Home Blog Page 1351

End of the road

0

By Adam Ovenell-Carter

For many, sports are not much more than a hobby, or something to keep you fit or active — heck, baseball’s even known as America’s national pastime. But for these three Clan seniors, sports — basketball, in particular — have been much, much more, and for quite some time.

“I’ve been playing basketball since I was three,” said Justin Brown. “I played every sport you could think of when I was a kid. I played baseball and soccer, but when soccer went out the window I started playing football. I just stuck with basketball, so here I am now.”

“Here”, would be graduating from the Clan basketball program, though the Cal-Poly transfer still has a year of school left.

“My parents would kill me if I didn’t get my degree,” laughed Brown. “Really though, I know I’m pushing for something, and I think I have my basketball career to thank for that.

“School’s not easy, but playing basketball here as made it easier. I think that speaks to [head coach James] Blake’s influence, and to the guys like the two sitting
next to me.”

Those two guys would be Zack Frehlick and Connor Lewis, fellow graduands from the program who also share an athletic upbringing.

“My dad played basketball for UVic,” added Lewis, who transferred to SFU from Capilano when the Clan went NCAA. “Basketball has always been a part of my life, but I did try out a lot of different sports. It was probably not until grade nine that I realized that if I was going to move on with any one sport, it was going to be basketball.”

Frehlick’s journey here was similar to Lewis’s.

“My family is a huge sports family,” said fifth-year senior Frehlick. “My dad was an Olympian in volleyball, and my grandpa was an Olympian in track and field.

“I didn’t really have a choice,” he laughed, “it’s just part of my makeup. I played a lot of different sports growing up, but basketball was the one I fell in love with.”

That love for the game was no doubt one of the reasons these three, and the rest of their teammates, got through an unbelievably bizarre and truly unique season. Unfortunately, however, it was so for all the wrong reasons. The Clan entered the season with 18 players on their roster, but finished with just seven able to play. Be it freak injuries or academic issues, the Clan faced problems you probably wouldn’t wish on your biggest rival.

“What happened, happened,” said Brown. “I like to think it happened for the best.”

“We started off with 18 talented players, but we lacked cohesion, and there were some outliers,” added Frehlick, “but as we lost guys, we came closer together, even with less talent on the floor, and that’s something we can be proud of.”

A transition to a new league, let alone the NCAA, is never an easy task; this year’s unforeseeable hits to the lineup only compounded that matter. As some of the most experienced athletes on the team, the three seniors naturally played a big part in that transition, especially as Lewis and Brown were brought in during the team’s changeover. Still, they were quick to give much of the credit to their head coach.

“We had four returning players when we first went NCAA. It hasn’t been easy, but Blake has done a lot to smooth things over,” said Frehlick, who’d been with the Clan for three years before the transition to the American league.

“Even on the court, he [Blake] has taught us more than just basketball skills,” added Lewis. “He’s taught us leadership, commitment, and everything we need to be successful in life after basketball.

“I think we owe a lot to him ,actually,” said Brown. “He’s just a good person to be around, and that makes him a better coach. It makes it easier to listen to everything he says, and you just love playing for him.”

I  think it’s already been stressed enough how important that passion is.

“We enjoyed going out and fighting for each other,” said Lewis. “Even though our record doesn’t necessarily show it, we did some amazing things.

“When we lost guys, we had other guys step up. Look at Chris [Evans] and Nickolay [Georgiev], they were both walk-ons and they did some great things. I think as the leaders on this team, we can be proud of them.” And that’s just one of the many things these three can be happy about as they leave the program.

Asked Brown, “We had what, three wins last year? This year we had eight, and it might not look like a lot to everyone on the outside looking in, but we know it means a lot. There’s still a ton of talent here, and the guys who missed this year will be back to improve that win total. The cupboards aren’t bare.”

“The way we represented ourselves, our school, we’re proud of what we’ve done here,” said Frehlick. “The guys here are like family now, and that won’t change.

“I’m grateful for everything I had here,” he continued, and that statement was met with smiles and nods from both Brown and Lewis.

When you boil it down, Brown, Lewis, and Frehlick aren’t much more than three twenty-somethings who just love to play a game. Maybe that was what they were when they started here, but thanks to an almost unfair amount of adversity thrown their way, and the help of a personable coach, they exit the program with heads on their shoulders and as part of a lifelong family.

“It’s been a good journey,” said Lewis, but one that, at least for now, has come to an end.

A ‘Melo end to Linsanity

0

By Adam Ovenell-Carter

When several players from the New York Knicks went down, a no-name rookie unexpectedly led the Knicks on a 6-1 tear — notably in the absence of ‘star’ player Carmelo Anthony. That rookie, of course, would be Jeremy Lin, and with his compelling underdog story, Lin brought a lot of positive publicity to a team in dire need of it. Unfortunately the Knicks still have a few hurdles to cross, and one of their biggest obstacles is Lin’s teammate and star player Carmelo Anthony.

Anthony is the big man on campus, so to speak, to whom James Dolan, the owner of the New York Knicks, owes $85 million over the next four years. Anthony’s groin injury put him out of commission for seven games, paving the way for Linsanity. In his absence, the Knicks built up positive chemistry and relied mainly on Lin for offence. And, upon Anthony’s return to the Knicks on February 20, the Knicks lost to the New Jersey Nets 100–92. While the team would naturally need time to adjust after playing — and winning — without Carmelo for a considerable amount of time, Lin still managed to score 10 points more than Anthony in his return.

That was February 20, and now almost one month later, there is still no chemistry between the two despite the fact that there are no particular hard feelings between them, or so they claim. The main problem remains that they are simply unable to play together. Both are strong offensively, but it seems that Anthony is unable to accept a rookie like Lin getting an equal amount of playing time, as well as the confidence of the rest of the team. Given Anthony’s reputation as an over-confident ball hog, this equality thing can’t be good for his ego. When his ego isn’t being fed on time, then everyone around him is likely suffering the consequences.

There’s no doubt that Carmelo Anthony has skill. Even former Nuggets GM Kiki Vandeweghe, who once employed Anthony, once claimed that he “can score from anywhere, on anybody.” But basketball is not a one-man sport; harmonious team work is essential and Anthony is clearly a pitch or two off. People have called him everything from an “arrogant hoodlum” to an all-time “ball stopper”, all of which suggest that Carmelo is no team player. Since his return to New York’s lineup, the Knicks are actually playing better on both sides of the ball when Anthony is warming the bench, rather than trying to sweep the courts.

To compound the matter, Knicks head coach Mike D’Antoni resigned last week, not willing to cater to the controversial Anthony. The marriage was doomed to fail
from the start.

Anthony prefers a slower tempo where he can thrive in isolation while D’Antoni is noted for his free-wheeling up-tempo coaching style. Anthony and D’Antoni were never going to work together; it was clear one had to leave, and it clearly wasn’t going to be the guy with $85 million left on his contract. Rick Carlisle, the current head coach of the Dallas Mavericks and one of the only 11 people ever to win an NBA championship as both a player and a coach, has asserted on numerous occasions that D’Antoni is a guru in terms of managing a team’s offense. Carlisle reportedly claimed that Mike D’Antoni was “the best coach of point guards in the last decade”, which explains Lin’s success. D’Antoni’s system created an environment in which Lin was able to thrive and play at his best. With him gone, it is uncertain whether a new coach will even give Lin the same court time, let alone design plays for him.

Anthony’s return, and subsequent resignation of D’Antoni, leaves far more questions than answers. In the current situation where Anthony seems to lack chemistry with virtually every person on his team, would the Knicks be better off without him? If the Knicks play better with Carmelo warming the bench, as the statistics would suggest they do, then he also probably isn’t as valuable to the team as he thinks he is. Anthony seems to have single handedly negated every bit of hope that Lin was able to shine on the Knicks, and with a little over a month left to move up from ninth in the Eastern Conference and into playoff contention, a discordant team, and no coach — is it too late to undo the damage?

Canuck Killers

0

By Adam Ovenell-Carter

Thanks to Bill Shakespeare — and more recently, George Clooney — the ides of March are a well-known time of the year. Apparently, we’re meant to be wary of it, but as a hockey fan, one can’t help but look forward to it. As the calendar hits mid-March, playoff races are in full swing, and each game means so much. Save for the playoffs themselves, there is no more exciting time in hockey. At the time of publication, Colorado is clinging to the eighth and final playoff berth in the West, but by the time you read this, they could be as high as sixth or as low as 11th. The day after that, well, who knows?

Currently, the Vancouver Canucks have a firm hold on the second seed in the Western Conference, but are in a race of their own. They have a shot at retaking the number-one spot, but they appear to be content just coasting into the post-season (much to the ire of Canuck fans the world over). It would take a catastrophic collapse for them to miss the playoffs at this point, but with such a logjam between the five or six teams hovering around that eighth seed, it would be frivolous to predict the Canucks first-round opponent. It really doesn’t matter if the Canucks finish first or second, because who finishes seventh or eighth could be determined on the final day of the season.

With that in mind, here are the three teams that would likely give the Canucks the most trouble should they meet come the ides of April.

 

3. Calgary Flames

Regardless of where these two teams are in the standings, neither has ever had a decisive edge over the other in head-to-head matchups.

The Flames had been riding the consistently stellar play of goaltender Miikka Kiprusoff until a few weeks ago, when the whole team seemingly caught fire (pardon the pun). Kiprusoff is still playing fantastically, and he’s capable of bringing an offensively starved team within a goal of the Stanley Cup. Of course, Calgary is a much different team than they were in 2004, but one thing that hasn’t changed, aside from their goalie’s play, is that of their captain. Jarome Iginla, a notoriously slow starter, was a focal point of trade rumours early in the season. Now, however, he’s on top of his game and is playing some of his best hockey of the past few seasons.

The Flames are hot, led by a star goalie and a surging captain. They always seem to get up for matchups against their divisional rival, and always have a chance to beat them.

 

2. Chicago Blackhawks

Really, who wouldn’t want this matchup again? Hawks’ captain Jonathan Toews has had some post-concussion complications, but there’s no denying the rivalry these two teams share.

The Blackhawks currently sit in the sixth seed, but are perilously close to falling down to seventh (or worse), but have all the right tools to go far in the playoffs (again), though they do lack a top-tier goaltender. Still, they have Patrick Kane, Duncan Keith, and Dave Bolland, all notorious Canuck-killers — and that’s excluding Toews. These two teams played one of the most exciting and memorable playoff series of the past few years, and most would kill to have it again — but it almost goes without saying that a matchup against the Hawks could spell danger for the Canucks.

 

1. Phoenix Coyotes

The Canucks lost to the Bruins last year because they couldn’t beat a hot goalie and were stifled by a stingy defensive team. They struggled to put away Nashville for many of the same reasons. Nashville wasn’t as deep offensively as Boston, and that naturally played into Vancouver’s favour, but still played Vancouver to one of the most even six-game series ever.

Phoenix is more like Nashville. They score by committee, play a suffocating defensive game, and have a goaltender playing pretty well in Mike Smith — all of which are factors that would be the bane of an offensive team like Vancouver. Two of the matchups between the teams ended as 2–1 finals, both in shootouts, speaking volumes about Phoenix’s ability to slow any game to a halt.

Vancouver thrives when playing an exciting, up-tempo brand of hockey. Take that away from them, and it could spell the Canucks’ undoing should the two teams meet early in April’s playoffs.

Residence needs more robust composting

0

By Thomas Booker

Behind the residence dining hall there is a solitary green wheelie bin into which a handful of eager students dispose of their compost. This one small bin is underused and rarely full. Many of the students living in residence are not even aware that composting facilities exist on campus. As part of a class conservation project, I decided to look into ways to get students to use these facilities more.
Composting, the breaking down of organic material into nutrient rich soil, is a sustainable waste management practice many perform at home. By composting you allow nutrients to be returned to soils that will use them, rather than taking up room in landfills.
Although I have been living in residence since September, when I began this project I was completely unaware that SFU even offered any composting services. In this I was not alone. A survey that I sent out to my fellow residents shows that 81 per cent of students living in residence were not aware of the opportunity for composting facilities.
I sent out a survey to as many residents as I could. The results showed a shocking lack of awareness of the composting program, with 81 per cent of respondents saying that they did not know about the composting facilities. However, this does not imply that SFU students are unwilling to compost. In fact the opposite seems to be true with an overwhelming 81 per cent of students saying that they would be happy to participate in a more user-friendly composting program. But for those students living in townhouses and those residences not so close to the dining hall, taking out the compost is a pain.
One of the remits of SFU residence is to be as sustainable as possible. Reducing the amount of waste being sent to landfills and incinerators is an easy and efficient way to help achieve this goal. Because of the concentration on sustainability SFU has installed recycling bins alongside the garbage cans in residences equipped with kitchens and they are regularly collected. The logical thing to do would be to supply kitchens with a composting bin and have the compost taken out with the garbage. Currently this is done in an opt-in system but students, being what they are, rarely do this.
There is an initiative set up by Sustainable SFU, the Zero Waste Initiative, which is doing a damn fine job. They are responsible for the compost bins that are now at the food outlets on campus, but it seems that SFU residence and the rest of SFU operate in relative isolation of one another so integrating the two has proven difficult.
For now my goal is to get more people composting in residence by increasing awareness of the facilities. Perhaps if enough people show that they are willing and want to compost, SFU residence will rethink their position and provide more accessible and user-friendly composting facilities. Until that point, SFU residents who would like to compost must take their (and perhaps floormates’) compost to the bin themselves. For anyone who needs a compost bucket, Booster Juice in Cornerstone has agreed to provide them free of charge or you could use any old Tupperware or pail. Alternatively you can buy one from Reslife for $12, along with bags for $5.
Obviously there will always be some people who will take out their compost regardless of the distance involved, perhaps even other people’s too, but the sustainability of SFU residences should not rest on the shoulders of those long-suffering, sandal-wearing folk.

Fraser International College’s creeping boundaries

0

By Michael McDonell

Since 2006, a spectre has haunted SFU. No, it isn’t the spectre of international communism, it’s actually the opposite — creeping privatization, as exemplified by the Fraser International College (FIC).

FIC has steadily grown on the southeastern part of campus, located in the Discovery Research Park near to the University Industry Liaison Office, and Environmental Health and Safety, but it remains non-existent or invisible to most students. It is very out of the way, but can be reached by going along University Drive East or walking from South Campus Road. The goal of FIC is to prepare students, the vast majority of whom pay bloated international student fees, for completing a degree at SFU. However, unlike the SFU governance structure that includes faculty and students on various committees and decision-making bodies, FIC is accountable only to shareholders and the university administration.

I worry that international education is becoming an exclusive jet-setting credential, rather than a transformative experience open to all. I also worry that the profits accrued from FIC are being used to mask the effects of provincial funding cuts to public education on the quality of our education.

As a university transfer program for SFU’s growing international student population, FIC claims to enroll more than 1,300 students every semester from across the world. Enrollment has increased dramatically from 85 students in 2006, and SFU is trying to draw in students from countries other than China, which has so far dominated the demographics of FIC (not to mention recently signing an agreement with the board of governors). FIC thus potentially contributes to making a more diverse student experience on campus. As previously reported by The Peak, FIC renewed its contract with SFU in 2010 and will offer courses and programs until 2020. No one knows how much FIC will expand over the coming years.

A prep school allowing students to transfer directly to SFU after a year or two of study somewhat justifies FIC’s location on campus, since it allows students to become more familiar with aspects of SFU, such as how the library works and other good things. It also addresses the fact that there are numerous college transfer programs at smaller institutions in the lower mainland, but not ones that international students may seek out or know about. FIC offers Stage I (pre-university) transfer programs for $13,976 over two semesters, and offers Stage II (university-level) UTP’s in business administration, engineering science, computing science, and arts and social sciences, among other disciplines. On paper, FIC appears to be justified.

Unlike SFU however, Fraser International College is owned by a private, for-profit multinational corporation, based out of Australia. So far, FIC has arranged for courses to be taught by every faculty, and almost every department, with the exception of Sociology/Anthropology, which has questioned the presence of this public-private partnership. Most departments have bowed to pressure from the university administration to offer materials, consultation, and even instructors to FIC to boost enrollments and thus secure continued university funding.

Every semester at Burnaby, the section dedicated to FIC gets larger, as they offer more courses outside the democratic control of curriculum and appointment committees, and of direct accountability to departments, faculty, and students. While this is a P3 agreement, the logic of privatization and the profit-motive looms large, and FIC could be the tip of the iceberg in terms of privatization.

Students at Fraser International College, like all international students, pay exorbitant tuition fees for their education. While SFU’s student paid $163.80 per normal course unit this Spring, FIC students pay $546.34 (soon to be raised by $27 per unit), depending on their program, a figure that is even more than what international students normally pay. Because they do not choose the exact number of credit hours they enroll in, they pay a per-term athletics and recreation fee of $125, while an SFU student taking three courses pays about 60% of that.

International education is a worthwhile pursuit that should be encouraged by universities around the world, as SFU has done by bringing in over 13 per cent of its enrollment from abroad. However, prices like these ensure that this credential will only be available to the upper-middle classes who can afford such education and the cultural and social benefits it adds to  their social mobility. It also makes computers and study spaces less available to students, the latter a major justification for spending $65 million on a new student union building.

Furthermore, while the university administration is not supposed to profit off of international students fees or rely on them for funding its operations, it is de facto heading in this direction by receiving rent equal to a third of tuition revenue at FIC, and, with, its 2011 agreement with the Chinese Scholarship Council, to send 20 top graduate students to SFU every year from elite Chinese universities. Ordinary students pay increased tuition fees and have high student loan interest rates, while international students themselves are milked for revenue.

The Simon Fraser Student Society, meanwhile, has said very little on what this development means for public education or student experiences on campus. If our goal is to create community, it makes no sense to give up space that could be used by students for what amounts to an export processing zone for educational commodification. This has not been an issue on campaign platforms. Nor has it been a major subject at SFSS all-candidates debates, where the main subject seems to be, how can we run our non-profit student society using for-profit methods, and still claim democratic legitimacy in doing so. This is partly because Fraser International College keeps itself hidden on the eastern part of campus near UniverCity, and keeps adding enrollment every year in such a way that we don’t notice.

But we have reached a turning point where quantitative accumulation has produced qualitative change: the good potential has been outweighed by the bad actuality. We have to take a stand in defending public education rather than allowing this wave of neoliberal privatization to continue indefinitely.

Board unqualified to make SUB plans

0

By Benjamin Lee

The proposed SFSS student union building is an extravagant $65-million luxury that students ought to critically inquire, and despite an ongoing period of fiscal restraint across Canada, a referendum question has been presented to fund the SUB exclusively through student levies.

Since there are no initial and startup funds available from the university or province of B.C. to assist in funding of the SUB, the SFSS board is turning to students to foot a 30-year open-ended bill, beginning in 2014. Upon the success of the referendum, the SFSS board claims they will reach out to the university and the provincial government; my concern is there would be no incentives to do so, because there is no need for the SFSS to “stay hungry,” especially when the funds are guaranteed each semester and will increase each year.

However, this SFSS board will stay foolish. Despite there being five business students on the 14-member SFSS board; they have presented a spectacularly unsophisticated fundraising strategy. Look at the Build SFU website: why isn’t there a PayPal link that would encourage the SUB’s early supporters to make an initial contribution? There is no outreach strategy to prominent SFU alumni to earn their endorsement of the SUB, which would, frankly, impart credibility. There is no mention of any joint partnerships between current donors to SFU and the SFSS to partner in fundraising. Why isn’t there an initial fundraising cap, say $2—3 million from investors, before proceeding to ask the student body for money? Build SFU’s justification is that they have consulted for six years, but this due diligence has not been accorded to fundraising for the $65-million SUB. The SFSS may not be shy asking students for money, but I would bet on a more embarrassing reaction if they had the gall to approach the CBC Dragons.

Let’s examine the authority of the SFSS board to manage a $65-million project. SFSS directors are elected to one-year terms, make under $100,000 (actually they make between $20,000 to $30,000), but somehow feel they are competent in making million-dollar decisions — how can they fully appreciate the significance of $3 million, $3.5 million and $35 million, when they themselves have never earned such an amount? Rather, a $12 burger and $800 monthly rent are expenses that resonate with everyday students; it raises the question: how deeply out of touch is the SFSS board?

Is this the realization of fiscal responsibility that the SFSS board campaigned on in the last election? To date, there is little praise associated with the current SFSS board, except their delicious hypocrisy in locking out the society’s staff for three months, citing the society was in a deficit of $800,000, yet during the lockout, the board raised their own wages! Furthermore, the SFSS has called on DSUs and clubs to endure cuts, but the board remains unwilling to face fiscal restraint themselves. Perhaps, the SFSS should fix their own affairs, before going to students for help.

From March 20 to 22, think twice, but vote once.

 

Hockey fans are brainwashed

2

By Ryan McLaughlin

 

I’m sorry to start an off with a piece of such unsavory news, but it’s best to say quickly, like tearing off a Band-Aid. We live in a totalitarian state. I know this is depressing to hear, especially since you planned on thinking freely later this afternoon, but the fact is we live in a state where the minds of its citizenry have been hopelessly and irreversibly brainwashed. You might ask who the culprit of this indoctrination is. Is it a sinister U.S. government with plans to crush Wikileaks and implement dastardly legislation like SOPA?  Or perhaps an evil corporation like Monsanto somehow putting brain altering chemicals in our drinking water?

No, I’m afraid the best brainwasher is the one you suspect least of all: it’s the institution of hockey in Canadian culture. That’s right, if you enjoy watching hockey then it’s quite likely you’ve been indoctrinated and may suffer from some form of permanent brain damage. The first step to recovery is accepting your beliefs are false. Try repeating in your head, “Hockey is boring and only crazy people enjoy it”, until you feel the delusion leave your mind.

You may not want to hear this, but living in a society of mass sports is really no different than living in Nazi Germany; in fact, both ideologies actually had similar beginnings. Mass sports came about in Europe and North America in the early 20th century as a response to fears that society was becoming weak and feminized. Men felt the need to prove their masculinity and increasingly began watching sports like hockey.

Like the Nazi, the hockey fan is driven by his desire to preserve his masculinity and to create a society of new-men: emotionless, aggressive, and able to take a puck in the grapes without as much so a grimace.

Like any successful totalitarian ideology, the hockey team begins by attacking the minds of the young. Children are swiftly taken from their mothers and their Pokemon and forced into strict, early morning hockey practices where they are taught to love the hockey team like a family. They are given trading cards to collect and when they get home, they watch hockey on the television with their parents. They wear identical uniforms to remove their individuality and liken themselves to a cog in the machine. Uniqueness is considered contrary to the hockey doctrine. I don’t think there is much doubt regarding the similarities between Tim Bits Hockey and the Hitler Youth.

Once grown up, hockey fans serve one god and one god only: hockey. Always at war, these militarists are easily stirred into a hateful fervor against the enemy, whoever that may be. Like in George Orwell’s novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four, where the state continually switches between which nations it is at war with, the hockey team is always fighting a different opponent. This keeps hockey fans in a state of perpetual fear and renders them incapable of critical thinking. In Orwell’s book, citizens practice the act of “doublethink”, which allows a person to both love and hate Big Brother. Canucks fans will recognise this practice with their attitude toward the team’s bi-polar goalie, Roberto Luongo.

The Mass Sports ideology has eyes and ears everywhere. If a citizen discovers a subversive element in their midst, that person is rounded up and dealt with severely. Like in Nazi Germany, the Mass Sports ideology gathers supporters in the beer halls to watch the games. If you happen to be an innocent patron simply there to get your drank on, you must suffer the noises of the unruly crowd or else leave the pub and risk not getting sufficiently slizzered. Like the Nazis, the hockey fans occasionally arrange a putsch where they exit the beer hall and try to violently overthrow the municipal government. Vancouver residents recently witnessed an attempt at a coup d’état last spring.

Of course, all authoritarian governments employ the use of slogans and imagery to stir the public into a rage, and the Mass Sports culture is not different. While the Nazis had the black eagle, the Canucks have the killer whale. The Leninists declared “Peace, Land, and Bread” while the Canucks yell “Go, Canucks, Go”. The parallels are uncanny.

Canadians are in the grip of an extreme regime — if you question the authority, you are ostracised and outcast, or worse. Vancouverites must find the courage to throw off the shackles of oppression and free their minds from hockey’s insidious grip. Perhaps only then can we begin to heal as a nation and as a people.

To be Woo-ed and not made to Woo

0

By Will Ross

When it comes to approaches to filmmaking, it’s difficult to think of more dissimilar approaches than those of Alfred Hitchcock and John Woo. Hitchcock cared exclusively about his character’s psychologies and little for the spectacle of their adventures; Woo elaborates and emphasizes the latter almost entirely at the expense of the former. So it may seem odd for John Woo to have remade the Hitchcock film Notorious, and even odder that he did so in the context of an existing franchise with Mission: Impossible 2.

Both plots involve a suave spy as a male lead (Cary Grant in Notorious, Tom Cruise in M:I-2), who attempts to bring down an “enemy of freedom” (a Nazi and an ex-U.S. agent, respectively), by recruiting a female lead with whom the villain was once in love (a drunk Ingrid Bergman/a thief, Thandie Newton), to seduce them and act as an informant. The spy and his informant fall in love, forming an espionage love triangle.

Mission: Impossible 2 has a limited reputation as a remake because when we watch movies plot is less important to us than the style and approach to storytelling. For instance, consider two versions of the scene wherein the male lead reveals his status and power to his prospective informant. In Notorious, Bergman drunkenly drives Cary Grant home after the party at which they met. Grant grins to placate her, even as she accelerates to his private discomfort.  When she is pulled over, he simply shows the officer his credentials and gets her off the hook. The whole scene is played with rear screen projection, that old technique where the car is placed in front of a screen playing footage of a road, and the driver pretends to drive. It’s not very convincing, but the focus is their dialogue and reactions. Grant nervously glances at the speedometer; Bergman resents his patronizing attitude and deliberately unsettles him: “I don’t like gentlemen who grin at me.”

The same scene in M:I-2 has them driving in separate cars on the edge of a dangerous canyon road. Cruise follows Newton’s car, and she accelerates to escape him while endangering herself and other drivers. Cruise follows her, nervous but determined. When Newton ends up dangling over a cliff, Cruise pulls her to safety. Then they make out.

I’m not here to say M:I-2 is stupid and Notorious is smart. Okay, it’s true, but my point is that story and character-wise the same things are going on in this scene: The female quarry resents the male’s attempts to possess her, and tries to reassert herself by toying with death at high speed. The male reluctantly follows before saving her at the last minute. The scenes aren’t different because John Woo changes it to a car chase; they’re different because he doesn’t give a shit about any of that character stuff. The cinematography’s aim is to stylize the bashing, zooming, spinning cars as much as possible. Hitchcock didn’t care about high speed driving, he cared about what it revealed about his characters. That’s why he didn’t worry about the fake-y rear projection, and sure enough, while watching we quickly forget all about it. This is why the common notion that Hollywood has ‘run out of stories’ never struck me as a real problem: which story is told doesn’t matter nearly as much as how it’s told.

Where are the microwaves?

0

By Katie Maki

With all the shit going on at SFU right now — levies stolen from our pockets and the whole catastrophe between the SFSS and the CUPE — I began to try and think of the things we could change, and the things we are changing. In order to do so I took a tip from my fourth grade teacher: “You can never go wrong with a Venn diagram.” Under the ‘could change’ column, I began listing off things that would be possible in accordance with money. Of course, not many things made the list. So I began to list things I’d honestly hated about my first year, which are things that were not necessarily within SFU’s budget. Slowly going down the list, I started to see a pattern of stupid trivial things that probably would never change, until I landed on it: “SFU needs more microwaves.” I know you’re all thinking that’s a frivolous request, but microwaves could actually save students a lot of money while also make the campus more environmentally friendly.

I remember waking up early in my first year — excited for the day’s lectures and tutorials — making myself a nice hot lunch, and stuffing it into my lunch pack so it would stay fresh throughout the day. Needless to say, bringing chili was a bad idea. As a first-year student, with no knowledge of the campus, I walked around for almost two hours looking for a microwave. And of course, that day just happened to be the one day I didn’t bring any money.  I was not impressed. So for the rest of the day I had two options: starve and deal with my notoriously loud rumbling tummy, or eat nasty, cold, congealed chili. I eventually gave in to hunger, but the taste of that lunch will forever haunt me.

Besides having to go through that grueling ordeal, bringing a bagged lunch could actually help students save money. Consider this: say you go to SFU five days out of the week, and each day you buy lunch and (obviously) lots of coffee. Each day you’d spend around $10, or maybe $5 if you’re lucky, and semesters go for about three months. $10 per day multiplied by 25 days per month equals $250. $250 multiplied over three months equals $750. So you end up spending $750 each semester, which could easily be saved towards a new car or spent on your textbooks for the next year. But I’m not here to lecture you, because it’s not your fault.

SFU used to offer microwaves that were easily accessible to all students down in the West Mall cafeteria. Since Tim Hortons arrived, SFU has taken out the microwaves. But why? Simply to sell more food and make us spend more money? It seems implausible that students would spend so much money on food when we’re constantly paying hundreds of dollars for textbooks and insurance, and thousands on tuition. Many students still live at home, so to eat food your parents buy you could save you thousands of dollars! So why don’t more people bring bagged lunches?

Personally, I’m sick of eating the same cold-cut sandwiches I’ve been eating since middle school, so to bring homemade soup or “mom’s special lasagna” leftovers would just brighten my day. I think people don’t bring lunches because of inaccessibility. If SFU offered students the option, they would take it. If you’re still not sold, picture this: it’s snowy and windy up at SFU, and you’re stuck inside the cold concrete walls just like every other student. Shivering from the low thermostat setting in the AQ, you take out your lunch and voila! A lovely chili. You warm it up in a nearby microwave and hold the bowl in your hands. You suddenly think, “Hell, screw wintery weather, this chili is fantastic!”

Besides a hot lunch helping defrost your hands during the winter months, it would also help the environment. Take last semester when SFU launched the Go Green Container Exchange Program and apply that to a bigger spectrum: what if no one bought food on campus at all? Think about all the stuff that wouldn’t become trash! Although this is a far-fetched idea, it’s not as far off as one might think. If microwaves were strewn across campus, more people would bring bagged lunches. And those people coupled with the Go Green Container Exchange Program could really make a difference on the environment.

Because the idea of SFU needing microwaves isn’t at the top of everyone’s petition list (if you have one), it can be a little hard to make someone agree with such a trivial thing. However, you could also approach the issue like this: how can we solve the big problems if we can’t even find solutions to the little ones like access to microwaves? Although I don’t believe the student body should necessarily consider microwaves on campus at the top of priorities for SFU’s spending money, it’s a good idea to look into for in the future. With the plans for the student union building being discussed, I think that microwaves along with social space could really encourage more people to bring bagged lunches. Social space and microwaves together is a nice thought — no one wants to eat cold soup while sitting on the floor. But that’s just my food for thought.

————

Microwaves on campus:

In Residence:

  • Residence dining hall

In the Rotunda:

  • SFPIRG
  • Women’s Centre

In MBC:

  • Forum Chambers
  • The Peak
  • SFSS Board Office
  • Atrium cafeteria

In the AQ:

  • McKenzie Cafe
  • Education Building
  • TASC 2
  • Various student union common rooms

SF-ood

0

After a 50-year food fight, can changes to SFU food services really make the cut?

By Ariane Madden
Photos By Mark Burnham

It’s 5:21 p.m. on a Tuesday, and you suddenly find yourself running from Images Theatre to McKenzie Café in the hopes of grabbing a snack to tide yourself over until your evening tutorials are over and you can actually have dinner. Alas, you arrive at the cafeteria only to find that it’s entirely closed down and your only option is a squeamish-looking muffin at the nearby Renaissance stand.

This little narrative seems to be a common one here at SFU, along with never-ending complaints about the price of food and the quality of ingredients served at many of the campus’ food service locations. The vegetables are never fresh, the spaces aren’t inviting, and the line-ups are just too long. Packing a lunch is an admirable feat that some people certainly are able to do, but when you know that your soup is going to sit dangerously sideways in your backpack from South Surrey to Burnaby every morning, it just doesn’t seem worth the hassle.

Food services at this commuter campus can be frustrating at best. Indeed, food service at SFU has been rated as some of the worst in the country and is consistently at the top of the ‘must improve’ list when students are surveyed about campus initiatives.

Students in residence have struggled with the food options on campus perhaps most vocally over the past few years. With nearly 600 of the 2000 residents on a mandatory meal plan, any student who dares take a class at Surrey or the downtown campuses is hard-pressed to spend all of their $1,350 at Chartwells-run locations at Burnaby. A trip to UBC residences almost always incites jealous groaning from residents frustrated with high-priced food that is often over-cooked and tasteless. So where did it all go wrong?

While it may seem like SFU’s food woes are a recent complaint, the cause of our belly aching goes back much farther — 10 years. The very fabric of the SFU community has been entwined in the food services debate from day one.

The hatred started early, and it started strong. Students in the ‘60s went so far as to stage a “Burger Boycott” which saw hundreds of students and faculty refusing to eat at on-campus eateries for days, costing the businesses money until they finally caved to student demands and promised better prices and higher quality food. However, the promises proved empty when food services on campus did not improve significantly enough to prevent a full review in 1972.

SFU was just a baby university, yet it was already experiencing the kinds of hiccoughs that would have repercussions for years to come. The food services report opened up with some rather telling — and sad — commentary. It seemed, as the committee said, that the original vision of the university community was not being realized and that the sense of community was “beginning to break apart”.

They recognized that food services are an essential part of the sense of community on campus and yet were stuck with a situation where everything including the kitchen sink seemed inadequate to serve the students. The report talked about a feeling of “coldness” in the dining spaces, and how food itself was of low quality and lacked variety. The students were tired of monotony and the administration needed to address it.

A later report spoke of the inefficiencies of campus dining on the mountain, and that the school was only built for grab-and-go service. In the space that is now Triple O’s, the kitchen was cramped and had inadequate ventilation for food service because the building was simply not designed for it. SFU was haphazardly trying to put together the kinds of amenities that the school had no knowledge or ability to administer. From the time SFU opened its doors, to the time of the report, it had already been through at least three campus food providers and not one of them was able to meet the needs of the student body. After the two reports in the mid-1970s blasted the existing system, some small changes were made and the topic was left mostly untouched until the early 1990s.

After 10 years of the then-food service provider “consistently turn[ing] a deaf ear to student concerns, while stretching the boundaries of digestion”, a new American provider only brought new skepticism from the student body. Such critics were proven right when the company moved in with another high-priced menu that lacked variety and basic standards of quality. Then, after the service provider shut down a DSU barbecue in Convocation Mall, citing its near-monopolistic contract with the school, students staged a one week boycott of the cafeterias which ultimately led to the surrendering of the food contract within a few short months.

The power was finally given to some local hands, ICL services, which was the catering arm of White Spot restaurants. New services were added that helped keep the university competitive even after the Maggie Benston Centre cafeteria and newly-expanded pub had opened to expand student choices around campus. There seemed to be a light at the end of the tunnel and food services on Burnaby Mountain were improving, but a few years and a corporate take-over of ICL later, SFU signed a contract with Chartwells in 2001.

The current main food services provider for SFU and the only provider for residence is the now-infamous Chartwells. Chartwells is the university catering arm of one of the largest food service employers in the world — Compass Group — who also caters to the U.S. military. Though the university’s relationship with Chartwells has never led to a full-blown boycott as has been the case with previous generations of SFU students, the agreement hasn’t exactly been smooth sailing either.

In 2005, the institution of mandatory meal plans for the new residence towers caused a stink when residents realized that any left over money from the fall semester could not be carried over to the following spring. While the university ate the costs of allowing the carry-over to take place that year, the concession only came after much fuss from both sides of the argument. And the fuss didn’t end at the meal plans: complaints of dismal food quality coupled with sky-high pricing garnered SFU national attention when a Facebook-based “food-fight” broke out in 2007. Students organized Facebook groups en masse protesting the dismal state of affairs and the national media blew up with reports about the situation. SFU rated the lowest in Maclean’s university ratings in the food category that same year and has remained consistently low since. When Tim Hortons opened in 2009, students rejoiced at finally having a cheap and reasonable food option available to them west of Cornerstone.

Finally, 11 years after Chartwells first moved onto campus and after 50 years of (sometimes literal) food fighting at Simon Fraser, the newly-minted Ancillaries Director Mark McLaughlin has high hopes and sky-high visions for changes and improvements to food services at SFU that, if done right, might have a fighting chance of creating the kind of food community that students have been begging for decades to get.

“SFU needs to determine its own needs and tell the companies what we want,” said McLaughlin. “That’s what all of this [consulting students] is supposed to do.”

Originally hailing from Bishop’s University, McLaughlin speaks of SFU as having a diverse community with diverse cultural needs. With some students living at Burnaby’s residences and commuting to Surrey regularly, meal plan money often goes to waste when they can’t spend it at satellite campuses. Similarly, students from Fraser International College get short breaks between classes and there are no food options in the Discovery Park for them to turn to.

On the retail side, contracts to Tim Hortons, Subway, and White Spot have helped bring money back to the university and have helped to calm some of the gripes of previous years, but if the results of recent surveys have anything to say, food services at SFU is still not satisfying student needs. McLaughlin hopes to turn this around as early as September.

The first step has been consulting with students and faculty. Numerous surveys about food services have been sent out in recent months with overwhelming results. Ancillary services has also sought the assistance of external consultant David Porter — a specialist in university food services with a business degree from Harvard and whose consulting firm has catered to dozens of American universities.

One of the primary goals of any and all changes that will take place, says McLaughlin, is for catering services at SFU to recognize how food can be a social gathering place, central to the community in creating a ‘home away from home’ whether it be at the residence dining hall or at other places on campus. McLaughlin sees this project as an attempt to bolster the community at SFU and to integrate the needs of the diverse population that now inhabits our hallways.

A food services committee has also been created which includes representatives from the SFSS, GSS, Residence and Housing, and Health and Counseling, as well as Sustainable SFU. The university is taking the issue seriously and wants to make it better.

Residence-specific surveys are likely to be rolled out within the coming days, the data from which will add to the thousands of views already expressed to the university in recent months. Altogether, the information will help McLaughlin and the food services committee to spell out our exact needs. The hope, explained McLaughlin, is for the university to have a solid plan in place by June.

If all goes well, the changes won’t be temporary either. A new dedicated food services manager for the entire campus will help to make sure that standards are maintained for years to come. Furthermore, with programs like food waste composting and the Go Green Container Exchange, SFU is already being seen as a leader in campus food services sustainability. Adding in that the university is working towards incorporating fair-trade products to vendor offerings, and the desires of more ethical consumers will be better met on campus.

While only time will tell if the university can right almost 50 years of food turmoil, SFU’s food fight might actually be coming to a close. McLaughlin certainly hopes so.

“It’s a complex issue, but it’s important. We’ve got one chance to do it right . . . Students deserve [better food on campus], and in the end we’re here for the students.”

 

A questionnaire whose questions reflects the feedback provided in the November 2011 food surveys is currently online at www.sfu.ca/foodforthought.html for students interested in providing feedback about SFU’s food services.