Letters, Dec. 3
Poor coverage on poor coverage
Re: “Canada’s forgotten war” (Opinions, Nov. 26)
LAST WEEK’S OPINION piece on Afghanistan was a low point for the Fulcrum. It was based purely on rhetoric, stated many falsities, and provided laughable support for its purported argument. The piece began with an irrelevant, unsubstantiated claim that “little has been done” to find Osama Bin Laden. True, he has not been found, but that does not mean no one is looking for him. The article then completely changes focus to argue that we should pull out of Afghanistan for the “one very basic reason” that, allegedly, no one remembers what we are fighting for. Ignoring the outrageous premise that major foreign policy decisions should be decided based on single “basic” reasons, the claim that “no one really remembers” the war in Afghanistan is patently false.
Mr. Steinbach supports his claim by arguing that, because we as a society have not mobilized entirely for war, it must therefore be the case that no one remembers we’re at war. This premise is clearly invalid—what is the author proposing we do? Most people do not personally know a soldier who has fought in Afghanistan, because we have a limited number of troops there. Is Mr. Steinbach suggesting an increase in our troop contributions so that the Canadian public can all know a soldier? I am careful not to make a straw man out of Mr. Steinbach’s arguments, but I simply cannot see how these claims support his argument that no one really remembers this war.
The last premise in itself is a worthy argument and should have been further explored as the topic of the article. However, the author does not address the issue directly. Instead, he vaguely dances around the point, detracting from his argument by making vague assertions about “other wars.” It is correct that the news coverage of the war in Afghanistan is inadequate. There are many causes for this, such as Canadian news corporations not willing to pay the expensive insurance required to send their reporters outside the wire to really get the stories. Yet, none of these issues were addressed by Mr. Steinbach. Rather, reading his opinion article, one cannot help but point out the obvious irony in a newspaper decrying the lack of newspaper coverage given to Afghanistan.
The article ran 500 words and communicated nothing. It presented a ludicrous argument, based on rhetoric and incorrect facts, and was an embarrassing article for a newspaper which is targeted to university students. The Fulcrum could have better used this space to run a worthwhile opinion piece on the war, from either perspective. Although a Canadian University Press article, the Fulcrum should hold itself to a higher standard.
Brian Kells, Third-year international development student
An open letter opposing the newly formed “Les Bloquistes de l’Université d’Ottawa”
LAST WEEK, THE Student Federation of the University of Ottawa approved the first-ever Bloc Québécois club (“Les Bloquistes de l’Université d’Ottawa”) outside of Quebec. As a proud Canadian and a proud student of the University of Ottawa, I find this appalling. For all those Section 2-ers out there, I’m not against repressing the thoughts or beliefs of anyone—people are free to hold and discuss their own beliefs. However, I’m against having our Student Federation sponsor and fund (for up to $1,000) a separatist movement that is non-existent in the province of Ontario, where our school is located. Despite the university’s laudable French-speaking and Quebecer population, it makes no sense for the Student Federation to recognize a club that advocates the break-up of our country—as club president Jean-Francois Landry stated, “Now we can organize conferences to promote the Bloc Québécois’ ideas and the sovereigntist movement.” Why should such conferences take place outside of the province—the only province—where the Bloc Québécois works and exists? It’s not the same to argue that the NDP, Conservative, or Green parties all have similar clubs (the Liberals are the sole party that does not at the U of O)—national parties represent national interests, and as such are universal in Canada.
The Bloc is representative of a single province, and as such there are no grounds for a Bloc Québécois club outside of the province of Quebec. To meet, to fundraise and to promote the Bloc in Ontario is wrong; even the Bloc would admit that, and they do by centring their platform and party mandate around the province of Quebec, not the nation of Canada. The Bloc believes that they represent Quebec’s voice, and as such should remain in Quebec. As for the head of this club, Mr. Landry, he describes himself as a foreign student; so I’m sure, as Andrew Coyne joked in Maclean’s magazine, that he would not be opposed to paying the same fees as a foreign student?
Despite the club’s rights to their own beliefs, I still think it is deeply saddening that at a school whose president spent his entire political career advocating and fighting for national unity, and that bills itself as “Canada’s University” would grant recognition to a club advocating the lone political party of substance attempting to destroy that unity.
Ryan Mallough, Third-year political science student
The injustice of $0.35 wing night
IN ADDITION TO its addictively cheap breakfast special, Fathers & Sons offers a lesson in injustice Monday nights after 7 p.m. Cheap wing nights (with the purchase of a beverage) are a standard pub offer at local hangouts like Urban Well or the ever-popular Father & Sons. Although I myself enjoy any good deal and even went to an Ottawa 67’s game to prove it, I will not be back to $0.35 wing night. The lacklustre service, ever-changing “on tap” roster and tables that can’t stand up straight wasn’t even the beginning of it. As I and some wing-loving friends chose our respective flavours and numbers we were making a deadly mistake. Not only was a chicken somewhere lying in pieces, under-compensated for his untimely death, but we couldn’t take home our leftovers! No can do! The lovely, obliging server will not give you an environmentally irresponsible Styrofoam container in which to cart home your extra wings for a late night snack or lunch the next day. I gave my remaining wings up but my friend sat there and ate through her entire pile of then-cold honey garlic wings. What sort of institution will not let you take home food that you have paid for—individually, I might add. So if I return to F&S for wings, I will do so either with my Tupperware or simply ordering one wing at a time until I’m fully satisfied. Because even though it’s a great deal, I’m a student, and every $0.35 counts!
Rebecca Murray, Fourth-year history and economics student
We are the problem
MONDAY, DEC. 7 marks the first day of COP15, the United Nations Conference on Climate Change in Denmark. The lead up to the conference has been followed for months and we will now witness the action plan of the international community to combat climate change.
But where does Canada stand going into these negotiations? Unfortunately, we are blocking any sustainable or progressive change. Journalist and environmentalist George Monbiot recently stated, in reference to Canada, that “this thuggish petro-state is today the greatest obstacle to a deal at Copenhagen.” This type of critical journalism fills a void in the Canadian press, where journalists are not willing to speak critically of industry or the government, particularly surrounding environmental policies and practices.
Youth and adults alike have the responsibility to act in the interest of future generations. I know that this is a re-hashed argument and one that’s not sexy or fun to embrace, but we have a problem, Canada; and we need to stop denying it. The current paradigm of “sustainable development” is ambiguous and far too malleable. Companies, governments, and individuals reformat this term to suit their personal and economic needs in hopes that it might have some type of environmental benefit to ease their conscience.
As we enter a new decade, we need to focus on the ecological constraints that are predefined by the biosphere, not our greed and desire for continuous economic growth. We simply cannot continue to follow this path of destruction; we need ambitious climate targets to be signed by the international community.
Before you throw my arguments aside, consider a project such as the tar sands from more than just a climate change perspective—but one of climate justice. Even if you disagree with the science behind climate change, consider the human aspect of these issues. Humans’ lives are affected on a daily basis thanks to our greed and desire for growth and consumption.
Why should the populations that did the least to contribute to a problem have to fix it? As we enter COP15, ask yourself—at what point will you be willing to make a change? At what point will we truly, equally value all human lives?
This issue requires the attention of all global citizens and organizations. If not, who are the true eco-terrorists? The ones standing up for a better future, or the complacent ones promoting their economic self interest?
Cam Gray, Third-year international development and globalization student
“Peak everything”
THE FORMER MEDIA mogul Ted Turner challenged us in 1992 with this statement: “If we don’t make the right choices after we have all the information, then we don’t deserve to live.”
Well, we have more than enough information. Oil and gas, the stored sun’s energy, which took hundreds of millions of years to incubate, gone forever within this century. We are, in fact, approaching “peak everything.”
Our planet will be around for millions of years—what gives us the right to dig out the last of the non-renewable resources and destroy the environment in the process? And now, nations are posturing to exploit the Arctic resources, just because they’re there?
The oceans, where life began, are fished out and used as convenient sewers, and ocean bottoms are scraped clean of all living things, with no thought given to future generations. This is just a fraction of what is ailing our world.
The never-ending pro-and-con arguments about global warming or climate change, whether man- or sun-made, or even true, must look really ridiculous when intelligently viewed from a cosmic-time perspective and the future. Eliminating needless competition and non-life-producing jobs and businesses without anybody suffering could cut resource and electricity demand and greenhouse gases drastically, and nature will take care of itself. We need a co-operative, participatory, shared-leisure society, where everybody’s needs are supplied, as our planet requires for its health and survival privileged-educated-understanding and caring inhabitants.
How did it ever come about that the farmers, workers, educators, etc. who nobody could live without have to go begging for a living wage while the financial and related paper shuffling institutions, who produce little of real value to society, are laughing all the way to the bank? Money is a debt token, a demand for goods and services—which, of course, costs resources and generates pollution. How, then, can someone in good conscience demand more than a fair share from our dwindling resources?
Perhaps any person who wants to be a leader in academia, business, or politics should live and lead by example, with a new global ethic: “ Do not expect others to live with less than what you’re living with.”
Our planet is but a speck in the cosmos, but it’s unique and perhaps the only planet in our galaxy that harbours life as we know it. I refrain from saying “intelligent life,” because the wanton destruction of our beautiful world through stupidity, greed, and senseless wars, and letting over 26,000 children die of starvation every day is a crime that must reverberate throughout the universe.
Instead of getting distressed over a puck or a ball from thousands of miles away, or whether Dumbledore is gay, we ought to get excited about the source of life—the big ball we’re living on!
Gunther Ostermann, From Kelowna, B.C.
