Don't opt out: click here to learn more about our work.

The joys of intramurals

With summer fading away, exercise plans and the urge to stay in shape is likely to fade with it. Intramurals can help to fill that ‘fitness’ space on your schedule, but there’s much more to be had from competing than simply getting exercise.

University of Toronto’s Intramural Sports Program organizes over 700 regular-season games and over 100 playoff games annually. It has more than 10,000 participants and is associated with 26 different colleges or faculties at U of T, from the Mississauga and Scarborough campuses to St. George campus colleges and professional faculties such as Pharmacy, Dentistry, Medicine, and Law.

The Intramural Program offers a variety of sports for students to participate in, with six co-ed leagues, nine men’s leagues, and eight women’s leagues. The program also includes nine tournaments for sports such as broomball, European handball and squash. There are also two summer leagues and Tri-Campus leagues, where the three U of T campuses compete against each other in a variety of sports.

alt text

The program has a long and rich history with leagues having begun as early as the 1890s. A number of prestigious trophies — some over 100-years-old — are contested within the program each year.

The Mulock Cup is one of many such trophies steeped in history. Awarded to the championship-winning men’s rugby team, the trophy is the oldest in Canada to be competed for without interruption. It was donated to the University by the Athletic Directorate in honour of Sir William Mulock, the Vice-Chancellor of the University in 1894.

“To be honest, I never knew the Mulock Cup has the history it’s got,” admitted Kenny Wong, the third-year captain of the St. Michael’s College rugby team. “Looking back on it, it’s a lot of history, a lot of tradition, and certainly something a lot of the colleges take a lot of pride in.”
University students have been competing against each other in numerous other sports for decades, and many of the participants are proud to be involved in intramurals and to continue the tradition of representing their college or faculty in friendly athletic competition.

“I’m so proud to be a part of this amazing program,” said Taryn Grieder, a PhD student in medical science, who has been involved in seven different intramural leagues throughout her 12 years as a student. “I’m honoured to be captain of a variety of SGS teams and relish the leadership role … Sometimes I think that intramural sports is my part-time job since I play so many!”

At a school with such a large and diverse student body intramurals provide an opportunity for students to build friendships outside of the classroom. “[Intramurals] have definitely allowed me to get to know people who I probably wouldn’t hang out with otherwise,” said Wong. “Graduate students, alumni, younger guys … it’s a great place to meet people outside of your normal social circle.”

The Intramural Program appeals to students who live on campus as well as those who commute. “The schedule is not bad, especially for rugby … It’s easy to drive down [for games],” said Kavinda Senanayake, a fourth-year commuter student in his second year as a part of the SMC rugby team. “It’s a chance to meet new people. It’s something different. I never used to play rugby.”

The program also helps students who feel that their program of study limits their opportunities to meet new people. One such case is Tina Sing, a third-year graduate student in the Department of Biochemistry. “Graduate school, it’s a little bit unique,” she said. “I’m in my lab all the time; I don’t really have classes so it’s a good way to meet people outside of your faculty.”

The staff of the Intramural program at U of T are always looking for input from students. Assistant Manager of the Intramural Program, Mohsin Bukhari, invites students to “come to our office [at the Varsity Pavilion Centre] and bring … your ideas.”

“[Intramurals are] free, which I think is really cool and that’s not always the case at other universities,” noted Sing. “It provides [students] with an opportunity to go outside, be active, and meet other students which I think is really important while you’re in university.
“I think it’s good to sign up for things like intramurals, get some exercise, and meet a bunch of people you probably wouldn’t interact with otherwise.”.

The Intramural Sports Program at U of T has something for everyone. For over 100 years, it has enriched the experiences of thousands of students and it continues to grow every year.
“I don’t think I could love the Intramural Program at U of T any more. We are very fortunate as students to be able to partake in it, as some schools don’t have such an awesome variety of activities,” said Grieder. “I’ve met some of my best friends and also developed stronger friendships with people from my lab through intramurals.”

For more information on the different U of T intramural leagues and their history, as well as photos, scores, and schedules, visit
www.uoftintramurals.ca

How intramurals work…

Involvement in intramurals at U of T is based on your college or faculty. To get involved with a team, get in touch with the intramural representative for your college or faculty, who will then put you in touch with the captain of the team in question.
For some sports, leagues have up to three divisions: Division I, Division II, and Open Division. The Open Division is open for entrants to form a team of their own and sign up; generally this division only exists in sports with larger leagues.
Depending on the number of teams, leagues have one or more game per team per week with regular-season games determining who advances to the playoffs. The playoffs are single-elimination tournaments.

Science in brief

Dead lady comes back to life and is not looking for brains

It seems like something out of a horror movie, but it is all too real. In a morgue in Brazil, Rosa Celestrino de Assiss, a patient at the Estadual Adao Pereira Nunes hospital in Rio de Janeiro, spent two hours in a body bag after being pronounced dead. The patient, in her 60s, was admitted to the hospital for complications with pneumonia and the doctor on call believed she had died. Rosa came to life during a visit from her daughter, Rosangela, who came to the morgue to say goodbye. Rosangela felt her mother breathing as she gave her mother one last hug and realized that she was still alive. Upon verification that she had indeed been alive the entire time, Rosa was taken back to the intensive care unit less than three hours after she had been declared dead. There is no explanation for this botched announcement; however, the doctor that pronounced her dead has now resigned. The misdiagnoses of death have greatly improved as of the 21st century, but it has been suggested that such mistakes still occur 10–15 per cent of the time.
— Tanya Debi
Sources: Huffington Post; Stylist; Wired


BBM outage leaves many furious in a RIM PR nightmare

According to Research in Motion (RIM), the creators of Blackberry mobile phones, the initial reason for the three-day worldwide Blackberry Messenger (BBM) outage was a “core switch failure within RIM’s infrastructure.” RIM created a back-up switch to deal with data backlog, but unfortunately, the switch did not function as planned. RIM finally managed to clear the backlog and continue global service by Thursday of last week. To make matters worse, a hoax chain message circulated throughout BBM phones around the same time. It is estimated that RIM services around 70 million BlackBerry users around the world, although it is not known exactly how many were affected. Many BBM users went to Twitter as a last resort for communication, filling up Twitter feeds with complaints from affected users under the trending topic “#Blackberrymageddon.”
— Bianca Lemus Lavarreda
Sources: PC magazine; Wired; RIM

A peek into the mind’s eye

What might other people’s mental experiences look like? As it turns out, the answer to this question may not lie too far into the future. Scientists from the University of California, Berkeley, published a paper in the September issue of Current Biology that explains how visual experiences of movie trailer clips can be reconstructed with seconds of YouTube video.

The researchers wanted to study how the brain, specifically the early visual system, encodes incoming visual information. The early visual system is the first visual area to receive incoming visual information; it picks up simple features in the environment, such as oriented edges, patches of texture, and motion.

The three participants, who were also co-authors of the study, went inside a functional resonance imaging (fMRI) machine and watched about three hours of Hollywood movie trailers over the course of a few weeks. Data from this single task was taken and used to create a model that would describe how simple features presented in the movies were related to activity at different points in the brain. In total, the researchers measured about 4000 different points of brain activity. To decode the movie trailers seen inside the fMRI machine, they used 18 million seconds of randomly downloaded YouTube videos. YouTube was chosen because it was the quickest way to make a library that was independent of the movies shown in the fMRI machine.

alt text

The idea was that the model would reconstruct the movie trailer the participants saw by using unseen YouTube clips. In response to concerns about overlap, the researchers noted that all the movie trailer clips have common cinematic themes and features present in each of them that complement the YouTube clips. The YouTube clips were expected to provide variety and reinforce the basic reconstruction of the trailer clips.

alt text

The feat of reconstructing visual images with a model derived through brain activity and not neural activity was quite successful. Functional MRI can measure changes in blood flow and blood oxygen changes subsequent to neural activity and has a very low image resolution, making it excellent equipment for the experiment. Brain blood flow was measured using blood oxygen level-dependent signals, or BOLD signals, in the participants’ occipitotemporal visual cortex. The BOLD signals were ideal since they are indicators of underlying neural activity.

A longstanding problem with BOLD signals is that they are very slow, making it hard for researchers to map brain responses to dynamic stimuli. But with a new motion-energy encoding model, the researchers were able to track BOLD signals as well as use them to decode participants’ visual experiences.

It is important to emphasize that the researchers only decoded the early stages of the visual system and did not take into account the remaining visual areas. A decoding mechanism that combines both the lower and higher hierarchies of the visual system will provide a much clearer and more accurate image. In the visual system hierarchy, the primary visual cortex is concerned with basic features, like the location of edges, where characters are moving in a scene, and basic texture patterns. This part of the visual system does not register any ‘meaning’ behind the perceived objects. Higher level parts of the visual system, on the other hand, deal with the semantic elements of the scene (putting a name on whatever it is you are seeing).

The limitations of this study include accuracy of reconstruction — some people might wonder why the images are blurry. However, the researchers did not intend on fine-tuning the decoded brain activity; the resulting images are not very detailed. The authors point out that using quantifiable methods like fMRI makes it easier for researchers to interpret the results of decoding. It should be noted that the videos posted on the lab website have been reconstructed with approximately 10 minutes of data, although the entire study far exceeded that count.

High-tech improvements of this study will not only give science fantasy novel writers something more to add to their plots but can also potentially lead to a reliable reconstruction of typical dynamic visual experiences. However, it seems that involuntary subjective mental states like dreaming, hallucinations, and memories may be harder to verify as accurate representations due to their nature.

Since the visual system makes up about a third of the human brain, studies like these open doors to understanding the various unique aspects of the visual system and boost the technology available to hospitalized non-communicative patients. The brain, it seems, is the antenna to visual reality.

The brain rules with an iron fist

The brain is an intricate piece of machinery with billions of neurons that constantly interpret abstract information from the external world. In a recent study published in Nature Neuroscience, researchers from the UK and Switzerland have linked self-control to the interaction between two neuronal networks in the prefrontal cortex. The researchers identified behavioural responses to specific social situations by disrupting the brain using repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and then using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) for mapping correlations between neural networks involved in decision-making and punishment. Independent of each other, the brain imaging and brain stimulation methods are not able to determine causal mechanisms between the prefrontal brain regions. The current study fuses these methodologies to harness their synergy. Paired with fMRI, rTMS not only locates behavioural effects from the disruption of parts of the brain but also finds causal mechanisms in that task-related activity of the disrupted region. The experiment involved disrupting regions associated with complex planning, emotions, and reasoning using rTMS and then having study participants play an ultimatum game. The game is essentially a bargaining problem in which players are given an amount of money to distribute with other players. The proposer offers to split the total with the responder who can then accept or reject this offer. If accepted, the players both receive the bargained amount, and if rejected, neither receives anything. Proposing unbalanced offers is seen as a norm violation in Western culture and was referred to as the baseline for fairness norms. The game was used to test the participants’ ability to reject normally unfair offers under altered circumstances. When players were disrupted on the right side of their head, they were able to judge whether a deal was unfair but were more likely to accept the offer anyway. Compared to the control group the participants seemed unable to resist self-gratification even while they knew it to be anti-social or deviant behaviour. It may be the case that cortical areas that render us unable to feel negative emotions towards what we consider unfair makes us much more likely to accept self-gratification. This would signify that the development and association of these emotions with social interaction is a vital part in delaying self-gratification and allowing cooperation with others.

Self-control is an essential virtue for a society that needs its citizens to be capable of delaying self-gratification in favour of social norms. In philosophy, psychology, and bargaining theory, self-control is necessary for the formation of agreements because agreements involve someone invoking a temporary loss in exchange for future benefit. Society is built upon these types of repeated interactions: the exchange of our resources to coordinate better outcomes. Civilization, to this end, depends on the delay of self-gratification.

But it is not enough for a better outcome to exist to make it real. Rules maintain these interactions, and the formation of rules must be related to some cortical processes. Drawing on neurobiology, the researchers in this study have not only searched for neural networks expected to be involved in allowing delay of self-gratification but also the rudiminentary cognition involved in the formation of social coordination.

The study faces some limitations by relying on the ultimatum game model since it is a specific type of social interaction with strict assumptions that may not be realistic. Even if we accept the model, inferring preferences from observable behaviour can be problematic — our choices may not necessarily reflect our desires.

Hopefully, these researchers’ findings may be used to explain the implications of brain damage for social deviance and to illustrate the therapeutic use of non-invasive rTMS in the treatment of the persistent antisocial and aggressive behaviours found in some types of psychiatric cases.

The wealthy voter subsidy

Stephen Harper’s Progressive Conservative government is set to scrap the per-vote subsidy. The subsidy, instituted by the Chrétien Liberals as a concomitant to their proscription on corporate and union donations to political parties, allocates federal parties about $2 per year for every vote they won in the last election.

The subsidy, according to Harper, is responsible for the frequent elections with which he has been plagued. The other political parties, it seems, remain viable on the strength of their popular support “whether they raise any money or not.” “The war chests are always full for another campaign,” Harper opines. “You lose one [election]; [and]immediately in come the [per-vote subsidy] cheques and you are ready for another one, even if you didn’t raise a dime.” Whats more, the subsidy is manifestly unjust, he assures us, because: “Taxpayers shouldn’t have to support political parties that they don’t support” through public funding.

What Harper shrewdly forgets to mention amid such righteous pronouncements, is the other type of public subsidy which political parties receive — a subsidy which overwhelmingly benefits the Conservative Party — and which he does not plan on eliminating. When a private citizen makes a donation to a Canadian political party, he or she receives a tax credit refunding up to 75 per cent of his or her donation, $650 is returned on the max donation of $1275. That means that when a conservative voter donates, say, $400 to Harper’s party, the PC gets the full $400 but the donor only pays $100 — the other $300 is paid for by the general tax pool. Unlike the per-vote subsidy, which awards money in proportion to popular support, this subsidy awards public money based upon how wealthy, and hence how capable of donating, each parties’ supporters are.

If Harper really believed that “Taxpayers shouldn’t have to support political parties that they don’t support” then he would eliminate the tax refund (which forces taxpayers of all political affiliations to subsidize individual donations) and leave the per-vote subsidy, which provides $2 for every voter who shows support for a given party by voting for it. Such a move is inconceivable, however, as the Conservatives, having the wealthiest constituents, receive far more private donations (and thus get more ‘support from tax-payers who don’t support it’) than the Liberals and NDP combined.

By eliminating the per-vote subsidy Harper is not acting on any principle; he is strategically removing a specific type of public funding (one which benefits all parties equally and democratically) while leaving in place another type of public funding (one which privileges parties with wealthy supporters — his most of all.)

As the PC’s fundraising website proudly states, “The Conservative Party of Canada is a Registered Political Party and your contribution in any one year may entitle you to generous political tax credits on your next tax return.” For the wealthy, this is true. They can give up to $1275 to the Conservative Party (which provides them, and the corporations they manage, lucrative tax-cuts) while actually paying only $625 the rest being publicly subsidized. The refund, however, does not come until next year’s tax-return, so it is basically unavailable to the majority of Canadian workers who live pay-cheque to pay-cheque, although their tax-dollars still subsidize the political donations of the wealthy.

Eliminating the per-vote subsidy will not strengthen Canadian democracy but will make the support of wealthy individuals even more important than it already is and devalue the political power of the poor even further. The result is not hard to predict. Policy will be catered to the wealthy, with little regard for the poor — that means corporate tax-cuts paid for by service cuts.

A better way to reform Canada’s party-finance system would be to eliminate the tax-refund that forces the general public to pay more than 50 per cent of any donation made by a given individual — or, better yet, eliminate private donations altogether — and increase the per-vote subsidy to make up the difference. This would make the ability of political parties to campaign effectively commensurate with their numerical support, not the wealth of their constituents.

Point/counterpoint: Liberal coalition

The Liberals should form a coaliton with the PCs
David Woolley
VARSITY STAFF

Bear with me, because what you are about to hear may sound like one of the most blasphemous and inconceivable ideas that will ever enter your mind, an event that, were it to happen, may lead to the end of the world as we know it — human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria! Since our recent election resulted in a minority government, I propose that the Liberals, in an effort to get legislation passed smoothly and efficiently, form a coalition with the Progressive Conservatives.

Hold on! Before you tear up the paper, hear me out: this is an idea that could be ideal for both parties.

We are in a strange world politically not only in Canada, but around the world. In Britain, the Liberal Democrats are the junior partners in coalition with the Conservative Party, and in Ottawa, a leaderless NDP sits as one of the largest opposition parties in Canadian history. The global economy is struggling its way out of a massive global downturn and all jurisdictions are being called upon to implement austerity measures. These bizarre circumstances may make it the right time to try something revolutionary — but utterly sensible.

To begin with, for a man who claimed to be a real change from the status quo, Tim Hudak ran on a platform that was surprisingly similar to McGuinty’s. On the big issues — job creation, healthcare and education — Hudak’s positions were, for the most part, indistinguishable from the premier’s. Add to that the penchant for parties, once in power, to drift towards the centre and you are left with the realization that a Hudak government would not have been radically different from the McGuinty one it might have replaced. Partisan attacks have been so visceral and personal because on policy there is little difference to demonstrate.

Politically, it will be very hard for McGuinty to maintain an air of legitimacy as a Premier for all Ontarians when his party holds virtually no seats from rural ridings. Hudak’s PCs on the other hand are almost exclusively rural in their representation. If legitimacy in governing is to be desired — as one would imagine it would be — then this divide must be bridged.

Secondly, a coalition puts both leaders in a very comfortable position. McGuinty silences his greatest opposition by bringing them into the fold, leaving only 17 NDP MPs to be Official Opposition to a 90 seat—strong Liberal—PC government. This means that on the major issues, McGuinty will face no gridlock to getting his measures passed. However, this will not, necessarily, be a bad thing for Hudak. Four years from now, come election time, he can claim that any winning policy succeeded because it a) was either a PC proposal or b) was subject to PC reforms which made it successful.

Yet at the same time, Hudak can claim that any particularly unpopular or unsuccessful project was a bill pushed through the coalition by the Liberals against the will of the PCs. And if they didn’t vote in a way that suggests this to be the case, Hudak can shrug it off as a vote in which his hands were tied — claiming the future of the coalition rested on it and Hudak would have rather seen an imperfect Liberal—PC plan than a disastrous Liberal—NDP coalition that would come to pass if he broke ties with the Liberals.

Finally, it would give Hudak and his MPs serious governing experience. The coalition’s cabinet would have major posts filled by PCs, including a choice cabinet position for Hudak himself. This would mean that any Hudak—led PC government in the future would not seem like an untested commodity but a safe and responsible alternative — you could change premiers without risking an untrained government.

Whether or not the leaders take up this idea depends on a number of variables: the personal egos of the leaders; the practical divide between the farthest right members of the PC caucus and the farthest left of the Liberals; the breaking of centuries of political tradition by forming a coalition between the two largest parties in parliament; as well as the popular response to such a move from Ontarians. All this considered, such a move is improbable but by no means impossible and should be considered seriously by the two leaders. Four years from now, come the next election, the Liberals and the PCs would both emerge from a coalition ideally positioned to portray themselves as serious contenders for the provincial government.

alt text


The Liberals should form a coalition with the NDP
Patrick Baud
VARSITY STAFF

Despite a truly soporific campaign, the provincial election held earlier this month in Ontario yielded an interesting result. The vote left the governing Liberals one seat short of a majority at 53 seats. Last week, Liberal leader and current Premier Dalton McGuinty announced his intention to form a government without seeking to form a coalition or to conclude another kind of accord with one of the two opposition parties.

Instead, McGuinty hopes to negotiate the passage of individual laws with the opposition. This may be the ideal strategy for the Liberals, but it certainly is not for Ontarians.

Rather than governing on an issue-by-issue basis, the Liberals should seek to make a deal with the New Democrats.

While it would be unreasonable for them to form a coalition given the near majority held by the Liberals, New Democratic leader Andrea Horwath could agree to support the Liberals on the budget and a few key bills for two or three years. In exchange for their support, the Liberals would agree to modify their policies, and adopt new ones in certain key areas. This would allow the Ontario government to function effectively and to avoid the kind of legislative deadlock that plagued the federal parliament during Stephen Harper’s early years as prime minister.

Such an accord is not without precedent in Ontario nor even for the New Democrats. After the 1987 provincial election, then leader of the New Democrats, Bob Rae agreed to support David Peterson’s Liberals to form the government in exchange for some policy concessions laid out in a formal agreement. An informal agreement would also be possible. After the 1975 election, then leader of the New Democrats, Stephen Lewis, agreed not to defeat the Progressive Conservatives under Bill Davis in exchange for the introduction of rent control legislation.

It would be better for the Liberals and the New Democrats to sign a formal agreement publicly so that they can be transparent about the purpose and limits of the deal. The focus should be on the economy, which was where both parties devoted much of their energy during the election campaign. Fortunately, both parties agree broadly on the objectives of economic policy, if not necessarily on the means which should be used to achieve them. During the current climate of economic uncertainty, it is crucial that the government seek to encourage growth and to reduce Ontario’s sizeable deficit.

While the specific policies that would be used to achieve these goals would have to be negotiated between the two parties, there were some hints offered during the election campaign of what such an approach would look like. For instance, rather than lowering corporate taxes across the board, the Liberals could agree to focus tax cuts on small and medium-sized businesses, which the New Democrats advocated during the campaign. Since these businesses create most of the jobs in Ontario, it should be the government’s priority to ensure that they can do so.

Similarly, the New Democrats could lend their support to the Liberal proposal to create a grant that would reduce tuition fees for college and university programs by one third for most families. This is not to say, however, that there would be complete agreement between parties nor that there should be. They differ, for instance, on the role that the government should play in protecting Ontario industries. Adopting a “Buy Ontario” policy, as the New Democrats propose, would weaken the competitiveness of Ontario businesses and thereby weaken Ontario’s ability to export. However, these differences should not be used as an excuse for the Liberals and New Democrats not to work together to effectively govern Ontario.

The alternative is either years of legislative deadlock as the Liberals refuse to compromise or years of mediocre, timid government, left unable to make decisions to safeguard the future of Ontario. While the Liberals and the New Democrats certainly do not agree on all matters, they agree on what are the most important issues facing Ontario and can surely find a way to take action on them. If they cannot, then Ontario will not be well positioned to deal with the challenges that continued economic uncertainty may bring.

Renewing our democracy

Preliminary figures shows that only 49.02 per cent of registered voters cast a ballot. For the first time in Ontario history, less than half cast a ballot to decide who would form the next government. This means more people essentially chose “none of the above.” The emphasis on “registered” is important because there are thousands of working-class citizens, so marginalized that they don’t even appear on the voter’s list (and to this we should add thousands of disenfranchised immigrants with “no status,” some of whom have lived here for decades.)

What are the implications of this massive abstinence? What does it tell us about the supposed “democratic” system in which we live?

For example, the Liberals, who gained only 37 per cent of the vote, have the right to govern this province with the votes of only about 18 per cent of the registered voters. If we take into account non-registered Ontarians we can see how small a mandate they really have.

So why is this the case? More voting options were offered this time than anytime in history. Internet voting was introduced in some parts. There was even “assistive voting technology” to help those with hearing and seeing impairments.

alt text

“Educated” elites (or cynics of all types) like to tell us that this is due to the electorate’s ignorance that they don’t have a sense of “civic duty.”

I, however, would argue that the problem doesn’t lie with people but with the system.

Looking back at the platforms of main political parties during the Ontario elections, we should ask ourselves if there was a single one who offered real solutions to unemployment, our ailing economy, and prevailing social inequalities. The answer is none.

The NDP, the party that was built by workers and progressives to challenge the status quo didn’t offer much more either. Horwath, who was mostly unknown to people before the debate, promised “change that puts people first.” But her platform didn’t have much that was different from the parties of big business.

Looking at NDP’s platform, one actually wonders what Horwath meant by “change” since all she offered was the status quo. For solving the job crisis, she proposed to hire a ‘jobs commissioner,’ basically, another overpaid bureaucrat who could somehow beg the big business to please invest and “create jobs.” She suggested freezing already very high transit fares. For workers who drive, the NDP’s long-time policy of creating public auto insurance was abandoned (for the first time in recent history).

When it comes to areas where NDP has usually fared better (health care and education) again, nothing more than status quo was offered. In fact, the NDP promised an additional $53 billion investment in health over the next four years. That is $7 billion short of what is required to cover the current rate of increase in expenditures. An NDP government was going to cut health care by 2015.

And finally, no doubt, the most disappointing section of NDP’s platform was post-secondary education. Directly going against its own policy, again and again ratified at its conventions, the party promised a freeze on already skyrocketing tuition fees.

We can see that none of the parties — not even my very own NDP — offered policies that would stand up to the austerity agenda that the capitalist governments are offering around the world.

While I had many positive reactions when canvassing in this election, I felt sympathy with every door that was shut on me with every working-class person who told me “these politicians are all the same.”

After all, this is the true balance sheet of the bogus capitalist “democracy”: Three successive governments (NDP, Progressive Conservatives, Liberal) have carried through cuts and austerity, and today, none of them promises anything else. Besides, there is no accountability whatsoever. Once elected, there is no meaningful way people can participate in making decisions that determine the course of their lives. (let alone the fact that most important decisions are not taken in Queen’s Park but in the boardroom tables that none of us are invited to).

This system offers little avenue for any sort of political participation.

Previously in this newspaper, I asked a question: with the situation as it is can our system even be called “rule of the people”? When I wrote that article, back in December 2010, I also said that these are not just “far-left musings” and that “thousands of Canadians [are] asking themselves this question.”

I might have been proven correct because merely a few weeks after this dismal turnout, thousands around the country are planning to launch #occupymovements
similar to the one in New York. By taking aim at big corporations and banks, they show that they know very well where the power lies. They are voting with their feet.

It is the job of political activists, including those in the NDP, to offer a solution that people can rally around so they can abolish this non-participatory dictatorship of capitalism and replace it with a democratic socialist system, where resources are owned collectively and people can rule directly through their own institutions.

Sports in brief

Men’s rugby team wins
The Varsity Blues men’s rugby team won their first game this season after the Guelph Gryphons forfeited this week’s fixture.

On October 3, Guelph’s Department of Athletics announced that the Gryphons’ men’s rugby team had been suspended for two regular season games. The decision followed an off-campus incident during an orientation event organized by members of the rugby team, which breached the student athletic code of conduct.

“We have a duty to provide our students with an environment that is safe for everyone and upholds the highest standards of Gryphon athletics,” Tom Kendall, Guelph’s Director of Athletics, said on the Gryphons’ website. “Our code of conduct related to both on- and off-field activities is very clear, and our expectations of our athletes are very high. The students are well-informed of the code and subsequent consequences.”

Guelph’s forfeiture is good news for the Blues who have lost all five of their games so far, although the default victory is unlikely to impact the standings. The team, however, would have preferred to play the Gryphons. “No team likes to win on a forfeiture,” said Blues’ head coach Paul DiCarmine. “We are building a team, and it’s all about experiencing. We need experience. We need to play.”

—Marie-Violette Bernard
With files from gryphons.ca