By Gustavo Destro
The term ‘partisan politics’ has been a staple of the public lexicon for several decades now; it refers to people who would rather have the government screech to a halt than budge from the beliefs they championed. For a long time such men and women were few and far between. They were the radicals, the fringe of every party, ultimately drowned out by moderates. Regular people did not have a favourable view of such a candidate and they would hardly reach high offices. Not so in the 21st century.

Nowadays we live with constant reminders of how fractionalized the democratic system is. From a Republican-controlled American Congress that will only pass a bill that won’t have any benefit for Democrats, to constant attacks in Canada against the Harper government, to an increasingly disruptive discourse in places such as France and the U.K. over the most minute of political issues.

The worst part of it all is that the very people to blame for all of this are not only the politicians that sling mud across the aisle at each other, but also the people who elect them. Because sometime in the last 20 years, the general electorate took a turn to the bizarre, when we started feeding off of grandiose statements and declarations of faith to the core of the party, sanity be damned; when we started demanding our elected officials to do what is best for ‘me’ and not the collective; when we decided that we would no longer listen to the ‘other side’ because they were always wrong and could not be dealt with. Politics has put one side against the other as if the ‘enemy’ worked for the devil himself, it has turned into something akin to a 17th century religious war, just short of grabbing an axe and a shield.

More bizzare is the fact that this has all come with the explosion of news media and social interaction, which a sane person would assume would make for a better political discourse, since all sides would have the ability to see how each other thought and find a common ground that would benefit all to the greatest extent possible. Not so.

Now I can sit in my living room and watch Fox News, Sun News, and read the National Post and will firmly believe that Obama is a socialist, Jim Flaherty is the coolest dude alive, and the Liberal Party is dead, and I would believe I’m right because three publications agreed. Or maybe I could watch the CBC, MSNBC, and read the Globe and Mail and will just as likely be convinced that Harper is an arts-hating devil-man, the oil sands are actually ‘tar’ sands, and we should raise taxes. Again, who would tell me I’m wrong?

People always want to be right, and when they have the information in the palm of their hands confirming that they are, everything that goes against it must be wrong. But it’s about time everyone swallowed their egos and dropped the bickering, or else we won’t go much further. It’s time to understand that both the Tea Party and the Occupy movements have legitimate grievances, that both raising and lowering taxes could help the economy, and that the oil sands could be a good thing but that there are also risks that should be taken care of. Let’s find some common ground, or soon enough we’ll all be going for those axes.

By Brendan Prost

Mary-Claire Turner’s Opinions piece two weeks ago is a pertinent reminder that the conservatives who screech loudly about free speech usually have the least to say. Any fair-minded person agrees that the morality of abortion is, at the very least, clouded. There is absolutely room in the academic community to have a discussion about these issues, although the sociological necessity of the procedure’s legal accessibility should not be in dispute. But the Genocide Awareness Project (GAP) and other anti-choice groups have no interest in free speech or reasoned debate.

Apparently without a trace of irony, Turner in her article chastises the university administration for encouraging students to “silence one’s opponents rather than prove them wrong with logical arguments.” Comments like these betray the ultimate hypocrisy of Turner and others like her. There is no persuasive rhetoric in GAP’s message. Their campaign is simply a tirade of emotionally manipulative and viscerally impactful symbols, designed specifically to shock and appall. They seek to appeal solely to knee-jerk human sentiments, and offer nothing of intellectual substance. There is no intended logic. There is no argument. The cheap and demeaning connotations of the images are obvious.

According to GAP, if you are in favour of a woman’s right to choose, then you are complicit in a gory massacre. If the organization had any legitimate interest in proving others wrong with “logical arguments”, or would like to risk being proven wrong themselves, then they would initiate public discussion forums or something of the sort. But they do not. Their sole focus on campuses across the country has been to demonize pro-choice advocates and psychologically traumatize women who have been, or may potentially be in, the unfortunate position of having to seek an abortion.

The nonsense about the university’s supposed opposition to debate aside, Turner slips further into delusion to suggest that Simon Fraser University is obligated to provide an unmitigated platform to her organization. On display here is the popular conservative free-speech mania and comical martyrdom. In a free society, you absolutely have every right to say whatever you want, however repugnant. However, the public and its institutional arbiters of cultural meaning and reasoned discourse, universities chief among them, have the freedom to marginalize and exclude you at their discretion. There is no law, and there certainly is no right that says you are owed a public platform of amplification and relevance. After all this is what the university, and institutions like it, offer to those who deserve it. No one owes you an expressive outlet, and no one owes it to you to listen.

The academic community, as a bastion of a healthy public sphere, moderates all kinds of important topical discussions. And just as the university community does not welcome Holocaust-deniers or 9/11 truthers, it may see fit to not accommodate GAP. Given the group’s obvious disdain for the values of academia, I think they should be grateful they were given any kind of forum at all

As I mentioned, the morality of abortion is a complex issue. Turner rightly points out that medical science affirms that a fetus is a living organism. And society should be very interested in listening to those who seek to preserve life. But we would be remiss to think that the purpose of GAP and their travelling carnival of mindless brutality are interested in protecting life. There are plenty of uncontroversial ways that human life can be preserved, in which there is no conflict with the rights of other human beings. Starvation, accessibility to clean water, and poverty are all social issues that could easily be addressed by the relatively privileged members of anti-choice groups.

Instead of campaigning for UNICEF or other useful organizations that demonstrably save lives, they waste their time and resources on circulating meaningless and disgusting images. If anyone involved with GAP were truly concerned with saving lives, they would be just as loudly screaming for increased foreign aid to the people dying of hunger in East Africa. We cannot take seriously an organization whose priorities are so vulgar and confused.

It is clear that GAP’s interest is not in life, but control. Control over a woman’s body, control over social policy, and control over public debate. I urge the SFU community, other universities, and the public at large, to recognize the Genocide Awareness Project for what it is: a hypocritical group of control freaks, with a disdain for intellectual conversation, and a tertiary interest in preserving life.

By Clinton Hallahan

I think humanity took a major downturn when we started paying for things before delivery. At least when the producer of goods has to prove their product is real and worth paying for I have the option to back out. Once they have my money, what motivation is there to make me satisfied?

Such as it is with TransLink, it seems. With revenue guaranteed for years with the last U-Pass referendum, the improvements that begin and end with the abortive gondola project will likely be trotted out at renewal time every few years, only to be rescinded as a non-priority when we have no choice but to cough up the dollars. Such as it is with the latest delay in the gondola project, and the last hope of some lasting new transit infrastructure on campus for what I’m sure will be at least a decade.

We’re as tied to TransLink now as a junkie is to their dealer. As more and more of this campus is sold off to build condos that few students can afford, parking spaces climb in price and scarcity. With little other option to physically put us on the hill, SFU is at the mercy of TransLink, a company continually proving themselves indifferent to the poor service offered to a captive customer base.

The complaints are well weathered at this point. A person standing at the secondary bus loop during peak times can expect a few 145 route busses to pass them by until they are so inclined to head up to the primary Cornerstone loop. Entitled much? Not when those peak times have bowed to the increasing population of the SFU student body, peak hours now extending from around 3:00 p.m. to past 6:00 p.m. A great number of these commuters to Production Station are simply taking the train one stop to Lougheed Station, a problem easily remedied by study and reallocation of bus resources. If there is a more overburdened route outside of the 99 B-Line I’d be surprised.

As I’ve written before, the 145 line is twinned with the 135 line, resulting in a backlog the most cursory of audits would reveal. While busses start stacking up around 8:30 a.m. at Production Station, the true test occurs a couple of hours later when everybody has class to attend. By that time, traffic has started accumulating on East Hastings, resulting in 20-minute delays on both lines. Now you and 300 of your nearest and dearest get to hang out in a well-intentioned wind tunnel bus stop at Production for 30 minutes to make a 10-minute trip.

Long bus waits are common, but as my junior high gym teacher always said, we’re looking for improvement, not perfection. Five years of depending on bus service to Burnaby campus and the only evident change is for the worse. I’m sure frequenters of the 143 to Coquitlam would agree as TransLink just abandons them on the weekend.

There is a major issue of safety, as well. Packed like sardines in these busses, the drivers manically attend their schedules and fly down a parkway we all just assume will take around one life per year. One patch of ice or driver drifting into oncoming traffic is all it will take. When will the overstressed transit solutions and lack of road improvements claim a bus full of kids? Will their flowered memorials be enough to convince TransLink and the university that the current solution is as unsafe as it is ineffective?

Right now, students stand at an impasse with a transit provider stretched to its limits deprioritizing them now that we’re fully dependent, and a university bound and determined to sell off all of its parking space to developers while packing classes to their limit. Multiple administrations have ignored the fact that the logistics of moving people on and off this mountain are at the heart of SFU’s problems. They’re running the risk of making a school on a mountain exactly as daunting as it sounds.

By Michelle Seo

In the retail industry, employers constantly emphasize the importance of customer service. No, scratch that: they want ‘above-and-beyond’ customer service. With so many competitors selling similar goods and services, companies now spend considerable money and effort to train their employees to not only sell, but to make the customer experience extraordinary.

So what does ‘extraordinary’ customer service entail? Well, from my experience, a lot of smiling. Yes, smiling till my cheeks literally ache. When I look over at my coworkers, they have that same smile plastered on their faces — their mouths wide open and teeth showing. As we walk by each other, our eyes meet with a mutual understanding (our facial expressions do not change). Exceptional customer service also means introducing myself and asking, “How may I help you?”  or, “How was your day?” When the customer leaves, I close our conversation by acknowledging my appreciation for them choosing our company, and I wish them a wonderful day and to take care until we meet again. Then the next customer walks up — here we go again.

Every so often, I get customers who aren’t afraid to show rude, negative attitudes. They’re having a bad day. While they are waiting in line, I look over my current customer’s shoulder and, evidently, they are scowling at every person and thing surrounding them. Then, there are those who simply want minimal interaction with you, refusing to even make eye contact. Or, the ones who toss their payment cards at you. Some customers become so upset during the conversation that they look at your name tag, say your name aloud, and demand to speak to the manager immediately, while vigorously shaking their index finger in the air.

I reckon that most of us have been in similar situations. Many students work part-time jobs that require servicing, whether it is waiting tables or working at a retail store. I personally work for a financial institution and have had my fair share of difficult customers. And lo’ and behold, I not only learned about managing and controlling conflicts, I acquired a better understanding towards people and human nature. The first week into my current job, a customer yelled at me and made me feel so incompetent, I considered quitting.

Why would someone, a complete stranger, who I met for the first time, openly express her temper at me when I’m only trying to help them? Perhaps, being strangers, she had less interest in my feelings because she was consumed in her own. Or, maybe, there was an unpleasant event in her life, such as a death in the family or loss of a job. There could be a million explanations for her dreadful mood that day, but the bottom line is, I decided to not let it get the better of me. As a matter of fact, I’m glad it happened.

Ten months down the road, I came up with my own golden rules for ‘above-and-beyond’ customer service. Behind everything they taught me, I decided that having a genuinely positive attitude produces the best service. When I smile, I don’t smile because I have to; my day just seems brighter when I’m smiling and I love people smiling back at me.

On a side note, I think customers can tell you’re faking a smile — you’re facial muscles look awkward. When customers express frustration or dissatisfaction, I approach them with empathy and wish for their day to get better. Around 90 per cent of the time, the customer reveals a slight smile before walking away.

Looking back, I admit there were occasions when I was that rude customer having a bad day. Now being on the other side I am more aware of my attitude towards others in the service industry. Golden rule number one — treat others as you would like to be treated. You can’t argue with that.