Quebec Whines Over Tuition

A "strike" over a $100 tuition increase? Seriously now...
After reading "A dishonest student movement" from Maclean's, I think that Québec students don't have much to complain about seeing as their tuition is all of $2000/year. The out-of-province student tuition fees are still about the same as the regular tuition for in-province students in Ontario and other provinces. Personally, I spend around 6000$/year on tuition so to hear about students whining over a $100 raise on an already cheap tuition irks me.

I don't think the way they went about the issue (by not attending class) was a good way of handling it. They wasted more money skipping classes and jeopardizing their grades for $100. If any other university in any other province tried that, it would be shut down so fast. It comes off as a temper tantrum on a university-age scale. Suck it up and work a few extra hours to pay that off. Maybe these whining students should come across the provincial border to Ontario to see what it's like. That would be an eye-opener. Maybe those from other provinces are jealous or envious, but I think we have every right to as our tuition is generally over double what theirs is. After spending around $5000, whats another $100 really?

Solution? Standardize tuition across the country. I'm sure Québec would be outraged, but look how happy students in other provinces would be! Since the rest of the country outnumbers the Québec students, it would be a massive benefit to the majority!

Here are a few other opinions featured on a CBC news article: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rw2lgxxaZJc (again, there are embedding issues...grrr)

Excited Delirium?

After reading both the "Video of airport Taser death released" article in the National Post and watching the graphic video of the events (courtesy of Paul Pritchard), I have mixed feelings on this situation.

For one, the man was Polish - not Russian, and most likely not speaking "Russian".

This can be seen as ignorant on the part of Security, although it's easy to be unknowledgeable or make a mistake in such a multi-cultural area. Either way, the airport staff and police knew the man did not understand or speak English so would that not be a clear indication to call in a Translator/Interpreter to find out what the underlying problem is? If the underlying problem could have been resolved, there may have been no reason for physical action on the part of the police. The man is in an unknown, scary and foreign place (which is enough to agitate anyone) and it seems like his plans were slightly mixed up with his mother somewhere else in the very large airport. Not saying his behaviour of throwing computer equipment is justified, but more serious consequences could have been avoided with a bit of patience and common sense.

One other factor that may have played into this situation would be any health problems that Mr. Dziekanski may have had. Obviously, these would not be known by Security or the police, though when they realized he stopped moving when they had him pinned down was excessive. If Mr. Dziekanski had any heart problems the taser may have exacerbated them and he could have undergone major damage which lead to his death. Also, he may have had mental health issues with which the stress of the airport exacerbated agitation and caused him to have a greater reaction and behave differently with the tasering.

I am interested in knowing the autopsy results. As it stands, it has been termed Excited Delirium by the RCMP.

I also realize that it is so much easier to reflect back on a situation and point out all the flaws and say "I would have done this...", but if you were there at that moment in time, would you really do that? Probably not. Your adrenaline takes over sometimes. We've all been in situations like that. And what other option was there? Pepper spray in a crowded area? Assault? Yes, they seemed to hold him down for awhile, but what isn't apparent is if he was still resisting and struggling. Though, it will do no good to analyze this situation to death (no pun intended).

It was a fast, adrenaline-filled and unfortunate incident. Both parties played a role and we have to remember...accidents do happen.

This video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCL4WrZ2kPA) is a longer version of the situation and shows the man before he was even throwing equipment. Being in mental health, I've learned to recognize agitation and in this case, it's obvious to even the general public. He's breathing fast and hard, holding a chair, and looks rather delirious and focussed on something that we are not aware of.

This other video I've posted is from CTV. It involves an interview with a witness as well as the RCMP spokesperson. (Blogspot is not allowing me to copy/paste the HTML to embed the video). Watch here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05vuY-kqp9o

No Men Allowed...?!

Upon reading, The tabs: no men allowed...Why do the gossip rags only feature women when there are so many stories of male stars behaving badly?, I realized how right they are. Men are not featured in tabloids nearly as often as women. Now, why is that? Macleans makes many arguments for why this is and the more I read, the more I agree with them.

The behaviour that tabloids tend to focus on is that which has been deemed "inappropriate" for women, such as excessive drinking and lude sexual activities. An example of this is Britney Spears appearing stoned and acting very much in a manner only acceptable for males.

Although in the present age, we are a more accepting society, we still have limits. Men seem to still be allowed to follow the double-standard of the "Boys will be boys" ideation that society accepts. For males, alcohol, drugs and sex are not considered unacceptable to the same extent as women. Male celebrities usually only make it to the tabloids when they make racist or bigot comments. One possibility Macleans makes is that the tabloids are playing the role that religion or tradition used to fill: the enforcement of what they view as the rules.

Another reason that tabloids focus on women is that most readers of gossip are women. It is sensical to think that women prefer to read about other women as they have more opportunity to relate. The article stated that women who read these tabloids (at least subconsciously) imagine themselves as part of that world. "They want the men to be Prince Charmings and the women to be evil stepsisters". As well, it is said that women have an innate interest in other women.

Not only do women enjoy reading about other women, but many of these young stars have been idolized as role models for young girls and their falling off the sane wagon has merited lots of attention. Some of the issues these celebrities are facing, such as eating disorders, some young women can relate to which is another source of interest in these female-focused tabloids. There is a certain disappointment, yet fascination "to see them fall from grace".

Overally, I agree with these arguments made by Macleans. It appears that the purpose of tabloid gossip is to punish celebrities for bad behaviour, though the definition of "bad behaviour" varies for both men and women in all aspects of life.

But what does all of this say about the people who read this sort of empty, pointless trash? Is it a meaningless past-time? Lifestyle? Who knows...

Don't Stop The Music

In the words of Rihanna: "please don't stop the music":

According to NBC chief executive, Jeff Zucker in the article "NBC executive slams Apple for killing music industry", Apple is doing exactly what the title implies - destroying the music industry. But is it really? In fact, Apple has "rescued the industry from irrelevance". CD sales have decreased, but Apple has promoted the sale of individual, downloaded songs for a fixed price. And download sales have soared.

VERSUS

So why is there all this hatred for Apple by NBC? The verdict appears to be that NBC is afraid Apple will do the same to it - kill the business. Recently, NBC pulled their TV episodes from iTunes due to a "decreased revenue" (although revenue was around the $15 million mark!). It appears that NBC (or at least just Jeff Zucker) did not agree with Apple's set price for all episodes. Zucker also claims that Apple refused to pay "NBC a cut of the iPod hardware sales". Apparently NBC's episodes contributed highly to iPod sales, or so Zucker thinks. But if you think about it...what about the money received from TV manufacturers? Is NBC getting a cut from their hardware sales? I don't think so.

First off Zucker has recently made numerous attacks on various other companies such as YouTube for stealing its programming.

Other recent (and ridiculous) statements made by NBC have included how law enforcement should spend less money on traditional crime and focus more on piracy and couterfeiting (I'm sure the little old lady who's house gets broken into will really appreciate that) or there's the comment concerning corn farmers. According to NBC, due to piracy, there are less ticket sales and less popcorn sales which means that corn growers are losing money. If there was less piracy, then the popcorn sales would increase, farmer's profits would increase and would grant them the ability to buy more farming equipment. This statement is utterly ridiculous! First off, movie theatres are not struggling, and secondly, any one watching movies at home can eat popcorn too. Soon enough, there will be a demand for a "cut of the profits corn farmers make, since, after all they're "profiting off the backs of the movie industry" without paying the industry for the benefit".

Basically, NBC needs to clean up its act and fire Zucker. He is causing more grief for the company and the others that he is so moronic-ly attacking.

So the real question should be:

Is Jeff Zucker killing television?!