Home Blog Page 1347

Intolerance and division: the agenda of the P.Q. minority government?

0

Canadian politics taking a turn for the undemocratic

By Kai Yang Shiao
Photos by Ben Buckley

Although it failed to win a majority of the seats in the National Assembly (provincial legislature of Quebec) the pro-independence Parti Quebecois (P.Q.) managed to obtain a plurality, and thus form a minority government. This is disturbing, as the party was able to achieve this electoral outcome with 31.94 per cent of the popular vote despite the troubling tone of its campaign rhetoric. A closer examination of its various proposals demonstrates that the minority mandate is effectively giving the P.Q. the green light to pursue discriminatory policies.

During the campaign, the P.Q. asserted itself as the guardian of the secular nature of Quebec society. Its official view was that the Government of Quebec must never adopt an official religion, and remain completely neutral. According to party leader Pauline Marois, in its first 100 days in office, her party would introduce a bill designed to better protect this principle by banning religious symbols from being worn in government offices. While the proposal may at first seem to strengthen secularism, a further look at the other provisions contained within the same proposal would actually undermine this principle. By exempting those wearing a Christian cross from the proposed bill, the P.Q. is implicitly sending the message that it prefers those belonging to the Christian faith over Quebeckers’ other faiths.

More importantly, the proposal indicates a strong desire to use the legal authority of the state to ensure the favourable treatment of Christians over all other religious communities. Such a proposal, if enacted into law, would further divide, rather than unite, a province that has already seen heated battles between federalists and separatists. The proposal to extend the jurisdiction of the existing language law Bill 101 will further exacerbate this by reigniting tensions between the anglophones and francophones after years of relatively peaceful coexistence between the two groups.

The language debate was brought into the spotlight once again as Pauline Marois recycled the decade-old myth that French was on the decline in the province. While statistics show that the opposite is true, an appeal to emotion was evidently effective in attaining considerable electoral success. This formed the basis of the P.Q.’s attempt to provide the justification for its proposal to further marginalize the use of English in a province where its status is already in a fragile state. Under a P.Q. government, Bill 101 would be extended to ban francophones and allophones (mother tongue is neither English nor French) from attending English-language CEGEPs (pre-university colleges). By depriving its citizens of the freedom to choose the language of instruction at the university level, the proposal represents an unnecessary intervention by the state. Furthermore, this raises a question: once the ban on English-language CEGEPs is enacted, will the same be done for their university counterparts, including the world class McGill University?

The open use of divisive tactics to stir up tensions to achieve political desires has no place in a modern, multicultural, and tolerant Canada. Rather than giving votes of confidence to the party, it should have been shunned and sidelined in Quebec politics.

Who needs feminism?

1

By Lana Friesen

SFU needs a feminist campaign.

Not because SFU is crawling with sexists, but because many people are afraid to identify themselves as feminists. Given that feminism has a fundamental focus on equality, it is surprising that so few people on a Canadian university campus support it.

I don’t want to just deem this situation crazy and leave it at that. I want to invite people to profess themselves as feminists, and to actively discourage another anti-feminist backlash. I have not yet taken a GSWS course, and a past version of me may have hesitated to write this article before doing so. But feminism (or any issue of equality, at that) should not be limited to those who have studied it and know the differences between the different waves and theories of it.                                                                                           

Without an all-encompassing idea that can describe  modern feminism, the label should lend itself to a variety of people with a variety of viewpoints — so long as their viewpoints are in line with the value of equality.

Below are some of the common excuses that people use for not calling themselves feminists.

 

a) The “I don’t know a woman’s/a discriminated woman’s plight” argument:


I have heard this argument first-hand from a friend who refused to call himself a feminist. He thought it would be offensive to women if he claimed to empathize with their plight, just as he would be offended if someone of different circumstances claimed to understand his experiences. The problem here is the expectation that all feminists have homogenous experiences of discrimination, and that other marginalized groups can’t identify in the same way. Although experiences between people belonging to different groups differ, even within in the groups themselves, this is not reason enough to refrain from calling yourself a feminist. Feminism may focus on experiences, but it can also focus on values. So long as the drive for equality is there, different experiences — or lack thereof — should not prohibit someone from calling himself a feminist. Furthermore, feminist concerns include a variety of issues that include other genders, including the gender roles that face men.

 

b) The “I don’t want to be confused with those bitchy dykes who hate men” argument: 

 

There is just as much variety among GLBTQ people as there is among heterosexual people. To worry about being mistaken for a person of a different orientation exhibits some homophobia. We want to broaden the application of the term “feminist” and break stereotypes that are wrongly perceived. It is not inherent to feminists (nor to lesbians, for that matter) to hate men. Feminism is about furthering the rights of women, not about hating those that aren’t women. So wear your label with pride.

 

c) The “I hold very specific feminist views and don’t want to be mixed up with other feminists of other views” argument: 

 

A movement cannot progress without the active participation of those concerned. If you feel that other feminists misuse the label and don’t represent your experience or your values, then speak up — and not just in a backlash. Make sure your idea of feminism is being represented. This is an important part of ensuring that the term “feminism” includes what you espouse as well. If you don’t agree with everything that this term includes, that’s no reason for your contribution be left unheard. By professing your views, the discussion can stay relevant to your concerns. You just have to be patient and open-minded to participation.

 

The recent “Who Needs Feminism” campaign that began at Duke University addresses this issue. The social media campaign has attracted a variety of people from different backgrounds, and continues to build its online presence. It was started by a group of women’s studies students at Duke.  “[It] is reclaiming feminism as an umbrella for dialogue on issues that affect all of us,” Rachel Seidman — visiting lecturer to the responsible group of students — said of the campaign. The image of the umbrella perfectly describes the new usage of the term “feminist:” those concerned with a variety of issues and coming from diverse viewpoints, who can proudly fit together under this umbrella term. Seeking to eradicate the myth that feminism is now irrelevant, obsolete, or outdated, this new direction of feminism is just what we need: to keep the conversation going, and to take it to new levels and new issues via new mediums like Facebook and Tumblr.

 

The movement has grown, and on Sept. 6 and 7, students at SFU held a discussion on the topic: Who Needs Feminism? After hearing other stories from feminists who attended the campaign at SFU, the need for this campaign was more strongly and sharply felt.

 

“My students are convinced that reclaiming the word ‘feminism’ is key to any future progress on important issues concerning women — and to gaining greater acceptance and equality for everyone,” Seidman wrote recently. “They want to reach out to a wide variety of people, including those who have never before identified as feminists, and increase their sense of comfort with the word itself.”

Photos by Lana Friesen

“Translink, pretty much nazis at this point,“ man who forgot U-Pass reports

0

 

Fahrkarte, bitte Fahrkarten. Bitte halten Sie Ihren Nachweis über die Zahlung und die Identifizierung bereit für die Inspektion

 

Article by Gary Lim
Photo by Mark Burnham

Last Friday, 23-year-old history major Travis Owens reported that TransLink, the public transportation company that services the Greater Vancouver region, had reached a level of infamy comparable to that of the German paramilitary forces of World War II. He cited increasing ticket prices and excessive wait times at Station Bay Five at Renfrew Skytrain Station, where he takes the bus home.

This public statement came after a period of escalated tensions, when Owens, who failed to pick up his U-pass at one of the dispensaries located on campus, attempted to board the Expo Line Skytrain from King George, only to be asked for his fare card. Sources indicated this is “total bullshit, because it was like Sept. 3 and the only reason I was on the Skytrain was to pick up the stupid U-Pass in the first place.”

According to eyewitnesses, these tensions exploded when Owens was forced then to return to the ticket-vending machine and purchase an adult two-zone pass for $3.75. During his ride up the escalator and wait on the platform Owens went on, drawing further comparisons between TransLink and the facilitators of the slaughter of six million Jews in the flawed pursuit of racial purity, and shouting about how much they generally suck to anyone within earshot.

Initially just calling the group “lazy and greedy,” he segued to other flaws about the company, denouncing the lack of late-night Skytrain service and calling the transit police a bunch of jack-booted thugs who failed to treat riders with the respect they deserve. Not unlike the Shutzstaffel and the series of brutal pogroms instigated against the Jewish people, continued Owens.

“It’s like this, you can practically see the Surrey campus from the Skytrain, and I told the guy that I just needed to take the train two stops and pick up my pass. But all he said was ‘tough.’  I mean, how do you even reason with that?” said Owens. “You can’t. It’s unreasonable. Unreasonable like the campaign of censorship in Germany enacted by the Minister of Propaganda, Joseph Gobbels. Exactly like that,” he added.

“Also, all this construction for the Faregate project. It’s ludicrous how far they’ll go to squeeze a few more pennies out of us. Who know how much longer these faregates will make our commutes? It’s not like the lines at Production and Commercial aren’t already long enough,” he posited.

When The Peak contacted TransLink for a response to the scathing remarks, the mass transportation company expressed sympathy for Owens’s circumstances, but firmly maintained its stance that anyone riding the bus, Skytrain or SeaBus is required to provide valid proof of purchase when asked.

TransLink also assuaged worries that the new Faregate® system, currently in construction, would result in any delays and missed trains.  On the contrary, the regional transportation giant expects drastically reduced wait times, especially with the co-implementation of the new mandatory identification armbands for all riders.

 

 

Horoscopes: Sept 17, 2012

0

Aries (March 21— April 20)
The average person swallows 10 spiders a week in their sleep. Looks like you’re going to have an above-average week!

Taurus (April 21 – May 21)
They say that life imitates art; someone is going to cut off your arms.

Gemini (May 22 – June 21)
Chance circumstances will cause you to meet the man (or woman) of your dreams. Your 9th
grade math teacher, naked and losing his teeth.

Cancer (June 22 – July 22)
The stars are too busy fusing elemental hydrogen into helium to deal with your shit this week.

Leo (July 23 – August 22)
Due to a clerical error, the horoscope for all Leos last week was actually intended for Sagittarii.
Please adjust your futures accordingly.

Virgo (August 23 – September 23)
There’s no time to explain! Get in the van!

Libra (September 24 – October 23)
With Mars’s influence strong in your sign this week, and the moon waning in Jupiter, now is
definitely the time to invest in foreign grain.

Scorpio (October 24 – November 22)
They say that genius is 99 per cent perspiration, one per cent inspiration, but no one ever said it
while wading through ankle-deep puddles of sweat. Get yourself checked out.

Sagittarius (November 23 – December 21)
CORRECTION: In last week’s Sagittarius horoscope, the word “cough” should have read “brain
aneurysm;” we apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused.

Capricorn (December 22 – January 20)
Unable to cope any longer with the pressures of Life, you finally decide to end it all this week. You
also decide to end your Men’s Health and Esquire while you’re at it.

Aquarius (January 21 – February 19)
Sorry to say, but it’s not your heart of gold that your blind date is interested in as much as your
kidneys of reasonable health.

Pieces (February 20 – March 20)
Tragedy befalls you this week in a cruel twist of fate. Also your nipples.
By Gary Lim

Ski Ninjas: That Couple

0

By Kyle Lees at Ski Ninjas

Captive killers: The truth about killer whale captivity

0

By Jennifer-Chow
Those who grew up in Vancouver likely had their first killer whale experience as children: pressed up to the glass window of a tank in Stanley Park, watching the massive black and white creature swam around. Breathless in awe that something so big, something so beautiful could be so close, they may have tapped the glass in hopes of connecting to the whale. But does the killer whale belong in there? Does a large, intelligent, echo-locating predator of the sea — an alien world to us — belong in what is essentially a swimming pool, just because we want to bring them into our own world of land?

Vancouver Aquarium’s killer whales were all captured in the wild as young whales. The last two killer whales, Bjossa and Finna, were from Iceland. Though the experience of seeing a killer whale through the glass was no doubt exhilarating in some way, for some there is a lingering thought: it is right for these creatures to swim around and around in a tank all day, in a foreign environment? Is this really the only way to bring them into our world?

We know killer whales for their distinct black and white pattern, their grace, their perceived intelligence, and the circus tricks they are put through. Aquariums and marine parks have kept killer whales now for nearly 50 years. Supporters of aquaria affirm that the practice of keeping killer whales captive is essential to conservation, research and public education. At the same time, many people — from animal activists to wild orca researchers — question the ethics, safety and overall vitality of the captive industry.

The captive orca industry began not far from here, off the coasts of B.C. and Washington. In 1964, the Vancouver Aquarium harpooned a killer whale with the intention of using it as a model for a sculpture. But the whale didn’t die from the harpoon and was eventually towed to a pen at the Burrard Drydock where the orca was exhibited until he died 87 days later. The next year, Ted Griffen of the Seattle Aquarium captured a calf that had gotten tangled up in fishing nets and named him Namu. During these early years of orca captivity, people discovered that the animals were not threatening, and did need to be shot on the spot or feared; rather, they were playful, gentle, and smart creatures. This, in combination with their iconic colouring, made the public fall in love with the lure of the killer whale. And so, the orca display industry began.

In 1976, Washington State — where many of these orcas have been captured — banned live captures, due to their effect on the already small orca population. Although British Columbia didn’t ban live captures until 1990, they effectively ended after 1976. After wild orca captures ended off the Pacific coast, Iceland became the place to capture killer whales. However, that too eventually came to an end at the close of the 1980s.

Those who grew up in Vancouver in the 90s will probably remember Bjossa and Finna, the last orcas to live at the Vancouver Aquarium. Finna died in 1997 — leaving Bjossa alone. In April 2001, Bjossa was sent to SeaWorld San Diego, where she died that October. After Bjossa, the Vancouver Aquarium stopped displaying killer whales, due to public pressure and the difficulty in obtaining them. To many in Vancouver, this was bittersweet. Killer whales in Stanley Park had become an institution, yet there was an acceptance that Bjossa would be in a place that was just slightly less foreign for her — where there were more of her kind; as humans, we understood the need for company and sympathized with it. Since then, the Vancouver Aquarium continues to research orcas in the wild, and still has captive beluga whales and pacific white-sided dolphins.

With live captures banned in most parts of the world, and highly frowned upon in others, nearly all new captive killer whales are now bred in captivity. Captive killer whales come from different origins, whether it be Icelandic, Pacific and Resident (fish-eating), or Transient (mammal-eating in the wild). These types and groups never interact in the wild, yet in captivity, there are killer whales bred from these different groups, creating hybrid whales that cannot naturally belong anywhere except a tank. With Tilikum as SeaWorld’s main sire (13 out of 19 captive killer whales owned by SeaWorld are related to Tilikum, according to the blog The Orca Project) and a limited genetic pool of captive killer whales worldwide, there is also a strong potential for widespread inbreeding in the near-future, if it hasn’t happened already.

Tilikum is more infamous for being a literal killer whale. On Feb. 24, 2010 he killed his trainer, Dawn Brancheau by grabbing and drowning her. This was not the first time, either: Tilikum was also involved in the 1994 drowning of Keltie Byrne at the Sealand of Pacific in Victoria, B.C. (which closed shortly after). Whether these attacks were the result of curiosity, menace, instinct, or a combination, we may never know. Although Tilikum was captured in the wild, aggressive incidents are not limited to wild-born killer whales. Keto is a captive-born killer whale on loan to Loro Parque, a marine park in the Canary Islands along with several other young SeaWorld whales.  On Dec. 24, 2009 Keto rammed his trainer, Alexis Martinez to death underwater. Unlike Tilikum, who is known to be dangerous due to past history, Keto was cleared to be safe enough to work with in the water and as a captive-born whale, never hunted, saw killer whales hunting or was taught to hunt. The tank is all Keto knows and will ever know.

Captive killer whales live in highly unnatural settings. Any enclosure would be comparably small for an ocean creature, and furthermore, orcas rely on sound; the echolocation that they naturally use in hunt and exploration doesn’t work so well when surrounded by concrete walls. It is very difficult to know if a killer whale’s habitat can be even marginally simulated in captivity. Although it differs population by population and type by type, resident killer whales live in kin-based family groups for life. But in captivity, killer whales from completely different pods, types, and populations are often grouped together, and may not even understand each other due to different dialects. SeaWorld in particular constantly moves their whales around its parks and often breeds killer whales at younger ages than they normally would in the wild.

While some research can only be conducted on captive orcas, very few are used for research purposes. Besides, it is difficult to know if captive killer whales are truly representative of their species. Most facilities that house captive cetaceans claim that it helps public education and thus, appreciation and conservation for these animals in the wild. But is this the only way to inspire awe towards nature? Though most aquariums have educational value, many marine parks do not. In the book Death at SeaWorld, a panel consisting of whale biologists and other scientists found that SeaWorld’s educational material was incomplete and inaccurate. SeaWorld’s shows, such as The Shamu Experience, Believe, and the current One Ocean, are productions that focus on entertainment, spectacle and human emotion, rather than on education. While it may emphasize a bond between humans and whales, it neither reflects nor helps whales in the wild at all. Although some aquariums may do a bit better in terms of education and showcasing natural behaviours, most marine park shows are essentially aquatic circuses.

Within the last few decades, many of the killer whales that have captured our imagination have captured it not because we saw them swimming in a tank, but because they were free. Keiko, the whale that played Willy in Free Willy, was eventually released into Icelandic waters and lived semi-independently until he died in 2003. In 2002 the young, misplaced lone calf Springer also captured the public’s imagination with the idea of rescuing and reuniting her to family and keeping her “free” and wild.  She was successfully relocated from Puget Sound and reunited with her pod. Meanwhile, at around the same time, there was another young, misplaced lone calf, known as Luna. Luna died in 2006 in a deadly encounter with a tugboat. While Luna’s story didn’t have the same happy ending as Springer’s, he also inspired people to think and care about killer whales, despite never having lived in a tank. For both Springer and Luna, captivity was considered unjust, reflecting the changing public attitudes towards captive killer whales. Now killer whales were no longer merely a circus animal — they belonged in the ocean.

It may be easy to say “free the whales,” but as Keiko has demonstrated, things aren’t so simple, and it doesn’t necessarily have a storybook ending. The wild isn’t a blissful or safe place, either. Yes, in some respects the tank is safer. But releasing captive killer whales requires a lot of time and money for something that doesn’t guarantee safety. As it stands, many captive whales are not fit for release for medical reasons. Some of them have missing teeth (or in some cases, almost no teeth) and need to have their mouths flushed daily to prevent infection. Oftentimes, their teeth have had to be drilled as a result of gnawing on gates, threatening other whales, or other reasons.

Since setting all whales free is neither realistic nor entirely humane, many anti-captivity groups have clamoured for performing animals to be retired into large sea pens with the possibility of venturing out, much like Keiko. Many working animals are retired after a good life’s service of work, such as retired horses living out their days in fields, or retired circus and zoo elephants that go on to live out their days in elephant sanctuaries; despite being far from the native habitat, these sanctuaries offer relative free-roaming in a large area and the opportunity for more natural social groups. Of course, the aquaria industry does not support retirement.  There are groups, including OrcaLab, a wild orca research centre, that call for the retirement of Lolita into a Sea Pen in her native waters. At over 40 years old, Lolita is the second oldest killer whale in captivity and is the last surviving whale captured from the currently endangered Washington State area. However, for killer whales, along with other whales and dolphins, the retirement concept is just that: purely conceptual.

With Bjossa long gone and only one killer whale (Kiska) remaining in Ontario’s Marineland Canada, it is likely that the era of the captive killer whale will be phased out in Canada soon; the Vancouver Aquarium and Marineland Canada still house other species of captive dolphins and whales, however. The number of captive killer whales worldwide is limited and, short of capturing more from the wild, it is possible that captive displays may not have a future.

Regardless of what happens, the concept of captive orcas is not going away immediately. The root of the problem is the attitude towards captive orcas as assets; simply a way to make money. Facilities that house them should focus less on entertainment, and more on education and research. At the same time, they should be offered a life as natural as possible, with minimal social changes and, if possible, tanks that reflect their natural habitat. An even better option for keeping killer whales would be a semi-wild setting in sea pens. Formerly captive and captive-bred whales could come and go as they please, and still maintain association with humans if they wish. This way, visitors could also have a “guaranteed” whale watching experience, much like in an aquarium, but in a more natural habitat.

Gone would be the  days when you could walk up to window, watch a massive black and white killer whale swim by you, and catch a glimpse into their world. But it’s not their world, it’s ours. With technology rapidly progressing, maybe we’ll one day find a way to bring ourselves into their world without interfering with them. Killer whales are the experts of their ocean habitat, their pods’ culture, their way of life. It seems at once so alien and yet so familiar to us humans — kinship, dialect, unique rituals, violence and gentleness; yet there is so much that we still don’t know.

It pays to be dominant

0


How to avoid an accident, or at least make sure you get paid

By Paul Hurst
Photos by Rool Paap

Please remain calm. You’ve just had your first car accident, and without a doubt it’s traumatic. I hope and pray you’ve not been hurt. Fortunately, most accidents don’t involve injuries.
Dealing with ICBC can be very intimidating, if not scary. You might be worried that your claim will be denied, or that you’ll be found at fault.

Some people knowingly fib when they buy their insurance, e.g., they claim they’re only using it for pleasure, when in fact they drive to work five days a week, every week. As an adjuster, I had to be a bit cynical and suspicious. I’ve seen just about every trick in the book, so I got pretty good at telling when someone wasn’t being totally honest. Fortunately, the vast majority of people are honest.

The basic idea is that of the two cars in an accident, one is considered “dominant” based on its relative position to the other “subservient” car. If you are going straight down a road, you are initially dominant. Cars behind you are subservient. The driver of the car behind can control how close it gets to you. Thus, in a rear-end collision, the car behind is normally 100 per cent at fault.

If you change lanes, or change directions, you stop being dominant and become subservient, generally speaking.
Here are three ways to avoid an accident, or at least reduce your chances of being found at fault.

1. Don’t tailgate.
Although this seems obvious, many people do it, hence why rear-end accidents are one of the most common types. The two-second rule is good, but I’d give it three or four seconds.

2. Don’t speed.
Missing whatever T.V. show you think is absolutely essential to your survival will not, in fact, affect your chances of survival, but speeding might. The biggest killer of university students is accidents; car collisions top this list. You are supposed to be intelligent — act like it.

3. Don’t rush left-hand turns.
This one is not so obvious. People seem to have the mistaken idea that they must turn before the light turns red, so they make their left turn when their light is yellow. Sometimes, there is some brain-genius coming in the opposite direction, who runs their yellow. A crash results, because you were turning left in front of them.
In cases like this, fault can be hard to determine, as dominance is in question. For example was the yellow light a “stale” amber? If you wait until your light is red, then any car coming from the opposite direction will have to run their red light in order to hit you. Make your turn after they have stopped for their red light, and all is hunky dory. You are now established in the intersection, and have right of way. The cars coming at right angles to you must yield; a green light means “proceed if safe to do so.” Since you are now legitimately trapped in the intersection, it is not safe for them to proceed, and you have the right of way.
Now you can make your left turn, and you will not miss your favorite episode of Roly Poly Olly.

The comeback of fur

0

Can fur be ethical if it’s the by-product of the meat industry?

By Rachel Braeuer

Photos by Matt Kowal

Mention fur and you’ll have most people seeing red, either from outrage or from the paint that PETA has used to mark their couture jacket or boots. The fashion industry has come a long way since the the 50s when a fur coat was a necessary status symbol. Most often you’ll find synthetic fur lining most boots and hoods but this year in its September issue of biblical proportions, Vogue turns the spotlight to real fur. Some might be offended, but in a culture of carnivores the use value in fur moves beyond creating clothing and on to making use of industrial waste through upcycling.

Vogue poses ethical fur as a possible solution to the waste by products of the meat industry, technically making it a form of upcycling. Upcycling is a relatively new phenomenon that uses industrial remnants to make ingeniously new but texturally old consumer goods. Vogue isn’t talking about mink or fox or any other kind of fur where the animal is raised and slaughtered or hunted solely for the purpose of using its skin to make clothing. Instead, they focus on taking leftover animal fur scraps from the meat industry and turning them into useful, albeit expensive, articles of clothing. Maybe it’s just the already-wealthy selling refurbished scraps, which they got for pittances, to us at a ridiculous profit, but at least they’re doing something with the piles of waste that we turn a blind eye to when any fetish capitalist item is fabricated.

It’s ridiculous that a glossy image of some model posed in a shearling coat makes me uncomfortable, even if I know the fur used was going to be thrown out anyway, a by-product of the meat industry in Turkey. But if I watch a hot dog eating contest, I feel more discomfort over people shoving phallic-shaped meat tubes into their mouths than I do about the actual excess and waste. We don’t need animals to live. However accustomed we are to quick and easy animal protein, it’s completely viable to live off of plant-based protein. In a world where mass meat farms wreak havoc on the environment, is killing an animal to eat and wear it any worse than killing it to eat it and discard the skin like it’s garbage?

In this waste-glorifying culture, it seems like the ideal model is to promote consciousness of creative ways to repurpose waste. In the U.S., overhunting of alligators in the 1960s led to dwindling numbers, finding gators a place on the endangered species list in 1967. Government officials developed an egg-culling program that advocated farming rather than hunting, with alligator farmers receiving eggs at $12 each. These farmed gators are raised for their meat and their hides, with their jawbones predominantly used as front-yard tree decorations (if reality television is a reliable source). Enclosures are kept in top condition, and avoid extreme overcrowding to ensure that their skins get as few scratches and scars as possible for a reptile with as many teeth as a piano has keys.

While the conditions on alligator farms seem slightly better than on regular farms, they’re ultimately just stock pens for something that’s living to die. But any animal kept for human use is dealt the same shitty cards by fate; they’re dying anyway, so who cares if someone butchers them and makes alli-burgers, renders the fat and makes artisan alli-candles, and then makes their skin into a purse and a pair of shoes. They are already dead. If we feel no shame in eating a hamburger in public, we should feel no more shame for wearing an upcycled leather jacket.

Leaving the house I grew up in

0

One student’s reflections on the university experience
By Sam Colbert
HAMILTON (CUP) — I’m writing this at my desk in my bedroom. I’m surrounded by badly packed boxes, filled with stuff that’s either been deemed useful or that I’m too nostalgic to throw away. The walls are blank, and the closet is empty.
I’m moving out of my house tomorrow. It’s the house I lived in during my fourth year at university. My new place suits a more grown-up lifestyle. We’ve got decorations on the mantle, cable TV and a living room and dining room being used for their intended purposes. It’s nicer than the single-family home stuffed with six guys where I live now. I’m sure I’ll look back and be glad to have moved. But today, I’m bummed out.
I didn’t feel like this when I finished classes for good in April, or even on my graduation day. Back in first year, I thought I would. But I eventually realized that you don’t think of your time here as passing neatly in semesters, or even in years.
During your undergrad you’ll make friends. And then you’ll make new friends, losing touch with those original friends. You’ll start dating someone. And then you’ll break up. You’ll try new things. And then you’ll try other things that you’ll wish you hadn’t. You’ll get anxious, or even depressed, sometimes for months straight. And then you’ll feel better.
That’s the stuff you’ll remember. That’s the really formative stuff.
I’m going to remember this house. And I’ll remember the way I changed both because of it and because of the people who lived here.
To be honest, my own Welcome Week four years ago didn’t really do it for me. And if you don’t get much out of it either, that’s okay. It’s as much for the excited upper-years in jumpsuits as it is for the first-years anyway.
But, like it or not, you’re probably going to find some stuff here that you really care about. So don’t be shy about it. Instead, be optimistic. Be sincere. Be kind. And be patient when things don’t go your way.
Whatever it is, it’s going to cause you a bit of grief, but whether it’s a student house or a soul mate or a field of study or your school newspaper, it’s probably worth it.