Rick Mercer personified the patronizing and paternalistic viewpoint of an older generation nonplussed by youth apathy, when he beseeched young people to “scare the hell out of the people running this country [by doing] the unexpected. Take 20 minutes out of your day, and vote.” There is no compelling reason or passion in that statement. Vote because it’s your job. Vote because you should vote. Vote because increased polling numbers makes us all feel better about ourselves.

But how about vote to effect an actual change? That won’t happen until a candidate arises that commands that passion. Instead of going to your local candidate hat in hand, offering your feeble support, demand your candidate comes to you, and illustrate why they deserve your vote. That tactic may actually bring some real change.

Paying for it

0

WEB-RFord-arielmitchell-crop

Is crowdfunding the way of the future?
By Rachel Braeuer
Photos by Ariel Mitchell

If there’s a tape of a shady politician smoking crack, I want to see it. As a writing plebe, when people like Rob Ford try to divert millions of dollars from AIDS prevention because “if you’re not doing needles or you’re not gay,” as he alleges, you won’t get AIDS; or state that oriental people work like dogs, “sleeping beside their machines,” ergo they’re more successful, there’s little to nothing that I or anyone like me can do besides bang out a few vitriolic words and hope to inform more people and inspire them to care.

Still, it’s heavy and hard work, and at the end of the day, it doesn’t change anything. And then these people do something like (allegedly) smoke a crack pipe on film. For a day, they’re your assistant. They did all the heavy lifting for you, and now you can watch the video and laugh maniacally in all your well-deserved schadenfreude glory. But am I willing to spend my own money for this pleasure, and should I even have to?

Crowdfunding is becoming an increasingly popular way for creative-types to make a go at it in a world where, up until 20 years ago, consumers could be happily removed from the process the goods they consume go through to get to them, and more importantly from the producers, whether we’re talking about the illegal immigrant trafficked into Canada to work on a farm in the valley that our blueberries come from, or the singer behind our latest favourite song.

Cue the internet: individuals who we would only have a hope of really getting to know after a stunning rise to fame, chronicled in Rolling Stone after their second successful world tour, we now know on a very personal level. Amanda Palmer is arguably the most successful crowdfunded artist of our time, attributing her success to focusing on the give and take of a relationship defined by monetary exchange.

The give, on her part, seems to be equal parts music and a controlled yet voyeuristic look into her life through a commitment to connecting with fans via social media. When she cancels a tour, we don’t get a hollow press release about family health and a wish for privacy. She tells us her friend has cancer on her blog, offering us real emotions behind her choice, posting pictures from the hospital, humanizing her celebrity. We seem to appreciate this, as we’ve collectively given her over $1.2 million.

The people behind Ford’s crack-tape are no Amanda Palmers, though. The person or people holding on to the alleged tape and asking for the hefty $200, 000 investment are (again, allegedly) drug dealers. While I was initially prepared to fork over at least $20, after realizing this, I hit pause. Not that I haven’t, uh, funded local hydroponic efforts ever, just that helping to give $200k to someone who probably sells crack cocaine is a pretty dark cloud, even if the silver lining is roasting a pig of epic proportions. Many have brought up this same issue, saying there are much more worthwhile endeavours to donate to. “There are starving children in China!” they bellow, before picking through the “Made in Bangladesh” discount piles of Joe Fresh clothing at Superstore.

Naysayers aren’t wrong, but in a world with such nefarious ethics, define right. It’s clear that governing bodies aren’t going to hold public figures accountable for their actions. A former police officer has stated that the purchase of the tape itself poses interesting legal issues surrounding the proceeds of crime and money laundering sections of the Criminal Code. What about the legality of someone purchasing and smoking crack cocaine? Last time I checked, that was still, unquestionably, illegal. Proof allegedly exists, but instead of confirming the validity of this and holding people accountable, we’re pontificating about questionably ethical, maybe illegal activity that hasn’t happened yet.

Gawker, the media conglomerate that wants to raise funds to buy the tape, is a gossip blog geared towards entertainment. It’s understandable why people would have a hard time taking them seriously. But other, more highbrow, media outlets don’t seem any less suspect when it comes to fair reporting.

In an interview with Jian Ghomeshi, Conrad Black, who headed the third-largest newspaper group in the world, characterized the recent scandal in the PM’s office surrounding a $90, 000 personal cheque being used to divert attention away from a potential misuse of Government funds as a friend looking out for another friend. By this logic, if the crack-tape exists, we can just write it off as Ford supporting local small business owners, I guess.

It’s a sad day when the public has to spend their own income, the taxes from which pay for Ford’s habits (whether they’re late night trips to McDonalds or to his dealers), to hold public figures such as him accountable. While we choose to fund individuals like Palmer, or efforts like Kony 2012 or even the crack-tape purchase, we, via proxy, fund politician’s illegal activities whether we like it or not.

Given the passionate response to this scandal and others like it by those who could actually do something about it, it’s clear that whether we’re it comes directly from2 our pockets or elsewhere, of our own volition or not, we’re going to be paying for it.

Top Five Google Glass Competitors

0

While the world might be abuzz about Google’s latest essential innovation, a computer that you can wear on your face, Google Glass isn’t alone in the creepy, silly-looking technology marketplace. Although they haven’t received as much public attention as Glass, Google’s competitors are also hoping to get a product on your face as early as next year. Here’s a look at some of the most exciting Google Glass-esque products soon to be owned by the few idiots who for some reason don’t use Google.

1. Bing Binoculars

bing_binoculars

While certainly not as popular as Google Glass, Bing Binoculars are essentially the exact same thing except they won’t be released until many years after Google’s product has become firmly planted as the standard wearable computer. Bing Binoculars only real unique differences are that they are much less convenient to use and people will make fun of you if you use them in public.

Key Feature: As they are “binoculars”, Bing has included a feature that allows users to look ahead and into a future in which “Bing” no longer exists.

Estimated Cost: Free, just use it . . . please!

 

2. Yahoo Contact Lenses

yahoo_contacts

Yahoo’s take on Google Glass is the Yahoo Contact Lenses which was designed to take into account the shame of Yahoo users and gives you the ability to check your Yahoo or

RocketMail e-mail account, on-the-go, without anyone having to know that you use a Yahoo or RocketMail e-mail account.

Key Feature: Since Yahoo now owns Tumblr, the Lenses will probably have some sort of new feature that doesn’t seem very special and you probably won’t understand it, but its going to be really popular with teenage girls for some reason.

Estimated Cost: Pretty cheap but includes splash-page advertising which can be dangerous when you’re walking down a busy street.

 

3. Ask Jeeves Monocle

ask_monocle

Ask.com (formerly AskJeeves.com) has brought back their stuffy butler image with the high tech Ask Jeeves Monocle. Despite being much more inconvenient than just saying keywords, the Monocle requires all commands to be asked in the form of a question. The most common questions tracked so far during their limited release include: “Why did I waste so much money on this stupid monocle?”; “Exactly how big of an asshole do I look like right now?”; “Does this thing still work after falling onto the ground?”; and “How can I exchange this for Google Glass?”

Key Feature: Its frame can be fitted with any of your prescription monocle lenses.

Estimated Cost: Standard monocle price.

 

4. Reddit Self-Superiority Spectacles

reddit_spectacles

While not exactly a competitor of Google, popular social news and entertainment website, reddit, has also been collectively designing their own glasses. While the Reddit Self-Superiority Spectacles have been described by members of the site as “the greatest invention EVER” and have a ton of “up votes,” the glasses actually do very little other than make people feel as if they’re a lot smarter than everyone else while the device mostly just flashes stupid memes in their eyes.

Key Feature: The spectacles “ask me anything” button, which is really the only reason to ever wear them.

Estimated Cost: About $25 (With an additional $15 for each “sub-specs”)

 

5. Webcrawler Hat

webcrawler_hat_nobackground

The Webcrawler Hat is a baseball hat that says “Webcrawler” on it.

Key Feature: A brim.

Estimated Cost: The Webcrawler Hat is only available to Webcrawler.com workers.

 

The Rest . . .

Here’s a few more Google Glass competitors that didn’t make the top five.

 Blogspot Bifocals

blogspot_bifocals

McAfee Safety Goggles

mcafee_safetygoggles

Craigslist Secondhand Google Glass

google_glass

Linkedin Telescope

linkedintelescope

Word on the Street: Crack Video

0

Q: How did you prevent a video of yourself smoking crack from being released publicly?

 

Whenever I smoke crack I make everyone I’m with turn off all their electronic devices. You know how annoying it is to give a coked-out speech and people are texting and shit? 

Don Mendleson, An old soul with new drugs

Just lucky, I guess. 

Patricia Johnson, Smoked a little crack in high school, but who didn’t?

My crack video’s been tied up in development hell. Hopefully it’ll come out by next summer though.

Doug Stevens. By “development hell” means “sold his USB adapter for more crack

I’ve never smoked crack, that’s how.

Tom Parker, NEEEEEERRRRRRD!!!!!!

I didn’t. I sure hope my mom doesn’t find out about it . . . The video stamp shows that it was way past my curfew!

Johnny Graham, Grounded for losing his dad’s best glass pipe

Join the Club: Gout on Campus, Burnaby Mountain Toastmakers, Free Tibet Club

0

JOIN THE CLUB is a feature that highlights SFU’s lesser known clubs and non-existent organizations.

This week we highlight. . .

Gout on Campus

Gout on Campus is a group of students, faculty, alumni and allies working together to reduce discrimination and increase awareness about gout, podagra and other inflammatory arthritic diseases. The organization is committed to ensuring that students with gout are free to be open about their blood’s high uric acid levels and hope to provide a safe environment where they can be proud about their inflated big toes.

Burnaby Mountain Toastmakers

At Burnaby Mountain Toastmakers, students can learn how to communicate, improve their public speaking skills, make friends — but mostly they just learn how to make a really good piece of toast. Toaster settings, browning techniques . . . the Burnaby Mountain Toastmakers is a club dedicated to the perfection of the most boring part of breakfast.

Free Tibet Club

The Free Tibet Club is SFU’s home for Tibetan rights and campaigns related to recognition of Tibet as a sovereign, self-determining nation. 

The SFSS does not currently recognize this club. If you have any inquiries take it up with the Chinese Debate Society. 

Letter to the Editor – May 20, 2013

1

By Dave Dyck

Dear editor,
Re: “Forum a better choice for SFU politics”

Last week, former SFSS board member Kyle Acierno wrote a piece entitled “Forum a better choice for SFU politics.” In the article he bemoaned the current state of affairs within the SFSS executive board, specifically what he sees as a lack of accountability. This lack of accountability, as Acierno sees it, has led to the BuildSFU project as well as last year’s staff lockout being pushed through without enough student input.

Perhaps Acierno has been gone from SFU for long enough that he has forgotten his own support for the lockout, or the two hour Forum meetings where what type of chairs to purchase took up a significant portion of time. If it takes the members of Forum — most of whom sit on the council for one semester and then vanish — that long to come to a decision about chairs, how does Acierno expect them to deal with real problems like labour disputes and student union buildings?

If Acierno still believes that the lockout was necessary, as he has stated in this publication, I wonder how he would feel about taking that vote to a largely disorganized, uninformed body like Forum, and not only try to explain to them the different problems the university faces, but also seek useful input on the matters.

I understand that it is not a popular opinion, but anyone who has sat through a Forum meeting knows that this is the reality of the situation. Forum delegates are more often than not appointed from a small cadre of students in each department, arrive to the meetings with no knowledge of what is going on, and then proceed to vocalize that ignorance for what seems like forever. They are the ones who drown out or overpower any reasonable, rational, and experienced Forum members.

Acierno has the great boon of situational distance, where his recommendations will have no personal repercussions, and is no doubt chuckling away to himself with visions of longer and longer and more and more useless Forum meetings dancing in his head. And as funny as that would be, it’s not exactly practical, Kyle.

Sincerely,
Dave Dyck
Peak Associate

DOXA Reviews, part 2: Sister and Forget Me Not

0

BW-sister

By Ljudmila Petrovic
Photos by DOXA Festival

In Ethiopia, one in 27 women die from childbirth-related causes. In Cambodia, it’s one in 48 women that die from childbirth-related causes, while in Haiti, it’s one in 44. Canada’s rate in the past several years on the other hand, has been 7.8 maternal deaths per 100,000 births.

This is the topic that Brenda Davis tackles in Sister, a documentary that follows the dedicated and resilient health care workers in three different third world countries. The film follows Goitom Berhane, a health officer in a small rural hospital in Ethiopia; midwife Pum Mach in Cambodia; and Haitian Madam Bwa, who provides contraceptives and health care for women, despite having received no formal training.

The film seems to follow several thematic threads that manage to pull at the heartstrings of the audience with shocking strength: the resilience of these women and those that work with them; the absolute necessity of the health care workers in mitigating the tragic barriers they face; and the juxtaposition and dissonance that we see between our own health care and that of the third world.

The women and individuals documented in this film face immense difficulties and barriers, including devastating poverty and lack of resources. The health care workers have varying levels of education and training, but they all have one common goal: to help these women.

“Whenever a dying mother survives, this is what enlightens you, this is what makes you happy and gives you meaning and sense to your life, that you are living a meaningful life,” explains Goitom Berhane in an interview.

Brenda Davis, the director and producer, was the last of eight children all born by an emergency cesarean section — in Canada, a relatively common and rarely fatal operation. In third world countries, however, the differences between the childbirth process and its results are strikingly different.

The health care workers seen in this film are single-handedly responsible for the life that does survive the devastating conditions of countries like Cambodia. Their sacrifices — things such as walking for eight hours to reach a remote town — are mind-blowing for an audience that is presented with resources like ambulance services and pre-natal yoga.

We are collectively reminded of the unequal distribution of resources across the globe — something that we are aware of, but often forget. The film leaves you simultaneously devastated and inspired to do anything you can to make a difference, and that kind of reaction is a marker of a successful social justice documentary.

 ForgetMeNot

Forget Me Not is a stunning and complex exploration of Alzheimer’s disease and the effects it has on individuals and their families.

Filmmaker David Sieveking goes home to visit his parents, only to find that his mother — once a robust and fiery individual — is slowly losing her memory and abilities. She is soon diagnosed with Alzheimer’s and his father, Molte, is left to take care of his deteriorating wife as the formerly independent woman becomes more and more reliant and childlike.

The more time David spends with his mother Gretel, however, the more he learns about his parents’ history through Gretel’s diaries and photo albums. He goes through the physical memories that his mother no longer has and learns more of his mother’s radical political activism during the 60s, her feminist involvement, and his parents’ open marriage.

Molte, too, learns about his wife through this process, realizing years too late that their open marriage was really cause of emotional strain on Gretel.

Watching as Gretel deteriorates and the family deals with slowly losing her is devastating. It shows the dark and terrifying side of Alzheimer’s and other dementia disorders; on the other hand, however, the audience watches as the family grows closer, and as they learn more about one another. Once fierce and proud, Gretel softens and begins to tell Molte she loves him for the first time in their 40 year marriage; he, too, becomes more protective and caring of her than he ever was.

David goes back to Gretel’s childhood and realizes things about her that she can no longer explain. The film is simultaneously a heart-wrenching and torturing experience, and a humbling reminder to never fear getting to know the people in your life.

Usually, there is shuffling and exiting as soon as the film finishes; however, as the credits rolled at the end of Forget Me Not, the audience remained motionless in their seats. I looked around in the dark at the faces surrounding me, and saw people staring rapt at the screen, some sniffling, some wiping their eyes.

Forget Me Not is a humbling reminder of how fragile the human mind is, and of how complex and vast the concepts of memory and cognition continue to be, exhibiting the resilience of family. Gretel is no longer the woman that her family once knew, but in the process of coming to terms with this, her family discovers a woman they had never known.

Arts About Town: Instant Coffee: The hero, the villain, the salesman, the parent, a sidekick and a servant

0

Abouts About Town is a new weekly photographic feature that focuses on the arts at or around SFU and Vancouver. If you’re interested in contributing to this, email [email protected].

 

Last week, Instant Coffee opened at the Teck Gallery at SFu Vancouver, Harbour Center. Running from May 11, 2013 to April 27, 2014, the exhibit operates as a set for “social framing and interaction”

Photos by Andrew Zuliani

WEB-Arts about Town-Andrew Zuliani

Instant Coffee holds its opening night at the Teck Gallery.

WEB-Arts about Town 2-Andrew Zuliani

Guests enjoy a glass of wine.