Latest News

Joke

Joke Issue: Destroying the penny: it just made cents

by on
  • Author

More in Joke:

On March 29, the Conservative federal government released its budget for the 2012-2013 year, which included many austerity measures in order to reduce Canada’s enormous fiscal deficit. Though many of those measures elicited strong reactions from Canadians, none created even a quarter of a shockwave as grand as the one from the announcement that the penny is bound to disappear.

 The government cited several reasons for the elimination of the 136-year-old coin. First of all, every penny created costs the government 1.6 cents, so removing the penny from circulation will save the government up to $150 million annually. Considering that the penny was creating a deficit for the Canadian Mint, the government decided to unfreeze the value of the penny and adjust its worth.

“The measure is intended to adjust the value of the penny to what it was worth in 1968,” explained an anonymous source within government. “In this case, the penny was worth utterly nothing in 1968 because it’s a stupid coin.”

Secondly, the government admitted that eliminating the penny was a key first step in eventually removing an even greater ill in circulation in Canada: Nickelback. The Albertan rock band is often described as “a band so bad that only a Loony could like them,” and ever since its inception in 1995, the government has been reducing the numbers of nickels in circulation, praying that the band would get the message.

Finally, the government announced that after retrieving all Canadian pennies, the Mint will melt them and create the first ever “penny suit” which they will give to Don Cherry as a retirement gift. Whether the suit will be given once Cherry announces his retirement, or given to him in order to force him to retire after being crushed by the 1.5 tonne suit was not clear, though many would argue that Cherry’s thoughts aren’t even worth a penny at this point.

Following the announcement, nearly all Canadians felt the need to express their two cents thoughts on the matter. Though the move has music fans across the world cheering for more, others feel betrayed by their government. “I feel like to those who voted for change, the government is officially replying: ‘screw you, we’re taking it away,'” a radical student from McGill University claimed. “A proper Marxist government would never do that to its people.”

The austerity measure was met with much opposition in many CEGEPs in Quebec, such as UQAM and Vieux-Montreal. Upon hearing about the fate of the penny, the schools’ student bodies decided to fill a room with the closest red-clad students they could find, and immediately voted to go on unlimited student strike. “[Lots of French words, probably speaking about how unfair life is and how the government destroys lives,]” explained an UQAM representative. “We want our graduates to continue receiving tips at the coffee shops they work at, and pennies are an integral part of those tips.”

Considering these arguments, and the fact that we want McGill to stay as far away as possible from UQAM, the Chronicle believes that to keep the penny in circulation would be utterly cents-less. Apart from the fact that minting the penny leaves the government $11 million poorer every year, nobody actually likes having pennies in their pockets. Nobody likes having pennies in a jar either, and a penny for your thoughts is too cheap when you consider what we McGill students go through to obtain a McGill diploma. So, Mr. Harper, the Tribune lauds you for your efforts to destroy the penny in order to save the Canadian economy. You are a dime a dozen.

Joke

Joke Issue: Montreal’s hippest new nightclub

by Duke von Iain on

More in Joke:

When Montreal’s newest nightclub opened last Tuesday, few could have guessed just how short the guestlist would be for the grand opening. The bouncers reportedly let in zero people over the course of the day, citing a mandate to keep out all who tried to enter.

The club, ENGL 001, was opened by club promoter DESA, and runs out of a room in the Arts Building. ENGL 001 is open for a mere hour and a half on Tuesdays and Thursdays. The club caters to a younger crowd, but there were a few older faces trying to get in last week.

The tightly-run door of the club is controlled by two rather unintimidating bouncers. Both are required to wear skinny jeans and red squares at all times, and are instructed by DESA to not let anyone in. The bouncers are also encouraged to wear scarves if it’s chilly outside, as leather jackets and Canada Goose products are prohibited.

“We have a [one-strike and you’re out] mandate from DESA,” said one of the bouncers. “We’re not allowing anyone in.”

When asked if they had ever been in the club, both bouncers said they hadn’t.

“I usually don’t get up this early,” said one. “But when they offered me the chance to keep others from going too, I jumped at the opportunity.”

As no one has yet to enter the club, rumors abound as to what exactly is inside. From an entire ice palace, to a full-scale beach, complete with sand, to a simple room with chairs and desks, suggestions run wild.

“I’m sure it’s amazing,” said one hopeful attendee. “I mean, it’s gotta be if these skinny hipsters are trying to keep me out. I’m gonna get in one day.”

For now, the inside is left to speculation, as visitors are repeatedly turned away.

“I guess I’ll just go sit outside or something,” said one discouraged young woman. 

“I’m probably gonna hit up Subway,” said another.

The organizer of the party crowd instructed everyone to meet outside to “discuss their feelings about being turned away, and other things too.” She added that they would try again next week.

Joke

Joke Issue: The Crumpeteer’s Manifesto

by Sir Richard Crumpet, Truth Editor on

More in Joke:

 

People expecting this article to be a whimsical and flippant one could not be more wrong; a crumpeteer does not conform to the petty confines of a “joke issue.” Rather, this article has a serious issue to bring to light. A grave and fearful symptom of societal malaise has come to my attention; one which I, as a radical crumpeteer, must do my best to treat by any means necessary. The problem is simple and grave: many Canadians do not know their crumpets from their scones!

For far too long I lived in denial about this. I always knew something was deeply wrong; I knew there was ignorance, intolerance, and injustice-and yet I did nothing. I kidded myself into believing there was little that  one man could do to bring about the Crumpet Revolution. I doubted that I could achieve anything against supermarkets dominated by cohorts of bagels and pita breads, against a society intent on forgetting the visions of a crumpet utopia.

Everything changed last Halloween. I was dressed impeccably, but no one had the foggiest idea of what my costume was. Soon I lost my temper. I had spent a lot of time and effort creating my costume and people still could not figure out that I was, quite clearly, dressed as a “slutty crumpet.” Even when informed of what my costume was, they proceeded to make horrendously scandalous remarks, with one girl suggesting that I should have brought whipped cream. I bellowed back at her that she was thinking of scones, and  that scones were better with clotted cream anyway, not whipped cream. I went into a frenzy-hurling the DJ off his decks, killing the music with a sharp rip, declaring ferociously to all before me that whipped cream on a crumpet is about as downright barbaric as maple syrup on a hotdog. It had begun: I had found my calling as a radical crumpeteer.

Any person lucky enough to have given their taste buds the honour and the privilege of a few tender moments of contact with a morcel of crumpet-that heavenly manna in earthly form-will say, with more jurisprudence than a supreme court judge, that a crumpeteer’s profession is a noble vocation. It is quite obvious that there is a conspiracy of English-muffinists, neo-croissantites, and sliced-breadians intent on keeping crumpets down. Crumpets are always stuffed on the bottom of the back shelves, oppressed by the baguettes, persecuted by the danishes. That is the real cause of our ignorance to the capricious wonders of the crumpet. 

We must unite to crush this conspiracy,  we must boycott baguettes and even waffles, we must seek out crumpets from their dark corners and buy them. There is no excuse for any of us not to. They are tax-free, delicious, and cheap; they take only a few minutes to make; they are vegan friendly (without the butter, of course), and they can come in gluten-free variety. They really are perfect. If Brad Pitt asked a girl who had tasted a crumpet if she would like to go back to his place “for a crumpet or two,” she would be more excited about the crumpets than anything else. 

[Full disclosure: the author is the manipulative CEO of the conspiratorial international corporation, CP (Crum Petroleum)]

Opinion

Mourning the loss of Katimavik

by Alex Neville on

More in Opinion:

Canadian identity has always been elusive; like a tentative adolescent, Canada seems unable to definitively grasp a self-image that resonates. But Canada, I sympathize. At only 21, I am more than familiar with that wrenching internal tension, swinging between the desire to conform while desperately seeking my own niche. 

Luckily for me, however, I had the opportunity to step away from all of those stresses that make finding an identity so difficult. Pressure to succeed in school and choose a career path, family expectations, and the suffocating high school reputation all washed away when I stepped onto the airplane to embark on my journey with Katimavik. 

Let me digress for a moment to clarify. ‘Katimavik’ has been a bit of a buzzword in Canadian media these past few days. Axed on March 29 by the federal budget, there has been a small whirlwind of online petitions, commentary, and tweets opposing the federal government’s move. Katimavik is a federally-funded program aimed at promoting civic engagement in youth, ages 17-21. Each Katimavik group is composed of 11 youths from across the country, representing the geographic, socio-economic and ethnic diversity of Canadians. For six months, these young Canadians live and volunteer together at a variety of community development projects across the country. The federal government cut the program, citing its new austerity measures and “excessive per-person costs.” 

It has been almost two years since I completed Katimavik, and I still am still reaping the benefits of the program. In the few months I spent in Katimavik, I worked at an animal shelter, volunteered at a seniors home, helped co-ordinate other volunteers at a youth community center, and participated in a literacy program at a francophone elementary school. Beyond the actual volunteer placements, I got an education unlike any academic institution could offer. From the mundane-learning to balance a household budget-to the exceptional-managing ethnically charged inter-personal conflicts-I grew more as an individual in the few months I spent in Katimavik than in my entire high school career. Perhaps most significantly, through Katimavik, I met other Canadians whose tireless work to better their community, contagious optimism, and unconditional generosity have left an indelible impression on me, and have fundamentally shaped who I am and who I aspire to be.

Despite the success of my particular experience, and the bitterness I feel knowing that other young Canadians will not have such an incredible opportunity, this isn’t just about Katimavik. This isn’t even just about the annual budget or adversarial, partisan politics. Canada is at a pivotal moment in deciding how it wants to be perceived both internationally and by its own citizens. Beyond political rhetoric or token symbols, true Canadian values are reflected in the policies we choose. Over Katimavik’s 30-plus years of operation we have seen the tens of thousands of youth travel the country, contribute to local community development, and take the time to reflect on their values to make an informed choice about who they want to be and how they want to contribute. Canada is on the cusp of the same decision, and we need to collectively choose what kind of country we want to build. If Canadians agree that Katimavik no longer has a place in our society, I can abide by that choice. But we need to be aware that the recent decisions made by our federal government reflect more than just mundane number crunching; these are the decisions that inform who we are as Canadians. The time for tentative adolescence is past.

-Alex Neville

Opinion

The Pedneault Affair: Why motion to censure was a bad call

by on
  • Author

More in Opinion:

Last Thursday, March 29, a motion was submitted to SSMU council proposing to censure SSMU’s VP External, JoÃl Pedneault.  The motion, moved by nine council members, only narrowly failed to pass, with  a vote of 11 for, 11 against, and one abstention. 

The Tribune believes the nine movers of the motion were unwise to use the tactic of censure as a means to discipline Pedneault. A motion to censure does not exactly help to create a stable atmosphere at SSMU, and such a close result will be very unhelpful in assuaging the increasingly prevalent political polarization on campus. Had the motion passed, it would surely have had a negative effect on student politics. A censure of Pedneault would have  caused resentment from many students who believe he is doing his best to represent their interests, and would have placed a great strain on the rest of the SSMU executives.

Had such negative politics not happened before, a motion for  censure might have been more forgiveable. However, a similar motion was brought forth just last year, and to disastrous effect. The motion to impeach former SSMU President Zach Newburgh­-regardless of the motion’s legitimacy-induced an atmosphere lacking in co-operation among the executives for the remainder of the year. [Editor’s note: Zach Newburgh sits on the TPS Board of Directors.] The movers of the censure motion therefore failed to learn from past mistakes.

In addition, the motion itself was grounded on some dubious foundations. Some reasons may have been based on understandable concerns, but the use of a censure is a disproportionate and overtly public reaction to something that could have stayed more low key and constructive. Certainly, the Tribune agrees with the motion’s movers that Pedneault’s decision to allow members of the Coalition Large de l’Association pour la Solidarité Syndicale étudiante (CLASSE), the organisation behind the Quebec-wide student strike, after-hours access to the SSMU office was an inappropriate use of the VP External’s authority. We hold this view because of the fact that SSMU is neither a member of CLASSE nor on strike, and such perks should be reserved for McGill students and organizations. 

Yet some reasons were not fair and not accurate. A motion to censure is a means to sort out a constitutional technicality, a punitive measure to deal with  members of the SSMU executive inexcusably overstepping their mandate. Indeed, criticising Pedneault’s participation in the strike and his active involvement on the picket lines of other universities in Montreal is misguided. Considering the other Montreal universities are currently on strike, where else is a VP External, McGill’s liason officer with other Quebec universities, supposed to liase  with our fellow Quebec students-something that constitutes an essential part of his mandate-other than on the picket lines? Moreover, the movers are not respecting Pednault’s right as an individual to participate in the Quebec-wide student strike. As a student representative for McGill, it does make it more difficult for him to do this, but it is not incompatible for him to represent McGill interests during his day job, and his own when he is not on the clock.

Furthermore, the movers were unfair to cite the administration’s exclusion of Pedneault from the university campus for five days as a reason for censure. Surely the exclusion  is a punishment in itself. The motion is merely seeking to punish Pedneault for getting punished.

One co-author claimed that the she was satisfied with the result because the aim was partly to voice concerns. Using the possibility of punishment of a VP to facilitate a discussion is inappropriate. We would not be surprised if future executives failed to fulfill their mandates for fear that any misstep-which should be addressed privately first-may result in a censure. 

Therefore the Tribune believes that the motion to censure Pedneault was not well thought out, and was an excessively inflammatory means to sort out a problem that could have been far better solved through persuasive discretion. Had a more discrete means already been repeatedly tried to no avail, it would have been a different story, but it was also up to the motion’s movers to make this clear. As they did not, they come across as going against Pedneault  for reasons of complaints with ideology rather than the more just reason for motions, that of a technical complaint.

Opinion

Fighting for Internet freedom on two fronts

by Tara Richter Smith on

More in Opinion:

Never mind that public opposition shut down internet regulation laws SOPA and PIPA in the United States. Never mind that protestors in the European Union managed to delay the progress of their version, ACTA, through the courts so that (knowing European bureaucracy) the law may never in fact be enacted. Now it’s Canada’s turn to try to weasel punitive Internet laws through parliament that censor users  and infringe on personal privacy. Oh Harper, you sneaky one, you.

The two parliamentary bills are C-11 and C-30. While C-11 is benignly called the Copyright Modernization Act, C-30 has a catchier title: the Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act. According to Public Safety Minister’s Vic Toews, you “either stand with us or with the child pornographers.” There’s no question here about who the good guys are. Society, myself included, generally disapproves of child pornographers. According to Mr. Toews’ ultimatum, however, I will have to stand with the child pornographers on this one.

The majority of Canadians, according to an Angus Reid poll, also stand with the child pornographers, and for good reason: naming this bill the “Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act” is misleading, if not a flat-out lie. C-30, from what I understand, has less to do with cracking down on Internet predators than creating an Orwellian surveillance system. The bill includes a provision that allows the government to force Internet providers to disclose subscriber data without a warrant. These data are not simply names, addresses, and phone numbers, which the government already has. We’re talking about our email addresses, email and text message content, what websites we’ve visited, and what digital transactions like uploading and downloading we’ve made. And since global positioning systems have built-in tracking devices, police would be able to-again, without a warrant-activate these devices and find you, wherever you are, to figure out what you’re doing, whenever you’re doing it. If this isn’t Big Brother watching you, I don’t know what is.

Ironically, as this bill has been proposed by the Conservative government, the province that is offended most by warrantless citizen-stalking is Alberta, which, with its love of beef, oil, and conservatism, has always reminded me of the Canadian version of Texas. I find Alberta’s opposition to the bill comforting: if the most Conservative province in Canada does not support these acts, why is Harper’s government proposing it?

Scarily enough, if the government doesn’t pass these acts, Big Brother will still be watching us, just from a more capitalist platform. We are already user-profiled and monitored by social media giants like Google and Facebook. Google being the largest of my concerns, I recently deleted my entire account, losing Youtube and my blog in the process, only to discover that the smartphone I use for web-browsing purposes is an Android, which also belongs to Google. I comfort myself with the knowledge that Androids are composed of non-official open-source software, but the reality is that I really can’t escape Google’s clutches. They know where I am, whenever they want to.

Apparently this is for my convenience. Google has now secured a patent on a novel technology that allows them to monitor and broadcast environmental data from my phone. The idea, according to the patent document, is that if Google’s server discovers I am in the middle of Texas in summertime, I will receive a text message advertising air conditioners. If I am caught in downpour, I will be directed towards the nearest umbrella stand. If I am facing frostbite in Montreal winter, Google will kindly remind me to buy a winter coat.

Convenience, according to this example, is terrifyingly intrusive. I know mobiles can already be traced, making C-30’s provisions for citizen stalking possible, but the idea of a constant communication loop between Google’s server and my mobile as part of an advertising scheme is creepy. We have a right to privacy. We should be able to send emails without governments peeking over our shoulders and we should be able to step outside with our phones without our steps being monitored by multi-million-dollar organizations. Public opposition to similar laws shut them down in the US and the EU, and as the Conservatives put forward these bills, it’s Canada’s turn to speak up.

Opinion

McGillLeaks are not worth a legal crusade

by James Gilman on

More in Opinion:

Last month the anonymous group “McGillLeaks” published confidential documents from McGill’s office of Development and Alumni Relations. The administration has been seriously investigating the leak, even bringing in the police to help. Their response has been aggressive and effective, and the “McGillLeaks” website was quickly taken down. The university’s lawyers also sent letters to a number of individuals and media organizations, including the Daily Publication Society (which publishes the Daily and le Délit), asking them to delete any references to the leaked documents as well as to remove links to the now-defunct site.

The administration’s treatment of the DPS sparked a debate over the proper balance between an organization’s right to protect its privacy and the media’s freedom to publish stories dealing with leaked information. The DPS argues that since the Daily was not involved in stealing the confidential information, they aren’t legally prohibited from publishing stories on the documents once they’re made public.

The question of whether media outlets are allowed to use this information, even though it was made public illegally, could have been settled in the courts. Unfortunately, the DPS simply wouldn’t be able to sustain a lengthy legal battle with McGill. The DPS might have a case, but the courts have generally looked at these sorts of “media freedom” issues on a case-by-case basis.

The common sense, and hopefully the legal, standard for these cases is whether stories based on leaked documents contribute valuable information to the public. For example, if a government or organization is engaged in illegal behaviour, then reporting using illegally leaked information can be justified, and both media organizations and whistleblowers should be legally protected. However, publishing stories based on stolen information simply for the sake of transparency, without any greater purpose, is not justified and, preferably, editors would keep such stories out.

The “McGillLeaks” case seems to be the latter. The leaked documents contained mainly personal information about donors. Some may argue that we all have the right to know this information. We don’t. They may also argue that the “McGillLeaks” documents reveal unethical behaviour by the university, and therefore reporting on them is justified. I don’t agree with this, and McGill certainly doesn’t. But, ideally, a court would decide who is right.

However, the Daily decided to comply with some of McGill’s demands by removing links to the “McGillLeaks” site and refraining from publishing material on the content of the documents. This was the right call. The “McGillLeaks” information just isn’t worth it. There wasn’t anything shocking or overly contentious in there. This may be a matter of principle for the DPS, and it would be interesting to see how much freedom media outlets have to publish stories based on illegally obtained information, but they would be foolish to risk so much in this case.

Of course, the worst that should happen to the DPS is that they are forced to remove any stories on “McGillLeaks.” The Daily did not steal the documents, and we’re only talking about whether they have the right to publish stories based on them only once they’ve been made public. Whoever leaked or stole these documents is the real culprit here, and hopefully McGill’s investigation will identify them. The content of the documents did not justify making them public, and whoever is responsible is not a heroic whistleblower, just a thief. 

Opinion

U.S. university applications process is far from ideal

by Noah Caldwell-Raffery on

More in Opinion:

Four years ago I sat down in my living room with a middle-aged woman who upon first impressions seemed kind and respectful. It was my Yale entrance interview.  Palms sweaty and nerves high, I plodded through the first 25 minutes before she stopped me and said, “You’re not being very articulate, you know.”  Needless to say, I didn’t get in.  I’m not telling this anecdote just to humiliate myself.  Rather, the comment serves to display the contrast between the student-university relationship in America and Canada-and the differences in what each side of the relationship expects from the other.  

Differences can be seen almost immediately as the relationship is formed.  The American entrance process has 17-year-olds shaking in their boots for the better part of a year.  It is cause for momentous celebration when in late December the last of the “Submit” buttons are clicked. The litany of requirements for just one application can amount to three to five essays, an interview, recommendations from teachers, and letters from guidance counselors (on top of the SATs, SAT IIs, ACTs, and APs).  

Not so for McGill.  Yes, the test scores are needed, but that was about it.  If your GPA is good, welcome!  And yet, the calibre of students at McGill is as high or higher than any American school, and McGill continues to produce some of the finest minds in North America. This, then, begs the question, how arbitrary is the rigorous dog and pony show that has become American college admissions? And what is McGill doing right in their expectations of young aspiring academics?

The answer to these questions explains my nightmare of an Ivy League interview and highlights the benefits of the unique university-student relationship which McGill has created. The McGill model assumes the student is an untapped reserve. Their admissions process is an instigation of this model, a beckoning which is underpinned by the presumption that academic aspiration is brimming from every pore. A sense of responsibility is instilled in the creation of this relationship, which is not incumbent upon the doctored presentation of a jaw-dropping second coming of Christ, nor is it decided through a nervous hour of chit-chat. Rather, the gumption behind such a student is assumed, placing full control and responsibility into the hands of the student once admitted.

Of course, there is nothing wrong with being thorough. American universities are the best in the world because of nit-picking. However, instilling responsibility and being given a token of trust, as McGill does, goes a lot further than telling an aspiring academic that life is about a never-ending demonstration of perfection, a beauty pageant from which we cannot run. It is this kind of attitude which breads pressure and anxiety-and which prompted 20 Long Island students to pay others to take their SATs for them, effectively ending their academic credibility before it got off the ground.

Despite what it looks like, this isn’t retribution for the smug interviewer’s comments. Rather, this column should serve to remind us all of the unique power bestowed upon us by McGill, where we’re treated as masters of our own destiny. There is an unprecedented amount of animosity toward the administration right now; as well-placed as such criticism may be, let’s not allow it to subsume the bigger picture. Of all places, we’re lucky to be here.

Joke

Joke Issue: The Grand Coverup of Canadian Cricket

by Sir Richard Crumpet on

More in Joke:

bp.blogspot.com

The mention of Namibia does not seem to be generating the intense excitement I expected. When I ask Canadians whether they are looking forward to Canada Cricket’s international tour to Namibia this week, I am not getting a euphoric fist-pump of a yes in reply; instead, they tend to look puzzled and shake their heads, often confiding that they did not know Canada had a cricket team, and occasionally pointing out that they did not actually know where Namibia is. I concluded that most Canadians did not care about the valiant exploits of their cricket team, let alone what cricket even is. What a damn shame.

Yet one friend I asked did not conform to this rule. He responded that he was very excited for Namibia. But then a strange thing happened: he caught himself like an actor delivering the wrong line of a script, and he attempted, with eyes shifting from side to side and with his face reddening, to say that he did not know anything about Namibia. Two men in suits and dark glasses came out of nowhere, and hurried over to where we were sitting. They claimed to be the uncles of my friend and quickly escorted him away.

I smelled a rat. The investigative journalist in me knew exactly what was going on here-a national cover up of Canadian cricket, And the investigative journalist in me would not stop until I had discovered why.

Trawling through the Canadian National Archives, I found some evidence which only added to the mystery of cricket’s low profile in Canada: first, Canada  actually played the world’s first international cricket match in 1844, began over 30 years before the Ashes, the now-famous Test Cricket matchup between England and Australia; second, in 1867 cricket was named as the national sport of Canada by prime minister John A. Macdonald; third, Canada actually beat Australia, one of the world’s best teams at the time, as recently as 1974. At this point, a sinister-looking archivist interrupted my research, warning that if I did not leave right away, “there would be trouble.” 

Further research was hard to come by. I was trailed by men in suits, my apartment was searched, and my phone was tapped. Eventually I stumbled on the crucial information that put the jigsaw into place: Canada has won two cricket matches in World Cup history, one against Bangladesh in 2003, one against Kenya in 2011. However, the strange thing was, it almost seemed as if the other matches they played were close, but they underperformed. Suddenly it seemed obvious-Canadian cricket is part of a conspiracy for world cup domination. They are deliberately covering up their cricketing credentials by underplaying,  allowing Canada to take the world by storm over the next few years, catching each team in their complacency, and sending Canada on in a glorious and unstoppable waltz to a World Cup triumph in 2015. 

So be warned, world. Cricket Canada is planning global dominance, and it will all begin in Namibia.

[Full disclosure: the author is a failed investigative journalist, desperate for any sort of publicity]

1 … 1,125 1,126 1,127 1,128 1,129 … 1,367

Read the latest issue

Read the latest issue