The Olympic games are a time when talented athletes from all around the world can get together to represent and show their support for their country. It’s a time where a country unites and supports their athletes. Being chosen to represent your country out of hundreds of athletes in the Olympics is a very prestigious honour and reward for all the hard work they put into their careers over countless years.
NHL players deserve the same kind of recognition, yet the NHL is contemplating whether or not they should ban them from participating in the upcoming 2014 Sochi Olympic games due to many logistical issues that have yet to be resolved. The Olympics are a celebration of the best athletes from around the world, where they can represent and compete for their countries and make them proud. The NHL should not be allowed to decide whether or not these athletes get to participate.
According to The Canadian Press, the NHL is after “some things that currently are reserved for broadcast rights holders,” like use of video highlights the Olympic rings symbol. The NHL is also asking for better accommodations, tickets and access for team doctors. An article published in The New York Times stated that “after losing three months of revenue during a lockout, NHL owners may be even more reluctant to forgo two weeks of revenue in 2013-14.”
I do agree that they are a money-making business, therefore they should get some insurance if one of their key players gets hurt, but the rest seems too greedy. The Olympics are struggling as it is, therefore they are very protective of their broadcasting rights and logos.
The Olympics represent the unity of five continents — Africa, America, Asia, Europe and Oceania, as portrayed by the rings on the Olympic flag — as well as a time for all countries to come together. I think It should be the NHL’s obligation to let their athletes participate. The NHL is a powerhouse and can afford to lose 16 days of revenue every four years because it’s not going to break them. As a matter of fact, it will probably bring them more revenue and greater promotion because, as the Times stated, “The Vancouver games in 2010 produced record ratings for hockey and provided a public relations boost for the NHL.”
The organization is already in trouble with fans over this year’s lockout and they would be even more disappointed with the league if they forbid players from going. Hockey superstar Alexander Ovechkin made a vow that he would attend the Olympics and support his country regardless of the NHL’s decision.
Clearly players want to support their home nation and fans want to see them do it. NHL players should get treated no differently from any other athletes and should be able to make their own decisions regarding their participation in the Olympic games. They worked hard to get to where they are today and should not be denied the opportunity to show off a little.
Sunday, Jan. 13, marked the one-year anniversary of Costa Concordia, the almost 300-metre long cruise ship, sinking near Isola del Giglio (Giglio Island), killing 32 of the 4200 passengers and crew.
The commemorations began after dawn with a mass headed by the local Bishop, followed by an honouring of the rescue teams, the unveiling of a memorial for the 32 deceased, an evening concert and finally, a minute of silence. All were present at the ceremony except for the survivors, who were told not to come to the event in a letter sent out by the ship’s owner.
The excuse for the decision was that the family members of the deceased needed privacy to mourn. However, I believe survivors should have had the opportunity to attend the one-year anniversary. They faced this traumatic incident along with the deceased and need to go back and face the past in order to get closure.
According to the National Post, who interviewed the survivors, many are still suffering from trauma to the point where some cannot live their lives normally.
“[Survivor] Urru, her husband and two sons haven’t left their home island of Sardinia in the year since the grounding: They’re still so terrified of boats that they won’t go near the ferry that connects Sardinia to mainland Italy.”
Members of the Ananias family reportedly feel guilty and wonder why they survived instead of the other family they met on the ship. Going back to the island on the anniversary would have been a good way for all of these survivors to get closure and make peace with the disaster that unfolded before them.
I understand that the families of the deceased wish to mourn, but the solution is a simple one: the organizers could have had the ceremony for them an hour before the official commemorations began. Another excuse given was that the island could not possibly hold all those people. However, as the National Post stated, the survivors spent the night in a church on the island the night of the terrible shipwreck, which means that if they fit there once, they can do it again. I think the real reason why survivors were refused on the island during the anniversary was to avoid bad publicity for the ship’s company seeing as there would be a film crew there interviewing all who came to the ceremony.
Denying the survivors the right to go to the commemoration was a bad decision—they can’t get the closure that some of them so desperately need. Instead of encouraging them to face the past, they were encouraged to hide away at home.
This was a moment that all the people affected will remember for the rest of their lives and everyone should have been invited to pay their respects.
The government of Canada has forgotten about Alzheimer patients. Institutions that care for seniors with some form of dementia appear to be those who receive the least attention when it comes to funding and support. If greater financial assistance were given to these institutions, tragic incidents like Frank Alexander’s death in 2011, caused by frightened Alzheimer’s patient Joe McLeod in an elder care facility in Manitoba, would not occur.
According to the National Post, McLeod was not found criminally responsible for the death. His condition causes him to suffer from occasional violent outbursts of anger due to confusion. He does not remember these episodes. Prior to being put into a home, McLeod lived with his wife. After several violent outbursts, the man was put into prison for a month awaiting a hearing. Is this really how we treat our Alzheimer’s patients in Canada?
These situations are not rare and they are not going away. According to the Alzheimer Society of Toronto, “within a generation, the number of Canadians with Alzheimer’s disease or a related dementia will more than double, ranging between 1 and 1.3 million people.”
Many with the disease have anger episodes due to the frustration of being constantly confused. Unfortunately, elder care facilities lack the proper training and funding to be able to take care of each patient based on their own specific needs, and jail is certainly not a suitable option either.
My grandmother has Alzheimer’s and I would certainly not feel comfortable with a man with a condition similar to McLeod’s staying at her care facility. However, I don’t think he should have been thrown into a jail either. The solution to the problem is for the government to stop clumping all Alzheimer patients into one category. Everyone has certain levels of the disease, some more severe than others, and everyone acts out in different ways. Each patient should be separated within the care facility, or there should be specialized facilities for each particular level of Alzheimer’s.
The Alzheimer Society of Canada says that “quality of life for people with dementia is largely dependent on their connection with others. Maintaining a relationship can be a complex and challenging process, especially when verbal communication is affected.”
Patients need different levels of care and I don’t think nurses are equipped or trained properly to handle each different scenario. This is going to cause a real problem, since the next generation is aging and are going to be in this situation as well.
Soon to be overcrowded care facilities may have to double up or triple up rooms in order to accept all patients, which can pose a serious threat if someone acts out just as McLeod did. Furthermore, as the National Post pointed out in an editorial published Jan. 4, if care institutions become too overcrowded, Alzheimer patients may be forced to go home with their families, which can be extremely costly, let alone worrisome. The Alzheimer Society of Toronto notes that “the impact of Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias engulfs whole families, and affects far more than the half a million people living with the disease.”
It is time to pay greater attention to Alzheimer institutions and help support them so we can take better care of patients. Alzheimer’s is rated second as the disease that is most feared among aging Canadian, and we need to make Alzheimer’s patients a bigger priority in the near future.
Joan Coull may have just become a dog’s worst enemy on November 27, when she wrote an article published in The Gazette ranting about why she would not want to adopt a pet from the SPCA.
For those who don’t know, this organization rescues animals who are unwanted or abandoned by previous owners. It takes a certain kind of person to be willing to take in one of these creatures and it seems to me Coull just wasn’t up to the challenge.
In my opinion, putting the SPCA down and implying that someone should not to purchase a pet from the organization is like telling them not to adopt a child from an adoption agency because one of the kids might have a learning disability or emotional issues that came from their previous guardians. It is unacceptable and morally wrong. I believe it is our responsibility to take care of animals in need just as much as it is our responsibility to take care of any other living thing in society.
I understand what she is getting at when she says “I defend my right to know what kind of animal I am bringing into my family.” However, there are many volunteers at the SPCA who can help potential owners find the right dog to suit their lifestyle and the needs of their family. Furthermore, if the animal of choice does not work out, the SPCA always has return policies and guarantees. As Nicholas Gilman, executive director of the Montreal SPCA, stated in his response to Coull’s article, “we can guarantee that each animal with pre-existing medical issues is covered by our 30-day health guarantee. We do allow animals that have untenable behaviour issues to be returned to us.”
There are also many animal professionals out there, from veterinarians to dog trainers, who can help with certain health and behavioral issues. Coull claimed that a friend’s dog, who was also purchased at the SPCA, would not stop peeing, her son’s dog used to fight other males and her daughter’s had to be kept in a cage in the garage for most of his life because he used to snap at her kids. Nowhere in her article did she mention that they actually sought out professional help for their dogs. It seems to me they were too lazy to properly train their pets, so they cruelly shoved them in cages or sent them back to where they came from to be put down instead of actually dealing with the issues at hand.
I have a lot of respect for the Montreal SPCA and I don’t think they would allow an animal with permanent issues to be adopted.
“We evaluate each and every dog placed for adoption for temperament, behaviour and medical issues,” said Gilman.
I strongly believe that these poor animals could have integrated better with their new adoptive owners if proper measures had been taken. If you are not willing to put the time and effort in to properly healing and training your dog, then do not bother getting one.
What makes me angry is that Coull has reportedly bred puppies twice. If she is not a certified breeder, she has no business bringing puppies into the world. Who is to say that her puppies won’t end up with behavioral or health issues as well, like the others dogs, and will end up in the SPCA some day.
While Coull claims that she is “tired of hearing what a terrible person [she is] from holier-than-thou, self-proclaimed animal lovers.”
Well I’ve got news for you; I am not one of those animal lovers, but even I can agree that they are better off if potential owners adopt from the SPCA rather than buying from pet stores, indirectly supporting puppy mills or uncertified breeders. Those creatures have been abandoned and they need to be taken care of by pet owners who will go the extra mile for them. Honestly, if Coull isn’t an animal lover herself, she doesn’t deserve to take care of one.
Former Central Intelligence Agency director David Petraeus. Image via Flickr.
On Nov. 9, 2012, Central Intelligence Agency director David Petraeus resigned from his position after the Federal Bureau of Investigation exposed an extramarital affair he was having with writer and biographer Paula Broadwell.
Some would say the punishment for his actions was fair because his character and leadership skills can no longer be trusted, and the reputation of the organization must be upheld. But what gives people the right to probe into a man’s private life, expose it to the public, allow this event alone define him and then force him to resign?
A man’s personal feelings are his own private business. Some disagree, saying that his morals and leadership ability is everyone’s business. However, I say that we are all human, we all make mistakes, and no leader is without flaws. Petraeus has no previous reputation of being a womanizer, liar or a cheater, therefore one affair should not affect his credibility, especially if we do not know the circumstances of his situation. I am in no way, shape or form condoning what he has done to his marriage, but at the same time I do not believe a leader should be deemed immoral and incompetent simply because he has fallen for two women.
Glenn Rowe, strategic leadership teacher at the Richard Ivey School of Business at the University of Western Ontario, told CBC that “in today’s world, we’re looking for people of character to be leaders.” This statement is certainly true for a man or woman who is the leader of a country, a religious group, or any other organization that is in need of a guide who can bring hope and high moral standards to a population.
In the case of the CIA, their primary task is intelligence gathering, which has nothing to do with leading people outside of the organization. Petraeus has a PhD and has served in the U.S military his whole life and was deemed the most prominent military man post-9/11. If he is the best candidate for the job and does it effectively, then his private life should not be a factor in deciding whether he retains his position or not, especially if his private life has nothing to do with it.
If a leader of an organization has not led the institution astray, I do not think they should immediately lose their job over a scandal that has nothing to do with their job. Even leaders make mistakes, and when they do, it does not mean that they should automatically be classified as morally compromised.
I can think of countless examples of leaders in the past with much higher positions than Petraeus who have embarrassed themselves publically or been part of a sex scandal, and still kept their jobs. Petraeus has proved himself to be competent, and therefore should be re-instated as the head of the CIA.
There are some films that are so influential they will be engrained in film culture for years and years to come. There are some stories that are so appealing that they are rendered classics almost immediately. Star Wars is one of those films. Alas, the question we ask is this: Disney has bought the the rights to the series for a pretty penny, but should more Star Wars movies be made? Here’s a breakdown of the pros and cons.
PRO: Why fans should rejoice
by Jenna Cocullo
I sense a disturbance in the force; Disney Studios has bought LucasFilm for $4.05 billion with the intention of making three brand new films. Some fans were upset with the news. However, there is no reason to fret and here are four reasons why.
1. Once you hit rock bottom the only way to go is up.
Let’s face it, Star Wars episodes I to III were not exactly the most satisfying films. Matthew Hays, critic and film studies professor at Concordia University, agrees.
“The first Star Wars film was a lot of fun, and was very creative and new. The next two weren’t as good. The next three, the prequels, were generally quite rotten.”
The good news? Well it seems that it cannot get any more rotten as anything could be better than the last three films to hit theaters.
“I think a new sequel could be fun, and it couldn’t be much worse than the last few,” said Hays.
Disney is starting off favourably since expectations will be very low for any new Star Wars movies because the last few disappointed so intensely.
2. It’s Disney!
Besides supposedly putting subliminal messages in our beloved childhood films, have they ever really done anything bad? They are responsible for this summer’s greatest blockbuster, The Avengers, recent favourites like Pirates of the Caribbean and creating childhood classics such as the epic Toy Story trilogy. It is safe to say that the Star Wars legacy will be in good hands.
3. A fresh new storyline with a fresh new perspective
Had Disney decided to reboot the films, that would have been a problem (even though it would be kind of cool to see what they would look like in the 21st century).
“I like the idea of creating new storylines and not rebooting the old films,” explained Hays. “There are too many reboots going on right now, it just feels like so much recycling.”
Fortunately, that is not the case. New story lines are in the making — ones which do not involve the original cast at all. The fact that George Lucas is not the one producing them is even better because Disney can provide a new take on the films.
4. A classic movie is immortal Star Wars will live on with the making of three new movies. Of course, they will never be as good as the originals, nothing ever leaves an impression like the first, but that is no reason to stop the legacy. Many enthusiasts have expressed their feelings of joy on Internet forums discussing the topic. They feel that they can relive a great part of their childhood. At the end of the day, a franchise so many love is coming back to the big screen. If it sucks, so what? The originals will always be there. So for any doubtful people out there, my advice to you would be to just sit back, relax, and enjoy the show.
CON: Don’t mess with a good thing
by Christina Rowan
Disney making three more Star Wars films instead of Lucasfilm is the equivalent of a modern day artist adding onto to Michelangelo’s oeuvre in the Sistine Chapel. What’s done is done!
From here on out, the legacy of George Lucas’ cinematic ventures runs the risk of being credited to Disney, which initially, had nothing to do with it.
Lucas will remain a consultant to the Star Wars franchise. However, Disney ultimately holds the cards, allowing them to take directions Lucas wouldn’t if it were solely up to him.
Lucas was clearly in no need of financial aid. He has made beyond what is considered a fortune on his franchise — an estimated $27 billion, through the films, television shows, action figures, video games, board games, you name it — yet still sold to mass film corporation Disney.
Since the sale, the announcement of three new possible Star Wars films has become public, but what more can Disney add to the story?
Everyone is already familiar with the the intergalactic empire, life-threatening lightsaber battles, epic pod races and the ultimate fight between good and evil. We’ve seen what happens from beginning to end to Luke, Princess Leia, and their villainous father, Darth Vader. Even the Emperor fell to his doom in Star Wars VI: Return of the Jedi.
So, is the production of three more Star Wars movies really necessary? Three new films may only tarnish the glory it possesses.
The entertainment business today seems to be popping out the same types of movies all the time, most recently, superhero films like Batman, Iron Man, and Spider-Man. They’ve been recycled and updated with clearer graphics, bigger explosions and louder sound effects. It’s becoming a little repetitive, when you think about it.
For Star Wars fans who were disappointed with the prequel films released since 1999, it will only be more of the same disappointment with three Disney-made Star Wars films.
Lucas said in an interview with IGN that when he made the first Star Wars installments back in the 1970s, everybody in Hollywood said it was a movie Disney should have made. He didn’t give in then so why now? In the end, Lucas made some of the greatest movies of all time. Can Disney really live up to that reputation? I don’t think so.
I’m sure the new movies will be enormous box office hits, action-packed blockbusters. They might even be great films in themselves, but we should be looking to new ideas, not revamping old ones.
Despite all the excitement and all the hype, the classics will always be the innovative, new world brought to life by George Lucas, and no remake or newer movie can live up to that.
Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. After Concordia University’s administrators spent $2.4 million buying out two former presidents and five other senior administrators, many students feel that they have lost confidence in the institution.
“Once was a mistake, but twice is too much,” said Concordia student Ryan Chyzensky. “What really upsets me about the situation is how the students [were] fighting against tuition hikes and there was our governance just blowing our money on payouts because they couldn’t get organized.”
In 2007 former president Claude Lajeunesse received a $1.4 million buyout, and three years later ex-president Judith Woodsworth received a severance pay of $703,500 to leave. According to James Bradshaw of The Globe and Mail, this resulted in “an imbalance of power in the senior ranks and a culture of mistrust, and a $2-million fine from Quebec’s government as punishment for being too generous in doling out severance to some departing administrators.”
Needless to say things were looking grim for Concordia.
However, despite all this doom and gloom, things are looking up for Concordia under the reign of new President Alan Shepard. Many students who were interviewed expressed feelings of hope toward the new leadership and some students never even saw a problem to begin with.
“If they wanted someone out that bad it’s obviously because they [were] not doing a good job and in the end it’s better to just hire someone else altogether,” said John Molson School of Business student Vanessa D’Amico.
Those students who did see an issue with Concordia’s past mistakes say that the University is slowly coming into a new era, shedding all the baggage that preceded it. The Gazette has called this new era a “culture of respect and hope” for the university.
It is still too premature to say that Concordia has suddenly shifted to a “culture of respect.” Maria Peluso, president of the Concordia University Part-Time Faculty Association told The Gazette in an interview that “a culture takes years to develop and years to dismantle.”
Many students are finding themselves somewhere between contempt and respect. They find themselves in a transitional culture of hope. Shepard’s first weeks at Concordia have been without any major hiccups so far. He’s managed to renew the dialogue with students, faculty and staff and connected with the external community that supports the university.
“After two costly mistakes, a penalty fee, a disappointed faculty and students and some recommendations from the External Governance Committee, I think Concordia has finally got the message and are starting to learn from their mistakes,” added Chyzensky. “But that does not mean that I am ready to start trusting them with my money and important decisions again.”
While there is definitely a more positive vibe on campus, Concordia’s governance still has to prove that they are learning from their mistakes and can be trusted. For now it appears that Concordia University’s governance has been put on academic probation.
