UPDATE: Elections postponed to February 29th and March 1st due to Tuesday’s hacking debacle. Details at WesternUSC.ca

Today is the last day to vote in the USC elections. Make sure to participate and have your voice heard! Over the last month, the mitZine team has worked hard to bring you the best resources to make an informed decision. If you’re making your voting today, here’s some helpful articles to help you make your decision: 

“Breaking down the candidates’ platforms” by the mitZine team 

“Three ways to pick a president” by Hadrian Mertins-Kirkwood

“Circus in town at Huron debate” by Elizabeth Sarjeant

“Line of Site: A USC President Web Critique” by Paul Craig

“USC Debate Analysis: Candidates Play it Safe” by Hadrian Mertins-Kirkwood

In addition to voting for councillors and a new USC president, students are asked to vote in a referendum about changes in the student health care plan and other important issues.

So, that’s it. All the campaigning, commentary, and controversy has come down to this—now it’s up to you. Get out there and vote, Western!

A frequent criticism of the annual USC elections is how many of the candidates’ promotional videos, twitter feeds, debates, and displays in the UCC are heavy on style and light on substance. In many instances, information about the candidates and their platforms took a back seat to flashy presentations. Between the eerily similar videos that featured little more than video of the candidates walking set to music, free goodies in the UCC atrium, and constant pop culture references during debates, it’s not hard to see how some students might feel that the real issues were lost amid the tumult of ostentatious campaigning.

The defaced USC Elections main page praised Bieber as the "hero of UWO."

Far from going unnoticed, the reliance on flashy campaign techniques by the candidates was criticized heavily by students on Facebook and Twitter, as well as in this publication. In light of such widespread condemnation, the defacement of the USC Elections site could be seen as a pointed criticism of the political climate at Western. The carefully manipulated cult of personality that follows Bieber is unsettlingly similar to the ones that were constructed around the USC presidential candidates. When students are being swayed politically by showy productions and cookies, is Western really so different than Bieber’s world of industry image management?

Instead of dismissing yesterday’s hack, it should be seen as a wake-up call for Western’s voting community. Not that elections that admittedly cater to a fun-loving demographic shouldn’t be fun themselves, but we would do well to focus more on the issues next time around. After all, what does it say about Western as a democratic and open institution when a vote for a USC presidential candidate is gained through the same means as Justin Bieber’s popularity?

She’s featured in The Flaming Lips’ new song “Now I Understand” alongside African singer Eryka Baduas as they join in gracefully singing, “Wayne, I don’t understand,” and, “The moon, the stars, and the sun,” during the first half of the song.

While Siri is very compliant with producers’ demands and will sing anything they like, she lacks a few crucial attributes of the traditional pop sensation – namely, stage presence and a human figure.

In case you hadn’t guessed, we’re talking about Siri – the iPhone application – not a real person (How many people did I fool?).

Not only is Apple already in the business of music distribution with iTunes, but they’ve also branched out into music production.

Siri’s recent role in creating music is not the first time the Flaming Lips have used 21^st

Wayne Coyne holds up his duet partner, Siri

century technology to broaden their experimental horizons. Last February, the Oklahoma City-based band released “Two Blobs Fucking,” a song that requires the listener to play 12 YouTube videos simultaneously. They followed this by releasing a gummy skull that had to be consumed to receive a USB flash drive that held two new songs.

“As these new ways of putting music out in the world come around, it kind of gets your mind thinking ‘what could you do?’” said Coyne in an interview with Mashable.

“What could you do?” indeed. The opportunities are endless. Coyne gives an example in his experiments with playing four songs simultaneously on CDs to create a single soundscape back in the 90s, “It really played in this sort of tumultuous big sound, because it was all around us and there were some unknown pieces of the arrangements jumping out at us.”

Clearly, technology pushes the band’s creative spectrum.

The Flaming Lips aren’t the only band using technology to push the boundaries of conventional music. DJs typically mix popular songs together with music programs like Traktor and Mixcraft to create an entirely new composition. There’s even a duet with Siri on Youtube.

But the term “technology” shouldn’t only apply to Siri, YouTube, USBs and music programs. Conventional instruments like electric and bass guitars often bring another level of experimentation to live concerts.

Live concerts offer a break from the stagnancy of studio recordings and rely on improvisation and spontaneity. Jam bands like The Grateful Dead and Phish are famous for seeing what kind of crazy ideas come out when working with a loosely structured song and a range of conventional and unconventional instruments. The unexpected sounds are unimaginably rewarding.

New technology pushes any artist’s creative spectrum to new levels. Our imaginations get to play in the real world and no song is ever played or experienced the same way twice. And that’s how mix-mashing DJs and bands like The Flaming Lips prefer it.

Disclaimer: the views expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of the mitZine or the MITSC.

When voters head to the (virtual) polls this week, they will be making a choice based ultimately on one of three criteria: platform, campaign, or character.

Many students will vote for a platform. They will peruse the candidates’ websites and identify promises that appeal to them. They may even take a more holistic approach and vote for what they deem the best overall vision for the USC.

Others will vote for a campaign. They have watched the videos, attended the debates, and followed social media. They have seen the candidates jockey to differentiate themselves and judged them on their public face.

The remaining students will vote based on the character of a candidate. They have taken the platforms and campaigns with a grain of salt, opting instead to focus on the qualities and experiences that distinguish each potential president.

Unlike some years, however, none of this year’s candidates have stood out in all three categories. None of them are unequivocally deserving of the position, and that makes things difficult for independent voters. To help make sense of your options, I offer here my endorsements for USC president based on the category you believe is most important. I welcome feedback in the comments below.

Platform: Adam Fearnall

When it comes to a vision for the USC, Adam has it right: we identify as Western students first, not as denizens of our student government. This crucial distinction runs through his platform, which is full of good ideas to make the overall Western experience better.

Above all, what makes Adam’s platform the strongest is its focus on issues that only the USC can deal with. Richmond Row can give us a beer garden, but it can’t give us a centralized, student-oriented information hub. ITS can give us more email storage, but it can’t bring us grants for undergrad academic research. The city of London can give us a crosswalk, but it can’t lobby for an interest credit. Adam recognizes that the USC President isn’t (and can’t be) responsible for everything; his platform reflects a mature understanding of the USC’s abilities and limitations.

Jon’s platform is too long, and that is a problem. Ambition is a good thing, but when you promise too much it becomes impossible to discern just where your priorities lie. Claire’s bites off more than it can chew in terms of infrastructure, while ignoring core USC services. Logan’s, although improved in the update, is still a patchwork of ideas with no clear vision for the role of the USC.

Campaign: Logan Ross

I anticipate this endorsement will be met with the greatest skepticism. Indeed, all of the candidates ran good campaigns. Some campaigns may even have been objectively stronger than Logan’s, but none were as effective.

Simply put, Logan is the only candidate who is better off now than when campaigning began almost two weeks ago. Through both hard work and charm, she has fought through the “inexperienced” label to legitimize herself as a viable choice in this election. Her ability to appear increasingly credible without sacrificing her “outsider” appeal is remarkable.

She is genuinely student-focused and her campaign has reflected it. Her endearing personality has been on full display during debates, while simultaneously showing off just how quickly she’s learning about the intricacies of the USC. If she doesn’t win this election, she can be proud that she did everything she could to make change without compromising her values.

Although their campaigns were good, the other candidates gained far less over the past two weeks than Logan did. Claire has solidified her “not a politician” position but hasn’t been able to convince voters that she can tackle the serious issues facing the USC. Adam and Jon, on the other hand, who came into the campaign as the two establishment candidates backed by huge, well-organized campaign teams, haven’t grown their relative support (even if they have grown their actual support).

Character: Jon Silver

He may not have articulated it clearly in his platform, and he may not have stood out in the campaign, but Jon is the candidate who can most successfully handle the complexities and rigours of the position. He is, ultimately, the best person for the job, if only marginally over Adam.

Experience has become a dirty word in this campaign, and I’m not sure why. Jon is the most qualified candidate and that should be commended. His tenure on the board of governors, as charity head soph, and on a variety of USC committees is unmatched by any of the other candidates in this race. The close working relationships he has developed with every branch of the administration, not to mention the USC’s senior managers, will be invaluable as president. He is well-respected by students and student leaders, and has a proven track record of following through on promises.

Jon’s personality has come into question during the campaign, but where some see rigidity, I see tact. In any case, Jon’s passion in a one-on-one setting more than offsets this concern. To successfully lobby the university, diplomacy is a must, and diplomacy is something Jon has in spades whereas Adam only has it in hearts and the others trail further behind.

Finally, Jon genuinely understands student concerns. It’s not enough to simply care about issues; the USC President needs to know what causes a concern, whether that concern is legitimate, and how to address it. More than any other candidate, Jon can confidently and competently do all three of these things.

Regardless of how this writer feels about it, it’s nonetheless true that being familiar, consistent, and professional-looking are contemporary necessities for anyone trying to sell themselves (or their wares) in this our post-post-post-whatever Age of Sweeping Generalisations and ADD.

In other words: get a nice website.  

We’re young, and, for the better or for worse, we’re web people.  I don’t think there’s much debate about it: our generation spends a lot of its downtime on the Internet.  We’ve developed some idea of what we like, but we especially know what we don’t like; and that’s an important consideration when presenting something new.

In FIMS (though it should be everywhere) we’re told again and again that it’s not just about the message, it’s about how the message is delivered. It’s not just the words on a (web)page that are important; other factors – such as ease of use, interactivity, and aesthetics – all contribute to both our individual and collective impressions of a given website and, by extension, our impressions of the person(s) behind it.

It was with this in mind that I clicked and re-clicked through the respective Internets of our four potential presidents, and I would ask you to keep it in your mind, as well.
——
LOGAN ROSS

Straight from the outset, there’s an ‘arctic tundra’ vibe that permeates Logan’s website with its colour scheme of icy blues, overcast greys, and vast, snowy whitespaces.  The overall feel is, well, ‘simplicity’ is a nice way to put it.  ‘Amateurish’ is another.

The main page, for example, is very sparse.  There’s the obligatory embedded campaign video, some hurried text underneath it, and a right-justified menu with some voting information and a wee bit of social networking.  Happily, the blues of Facebook and Twitter look right at home among the tasteful splashes of cyan on Logan’s site.

However, the heavily populated right menu contrasts starkly with the rest of the page, where elements are more or less float among the abundance of whitespace.

Also, there’s this crazy animation where vertical strips of her head shoot up at seemingly random intervals.  It’s – erm – ‘peculiar’ is the word I’m going to use.

The understated but very functional navigation menu at the top is your gateway to the rest of the site, where you’ll find more photos of Logan and friends in different poses and varied flesh tones.

The elements you’d want to be consistent (the logo at the top, the top navigation, the right-hand menu) always are, which is laudable.  Having a layout as functional as Logan’s is a lot to ask for online; usually I’m willing to settle for ‘sane.’

It should also be mentioned that Logan’s ‘Media’ and ‘Updates’ pages have been, well, updated since I wrote the draft for this article.  It’s a welcome development for those of us whose interaction with the candidates is primarily online.  It’s a bit of a paradox, really: campaigning voraciously means less time to work on one’s website, but visiting a neglected website gives the impression that the candidate hasn’t been doing anything.

Platform layout:

Recently updated, Logan’s platform is now (like Claire’s) contained in an embedded PDF file.

“Oh goody,” thought I, without enthusiasm or conviction when I discovered this.

In a previous draft, I had disparaged that this website’s lack of frills had been the most glaring here, with the old text-heavy platform spiralling downwards without any in-page navigation.  Now, in a 12-page PDF, she has made it even more difficult to search through her platform; it’s not that searching is impossible, but doing everything through the costly interface of an embedded PDF file certainly hasn’t improved anything.  The PDF format does, however, make it more convenient to save, print, or view her platform full-screen.

Incidentally, the recently-denuded page still plunges to an impressive depth of over 3000 pixels.

The splash page of Adam’s site has a fleeting resemblance to Logan’s main page in ideology if not execution.  The restricted colour palette, the minimal content, and the smiling candidate – it’s well organised, it’s clean, and it’s good.

It’s almost too good, actually.  With the large (‘shopped) shot of smiley Adam in a polo shirt (with the buttons undone, because even though he’s a serious guy, he knows it’s not all about business all the time), and that managerial logo, the feeling isn’t so much that Adam Fearnall wants to be your student president as that Adam Fearnall wants to help you through the process of selling your house.

The inner site gels pretty well with his decisively-established personal brand.  The #60BF93 teal makes for pretty much the only colour as the rest are variations of grey.  For a background image, he’s chosen the always-inspiring UC tower. Although, it might seem a bit outdated now that we’ve changed our logo.

The top menu is nice. It’s big and fat and obvious and shit lights up when your mouse hovers over it.  Very usable.  And if you’re trying to follow him on Twitter, you’re in luck: there’re about three Twitter links on every page.

As a mild criticism, it might have been more visually appealing to put a photo or two somewhere inside his site – I’m sure Jon Silver could have lent him one.  As it is, it comes across as somewhat barren.   It’s most apparent on the ever-popular “Join In” page, where that naked e-form is just crying out for an accompanying nice photo of Adam to reassure you that, yes, ‘us’ is a good group to join.

Platform layout:

I love it!  Well, in relation to the others, I love it!  His little web-gizmo breaks up what is a long platform into very manageable little modules.  It’s quick and responsive, and an arrow appears to tell you when there’re more of Adam’s ideas to come.  It’s easy to read his small bites of platform, and they’ve been divided into clear sections so that it’s easy to navigate through it.  Very good.

He might have included downloadable PDF like the others, to have his entire platform laid out in one place, but, realistically, probably no one downloads those things anyway.

They’ve even designed a nice ‘404 – Sorry! Not Found’ error page.  If you’re interested in seeing it, just head down to the footer and click on “Privacy Policy”.

Bam!  With a header like this one, there’s no way to misunderstand: you’ve arrived at the website of CLAIRE MCARTHUR.  It’s prominent, crimson, and wholly unambiguous.  There’re also a few social networks where you can find Claire – and if you Like, you can make it official.

Underneath we find the top half of a large banner, oscillating rapidly between four pictures. Claire’s in one of them.  The rest are red teddy heads, highlighting different aspects of her campaign–and also her video.  It all makes for a powerful introduction to the #bearnation logo.

Scrolling down, you can now read the captions to the pictures whizzing by, and – at last! – here is the site’s navigation.  It’s a contentious decision at best to put the menu so far down the homepage.  How many websites can you think of that require you scroll to the bottom before you can navigate their site?  There’s a reason the answer  ‘not many.’

Thankfully, the rest of her site puts the menu back on top, where one notices that it’s actually quite nicely done.  The little doodles and the ‘as-though-handwritten’ font used throughout the site are very ‘student-y,’ which is the angle Claire seems to be going for.

The menu simply vanishes on the “Blog” page though, which is a bit strange. Once you’re in her blog, there’s no way out except by returning “Home”.

However, I absolve her of her navigationally-related sins in this instance because Claire is the only candidate that regularly updates her blog – which, in my opinion, is a commendable habit to find in a student politician.

Platform layout:

Claire’s platform is also displayed as an embedded PDF file, which you can print or view fullscreen, and you can now download as well.  I haven’t yet, but you never know.

Reading through the platform on the embedded PDF is, well, a little unorthodox, and results in the same navigational problem I pointed out on Logan’s website (ie, get used to that right-hand scrollbar).  So, as the good, educated voter you are, your only option is to grin and bear it as you scroll through eight pages of campaign ideas.

Also, at the very bottom of the “Platform” page–under all of the mission statementing–there’s a short paragraph explaining why a bear is her chosen mascot.

Yup, that’s right: there’s just one short explanation at the bottom of one page of this iconified bear that appears on every bloody page of the website, not to mention front and centre on all campaign material.

I, for one, think it barely suffices.

Well, at least we know what Jon Silver looks like.  Whether he decides to wear his entirely blue wardrobe and makes sure he’s shaved yesterday or comes to school as a two-tone posterized head, we’ll recognize him a mile away.

Let’s just come out with it: the main page is beautiful.  There, I said it.  It’s a visual feast, with a picture almost custom-fitted to the average laptop screen. Well done.

However, the first time I visited this website, I clicked through three different pages before I realized that they contained any content.  (You have to scroll down).

Once you know that, it’s easier to learn “About Jon” or “Like” every single point in his platform.

Aside from being an arguably overwrought frame for his latest video, the home page isn’t overly helpful.  There are links to places where you’ll have the chance to “Like,” “Follow,” and “Favourite” Jon. But if you want any written content, keep looking.

The interior of the website is similarly alluring.  Its guillotine blade high-definition photos dominate pageloads, meaning that anything resembling information must be sought near the bottom.

The top navigation is pretty discreet and also very usable, but there is the occasional problem like on “The Campaign” page, where one-third of the menu vanishes into thin hair.

Invitations to Jon’s social networks are common on the right-hand side of the page, and they’ll begin to look more appealing once you notice his blog isn’t updated very frequently.  You’ll find several ways to contact Jon, and you can even “Take Some Action” if there’s no one watching.

Platform format:

The platform is divided broadly into four sections, and its formatting has been improved since the site first went live (it’s significantly more blue, for example), but it still gets pretty annoying constantly scrolling up and down to read it.

Unlike his rivals, Jon’s platform doesn’t begin with a quick summary of his points, so if you wanted to read about his proposed web tool to ask students a serious of questions, you have to trawl through everything until you arrived at “Get More Involvement” under “Community Building.” This can quickly get irritating.

Lastly, it’s worth mentioning that the footer, which on most websites is an afterthought, is here very robust and full of links that lead to actual pages.  Yo dawg, there’s even a footer on the footer.

Summation: It’s undeniable that this site is an aesthetic success, but occasionally its beauty comes at the expense of functionality.  Perhaps the most obvious example is that no content is initially visible on any of the pages.  The platform formatting is broken up into four (still rather large) categories, and finding anything specific means Ctrl+F’ing about, but at least it’s not a PDF.

Of course, a good website might only mean that this candidate has found themselves a capable web designer – but even here there is something to be gleaned: the ability to effectively delegate tasks is a valuable leadership quality.

Furthermore, and on a level decidedly less cerebral, one might make the argument that it is not uncommon for the candidate with the best website to win the election.  Indeed, one might elaborate, that is precisely what happened last year.

I make no endorsements, dear reader, and officially I’ll support no candidates.  I’ll not implore you to vote for him, her, he, or she, but I will ask that you do a little of your own analysis, and afterwards that you do vote for somebody.

Unfortunately, few real issues were discussed. Nearing the end of their long drawn-out campaigns, candidates resorted to budget bickering and to defending the relevance of their own past leadership positions.

The voting population’s hunger for intense political conflict can only be fed by an analysis of the pronounced differences in each candidate’s personality and campaign strategy. Campus politics seem to be following the trend that media theorist John B. Thompson calls the “decline of ideological politics.”

Fearnall, McArthur, Ross, and Silver are all admittedly campaigning with similar ideas about how they think the USC should be run. Platforms were a particularly shared resource this year, leaving the four to argue who would in fact be the most inclusive, most approachable, and most willing to reach out to students (or to empower them, depending whether you talked to Ross or Silver).

Thompson notes, “as fundamental disagreements over matters of principle become less pronounced, political parties search for other means by which they can differentiate themselves from one another.”

Instead of debate over the importance of various campus issues, the politics of trust took centre stage last night. And in proving him- or herself most reliable, each candidate played their part in putting on a show.

Fearnall played the role of lovable diplomat, drawing heavily on his feel-good volunteer experience and drowning in a sea of his own hand gestures. He even took a standing ovation after his closing statement, waving amicably at the crowd. However, the home-court hero did lose his friendly demeanor when he entangled himself in petty face-offs with McArthur and Silver.

McArthur desperately grasped at the title of comedian, or perhaps candidate clown. She claimed to “deserve” the role of USC President, all the while defending her identity as an average Western student and behaving increasingly like a petulant child. Her appeal to the non-political, Fall Reading Break-lusting students of Western fell on unsympathetic ears in a roomful of USC-involvement veterans aching to send her to her room.

Ross beamed like a ballerina mid-recital after each answer, golden ponytail swinging with every self-assured head nod. Solemnly silent throughout the other candidates’ open question quarrelling, Ross stood on the moral high ground and was able to defend her ideas to boot. However, her disengagement was followed by the insertion of a brief and sometimes naïve answer to each question when its time limit drew near.

Silver, eloquent as always, acted as any seasoned politician would. He vehemently defended his previous role with the USC and assured his yet unconvinced opponents that USC President isn’t “just another title” he plans to add to his list. In painfully patronizing tones, he targeted fellow candidates with pointedly accusing questions, often having to assure them that he hadn’t meant to stage an attack.

The (circus) elephant in the room was the fact that despite each candidate’s idealistic goal of reaching out to students currently uninvolved with the USC, the would-be presidents are competing for votes among students who are involved already.

By: Ainsleigh Burelle

At some point on January 18^th, you probably found yourself wandering around Internet Land only to be confronted with the blackouts on Wikipedia and Reddit, among other websites. These service interruptions were part of a protest against the proposed SOPA legislation in the U.S., which threatened stricter copyright laws and limited use of protected works. However, it’s not just an annoyance to the average American Joe. While our land may be separated by gated tollbooths and (not the nicest of) uniformed officers, the internet flows freely around the globe. The blackouts raised enough awareness to put SOPA out of effect – for now, anyway.

For those who don’t know, SOPA and PIPA are small aspects of the international movement surrounding ACTA, an opt-in global movement initiated by the governments of various countries to protect copyrighted material circulating the ’net (You know it’s getting out of control when your acronym breeds even more acronyms). As of last October, Canada, along with the U.S., Singapore, the Republic of Korea, and New Zealand all signed on the dotted line to begin paving the way for an internet that may soon be unrecognizable. Were SOPA to be passed in the U.S., or a similar bill in Canada, the repercussions would be unimaginable. Picture Youtube-ing some fresh tunes only to find ad-laden videos put up by corporations that are “not available in your country.” Miss the Golden Globes? Get out your PVRs, folks. Or better yet, wait for live replays. If Drake’s next album leaks, good luck getting your hands on it. The face of the Internet would be forever changed, and what a regrettable surgery it would be.

The SOPA web protests managed to gather the attention of over 160 million internet users, and have begun to enrage people everywhere. Kader Arif, a rapporteur for the European Parliament, recently resigned from his long-held position in order to protest ACTA’s signing. Referring to ACTA, he expressed his frustration toward the movement, noting the “lack of transparency from the start of the negotiations,” and his refusal to “take part in this masquerade.”  ACTA deliberations have reportedly been ongoing since 2007, and in all honesty, I have not heard it mentioned until 2012. Undoubtedly, these secretive deliberations were to avoid the global upset that was instead sparked by reactions like the Wiki protest.

Tabatha Southey of the Globe and Mail also addressed the tortoise-like speed of negotiations leading up to last October. She writes, “If the aim of these bills is to curtail the amount of illegally viewed films and television shows and not to preserve outdated business models or to allow governments more control over the web, [...] this process has been, I would say, suspiciously slow.”

Amusingly (or at least it would be if it weren’t so concerning), SOPA’s stated function was to “promote prosperity, creativity, entrepreneurship and innovation by combating the theft of US property and for other purposes,” which, we can all agree, is just plain silly.

As Canadians with a history of relatively lax copyright laws – works entering the public domain only require a “life plus 50” time frame in comparison to the “life plus 70” constraint on American and European works – freedom of the internet has never been a huge issue for us until now. Proposed legislation such as Bill C-11 in Canada would bring SOPA-like restrictions.

The Internet’s rapid success lies in its grassroots origins and its ability to function as a free, open-source tool. So, what if SOPA re-surfaces? What if ACTA threatens to take full control of our precious Internet with legislation like Bill C-11? Well, fellow tweeters, tumblrs, facebookers, and instagrammers, all I can say is: this is our time. If there was ever a time to fight for something valuable, it’s now.

To get involved in fighting ACTA copyright legislation in Canada, email or call your MP.

                                                           Adam Fearnall

                                                         By: Stephen Wright

Slogan: It’s Time Western
Program: English and Political Science (Huron) — Year 4
Experience:
Huron Soph
USC Speaker
President, Huron University College Students’ Council

Best platform point: USC 311

Fearnall’s simple and potent goal to centralize the University’s online amenities is a welcome and much-needed idea. I think we can all agree that the digital labyrinth that is the University’s online service is not only primitive but cumbersome. Learning to navigate Western’s unwieldy online experience certainly doesn’t alleviate the overwhelming apprehension a first year student faces when registering for courses or trying to access financial services. Fearnall’s vision for the website is based on Toronto 311’s concept, which would place links to all of the University’s services on one page.

Worst platform point: Mustang Hub

As if we aren’t bombarded with enough broadcast media, Fearnall has the silly vision of a space in the UCC outfitted with multiple TVs “tuned to the strongest news channels”, newspaper stands, and free coffee between 6am and 8am. In addition to its eccentric phraseology, this platform point is both impractical and unnecessary. Several new TVs were just installed in the main lounge, but they’re spread out all over the place. There are ways for those who are interested in getting the “strongest” news to do so; in the immutable words of Apple, “There’s an app for that.”

Bottom line for FIMS:

As many of us are in the business of not only critiquing media but also producing it, Fearnall’s apparent passion for the arts is something many students in FIMS can respect. His plans to establish a flourishing arts community include providing financial and professional support for a community of artists, writers, and musicians, updating the recording studio at CHRW to provide more recording space for students, and partnering up with ‘Writer-in-Residence’ to inspire and provide resources to aspiring authors. Although some points seem vague, it’s good to see enthusiasm for the creative spirit that FIMS embodies. Fearnall’s platform also has many points in support of academia, like undergrad research initiatives, a debate series, and ”interest credit” opportunities.

                                                         Claire McArthur

                                                By: Hadrian Mertins-Kirkwood

Slogan: You Deserve More
Program: History and Political Science — Year 5
Experience:
Social Sci Soph
Western Sports Business Club
Premierelife.ca writer
ChicsCLIC mentor

Best platform point: Improving the Spoke Experience

I’m going to cheat here and lump together a number of her platform points, all of which are geared towards improving the overall Spoke experience. Integrating varsity athletics is a novel idea that should benefit both the Spoke and our Mustangs, making hot water accessible is a no-brainer, installing a line cam should help with inconsistent wait times, and purchasing Dyson Airblades and a jukebox will only attract more Spoke patrons. Assuming all of these ideas are feasible—and they should be—they will help the Spoke to continue growing as the main undergrad hangout on campus.

What stands out about McArthur’s Spoke platform points compared to her opponents is that she is not planning on changing the way the Spoke operates. She wisely leaves things that should be left to the management, like menu and pricing, alone.

Worst platform point: More Student Parking

McArthur’s platform is weakest where she has no tangible plan besides lobbying on behalf of students. This is especially evident when it comes to student parking, an area far outside the jurisdiction of the USC. Will she lobby to have new parking lots built? Or does she want students to get higher priority spaces compared to staff and faculty? It’s simply not clear where “more” spaces will be coming from.

Bottom line for FIMS:

McArthur is running a populist campaign that is in no way faculty-specific. If you’re a Spoke regular with an interest in Western’s physical campus, there’s plenty in her platform to get excited about. Things like laptop chargers, live bus time boards, more outlets, and a new crosswalk are tangible infrastructural improvements that students want to see. The big concern is whether or not any of these things can actually be done, since they will require extensive cooperation with Western, the LTC, and the city of London, not to mention the large cost of implementation.

If you’re looking for more out of the USC’s other services, like the clubs system, for example, or for an academic focus from the president, you’ll be better served by the other candidates.

                                                              Logan Ross

                                                        By: Elizabeth Sarjeant

Slogan: Because I Care
Program: Environmental Science — Year 3
Experience:
Science Soph
Off-Campus Advisor

Best platform point: Environmental Initiatives

Both the best and worst aspects of Ross’s campaign reside in the fact that it isn’t final. She’s committed to adding points as she gains insight from students throughout her campaign. While giving her platform the democratic advantage of being somewhat student-generated, it’s hard to commit to a vote when we won’t know the extent of her platform until the election.

So far, Ross is the candidate most notably focused on environmental initiatives. While more recycling bins and bike racks on campus are hard to dispute, a paperless USC office and online textbook library are more challenging goals. However, this Environmental Science major’s passion for tackling green issues rang true at the first presidential debate. She’s also personalized the often-heard environmental stance with her distinctive cute factor, promising to advocate “equal rights” for recycling.

Worst platform point: Frost Week Plans

Ross’s plans for Frost Week are the most ambitious and least feasible part of her platform. At Wednesday’s presidential debate, the other candidates were quick to condemn her proposed beer garden “in the middle of January” as relatively unimportant to the school’s improvement. Western students already have plenty of venues for drinking. Of course, a platform can’t be all work and no play. But in general, the USC should be willing to spend the most money on what’s most important.

We should also keep a critical eye on those conspicuous “Vote Logan” signs that have cropped up around campus. All that teal-coloured paint won’t hide the wood from trees sacrificed for this supposedly pro-green campaign.

Bottom line for FIMS:

Strictly speaking, Ross has ignored USC-funded campus media in her platform. When accused of overlooking the Gazette, CHRW, and Big Purple Couch during a BPC interview, the optimistic candidate quickly saved herself: “They’re really great right now, so I didn’t see any room for improvement.” Meanwhile, Ross’s platform does pitch a few improvements to online media, such as a President’s Corner blog and better-functioning USC website. Most interesting to the FIMS-trained mind, however, is her stance on information access. The self-declared “USC outsider” knows what it’s like to be “information poor” when it comes to student council’s inner-functioning, and her proposed open-access town hall meetings are unmistakably reminiscent of Habermas’ public sphere – Ross’ actual inspiration aside.

                                                              Jon Silver 

                                                           By: Paul Craig

Slogan: Get More Western
Program: MIT — Year 4
Experience:
Charity Head Soph
Board of Governors Undergraduate Rep
MITSC VP Communications
USC Councillor
USC Charity Coordinator
USC University Affairs Standing Committee Chair
MIT/Charity Soph
MITSC Charity Commissioner

Best platform point: Focus on Health

Currently, dozens of students are waiting for treatment from Psychological Services – and even more students are awaiting assessment.  Jon Silver’s proposed solution is a twelve-hour student helpline, and there even seems to be a plan to implement it. Inspired by similar programs (such as Leeds University’s Nightline), student volunteers trained by qualified professionals would be available all night to listen to any student in need in full anonymity and confidence.

I also like Silver’s plans to make the Spoke healthier and more environmentally friendly. Silver has outlined several feasible-sounding changes that, overall, leave a good taste in the mouth.

Worst platform point: Focus on Everything

Reading Jon Silver’s entire platform is a daunting task. It’s a swollen, gelatinous monster oozing promises.  Some of them, such as Spoke coupons, appear facile, while others (full-wall whiteboards) sounded to me like USC-election specials: equal proportions eager-to-please and vaguely detailed.

After requesting details for some of the hazier initiatives, I was pleasantly surprised to receive many ostensibly achievable implementation plans.  For example, IdeaPaint makes any wall an instant whiteboard.  That’s pretty good.

Unfortunately, while many of the goals are individually achievable, the whole gamut of the platform isn’t.  There’s simply too much breadth her – too much unfocused sprawling – to get everything done, and at this point it’s not possible to predict which promises will be left by the wayside.

Bottom line for FIMS:

Most of Jon Silver’s proposals have universal appeal, rather than targeting any specific faculty. For example, his refinements to the Spoke and campus study spaces, student cooking initiatives, and exam-relief ideas are all quite general fixes.

It’s true that his support for student artwork aligns with FIMS’ “prosumer” ideology, and his dearth of new webpages might present employment opportunities for Internet-savvy FIMS students. However, the most appealing aspect of Silver’s platform to FIMS students is certainly his promise to lobby for more academic counselling staff.  As FIMS continues to grow, so does the strain on its over-saturated counsellors, and any plan to address this should be eagerly welcomed.

The mitZine and the MITSC are happy to announce the first-ever FIMS Film Festival, coming to the McKellar Theatre on March 1, 2012. We are accepting submissions (read more after the jump). The afternoon will feature student submissions, a People’s Choice contest, Oscar-nominated FIMS instructor Keith Tomasek, and TIFF 2010 “Official Selection” MODRA, starring MIT’s Aleco Gammal. Come out to support your peers and enjoy an afternoon of great entertainment! Learn more about submissions: 

Click for full poster

FIMS Film Fest (ft. Keith Tomasek, MODRA)

Accepting submissions until February 28, 2012, at 10:00 AM.

Push the boundaries:

FIMS is a faculty of critical alternative thinking. We promote creativity, originality, and innovative ideas, and we encourage you to submit any style or genre of film that you have created.  If there are any questions or doubts as to what makes a film appropriate for the FIMS Film Festival, please contact us. Feel free to email questions to FIMSFF2012@gmail.com.

HOW TO SUBMIT

All submissions may be delivered to the FIMS Dean’s Office and must be accompanied by a completed submission form.

Submissions:

• Burn your video to a CD/DVD
• Fill out the entry form
• Put these 2 items in an envelope with your name re: FIMS Film Fest
• Deliver them to the FIMS Dean’s Office, NCB 240

Drop off at:

Faculty of Information and Media Studies
North Campus Building, Room 240
The University of Western Ontario
London, ON
CANADA
N6A 5B7

The FIMS Dean’s Office is open on weekdays from 8:30 a.m. – 4:30 p.m.

Questions? Contact FIMSFF2012@gmail.com

FFF RULES AND GUIDELINES

1. FIMS Film Festival (FFF) is open to all post-secondary school students currently enrolled at the University of Western Ontario and all of its affiliate colleges including Brescia University College, King’s University College, and Huron College.
2. Films must be directed, edited and produced by eligible post-secondary education students. Professors or advisors are permitted to oversee the project and provide general direction. Films must not involve professional filmmakers.
3.   Submissions must be received by February 28, 2012, at 10:00 AM.
4.   All films must have been produced after January 1, 2008.
5.   Films must not exceed 10 minutes in length including credits.
6.   All non-English language films must have English subtitles.
7.   Participants can only submit one (1) film.
8.  The mitZine and MITSC have the right to reject films with excessive violence, swearing, innuendos and/or violence.
9. Due to the volume of submissions, there is no guarantee that your film will be featured online or screened the day of the festival.
10. Participants are responsible for obtaining any necessary approvals for use of music, visuals, and screenplays. The FIMS Film Fest accepts no responsibility for copyright infringement or other misuse.
11. By submitting a film, participants expressly grant permission to the FIMS Film Fest to use clips of their film(s) for promotional or other purposes designed to further the FFF.  

NOTE: The Rules and Guidelines are subject to change without notice at any given time.

DISCLAIMER:  The FIMS Film Fest assumes no liability for the content of submitted films.  Any views, expressions and opinions are solely those of the filmmaker(s) and they do not represent those of the MITSC or the Faculty of Information and Media Studies (FIMS).

—–

FIMS FILM FEST SUBMISSION FORM

Film Info

Film Title: ______________________________

Genre: _________________________________

Date film was produced: ___________________

Running time (including credits): ____________

Brief Plot Summary:

Contact Info

First name: ___________________   Last name: _______________________________

Student Number: ___________________________

Phone number: ________________  Email Address: ____________________________

Production Credits

Director:  _________________________________

Editor: ___________________________________

Sound: ___________________________________

Cinematographer: ___________________________

Cast:_____________________________________

Music: ___________________________________

By signing below I agree to the following:

I have read and accept all of the Rules and Guidelines of the FIMS Film Fest. I am legally authorized to enter this movie in the Festival. I authorize the Festival to duplicate my film and to use my film for promotional or publicity purposes. The Festival will not sell, lend or otherwise transfer your information to any other organization or persons not directly affiliated with the Festival. Films that use copyrighted music will not be penalized. The FIMS Film Fest and the MITSC are not responsible for any legal issue that may arise from using copyrighted music.

Print Name: __________________                   Signature: ______________________

Date: __________________