By Rob Hardy

They’re rich, they’re cool and they have the whole world at their feet: they’re the Rich Kids of Instagram, or #RKOI for those of you hip to hashtag. But don’t hate them because they’re rich, or for all the other things that being rich affords a person. They didn’t ask to be famous or born into the upper class. Well, that’s partially true.

For those of you not in the know, this summer saw rise to one of the latest reality trends burning up the blogosphere, and has quickly captured the imaginations of people all around the world. But it all started innocently enough for the parties involved. The RKOI phenomenon rode the wave thanks to the explosion of Instagram (basically Twitter with pictures), inspiring both exhibitionists and voyeurs as it shows life on Earth circa 2012. Tumblr was the format used to create the RKOI blog, whereby certain pictures from Instagram, notable for their depictions of young people living luxurious lives, were lifted for broadcast to feed our appetites for the good life.

That being said, the blog’s postings have increased rapidly over the slower pace of July when it first began to get noticed. This, as well as talk that it may spawn a reality show, caused a slew of posters to submit photos – a new class of opportunists specifically hoping to get featured themselves.

The blog, and the conversations it has started, are engrossing and raise several issues. What is it about these pictures that really draws people in, and can they actually be faked? I have to say that if one were honest, there is something that many of the subjects have in common collectively. Aside from the fact that many of these pictures demonstrate considerable wealth, the people in the photos themselves, mainly of the young Ivy-league crowd, show a presence and pedigree that is undeniable. You just don’t take them for wannabes who may actually eat fast-food every day and lack a certain kind of breeding.

On the other hand, though, apart from some of the obvious benefits wealth buys, there is something far more accessible being demonstrated. In many ways, spending time on this blog is no different than leafing through an old Abercrombie and Fitch catalogue. If the appeal is that it simply sells another version of hyped-up fantasy, then in some ways its purpose doesn’t differ much from numerous other media outlets doing the same thing, despite its unique format.

So going deeper here, and bypassing both the embittered outcries about the rich as well as the tired claims of shallowness, is a simple analysis. What we are really seeing here is people having fun. Yes, some truly enjoy material wealth, even if they do not wholly identify with it. But in the end, it is the happy faces and the promise of optimism, which is making people check their smartphones during lunch breaks to see the latest uploads. And ultimately for all of us, life is what you make it, regardless of how many Swarovski encrusted skulls you may have.

It’s a thought not easily understood by many, but as others have previously noted, money does not increase your level of happiness proportionally after the main necessities of life are taken care of. I wonder at the reports of lottery winners who decry their winnings as the ruin of their lives, but I can’t honestly say that being in the same situation would do much to improve my own life. I’d still have the same problems and my deepest concerns wouldn’t be assuaged.

Most of what a person really needs is provided for with hard work, a little luck and some concerted momentum to change your life. Those resources wind up translating to other kinds, which we wind up attracting from there on. That’s not to say the economy doesn’t absolutely suck, but will your world really be a better place by sleeping in the finest bed while those around you and society at large are slipping further? The answer should clearly be no.

As I wrote above, life is what you make it, provided you have enough to actually make something with (not everyone does). Though dreaming about rich socialites partying in New York, studying at Harvard and vacationing in Newport or the Hamptons is fun, it is a big lie to buy into the idea that something separates one class of people from another. If money is about value, we must also remember that values change, and that the concept of what class even is has been often redefined over time.

The final thoughts here are that, minus the depiction of opulent riches, it might be possible for some of us to land on this blog if we really tried, since images have always carried with them an element of deception and subjectivity. Also, genuine entrance to a better life can equally be granted if we choose to better ourselves. The concept of an ivory tower partially exists in so much as we believe it to be a barrier.

Likewise, as realities also alter, who’s to say we won’t see some of the RKOI one day on the opposite end of prosperity bemoaning their fall? Only time will tell.

By Ryan Sparrow

So, the other day I ventured to the Phoenix - the Grad students’ pub at McMaster for those who are unfamiliar - with some friends of mine.

Someone who I had just recently met joined us. This self-identified educator seemed to have good values, but when actually speaking to him, he wanted to show just how much more intelligent he was by saying something incredibly simple in the most jargon-ridden and inaccessible way possible.

Now, I am not new to reading dense political theory laden with terms and concepts that may be a bit inaccessible and take some specific knowledge within a field to understand, but this fellow started using terms and concepts in a way I didn’t understand.

So I asked this fellow, which up until this point I considered a nice person, to tell me what he meant in ‘laymen’s’ terms.

His response was, “I’m not going to dumb down what I am trying to say.” This is a pretty big contrast from his “to ending all oppression” cheer he gave when we got our pints.

I’m sure all of us have encountered some of this elitist language being thrown around. In our course packs, peer-reviewed journals, and academic books, some of the academics throw in as many big words (i.e. jargon-laden language which is only meant for academics to understand) as possible just to appear like they have something relevant to say.

Academics, who state their quest to ending oppression, should not be stuck up. They should learn how to relay a message in a way that the people, victims of the said oppression, can understand. Otherwise they are just being oppressive.

In the struggle to fight oppression, language itself is a battleground. It’s not just what you say, but how you say it, and who you say it to, which matters.

If you are using language that only a privileged minority of the population can understand, you are, I’m afraid, excluding a wide range of people.

If you only plan on writing in a way that only those who belong to the Ivory Tower can understand, it is important to mention that they are predominately not poor folk from marginalized backgrounds. I’m afraid that you, in this act, are reproducing privilege and excluding working people from the conversation.

And yes, sometimes it is not 100 per cent possible to avoid the use of big words, as there are concepts that do require a big word or pre-understood concept to discuss more in-depth on a topic.

So, this is not to say we should not use “big words” or “academic-speak,” but much like salt, use it only when necessary. When you use a “big word” please for the sake of democratic and accessible language, explain it if at all possible.

I get it; you want appear smart to impress someone. Some do this by using “big words” and advance concepts to show how intelligent they think they are. But I will go on record and say it - if you cannot explain it, you look ridiculous.

If you refuse to, you look like an elitist jerk. You can appear twice as smart by following the KISS principle, i.e., “keep it simple, stupid”.

If you truly want to help end oppression, keep in mind that one big part of it is to broaden the conversation so everyone has an ability to participate, listen, learn and speak. It’s all part of ending oppression.

Event draws limited student participation

Ryan Sparrow

On Oct. 23, representatives from the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) - Ontario, the Canadian Federation of Students (CFS) - Ontario, and McMaster faculty member, Peter Graefe, all spoke out against the purposed changes to the sector. Also on the panel was NDP politician, Theresa Armstrong who is the NDP critic for the Ministry of Training, Colleges and University (MTCU).

The panel was organized by the NDP Riding Associations of Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Westdale and Hamilton Centre. The event was attended by approximately 40 people.

Janice Folk-Dawson, Chair of the Ontario University Workers Coordination Committee of CUPE- Ontario criticized the Ministry’s plans and called “for the establishment of a true consultation process with wide ranging discussions including chronic underfunding to post-secondary institutions and a discussion of tuition and auxiliary fees.”

Peter Graefe, a Political Science professor, criticized the three semester a year plan stating, “As much as people think I’m at home sunbathing myself during those [summer] months, I’m here most days involved in work related to research.”

He also addressed the Ministry’s suggestion about three-year degrees, and said, “Three year degrees, is there a demand for that? We have been seeing three year degrees shut down across the province for a lack of demand for a variety of reasons.”

“When we talk about scarce public resources we have to realise that it is a myth, the income tax for people making over 500,000 dollars was introduced and next thing you know we got an extra 500 million in revenue” said Mike Yam, CFS-Ontario researcher.

“I know a lot of labour unions and progressive economists talk about reversing corporate tax cuts; for sure if they were back to 2009 levels we’d have an extra two billion plus dollars in government coffers that could provide for all undergraduates in Ontario to go to school for free.”

Theresa Armstrong, the NDP Critic for MTCU, gave a uniformly scripted speech, which provided little insight into the Ontario New Democrat’s plans outside of re-stating their election promises.

Dan Fahey, a third-year Integrated Science student, felt upset with the lack of a comprehensive vision presented by the NDP stating that he, “felt underwhelmed by Theresa Armstrong’s performance, when the stakes are so high with the attack to education that we are facing.”

“I thought Mike Yam said the right things. That we need to build solidarity between students and staff on campus and it’s going to take a lot of work.”

 

By Ryan Sparrow

 

Well, that was unexpected. Premier Dalton McGuinty resigns. On the surface, this seems like a moment to celebrate. However, in perhaps his last act as premier, McGuinty has prorogued the legislative assembly. Remember that undemocratic thing that Harper did? Well, McGuinty just did it, too. Before we get into why he abolished our democracy, let us reminisce on his reign.

McGuinty was made famous for breaking his promises. For instance, he promised to freeze tuition fees for students, which he broke in 2005 by allowing tuition fees to increase above inflation. Now, Ontario has the ominous distinction of having the highest tuition fees in Canada, the largest class sizes and the lowest-per student funding. Since 2006, tuition fees have increased by up to 71 per cent. If this was not bad enough, the plan is to make it worse; average tuition fees are expected to exceed $9,200 in the 2015-2016 academic year according to the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, alongside further deep cuts to post-secondary education.

His corporate tax cuts last year seemed to mock students even more. The amount of annual revenue cut in these taxes amounted to $2.4 billion, the exact same amount that would have provided for free post-secondary education to every last Ontario student. Not just that, but with a record deficit, and a corporate tax rate of 11.3 per cent compared to 35 per cent in the United States. It seems clear that Ontario is trying to earn the distinction of the land for corporate interests.

McGuinty also brought us the much hated HST, a regressive tax that makes regular working class people pay more taxes, while taking the burden off of businesses. In other words, the taxes paid by corporations are now paid by everyday Ontarians.

McGuinty, perhaps not satisfied with making poor and working class families pay more than their fair share of taxes, has aggressively cut social programs such as Ontario Works. In one of his election promises, his party said they would raise the rates of Ontario Works, then once elected only raised the rates by like $6/month. Perhaps the aim was to break his promise of reducing child poverty faster than all his other broken promises.

We also cannot forget about the corruption. One of many examples is the ORNGE scandal, the air ambulance service that lined the pockets of its CEO and other executives showcased the cronyism of McGuinty’s government. Currently it is under investigation by the Ontario Provincial Police over financial irregularities. ORNGE received a billion dollars from the province over the past five years with absolutely no government oversight into how that money was being spent. It turns out the money, our money, was used to establish private for-profit businesses that provided lavish salaries and benefits for its executives.

But as of late, our dear McGuinty decided to focus his energy towards attacking the public sector. This is not to say that this is something new, rather it’s renewed. This attack started against some of his former supporters - teachers - by legislating away their rights. I do not know why teachers naively supported the Liberals in the past. It is clear they do not anymore. This August, I had the fortunate chance to witness the anger of teachers - 25,000 strong - against the Hudak-McGuinty plan to take away their rights.

While teachers were not the only workers McGuinty attacked, their backlash is swift and well deserved. After offering a patronage position to the conservative MPP in the Kitchener-Waterloo riding to trigger a by-election, the party lost dramatically and voters replaced the conservative MPP with an NDP MPP in part due to backlash of teachers. Perhaps this vain democracy is too messy for McGuinty, so he does away with it as we do away with McGuinty. Goodbye McGuinty, don’t let the door hit you on the ass on the way out.

The rest of Ontario, let’s fight to get our democracy back.

The cheering tittered through the crowd, cutting off the introductory speaker, and throngs of people pushed to the aisle to just to get a glance at the man entering the room. He’s the other famous Canadian Justin.  And he’s the newest candidate running for leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada.

Justin Trudeau’s visit to Hamilton on Oct. 10 was one in a series of meet and greets the leadership candidate has been doing since he officially announced his candidacy on Oct. 2.

Approximately 600 people came out for the event. It was held at the Sheraton Hotel and was organized my recent McMaster graduate Elyse Banham, a former member of the McMaster Young Liberal Association.

The meet and greet appeared to be comprised mainly of baby boomers, and the majority of the youth in attendance appeared to be affiliated with the Young Liberal Association.  Well known Hamilton Liberal MPs, Beth Phinney and Judy Marsales, also attended.

The event was intended to be a rally for current Liberal party supporters, but also aimed to familiarize Hamiltonians with Trudeau’s campaign platforms.

Trudeau was introduced by former Liberal MPP Marie Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain). Bountrogianni described Trudeau as “a breath of fresh air to the political scene in Canada.”

She also commented on how his youth and experience better readied him to understand the crisis in youth “mal-employment,” given that one out of five 25-29-year-olds make less than half the median income in Canada.

Although youthful energy and passion have been championed as core values of the Trudeau campaign from the beginning, his speech, while charismatically delivered, fell short of addressing youth concerns.

Instead, it focused on the general agenda Trudeau has been presenting so far during his Canadian city tour. He discussed the implications of partisanship, criticizing both the Conservative party and the NDP for polarizing regions against each other, and for promoting ideologies which “micro-categorize” electoral issues.

Trudeau emphasized his determination to not engage in regionalism, pitting one region’s interest above others. This issue proved to be a lynch pin for Pierre-Elliot Trudeau, who has often been accused of polarizing Alberta and the West from the rest of Canada.

The content of the speech appeared to mimic the previous speeches delivered in early stops in Burlington and Mississauga. Despite the similarity of the speech to the many others Trudeau has delivered in the past few weeks, the trademark Trudeau charisma shone through, as evidenced by the shouts, cheers and applause which erupted and overpowered his speech at times.

Trudeau took time to personally appeal to Hamiltonians and addressed issues unique to Hamilton.

“Hamilton is a city with a tremendous heart. It’s been through some tough times and some great times. It’s transformed itself from a manufacturing hub to being a research and knowledge economy hub.”

Matthew Ing, a fifth-year Arts and Science student and member of the McMaster Young Liberals volunteered at the event. He explained that meet and greet was purposely not a fundraiser.

“A fundraiser brings certain groups of people...those who can afford to attend. To have as many people there and overcome regional divides, [the campaign] aimed to reach out to all Hamiltonians and make it an accessible event.”

In addition to being the MP for the Papineau riding in Montreal, Trudeau is the Liberal party’s critic for youth, post-secondary education, and amateur sport. Ing explained that Trudeau has actively sought out youth input and consultation in his campaign.

“The current government has no policy for tackling the [high] youth unemployment rate...you can rest assured that youth will be at the forefront of any issue Justin addresses.”

Trudeau concluded his speech by lamenting the recent decline of the Liberal party, which won only 35 seats in the last federal election and lost its title of Official Opposition Party.

The campaign has focused on branding Trudeau as the product of a new post-partisan generation of politicians. He has strongly distanced himself from the superior and entitled attitudes that he implied have been historically present in the Liberal party.

Instead, he advocated for a new party, which viewed Canadian interests as a whole, and aimed to speak for and listen to all Canadians.

“Hard work and heart, of the type that has always characterized Hamilton, for example, is the only thing that is going to get the Liberal Party to move forward once again, it’s the only thing that is going to get Canada to move forward once again.”

By Simon Granat

 

Well, for political junkies, it’s that time of year. We’re now in the midst of the US Presidential election, not to mention another Federal Leadership election.

And as I write this, Obama and Romney are in their dressing rooms, preparing to square off head to head in the first of three US Presidential debates.

If you’re a political junkie like me, this is the equivalent of the Superbowl, only with less common fanfare. And just like the Superbowl, some of us Canadians are obsessed with large scale U.S. spectacles.

Presidential debates deserve attention since in the short span of an hour and a half, this event can seriously affect who will be the commander in chief of the world’s most powerful country. So as Canadians, it’s worthwhile to pay attention and to ask, what’s in it for us?

Barack Obama, the guy everyone knows and most Canadians love, is still the favourite. His economic policies favour “Buy American” and a shift to wean the country off of foreign oil producers. These two policies could pose as problematic for Canada. By buying American, the already battered Canadian manufacturing sector could see even greater reductions.And while there are numerous other factors at play, and while the U.S. will remain Canada’s trading partner, we need to look no further than Hamilton’s U.S. Steel to see the potential effects on our economy.

Likewise, any policy that affects foreign oil will undoubtedly affect Canada. Our economy is commodity based, and oil represents a large proportion of that sector of our economy. I’m not making a value judgement here, but this election will have an effect on any pipeline decisions the Harper government will make, especially if we ship our oil down south, or out west.

Romney’s election could, I think, prove dire. At the expense of regurgitating the Obama campaign’s messaging, it will lead us back to the old G.W. Bush economic policies that got us into a recession in the first place.

It’s worth noting that Obama still heavily favours private enterprise, and his economic policies could still be considered neoliberal trickle-down economics.

Andrew Terefenko

Opinions Editor

 

Thirty-three years. Twelve consecutive terms. That is the extent of the ongoing reign of Mississauga mayor Hazel McCallion, and an uncontested mayoral blitzkrieg like that must beg the question: just how did she do it, and can it be done again?

It’s easy to wrap the argument up and blame her ancient incumbency on poor opposition, apathetic voters and good old-fashioned citizen loyalty, but I think it comes down to her core ideologies as a politician. She feels that a city should be run like a business, with careful management of finances. Additionally, much like a business, she says a city should be marketed, its value shown off to the country at large in an effort to gain lasting appeal.

This is the dividing line between a successful mayor and a political activist, which most other mayoral candidates seem to be. Take Hamilton’s very own mayor, Bob Bratina, for example. He ran a small campaign centered on his trustworthiness and family values, yearning to service the most decrepit neighbourhoods of the Steel City. I think these are admirable, respectable qualities in a leader, but they are the same qualities you see in every candidate, in every election, every few years.

Hazel stands out from the crowd because she barely campaigns, she maintains a no-nonsense aura in her political demeanor and from the few times I have personally met her, comes off as a legitimately likeable human being who would check on me if I was keeling over in a busy intersection. It is that very likeability that makes it hard to admit this: it is time for her mayoralty to end.

There is no doubt in my mind that she could go for a thirteenth, fourteenth or even twentieth consecutive term if she made a play for it, and it would hurt the GTA in the long run. The entire thought process behind having fixed terms and frequent elections is to have a frequent influx of new ideas and reevaluation of incumbent leaders. Mississauga residents have gotten to a point of no return, so content with a stable, unaggressive leader that they are certain to maintain a level of sameness, at the expense of lasting progress and young ideas.

They are voting for Hazel for the sake of legacy, for maintaining the title of one of the longest serving elected political leaders in history. There’s no clearer indication to me that this is a problem than the mere fact that in the face of a very clear conflict of interest, where Hazel allegedly threw around her mayoral clout to put millions of dollars into her contractor son’s pocket, she still maintains the same unchallenged level of popularity that she’d had for three decades.

She is standing in the way of less popular but completely legitimate candidates who can take the steps needed to actually worry about their popularity and make the changes that citizens want. She is setting an ugly standard for future mayors across the entirety of Southern Ontario, one of widespread blind support.

Look no further than Toronto to see an example of the opposite end of this spectrum. Rob Ford is about as unpopular as mayors get, so he gets challenged early and often on many of his initiatives. His TTC plan was shut down in what seemed like mere minutes, but isn’t that a good thing? A plan that Toronto probably couldn’t shoulder in the long run was turned down because Ford was not revered as a god walking among us, unlike Hazel. An unpopular mayor needs to fight for his or her ideas, while a popular one will let protests be drowned in the cheers of the masses.

This is not a condemnation of McCallion, but a call for citizens to carefully criticize their voting thought processes, and not vote with their hearts. Don’t get me wrong, I have loved weathering the storm that was Hurricane Hazel, but all natural disasters have to end eventually, before they do rampant, irreparable damage.

Kacper Niburksi

Assistant News Editor

While disco fever may have died with the 80’s, it seems that Trudeau-mania is still very much alive.

Justin Trudeau, son of the late prime minster Pierre Trudeau, MP of Papineau, Quebec since 2008 and current Liberal critic for youth, post-secondary education, and amateur sport, came to McMaster on Oct. 12 to participate in an open-mic question and answer session sponsored by the Young Liberal Association of McMaster.

“This is an extension of something I was trying to do, which is getting out talking to people who are more or less engaged in politics,” said Trudeau to a group of roughly 300 McMaster students and faculty.

While many of the attendees may indeed have been “engaged in politics,” Trudeau was quick to highlight the voter apathy that characterized much of the political system.

“Politics is more polarized than it’s ever been. It’s source of cynicism more than it’s ever been. It’s more about strategic divisions than it’s ever been.”

Despite such a pessimistic political portrayal, realistic as it may have been, Trudeau’s presence seemed almost a contradictory reflection of the current political system and a hint of what the future could hold.

Arguably following in his father’s footprints, Justin Trudeau began his stretch in politics throughout the 2000s after four years of working as a high-school teacher in British Columbia. Beginning his political career with open support for outgoing prime minster Jean Chrétien at a 2003 Liberal leadership convention, Trudeau is currently the Member of Parliament for the Montreal electoral division of Papineau. At 39, Trudeau is still young for a politician, but many believe he is scrutinized through the lens of legacy: to one day take office as prime minster.

Trudeau did not comment on this directly. Instead, he stressed that there is dire need to change the current mechanisms of politics, calling this, “the need to change space and time.”

“In the past, civilizations either adapted or perished. We don’t have that luxury. We are not a cluster of local civilizations. We are global. Everyone is connected.”

He added, “If our system collapses, it collapses everywhere. We cannot let the issues of poverty and economic instability to hit full force before we shift our behaviours.”

Such issues, most of which captured the dialogue surrounding politics, are only as important as people make them. Trudeau acknowledged this. He admitted that while politics is meant to stress the importance of social issues, there has been a systematic dissatisfaction at all level of governance.

“Partisan politics turns people off of politics,” he noted, “but it’s never been more important to connect people with politics because the stakes have never been higher. We have to rethink very basic assumptions of where we are in this world and what we want to do.”

Only through commonalities between individuals, rather than division between them, can this be achieved.

This, however, is not a task necessary for the leaders of tomorrow. Instead, Trudeau stressed it was an absolutely necessity for the present.

“I hate when people say to the young, ‘You will be leaders of tomorrow,’ because it’s conditional,” he said. “If you do homework, get good grades, meet the right people, then yeah, you’ll be leaders of tomorrow. If. We don’t need that. We need to give you the tools to be a good leader.”

One of these tools implicitly stated was questioning the status quo and those who represent it. In this light, an open question period followed Trudeau’s brief speech.

Students, faculty and members of various organizations queried on variety of topics from teenage pregnancy to less than optimal funding for research in Canada.

While each response was different, whether it addressed access to post-secondary education or mitigating political differences to ensure the nation’s best interests, Trudeau seemed to centralize on the common theme of choice, and ultimately, passion for that choice.

“I don’t care if you get involved in active politics or not,” he said. “I care whether you get passionate about something in your community or not. Politics are not for everyone … but if more individuals find what they are passionate about, change will come.”

He stressed, “As soon as individuals realize the power to shape the world – when they choose this to do, not to do, to support, not to support – then the ability to change the world goes from a nice idea to being flat out inevitable.”

And maybe, just maybe, changing the world, or at least the political system, begins with inspirational words like those.

Justin Trudeau will be visiting two other Universities throughout the week, delivering similar non-partisan talks to students, after which he will return to his Papineau riding.