Categories
Opinions

An affordable shot at a healthy and protected season

Photo from militaryhealth on Flickr

Fever, sore throat,headaches, muscle aches, congestion, and a cough? Why not throw in some vomiting and diarrhea to top it off. In case you’re wondering what horrible illness causes these symptoms, it’s the flu.Thankfully, a vaccine is readily available to protect us from this unpleasant and potentially deadly virus. As a busy student with no time to waste on being sick, I was one of the first in line to receive it at my local pharmacy back in early November.

Over the past week, health officials have noted an increase of a particularly virulent form of the flu, known as H1N1. In fact, CBC reported that 90 per cent of this year’s flu cases in Quebec have been caused by H1N1, which translates into 960 cases, 300 of which required hospitalization. Furthermore, Global News reported the deaths of one Quebecer, two Torontonians, two Nova Scotians, and ten Albertans.

Perhaps most alarming is that H1N1 is often found in individuals under 25 years of age and causes particularly severe symptoms and complications, such as rapidly-progressing and life-threatening pneumonia. According to the World Health Organization, when compared to the seasonal flu, a higher number of H1N1 deaths occurred in previously healthy individuals.

Gabriella Szabo, a Health Promotion Specialist at Concordia University Health Services, believes that the flu vaccination is a good idea for Concordia students.

“University students are particularly at risk to catch H1N1 because they are in close and constant contact with each other, whether in class, in the elevators, or in the metro,” she said.

Getting the flu shot also helps students avoid missing classes and being forced to play catch up while keeping up with new material.

“With the flu, you’re likely to be in bed for a week, followed by lingering fatigue for two to three weeks. This is enough to force a student to drop all their classes for the semester,” Szabo said.

Immunization is also a question of social responsibility towards people who are especially vulnerable,  such as the young or elderly, as well as some classmates. This is where the idea of herd immunity plays a role; getting vaccinated in order to prevent an outbreak or spread of a virus that can affect those who are more susceptible to illness.

“We have students battling various health conditions such as cancer or HIV, making them especially at risk to catch the flu and to suffer serious complications from it; our duty is to minimize their risk of exposure,” Szabo said.

While Szabo acknowledged that the vaccine is not 100 per cent effective, she pointed out that it is meant to fill in the gaps left by the absence of good hygiene practices, such as frequent hand-washing.  However, in the event that a vaccinated individual catches the flu, their stronger immune response will result in milder symptoms and a lower risk of complications.

“It’s not too late to get the shot, as the peak of the flu season hasn’t arrived yet.  Students can call us starting Jan. 22 to book an appointment, or they can call their local CLSC anytime,” Szabo said.

The vaccine is free for people who are deemed at risk due to age or health status, as well as for those in close contact with them.  For students who do not fit in any of these categories, the Concordia Health and Dental Plan covers 80 per cent of the cost of the shot ($20 at Concordia Health Services.)

When considering the potentially disastrous consequences of this not-so-benign illness, it is safe to say that the $4 copay is change well spent.

Categories
News

Debate: is it time to legalize it?

Image via Flickr

Student representatives from the Conservatives, New Democratic Party, Liberals and Green Party debated the hot topic of legalization of marijuana in Canada at a Concordia-hosted event last Thursday evening.

Organized by the Student Association for Voter Empowerment Concordia and the Political Science Student Association, the hour-long debate covered such topics as the current status of marijuana in Canada, each party’s agenda on the drug and the intricacies associated with its legalization and decriminalization.

“Most of us, as students, are exposed to [marijuana] on a regular basis and we think about it quite a lot,” began Erik Scanlon of Conservative Concordia. “It is a criminal offense to use or sell marijuana and it should stay that way.”

Scanlon explained that cannabis should remain legal solely for medical reasons and maintained that recreational use should be punishable by law.

“I’m going to start with a quote from Jack Layton, who said he never exhaled,” said Alex Ederer of the NDP. “That is a metaphor, ladies and gentlemen, for the NDP’s position on marijuana.” Ederer reiterated his party’s belief that no one should go to jail for marijuana-related offences and advocated its decriminalization.

Josh Arless of the Liberal Party stated that his organization would legalize the drug but enforce legislations.

“The Liberal Party of Canada will legalize marijuana and ensure the regulation, taxation of its production, distribution and use,” said Arless. “While enacting strict penalties for illegal trafficking, illegal importation, deportation and impaired driving.”

“We believe in ending the war on drugs,” said David Fostokjian of the Green Party. “If we legalize marijuana and restrict it, it will be hard to lay your hands on it because it will be sold in legitimate organizations through distribution networks.”

Fostokjian also noted his party would like to follow in the footsteps of Portugal and Holland in terms of the drug’s decriminalization, as local consumption in both these countries has decreased ever since.

Each party was confident in their stance on the issue and were well prepared with facts, suggestions and rebuttals whenever the opportunity came about.

Attendees had been asked to write down questions they had for the party members prior to the debate as the second half would be dedicated to the audience’s queries. The atmosphere in the ninth-floor auditorium was tense as back-and-forth conversations began between opponents. Moderator Nick Cuillerier had to remind representatives to keep the sarcasm to a minimum and focus on answering the questions at hand rather than taking jabs at the other parties.

SAVEC President and former editor at The Concordian, Paola Rivas, mentioned this was the first of many events to be organized in the hopes of “demystifying the political process, encouraging people to get informed and encouraging informed voters.”

Categories
Opinions

Obama vs. Romney: Cracking down on the presidential debates

Graphic by Phil Waheed.

In a democracy, one would hope that an election debate would serve to further enlighten and inform the electorate.

Unfortunately, the U.S. presidential debates served more as populist entertainment than as a crash-course for undecided voters.

The second debate between Democratic and Republican presidential candidates Barack Obama and Mitt Romney took place at Hofstra University in New York.

In an interesting twist the debate was modeled on a “town hall” meeting with the audience asking the presidential candidates questions. The questions were all pre-approved by moderator Candy Crowley of CNN, making it a bit more controlled than an actual town hall meeting.

During the debate promises were made, fingers were pointed and the undecided voters who participated in the event were repeatedly thanked for their “important” and “great” questions.

Both candidates did well in the debate with neither making any particularly damaging mistakes.

Obama, whose lackluster performance in the first debate shocked many pundits and supporters, was back to his old self in this one. He was more confrontational with Romney, accusing him repeatedly of saying things that were “not true.”

According to USA Today, Obama claimed Romney was lying so many times during the debate, that Taggart Romney (eldest son of the Republican candidate) wanted to “rush down to the debate stage and take a swing at him.” If this contemplation of violence doesn’t demonstrate the excessively hyper-partisan nature of American politics, I don’t know what does.

Romney held his own without his son coming to his defense. As in the first debate, the former governor of Massachusetts looked confident and spoke with conviction. He scored political points by attacking Obama’s record on job creation and his management of the economy.

Needless to say, the fiery debate made for good political theatre.

Ultimately the biggest winners in last Tuesday’s debate were the fact-checkers, who were gainfully employed dispelling the many half-truths being spewed out by the presidential candidates. If viewers thought they would be more informed by the end of the night, they were sorely mistaken.

Obama claimed he could spend more on social programs by cutting military expenditures on wars in the Middle East. Unless Obama can multiply $100 bills like magic, there’s no way that cutbacks can save money. The United States has been borrowing money in order to finance the military; ending overseas conflict will not necessarily mean more money to spend on Medicare and public schools.

Romney tried to score points among women voters by saying he led one of the most gender-diverse cabinets in his state’s history. The presidential candidate said he wanted more women in his cabinet and had looked through “whole binders full of women” for female candidates to appoint to various positions. While he was patting himself on the back, The Christian Science Monitor was reporting that it was the nonpartisan Massachusetts Government Appointments Project that instigated this process in order to finally end the underrepresentation of women in government.

Questions also remain about the viability of Romney’s plan to cut taxes, which the Republican candidate touted during the debate. The Washington-based Tax Policy Center essentially said in a study that his numbers don’t add up.

That’s not to say that there weren’t ounces of truth mixed in with the doublespeak, but there was still an incredible amount of untruths and half-truths in the debate.

It’s disappointing that third-party candidates don’t receive nearly any coverage in the mainstream press. The main third party running is the Green Party run by Dr. Jill Stein. As long as mainstream debates do not allow third-party candidates in, voters will have fewer choices and American democracy will suffer for it.

Even though the American electoral process has its flaws, there is still one thing from the U.S. debates that Canada should strive to emulate in its own leaders’ debates next election. It quickly becomes apparent, after watching the presidential debates, that Canada should have multiple election debates like the United States has.

During the 2011 federal election campaign, we only had two leaders’ debates, and because one was in English and the other was in French, they covered many of the same topics just in different languages. Neither debate managed to get past general questions about governance or the economy to inquire about specific issues.

In Canadian debates, we’d probably never see questions about women’s issues or about how a leader would differentiate himself or herself from another. (Romney was asked, “how do you differentiate yourself from George W. Bush?”)

While there are some things we, as Canadians, can learn from the U.S. presidential debates, we should also count ourselves lucky for the vibrancy of our democracy and for the diversity of voices present in our political landscape.

As for Americans, they need to wake up and realize that there’s a wealth of other options out there beyond the confines of the two major parties.

Categories
News

May the best candidate win

Benoit Guérin from Option Nationale (left) and Liberal candidate Dave McMahon (right). Photos by Eveline Caron.

With only a few days before the provincial election, student associations from Concordia University, McGill University and Dawson College hosted an electoral debate on Thursday Aug. 30.

Candidates running in the Westmount—St-Louis riding from the Liberal Party, the Parti Québécois, Québec Solidaire, the Parti vert du Québec, Coalition Avenir Québec, Option Nationale and the Marxist-Leninist party were invited to speak at Concordia’s John Molson School of Business.

Tuition

At the start of the debate, some candidates began to criticize the leadership of Pauline Marois of the Parti Québécois due to her shifting position regarding the tuition increase. Liberal candidate Dave McMahon argued that Marois lacked due conviction for her platform.

“Marois has had 16 different positions in only six months,” said McMahon.

Thierry St-Cyr, of the PQ, maintained that the party’s position has been clear from the start; to cancel the tuition fee increase and to abolish Law 12, also known as Bill 78.

Benoit Guérin from Option Nationale defended the free education approach by stating that higher education for the public leads to better jobs and therefore stimulates the economy.

“Education can fund itself,” Guérin explained.

Contrary to their fellow candidates, Johnny Kairouz for the Coalition Avenir Québec and McMahon both agreed the current rate is not enough and students need to contribute more money. Both said that they would facilitate access to student loans in order to ease the tuition swell.

Language

Tensions ran high during the second part of the debate when candidates addressed language issues in the province. McMahon asked why Jean-François Lisée, a high profile candidate for the PQ, said publically that he favours a francophone from France over a francophone from China. He followed-up by asking if St-Cyr would apply the same attitude to Quebec.

“We give points to everyone, it has nothing to do with xenophobia,” replied St-Cyr. “It is how we measure the level of integration of the person.”

During this language segment of the debate, the PQ’s intent to extend Bill 101 to CÉGEPs was criticized by most candidates with the exception of Mélissa Desjardins of Québec Solidaire.

“Having a choice [to choose the language of instruction] is an important part of our culture to preserve,” said Lisa Cahn of the Parti vert.

The Option Nationale candidate said he believes that Bill 101 should remain as is and is not in need of revisions or adjustments. McMahon concluded by emphasizing his party’s belief in “linguistic peace,” saying that the the French language is not in decline.

Many undecided voters attended the debate Thursday in an attempt to have their questions answered. One audience member was Matthew Kabwe, a Concordia student studying communications and human relations. Kabwe said he came to the debate to decide who to vote for but left unsure, and he is likely not the only one.

Categories
News

The NDP leadership race is coming to Concordia

Peggy Nash is one of six candidates confirmed to attend.

The “orange wave” is making a pit stop at Concordia as the New Democratic Party will be holding a leadership debate at Loyola this week.

Organized by Concordia NDP as well as the NDP branches of Pierrefonds-Dollard, Lac-St-Louis, NDG-Lachine and Saint-Laurent-Cartierville, the event is taking place at the Oscar Peterson Concert Hall on Wednesday, Jan. 25 at 7 p.m., with doors opening at 6:30 p.m.

Candidates who have confirmed their attendance are Niki Ashton, Nathan Cullen, Peggy Nash, Romeo Saganash, Martin Singh, and Brian Topp. After the debate there will be time to ask questions and interact with the candidates who are all vying to fill the gap left in the party following the death of former NDP leader Jack Layton last August.

This same week will see Bob Rae at Concordia. The Political Science Students’ Association and Liberal Concordia have invited the interim Liberal Party of Canada leader to speak at the university on Friday, Jan.27.

The Concordian caught up with NDP candidates Nathan Cullen and Peggy Nash for a sneak preview of what to expect in Wednesday’s debate.

Nathan Cullen was first elected in 2004 in the riding of Skeena-Bulkley Valley in B.C, and has since been re-elected three times. He serves as chair of the House of Commons’ standing committee on privacy, access to information and ethics.

Q. What made you decide to run for the leadership?

A. It was a reflection of what kind of work I was doing in politics, I wanted to do something more generous. We do things a little differently in the community I represent, less partisan, more positive.

Q. What is one of the most important issues in this campaign for you?

A. People need to have their faith restored in voting. We have to give people back a reason to vote. The system is only legitimate if people contribute. They validate our work as politicians.

Q. Do you think it’s important that students get involved?

A. Today’s students are the most engaged and connected generation in the history of the planet. We have to be better as politicians. Young folks’ dreams for a cleaner environment and a better world, politics are a tool for that.

Q. What sets you apart from other candidates?

A. I think politicians need to learn to cooperate with each other more. I have some pretty revolutionary proposals in my platform. Parties sometimes get in the way. They are means to an end, not the end itself.

Q. Why should someone vote for you?

A. My fantastic Hollywood looks and charm. Honestly, I’m different. I believe in manifest change, not just platitude.

Peggy Nash is the MP for Parkdale–High Park in Ontario. A former unions activist and labour official for the Canadian Auto Workers union, Nash served as the Official Opposition’s finance critic in Jack Layton’s Shadow Cabinet.

Q. What made you decide to run for the leadership?

A. I believe strongly in Jack Layton’s vision in uniting progressives across Canada. I want to build our party so that we can continue Jack Layton’s work and win the next federal election.

Q. What is one of the most important issues in this campaign for you?

A. Canada has lost hundreds of jobs, we’re seeing an increasing number of raw materials being shipped out, and we’re turning our back on our environmental promises. We need to start investing in green technology and sustainability.

Q. Do you think it’s important that students get involved?

A. Absolutely, they are the future. I met some really interesting ones through the Occupy movement; people who care about environment, education, and who are worried about having a bleaker life than their parents had. I want to connect people with this passion, through politics.

Q. You have a French language degree, how important is bilingualism for you?

A. It’s a serious priority. I’ve worked very hard to maintain my fluency all my life. We have an opportunity to build our social democratic movement and this means respect for French language and culture.

Q. Why should someone vote for you?

A. I have the economic experience, a proven track record and the ability to bring people together. I know what it takes to build our party; someone who is tenacious and is a strong leader.

Categories
Opinions

Is anti-Semitism on the rise?

As optimistic as we’d like to be, racism is nearly impossible to eliminate entirely. Over time, we can hope that people will stop judging others based on colour, race or religion. For Jewish people, one of the oldest communities of the world, that time can’t come soon enough. Recent outbursts and events suggest that there may still be a disdain for Jews. Designer John Galliano was fired from the House of Dior after he yelled at a Jewish couple in France and told them he loved Hitler. A Quebec tourist in Germany was arrested after he gave the Nazi salute on the steps of a German building. Any gesture or symbol of the Nazi regime is strictly prohibited in Germany and is punishable by time in prison. Montreal is a city of many cultures, but do you think anti-Semitism is prevalent here and at Concordia? Send your opinions to the editor at opinions@theconcordian.com


Anti-Semitism never really went away

Marissa Miller
Staff writer

Out of the ashes of the Holocaust, the state of Israel was born in 1948, but the aura of anti-Semitism lingered. The extreme reaction was Holocaust denial. Burying the images of Jews being tortured deep in their minds, and burning any tangible evidence of such was a quicker fix than helping to repair the situation. This was the mentality of many, but not all, nations.

After the Holocaust, Jews were left to mend the broken pieces themselves. The liberation did not cause them to recede back into their closets, but rather, communally begin the process of self-actualization. Their plight for essentials was no easy feat. Since education has always been considered a core value among Jews, many earned professional degrees, and began to flood the fields of medicine, law and finance. Their prosperity overshadowed their past and somewhat redeemed their spirits.

This is where the anti-Semitic cycle repeated itself. “The simplistic understanding of people is that victims are poor and underprivileged,” says Rabbi Reuben Poupko of Beth Israel Beth Aaron Congregation. “People draw a link between being impoverished and deserving sympathy.” He explains that seeing many Jews reside in affluent communities while upholding successful, professional occupations places them in an ironic situation. The very fact that Jews are successful almost gives anti-Semitism legitimacy. They do not fit the common criteria of what society considers an underdog.

The new ways we have found to communicate with each other have facilitated the rise of anti-Semitism. It is becoming increasingly easier to insult other cultures over the Internet with little repercussions, and this habit of bad behaviour is continued in public.

Those who hate never forget their own personal experiences of feeling belittled, according to British doctor and psychiatrist Anthony Daniels, from Psychology Today.

It may not be a far stretch to suggest that our society is experiencing a feeling of self-loathing, which is instigating the urgency to make anti-Semitic remarks and reinforce the scapegoat status of the Jews. A 2009 study published in the Boston Review found that nearly 25 per cent of non-Jewish Americans blamed Jews for the economic turmoil and recession of 2008.

Is anti-Semitism more prevalent now than it has ever been? Not necessarily, since it is doubtful that the mob mentality has changed. It is true, however, that we are hearing about more incidents of it due to increased access to media outlets and our collective obsession of hearing about controversial issues.

Eliminating all racism is a work in progress

Domenic Del Vecchio
Contributor

While the Jewish people have faced their fair share of hardships in the last century, and certainly, throughout their lengthy history, many believe that they are still painfully stricken with the same Jewish “branding” that plagued them once before. With the progression of today’s society in terms of racism and prejudice, it is difficult to believe that our society still singles out Jews as targets for economic and social failures. Anti-Semitism does not continue to darken the very social mentality abreast in today’s world and to suggest that we live in a society with a collective mentality akin to the Third Reich is ludicrous. Modernism has played a significant part in the asphyxiation of various racial and cultural prejudices, including anti-Semitism, rendering prejudiced thoughts both socially and morally dishonourable.

While anti-Semitic sentiment was prevalent throughout much of Europe during the first and second World Wars, much effort has been incorporated in the re-stabilization of egalitarian views on the culture around the globe.

Portrayals of Judaism in the media have attempted to strengthen the image of Jewish individuals in society among the general population. Beloved television characters such as Jerry Seinfeld (Seinfeld), Ross and Monica Geller (Friends), Grace Adler (Will & Grace), Ari Gold (Entourage), as well as Rachel Berry and Noah Puckerman (Glee), are among the many that have contributed in raising the general appreciation for Jewish citizens in society. In addition to their general popularity, many of these characters make reference to their faith, not only bringing the issue to the forefront of the program, but also educating audiences on the cultural and historic practices of Judaism. This social education is essentially desensitizing viewers and familiarizing them with the cultural makeup of the Jewish faith.

Positive media portrayals of certain groups or classes of individuals can alter their previously negative stereotype. Likewise, although films like Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ have been viewed as anti-Semitic, works such as Steven Spielberg’s Schindler’s List, Quentin Tarantino’s Inglourious Basterds and the Coen Brothers’ A Serious Man, to name a few, portray the struggles of the Jewish people, strengthening the collective acceptance of Jewish culture. Even certain comic book characters like Legion and Magneto, both Holocaust survivors, devalue anti-Semitism, in this case by portraying Jews in positions of superpower.

I am not suggesting that anti-Semitism does not still hold a place in the values and opinions of some individuals in our society, because uttered statements like “He’s such a Jew” will unfortunately prove otherwise. The mosaic of cultural stereotypes will not disappear overnight, because unfortunately racism will always exist. It is the ego-centrist nature of man that governs the narcissistic tendency to value oneself and one’s own cultural armoire as superior to those of others.

With each new generation being educated on values of social equality and cultural acceptance, and exposed to interaction with members of varying cultures (certainly the case here in Canada), the proliferation of anti-Semitism and other forms of prejudice is slowly being stifled and diluted. I am aware that such a view can be considered naively optimistic and, although anti-Semitic sentiment may never fully become extinct, it is only through such optimistic methods that it can begin to wither.

What did students have to say about this? Check the Etcetera page for Word on Campus to find out!

Exit mobile version