Jacqueline Schifano

This National Hockey League season began with a respected veteran stepping in to bring justice to a league that had lost its way. The new sheriff, also known as the NHL senior vice president of player safety, is Brendan Shanahan.  He was brought in to throw suspensions and fines at players who broke league laws, risked lives, and injured fellow players with head shots and overall dirty hockey. Although his efforts early on were admirable, Shanahan and the NHLPA seem to be slipping as viewers find themselves watching what could be considered hockey’s dirtiest playoffs to date.

When the season started, Shanahan ruled the NHL with an iron fist. He handed out nine suspensions before the regular season even began. It looked like he meant business with 44 suspensions in his rookie season as VP. The suspensions totaled to 135 regular season games being missed and 28 games in the preseason. He released detailed reports, each including a video breaking down how each transgression earned its sentence, earning him the nickname ‘Shanaban’.

The problem, though, has been Shanahan’s inconsistency in his management of player safety. Particularly with recent decisions, all of the credibility has been lost and his job could, and should, be in jeopardy.

A look back at the regular season will provide more than enough examples of Shanahan’s complete disregard for justice.

The Toronto Maple Leafs goaltender James Reimer had to be taken out of the lineup early in the season after an elbow to the head during a game against the Montreal Canadiens. Reimer was following a play when Brian Gionta skated through the crease and delivered an elbow to the goalie’s head, resulting in a concussion that left Reimer sidelined until January.  Shanahan was apparently too preoccupied to respond to Gionta’s malfeasance.

Another assault occurred on Buffalo Sabres goaltender Ryan Miller.  Miller had left his crease in a game against the Boston Bruins to play a puck that would have resulted in a breakaway for Bruins’ left winger Milan Lucic. Lucic decided that he would flatten Miller with a hit, also resulting in a concussion.  Shanahan stated that the hit did not show an “intent to injure,” which caused more outrage in the hockey world than the actual hit did.  For those keeping score this was simply another missed call by Shanahan.

So far, this post-season looks like a buffet of missed calls by Shanahan and the NHLPA.  Recently, Shea Weber, captain of the Nashville Predators, delivered an attack on Red Wings’ star Henrik Zetterberg. With 5.1 seconds left on the clock, Weber and Zetterberg were battling for the puck when Weber grabbed the back of Zetterberg’s head and smashed his face into the glass.  What was Shanahan’s ruling on this?  A fine of $2,500.  That’s pretty much what Weber spends to wash his cars, considering he earned $7.5 million this season alone.

By setting an example, and actually giving Weber a suspension worthy of his actions, Shanahan could have potentially prevented the current madness that is the playoffs.

In game two of the series, New York Ranger Carl Hagelin laid an elbow to the head of Ottawa Senators’ captain Daniel Alfredsson. The hit earned him a mere three game suspension.

All hell broke loose in game three of the Philadelphia Flyers/Pittsburgh Penguins series. It was one of the most disgraceful games to ever garner my attention. I don’t necessarily have a problem with rivalries and even fighting in hockey, but the play of both teams last Sunday was enough to make me change the channel.  At one point, Aaron Asham of the Penguins cross-checked rookie Flyer Brayden Schenn in the throat. As Schenn lay face down on the ice, Asham took the opportunity to punch Schenn the back of the head.

Asham was suspended for his actions, but it will cause some to wonder: Is this too little too late for Shanahan?  His miscall on Weber has set a standard for suspensions or lack thereof in the NHL.

He may have been great on the ice, but the new Brendan Shanahan has lost his heroic glow and seems to have forfeited his sheriff’s badge.  It’s a free-for-all in the NHL right now and it will be the players and the fans that will lose out because of it. It’s almost enough to make me wish for the highly scrutinized days of Shanahan’s predecessor Colin Campbell.

Perhaps it’s time that Shanahan was given a suspension.

Luke Vermeer

The Toronto Maple Leafs haven’t won the Stanley Cup since 1967. Sorry to bring that up, but it’s an undeniable fact. They also haven’t made the playoffs since 2004, and they’ve finished at or near the bottom of the Eastern Conference, and the NHL, in three of the last four seasons.

Now despite those numbers the Leafs continue to sell out the Air Canada Centre and millions follow the team across Canada and around the world via TV, radio and the Internet.

But there’s something wrong with that, or at least that’s what the Leaf haters would have you believe. They say that because the fans show up constantly, because we buy the merchandise, the team has no incentive to win. That is ridiculous.

The idea that people not showing up to games would convince the team to change and start winning is flawed in theory and even more flawed in practice.

Perhaps the people who espouse this ‘logic’ should have a chat with the Dallas Stars (cheapest tickets in hockey), or the Columbus Blue Jackets (one playoff season in their history), or the Florida Panthers (one playoff year since 2000), or the New York Islanders (five straight years in the bottom three of the Eastern Conference). Those teams fail to fill their respective arenas when they are terrible. Because they are terrible they start losing money; because they lose money they have to cut back on salaries; and because they cut back on salaries, they can’t re-sign their young stars or sign veterans and the product on the ice suffers. It’s a vicious cycle that a number of teams have been unable to break out of and those who have did so only with new ownership.

The philosophy of supporting a losing team is not something that is exclusive to hockey. Take the Hamilton Tiger-Cats of the Canadian Football League. As a proud Hamiltonian, I am an ardent supporter of the Tabbies. But despite my rabid fandom (and the fandom of the entire city), the product on the field isn’t indicitive of the support.

Since the Ti-Cats won their last Grey Cup in 1999, the team has had only two seasons with more wins than losses. In 2001, they went 11-7 and in 2004 they went 9-8-1.

The record of futility from the team is unmatched in Canadian sports and among the worst in North American pro sports.

But despite all that, Ti-Cats fans remain as hopeful as ever. Every year the story is not how bad the team is, it’s that this year will be the year because of this reason or another. The support never dies and for some that is hard to comprehend.

If you want a simple answer to why we keep showing up despite the mediocrity it’s this: because we are fans. That’s it. A real fan doesn’t switch teams just because their current one is losing. A real fan complains and moans and might even stop watching but a real fan never switches allegiances. A real fan suffers through the terrible because they know the payoff will be that much sweeter.

Popular hockey blogger, Sean McIndoe, aka Down Goes Brown, put it best when he said, “A sports fan who cheers when the team is winning and ignores them when they are losing isn’t doing anything admirable. We have names for them, they are bandwagon jumpers and frontrunners and they are the lowest type of fan that there is.”

So you can keep hopping bandwagons whenever you feel like it. I’m going to keep on supporting my losing teams.

Because that’s what real fans do.

Michael Gregory

Joe Muto’s ambitious leaking of inside videos and photos from Fox News reminds me of a favourite childhood carnival game. You know the one, Whac-A-Mole, where you stand wielding a mallet waiting to smack that furry critter with all vigor once he emerges.

It really was all child’s play when Fox News booted Muto – the associate producer of the station’s famed O’Reilly Factor – out the door onto Sixth Avenue only a few days after he accepted Gawker’s $5,000 offer for a digital soapbox.

Appearing on CNN’s news media show Reliable Sources over the weekend, Muto looked  as though he hadn’t lost much sleep over the whole thing – joking with host Howard Kurtz that he’d lost all credibility and didn’t expect any calls back from the resumes he’s already handed out.

But as the legal hounds at Epstein, Becker & Green, chomp at the bit for the ‘Fox Mole’, I’m left here wondering what the big fuss is all about. Not because I support Muto, quite the opposite, but because he did all but turn a few annoyed executives heads – and no doubt Reilly himself.

Exhibit A:  A photo of young Bill O’Reilly on a boat with a topless blond.

Exhibit B:  Mitt Romney’s discussion of horseback riding.

Exhibit C: Legal letters from Fox News’ lawyers asking Gawker to “immediately stop publishing information and videos that have been unlawfully obtained.”

Self-described as “a weasel, a traitor, a sell-out and every bad word you can throw at me,” what Muto gave to Gawker alongside his martyred rants was truly nothing of any interest.

Motivations are a tricky thing to analyze without directly knowing the people involved.

The reaction throughout the New York media appears that Muto is probably after something much greater than online fame – a book deal perhaps.  Not a bad strategy in a presidential election year given the shoulders he’s rubbed up on over the years.

I’d guess the cards Muto’s holding close to his chest for any future profiteering is nothing more than a bluff waiting to be called out.  Gawker paid him to provide its readers with a bit of bantering against the right-wing media and that’s exactly what they got – along with all the additional website traffic in the aftermath, not too shabby.

Muto is an example, and that’s exactly what Fox will turn him into.  An example of trying to be a dirty reporter, a leaker of information on a media baron and turning up far short of accomplishing anything.  An example of how just when you think you’re ahead of the game, you’re already behind.

An example that in the high-stakes media industry it’s important who’s willing to pop up and speak out. Because, they may just be waiting to ‘whac’ you.

Katie Brown

You are what you buy? A study conducted by researchers at San Francisco University suggests that materialistic spenders are less happy, less liked, and have less satisfaction in life. Shoot. As a trend-hunting shopaholic, this is bad news to me.

The study breaks down spending habits into two categories: materialistic and experiential. Experiential buyers (or “risk takers”) spend their money on vacations, culture, and food while materialistic spenders tend to shop for, well, anything. While I consider myself a materialistic consumer now, I also played for the other team in a different chapter in my life.

At 18, I moved out of my parent’s house and across the pond to become an au pair in Italy, caring for two children. I worked five days a week, almost 24 hours a day, and collected a small sum of 80 euros per week.  Although room and board was taken care of, I was faced with the same decision each week: Paris (or London, or Milan, or Nice) for the weekend or buying the cardigan (or shoes, or jeans) displayed in the window of the shop across from my bus stop.

For most people, the decision to travel would be clear. Alas, for me, the temptation to shop often clouds my judgment, making this choice extremely difficult.

Still, I eventually came to the conclusion that I must see as much of Europe as possible. I used my paycheck towards train fare and hostels instead of shopping whilst still maintaining my identity and remaining ever clad in heels. As hard as it was to wear clothes from previous seasons or avoid the beckoning warmth and light of shopping centers and markets, the pay-off was incredible and I wouldn’t trade my experiences for all the clothes in the world (maybe that’s an exaggeration).

As an experiential spender, I was definitely a risk-taker. I had a surplus of new friends and I was generally in good spirits, as the study suggests. The thrill of travelling somewhere new was a natural high, but one that only lasted until the following Monday, when I had to return to work.

On the opposite end of the spectrum today, I am usually in debt or living paycheck to paycheck, but the feeling of buying something new makes me feel like a million bucks.  The beauty of “stuff” versus experiences is a feeling that lasts.

Now, it may sound like I have chosen the lifestyle of a materialist after experiencing both, but this is not true. Living in Toronto for almost three years now, I have fallen into a rather routine lifestyle much different than my life in Italy. Without the temptation to hop on the train to Venice for the weekend, it has become much easier to adapt to a lifestyle that allows the “entertainment” portion of my budget to be spent at the mall.

For the sole purpose of challenging the research behind this study, I will now strive to be both types of spender. Ultimately, the short-term thrill of experiences and the long-term thrill of buying are both extremely satisfying. Besides, how much more fun will it be to incorporate the mall on my next weekend getaway? But first: a better-paying job.

Emma Brown

This year marks the 50th anniversary of the release of the Beatles’ first single, Love Me Do.  The anniversary holds a special place in my heart because I am a huge Beatles fan and always have been.

In fact, I came from a long line of Beatles fans.  During the early 60s, my grandfather would stop in at the local record store where the family lived in Glasgow and pick up the latest Beatles single for my mom and her nine siblings.  By all accounts, this was a big event in their house and I’m told that oftentimes neighbours would pop in for a listen.  Together, the young and not-so-young would spend the evening singing and dancing to hits like Please Please Me, From Me to You, and All My Loving.  I have often wondered what it was about the Beatles that enabled them to bridge the generation gap between the youth culture of the time and their World War II generation-parents.

Personally, I think there are two parts to this answer.  Firstly, at the beginning of their careers, the Beatles and their music were non-threatening.  Family men like my grandfather didn’t have to worry about the Beatles leading their children astray.  Compared to Elvis Presley, Little Richard, and Jerry Lee Lewis a decade before, the Beatles were ‘safe.’ They didn’t swing their hips in a wildly suggestive manner, frighten the white power structure, or marry 13 year-olds.  Sure, they had ‘long hair,’ but they wore suits and sang songs like I Want to Hold Your Hand and She Loves You; hardly rallying cries of teenage rebellion.  Contemporaries like the Rolling Stones, the Who, and the Animals may have had a ‘bad boy’ edge to their image, but not the Beatles.

Secondly, the Beatles were funny.  My grandfather liked just about anyone who could make him laugh and the Beatles did just that.  In the early 60s, the band’s humour was on constant display.  If you need convincing, sit down to A Hard Day’s Night and try not to laugh.  Or, watch five minutes from the press conference they gave moments after arriving in the United States in early 1964.  Within minutes of stepping off the plane at JFK airport, they had the entire New York City press corps in fits of laughter.  “They mugged, and clowned, and gagged it up to the delight of us reporters,” remembered Christopher Potterfield, who covered the band’s arrival for Time magazine.

Upon seeing the Beatles perform for the first time at Liverpool’s Cavern Club, future manager Brian Epstein said: “I was immediately struck by their sense of humour on stage, and even afterwards, when I met them I was struck again by their personal charm.” George Martin, who would become the band’s music producer, had a similar experience when he met them for the first time at Abbey Road studio.  “I liked their sense if humour,” recalled Martin. “They had tremendous charisma.  I knew that alone would sell them.”

Martin was right.  This was, after all, a time of the Iron Curtain and a presidential assassination. People needed a laugh and that’s what the Beatles gave them.  Their music was upbeat and optimistic and so were they.

Working class men like my grandfather felt like they knew the Beatles. Glasgow and Liverpool share a lot of similarities; both being port cities, and my grandfather probably ran into similar characters on a regular basis.  This feeling of kinship didn’t last long, though.  According to my grandfather, the Beatles ‘went weird’ somewhere around their Revolver/Sgt. Pepper period, and he never forgave them.  Blasphemous remarks about Jesus, confessions of LSD use, naked album covers, and bed-ins for peace, all conspired to put the band beyond his frame of reference.

By the late 60s, the civil rights movement, the women’s movement, and the war in Vietnam were in full swing.  Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy would both be horribly gunned down.

Men of my grandfather’s generation found their world was changing, and with psychedelic clothing, edgier lyrics, and Indian gurus, so, too, were the Beatles.

Michael Radoslav

The world of sports is frequently out of touch with reality, a fact once again made all too apparent through moves by the NBA to restrict entry to its future skilled tradesmen.

Commissioner David Stern recently approached the NBA players union with a proposal to increase the age at which players could enter the league another year, from 19 to 20, which would encourage players to spend a second year in college – or playing overseas in Europe – before joining the NBA.

While Europe is a consideration, the main purpose behind it is focused around college. In 2006, when the age limits were increased from 18 to 19, Stern said it was done to keep NBA scouts out of high school gyms. This proposal is about putting an end to one-and-done players, who attend a single year of post-secondary schooling before joining the pro ranks.

The NBA had drafted players out of high school before Kevin Garnett was selected fifth overall in 1995, however it had only happened four times since the first occurrence of Moses Malone in 1974. Between 1995 and 2005, the floodgates were opened with 38 high school players drafted to teams.

The question to ask is why a person with the ability to perform, to ply their trade and make a living for themselves at the required level of expertise, is confronted with such extra barriers to access. It hurts the players, who could suffer a career ending injury while waiting to hit the appropriate age to become pro. It hurts the leagues themselves, as they could make money off a young, fresh-faced superstar talent.

For the record, the NBA is not the only league with some form of age restrictions in place. The NFL has stated that before athletes declare themselves eligible for the draft they must have spent three years out of high school.

Yet MLB says players can sign on with farm teams at the age of 16, with the ability to go pro at 18. The NHL also sets their draft age at 18.

While professional sports are games played by grown adults, they are businesses and operate as such. There’s a very good reason why the players of these games can earn six-, seven- or even eight-figure salaries for participating. They all go against the basics of the regular working world with their limitation.

An entrepreneur or a salesperson can start at any age; those self-made success stories did not have to wait until they hit a certain, predetermined age to be allowed to realize their potential.

Nobody campaigned against Taylor Swift or Justin Bieber putting out albums before they had even finished half of their high school careers.

A basketball player needs only to transport a ball through a hoop, pass it, or handle a rebound. If that can be accomplished, and the physical attributes allow the player to do it against professionals, there is no reason they should be turned away.

It was clear the teenage LeBron James was ready to play at a high level the moment he stepped on an NBA court in 2003, when the college requirement was not in place. He instantly made an impact on the game as well as the culture of the sport. One can only imagine what would have happened had he injured himself in the year or two he was required to spend in the college ranks, even though he was perfectly capable of entering the league. How much revenue would the league have robbed itself of?

If a degree or some sort of certification were necessary, increasing the age of entry would make more sense. However, if one can compete at the required level, he should be allowed to play.

Continuously building barriers, limiting both the athletes and the leagues from finding success, makes little to no sense.

Ruth Van Dyken

It’s 12:58 a.m. Tonight’s party was good fun, lots of laughs, but I’m feeling a little lonely now  and  Facebook’s blue glow is calming.  Amy is sick to death of studying, fighting continues in Syria and Jimmy is having lasagna.

There’s a knock at my door – it’s my older brother Matt.  He wants to talk.  Again.  Can’t he tell I’m busy?  He leaves; I clue into that lost look in his eyes.

Julia is out of skittles and that’s sad. Plane crash in Siberia killed 31 people and Heather likes kittens.

If I’m honest, that’s how some of my nights drag into the wee hours.  That dull loneliness, that need for more solid interaction – but I’ve turned away the living, caring Matt for the dope of Facebook.

Not that Facebook is our only recourse: society is loaded with counterfeit pleasures.  We want adventure and turn to Survivor.  “Hockey” means not a rousing match at the community rink but an evening spent slouching on the couch.  We need understanding and post our deepest, most personal feelings on our wall.

It’s not just with technology, although technology plays a huge role in it.  We need love, we long for that meaningful companionship and utter delight in our beloved.  But we need it now and shucks, that late-night pickup at the bar is just too easy.  We need worth and take a trip to the spa.  When the bottom falls out of life, we look for meaning.  So we toss a 20 dollar bill at the nearest charity and click “like” on Kony2012.  Meaning in life, check.  Joy?  I’ve got an app for that.

I used to clock into work each Monday to find the same old conversation happening as regularly as that dreaded day itself: “What did you do over the weekend?” says one guy.  Other guy thinks a moment. “Man, I was so drunk I can’t remember!”  Laughter.  “Those are the best kinds of weekends, aren’t they!”  Really?  Life’s best moments happen while the mind is so blown that it has lost connection with life itself?

C.S. Lewis says it poignantly in The Weight of Glory: “We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased.”

It’s something to think about, especially as we break for the summer or graduate.  Mass culture hammers its young people into the mold of the Canadian dream.  We’re expected to raise a little hell before settling into a career.  We’re told we can’t do better than to become that business tycoon who has a gorgeous house, spouse and vacation.  As for having kids, they’re optional (but take it from those “who know,” you get all the love and none of the drama with a dog!).  They live for their jobs or party-it-up weekends, but like Lester in American Beauty, the bankruptcy of the dream is discovered after life’s best years are spent.

Don’t we want more?  Like the young engineer I know who left his lucrative job to serve the impoverished in a drug-embattled Mexican city, the parents who sacrifice career goals to be there for their kids, or like Bill who lives the “Canadian dream” during the day and spends many evenings with mentally-disabled people, can we reach beyond ourselves for more?

Perhaps then we’ll discover lasting significance beyond these counterfeit pleasures.

Found love, meaning and joy today with Grandma.  How’s that for a status update?

Ryan Bristlon

49-33-3-5  – this is the all-time regular season record for the Ottawa Senators when facing the Toronto Maple Leafs. That’s a .598 winning percentage. Add to this one conference championship and one President’s Trophy win post 2000-’01 compared to Toronto’s zero and zero. Post 2000-01, the Senators have also tallied 3 division championships and appeared in the playoffs eight times (and clinched their ninth post-season trip earlier this week) – making the Stanley Cup finals once. The Leafs, during the same period of time, landed no division championships and have made the playoffs only four times – never appearing in the finals.

So, statistically, Ottawa has a better team. Yet, the majority of Ontario hockey fans are still bleeding blue and white. The Ottawa Senators have seen far more success in recent years than their Ontario rivals, yet these successes fail to resonate with the province’s population. Anyone who has spoken to a Leafs’ fan knows changing loyalties has never been an option.

But could this season prove to be the final straw for, at least, a handful of Maple Leafs’ fans? The “Fire Wilson,” demanding the ouster of the team’s coach, and “Let’s go, Blue Jays” chants within the Air Canada Centre over the last month sure make it seem that way.

Post-expansion (and I’m talking about the original-six expansion), the Toronto Maple Leafs are the only original-six team to not make the Cup finals. In the post-lockout era (2004-’05), the Leafs and the Florida Panthers are the only teams not to make the playoffs (Florida currently sits in third in the Eastern conference).

The Leafs started this season in first place and now sit in the second-last spot in the Eastern conference. They fired their head coach and kept losing. On Feb. 6, the Leafs were in sixth place in the East. Since Feb. 7, the Leafs’ record is 5-16-3. They are twenty-eighth in the league in goals against and twenty-ninth in penalty killing.

To boot, the average cost of a ticket to a Maple Leafs’ home game at the ACC is the highest, not only in Canada, but within the entire league with an average of US$114 per ticket according to the most recent franchise valuations by Forbes.  The organization also played with the idea of increasing ticket prices for next season – raising the average ticket cost to $123. The Ottawa Senators have the lowest ticket prices of all Canadian teams – a $56 average per ticket.

So, Ontario Leafs’ fans – what the H-E-double hockey sticks?

I understand the loyalties involved in professional sport. I’ve taken heat for years cheering for non-Leafs teams. But, isn’t Phaneuf enough (pun intended)? How can fans continuously pay ridiculous prices to watch ridiculous hockey? I’m a fan of good hockey, and missing the playoffs seven years in a row is not good hockey.

The Leafs’ nation is in need of a revolution. They are so blatantly taken advantage of by owner Maple Leafs Sports and Entertainment, who happily take fans’ money while giving them nothing in return.  I can’t blame them, though. If the Toronto population is willing to pay an arm and a leg for tickets, then why not charge accordingly?

Ontario hockey fans need to start looking at the other NHL option in their province. They need to realize that nothing is going to change if they just sit back and allow themselves to be abused in this fashion by the powers that be at MLSE. They’re disrespected by their own organization. They’ve been going down with the ship long enough and it’s time to grab a hold of a life raft. After this, I can’t even sympathize anymore. I jumped ship to Ottawa when Darcy Tucker rolled into town a dozen years ago, and I haven’t looked back since.

You have options. It’s still Ontario. It’s still Canada. It’s still hockey.

Alexander Leach

Remember video game rentals? I don’t know if people still do it, but as a kid, I would go down to rental stores and pick out a game for the weekend for around $3-5; far cheaper than the $50 it took to buy a game to own.

Think about how much of that money goes to the developers and publishers of the game. Probably none, actually, since stores own the games in question. They’re loaning them out for a bit of cash. There’s nothing saying they have to do anything but buy the game from the company.

Used games definitely work like this. According to profit and sales figures for retail chain GameStop in 2011, linked by Penny Arcade Report, GameStop makes much of its revenue (42 per cent) from selling used games. This is interesting because actual used game sales don’t amount to as many sales as new games – not quite twice as many new sales to used sales, but close. Retailers like GameStop get a percentage, but the real money is in used games sold to them by customers for a fraction of the initial cost, then repackaged and sold at a lower price than the new game.

GameStop and other companies know this. They attempt to sell used games whenever they can, for this very reason. Best Buy even exalts the virtues of buying used games on a company-linked website: “When people come in to trade their games, a high percentage of them use that credit towards a new release or towards a reservation for an upcoming title. The ads in Best Buy’s flyers even promote using trade-in credit towards upcoming releases.” But I’m skeptical about the premise that used-game trade-ins generate more new-game sales; used games can come in very quickly after release date.

Publishers don’t think used game sales benefit them. With the rising trends of downloadable content (DLC), they’re finding ways to limit used games – news site Kotaku’s rumours of Xbox 720’s that would block the use of used games, for instance, and game publisher Electronic Arts using its online passes to lock out DLC and features for used games.

Developers hate used games, too. Last May, Lionhead designer Mike West went as far as to tell games media that “second-hand sales cost us more in the long-run than piracy these days”. It’s less money for developers, and they’re already beholden to publishers for all the financing to make their games.

In the end, it’s all for the gamer’s money, which leaves gamers in a bit of a fix since added DLC will only raise the cost of games even higher than it is.

A new game, at launch, retails at roughly $70. Sometimes you can get a bonus for preordering, but it’s not likely. DLC typically adds $10 in cost on top of that, usually in multiples, and MMOs (massive multiplayer online games) have subscription fees. What’s worse, used games still have to buy these add-ons, or subscriptions, if they’ll even work at all. Costs pile up, which is precisely why used games and rentals have been so popular. Soon enough, if online passes have the publishers’ desired effect, that’ll be wiped out, too.

The solution seems to be waiting six months or more for the game to drop in price and just avoid spoilers until then. Prices drop a lot after half a year, if you don’t mind being late to the party. This may have issues for the game economy, but when you’ve got two sides fighting a war for who gets your money, you’re best to just wait it out and shop around.

Jason Spencer

Since 2003, Ontario has increased its high school graduation rate from 68 to 81 per cent. Although the number looks impressive, it seems the decrease in educational standards at the secondary level are what have made the spike possible.

Dalton McGuinty’s government describes this triumph as giving kids the opportunity to succeed. However, by ‘opportunity,’ the Premier means that students who do not apply themselves at all are pushed through with additional chances – including giving some students five years to complete a four-year diploma, referred to as the ‘victory lap.’

McGuinty’s goal is an 85 per cent graduation rate and he’ll probably attain it by making failure next to impossible with a law that keeps students in school until the age of 18, as well as pressuring high school teachers to bump up failing grades.

In Louise Brown’s 2007 piece for the Toronto Star, “Failure is not an option,” she writes – that in keeping students at school until 18, Ontario teachers are being pushed by Queen’s Park to “coddle students with inflated marks, [give them] too many second, third, and fourth chances and too few flunking grades adding to an already lofty sense of entitlement.”

Brown’s article also outlines how teachers are encouraged not to penalize students for absences and late assignments. Pressuring teachers to degrade themselves in this manner will not aid students in their development. It only generates a bizarre power struggle resulting in a loss of control over the classroom.

In tandem with the abnormally high completion rate, the dropout rate has obviously decreased. But, whatever happened to those who abandoned high school, only to earn their General Education Diploma afterward, or apply for post-secondary programs as a mature student?  People need time to figure out what they want to do and passive-aggressive regulations do not foster growth.

The whole environment of helping, not hurting, youngsters who struggle at school is created by a deceptive policy. Much like a number may appear enticing, pushing a student’s stroller through high school and then dangling a 30 per cent rebate for college or university in front of them is misleading and will lead to ripple effects.

With increased graduation rates and the introduction of the rebate, fickle youngsters are being set up for failure at the post-secondary level as they leapfrog from program to program, trying on prospective careers as if they were new hats, and all the while incurring debt or being helped along through prolonged adolescence by their parents.

This litany of choice is a pseudo-democratic cultural occurrence which leaves students unsure of where they stand. Also, the second career program, subsidizing a return to school brought about by the recession, pits Generation X against Generation Y as they compete in their courses with two different mindsets.

Either path is not helpful, seeing as the baby boomer generation probably will not be leaving the office, unless by pink slip or hearse, and with an economic depression camouflaged in credit, who can blame them?

With the under-qualified waiting in the wings, one could deduce that an influx of skilled immigrant workers will be required to fill the future management positions as mass anticipated retirements come to pass.

In 2010, Maclean’s magazine published an article entitled “Your Grades Will Drop.” The piece discussed how high school students who got extremely high grades did poorly in their first-year of university because of the increased academic difficulty. The article, written by Carson Jermea, cited the drop in performance as grade shock.

Perhaps Ontario should take cues from Alberta’s high school education standards. In 2009, Alberta came second in the world in reading and fourth in the world in science as per a Program for International Student Assessment study. Public funding for universities is highest in Alberta, according to Statistics Canada, at 72 per cent.

Fudging the numbers has increased graduation rates in Ontario. The Liberal government prides itself that 72,000 more students have graduated than if the rate remained at the 68 per cent of 2003 and we will see how the freshly cut victory lap ameliorates the standards.

Nonetheless, pushing through the unprepared will have lasting negative effects because it erodes the intrinsic value of education. Knowledge is viewed as a disposable commodity and quality control is on autopilot. As with any political ideology, the soaring numbers look great on paper, but fail in practice. If everyone passes, then what’s the point of applying one’s self? If the educational standards do not increase, the invaluable lesson that failure imparts will be lost: responsibility.