Serena Williams has become an owner of the Toronto Tempo, the WNBA’s first Canadian franchise, bringing her star power to the league’s expansion.
The Toronto Tempo is set to debut in the WNBA’s 2026 season, becoming the league’s 14th team and its first outside of the United States. The franchise will play its home games at the Coca-Cola Coliseum in Toronto, with additional games scheduled in Montreal and Vancouver reflecting a nationwide embrace of women’s professional basketball. This expansion is a major step forward for the WNBA as it aims to increase its global footprint and attract new audiences.
Williams’ decision to invest in the Toronto Tempo aligns with her long-standing commitment to advancing women’s sports. Speaking on her new role, she shared: “I am thrilled to announce my ownership role in the first Canadian WNBA team, the Toronto Tempo. This moment is not just about basketball; it is about showcasing the true value and potential of female athletes — I have always said that women’s sports are an incredible investment opportunity.”
Williams’ involvement extends beyond financial support, as she plans to contribute to the design of the team’s jerseys and engage in merchandise collaborations, leveraging her influence in the fashion industry to help shape the franchise’s identity.
This venture is not Wiliams’ first move into sports ownership. She already holds ownership stakes in the NWSL’s Angel City FC, demonstrating her dedication to elevating women’s sports and increasing investment in women’s league athletes. Her husband, Alexis Ohanian, a co-founder of Reddit, has also been a vocal advocate for women’s sports and an investor in Angel City FC.
Williams’ involvement in the Toronto Tempo has been met with widespread excitement from both the franchise’s leadership and its fan base. Larry Tanenbaum, Chairman of the Tempo’s parent company, Kilmer Sports Ventures, expressed his enthusiasm, stating: “Serena Williams is an icon, a role model and a force for change in the world. She exemplifies the very best of what the Tempo stands for — we couldn’t be more honoured to have Serena in our court.” Tempo President Teresa Resch echoed this sentiment, emphasizing Williams’ influence as both an athlete and a business leader, and how her involvement will help build a strong foundation for the franchise.
Fans have also expressed overwhelming support for Williams joining the team’s ownership group, with social media lighting up with positive reactions. One fan posted on X: “The greatest athlete of all time is in Toronto’s corner? What a good day.” Another commented, “It just keeps getting better and better,” reflecting the excitement of seeing an athlete of Williams’ stature invest in Canadian basketball.
Canada holds a special place in Williams’ career. She made her professional tennis debut in Quebec City in 1995 and captured her first Rogers Cup title in Toronto at just 19 years old. Reflecting on her connection to the country, she shared: “Canada has always been a special place for me. I played my first professional tennis game in Quebec City. And I love Toronto — the culture, the food, the people.” Her decision to invest in the Toronto Tempo not only marks a full-circle moment in her career but also strengthens the bond between Canadian sports fans and one of the greatest athletes of all time.
As the Toronto Tempo gears up for its inaugural season in 2026, Williams’ involvement adds a level of prestige and excitement that will undoubtedly bring more attention to the franchise and the WNBA as a whole. Her influence is expected to attract new fans, inspire future athletes and elevate the profile of women’s basketball in Canada.
With Williams’ strategic vision, business acumen and passion for women’s sports, the Toronto Tempo is positioned to become a major force in the WNBA. Serena Williams’ investment represents not just a commitment to basketball but a push to ensure women’s league athletes receive the recognition and opportunities they deserve.
Basketball is one of the most popular sports worldwide, so its Canadian roots often come as a surprise for fans of the game.
Origins of the infamous sport trace back to 1891, when Canadian Dr. James Naismith invented the game at the International YMCA Training School in Springfield, Massachusetts.
Naismith, an educator and physician, was given a challenging task by his superior, Dr. Luther Gulick, who wanted a fresh, engaging sport to be played indoors during the harsh New England winters. The existing sports at the time, such as football and rugby, were too rough for indoor play, while others like soccer and lacrosse lacked the structure needed to be effectively played in a gymnasium. Drawing inspiration from childhood games he played growing up in Canada, including “Duck on a Rock,” which was played by throwing a small object to knock another off a larger base, Naismith set out to develop a game that would prioritize skill over brute force while still promoting physical activity and teamwork.
To create a set of rules, Naismith focused on a few principles that would make the game unique. He determined that running with the ball should not be allowed to reduce the roughness of play, and that players would pass the ball instead, emphasizing cooperation. He also wanted to eliminate aggressive physical contact, which led to the idea of placing the goal above the player’s heads to discourage direct attacks on defenders. Rather than using goals like those in soccer or hockey, he decided that the ball should be thrown into a horizontal goal, originally a peach basket. This setup required players to develop precise shooting skills instead of relying on sheer force to score.
On December 21, 1891, the first-ever basketball game was played in Springfield’s YMCA gymnasium. Naismith assembled a group of 18 students and divided them into two teams of nine. The game started with a soccer ball, which was the closest available option, and the two peach baskets were nailed to the balcony railing at each end of the gym. Without a hole in the bottom, the ball had to be manually retrieved from the baskets each time a point was scored, a process that was later changed by cutting out the bottom of the baskets to allow the ball to drop through.
The game immediately captured the attention of students, who enjoyed the combination of strategy, movement and shooting. Although the first match ended with a final score of 1-0, the potential of the sport was undeniable. Word of the new game spread quickly through the YMCA network, leading to its adoption at various locations across North America. Within a few years, modifications were introduced to improve gameplay, including the introduction of a backboard to prevent spectators from interfering with shots and the eventual switch from a soccer ball to a specifically designed basketball.
As basketball continued to evolve, it rapidly gained popularity beyond YMCA gyms. In 1893, women began playing the sport after it was introduced at Smith College, with modified rules to accommodate differences in physical endurance and playing style. By 1898, the first professional basketball league, the National Basketball League (NBL), was formed. While it lasted only a few years, the league set the foundation for what would later become major basketball organizations like the National Basketball Association (NBA) and the International Basketball Federation (FIBA).
Basketball’s expansion was aided by its relatively simple equipment requirements and adaptability to different playing environments. Unlike sports that required large outdoor fields or specialized gear, basketball could be played in a variety of settings, from gyms to driveways, with minimal modifications. The sport’s emphasis on skill, agility and teamwork made it appealing across different cultures and skill levels, leading to its eventual inclusion in the Olympic Games in 1936.
Dr. James Naismith never sought personal recognition for his invention, viewing basketball as a means of promoting physical activity and moral character among students. Despite its rapid professionalization and commercialization, his original vision remains at the heart of the game.
Today, basketball is played by millions worldwide, yet its origins remain rooted in the simple idea of creating an engaging and accessible sport. The evolution of the game from peach baskets in a YMCA gym to a global sporting spectacle is a testament to the ingenuity of its creator and basketball’s enduring appeal.
Michael Ivanov (men’s track and field) and Laurin Ainsworth (women’s volleyball) have been selected as The Brock Press’ Athletes of the Month for February.
Men’s Athlete of the Month – Michael Ivanov
Michael Ivanov (men’s track and field) has been named TBP’sMen’s Athlete of the Month for February, highlighted by a gold medal performance at the OUA Championships on Feb. 21 and 22.
The pole vaulter cleared 5.00 metres on his jump to claim the top of the podium, surpassing three competitors who finished with jumps of 4.65 metres.
The first-place performance marked the Niagara Falls native’s second gold medal on the provincial stage after winning gold last season with a jump of 5.05 metres. Ivanov now has three OUA medals after securing bronze in 2023 when he was named the OUA Rookie of the Year.
His gold medal at the provincial championships helped lead the Badgers to seventh place in the men’s team standings, tying their ranking from last year, as Ivanov was one of three Badgers (Rémi Ouellette and Keshawn Igbinosun) to reach the podium in Windsor.
With his 5.00-metre jump, Ivanov held his individual ranking of number one in the nation, which he obtained earlier in the season when he qualified for the U Sports Track & Field Championships with a jump of 5.11 metres at the Don Wright Team Challenge in January.
Women’s Athlete of the Month – Laurin Ainsworth
Laurin Ainsworth (women’s volleyball) has been named TBP’sWomen’s Athlete of the Month for February as she led the Badgers to a 6-1 record in the month, which included a pair of playoff wins to advance to their fourth straight Quigley Cup final.
In February, the fourth-year outside hitter recorded 83.5 points, 75 kills, 50 digs and a .281 attacking percentage as she led the Badgers in points twice over the month and was top three on the team in scoring in five of the seven contests.
Her stellar month began in a three-game stretch against Nipissing, where she found success against a formidable opponent.
On Valentine’s Day, she led Brock with 16.5 points and 13 kills while recording six digs and tying a season-high three blocks in a crushing five-set defeat to the Lakers. She followed up her sensational performance with another eye-catching display of athleticism when she tallied 11 kills from a .296 hitting percentage in a 3-0 sweep of Nipissing the following day to clinch the second seed in the OUA playoffs.
With the second seed, the Badgers were up against the Lakers once again, where Ainsworth continued her domination of their North Bay rivals in the OUA First Round on Feb. 21.
Ainsworth played one of her best games of the season in Brock’s narrow five-set victory against Nipissing. The Blenheim, Ontario native registered 14 kills — one off tying her season high — and recorded her fourth game of the year with an attacking percentage greater than .400, tallying a .433 hitting clip. She also led Brock with 15.5 points and was second on the team with nine digs to help push the Badgers into the OUA semifinal.
In the semifinal win against Windsor on Feb. 28, Ainsworth posted her fourth consecutive game of double-digit kills with 11 and shined on the attack with a .346 hitting percentage. The Kinesiology major also registered eight digs in the Badgers’ three set victory.
—
Stay tuned to The Brock Press following every month where the Athletes of the Month will be highlighted.
Tatum O’Connor made school history at the U Sports Swimming Championships.
The second-year swimmer became the first Badger to win a medal at the national swimming championships since 2002 when she won a pair of bronze medals during the meet, hosted by the University of Toronto from March 6 to 8.
On day one of the competition, the Kinesiology major captured third place in the final of the women’s 50-metre backstroke, where she broke her own school record that she set earlier this season at the Dean Boles Invitational. She finished with a time of 27.65 seconds, besting her previous record of 28 seconds, and was joined on the podium by a pair of UBC Thunderbirds’ swimmers — Eloise Allen (27.45) and Bridget Burton (27.50) — who finished first and second in the race respectively.
O’Connor wasn’t done there, reaching the podium on day two in the women’s 100-metre backstroke. The Dundas, Ontario native added her second bronze medal in as many days, reaching the finish with a time of 1:00.31, fractions of a second behind Calgary Dinos’ swimmer Hannah Johnsen, who captured silver at 1:00.26. Burton won gold with a time of 59.30 seconds.
O’Connor nearly added her second medal of the day and third of the weekend when she finished in fourth place in the 50-metre butterfly. She recorded a time of 27.40 seconds, which was just behind UBC’s Una Borchgrevink, who placed third at 27 seconds flat. The Thunderbirds swept the podium with Kayla Noelle Sanchez winning gold while setting a new U Sports record, finishing the race in 25.85 seconds.
O’Connor’s dominance in the pool helped give the Badgers women’s swim team 170 team points, which ranked 13th of 20 teams in the competition. On the men’s side, the Badgers totalled 28.5 points.
Amongst the other standout Brock performances at the U Sports Championships was Grace Chai, who competed in three ‘B’ finals in her nationals debut.
Chai’s best result came in the 100-metre freestyle where she finished with a time of 56.47, ranking third in the ‘B’ final and 11th overall in the event. The first-year swimmer also competed in the 50-metre freestyle, where she finished 12th overall (26.04 seconds) and ranked 14th overall in the 200-metre individual medley with a time of 2:21.26.
Fellow rookie swimmer Camren Courchene-Carter also made a splash in his U Sports debut, placing third in the 50m breaststroke ‘B’ final (11th overall) with a time of 28.06 seconds. The St. Catharines native also competed in the ‘B’ final of the 100-metre breaststroke where he finished 14th overall at 1:01.60.
Rounding out the Brock talent that qualified for the national championships were Jared Banta, Adriana Martone and Quinn Mersereau.
Both the UBC Thunderbirds men’s and women’s teams won their respective divisions, with the men’s side tallying 1,305.5 points and the women’s side totalling 1,472 points in their victories. The host Varsity Blues placed second in the men’s standings with 1,078 points while the Calgary Dinos finished third at 860 points. The Dinos also placed third in the women’s standings with 920.5 points, just behind the McGill Martlets who finished in second with 936.5 points.
For the complete results from the U Sports Swimming Championships, visit gobadgers.ca.
Brock’s very own Devin Cooney has been named an OUA First Team All-Star.
In a season filled with remarkable performances, the Brock Badgers men’s volleyball player Devin Cooney has garnered significant provincial recognition for his contributions on the court. His consistent excellence has made him a notable figure in the team’s success and a standout in university volleyball.
Ontario University Athletics (OUA) released its annual list of award recipients on March 4, highlighting the top talents across the province. Among them was Cooney, who earned a coveted First Team All-Star selection. Coming from Kanata, Ontario, the explosive outside hitter has consistently delivered for Brock, making his mark as one of the most dominant players in the league.
Head coach Ian Eibbitt praised Cooney’s relentless drive and influence over the team: “Devin’s commitment to excellence is evident in everything he does, whether it’s his preparation, his leadership or his in-game execution,” said Eibbitt. “He’s the kind of player who sets a high standard, and it’s no surprise that he’s being recognized at this level. His hard work and determination inspire the rest of the team.”
This recognition adds to Cooney’s growing list of accolades. He previously earned a Second Team All-Star selection in the 2023-24 season and was named to the All-Rookie Team in 2022-23. His upward trajectory has positioned him among the most consistent and impactful players in the league. With each passing year, Cooney has refined his skill set, becoming an indispensable asset for Brock’s volleyball team.
A standout in statistical categories, Cooney finished the season as one of the most lethal offensive threats in U Sports. He recorded 293 total kills, ranking second in the OUA and placing him among the national leaders. His consistency was further reflected in his 3.81 kills per set average, solidifying his reputation as an offensive weapon. His attacking efficiency and ability to step up in high-pressure situations have been crucial for the Badgers.
One of the defining moments of Cooney’s season came in a showdown against the Guelph Gryphons on Nov. 16, 2024. In an electrifying performance, he registered 34 kills and 37.5 points, matching a modern-era program record. His efforts that week earned him multiple honours, including Brock University’s Athlete of the Week and the OUA’s top weekly recognition. These acknowledgements are testaments to his consistent impact throughout the season.
Cooney’s influence stretches beyond his team as well. His performance has elevated Brock’s standing in the OUA, drawing attention to the team and setting a new standard for Badger excellence. His approach to the game — disciplined, determined and competitive — makes him a model athlete for aspiring players.
With another stellar season behind him, Cooney’s future in volleyball looks incredibly bright. As he continues his university career, he will undoubtedly remain a force to be reckoned with.
**Disclaimer: This article deals with topics surrounding violent sexual assault**
19-year-old singer/songwriter Sofia Isella has opened for more well-known artists like Taylor Swift, but as an independent artist, she is completely underrated and deserves to be recognized for her provocative feminist music.
Sofia Isella opened for Taylor Swift’s Eras Tour in London 2024, as well as for Melanie Martinez and Tom Odell. Her most popular video on YouTube has over 1.3 million views.
Her songs are deeply satirical, provocative and poetic. Let’s look at some of my favourite songs of hers and analyze what makes them so ground-breaking.
“Everybody Supports Women”
This song is all about the societal hypocrisy surrounding women’s empowerment and explores internalized misogyny.
The first line begins with the statement that “everybody supports women until a woman’s doing better than you,” suggesting that one’s support is conditional to their own success. Isella goes on to claim: “Everybody wants you to love yourself until you actually do.” Here, she points out how our society emphasizes self-love and confidence, but anything beyond striving for it — like actually loving yourself — is seen as overconfident, self-indulged, selfish and unattractive.
The lyrics then delve into criticism and envy: “It was something about her hair, so perfectly fallen, / she was nice and smart and funny and got everything she wanted.” This line portrays a woman who is beautiful, intelligent, humourous and successful, using these traits to explain why the speaker hates this woman. She becomes a target of scorn, resentment and obsession, evidenced by the speaker’s lack of pause and breathless voice. In the same breath, Sofia Isella goes on to say: “And she does charity, isn’t that the most obnoxious thing you’ve heard? / Her popularity, she’s too pretty for her own good / She’s probably self-centred, we hate her and she’s nothing / If everybody leaves her, then she had it coming.” The woman’s charitable actions are labelled as obnoxious and her popularity is viewed negatively, as if she’s a Mean Girl (because of the stereotype that popular people are mean, ruthless, fake or plastic). The narrative emphasizes how society can twist positive attributes into reasons for hatred, especially when a woman succeeds in “having it all.”
In a quick statement reminiscent of slam poetry, the speaker insists: “I would like it to be known that I’m not like her / I’m mocking her ’cause I’m not like her / I’m not like those girls who are not like those girls / I love doing makeup, I don’t mock women like her, I’m not like her!” The contradiction about mocking whilst not mocking displays the contradictory social hypocrisy that the song is all about. Women in society claim to be supportive but at the same time want to be different and ultimately better than each other. To mock another woman can be seen as either humorous or mean depending on the circumstances, so the speaker saying she both mocks and doesn’t mock “women like her” shows that she’s very conscious about this double standard in the misogynistic society she lives in.
The song talks about success and ambition as if the object of affection or scorn is a storybook character; a woman could easily be the Evil Queen or Snow White depending on her confidence or arrogance.
Many women, for example, disdain Taylor Swift simply because of her popularity: they say she’s overrated. But I think a lot of people don’t like Taylor Swift because of her seemingly perfect life, talent, looks and success. They can’t help but engage in “sisterhood sabotage” because of internalized and competitive misogyny.
The song views ambition as something that is acceptable, admirable or “swallowable” if you tell the story right: “Say that you hate yourself and self-criticize / But if we smell desperation on your neck and face / We’ll drag you across your own public stage.”
A woman appearing too confident or being too vocal about her success can make her seem “desperate,” the song suggests. If women don’t self-criticize or put themselves down in some way, they are viewed like the Evil Queen in Snow White: full of themselves, hungry for fame and ultimately unlikeable.
The speaker discredits a successful woman out of envy, burning “anything with her name attached” simply because of what “her name” has come to represent to a competitive and misogynistic society: a threat, a reminder of their own flaws and a slap in the face.
“What a waste! / What a shame! / I was starting to like her, but now she got great / We’d never hate her to her face, / but I hope she knows! / SHE KNOWS!”
Near the end, the speaker admits that she hates her: “’Cause staring at her too long made our life look like muted pastels / We’ll love you if you just make us feel better about ourselves.” Hating someone else for their accomplishments is often about internalized insecurities. Famous people are often objects of scorn because of how they make us feel about ourselves, and women are particularly prone to comparing themselves to other women. The song suggests a dynamic where women feel pressured to compete, putting each other down instead of supporting one another while spurred on by a culture of toxic comparison.
“Us and Pigs”
This song uses Juvenalian satire (a more serious, dark type of satire) to emphasize society’s view of women. “Us and Pigs” begins with the female speaker at a dinner party with “beasts” who look at her body like it’s food. From this point on, the speaker addresses the beasts as “you,” which shifts the song to a more accusatory tone. The lines, “You ask, ‘What’s the special occasion?’ / Like I dress and dance just for you,” refer to the idea of the male gaze and some men’s assumptions that a woman is dressing and really existing “for them”: either to provoke, entice or seduce them. Why else would women exist if not for men, right?
Isella then begins to question the feigned ignorance of people: “Our women are cattle there’s blood on our kids / Are you being paid to not pay attention? / Does it have to happen to your mother / your sister or your daughter for you to take it personal?”
What follows is a long, melancholic moan, resembling a howl, before Isella goes straight for the throat: “So pump us full of sperm, put us in a barn, / us and pigs on a Mississippi farm / In nine months we’ll have a kid you won’t care about / And if the kid’s not straight, White and male, / we guarantee a living hell; murder in the name of a loving God!” The moan then resumes, this time echoing and almost sounding like the cries of women in a large barn, treated like cattle. The idea of a “merciful” killing is also mentioned, as if it’s better to “put down” a female or non-White baby rather than letting them suffer their whole lives, being treated as less than human.
The lines, “I guess we were just being a little loud / Shut us up and put apples in our mouths,” further connect women to animals like pigs, who are constantly bred and eaten but useful for little else. Finally, the line, “but pull your own daughter out from the lineup,” shows the hypocrisy that was mentioned at the beginning (“are you being paid to not pay attention?”).
“Us and Pigs” is one of Isella’s darker pieces, but as we’ll see, it’s not the only one. Be advised that this next song makes direct references to rape.
The Doll People
The “doll people” that this song speaks about are women, and it’s another Juvenalian satire on the male gaze: “The doll people are not men / They are made of ass and glass / […] / W are statues with a pulse / We are art you can f*ck.” Despite being literally called “people,” the doll people are seen as pretty objects, playthings and things for men to look at and enjoy. It makes sense then that “the doll people are quiet / What is there to say? Art does not interpret itself / There are men with a day to save.”
Isella references rape and possibly human trafficking when she talks about “the beauty and the buyer,” a twisted version of the beauty and the beast. The “buyer” will “take the screaming one because / a woman who doesn’t want it is much hotter than one that does.” This claim that sex is “hotter” when it’s non-consensual is sickening, yet lies in an unfortunate societal truth some merit in our society — rape porn is extremely popular for both men and women. As kinky role-playing or acting, this is seen as acceptable, but the mere idea that a woman in distress is deemed “sexier” in our society is quite distressing.
After a refrain of two chants of the line, “Wife, whore, mistress, maid, mother,” which highlights the titles women are most often stuck with, we see a major turn in the narrative.
The speaker gasps before exclaiming, “The doll people are alive!” marking a turning point where the doll people demand to be seen as humans rather than mere art pieces or playthings. However, this breakthrough is short-lived, as Isella quickly adds: “Or so they say! / You can never trust / Never trust the art these days.” Her words shift the narrative back to the patriarchy, discrediting the doll people, with the famous line “or so they claim.”
The line, “You can never trust the art these days,” also recalls the #MeToo movement, when waves of women came forward with personal accounts of sexual harassment. As the movement grew, society began questioning the legitimacy of these testimonies, fearing an influx of false claims (since surely it couldn’t have happened to that many women). The phrase “these days” suggests a dismissive attitude, as if the surge of allegations were merely a passing trend rather than a long-overdue reckoning.
Another shift happens at the end of the song: “The doll people are gone / They don’t know what happened / They looked under our skirts one morning / but all they saw were maggots.” These lines are delivered with a mixture of sadness, concern and confusion. The conclusion for the doll people, however, is a strange, melancholic victory: “The dolls are off running and laughing together, / swimming in the milk of the moon.” The image of a milky white moon invokes thoughts of purity, femininity, fertility and immortality. Without women, of course, humanity could not go on. The doll people seem to have realized their power and have left the men to die out, choosing instead to reside amongst themselves and to live only for themselves.
“Cacao and Cocaine”
This last song on my list is a bit more upbeat, although it is still about the errors of human ways. It reminds me of a quote from Ursula K. LeGuin: “The trouble is that we have a bad habit […] of considering happiness as something rather stupid. Only pain is intellectual, only evil interesting.”
Basically, “Cacao and Cocaine” refers to the idea that society craves drama. Life is more interesting, the song says, if bad things are happening.
The song takes on an accusatory tone, asking the listener: “Would you like everyone around you to start screaming?” In a consumeristic culture obsessed with action, intrigue and horror movies, people have come to crave these things on TV and especially in real-life news. Have you ever noticed people’s obsessions with things like true crime, serial killers and natural disasters? Do you ever get a little rush reading the news? This song accuses everyone of wanting a little bit of chaos and pain in their lives to keep things interesting: a movie without conflict, after all, would be extremely dull.
Isella contrasts the two extremes when she says: “Would you prefer a brutal electrical shock / to sitting in a living room next to your thoughts? / Would you like your heart to get attacked? / Would that feel better than boredom in another beige and bland cul-de-sac?”
One of my favourite lines, which sums up the song pretty well, is: “Hand me peace on a plate, I send it back, I prefer pain!”
As if life is a movie to review, Isella asks: “Would you applaud the simulation, applaud the maker, / if you were constantly in the safety of danger?”
In a reference to people’s fascination with true crime shows and podcasts, the speaker admits: “I’m flirting with a boy that I think wants to murder me / I giggle, touch his hair, and wrap my fingers around my keys / I got over him in a few days, but I’m missing the thrill. I’ll put him in a case and take him like a happy pill.” The speaker admits that she willingly puts herself in danger to “feel the thrill” and perhaps to also feel like the main character. Bad things happen to the main character, but they always survive; they use their keys like a knife and they fight their way to victory and fame.
In an almost humorous turn, the speaker asks: “If Santa Claus came down your chimney with a machete / and told you to go get your will and casket ready, / would you go home at night thinking, ‘What a day!’? / Would you finally be entertained?”
Some of the final lines of the song, “Danger’s a slut, it’s in my gut, at night it whispers to me / […] ‘You want me bad, you want me back, but you don’t know what that means,’” emphasize our society’s misplaced desire for thrill and intrigue through danger, pain and suffering.
It must also be mentioned that the chorus is very catchy.
—
Honourable mentions from Sofia Isella include “All of Human Knowledge Made us Dumb,” a song about the internet; “Sex Concept,” which emphasizes people’s strange and backwards attractions; “Unattractive,” which talks about the unwanted male gaze; “Hot Gum,” Isella’s most popular song (which I find is very catchy but not as impactful); and “Rainbow Rocket Ride,” which is also a very catchy song that wasn’t provocative enough to make this list, but has a very cute music video.
She must also be commended for her disturbing visuals and occasional spoken poems such as “A Pen!s From Ohio,” “The Game” and “America’s Sweetheart” which is a satire on child actresses growing up (much to the disdain of viewers).
Sofia Isella is a completely underrated artist. With provocative feminist songs that somewhat resemble Melanie Martinez and Taylor Swift with an added edginess and a very dark tone, Sofia Isella deserves to be recognized for her lyrics, music and amazing voice.
Although the paper has to be within the field of English studies, students from all programs were invited to answer the call for submissions that went out a few weeks ago.
There will also be a presentation from undergraduate Research Assistants for Dr. Neta Gordon on a new project called “Mapping Ann-Marie MacDonald,” a collaborative project from members of Brock University’s Departments of English Language and Literature, Digital Humanities, and Geography and Tourism. Dr. Gordon is the one of the Primary Investigators of the project.
Ann-Marie MacDonald is a Canadian playwright and author who wrote such successful novels as The Way the Crow Flies, Fall on Your Knees, Fayne, and Adult Onset. Students of Dr. Gordon may be familiar with Fall on Your Knees, a critically acclaimed international best seller which won the Commonwealth Prize, the People’s Choice Award, the Canadian Booksellers Association Libris Award for Fiction Book of the Year and was short-listed for the Giller Prize.
The Mapping Ann-Marie MacDonald project explores literary geography via the development of interactive mappings of places, spaces and events from MacDonald’s work. The project also explores how MacDonald’s stories address important topics like feminism and queer identities and challenge traditional cultural norms.
Presenters and attendees alike can network with faculty and fellow students at the conference, giving students the opportunity to learn more about academia and have their work recognized. It is also a great opportunity for students to support their peers as they reach this academic milestone of presenting their work and getting published in the official Conference Proceedings.
The event is open to everyone and advanced sign-up is not needed, though an RSVP on ExperienceBU is appreciated. Guests will have to sign in at arrival. With 10 tables with about eight seats each, there is a capacity for 80 people. For those who can’t attend, an official Conference Proceedings publication will be released after the conference on the official ESA site, containing the full essays of the presenters.
The ESA Undergraduate Conference not only celebrates the intellectual achievements of undergraduate students but also encourages them to pursue further academic and professional opportunities in English studies and beyond.
Any questions or inquiries can be directed to the President of the English Students’ Association (ESA), Colin Spencer, at ESA@brocku.ca.
It’s not enough for well-intentioned leftists to simply express that capitalism is an exploitative and destructive system and expect change. The good news is that there are two major camps of thought within the Western socialist world with compelling visions for what an alternative economy could look like — the problem is these visions are at odds with each other.
Despite what intellectually lazy right-wing hacks in the media and online would have you believe, most serious socialist theorists and public intellectuals working today are not folks stuck in the 20th century with rose-coloured glasses for the Soviet Union’s and current-day China’s forms of authoritarian socialism (though, these types of scholars do unfortunately exist).
In fact, some of the most influential and interesting intra-left debates on alternative systems to capitalism in the modern Western world involve two novel theoretical camps on the subject. Moreover, both theoretical camps offer alternatives that firmly reject the authoritarianism embedded in the former Soviet Union and current Chinese economic systems while preserving the democratic essence of socialist thought. The main purveyors of both camps also suggest their alternatives would realize many or all of the benefits that utopian visions of socialism over a hundred years ago promised and failed to deliver on in the intervening decades.
The first of these theoretical camps argues that an economy based around worker co-operatives — firms that involve internal democracy — is the ideal economic-system alternative to capitalism.
The other camp, which broadly speaking can be called the democratic state-planning camp, argues that the Soviet Union and China did at least get right that state planning is the best way to allocate productive activity and needs-based distribution of goods and services in society. The shortcomings of these political-economic systems, they argue, can be traced to the eschewing with the necessary democratic mechanisms of elections and robust free-speech protections which are meant keep the state accountable. These democratic protections are especially important to stipulate, they argue, given a command economy is, in theory, more empowered than liberal democratic states given its dual monopoly on both force (police, military) and capital assets in society.
But before diving into the nitty-gritty of these camps of thought and their disagreements, let’s quickly go through what capitalism and socialism actually mean to better understand how these theoretical camps seek to rectify the former with a novel implementation of the latter.
—
Capitalism has been a slippery concept since the word came into common use a few hundred years ago. Many conflate capitalism with markets, or sometimes more specifically the free market (a dubious notion, if there ever was one). While markets are an important part of capitalism, they are not the defining feature of it.
Capitalism is fundamentally a system of private individuals owning the means of production in society — said means being everything used to produce goods and services for sale on the market: factories, buildings, land, machinery, tools, intellectual property and most importantly labour. Capitalists acquire ownership of these things through purchasing, inheriting or sometimes, though rarely ever the case these days, creating them themselves. In virtually all capitalist societies today, capitalist owners are legally entitled to the profit that they derive from the sale of the products their capital was used to produce.
Socialism is a reactive political-economic theory. Its reactionary component is to what its adherents perceive, at varying levels, to be the contradictions inherent to capitalism which cause all sorts of societal and ecological issues.
The intellectual tradition of socialism started in the 19th century — unsurprisingly around the time of the nascent industrial revolution in Western Europe — with a movement that later came to be called “utopian socialism.”
Utopian socialism involved thinkers who believed society could change through rational explanations about how communal ideals were the best ways to push society forward in a concertedly humanitarian effort to make life for every person better.
Interestingly, one of these formative socialist thinkers was a Welsh philanthropist named Robert Owen, a man who is considered the father of the worker co-operative socialist tradition. Owen even implemented his own experiments in co-operatively run communities in the United States, which he used his fortune to finance, but I digress.
The precepts of utopian socialism were quickly challenged in just a few decades’ time by other budding popular radical movements, foremost among them being anarchism and Marxism.
These two radical movements agreed with the utopian socialists that the rough setup of industrial capitalism needed to change in order to realize a more humane and equal society. However, they both criticized its naive belief that simply rationally arguing that their preferred reforms would be enough to make society more equal and humane would change the minds of the dominant classes — especially if such reforms meant necessarily attenuating some or even all of the latter’s power.
In contrast to the chimerical reformism of the utopian socialists, both anarchists and Marxists expressed that social revolution and class struggle often included tense struggle and even violence, and this had to be considered alongside reformism when pushing for the dismantling of systems of domination. This stark reality was something history attested to for these thinkers right up to the two then-contemporaneous violent outbursts born of class struggle at the time: The Revolutions of 1848 in Europe and the civil war to end slavery in the United States.
But it wasn’t all agreement between Marxists and anarchists. The two schools engaged in heated arguments, mainly centering around anarchists’ putting more focus on what they perceived as the greatest threat to liberty being state violence and Marxists placing in that spot the capitalist class, seeing capitalist’s domination of the working class and co-opting of the state for their private gain as a deeper threat than state violence itself.
Despite their disagreements, the two movements still both offered more realistic and rigorous approaches to creating a more equal society than their predecessors.
Now, anarchism notably isn’t a socialist ideology. Marxism, however, is a socialist ideology, and this is due to the immense influence that Karl Marx, in co-operation with his theoretical partner and patron Friedrich Engels, exerted on socialist thought with his voluminous writings.
A clear case of studious genius, Marx’s work was at the cutting edge of economics, philosophy and even certain forms of ethnography, historical analysis and statistics in the mid-late 19th century. By his death in 1883, socialism became synonymous to Marx’s writings, which is still somewhat the case today.
What was novel about Marx’s formulations of capitalism and socialism was that his analysis of the former in the three volumes of critical political-economic writing he produced, and which he ceremoniously titled Capital, deconstructed the capitalist system by using a strictly materialist lens of analysis. The work was and remains groundbreaking for its analysis expressly not relying on abstract or idealistic presuppositions in dealing with its object, as the text’s goal was to lay capitalism’s inner machinations bare and plain as it functioned in the concrete world. Included in such an approach was a commensurately materialist definition of capitalism, where Marx argues it’s a system of private ownership of the means of production with a genealogical-dialectical connection to past ownership systems involving an integral relationship between dominating and dominated classes that were all eventually toppled through class struggle.
This idiosyncratic definition of capitalism was nothing short of an aberration from much of the political-economic and liberal theory of the early enlightenment that preceded Marx. Said theory, from John Locke to Adam Smith, tended to inject a partisan idealism into its definitions and justifications for capitalist ownership rights.
While I won’t go into extensive details about the three volumes of Capital here (if interested, you can read my defense of the main theory of capitalist exploitation as laid out in the first volume of the work which I tackled in my last editorial), it’s important to keep in mind that Marx’s materialist philosophy meant that his visions of what socialism and communism will be, their being somewhat scattered and not amenable to a step-by-step program, as any Marxist scholar worth their salt will stress, at a bare minimum involved the satisfying of human needs and the abolition of unjustified and idolatrous class distinctions, both of which he saw capitalism as having.
Marx importantly noted, though, that capitalism often involves much repression of its idolatrous justification for class distinction from its partisans when compared to earlier major political-economic paradigms such as feudalism and slavery, the partisans and benefactors of which were more brazen about their dubious justifications for supposedly more “valuable” individuals who got to own things and people, sourcing such justifications from God and other divine hereditary sources.
Given the attitude of facing reality without any ideological repression justifying why class domination had to exist, Marx understandably placed great stress on outlining the condition of the working class under capitalism.
The working class, he argued, must coercively — coerced because if one doesn’t work, one starves — offer their much-needed labour to capitalists, and in turn see little more than an often-inadequate subsistence wage in return.
There’s no Disney ending to this story either, Marx would emphasize: the time workers spend toiling away for someone else’s private gain just to be able to survive will occupy the majority of what they spend their waking life doing before they die, taking time and energy away from family, romance, intellectual or physical self-development and importantly leisure — time to do whatever one wants free of responsibility.
Ultimately, Marx saw socialism as a system that acted to abolish the exploitation of the working class in the way capitalism does.
In such a system, instead of being hindered by the self-interested incentives of the capitalist class to expand their wealth and market share through exploiting labourers, society would centre basic human needs and the means necessary for everyone to enact the most self-actualization possible given their specific circumstances without impeding on the ability of others to do the same. Marx understood though, that there will always be intractable disparities in physical and mental ability, attractiveness and so on. To this, his famous “from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs” dictum in The Communist Manifesto expressed an optimistic reframing of inherently unfixable ability disparities between individuals.
The dictatorial Soviet and Chinese socialist governments of the 20th century — and continuing into the 21st in the case of China — obviously didn’t accomplish Marx’s vision of communism all things considered.
In fact, in many ways these socialisms violated basic human freedoms to such a degree that, given the choice to pick, one would not easily be able to discern which position is worse between Marx’s Victorian-era industrial proletariat versus a collectivized farmer in either Maoist China or the early Soviet Union.
Now, there were some obvious gains that came with these experiments in socialism. Primary among them, first and foremost, was that both Russia and China’s communist revolutions led to the rapid industrialization of what were both previously rural and unmodernized agricultural-based countries. Second, there were some initial gains in personal liberties after the success of both revolutions, the granting of women’s suffrage in both examples being chief among them. With that said, many of these initial liberties would be rescinded in one form or another by both countries’ ruling governments as time went on.
—
Now that we’ve got a working definition of capitalism, socialism and some important historical context related to both out of the way, let’s return to our main focus of analytically comparing the the modern worker co-operative movement and the modern state-planning movement.
I’ll start by considering the respective pros of these competing ideas first, of which there are many. To do this, I’m going to take on what I consider to be the best formulated arguments from certain scholars and theorists that have been explicated from each side in recent times.
The case for a worker co-operative or WSDE economic system
Professor Richard D. Wolff is easily the foremost economics scholar today arguing for a worker co-operative economy as an alternative economic system that will remedy the main societal ills that capitalism produces.
In his landmark text Democracy at Work: A Cure for Capitalism, released in 2012, Wolff puts forward nearly 200 pages — half manifesto, half treatise — arguing in favour of what he calls Worker Self-Directed Enterprises (WSDE). These are firms that, much like under traditional capitalism, own their own capital, but instead of the firm’s capital being owned by private individuals (bosses, shareholders, etc.), the capital of the firm is collectively owned by the workers within the organization. Therefore, workers in WSDEs are members who vote on things like who manages them and governs the workplace, pay-scales, what to produce and where to produce it, and all other major decisions a firm would face.
Much of Wolff’s argument in Democracy at Work focusses on Marx’s original theory of capitalist exploitation. He especially stresses the part of it describing surplus value as the creation of labour or labour-created machines, but which is undemocratically appropriated by capitalists who then, again undemocratically, pocket and reinvest the resulting profit.
Many readers will be familiar with consumer co-ops like credit unions or co-operative housing where membership includes a shareholder vote, members being those who consume the good or service of the corporation. WSDEs can be thought of as the flip side of a consumer co-operative arrangement: they are producer co-ops that feature a voting member base deemed as such by their producing the goods and services of the corporation.
WSDEs would necessarily remove the undemocratic aspect of private owners appropriating and having unilateral discretion over the surplus value that the other human beings in their enterprise — that is, workers — brought alive with their labour-power. Instead, in a WSDE, the workers of the firm would democratically appropriate and decide on what to do with the value they all played a part in creating.
This democratic process would reduce workplace exploitation — eliminating it fully in the strict Marxist sense of the word — strengthen employee-member protections against being arbitrarily fired, and create hierarchies within the workplace that are horizontally approved-on by those who are subject to them.
There’s also the potential for benefits beyond WSDE workers’ experiences at work. For example, there’s empirical evidence that, on average, those who are part of worker co-operatives feel more connected to their community (see George Cheney et al.’s Cooperatives at Work).
Furthermore, as Wolff references a few times in Democracy at Work, the largest worker co-operative organization in the world is a highly successful Spanish corporate conglomerate called Mondragon, which consists of tens of federated WSDEs.
Located in the Basque region of Spain, Mondragon has proven that WSDEs can be both production-intensive and competitively durable over the long-run, even when competing against traditional capitalist firms. It’s also been found that workers at Mondragon tend to report high levels of well-being. Such well-being is understandable given the instituting of progressive workplace policies at Mondragon like ratio caps on the allowed degree of gaps in remuneration between the least and most paid workers in the organization.
It’s also important to highlight that a WSDE-only economy would eliminate the system of wage labour.
Wage labour, mind you, is a contract between a private employer who hires an employee for the productive capacities of their body and mind for a certain amount of time in exchange for a wage that theoretically should be enough to cover the costs needed for that employee to sustain themselves and show up for the next shift. In other words, to reproduce their labour-power. The capitalist is incentivized to treat the wage as merely the cost of labour’s reproduction; the happiness of the human body and mind behind said labour isn’t necessary at all for capitalists.
In a WSDE, by contrast, the worker is a member rather than an employee, and so their compensation, while still necessarily needing to cover the costs needed to sustain their labour-power each day, importantly involves a share of ownership in the firm as represented in their vote. This has the effect of not having labour’s remuneration just be the cost of basic reproduction if it doesn’t need to be. Of course, competitive pressures and scarcity of resources are still things that can cause workers in a co-operative firm to mutually agree to depress wages to float the firm through a hard time, which was a decision made previously in the Mondragon corporation to weather the storm of an economic depression. However, if the corporation is doing well, the workers in a co-operative workplace have many means to increase wages beyond what’s necessary to afford a basic subsistence.
Wolff also emphasizes in the book and in much of his public talks on WSDEs that an advantage of a worker co-operative economy for society writ large is that the state has far fewer mechanisms to become like the Soviet Union or China, both of which he calls authoritarian state-capitalism.
Wolff argues that these past socialist systems were only nominally socialist because they weren’t democratic states, meaning they essentially replaced traditional capitalism’s undemocratic exploitation of workers with the state’s undemocratic exploitation of workers.
A WSDE economy on the other hand, while still needing to comply with state regulations on industry and the law like with capitalism, would de-couple and therefore decentralize capital-asset power from the state in stark contrast from the Soviet Union and China.
The case for a high-tech democratic state-planned economic system
As mentioned before, the opposing thought camp on an alternative socialist economy is one that is closer to agreeing with the premise behind the economies of the Soviet Union and China in that the state owns the means of production in society and plans all economic activity from top to bottom, what’s typically called a command economy. However, this camp adds a prerequisite that such a state must be a democratic one that allows elections as opposed to the authoritarian one-party rule seen with the CCP and the Bolsheviks.
Easily the best and most-discussed work I’ve seen arguing for a democratic planned economy in recent years is Leigh Phillips and Michael Rozworski’s The People’s Republic of Walmart,released in 2019.
The crux of the authors’ argument for a planned economy in the book is that some of the largest corporations in the world — Amazon, Walmart, General Motors — are using today’s high-tech systems of data collection and processing in a way that’s completely planned from top to bottom. In doing so, these corporations are proving that nations, or even the world, could run highly efficient planned economies given that their internally planned economies have GDPs the size of actual countries.
The authors additionally point out that these corporations are in practice overcoming the famous 20th-century objection to planned economies that came from the influential Austrian economist and logician Ludwig von Mises, which was later expanded on by a circle of intellectuals he was a part of known as the Vienna Circle. This objection is known as the economic calculation problem (ECP).
The ECP argues that without price signals, planned economies cannot efficiently track and meet the subjective preferences of consumers as a sole centralized production agency simply cannot compute and act on the millions of market interactions taking place every minute in a national or global economy.
Phillips and Rozworski challenge that notion by finding a silver lining in the massive industries and technologies of today that capitalize on market demand through using the immediacy of information access that big data in an age of ubiquitous cloud computing allows for.
The authors therefore argue that if corporations like Amazon and Walmart can plan so effectively using the serendipitous technologies of today that track and package so much about consumers and their preferences to be able to efficiently plan production, storage and distribution of their products — then why can’t a government do the same but remove the need for commoditization?
Such a system would completely turn upside down the common association that people have with command economies producing wild inefficiencies that lead to disastrous famines and ridiculous wait times for basic products, issues that arose time and time again in 20th century socialist China and Russia.
Add on the democratic mechanism of elections to such a command economy made efficient by the powers implicit in modern advances in big tech and big data and you would have — in theory — a democratic socialism that meets everyone’s consumption needs, meaning class distinctions based on money and ownership would virtually disappear.
Arguments against each other
As I indicated at the outset, these two specific forms of socialism are mutually exclusive, the reason being that a worker co-operative economy retains market competition as firms, even if co-operatively owned by workers, would still need to compete with other worker co-op firms for market share to make profit. Alternatively, a fully planned command economy has no competing firms and no profit (barring the notion of a trade surplus in the global economy, but that doesn’t change this point in any meaningful way).
The core of this difference, therefore, lies in the distinction between the continued existence of the commodity form — a product produced to be sold on the market — as would be necessary in a worker co-op economy, and the disappearance of it, which would be necessary in a planned economy.
The most compelling arguments that the partisans of these theories levy at each other can be traced to this fundamental difference.
In fact, Phillips and Rozworski spend a small section of The People’s Republic of Walmart criticizing partisans of the idea of a worker co-op-based economy, which they refer to as market socialism. Key among their critiques is that doing away with private capital ownership doesn’t do away with the inherent problems of market competition and the commodity-form:
“…partisans of market socialism have to set aside the reality that the goods and services produced in markets, even socialist markets, will still only be those that can turn a profit. […] the set of things that are beneficial overlaps only in part with the set of things that are profitable. New classes of antibiotic, rural high-speed internet, and crewed spaceflight would all be as difficult to deliver under a socialist market as under a capitalist one, without significant, planned intervention into the market. Meanwhile, items that are profitable but actively harmful, such as fossil fuels, would still likely be produced.”
The authors also point out that the issue of market misalignment — the over- or undervaluation of market demand leading to mismatched supply — would still exist under market socialism given that competing firms would need to keep an informational firewall between each other in terms of aggregate demand data. In theory, the more demand-data synchronization in society’s productive sector, the less supply-side inefficiencies would exist. However, Phillips and Rozworski’s fully planned economy could, again, in theory, synchronize all the available aggregate demand information in society and subsequently gear targets for supply levels of production of goods and services based on that clearer picture of society’s total aggregate demand data.
Finally, the authors point to the former Yugoslavia’s socialist system that instituted something of a worker co-operative economy based on worker management of firms, still under partial control of the state the authors concede, as empirical proof of market socialism’s weaknesses related to marketization. They specifically reference how the problems brought on by market competition stoked the tension that led to the eventual separatist war and subsequent dissolution of the country.
Yugoslavia’s worker management system saw certain regions with more natural or pre-established capital than others, meaning firms competing with each other were not on fair footing. This problem led to pay discrepancies between workers and general inequality based on the regions Yugoslav workers were in. Consequently, such capital and income disparities enhanced regional rivalry, adding fuel to the eventual fire that was the ethno-nationalist war which tore the former socialist country apart, leading to over a hundred thousand deaths in its wake.
And while the Yugoslav government attempted to put capital taxes on more capital-intensive firms to control for discrepancies, this didn’t adequately alleviate issues of pay discrepancy and regional division (though, it should be noted that worker pay was far less divergent in Yugoslavia at the time than in Western liberal democratic nations).
Now, Professor Wolff does address Yugoslavia in Democracy at Work,but mainly to argue that the managers of the Yugoslavia worker co-ops, given their relations to the state, were just state capitalist managers and that it was through not having full-fledged worker owners that this system failed to fully alleviate exploitation and came apart.
Wolff’s engagement with Yugoslavia disappointingly doesn’t engage with how the issues inherent in the former socialist republic’s economic markets helped cause the eventual war; it’s simply not made clear in Wolff’s work how worker co-ops with no managerial pressures from the state wouldn’t still run into capital discrepancy issues, potentially causing societal tension and division, the former Yugoslavia being a pertinent example of this.
This makes the Yugoslavia example from Phillips and Rozworksi a strong point of criticism against worker co-operative enthusiasts.
Another issue related to the allowance of a market system and its need for certain government controls to combat inequality is that Wolff’s WSDEs should only — theoretically, at least — issue bonds or non-controlling stock options if they are public companies to preserve their status as being worker-owned. The exact degree of worker ownership necessary to make a worker co-op considered owned by the workers de jure, however, could become problematic if the there’s an effort to fully abolish a private capitalist class with worker co-operatives. If there’s no laws banning worker-co-op companies from issuing controlling shares to outside investors, issues around the existence of a capitalist class would likely persist, albeit in weaker forms.
For example, lacking such a law that fully bans controlling shares from outside investors, say some co-ops decide to offer up to 45 per cent ownership expressed in shares to outside investors as a shrewd tactic to acquire quick capital and get a leg up on their competitors. That company could theoretically argue that the majority share which workers have in being 55 per cent owners makes the co-op still worker-owned in some sense, causing a tricky debate on semantics.
It may even be plausible that workers would trade some or much of their control over the workplace in exchange for knowing that the advantages investor capital will give their firm in the short run are worth the long run losses of weakening worker control over the economy writ large. Issuing an enticing, but below 50 per cent, amount of controlling shares to investors could mean the short term, self-interested benefits of capturing more market share for the firm, benefits like higher pay for everyone, might outweigh the long-term downsides of allowing a private investor class to own large swaths of the private sector.
A final point against the co-op camp is that essential goods which can’t be administered effectively (read: humanitarianly) through markets such as education and healthcare would still have to be in the purview of the state. However, a market socialist economy could still see worker co-ops using their market power to try to grab a profitable slice of these necessary goods, just as capitalist firms do today when they prey on the edges of even universal healthcare systems, as is the case here in Canada.
On the co-operative side, though, there are arguments — again mostly stemming from that crucial difference of whether or not the commodity-form persists — that present solid criticisms of a fully planned economy that their side doesn’t have an issue with.
For starters, say a technological error occurs in a People’s Republic of Walmart-type economy causing the miscalculation of the demand for baby formula in a region, resulting in a massive shortage there. Inhabitants of that region that are in need of baby formula are then out of luck in terms of finding another vendor carrying what they need as there’s only the single provisioning entity of the state.
I don’t want to play a utilitarian game of whether such occasional misallocations in an otherwise smooth-functioning planned system is a better situation than the alternative in a market system where there likely will be other vendor options if there’s a shortage with one supplier, but with the trade-off that those who can’t afford said goods in the first place can’t acquire them (to be clear, I think the former is better so long as demand computing errors are occasional and never utterly catastrophic at a country or world scale). I will say, however, that it is a downside that the consequences of demand calculation errors in any type of fully planned economy will be orders of magnitude worse than under market socialism where there would likely be other vendors to choose from in the case that one or a few that consumers go to are lacking in supply.
Another issue, or at least an untheorized gap in a Walmart-type argument, is that if you stipulate that all the advanced technology of today overcomes the ECP and could be used for a fully planned economy, what would the basic unit(s) of demand quantization be absent prices?
I actually got into a back-and-forth with Leigh Phillips on X about this issue, and the agreement we landed on, while not unsatisfying, was somewhat lacking in a clear answer.
To summarize the essence of the contention our exchange was about: imagine being in the economic system that Phillips and Rozworski’s Walmart envisions. Assuming individual consumers submit requests through some state production agency website that looks something like Amazon’s UI, it would have to be the case that the number of requests would be the quantifiable basic unit of demand for goods and services that the state’s demand-processing technological apparatus would have to use to signal to its worker- and automation-based production systems in order to adequately supply the demanded level of production of certain goods and services.
That being said, an issue would arise if, say, a rare resource is a necessary input in a lifesaving medical device that is used to treat a rare disease that only a very slim part of the population has, but the same resource is a necessary input used in a very popular toy that many children in the same population really want.
In such a situation, the simple total number of requests for those different goods — the toy and the life-saving medical device — could not be equally weighted. The higher demand for the popular toy against the rareness of the disease would mean that those who need the life-saving treatment may not get it as a direct result of the toy’s popularity causing a bulk of the resource that’s needed as an input for both goods going towards producing toys given its much higher total demand level represented by requests.
When I was corresponding with Phillips on X about this hypothetical issue, a potential solution I suggested which Phillips positively responded to was that certain goods and services could be tiered based on necessity.
Basically, the more necessary a good or service, the higher the tier it’s in. Tiers could then be based on the size of a multiplier effect on the number of requests for any good or service within it.
So, going back to my hypothetical, let’s say that the life-saving medical device for the rare disease was deemed an A-tier good given its necessity to keeping people alive. Now, let’s say the popular toy was placed in D-tier because it’s just for kids to have fun with. A-tier would have something like a 1000x, or whatever number, multiplier effect on single requests to make sure the production of it takes precedence over the toy despite the difference in total single requests for the respective goods.
It could also be that tiers don’t confer multiplier effects on demand quantification and instead create an order for what should be produced first and foremost. Therefore, assuming they’re in different “importance” tiers, the highly popular toy would only be produced if the supply necessary to meet the demand for the higher tier medical device is produced first, regardless of the level of demand for it in total.
Even with these hypothetical fixes, the issue of how to deal with demand quantization of requests and their relative values would be no walk in the park.
And with this problem, political parties might even be grounded on philosophical differences in how requests should be weighed. If that’s the case, is it possible a populist party in such a system may argue that a tier system depriving many children’s happiness with a popular toy to save what will be a very small number of lives isn’t worth it, and that a compromise is needed where both get some of what they want in what would be another vertiginous utilitarian problematic? It’s hard to say.
The strongest criticism that co-operative partisans might issue against their planned economy counterparts, though, is that even if a fully planned economy has elections and the efficient allocation of goods that a high-tech apparatus of demand information processing grants a la Walmart, the dual monopoly that the state has on both violence, in terms of the military and police force, as well as on society’s total capital-assets could make an authoritarian ambition to subvert democracy easier as the ruling party of such a system would be more poised to leverage their sole discretion over the flow of goods and resources in attempting an authoritarian transition of one kind or another.
For the sake of argument, imagine a situation that has happened in the world too many times already: the high officials of a majority-power party make promises to the generals and chiefs of their military and police force that they will get privileged positions in the order of resource distribution if they help foment a military coup of the government. This scenario is made easier for a corrupt majority party in a fully planned system and more difficult in a worker co-operative system given the centralization of capital-assets in the government’s hands in the former and the decentralization and dispersal of them in the latter.
Barring a fascistic market-government alliance scenario, which usually requires an exogenous — or felt exogenous — threat anyways, a largely worker co-operative productive sector would require a government with authoritarian ambitions to engage in much more costly conflict if they want to gain control of capital-asset power through coerced or forced seizures.
The takeaway
Putting these novel socialist alternative models in discussion and debate with one another is not intended to reveal a clear “winner” after all things are considered.
If anything, I intended this analysis to be an incremental step in stimulating conversation and thoughtful engagement between what I see as the strongest formulated arguments for a socialist alternative to modern capitalism today. My hope is that doing so will help along efforts of solidifying the socialist left’s sense of what strong arguments we have to offer for an alternative to the existential threat that is the increasingly oligarchic techno-capitalism of today’s developed Western world.
One issue that many on the socialist left struggle with is that we tend to spend so much time in niche theoretical arguments, trying to figure out the perfect system alternative, that we forget just how marginalized we are in the current global political climate.
This is not to say that we should abandon the work of robustly thinking through and formulating economic alternatives down to the finest details at this moment. Suggesting that would be hypocritical for obvious reasons.
Rather, it’s to suggest that the approach to such thought and debate needs to embrace disagreement in order to — to use an often frivolously thrown around term in leftist theoretical spaces — dialectically engage with the differences in arguments put forward.
If this piece is intended to have a takeaway, I’m hoping it’s that the socialist left has two strong arguments on our side that aren’t just lazy attempts to white-wash or ignore the authoritarian excesses of the socialist states that have existed and continue to.
However, these arguments evidently do expose, implicitly and explicitly, important weaknesses or gaps in the foundations of each other’s theoretical architecture which will need work.
The Brock Badgers’ journey in the OUA playoffs came to a heartbreaking end in February in what was a hard-fought quarter-final showdown against TMU Bold at the Mattamy Athletic Centre. From the opening tip, the Badgers showed grit and determination in their Feb. 22nd game against the TMU Bold in Toronto.
TMU struck first with a three-pointer, but Brock wasted no time responding, igniting a thrilling 10-0 run. Layups from Madison MacInnis and Audrey Ntetani set the tone as the Badgers took early control of the match. By the end of the first quarter, a deep three from Angeline Campbell secured Brock a 16-11 lead, putting the home crowd on notice.
However, TMU found their rhythm in the second quarter. The Bold orchestrated a counterattack with a 10-0 surge of their own, flipping the script and forcing Brock to play from behind. The Badgers fought to stay within distance, with a crucial late layup from Madalyn Weinert narrowing the gap. Still, TMU entered halftime ahead, 32-28.
Determined to reclaim momentum, Brock came out strong in the third quarter. The Badgers clawed their way back into the fight, led by Weinert’s relentless play on both ends of the floor. Olivia Fiorucci delivered a clutch long-range jumper to tie the game at 45, sending a surge of energy through the Brock bench. Yet, just as they had done before, the Bold answered back, sinking a pair of timely three-pointers to regain control. By the end of the third, TMU reasserted their lead, 53-49.
The final quarter proved to be Brock’s downfall. TMU erupted for a 13-0 run to begin the quarter, stretching their lead to an insurmountable 69-49. The Badgers fought until the final whistle, managing to add late baskets, but the damage had been done. The Bold’s late-game dominance sealed Brock’s fate, closing out the contest with a 72-53 score.
Despite the loss, Weinert delivered a standout performance, posting a game-high 18 points, 13 rebounds and four assists, her double-double effort exemplifying the heart and fight the Badgers displayed all season. Defensively, Brock stood tall in the early going, registering five blocks to TMU’s three, which showcased their passion in overcoming one of the nation’s top defensive teams.
With the loss, Brock’s impressive 2024-25 campaign comes to an end, finishing with a strong 16-6 regular season record. As head coach Shae Dheensaw and her team reflect on a season filled with growth and determination, they’ll look ahead to next year with unfinished business, eager to build on the foundation they’ve laid for future success.
The Brock Badgers women’s volleyball team are heading back to the OUA Championship after a 3-0 semi-final sweep of the Windsor Lancers on Feb. 28.
Sadie Dick shined on the attack with a game-high 13 kills as Brianne Whalen recorded a team-leading nine digs, while Mackenna Knox was dominant in all aspects of the game, leading Brock with 42 assists and six blocks as well as registering an ace.
Knox’s precisely placed assists were on display in the opening set.
With the game deadlocked at eight, Knox set up four Badger kills in a five-point run as Brock got the early 13-8 lead.
The Badgers quickly increased their advantage with nine of the following 13 points, courtesy of their .423 hitting percentage — which was their best in any set in the match — to take a commanding 10-point lead as Brock candidly won the first set, 25-18.
However, the second set was a different story as the Lancers, who desperately needed a spark, took the opening five points to force a Brock timeout.
Windsor grew their lead to 12-6 on a flurry of Badger errors before the reigning three-time provincial champions responded with seven consecutive points to take their first lead of the set.
With Brock up 13-12, the pendulum rapidly swayed from one side of the court to the other as the teams traded punches, resulting in the set being squared at 23 apiece.
The Badgers were the first side to hold set point in the set courtesy of a Dick kill, one of Brock’s 18 kills in the set — which was the most in a single set by either team — before the Lancers nullified it with a kill of their own.
Every time the Badgers had the advantage, Windsor pushed back, accumulating in a 29-29 deadlock.
A huge combination block by Knox and Charlotte Ross, one of the Badgers’ 10 in the contest, gave Brock their fifth set point of the second, which was followed by a thunderous Knox ace to seal the 31-29 set two victory.
With the emotional swings of the second set fueling the Badgers, Brock jumped to a 6-3 lead as they looked to clinch a spot in their fifth consecutive Quigley Cup.
But the Lancers were eager to crush the Badgers’ dynasty as they cut the Brock lead down to one, 13-12, before the Badgers took a stranglehold of the game.
Three kills by Laurin Ainsworth and one from Dick opened a 4-0 run by the Badgers, which quickly became an 11-5 run as the Badgers held match point.
With the sold-out Brock crowd on their feet, another Ainsworth smash — her 11th and the Badgers’ 48th of the game — electrified the Bob Davis Gymnasium as the Badgers swept the Lancers 3-0 (25-18, 31-29, 25-17) to continue their hopes of winning a fourth straight provincial title.
The Badgers (OUA second seed) will host the McMaster Marauders (OUA fourth seed) on March 7 in the OUA Championship game in what will be a rematch of last season’s final where the Badgers won 3-1. Brock also won both regular season contests against McMaster this season, 3-1 on Nov. 22 and 3-0 on Nov. 23, and has won six of their last seven home matches against the Marauders dating back to the 2019-20 season.
Tickets have been sold out, however the game can be streamed on oua.tv.
For more information on the Brock Badgers women’s volleyball team, visit gobadgers.ca.
Don’t be fooled by the false pretenses of punishing a lack of border security behind Trump’s tariffs on Canadian industries; his trade wars are simply an expression of his desire to exert economic power onto other nations to see if he can bully them around.
On Feb. 28, President Trump took to Truth Social to confirm that the 25 per cent tariffs that went to effect on March 4 can be blamed on a lack of action to prevent the alleged flow of drugs into the U.S. from Mexico and Canada.
However, several reports, including one from The New York Times, found that exports of fentanyl — the main narcotic Trump alleged was “pouring” into the U.S. from Canada — represents a “miniscule” 0.2 per cent of seizures at Canada-U.S. borders.
The Globe and Mail recently published a similar report, calling the data Trump is using to justify tariffs “misleading.” The report outlines that the figures Trump is using to support his tariffs are incredibly unclear, not specifying which criminal charges came from these seizures, how the drugs were being trafficked nor exactly where the drugs were coming from.
By cross-referencing information from the White House with interviews including first-hand accounts from law enforcement officials and other court data, The Globe and Mail writers Kathryn Blaze Baum, Colin Freeze and Andrea Woo found that some of the seizures Trump continues to cite “may have no ties to Canada whatsoever.”
With all this data disproving Trump’s claims that Canada is massively responsible for fentanyl and other narcotic trafficking into the U.S., Trump has clearly given Canada an issue that cannot be solved. Precisely, the fentanyl trafficking issue that Trump is assigning to Canada does not exist in the way he is describing it.
It is important to note that Canada is indeed tangled in a detrimental drug crisis, but this is not the issue Trump is referring to.
So, the question becomes: Why is Trump threatening the U.S.’s closest trade partner — not to mention the livelihoods of Canadians and Americans alike that depend on threatened sectors — for seemingly very little reason?
Trump is using tariffs to subordinate Canada to the U.S., letting Canadian officials scramble to crack down on border security despite an already highly patrolled border.
Trump implied in his Truth Social post that Canada did not do enough to toughen border security during the period between tariff threats, justifying the need to put them into place. However, no amount of border control would have been sufficient to Trump because the tariffs are not truly about border security, they are about power.
Trump’s political persona largely relies on positing himself as superior to all other leaders and the U.S. as reigning above all other nations. To convey this hierarchy of power, Trump’s threat toward Canada’s economy leaves the Canadian government running to appease him — even though, for the tariffs, there is no way to do so.
The Guardian columnist Nesrine Malik calls this occurrence “the Trump doctrine,” saying that U.S. allies can either submit to “political subordination” or take back their agency and look past his immediate threats.
Trump’s proposed 25 per cent tariffs pose an incredible threat to Canadian industries, but they also pose a threat to the legitimacy in which Canadians and Americans alike will regard our leaders.
Canada’s response to Trump’s tariffs absolutely cannot be an act of mere appeasing to make peace with Trump, or our country will continue to be subordinated time and time again.
Canadians should not be deceived by the claims Trump puts behind his tariff orders. The 25 per cent tariffs are not about border security, they are about undermining Canada’s capacity to demonstrate political force to feed “manifest destiny” ideals of the U.S. reigning over all nations — including their closest allies.
The four Liberal leadership candidates tackled discussions of Canada’s relationship with other nations, the economy, the carbon tax and more at their English-Language debate.
On Feb. 25, Liberal leadership candidates Karina Gould, Mark Carney, Frank Baylis and Chrystia Freeland met for their English-Language debate ahead of the March 9 deadline to select a new leader for the party.
According to moderator and Executive Communications Officer for Global Public Affairs Hannah Thibedeau, the debate questions were informed by concerns from registered Liberals across Canada.
The debate covered several themes, including Canada’s global standing, the economic crises, repairing Canada’s healthcare system and climate policies.
Here is an overview of the key points of discussion from each theme.
Canada’s place in the world
The first question Thibedeau asked candidates was why they would be the best leader to oppose President Trump amidst his then imminent tariff orders.
Baylis answered first, referencing his past negotiating experience and saying Trump’s “character” is not unfamiliar to him. He classified Trump as a “bully,” saying that as the Liberal leader, he would be able to predict his actions and counter them accordingly.
Carney responded next, saying that “crisis management, negotiating skills” and “economic expertise” are essential for confronting Trump. He added that a strong economic foundation is necessary to maintaining strong Canada-U.S. relations.
Gould noted that she learned how to “stand up to bullies” in the House of Commons and would continue to do so as the Liberal leader. Gould added that she understands the approach needed to combat Trump’s tariffs, saying that “you can’t bring a calculator to a knife fight.”
Freeland argued that it is a “big mistake” to believe that Canada cannot negotiate with Trump, noting the mutually beneficial trade relationship between the two countries. Later in the debate portion of this section, Freeland also said that Canada must begin looking for allies, listing “Mexico, Panama, Denmark and the EU” as prospective partners due to their shared struggle with the U.S.
Next, Thibedeau asked the candidates what their first move would be immediately after Trump confirms his tariff orders.
Baylis said that Trump will be looking to tax American sectors that are at overcapacity to hurt America’s economy the least, listing softwood lumber and dairy as examples. Baylis said he will protect these industries and employ counter tariffs back at America.
Freeland said that her first move would be “dollar-by-dollar retaliation,” matching whatever the U.S. inflicts onto Canada with strategy instead of Trump’s “dumb” tariff method. Freeland listed a 100 per cent tariff on Teslas as well as tariffs for Wisconsin dairy and Florida orange juice.
Gould said she would tackle the situation by calling a meeting with the Council of the Federation to align Canada’s premiers and ensure a unified response. Then, she would publicize the government’s plan, saying that Canadians have the right to understand what their government is doing. Her plan entails calling for a “Team Canada” approach, urging Canadians to restrain from consuming U.S. products.
Carney said that he would also call a First Ministers meeting and employ dollar-for-dollar tariffs. Carney said he would also amplify the economic impact of Trump’s policies for Americans, citing that Canada is their largest supplier of energy, electricity and uranium.
During the debate portion of the topic, Gould warned that “our democracy is under threat,” citing the immediacy of meeting the two per cent NATO target and continuing to lend international assistance to other nations.
Freeland agreed, saying that the threat Trump poses to Canada’s sovereignty emphasizes the need to work alongside our democratic and military allies.
Canada’s economy
Moving to economic issues, Thibedeau asked candidates how they would strengthen Canada’s economy amidst the precarious economic times Canadians are facing.
Carney answered first, saying that home building would be his first step to make life more affordable for Canadians. Carney also said that building “conventional energy infrastructure and clean energy infrastructure” as well as “intelligence infrastructure” — diversifying Canada’s trade partners and creating a singular Canadian economy instead of 13 — will all be a part of his approach to repairing the economy. Later in the debate period, Carney said he would cut taxes for the middle class and remove the GST for first-time home buyers.
Instead of focusing on the larger “macroeconomic picture” of Canada, Gould referenced her proposal to create a housing plan to help first-time home buyers, incite a one per cent GST tax cut (going from five per cent to four per cent) and lead Canada towards a basic income. During the debate period, Gould said her basic income plan would ensure that individuals who live on a fixed income, like seniors or persons with disabilities, have adequate financial support.
Baylis outlined what he called his “prosperity plan” to repair the economy. Baylis said that Canada must restrain from running deficits because of the consequence this has on the value of Canadian currency. He clarified that he will not be cutting GST, but he will “modernize” Canada’s healthcare system as it is a large site of spending for the government.
Freeland said that all economic plans must first tackle the issue of Canada’s relationship with Trump, naming him Canada’s “biggest economic menace.” To do this, Freeland said she will remove interprovincial trade barriers, “cut red tape” and invest in Canadian industries. During the debate, Freeland outlined further plans, like a middle-class tax cut, lessened credit card fees and a tax cut for first-time home buyers.
Bringing back support from right-leaning voters
The next theme began with Thibedeau asking candidates how they would win back the support of former Liberals who have turned to the right throughout Trudeau’s time as Prime Minister.
Gould said that many voters have moved to the right because current Liberals are not discussing the challenges Canadians face most in our economic climate, like the lack of affordable housing.
Baylis said he would invest in universities to improve the economy and support young people in their educational endeavours. He also proposed increasing the amount given to Canadians’ First Home Savings Accounts — saying it currently does not match inflation — as well as rebuilding investments for social housing.
Freeland said the Liberals need to look back on their successful recovery from the 2008 financial crisis and bring that same energy to current issues if they want to see electoral success. To do this, Freeland noted again her plans to cut taxes for the middle class and first-time home buyers, build 100,000 new childcare centres, cap credit card fees and offer Canadians “free trade schools.” During the debate portion of the topic, Freeland noted that she would also increase the funding given in First Home Savings Accounts.
Carney said he will focus on building infrastructure, supporting universities and implementing “broad-based skills training” adding that the federal government can “leverage A.I.” to do so. During the debate portion of the topic, Carney said that Canada must double its rate of home building efforts, citing that the average cost to buy a house in Canada is ten times the average Canadian’s salary. To do this, Carney said that we need more home building technologies and more trades workers.
Healthcare
Thibedeau turned to the next theme, asking candidates how they would work alongside provinces and territories to solve the shortage of doctors in Canada.
Carney said that, although healthcare is a provincial responsibility, the federal government must do their part in ensuring that healthcare workers can easily move around the country if needed. He also said that Canada must be more accessible for healthcare workers from other areas of the world to set up practices here.
Gould said that the federal government is significant to this issue in two ways. Firstly, the federal government must work alongside provincial governments to make mobility across the country easier for healthcare professionals. Secondly, Gould said that the federal government must work with colleges as well as provinces and territories to ensure that healthcare professionals trained outside of Canada are equally recognized here.
Baylis said that the Canadian healthcare system needs a complete “redesign,” referencing that it was originally designed in the 1960s for acute care issues, but now Canadians are increasingly suffering from chronic issues. In this redesign, Baylis wants to expand the capabilities of pharmacists, saying they are trained to do a number of things that are not reflected in their job description. He also wants to train 6,000 nurses to become nurse practitioners to expand their scope of practice as well as invest in home care services.
Freeland said that healthcare credentials must be portable across the country and widely recognized from several countries outside of Canada. She noted that Liberals must protect Canada’s universal healthcare system from Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre.
The consumer carbon tax and the climate crisis
The climate change discussion of the evening began with whether the Liberal candidates would end the consumer carbon tax.
Carney said he would end the tax, saying that it has become “too divisive” for Canadians and that it only accounts for less than 10 per cent of Canada’s emission reductions. Carney proposed that Canada can maintain these emission reductions by having “big polluters” pay Canadians for their emission reductions as well as improve the options for more sustainable options for important companies.
Freeland said she would also remove the consumer carbon tax, saying that “democracy is about listening to people.” Freeland suggested instead that the federal government needs to use incentives, like the Canada Growth Fund and the Investment Tax Credits to make Canada more sustainable while growing the economy.
Baylis said that he would put forth a climate policy using the “polluter pays model,” in which pollution costs are “fairly” paid. Baylis added that, if anyone proposes a model where nobody pays, they are “not being honest with you.” Baylis said he will not use the current carbon tax, as it is “just circulating money around,” but instead he will change it to directly address climate change through investment into Canadian companies who are bringing solutions to the issue.
Gould said she will not “abandon” the fight against the climate crisis, saying that the carbon tax has become an issue of affordability for Canadians and is not representative as a stance against sustainability. Gould added that a number of Canadians depend on the rebate checks that come from putting a price on pollution.
During the one-minute segment on the topic, Thibedeau asked how candidates would employ energy infrastructure and whether they feel there is a “private interest” to work on this infrastructure.
Baylis said that he will build two pipelines to transfer natural gas across the country. He noted that private industries have recently showed a lack of interest in endeavours like these because “there’s no certainty” on the rules for each project, saying that new governments frequently overhaul prior governments’ rules regarding energy infrastructure. Baylis added that getting the approvals of provinces and Indigenous communities is integral before seeking private industry interest.
Carney said that he would set up a First Ministers discussion to discern Canada’s projects of national interest regarding both clean and conventional energy and pipelines. Carney noted that this must be done with urgency to make real progress.
Freeland said Trump is also relevant to this issue, as he poses an “existential threat” to Canada’s economy and sovereignty. However, she said that she is confident of Canada’s leverage in this area, referencing that the country supplies energies in “hydro, wind” and other traditional forms to the U.S.
Gould said that Canadians must discuss their future in energy production regarding both traditional and renewable energy, as energy is a large resource Canada can supply to other nations.
Justin Trudeau
Finally, Thibedeau tasked candidates to explain how they were different from former leader of the Liberal Party Justin Trudeau.
Gould said she recognizes that the Liberal government made several mistakes over the last few years, namely not listening to Canadians who were worried about post-pandemic inflation. She said that she is proud of the work done by the Liberals thus far and plans to build off their successes.
Baylis said that he is “the most distant” candidate from Trudeau as he never served as a minister nor an economic advisor in his government. He said he will be more focused on “building an innovation-based economy” to bring more wealth to Canadians and ensure that the government has the financial resources to pay for important programs like the healthcare system.
Carney said that he will be a much more “hands-on” leader, focusing on the economy, growing wages and minimizing inflation as well as increasing dialogue within the caucus.
Freeland said that she is also proud of the progress made by Trudeau’s government but reminded Canadians that she is her “own person.” She said she will take on a collaborative leadership style, focus on “practical” issues like jobs and economic growth and will fight for Canada amidst economic tensions with Donald Trump.
—
The voting period for the Liberal Leadership election began on Feb. 26 and is open until March 9. If you are a registered Liberal, you can vote in this election. Visit liberal.ca for more information on the voting process.
Overtaking the court with skill, leadership and record-breaking performances, the top WNBA players continue to add momentum to the game and elevate women’s basketball to new levels.
Breanna Stweart — New York Liberty
Breanna Stewart has cemented herself as one of the league’s top players. After spending six seasons with the Seattle Storm, Stewart joined the New York Liberty in 2023, forming a super team alongside Sabrina Ionescu and Jonquel Jones. The 6’4” forward averaged an impressive 23.0 points, 9.3 rebounds and 3.8 assists per game in the 2023 season, playing an average of 34.1 minutes per contest. A two-time WNBA champion and former MVP, Stewart will always be a nightmare for defenders with her ability to score from anywhere on the floor.
A’ja Wilson — Las Vegas Aces
A’ja Wilson, the two-time WNBA MVP and cornerstone of the Las Vegas Aces, has been instrumental in her team’s success. Wilson led the Aces to back-to-back championships in 2022 and 2023, demonstrating her ability to dominate in the paint and stretch the floor with an evolving mid-range game. In the 2023 season, Wilson averaged 22.8 points, 9.5 rebounds and 2.2 blocks per game, playing around 32.4 minutes per contest. Her defensive presence and leadership make her one of the most valuable players in the league, as she never fails to deliver game-changing performances for the Aces.
Sabrina Ionescu — New York Liberty
Since entering the league as the No. 1 overall pick in 2020, Sabrina Ionescu has emerged as one of the best players in the WNBA. Known for her elite playmaking and three-point shooting, Ionescu posted an average of 17.0 points, 5.6 rebounds and 5.4 assists per game in 2023 while shooting over 44 per cent from beyond the arc. Playing 33.5 minutes per game, the 5’11” guard has transformed into one of Liberty’s most consistent offensive weapons. Her ability to play on all ends of the court makes her an essential part of New York’s championship aspirations.
Napheesa Collier — Minnesota Lynx
Napheesa Collier has been the heart and soul of the Minnesota Lynx since she was drafted in 2019. The versatile forward had an outstanding 2023 season, averaging 21.5 points, 8.5 rebounds and 2.5 assists per game while playing nearly 34 minutes per contest. Collier’s ability to guard multiple positions, combined with her efficient scoring, has made her one of the most well-rounded players in the league. As the Lynx continue to build around her, Collier’s leadership and play will be key in getting Minnesota back to championship contention.
Alyssa Thomas — Connecticut Sun
Alyssa Thomas has long been known for her incredible durability and versatility. The Connecticut Sun forward recorded one of the most impressive seasons in WNBA history in 2023, averaging 15.5 points, 9.9 rebounds and a league-leading 7.9 assists per game while playing 36.0 minutes per contest. Thomas also set a record with six triple-doubles in a single season, showcasing her ability to contribute to all facets of the game. Her defensive prowess makes her one of the most valuable players in the league as she continues to carry the Sun’s championship hopes.
Jewell Loyd — Seattle Storm
Jewell Loyd had a career year in 2023, leading the WNBA in scoring with an average of 24.7 points per game. Despite the Seattle Storm going through a rebuilding phase, Loyd’s offensive explosiveness kept them competitive throughout the season. Playing 33.2 minutes per game, the 5’10” guard established herself as one of the most skilled scorers in the league. Her ability to create her own shot, knock down clutch three-pointers and attack the rim makes her one of the toughest players to defend.
—
The WNBA is home to some of the most hard-working athletes in the world, and these top players continue to push the game forward. Whether through scoring dominance, defensive skills or all-around versatility, stars like these are shaping the future of women’s basketball. With increasing competition and talent depth in the league, the battle for MVP honours and championship glory is only getting more intense, promising exciting seasons ahead for fans of the game.
Financial disparities between women and men athletes are continued proof of systemic inequities existing in the world of professional sports.
Despite growing advocacy for equality, the gender wage gap in sports remains a glaring issue, with women’s league athletes consistently earning a fraction of their gender counterparts despite comparable skill, dedication and achievements.
One of the most visible examples of this disparity can be found in professional basketball. The average salary of a WNBA player is around $120,000 while NBA players earn an average of over $9 million. Top-tier WNBA players like Breanna Stewart or A’ja Wilson, who dominate their league, make significantly less than even mid-level NBA players. In contrast, men’s league superstars like LeBron James and Stephen Curry command contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars, not including lucrative endorsement deals that further widen the income gap.
The inequality extends beyond basketball. In soccer, the U.S. Women’s National Team (USWNT) has long outperformed their men’s league counterparts on the international stage, winning multiple World Cups and Olympic gold medals. Yet, for years, their pay lagged behind the U.S. Men’s National Team (USMNT), which has struggled in international competitions. It wasn’t until 2022 that a collective bargaining agreement secured equal pay for both teams — an achievement that required years of legal battles and public pressure.
Tennis, often seen as one of the more progressive sports regarding gender pay equity, still faces disparities. While the Grand Slam offers equal prize money, lower-tier events do not. Serena Williams, one of the greatest athletes of all time, has frequently spoken out about the challenges of being a women’s league athlete, not only in terms of pay but also in how women are perceived in sports. Meanwhile, men’s league counterparts like Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal have enjoyed higher overall earnings due to larger endorsement deals and higher prize pools at various tournaments.
Endorsements play a significant role in exacerbating the wage gap. Men’s league athletes dominate the sponsorship arena, receiving more high-profile and lucrative deals compared to women’s league athletes. For instance, Cristiano Ronaldo and Lionel Messi have inked endorsement deals worth hundreds of millions, whereas women’s league soccer stars like Alex Morgan or Sam Kerr receive only a fraction of that amount despite their global impact and success.
The gender pay gap in sports is not just a financial issue — it reflects deeper societal biases about the value of women’s sports. Media coverage plays a crucial role in this disparity, with women’s sports receiving significantly less airtime, sponsorship investment and fan engagement than men’s sports. This lack of visibility creates a vicious cycle where lower revenue generation is used as justification for lower salaries, despite the untenable talent and achievements of women’s league athletes.
Progress is being made, but slowly. Organizations like the WNBA, FIFA and various Olympic committees are taking steps towards narrowing the wage gap, but true parity remains a long way off. Until women’s league athletes receive the same level of investment, media attention and opportunities as their gender counterparts, the fight for equal pay in sports will continue.
The conversation surrounding the gender wage gap in sports is not just about salaries — it’s about respect, recognition and the long overdue acknowledgement that women’s league athletes deserve to be valued just as highly as their men’s league peers.
It’s important to know how to do your taxes, even as a student.
With tax season officially underway, the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) is encouraging students to file their returns as early as possible to ensure a smooth process and quick refunds. In an interview with The Brock Press, Daria Askerko, a T1 Spokesperson at the CRA, outlined key deadlines, changes and new services available for the 2024 tax season.
Key Deadlines and Filing Options
The deadline to file and pay taxes for the 2024 tax year is April 30. Self-employed individuals and their spouses or common-law partners have until June 15 to file their returns, but any payments owed must still be made by April 30.
“Filing online is the simplest way to ensure your return is processed quickly,” said Askerko. Last year, 93 percent of Canadians filed online, and those who opted for direct deposit received refunds in as little as eight business days. By contrast, paper returns can take up to eight weeks to process. The CRA also uses NETFILE software to facilitate online submissions, most of which is free.
New for 2024: Expanded Benefits and Enhanced Digital Services
This year’s tax season comes with several updates aimed at making filing easier and increasing access to benefits:
Charitable Donation Extensions: Individuals can now claim eligible amounts for certain gifts made to qualified grantees.
Easier Access to My Account: Canadians no longer need to wait up to 10 business days for an activation code; they can now verify their identity using government-issued identification and gain instant access.
Live Chat with CRA Agents: Taxpayers can now speak with a live CRA agent through the My Account chat function for real-time assistance.
New Reporting Requirements for Gig Workers: Those earning income through digital platforms, such as selling goods or providing services, must now track and report their earnings accurately.
Volunteer Firefighter and Search & Rescue Credit Increase: The eligible tax credit amount has doubled from $3,000 to $6,000 for individuals providing at least 200 hours of combined volunteer services.
Tax Tips for Students
Students should ensure they have all necessary tax slips, including the T2202 Tuition and Enrolment Certificate, which details eligible tuition amounts for tax credit claims. Even if they are not currently employed, Askerko advised students to track tuition fees so they can apply unused credits in future years when they have taxable income: “This will often get you a nice, sometimes substantial refund.”
The P105 Guide for Students and Income Tax provides useful information on filing your 2024 tax return.
Other student-related tax benefits include:
Tuition Tax Credit: This credit reduces the amount of taxes owed by deducting eligible tuition fees.
Student Loan Interest Deduction: A non-refundable tax credit is available for those paying interest on government-issued student loans.
Moving Expenses Deduction: Students who moved at least 40 kilometres closer to their educational institution may qualify for deductions on moving costs.
Protecting Against Fraud
The CRA is also warning taxpayers to remain vigilant against tax scams: “The CRA will never use aggressive language, demand immediate payment or threaten arrest,” said Askerko. Additionally, the CRA does not accept payment via credit cards, gift cards or cryptocurrency.
To avoid falling victim to scams, taxpayers should verify CRA communications through their secure My Account portal. Taxpayers should ignore suspicious emails or texts requesting personal information and report any suspected fraud to local authorities.
Support for Low-Income Taxpayers
For those in need of assistance, the Community Volunteer Income Tax Program (CVITP) offers free tax-filing help for eligible individuals, including modest-income students. Additionally, the CRA’s new ReFile system allows taxpayers to correct errors on their submitted returns without hassle.
Even individuals with no income should file a tax return to remain eligible for benefits and credits like the Canada Carbon Rebate (formerly the Climate Action Incentive Payment), which helps offset federal pollution pricing.
Daria Askerko emphasized the usefulness of My Account and encouraged all students to sign up today.
For more information on filing taxes, taxpayers are encouraged to visit the CRA’s official website or use the My Account portal for personalized tax details and support.
Start Me Up Niagara’s CNOY fundraiser walk was a great success, says event coordinator.
For over 25 years, SMUN has worked with individuals facing significant life challenges such as addiction, mental illness, poverty, homelessness and unemployment.
In an interview with TheBrock Press, St. Catharines’ Coldest Night of the Year (CNOY) event coordinator Emily Fieguth expressed her gratitude to the participants and volunteers. While there were some “bumps” in the road such as last-minute cancellations, Fieguth was delighted by how the community came together to show support for the fundraiser.
The walk “saw a fantastic turnout,” with 440 registered walkers, 71 teams and 83 registered volunteers. On the day of the event, spontaneous participants raised the number to nearly 500 walkers and 100 volunteers. Many volunteers came from Brock University, Niagara College and Bridges Niagara Immigrant and Refugee Services. Fieguth herself started working at 10 a.m. to set up and coordinate volunteers and ended around 9 p.m. after packing up. She was the first in and the last to go home. She said it was a very long day, but a very good day.
The St. Catharines CNOY is currently at 90 per cent of its $175,000 fundraising goal, with $157,865 raised at the time of writing.
“I think I was just overwhelmed by the community’s support,” said Fieguth. “Seeing families [and] people engaging in the activities […] touched our hearts.”
The funds will directly help Start Me Up Niagara (SMUN) provide crucial services and programs for the unhoused, including access to medical supports and food security programs like “From Our Garden,” the Bike Me Up program and Niagara’s Mobile Closet.
The theme “Change the Tune” will continue throughout the year. Fieguth will be attending numerous seminars to help spread the message and SMUN is also planning events throughout the year.
In the spring, there are two events: Adopt-a-Row (which fights food insecurity and supports sustainable agriculture by inviting participants to sponsor a row in their garden) and a Celebratory BBQ for SMUN’s donors, sponsors and community members.
In the summer, there will be a “Glow Ride” event sanctioned by Ontario Cycling in the evening. The fall will see the third annual “Stuff the Truck” event with Niagara’s Mobile Closet, a “Mystery & Mimosa Gala” brunch and the second annual “Trunk or Treat.”
The Coldest Night of the Year walk is one of their oldest fundraising events, but it proves time and time again to be one of their most successful.
With BUSU club ratification just around the corner, two students are in the process of creating a new club.
A new poetry club is in the works at Brock University, spearheaded by students Andy Zhang, a second-year English major with a passion for modernist literature, and Jenny Simpson, a third-year English and Creative Writing student who enjoys working within restricted forms as a creative foundation. Their vision is to create a space where students can “dance with the words,” experiment with poetic forms and connect with like-minded individuals.
For both Zhang and Simpson, poetry is more than just an academic subject — it is an interactive, expressive and communal art form. They want to create an alternative space for poetry at Brock, one where students can play games, engage in creative exercises and share ideas freely. Their goal is to foster a “utopian space” for poetry, a place where experimentation is encouraged and where no one feels pressured to conform to traditional literary norms. Simpson jokingly added that she’d like to see club members wear capes to meetings.
Activities will range from structured exercises — such as writing haikus or experimenting with concrete poetry — to open discussions on poetic techniques, specific poets and personal works-in-progress. The club also plans to help emerging poets refine their craft for publication and plans to establish connections with poetry clubs at other universities.
Currently, Zhang and Simpson are in the process of gathering like-minded students and researching how best to structure their club. A preliminary meeting is scheduled for Sunday, March 9 at 12:30 p.m. in Market Hall, where they plan to discuss their vision in an open and democratic way.
However, the process of gaining official recognition has been challenging, with concerns over BUSU’s ratification transparency and potential overlaps with existing campus groups, such as the Brock Creative Writing Club. The pair worries they may not get a fair opportunity to present their unique concept because poetry falls under the very broad “creative writing” category. They emphasized that poetry can be wildly separate from generalized creative writing, and that their club would not only be about reading and writing poetry.
If successful in their ratification, the poetry club will host a variety of events, including poetry readings, writing workshops, form discussions, poet showcases, open mic nights and collaborative writing sessions. A major goal of theirs is to launch a poetry zine, allowing club members to see their work in print. The club also hopes to organize field trips to literary sites, host guest speakers and collaborate with other student organizations. Plans are already in motion to connect with the St. Catharines Poetry Slam and to establish a poetry club summit to showcase the strength of Brock’s English Department.
The club is committed to welcoming poets at all levels, whether they are beginners looking for a supportive space to practice or seasoned writers seeking mentorship. A drop-in Q&A format, informal workshops and a potential “adopt-a-poet” program, inspired by Dr. Tim Conley, will ensure that everyone has the opportunity to learn and grow as writers.
The first major initiative post-ratification will be a general meeting and meet-and-greet event designed to create a fun and informal atmosphere. The aspiring club founders hope that by fostering an open and welcoming environment, they can help break down the intimidating stereotypes often associated with poetry.
They also plan to integrate multimedia elements into their projects, including podcasting, performance poetry and magazine cut-outs. Online platforms like Discord and WordPress will be used to keep members engaged beyond physical meetings.
To ensure the club’s success, Zhang and Simpson are seeking a consistent meeting space on campus, as well as funding for materials and other opportunities.
At its heart, this poetry club aims to enrich Brock’s literary community, making poetry more accessible and vibrant on campus. Whether through zines, collaborative writing or performance poetry, the duo hopes to cultivate an environment where poetry can thrive.
With a spirit of creativity, collaboration and a bit of humor, this club may soon become an exciting new addition to Brock’s student community.
The cast of Brock Musical Theatre’s Grease is finishing up its final rehearsals before debuting its modern take on the hit musical.
A ratified BUSU club, Brock Musical Theatre (BMT) has played a vital role in the theatre community at Brock University and the Niagara region since its founding in 2005. On Saturday, March 8, BMT will open their annual production, which this year is a gritty, feminist take on the beloved classic Grease.
In September, Emily Moore, BMT’s academic representative, said that the executive team chose Grease because it was a “happy, well-liked show.” While nearly six months later, Moore still thinks these are relevant descriptors, her perspective has changed on what the musical is about.
“This version of Grease is completely different from the traditional movie that everyone knows,” said Moore, who also plays the role of Sandy. After having become more familiar with her character and the script, Moore sees the story as being about “self-reflection and the empowerment of women.
“Instead of a sad, whiny Sandy, the character has transformed into a gritty, sassy character who learns how to stand up for herself,” said Moore.
While BMT’s take on Grease attempts to provide a more nuanced look at the 1971 classic, the themes are still very different than those showcased in their past two shows, Carrie: The Musicaland Cabaret.
“I think this side of BMT will surprise people,” said Moore. “Cabaret and Carrie were complete opposites in terms of subject matter. It has been a challenge for cast members to channel a new version of themselves as actors, allowing for laughter and fun,” said Moore, but the production has been “a dream to be a part of.”
Kashvi Sharma, who is BMT’s marketing manager and plays the character of Marty, attributes this great atmosphere to director Bri Waters. “Working with Waters over the past couple of months has been really refreshing,” said Sharma, who went on to admire the director’s ability to create rehearsal spaces where playfulness and exploration of characters is encouraged.
“The rehearsal process for this production has been a very collaborative experience as this cast offers so much vibrance to the show,” said Sharma, who noted that this experience has differed from the one she had as a cast member in Carrie. “There is a strong and exhilarating feeling that comes with doing a more lighthearted show — one that’s full of classic show tunes, energetic dance breaks and traditional humour.”
While Grease has long been considered a classic, having debuted in 1971, it has also faced an abundance of criticism in recent years for its once praised traditionality.
Many critiques have pointed to the musical’s promotion of problematic messages about peer pressure, teenage sexualization and gender roles as being outdated and overly romanticized. Others are uncomfortable with how the character of Rizzo is handled, suggesting that her storyline reinforces negative stereotypes about sexually active women. Moreover, it was the musical’s final plot line, which sees Sandy change her “good girl” persona to please her love interest Danny, that caused much of the uproar.
Moore, who spent time reflecting on this plot point when she took on the role of the archetypal girl next door, Sandy Olsson, said that her contemporary outlook changed the way she, and the whole of the cast, approached their characters.
“In our production, Danny is goofier and much more sensitive, depicting his character as being more well-rounded; whereas Sandy is portrayed as being increasingly strong as she journeys to find her true sense of self,” said Moore. She said Waters’ approach to the script challenged the whole cast to approach their characters in a more “filthy way” to accurately show how teenagers acted during that period.
Moore also said their production “reflects current societal issues and beliefs due to its focus on female empowerment and self-acceptance.” Moore highlights a moment at the very end of the show where she bows with the actress who plays Rizzo rather than the actor who plays Danny. She said this creative decision was made to “place more value on the female bond [depicted in the musical] as opposed to the romance.”
Still, everyone involved in BMT’s production of Grease acknowledges that the heart of the show is what has allowed it to remain relevant and beloved over 50 years later.
Sharma said what makes this production of Grease stand out to her is that while you still get the classic songs and scenes from the film, the cast, crew and directorial team have taken a more real and raw approach to the story we all know and love.
“Whether this is your first time seeing Grease or if you know all the songs by heart, our production will deliver all of the elements you love while still keeping it exciting, bold and rebellious.”
Live from the Robertson Theatre, Grease opens on March 8 at 7:30 p.m. Further showings are slated to take place on March 9, March 12 and March 13 at 7:30 p.m., with a matinee scheduled for March 9 at 2 p.m.
Tickets can be purchased online on the First Ontario Performing Arts Centre website for $30.
The Northern Super League (NSL), Canada’s new professional women’s soccer league, is less than two months away from kicking off with the much-anticipated inaugural season schedule released in late February.
The six-team league, featuring clubs from coast to coast — Vancouver Rise FC, Calgary Wild FC, AFC Toronto, Ottawa Rapid FC, Montreal Roses FC and Halifax Tides FC — is set to kick off on April 16 with a match between the Vancouver Rise and Calgary Wild at the iconic B.C. Place, in celebration of Canada’s first-ever professional women’s soccer game.
The western matchup will be the first of 75 regular season games that are on the schedule for 2025, with the opening week slate continuing on April 19 as AFC Toronto and the Montreal Roses battle at BMO Field, home of Toronto FC.
The other four teams will also host their home opener in the league’s first few weeks, beginning with the Halifax Tides’ home debut at Wanderers Grounds on April 26 against the Calgary Wild.
The following day, the Ottawa Rapid open their home schedule against their Ontario rivals at TD Place Stadium before playing Montreal in the Roses’ home debut on May 3 at Centre Sportif Bois-de-Boulogne in Laval.
Calgary Wild rounds out the opening schedule of home contests with a Mother’s Day matchup against the Ottawa Rapid at McMahon Stadium on May 11.
Each team will play 25 regular season contests in 2025, with Calgary, Halifax and Ottawa playing 13 home and 12 away matches, while Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver play 12 games at home and 13 away.
Teams will be awarded three points for a win and one for a draw, while a loss gets zero points.
Point totals will be vital as only the top four teams will qualify for the inaugural NSL playoffs, with the first seed playing the fourth seed and the second seed battling the third seed in a two-leg home and away series. The teams that accumulate the most goals against their opposition in the semifinal will advance to the one-game championship match to be played on Nov. 15.
From April 16 to Nov. 15, the NSL will be broadcast across multiple platforms with TSN airing 20 regular season contests and CBC showing eight. There will also be a “Game of the Week” streaming on both the CBC Gem app and on NSL.ca, while an additional 24 games will co-stream across TSN+ and NSL.ca.
French-language broadcasts will be available with 21 matches on RDS and four airing on Radio-Canada through ICI TÉLÉ and ICI TOU.TV.
For the complete Northern Super League schedule, visit nsl.ca.
The Brock Badgers men’s and women’s wrestling teams competed at the Wrestling Canada Lutte U Sports Invitational Championships on Feb. 28 and March 1, with the women’s team striking gold and men’s side earning silver.
Women secure second consecutive U Sports title
It was a weekend to remember for the women’s wrestling team as they successfully defended their throne in front of the Brock crowd at Canada Games Park by winning back-to-back U Sports championships and their 12th national banner overall.
The Badgers narrowly defeated the Calgary Dinos, who placed second, by earning 70 points compared to the Dinos’ 67 as the Western Mustangs finished in third place with 41 points.
Brock earned medals in eight of the 10 weight classes, winning one gold, six silvers and one bronze.
Brianna Fraser led the charge for the Badgers by securing her third consecutive national gold in the 83-kilogram division with a defeat of Concordia’s Alexia Sherland by technical fall, 14-2.
Joining Fraser as repeat medalists were Samantha Romero, who won another silver medal in the 50-kilogram division (her first since the 2017-18 season), and Vanessa Keefe, who remained a silver medalist in the 68-kilogram division for the second straight season.
Michaela Rankin won her first national silver medal after placing third in the 62-kilogram division last year, with Francesca Lo Greco — who was named the U Sports Rookie of the Year in 2023-24 and won gold in the 50-kilogram division last season — moving up a weight class to the 53-kilogram division where she finished second.
Rounding out the Badgers’ medalists who earned their first podium finish on the national stage were Bronywn MacGregor, who placed second in the 65-kilogram weight class, and Olivia Mathezer, who competed at her first national championship, where she won a bronze medal in the 56-kilogram category.
The national title highlights another successful year for the Brock women’s wrestling team that saw them dominate the OUA Championships in February by winning their 10th straight provincial title and 23rd overall with medalists in all 10 weight categories.
The Badgers also topped the podium with first place finishes at the York Open, U of T Open and Brock Open throughout the season.
Men capture silver in heartbreaking fashion
The men’s wrestling team were looking to tie a record 10th straight national championship but fell just short on home soil.
The Badgers registered 63 points but were defeated by the Alberta Golden Bears who had 68, while the Western Mustangs won bronze with 52 points.
Brock medaled in seven of the 10 competitions, earning one gold, five silvers and one bronze en route to a second-place finish.
Yazdan Farokhizad was the Badgers’ lone gold medal winner, earning his first career national gold in the 90-kilogram division with a 10-0 technical fall win after placing second in the event a season ago.
Garette Saunders joined Farokhizad as a repeat medalist by capturing a silver in the 61-kilogram weight class for his third national silver and fourth U Sports medal overall.
Callum Knox (100-kilogram) and Roger Li (125-kilogram) each added to the Badgers’ medal haul with second place performances while Zakir Ibrahimkheil (57-kilogram) and Cole Coghill (76-kilogram) won silver medals in their national championship debuts.
Gabriel Blanchette capped off Brock’s medal totals with a bronze medal win in the 68-kilogram weight category after defeating McMaster’s Gianluca Fortino with a 13-0 technical fall victory.
Despite the national heartbreak, the Badgers still recorded a highly successful season, winning their ninth consecutive OUA Championship and 26th provincial banner in school history with six gold medal results in the 10 weight classes.
Brock also showed dominance throughout the 2024-25 campaign with first place performances at the U of T Open, Brock Open and Western Open during the season.
For more information on the Brock Badgers wrestling teams, visit gobadgers.ca.
While the NHL’s recent 4 Nations Face-Off tournament may have just been a series of glorified all-star games, Canada’s win against the United States was about way more than just hockey.
Announced during the 2024 NHL All-Star Game last February, the 4 Nations Face-Off was an international ice hockey tournament that ran from Feb. 12 to Feb. 20. The competition, which featured teams of NHL players representing Canada, Finland, Sweden and the U.S., replaced the National Hockey League’s annual All-Star Game.
Played in Montreal’s Bell Centre and Boston’s TD Garden, the tournament was structured around a series of six round-robin games with the top-placing teams playing a one-game final for the trophy.
While Canada lost to the U.S. in their round-robin face-off on Feb. 15 — a tense game that saw three fights break out in the first nine seconds after the puck drop — both teams won two of their three games, allowing them to advance to the final.
Set during a period of heightened political tension between Canada and the U.S. following President Trump’s active trade war with the country coupled with threats of annexation, the focus of the tournament quickly shifted away from friendly competition.
Although both players and coaches did their best to avoid any questions about the ongoing tension, it proved to be unavoidable. In an interview withCBC News, Canadian sportswriter Gare Joyce speculated that “if you could get inside the minds and hearts of those Canadian players, they were probably wrapped up in [the political tension].”
The conflict escalated further once the games began.
Before Canada’s round-robin game against the United States, jeering fans in Montreal booed the American anthem, a trend that carried over from previous NHL and NBA games in the wake of President Trump’s threats. This act was responded to in turn when the Americans booed the Canadian anthem in Boston.
Similarly, before the final, Trump posted on his Truth Social account saying he would be calling the American team to “spur them on towards victory against Canada,” who “with FAR LOWER TAXES AND MUCH STRONGER SECURITY, will someday, maybe soon, become [the United States’] cherished, and very important, Fifty First State.” He continued his tirade by stating that while he would not physically be in attendance for the face-off, he would be watching the game. He invited Prime Minister Trudeau, who he referred to as “Governor Trudeau,” to join him.
Karoline Leavitt, the White House’s new Press Secretary, hammered this notion home when she stated in a press briefing before the game that President Trump would be watching to see the United States win and that he looked forward to seeing them beat “our soon-to-be 51st state, Canada.”
Played in Boston on Feb. 20, the Play-Off final was nothing short of anxiety-inducing as competition was tight from the moment the game began.
While Canada scored the first goal in the fourth minute, the United States came back and tied it up just before the end of the period. The Americans briefly acquired the lead in the second, but it wasn’t long before Canada evened the playing field. Finally, after a tense third period without a goal from either team, Canada scored an overtime winner, making them the champions of the 4 Nations Face-Off.
While the tournament was not affiliated with the International Ice Hockey Federation, meaning that Canada’s win won’t impact the country’s international ranking, the competition stirred up a great deal of controversy.
When Canada won in overtime, Prime Minister Trudeau responded to Trump’s previous comments by saying “You can’t take our country—and you can’t take our game,” on X.
Still, with tensions growing online, this wouldn’t be the end of the tensions between the nations brought on by the game.
Canadians and Americans began to have it out with one another in the comment sections of posts on various social media platforms. Before the final, many Americans flouted that winning against Canada would be easy, but following the United States’ sore loss, they changed their tune.
One X user stated: “Okay COOOL Canada Congrats on beating us once in overtime and getting a trophy for it… it’s 1-1 as far as I am concerned. See y’all in the Olympics you frauds.” Another commenter under a TikTok posted by Team Canada acknowledged that the Canadians had won the game, but asked: “Can they win a war tho? No.”
Much like their president, it seems as though many Americans have a hard time conceding a loss.
While the competition means very little on the global stage, a sentiment many Americans have been running with to soothe their hurt pride, it was so much more than a series of all-star games to Canadians. This win sent a shockwave of national pride throughout the entire country, bringing its citizens together to unite against a common goal: showing the world that we will never be the 51st state of America.
Cost-effective purchasers would be wise to avoid Apple’s new “budget” iPhone 16e.
On Feb. 19, Apple announced the iPhone 16e, a new addition to the iPhone 16 lineup. The phone is meant to be a budget option for consumers, cutting several of the features offered by the primary iPhone 16 and iPhone 16 Plus, as well as the flagship iPhone 16 Pro and iPhone 16 Pro Max.
A pseudo-successor to Apple’s now-discontinued iPhone SE lineup, the iPhone 16e removes the ultrawide camera that has become a staple on modern iPhones, as well as MagSafe compatibility, support for 5G networks, the Dynamic Island (which is replaced with the notch present on earlier models), the Camera Control button and the Ultra-Wideband chip that helps you locate your other Apple devices.
The only thing that justifies the 16e’s placement in the iPhone 16 lineup is the inclusion of the A18 processor, which is capable of running Apple’s A.I. program, Apple Intelligence. Other than that and an improved battery life, the phone is virtually indistinguishable from the two-and-a-half-year-old iPhone 14 in terms of features.
This might be a nice addition to the current iPhone lineup if the price were truly reflective of the product’s budget nature, but with a staggering starting price of $899 CAD for the 128GB model, it’s hard to make any argument for buying this phone when you could opt for an older and cheaper iPhone or simply look outside Apple for a better choice instead.
Let’s be clear: it’s nice that Apple is finally offering a phone capable of using Apple Intelligence at a price point less than $1000 considering the entry-level iPhone 16 sells for $1129 CAD. Yet, at this point, it feels as though Apple Intelligence is far too early in terms of its features to justify buying a whole new phone just to make use of it.
As of writing, Apple Intelligence is mostly just a collection of gimmicky A.I. features that feel generally unnecessary — things like rewriting emails for you, the ability to generate A.I. images and custom emojis called “Genmoji” in iMessages, and an improved version of Siri. It’s all pretty much stuff we’ve been seeing on various websites and computer programs for a couple of years; the difference is that it’s integrated directly into your phone now.
But as it stands, I’m not certain that this set of features justifies buying a whole new phone — at least not yet. While Apple Intelligence will undoubtedly grow its features over the coming years and might eventually become advanced enough to be considered a software necessity, we’re not even close to that point. Right now, those looking to upgrade should still be primarily focused on hardware features such as cameras, displays and processors rather than A.I.
People looking to save money on a new phone would be better suited keeping their eyes out for deals on models like the iPhone 15 or the now-discontinued iPhone 14. Even the iPhone 13, which is a few years old now, still runs very well and might be better if you’re hoping to upgrade on a budget.
For those hoping to save even more, it’s probably worth considering looking outside Apple’s product line, which is notorious for its high prices. Conducting some research on Android products will help you to find the right phone for you, although buyers should be warned that cheaper phones usually come with even more trade-offs.
Meanwhile, if you’re willing to shell out big bucks for your new phone, you should just go all the way straight to the main iPhone 16 or even consider the iPhone 16 Pro if you’re really looking for a product with all the bells and whistles. The iPhone 16 Pro has a higher refresh rate than the regular iPhone 16 and boasts the addition of a telephoto camera. It’s a lot of money, but it might be worth it if you’re really hoping to squeeze every drop of power out of your new device.
All in all, whether you’re looking to buy on a budget or get something capable of more, there are better options to buy than the iPhone 16e. It’s nice that Apple is keeping budget models in mind, but until they can reduce the price enough that it becomes worth it, you should probably continue searching elsewhere.
Over the last month, Canadians have gone viral for booing the U.S. national anthem at major sports games, and it’s hard to blame them.
After the first month of Donald Trump’s presidency proved to be tumultuous for relations between Canada and their long-standing southern ally, tensions continued to flare at the Canada-U.S. 4 Nations hockey game in Montreal on Feb. 15, where clips of Canadian fans loudly booing the American anthem went viral.
The angry spectators voiced their disdain despite public address announcer Michel Lacroix’s request that fans respect both teams’ anthems.
The disapproval from the crowd is yet another example of growing Canadian nationalism in the past few months, spurred on by Trump’s continual mockery of Canada’s sovereignty and repeatedly expressed desires to transform the country into America’s “51st state.” It also comes in the face of heavy tariffs imposed by Trump towards Canada, as well as the president’s repeated falsehood that Canada plays a major role in the U.S.’s current fentanyl crisis, when only 0.2 per cent of U.S. border fentanyl seizures happen at the Canadian border.
So, tell me: Why, after all these verbal attacks and lies toward a country that has always been one of the U.S.’s greatest allies, Canadians should be expected to sit idly by and pretend that everything is hunky-dory? The American president has repeatedly mocked and belittled Canadians and the country they call home — if that’s not a reason to boo the American anthem, I’m not sure what is.
Some critics have expressed disapproval toward this sudden shift in Canadian expression, which has often been stereotyped as “people pleasing” and defined by a tendency to over-apologize.
Booing the American anthem isn’t an act of protest, it’s “rude,” wrote one critic for the London Free Press.
Professional American hockey player Cole Caufield echoed this criticism, calling the behaviour “disrespectful” and admitting it “bothers [him] a bit.”
There’s something that these critics need to understand, however. I believe it’s fair to say that the average Canadian who boos the American anthem isn’t launching an attack on the average American, nor are they voicing disapproval toward long-standing American values. They’re directly responding to a flurry of attacks from the new American president, who is threatening to destroy Canadian sovereignty while actively making life harder for millions of Canadians through tariffs. They’re not booing “The Star-Spangled Banner” because they woke up one day and randomly decided to hate America; they’re doing it because they rightfully feel attacked by the person who represents America on the global stage.
It’s true that there’s a common joke that Canadians are over-apologizers who just want to make everyone happy, and based on my personal experience, I’d say this stereotype holds at least some merit. Keeping this in mind, then, we shouldn’t be questioning whether Canadians have simply become more disagreeable — we should wonder how badly Donald Trump had to screw up in order for Canadians to become this collectively and outwardly upset.
I understand that everyday Americans might feel attacked by the booing of their national anthem. It’s a symbol of national pride, after all, and it’s understandable why they might disapprove of this behaviour when relations between Canada and the U.S. have usually been cordial.
But to those who feel attacked, I ask you to look at this situation from the Canadian perspective: imagine a long-term allied nation suddenly began mocking your country, imposing heavy tariffs on your business based on lies and openly throwing around the idea of annexing your country. Would you just sit by and take it? Or would you feel somewhat compelled to voice your disapproval when that country’s anthem started belting out?
The thing is, this isn’t an attack on the American people, as much as it might seem like it. It’s a fair and totally reasonable response to a country’s new leader betraying Canada through his words while doing everything in his power to make Canadians miserable. To my fellow Canadians: if you’re not already booing, you should probably start.
Now, it’s important to note that there’s a difference between booing the American anthem and actually treating our neighbours poorly. While it’s acceptable to voice your disdain toward the actions of the American government, we should be mindful not to risk becoming the aggressors in this situation. We should continue treating individual Americans with respect and not begin to look down upon people simply because of where they’re from. Remember that Donald Trump is the one who’s been attacking us, not the everyday Americans who will also find themselves struggling under his tariffs.
Many Americans are victims of Trump too, and we should continue treating them with the dignity and respect that we always have. But booing the American anthem doesn’t disgrace the average American, it simply expresses disdain toward the destructive behaviour of their corrupt leader.
We might be a country known for apologizing, but we won’t idly stand by and watch our country’s identity be diminished. We’ve got 157 years of history, and while our legacy is far from perfect, we should know in the face of Donald Trump that we have something worth standing up for.
Donald Trump’s recent treatment of the U.S.’s neighbouring countries reflects a new theme that’s defined his mindset as he begins his second presidential term: conquest.
In an equally surprising and unsurprising twist during the leadup to his presidency, Trump began provoking Canadians with repeated jokes about Canada joining the U.S. as the “51st state.” The comments, which Trump has continued spouting over the course of the last three months, have been repeatedly brushed aside by Canadian politicians as playful banter, but Trudeau acknowledged at the Canada-U.S. Economic Summit early February in a statement picked up by a hidden microphone that Trump’s threats are “real” and need to be taken seriously.
It’s not hard to see where Trudeau’s concerns are coming from.
Trump has seemingly made it his mission to punish Canada through economic means, with the White House citing “the extraordinary threat posed by illegal aliens and drugs, including deadly fentanyl” supposedly flowing into the U.S. from Canada as the reasons behind Trump’s incoming 25 per cent additional tariffs on the country. Mexico, another longstanding ally of the U.S., finds itself in the same situation for the same reasons.
It’s clear that Trump does not value the relationships with some of his country’s closest allies, and it’s baffling that he would outwardly turn against the U.S.’s closest neighbours and important allies — or is it?
This idea seems to align with the president’s “America First” ideology. Now, let’s be clear: it’s completely reasonable to expect a country’s leader to place their own people at the forefront of political and economic issues, and advocate for their country first and foremost. This should be expected from a leader elected by their own people. What Trump seems to struggle to understand, however, is that this ideology does not have to come at the immediate expense of everyone outside his country, especially those who have been direct allies of the U.S. for decades. Throughout Trump’s political career, he has often prioritized the wishes of America’s richest over the working class, and that seems to once again be the case here. While his protectionist policies from the 2016 administration were no more benevolent than his current actions, his ambitions of neighbourly conquest are new.
It’s also worth mentioning that Canada is not a major factor in the fentanyl crisis present within the U.S. The Global Initiative Against Transnational Organized Crime states that Canada is very clearly not the illegal drug monopoly that Trump is making it out to be, with under one per cent of the fentanyl entering the U.S. coming from Canada. Canada is not even mentioned as a fentanyl trafficking threat by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration in their most recent report.
In fact, it seems that if there isany issue at all with illicit materials moving through the northern border, it’s the other way around. Global Initiative states that far more drugs flow into Canada from its southern neighbour than vice versa, especially methamphetamine, cocaine and fentanyl. Trump’s aim to make Canada appear like a major drug trafficking threat to the U.S. is indisputably disingenuous, yet his biggest supporters will believe him anyway simply because he’s the one who said it.
So, if Canada doesn’t play a large role in the U.S.’s illegal drug economy, why is Trump pretending that to be the case?
Well, it’s possible Trump simply has his facts wrong and is spewing misinformation as though it were the truth. But what’s more likely is that Trump is voicing a bold-faced lie in an attempt to punish the everyday Canadian for a greater plot: his hope of annexing countries and growing the U.S.’s landmass and population.
If that sounds far-fetched, it’s important to understand that Canadians aren’t alone in this. Trump has shown repeated interest in overtaking the autonomous Danish territory of Greenland, home to over 50,000 people who want nothing to do with Trump and his territorial conquest.
He has gone so far as to say he believes the U.S. will “get Greenland,” adding that the residents want to join the U.S.
But remember, when Trump defiantly says something is true, it often means the opposite. Like Canada, Greenland wants nothing to do with it, despite Trump’s claims.
Trump claims that seizing Greenland is an “absolute necessity” for the U.S.’s international security, but this obviously isn’t true. The United States is understood to have the strongest military in the world, and if history has anything to say about it, the U.S. clearly has no problem defending itself against foreign threats. Taking control of Greenland isn’t a tactical move in protecting U.S. territory, it’s simply another scapegoat that Trump is using to justify his actions.
Terrifyingly, Trump has explicitly refused to rule out military force as a potential means of overtaking Greenland and the Panama Canal, another area that Trump has set his sights on. If the ill-tempered and retribution-seeking president eventually decides to use military force to overtake these areas, then he has fully embraced the theme of conquest in his decision-making process — not because the U.S. is at any real risk, but because his egoism trumps everything else, even when it comes at the dismay of those that have always supported his country.
When observing Trump’s clear aim of growing the U.S.’s landmass, it’s hard not to mention the president’s recent announcement that he plans to take control of the Gaza Strip, saying that Israel will hand Gaza over to the U.S. after the conclusion of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Trump’s comments have drawn rightful criticism that he may be planning the ethnic cleansing of Gazans. United Nations officials have also denounced Trump’s plan to seize Gaza and added that this would be “strictly prohibited.”
Notably, Trump has not stated whether the two million Palestinians who call Gaza home will be permitted to return if his plan comes to fruition. Judging by his “America First (at the expense of literally everyone else)” policy, however, it’s safe to assume that he simply doesn’t care what happens to them. His plan is to throw them out, and whatever happens next to the innocent and war-torn people of Gaza is of no concern to him.
This might seem contradictory to a recent post by Trump on Truth Social that if Gaza is taken by the U.S., “the Palestinians […] would have already been resettled in far safer and more beautiful communities, with new and modern homes, in the region. They would actually have a chance to be happy, safe and free.” However, given Trump’s track record of telling lies and his lack of specificity on what he would do with the two million displaced people of Gaza, frankly, I’ll believe it when I see it.
Trump’s hope of taking control of Gaza is yet another step in a thread of concerning statements and policies, all of which point to his obsession with territorial expansion by any means possible. While he has repeatedly claimed that U.S. control would be good for the people of the lands he hopes to overtake, it’s quite obvious that he’s only doing this for himself and other American elites. He may not have clear plans on how to get any of this done, but one thing’s for sure: he wants more land, and he wants lots of it.
Even more concerning is that some of Trump’s biggest supporters see eye-to-eye with their master, echoing his conquest-driven ideology in ways more explicit than Trump himself. For a good example, look no further than right-wing commentator and Donald Trump bootlicker Matt Walsh of The Daily Wire, who has made no secret of his desire for conquest at the behest of Trump.
“If we’re acquiring Greenland, we should at least consider also taking Canada. North America should be ours. We could conquer Canada bloodlessly in about a week. Something to think about, folks,” Walsh wrote in a post on X.
Let’s be very clear: when Walsh — a major commentator with a large platform — says that Canada could be conquered “bloodlessly,” it’s more than likely he’s referring to the blood of American people, not Canadians. It’s hard to believe that he gives a damn about what happens to the millions of innocent Canadians on the other side of the border, just trying to live their lives in peace.
It’s worth noting that not every Trump supporter wants to overtake various territories like Walsh. The National Post mentions that there is confusion among many Republicans as to why Trump is picking a fight with America’s closest ally; just because someone voted for Trump doesn’t necessarily mean they support his aim for conquest. Yet ultimately, so long as bloodthirsty schoolyard bullies like Trump are in charge of America, this is of little consequence.
Whether Trump’s conquests will come to pass remains to be seen, but there is growing concern across the world with every additional comment he makes. While many people oppose Trump’s views — from everyday citizens inside and outside the U.S., various political leaders on both sides of the ocean, U.N. officials and even people within Trump’s own party — he’s still the guy sitting in the Oval Office.
At this contentious moment in global history, there’s only one mindset that Canadians should take: remember your sovereignty, be proud of your country and speak out for what you know is right.
The overreliance on generative A.I. is a disgrace to the purpose of academia, and those who are guilty of it should know that they’re rendering their degrees useless.
It should come as no surprise that postsecondary students have started using artificial intelligence (A.I.) to help complete their assignments. If you’re a student, maybe you’ve spoken to a classmate who admits to using A.I. to complete their work, or maybe you do it yourself. If neither of these are the case, you’ve at least gotten used to seeing disclaimers about A.I. and how it can easily be used to commit academic misconduct in your syllabi. This is for good reason — students who do so are undermining the point of academia while invalidating the integrity of their future degrees.
Turnitin, a plagiarism checker often used by professors and teaching assistants to scan their students’ papers for stolen work, found that approximately 11 per cent of papers submitted between April 2023 and April 2024 contained at least 20 per cent A.I. writing. Approximately three per cent, which equates to over six million papers submitted by students, contained at least 80 per cent A.I. writing.
This data demonstrates an abhorrent misuse of artificial intelligence, and the students who have engaged in academic misconduct through A.I. should consider a few reasons why their overreliance on the technology comes with serious consequences beyond just getting caught. Not only is abusing A.I. in this way incredibly disrespectful to the students who spend hours thoroughly researching topics and forming their own unique thoughts and sentences, but it renders your degree meaningless in terms of merit. There’s no argument for anyone who uses A.I. to cheat their way through postsecondary school — they simply didn’t earn their degree, and they’re far more likely to not be well-suited for the career they end up in if it’s related to what they studied.
A meme has floated around Reddit displaying an image of a monkey seemingly dying in a hospital. The meme’s caption reads “me in 2040 dying on the operating table because my doctor used ChatGPT to pass medical school.” While clearly being satirical, the meme expresses an imminent truth about the potential qualification gaps of a generation of adults entering the workforce who have been overreliant on A.I. in their schooling.
If people use A.I. programs like ChatGPT to complete their work for them, “earning” degrees in important fields when they clearly haven’t done the necessary work to solve issues and develop analyses themselves, then they are inherently unqualified for the positions they end up eligible for because of their stolen degree. I don’t know about you, but I certainly don’t want to end up on the operating table of a surgeon who cheated their way through medical school using A.I. After all, it’s not ChatGPT who would be operating on my body — it’s the so-called “doctor” who I have no reason to believe has any clue what they’re doing.
Perhaps it sounds like I’m trying to be a teacher’s pet, or like I’m the anti-fun police in trying to stop people from having an easier time getting their degrees. In reality, I’m just a student who works long, hard hours to submit my own original work in every class, and it’s frustrating knowing there are others who simply generate stolen work in the blink of an eye.
Not all A.I. use is inherently bad, though. In fact, there are some ways that A.I. can actually help students with their studying.
Depending on the specifications of a course syllabus, using generative A.I. to prepare for seminars or decode dense readings for your own personal understanding can be beneficial ways to enhance your learning and ability to participate.
The difference is that appropriate uses of A.I. with schoolwork benefits the learner’s learning, rather than replacing the learning aspect altogether. When you submit A.I. work on behalf of yourself, you’re not earning your grades nor are you earning your degree — those all technically belong to ChatGPT.
I understand that using generative A.I. to complete your work makes things easier, but postsecondary school isn’t supposed to be easy. It’s no secret that postsecondary work can be incredibly demanding, taking long hours and much effort to complete. It’s unfortunate, but it’s the reality of our situation.
Students are fortunate that Brock offers mental health resources for those who find themselves struggling or in need of extra supports to complete their studies. Students with special circumstances should also seek the help of Student Accessibility Services, who might be able to provide accommodations and support depending on your situation.
But if you came to postsecondary school expecting it to be a walk in the park, you are wildly misguided. Unfortunately, there’s going to be some level of necessary stress along the way, and that’s just the truth of the matter. You ultimately need to decide if that’s something you’re willing to put up with to get the future career you’re after.
Because when you turn to A.I. to cheat your way through your program, you’re not just wronging your fellow students — you’re wronging the university, you’re wronging your future clients and you’re wronging yourself.
The 2024 awards season concluded with the 97th Academy Awards on Sunday night. With several predictable wins and surprises, here is a full recap of the ceremony’s awards.
Best Picture: Anora
Sean Baker’s Anora brought home the best picture award after what many thought to be a shaky season for the film. Predicting this category’s winner became clearer after it won big at the directors, writers and producers guild awards. Only a small handful of films have lost best picture at the Oscars after receiving this package of awards, notably Brokeback Mountain (2005) and La La Land (2016). With this in mind, Anora took the lead as the category’s frontrunner. This is the fourth film to win both the Oscar for best picture and the Palme D’Or, the crown prize at the Cannes Film Festival, following Parasite (2019), Marty (1955) and The Lost Weekend (1945).
Anora may feel less grand in scale than recent winners Oppenheimer and Everything, Everywhere, All at Once, but it’s nonetheless a mighty milestone for the practice and philosophy of independent filmmaking.
Best Actress: Mikey Madison – Anora
This year’s closest race by far finished with Mikey Madison’s victory for her role in Anora as the film’s titular protagonist, a young sex worker from Brooklyn. At 25-years-old, this makes her the first member of Gen Z to win an acting category Oscar. In a race as close as this, the actress in the stronger film by nominations and reception historically has had the upper hand. Last year’s race between frontrunners Emma Stone and Lily Gladstone ultimately saw Stone receiving her second Oscar due to Poor Things’ strength over Killers of the Flower Moon, despite Gladstone performing strongly at precursors.
Madison concluded her speech by recognizing the sex worker community, stating she would “continue to support and be an ally.”
Although Demi Moore’s loss may sting for some, and she would have been entirely deserving of a win, The Substance has already cemented itself as an instant classic in the horror genre. The Academy’s willingness to nominate films and performances of this genre are a win on their own and suggests a shifting willingness to recognize horror cinema as award-worthy.
Best Actor: Adrien Brody – The Brutalist
Adrien Brody won his second Oscar for his lead performance as Lászlo Tóth, a Hungarian-Jewish architect in Brady Corbet’s towering American epic The Brutalist. Apart from the Screen Actors Guild awards (SAG), which awarded Timothée Chalamet the best lead actor award for his portrayal of Bob Dylan, Brody comfortably secured himself a frontrunner spot from the film’s initial premiere at festivals.
Best Director: Sean Baker – Anora
Baker took home four Oscars at the ceremony, tying him with Walt Disney for the most Oscars won in a single night. During his acceptance speech, Baker spoke on the importance of keeping the tradition of going to the cinema alive:
“Right now, the theatre-going experience is under threat. Movie theatres, especially independently owned theatres, are struggling, and it’s up to us to support them. Parents, introduce your children to feature films in movie theatres and you’ll be moulding the next generation of movie lovers and filmmakers.”
Best Supporting Actress: Zoe Saldaña – Emilia Pérez
Though she arguably had a leading performance, Zoe Saldaña received the award for best supporting actress for her role in Emilia Pérez. While the film lost momentum this past month in the wake of controversy surrounding Saldaña’s co-stars and director Jacque Audiard, Saldaña successfully distanced herself and her campaign from this, landing her one of the film’s two wins out of its thirteen nominations.
Best Supporting Actor: Kieran Culkin – A Real Pain
The night’s first award was delivered to Kieran Culkin for his supporting role in Jesse Eisenberg’s A Real Pain. Like his fellow supporting-acting winner, he swept through all major televised precursors, making this one of the easiest categories to predict for those following the award season. Nonetheless, it’s a deserved win for a charismatic performance in a small film with a big heart.
Best Original Screenplay: Anora
Sean Baker took home the award for best original screenplay with Anora. This year’s original screenplay category was up–in–the–air for the most part, with The Substance and A Real Pain picking up awards at other ceremonies and festivals. Anora’s screenplay win at the Writer’s Guild of America awards (WGA) pointed in its favour despite missing at other televised ceremonies.
Best Adapted Screenplay: Conclave
Peter Straughan won the award for best adapted screenplay with his adaptation of Robert Harris’ 2016 novel Conclave. Unlike its sister category, adapted screenplay seemed far clearer cut from the jump due to the weakness of other nominees’ campaigns, though not necessarily their screenplays. Hence, this category became an easy prediction once Conclave swept through the precursor awards.
Sludge-stained heaps of snow left over from last weekend’s storm cage in the dwindling crowd hovering around Massey Hall. Whipping winds freeze my extremities as I wait impatiently on the cracked, icy sidewalk outside.
Hazy red light colours the faces of those standing in line around me, emanating from the neon sign hanging above the entrance. The venue’s doors opened 20 minutes ago, but the security guards checking bags and scanning tickets seem to be taking their sweet time.
Foggy vapours billow from my chapped lips as I exhale warm air into the glacial atmosphere around me. It’s ridiculously cold. I make eye contact with a tall, dark-haired man who has just barely dodged a spray of thick, polluted slush kicked up by a car racing past. We nod at one another in solidarity.
Winter will be over soon, right?
As the crowd lurches forward, I make a beeline for the entrance. Warm air emanates from the venue’s open doors and the closer I get, the more intrigued I become. Although I wouldn’t admit it to the hardcore fans behind me, I’ve never really listened to any music that Father John Misty, or Josh Tillman, has released. So why exactly am I at one of his concerts?
The tickets were cheap, February is the most depressing month of the year and live music makes me feel alive. It’s as simple as that.
Once inside, people mill around excitedly. Any ounce of cold that remains in my body is quickly destroyed by the four flights of stairs I have to climb to reach my seat which, mind you, is conveniently blocked by two massive speakers dangling from the ceiling, completely obscuring my view.
I don’t have long to ponder my bad luck though. The opening act, a band called Destroyer, takes the stage almost immediately.
Within seconds of being on stage, it is clear the band’s frontman, Dan Bejar, is the kind of guy who only exists in the industry because he genuinely enjoys making music. Exuding an aura of indifference and a healthy level of disinterest in the cheering crowd, it’s clear Bejar is there for the music first and foremost. At least that feels like the only plausible reason to continue to record music after nearly 30 years of relative obscurity.
Picking nervously at his gray khakis, long periods of expecting silence pass between Bejar and his pliant audience as he disregards any of the usual formalities related to performing for a crowd. In a stark departure from the usual facets of showmanship, Bejar spends much of his time on stage leaning on a half-extended mic stand like a crutch, sipping passively from a paper cup. His backstage pass hangs haphazardly from his neck, and I wonder in passing whether he forgot he was wearing it or if he just figured it would be easier if he didn’t take it off. Either way, its existence seems to be of little importance to him.
While the music filling the hall can’t seem to place itself in any one genre, there is no doubt that Bejar and the rest of the band that make up Destroyer are incredibly talented. The mood shifts dramatically from track to track, 80s synth-pop to new wave indie to saxophone-heavy lounge rock. All that remains the same is Bejar’s unique tenor, warbling and rasping through each verse like he’s about to wheeze out his last breath.
As Bejar takes his final bow, he disappears into the wings, never once introducing himself or the band.
As the lights come on, the hall is filled with the groaning hinges of seats as people get up and flood to the bar for overpriced alcohol. Waiting in line for the women’s washroom, an eclectic crowd of people buzz around me. Boyfriends with girlfriends, boyfriends with boyfriends, middle-aged dads and a very excited 70-year-old couple. Everyone’s got a cool haircut or a cool outfit or a series of cool piercings and they’re all hardcore about their love for Tillman.
On the journey back to my seat, I trail behind two university girls wearing long skirts and colourful scarves. They discuss school, work and a recent breakup, their flowy clothes fluttering behind them as they move. I don’t know a whole lot about Father John Misty, but they look like the kind of interesting people his music would attract, and I figure I must be in the right place.
After planting myself back in my ridiculously tiny chair with my ridiculously obscured view, I spot Tillman in the wings. Dressed in a dark-coloured suit, the musician pulls awkwardly at his jacket as people flit around him. Without the purpose everyone around him is sporting, Tillman seems small and insignificant. Yet, as soon as the lights dim, the clumsy, apprehensive man fiddling with his fingers transforms into something else. Someone else.
Josh Tillman becomes Father John Misty.
Throughout the night, Tillman plays a variety of tracks. While the setlist leans heavily towards songs from his most recent album, Mahashmashana, the artist also shares hits such as “Nancy from Now On” and “Funtimes in Babylon.”
Swinging back and forth from long, epic anthems to raw, heartfelt ballads, it’s hard to figure out where Tillman is going to go next. In fact, it’s hard to believe the musician wasn’t always a frontman, having briefly been the drummer for Fleet Foxes in his career’s early days. His larger-than-life charisma and cocky swagger captivate the audience’s attention and hold it for the entire two-hour set, never once letting the energy drop.
As Tillman and his band exit the stage, the audience roars with applause. Praise for the musician echoes through stairwells and on the street outside the venue, overlapping voices giddy with excitement about what they just witnessed.
The night might be over, but for me, a door to a whole new world of musical excellence has just opened wide.
Kansas Anymore, ROLE MODEL’s sophomore album, released in July of last year, but the indie singer just surprised his fans with four new songs.
Released on Feb. 14, Kansas Anymore (The Longest Goodbye) is the deluxe version of Tucker Pillsbury’s second studio album. Known professionally as ROLE MODEL, Pillsbury has released a variety of songs across a multitude of genres during his time in the music industry. However, it’s the quieter, more sentimental sound he developed on the original version of Kansas Anymore that has brought the singer a larger degree of success. Pillsbury expanded on this particular musicality in the four new bonus tracks — “Old Recliners,” “Sally, When The Wine Runs Out,” “Some Protector” and “The Longest Goodbye” — that were released on Feb. 14.
While it is often clear why songs released on an album’s deluxe version weren’t included in the original, the new material included in Kansas Anymore (The Longest Goodbye) intertwines well with the album’s initial 13 tracks.
The quiet simplicity of “Old Recliners” and “Some Protector” expertly matches the melancholic nostalgia in track five, “Frances,” and track 13, “Something, Somehow, Someday.” In an effort to parallel the multifaceted zeal displayed on the original album, the lively energy displayed in the upbeat tempo of “Sally, When The Wine Runs Out,” while new and fresh, is also cohesive with the bright vivacity displayed in tracks like “Superglue” and “Deeply Still In Love.”
Because of this, the four songs included on Kansas Anymore (The Longest Goodbye) feel as though they belonged on the original album all along.
The first bonus song, “Old Recliners,” continues the story of the heartbreak that followed the end of Pillsbury’s relationship with internet star Emma Chamberlain, which the singer laid out in the original version of the record. While it’s not the best of the four extra tracks, “Old Recliners” is lyrically impressive. Pillsbury nails the more narrative lyrical style that he’s adopted, leaning into the type of musical storytelling popular in country music.
Still, the instrumental backdrop introduced at the beginning of the track doesn’t change throughout the body of the work, leaving the listener underwhelmed. This lack of star quality impacts the re-listenability of the track and suggests that while “Old Recliners” isn’t necessarily a bad track, it could have used a little more work before it made its debut.
“Sally, When The Wine Runs Out,” the second bonus song, was long anticipated by Pillsbury’s fans. The singer has been playing the track during his current tour and a snippet of the outro recently went semi-viral on TikTok, making it the most anticipated addition included in Kansas Anymore (The Longest Goodbye).
This upbeat track displays a new sound for Pillsbury, featuring a ragged guitar line and a snare-heavy rhythm section. While “Sally, When The Wine Runs Out” still shows off the singer’s narrative lyrical style, the sonic atmosphere it creates is fresh and new, causing fans to excitedly hypothesize about where the singer is going to take his musical sound next. If his next body of work is anything like “Sally, When The Wine Runs Out,” Pillsbury is heading for a bright future.
A quieter, more introspective track, “Some Protector” reflects on the love Pillsbury still holds for his former lover. The song’s slightly southern-sounding twang and heartfelt, emotional lyrics easily align with tracks like “Oh, Gemini” and “Slut Era Interlude,” allowing this third bonus track to fit well with the sonic atmosphere the musician developed in the original version of Kansas Anymore. While the track doesn’t exude any undeniable wow factor, its cohesive sound still makes it a good addition to the record.
The final bonus song, “The Longest Goodbye,” is arguably the most well-received of the four tracks included on Kansas Anymore (The Longest Goodbye).
Following the release of the song, Pillsbury’s fans quickly pounced on the warm yet melancholic nostalgia that the track expertly exudes. In fact, many people online have lovingly compared the song to something that belongs on one of Disney’s Toy Story movie soundtracks. Even Pillsbury himself commented on this similarity in a recent TikTok on his second account, “saintlaurentcowboy.” The video, which featured a close-up of Pillsbury’s face with “The Longest Goodbye” playing over top, was captioned “toy story mf.”
The twangy acoustic guitar, delicate dancing piano melodies and mournful trumpet harmony in the track are easy to fall in love with. Furthermore, Pillsbury’s beautiful, metaphorical lyricism teeters between making the listener feel warm and fuzzy inside and delivering a devastating blow to their heart. Easily the best of the four bonus tracks, “The Longest Goodbye” is some of Pillsbury’s finest work and will be remembered as such in the years to come.
While the four bonus songs included on the recordaren’t all showstoppers, they are still beautiful additions to the masterpiece that was the original.
Now that the dust has settled on Valentine’s Day, heartbreak songs are inevitable.
Every year, Valentine’s Day divides the general population into three different categories. For one of these groups, Valentine’s Day is full of sickeningly sweet romance: eye-gazing, heads on shoulders, handholding — all the usual cliches. For the second group, Feb. 14 is a meaningless day created to sell flowers and cards (and to remind slacking partners to cherish their better halves). But for the lonely third group, usually pining or recently having gone through a breakup, Valentine’s Day can be deeply depressing.
And it’s this third group that I think deserves the most help. So in that spirit, let’s look at five of my favourite sad love songs to add to your heartbreak playlist.
“Scott Street” – Phoebe Bridgers
From Phoebe Bridgers’ debut album Strangers in the Alps, “Scott Street” examines an awkward encounter between two former lovers who run into one another after time spent apart. The track’s instrumental backing is simple, producing an overwhelming feeling of melancholic nostalgia. While the ringing of a bicycle bell and the honking of a squeeze horn are warm reminders of childhood, they exist in a desolate landscape of loneliness, making the listener ache for something that has passed for good.
“Scott Street” understands the disconcerting feeling of missing something or someone that you know no longer exists yet still wishing desperately to return to that place, making it a perfect addition to this list.
“Debt” – Eliza McLamb
Between the plucking notes of an acoustic guitar, “Debt,” a single released by Eliza McLamb in 2020, paints the picture of a vacant individual’s ineffectual response to the end of their relationship. While they seem to be the ones who initiated the breakup, McLamb’s character doesn’t have the energy to fight their destructive thoughts, instead silently sinking beneath waves of despondency.
While “Debt” was released at the beginning of McLamb’s career, the track is woven together by the singer’s expert storytelling abilities, making its depressingly truthful nature perfect for your heartbreak playlist.
“I’d Have to Think About It” – Leith Ross
Leith Ross’ “I’d Have to Think About It” is a quiet and devastating admission of love for someone who will never feel the same way. The track, in all of its hushed tones and soft strumming, shows Ross’ deep understanding of the truly calamitous aftermath of so many profoundly emotional sapphic romances. Although some might view the song as simple, its reticent instrumental backing only serves to uplift the stunning beauty of Ross’ expert lyricism.
Even though “I’d Have to Think About It” exists in a very small subcategory of songs about queer heartbreak, its uncomplicated elegance and effortless interpretation of sapphic love have made it one of my favourites, earning it a place on this list.
“the 1” – Taylor Swift
Taylor Swift’s “the 1” is a perfectly crafted example of the uniquely human experience of grief felt at the end of a relationship. The track exists in a liminal space between depression and acceptance, teetering between wondering what could have been and acknowledging that both parties involved in the love affair are better off apart.
If the track’s twinkling instrumental backdrop represents the feeling of nostalgically looking back, the repeating piano rhythm hidden underneath is the twinging ache that lingers in the back of your mind, reminding you of what you’ve lost. This multi-dimensional musicality of “the 1” is interwoven perfectly with the back and forth of Swift’s lyricism, making this track a perfect fit for a playlist about heartbreak.
“We Hug Now” – Sydney Rose
A brand-new single from American singer/songwriter Sydney Rose, “We Hug Now” is a soft yet devastating expression of the different ways the end of a relationship can impact those who were involved with it. Although Rose’s storytelling is beautiful throughout much of the track, the verse repeated at the end is so authentically human that it’s easily the best part of the song.
In the past few years, Rose has proved herself to be a definite standout amongst the up-and-coming musicians born from TikTok. The release of “We Hug Now” has not only proved this point but also provided another excellent addition to this list.
—
Whether your Valentine’s Day was perfectly romantic or abjectly depressing, there is always going to be a time when heartbreaking love songs such as these are needed, allowing this list and all of its contents to remain evergreen.
Brock University’s Dramatic Arts program is adapting Ovid’s Metamorphoses for this semester’s mainstage production.
Every semester, the Dramatic Arts (DART) program at Brock puts on a mainstage production showcasing the talents of the university’s students and faculty. For many students, the mainstage is their first opportunity to work in a professional theatre setting, allowing them to gain important skills they could only get through firsthand experience.
This semester, Brock University’s DART mainstage is Metamorphoses.
Originally written by playwright Mary Zimmerman, Metamorphoses is an award-winning adaptation of a narrative poem written by Ovid, a Roman poet exiled by Augustus in 8 CE. Considered to be Ovid’s magnum opus, Metamorphoses outlines the history of the world from its very creation until the deification of Julius Caesar over the course of 250 myths, 15 books and 11,995 lines.
In an interview with Brock News, Gillian Raby, a retired Brock DART Associate Professor and the director of the production, said that “Mary Zimmerman’s adaption [of Metamorphoses] shows how powerless people are empowered through Ovid’s stories.”
Elliot Barron, a DART student who plays Midas, Erysichthon and Baucis in the production, told The Brock Press that they thought “every story in this show has a unique and valuable lesson… Whether it be the importance of family or the dangers of greed, the text remains relevant and important, and I believe these characters will be powerfully relatable and resonant.”
“The word metamorphoses means a series of changes and transformations,” says Barron. “[It] can happen to people, but also places, things and stories. All of that is represented in our show.”
Setting itself apart from other DART mainstage productions, Metamorphoses’ unique set design revolves around a pool of water. DART Technical Director Gavin Fearon told Brock Newsthat the use of water has impacted every element of the show.
“Students in every role are navigating challenges introduced by the water. The costumes team in particular [needs] to track wet and dry quick changes in under 30 seconds.”
Barron also cites this set design element as contributing to the production’s distinctive nature.
“I think the audience has a lot to look forward to […] The ways in which this water is used varies between stories but is always exciting and a real spectacle to watch.”
They also said that the unique structure of the story makes the show incredibly special.
“The ensemble cast is required to play multiple roles across multiple stories and thus have complicated quick changes and contrasting energy, physicality and objectives to think about,” says Barron. “All of this is presented in the style of story or reader’s theatre, in which there are narrators that share information directly with the audience and actors might interact with them as well. The fourth wall is there, but it’s more bendable than most shows.”
Beyond the technical elements of the production, Metamorphoses has provided the students working on it with a wealth of knowledge, support and encouragement. Barron says that this environment has allowed them to “do the best work [they have] ever done as an actor.”
But for Barron, the best part of the experience has been the community they’ve built.
“The cast is very connected, and we all relish each other’s company on- and off-stage. It’s been a beautiful thing, getting to build this show with these people as well as building a sense of trust and found family among one another.”
The show opened on Feb. 28 and will run until March 8, with shows on March 1 and March 7 and 8 at 7:30 p.m., and a matinee performance at 2 p.m. on March 2. General admission tickets for “Metamorphoses” are $25, with a reduced price of $20 for students and seniors.
Update: The March 7 morning showing of the performance was cancelled. Students who purchased tickets for this showing can get a full refund here. Additionally, if you purchased tickets to the cancelled morning showing, you can get a free ticket for one of the other show times listed above by using the coupon code “METcancellation” at checkout when purchasing tickets.
Prospective premiers discussed Ontario’s economy, gridlock, the addiction crisis and more in the two debates leading up to the provincial election.
On Feb. 14 and Feb. 17, candidates for the provincial election — Liberal Party leader Bonnie Crombie, NDP leader Marit Stiles, Progressive Conservative Party leader Doug Ford and Green Party leader Mike Schreiner — took part in two pre-election debates.
The first debate was hosted by the Federation of Northern Ontario Municipalities (FONOM), taking place in North Bay. Much of the discussion centred around how Northern Ontario would be affected by various issues the province might face in the next four years.
The moderator, CBC Radio host Mark Schwabe, began the debate by giving a brief biography of each candidate before moving on to the five questions outlined by FONOM to create discussion. Each candidate had two minutes to answer their question before they could debate the topic amongst themselves.
The first question tasked the candidates with describing how they plan to modernize the financial relationship between Ontario and the rest of Canada amidst social services being demoted to towns and cities which are paid for through property taxes.
Stiles answered the question first, saying that both the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party are responsible for forcing municipalities to shoulder the financial responsibility of road maintenance and other social services.
Stiles proposed a “new deal” in which the province would reclaim financial responsibility over social services. She added that the NDP plans to issue a monthly grocery rebate to ensure the provincial government is bringing more financial stability to Ontarians.
Ford answered next, saying that the PC Party promises to invest in Northern Ontario’s economic potential by building a road up to their “ring of fire,” an area that holds “over a trillion dollars” of minerals that are in high demand for trade.
Schreiner proposed $28 billion in funding for municipalities to build homes over the next four years to lessen the burden of housing costs.
Crombie posed a similar sentiment, saying that healthcare and other social issues must be once again wholly financially supported by the provincial government. She also proposed cutting middle income taxes, removing HST from home heating and hydro bills, and doubling income received from the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP).
The next topic centred around the housing crisis, with Schwabe asking candidates whether they’d consider reinstating social housing as a provincial responsibility rather than one of municipalities.
Ford answered first, saying that the PC Party will be “cutting red tape” to begin home building efforts. He referenced that his party spent $1.4 billion to build shelters for the unhoused.
Schreiner said the Green Party would “absolutely” reclaim social housing as a provincial responsibility. He accused the current PC government of prioritizing profits from “wealthy land speculators” instead of making homes more affordable for their citizens.
Crombie built off this point, saying that the current provincial government “is not meeting 50 per cent of our targets” for affordable home building. She said that she aims to improve this while keeping taxes low for municipalities by eliminating development charges.
Stiles said that the NDP is planning on building one and a half million “truly” affordable homes, which includes 60,000 supportive housing units. She said that the NDP’s home building efforts will be supported by lumber from Northern Ontario in an effort to “tariff-proof” their economy.
The next question from FONOM was how each candidate would invest in Northern Ontario’s forest industry after seeing billions of dollars invested into Southern Ontario’s electric vehicle and battery manufacturing industries.
Schreiner proposed creating a “task force” to discuss modernizing forestry sectors to grasp more opportunities in each industry. Schreiner also proposed building “mass timber” projects and creating a biomass strategy to provide more clean electricity sources in Ontario.
Crombie said that the provincial government needs to “revitalize” the forest industry, diversify the markets in these sectors and remove “trade barriers” between provinces instead of solely prioritizing trade with the United States.
Stiles said that the forestry sector needs growth, which the NDP would do by promoting Ontario’s goods and launching a “build Ontario” campaign.
Ford said that his government has created over 3,500 new jobs for the forestry sector and invested more than $60 million to maintain roads for the forestry industry.
Schwabe moved to the next question, asking if the candidates would open the Mental Health Act and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to classify drug addiction as a “substance use disorder.”
Crombie answered first, agreeing that she would open these acts to consider addiction as a mental health disorder. Crombie explained that this topic affects her closely, saying her father struggled with addiction and lived in a Toronto men’s shelter for most of her upbringing.
Crombie said that shelters need proper funding to provide care and needed services to people with addictions. She said that these shelters are needed everywhere across the province, not just in major urban centres.
Stiles said the current government has engaged in “a lot of talk” about fixing this issue but has never done anything major to solve it. She said that the NDP is committed to caring for Ontarians, which means providing mental health support in every school, bringing more family doctors to Ontario and approaching addiction struggles with empathy.
Ford said that the PC Party must continue “cleaning up the streets” by shutting down Safe Injection Sites and replacing them with HART Hubs instead, which are detox shelters meant to help connect people with social services and employment.
Schreiner began his answer by saying that he will, foremost, not “throw people in jail” for experiencing mental health and addiction crises, saying instead that he will house people as it is cheaper than keeping them in hospitals or prisons.
The final question asked how each candidate would increase safety on Northern highways.
Stiles called privatized highway maintenance “a complete disaster,” pledging to bring back provincial winter road maintenance and to widen highways 11, 17 and 69.
Ford said that he also plans to expand highways 11 and 17 as well as build 18 rest stops for truck drivers.
Schreiner said the current government prioritizes building Southern highways, leaving Northern projects unfinished. He said that more divided highways are needed in Northern Ontario as well as more innovative safety solutions.
Crombie said that municipalities need “sustainable funding” and increased attention to snow clearing to ensure safety on highways.
The second debate, which was the official Ontario Leaders’ Debate, took place in Toronto, where the four candidates took questions from Global News’ Colin D’Mello and CTV News’ Siobhan Morris, moderated by CBC News’ David Common.
The first question tasked candidates with explaining why they were the best leader to go up against President Trump’s tariff threat.
Ford said the Ontario economy’s strong base will ease the impact of the tariffs if they go through, but he emphasized that they would still “devastate the economy.” Ford said that diversifying trade is the best way to fight against the tariff threats.
Stiles said her commitment to defending every industry and fighting against rising costs makes her a confident choice to fight Trump’s tariffs.
Crombie built off this point, saying that Liberals will provide citizens with “the basics” they lack, including a family doctor and lower income taxes.
Schreiner said the current government is spending too much money in places they shouldn’t, citing their $2.2 billion in funding for a Toronto spa and billions to build a tunnel under the 401, saying he will not let this continue if elected.
The next question asked specifically how soon Ontarians will have more family doctors readily available to them. Crombie said she will pay doctors better and double residency spaces, adding that she will also pay nurses and Personal Support Workers (PSWs) a living wage.
Schreiner gave an exact timeline, saying that Ontario families will have primary care doctors “within a four-year mandate” and that healthcare is currently underinvested in.
Stiles also gave a timeline, saying the NDP’s “healthcare guarantee” is that everybody will have a family doctor in four years by limiting overwhelming paperwork that lengthens the process of procuring patients for doctors.
Ford said that his government is spending “over $1.8 billion” to connect Ontarians with doctors, aiming to ensure everyone has access to a primary care provider. He also noted that prioritizing the economy is integral to this process.
In the debate portion of the healthcare topic, Stiles said that no candidate can afford leaving Ontarians without primary care providers.
The next topic was the rising cost of living. Schreiner spoke first, saying that the Green Party will lower taxes for low- and middle-income earners so they can afford groceries, end “gouging” in grocery stores and build rental homes.
Stiles approached the issue by bringing up the increased cost of housing, pledging to bring back rent control and once again referencing her monthly grocery rebate.
Ford said that this topic is where himself and his fellow candidates “fundamentally disagree,” saying that he will never tax Ontario citizens as he alleges they will.
Crombie said that Ford’s government promised to cut taxes but never did, saying she will instead fulfill their promise if elected. She also said that she will not tax carbon.
During the open debate portion, Schreiner said that citizens are living in “legislated poverty,” positing himself, Crombie and Stiles as on similar pages on the topic of affordability compared to Ford.
They proceeded to the public safety section of the debate, asking how each party would deal with youth crime.
Ford said he believes in hiring “tough judges” and opposes “catch and release” policies. He also said that his party will invest in Ontario’s police force.
Crombie said she will not only be hard on crime but will also tackle the issues that are the root of youth crime.
Schreiner said that one of the core issues of the current judicial system is the delays in Ontario courts, saying that Ford will worsen this issue by criminalizing individuals experiencing homelessness.
Stiles said that investing in schools is key to reducing youth crime. She also built off Schreiners proposal, agreeing that the judicial system is backlogged and lets criminals “fall through the cracks.”
The next discussion asked candidates if they would build housing on the Greenbelt, to which all candidates said they would not. Ford said that he recognizes that he initially said he would and apologized for this.
Common turned things over to D’Mello as he began asking the candidates questions on the policies that they’d each previously promised to Ontarians.
He began asking Ford why taxpayers should support his Highway 401 tunnel project without a feasibility study nor a cost estimate. Ford said that highways will be “maxed out” in ten years, saying that more infrastructure is needed.
Next, D’Mello asked what Schreiner planned to do with the Ontario Place land after saying that he would scrap the redevelopment project, to which he responded that Ontario Place should be a public space instead of privately owned and subsidized by the Ford government.
D’Mello asked Stiles how she would end homelessness, referencing her promises to end encampments. Stiles said that building “permanently affordable” homes with “wraparound support” is the key to solving this issue.
D’Mello continued by asking Crombie how she would make life more affordable for lower income earners, as her current proposal only cuts taxes for middle income earners, excluding anyone earning less than $50,000. To this, she responded that she would make homes more affordable and again discussed her plans to double ODSP payments.
The last section of the debate was a discussion of issues Ontarians feel the candidates have not talked about during their campaigns, led by Morris.
The first question was posed to Stiles, asking her specifically about tackling the addiction crisis. Stiles said that healthcare is her main focus when combating this issue, pledging to bring resources to communities by improving Ford’s idea to implement health care hubs and make them more effective for people with addictions.
The next question was for Ford, asking why voters should believe he will end “hallway health care” after he failed to fulfill this promise when he first pledged to end overcrowding in hospitals in 2018. Ford responded by saying that his party continues to invest in healthcare, adding hundreds of medical school seats that “the Liberals got rid of.”
Turning to Schreiner, Morris asked why the Green Party’s new platform does not include his long-held promise to merge Catholic school boards with public school boards, to which he responded that he first must repair the “crisis” in the public education system caused by cuts from the Ford government.
Lastly, Morris asked Crombie how she would address traffic gridlock. Crombie said she would invest in existing resources like public transit instead of spending money on new highways.
Moderation turned back to Common, moving to the education section of the debate. Common asked the candidates how they plan to approach the crisis many colleges are facing due to a lack of financial resources. Stiles said the current rate of college funding is “shameful,” saying that colleges do not need to increase tuition but instead they need proper funding from the provincial government.
Ford said he wants to focus on supporting Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) programs and the skilled trades, calling them “the jobs of the future.”
Crombie echoed Stiles’ plans, saying that colleges need stable and sustainable funding.
Schreiner said that universities and colleges are integral to training workers for the economy, saying that programs cannot continue to be cut.
Nearing the end of the debate, the candidates tackled two vital issues in Ontario, namely the relationship between renters and landlords as well as the climate crisis.
On the topic of renting in Ontario, Crombie and Schreiner said that the provincial government needs to fix the Landlord and Tenant Board, whereas Ford said that his government would invest $2 billion in infrastructure to build new homes for communities. Stiles said that rent control is needed to make life more affordable in Ontario.
Common turned to the topic of climate, asking candidates how they would quickly reduce emissions. Schreiner and Stiles said that farmlands, wetlands and the Greenbelt need to be protected first and foremost. Ford said the provincial government should focus on clean energy and Crombie emphasized that she will not be using the carbon tax to fight this issue.
The provincial election will take place on Feb. 27. For more information about the provincial candidates, visit The Brock Press’ website. Full recordings of each debate can be found on the CPAC website.
Folk singer Joan Baez’s iconic album Diamonds and Rust still resonates today as an ode to memories past despite approaching its 50th anniversary.
Titled after the fan-favourite single, “Diamonds and Rust,” Diamonds was released on April 1, 1975. The album opens with its namesake, a song born of an experience of Baez where she received an unexpected phone call from former partner and fellow folk artist Bob Dylan, whom she had dated for four years a decade earlier.
“He read me the entire lyrics of ‘Lily, Rosemary, and the Jack of Hearts’ that he’d just finished from a phone booth in the Midwest,” said Baez. “I don’t remember what I had been writing about, but [the original song] had nothing to do with what it ended up as.”
“Diamonds and Rust” sets the thematic tone for the album as a retrospective meditation into a former relationship. Opening with the lyrics, “well, I’ll be damned, here comes your ghost again,” it becomes clear that the resurgence of memories will be explored by the song and album alike.
The theme of memories sits at the core of Baez’s sixteenth album, with the title track referencing the different types of memories one is left with after the end of an emotional connection.
In the song, Baez explains that memories bring diamonds, representing an idealized version of the good times spent with someone, but they also bring rust, representing the memories that aged poorly and all the most painful parts of the relationship.
Currently Baez’s most streamed song on Spotify, “Diamonds and Rust” essentially prefaces the rest of the album’s subject matter, almost as though Baez placed it as a deliberate warning to the listeners of the general theme of the album, the beauty and pain memories can bring, before delving into more specific stories on the track list.
While other songs on the album are written by Baez (“Children and All That Jazz,” “Winds of the Old Days” and “Dida”), the album also features covers of songs from Jackson Browne, Stevie Wonder, Bob Dylan and more.
Despite the more solemn tone Baez takes in “Diamonds and Rust,” much of the album is quite upbeat, even if the lyrical content is more serious.
For example, the second track, a cover of Jackson Browne’s “Fountain of Sorrow,” has a more theatrical sound than its original recording, with punchy piano notes and Baez’s clear voice reaching many high notes throughout the song.
Other lighter tracks include her cover of Dylan’s “Simple Twist of Fate” — wherein Baez does a teasing impression of Dylan’s distinct voice in the second half of the song — her cover of Dickey Betts’ “Blue Sky” and her collaboration track with Joni Mitchell, “Dida.”
The 50th anniversary of Baez’s album comes at a fitting time, occurring in the same year as the release of Bob Dylan’s biopic A Complete Unknown, which in part explores the conflicting relationship between the two iconic musicians played by Timothée Chalamet and Monica Barbaro.
Despite Baez’s recent return to mainstream conversation with the release of the film, her music has remained endlessly relevant in the folk sphere.
Dubbed “the queen of folk” by fans in 1959, Baez undoubtedly continues to live up to this title, even 50 years after her most popular release.
NBA All-Star Game viewership has dropped, a trend that reflects growing fan disinterest in the event’s lack of intensity.
The NBA All-Star Game is an annual showcase of the league’s top talent, bringing together the best players from the Eastern and Western Conferences for what used to be a highly anticipated matchup.
First held in 1951, the game has become the centrepiece of the All-Star Weekend, a three-day event that features fan-favourite competitions like the Three-Point Contest, the Slam Dunk Contest and the Rising Stars Challenge.
While the All-Star Game was once celebrated for its high level of play and exceptional performances, recent years have seen growing concerns about its lack of competitiveness, with many questioning its appeal as an exhibition rather than a true representation of elite basketball.
The 2025 NBA All-Star Weekend, held from Feb. 14 to 16 in San Francisco, introduced a revamped format that featured a four-team tournament to try and rejuvenate fan interest.
However, the drop-in ratings highlight ongoing concerns about the NBA All-Star Game’s declining appeal, as fans and analysts continue to point out its lack of competitiveness. While the league’s introduction of a four-team tournament format was meant to inject excitement, the changes failed to address the core issue — players still treated the game as a casual exhibition rather than a showcase of elite basketball.
One of the biggest criticisms came from Golden State Warriors forward Draymond Green, who voiced his frustration on the live broadcast, saying: “This sucks, it ain’t basketball.”
His comments echoed the sentiments of many fans who have grown tired of the game’s lack of effort and defensive intensity. Even with the tournament format, the event still felt like a series of glorified pick-up games, with little to no urgency from players.
Viewership numbers reinforce this dissatisfaction. The 2025 All-Star Game averaged just 4.7 million viewers, marking a 13 per cent decline from the previous year and making it the second-lowest-rated All-Star Game in history. This continues a downward trend that has been evident for several years. In 2023, the game saw its lowest viewership ever, drawing just 4.6 million viewers — a stark contrast to the 2011 game, which pulled in 9.1 million.
A major factor behind this decline is the absence of real stakes. Unlike the MLB All-Star Game, which once determined home-field advantage for the World Series, the NBA’s version offers little incentive for players to take it seriously. The introduction of the Elam Ending in 2020 briefly revitalized excitement as it created a target score and produced dramatic finishes, but even that novelty has worn off as players continue to prioritize avoiding injuries over playing competitive basketball.
Additionally, fan engagement has suffered due to the selection process. The elimination of the traditional East vs. West format and the captain’s draft in favour of a pre-determined four-team structure took away an element of anticipation that had been a highlight in recent years. Some fans also believe that marquee players who skip the event or put in minimal effort further diminish its appeal.
For instance, after LeBron James withdrew from the 2025 All-Star Game due to ankle and foot discomfort, some fans criticized his decision. One fan commented: “Couldn’t take the time to play in the all-star game of the league that provided him with half of his billion. Sad.”
Additionally, discussions on platforms like Reddit highlight concerns about players not taking the game seriously. A user noted: “The all-star game wasn’t always like what it is now… People say they don’t try at all now because they don’t want to get hurt but that didn’t stop the other generations from playing harder than they do now.”
Looking back at the 1992 All-Star Game, for example, Michael Jordan and Magic Johnson went head-to-head in a thrilling contest where Johnson, playing his first game since his HIV diagnosis, put on a legendary performance with 25 points and 9 assists, leading the Western Conference to victory. The energy was electric, and the players treated it as a true competition rather than just a show.
Another comparison can be made with the 2001 All-Star Game, which is widely regarded as one of the most competitive in history. Allen Iverson led the Eastern Conference to a comeback victory, scoring 15 points in the fourth quarter to erase a 21-point deficit. In contrast, the 2024 All-Star Game ended in a ridiculous 211-186 scoreline, featuring little to no defensive effort as players essentially stepped aside to allow easy dunks and uncontested three-pointers.
The decline in competitiveness is a major reason for declining viewership, as many fans now see the game as a glorified dunk contest rather than a battle of the league’s best. If the NBA wants to recapture the excitement of past All-Star Games, it needs to implement meaningful incentives or changes that encourage players to take the event more seriously.
As Black History Month comes to an end, let’s take a look at the highest-paid Black athletes and how their success has translated into record-breaking earnings.
For Black athletes, reaching the pinnacle of sports isn’t just about talent — it’s about overcoming systemic barriers that have long existed in the industry. Black athletes have faced challenges spanning from limited opportunities to disparities in endorsements and leadership roles.
Despite these obstacles though, many have broken through to secure impressive contracts and major endorsement deals, solidifying their place among the highest earners in sports. Their achievements aren’t just personal milestones, they represent progress in an industry that isn’t always welcoming, making their financial success even more noteworthy as we reflect on Black excellence at the end of Black History Month.
LeBron James
LeBron James remains the highest-paid Black athlete, bringing in $128.2 million in 2024, with an additional $80 million from endorsements and business ventures. His NBA salary alone is among the league’s highest, but his off-court earnings are what set him apart. His lifetime deal with Nike is worth over $1 billion, and he owns stakes in companies like SpringHill Co., a media production company, and Fenway Sports Group, which owns the Boston Red Sox and Liverpool FC. His financial empire extends to real estate, a fast-growing tequila brand (Lobos 1707) and equity in Blaze Pizza, making him one of the most financially successful athletes in history.
Giannis Antetokounmpo
The Milwaukee Bucks’ Giannis Antetokounmpo earned $111 million in 2024, largely due to his three-year, $175.9 million contract extension and strong endorsement portfolio. His deal with Nike brings in millions annually, and he recently signed a long-term partnership with WhatsApp, becoming the first athlete to endorse the platform globally. His investments in sports ownership — including a stake in the Milwaukee Brewers — show his focus on long-term financial growth beyond basketball.
Kylian Mbappe
At just 25, Kylian Mbappe is one of the world’s highest-paid soccer players, earning $110 million in 2024 from his salary and endorsements. His former contract with Paris Saint-Germain (PSG) included one of the biggest salaries in soccer history, and he has major deals with Nike, Hublot and EA Sports.
Stephen Curry
Golden State Warriors guard Stephen Curry earned $102 million in 2024 thanks to his NBA salary and endorsement empire. His Curry Brand partnership with Under Armour is structured like Michael Jordan’s deal with Nike, giving him ownership stakes and a growing product line. Curry also invests in tech startups and media production, using his brand to expand his financial portfolio beyond basketball.
Coco Gauff
At 20 years old, Coco Gauff is already the highest-paid Black women’s league athlete, earning $34.4 million in 2023. Her U.S. Open victory helped boost her endorsement deals, which include New Balance, Rolex and Barilla. Gauff’s marketability has skyrocketed as she cements herself as the future face of tennis, and her financial future looks even brighter with increased prize money and expanded sponsorships being attached to her (games? tournaments?).
Simone Biles
Simone Biles, the most decorated gymnast of all time, earned $11.2 million in 2024 almost entirely from sponsorships. Her Athleta deal replaced her previous partnership with Nike, allowing her to have more control over her branding. She also has partnerships with Visa, Core Power and Uber Eats, showing how elite athletes in niche sports can still secure major endorsement deals.
Lamar Jackson
Baltimore Ravens quarterback Lamar Jackson secured $100.5 million in 2024 following his five-year, $260 million contract extension — the highest in NFL history at the time. Unlike many quarterbacks, Jackson negotiated his own contract without an agent, maximizing his earnings. He has also expanded into business with his own clothing line, Era 8 Apparel, and has invested in restaurant chains and real estate business.
Serena Williams
Even in retirement, Serena Williams remains one of the highest-paid Black athletes, with an estimated $340 million net worth. In 2024 alone, she earned over $30 million from endorsements, investments and business ventures. Williams’ lifetime deal with Nike continues to bring in revenue, and she still holds partnerships with Gatorade, Audemars Piguet and JPMorgan Chase. Her biggest financial move is Serena Ventures, a venture capital firm that has invested in over 50 companies, focusing on women-led and minority-owned businesses. She also co-owns the Miami Dolphins, making her one of the few Black women with an ownership stake in a major sports franchise.
—
Black athletes have never just been participants in professional sport — they have been the driving force behind its evolution. As they redefine what greatness looks like, their impact is undeniable. The names on this list are not just top earners, they are proof of what happens when talent, perseverance and opportunity align.
Despite the obstacles — barriers to entry, lack of representation and constant scrutiny — Black athletes continue to shape the very fabric of professional sports. They bring unmatched skill and influence that go beyond the scoreboard. Their success isn’t handed to them, it’s earned through generations of challenging expectations which consistently proves that they belong at the top.
Black athletes have set the standard, built the culture and carried sports to new heights — as history has shown time and time again, they are nowhere near finished.
The Super Bowl was once again more than just a game, bringing together millions of fans from all backgrounds in a shared moment of excitement, culture and competition.
The Super Bowl is the championship game of the NFL and one of the most watched sporting events in the world. Held annually, this year on the first Sunday of February, it marks the culmination of the NFL season, pitting the champions of the AFC (American Football Conference) and NFC (National Football Conference) against each other in a battle for the Lombardi Trophy.
Since its first game in 1967, the Super Bowl has evolved beyond just a football contest. It has become a massive cultural event blending sports, entertainment and commercial spectacle. The halftime show has featured some of the biggest names in music, including Michael Jackson, Beyonce, Rihanna and Prince, making it a must-watch even for non-football fans. Additionally, Super Bowl commercials, known for their high production value and creativity, generate nearly as much conversation as the game itself, with companies spending millions for a few seconds of airtime.
Beyond entertainment, the Super Bowl is a unifying force. It draws in millions of viewers across different backgrounds, creating a moment where sports fans, casual viewers and even those with no interest in football come together to celebrate.
On paper, the rematch between the Philadelphia Eagles and Kansas City Chiefs promised an instant classic. Instead, the game turned into a one-sided Eagles beatdown as they crushed the Chiefs 40-22, stopping Kansas City from making history with a third-straight Super Bowl win. Despite the lack of drama on the field, fans still remained locked in, whether celebrating the Eagles’ dominance or holding onto hope for a Chiefs comeback. Evidently, fans were excited for the showdown, even if it didn’t live up to expectations. The Super Bowl may have disappointed in its execution, but it never lost its grip on the audience, proving that the sport itself is what continues to bring people together.
Kendrick Lamar’s halftime show became one of the most talked-about moments of the night, taking the stage with SZA and Baby Keem. But the biggest moment of the performance came when Lamar performed “Not like Us,” a direct diss track at Drake. The moment immediately set social media on fire. Fans debated whether Lamar’s decision to perform the song was a calculated move while Drake was watching from a suite. The halftime show, much like the Super Bowl itself, became a shared event that united audiences in conversation.
As expected, Taylor Swift’s appearance at the Super Bowl became its own headline. Flying in from Japan after an Eras Tour concert, Swift sat in the stands to support Travis Kelce as cameras frequently captured her reactions throughout the night.
However, not all fans were thrilled about the attention. A portion of the crowd booed Swift, and online debates erupted over whether or not the coverage of her presence was favoured. Some fans argued that Swift’s presence only brought more attention to the game, drawing in casual viewers who otherwise wouldn’t have tuned in. Regardless of opinion, Swift’s involvement kept millions engaged.
Despite a forgettable game, halftime drama and the impacts of celebrity status, Super Bowl LIX still accomplished what it does every year — bringing people together. Whether watching for the Eagles’ win, controversy or Taylor Swift, fans from all backgrounds engage in the spectacle, making it the most talked-about event of the year.
Evidently, fans wanted to see this showdown whether their team won or lost, whether they loved or hated the halftime show or whether they tuned in for Taylor Swift. Through the ups and downs, the Super Bowl remained what it has always been — a shared experience that unites millions, proving that no matter the storylines, sports will always have the power to bring people together.
Brady Corbet’s The Brutalist is a gargantuan American epic that demands to be seen on the big screen.
The Brutalist chronicles the life of Hungarian-Jewish architect László Tóth following his immigration to America in the height of post-World War II Europe. Upon his triumphant arrival, László is faced with challenge after challenge as he works to rebuild his life in this foreign land. He soon becomes involved in a project working for the wealthy Harrison Van Buren and with time, begins to discover the rotten underbelly of the promising country he once landed on.
Let’s get one thing out of the way: this film is very long, with a total runtime of 3.5 hours including an intermission halfway through built into the timeline of the story. If you’re locked into the colossal story the film builds, your attention will likely be held steady throughout. It’s a story that, for the sake of the point it wants to make, does benefit from the staggering runtime, even if its second half becomes somewhat long-winded and indulgent.
To address the elephant in the room, we should bring up Adrian Brody’s towering performance as László, which could be his finest work since The Pianist. Brody vanishes into László in the first fifteen minutes of the film. Equally deserving of recognition are the two primary supporting performances from Guy Pearce and Felicity Jones. Pearce taps into a fascinating manifestation of evil as the wealthy Pennsylvanian estate owner Harrison Van Buren, who connects with László’s artistry and ambition, tasking him in charge of a personal project.
Jones makes the bulk of her appearance in the film’s second, more conflicting half as László’s newly immigrated wife, Erzsébet Tóth. In a year where many supporting performances are arguably lead or co-lead, Jones gives a true supporting performance in this film, adding layers of character to her own and Brody’s performance, while also getting a handful of showy scenes.
It’s remarkable what Corbet was able to achieve with only a ten-million-dollar budget, crafting a detailed portrait of post-war America filmed on gorgeous, eye-catching VistaVision film.
The film’s score is also glorious, packed with triumphant, big-band brass and percussion that replicates that sound of steel and construction. The music never stays in one place for too long, evolving sonically with the story while still having a recognizable heart at the core of its sound.
It’s impossible to succinctly encapsulate what The Brutalist wants to say, but the film itself doesn’t seem interested in doing so either. It’s practically flashing a sign in your face announcing to you that it wants to be the antithesis of surface-level metaphors and singular answers to its questions. The colossal journey the film takes you on speaks for itself and is the primary vehicle for its criticisms of America and the way artists are treated.
By the end of our exhaustive efforts to realize our creative visions, who really owns our art? When messages and meanings are retold and reinterpreted, how much space is left for the artist to impart on their work?
The Brutalist doesn’t decide this for you. It presents a large, warts-and-all lifetime of a film and invites you to decide: Is the destination you reach worth it? If it is, what does that destination look like?
With the Oscars fast approaching this Sunday, here are my final predictions for who will take home the prestigious golden statues.
Best Picture: Anora
I predict with confidence that Sean Baker’s Anora will be crowned as this year’s best picture winner. Despite critical acclaim and festival success, including a Palme D’Or victory at the Cannes Film Festival last May, Anora’s award-show-run began shakily after it went home empty-handed from the Golden Globes.
Its momentum picked up after it won best picture at the Critics’ Choice Awards, but the real key behind the film’s success was its guild sweep at award ceremonies for the Director’s Guild of America (DGA), the Producers Guild of America (PGA) and the Writer’s Guild of America (WGA), taking home the highest prizes at each respective ceremony.
With guild voters comprising a substantial portion of the Academy’s voting body, it’s safe to say Anora is the best picture frontrunner for the big night. Its strongest contender is Edward Berger’s Conclave, which has received an abundance of support from the Screen Actors Guild Awards and the BAFTAs, and is, ironically, very timely.
Ultimately, Anora’s DGA, PGA and WGA wins, along with Conclave’s lack of a director nomination, make it a fitting choice for best picture frontrunner this season.
Best Actress: Mikey Madison — Anora
Much like last year and the year prior, this year’s most contentious race has shaped up to be the Best Actress category, with a race between Mikey Madison for her role as the titular character in Anora and Demi Moore for her performance as Elizabeth Sparkle in Coralie Fargeat’s body horror film, The Substance. Both actors have been labelled front runners at various points this season.
Even following Moore’s win at the SAG Awards last Sunday, coupled with her compelling narrative this season, Madison’s win at BAFTA and the film’s overall strength could propel her to take home the Oscar. Additionally, The Substance has not shown signs of being truly competitive outside Best Actress and Best Hair and Makeup, making it a weaker film overall that could prove to be a slight roadblock for Moore.
Whatever happens on Oscars night, both nominees would be deserving winners in their own respect. Madison’s win would make her shine even brighter coming off her star-making performance and Moore’s win would resonate deeply with horror fans and signal a shift in the academy’s attitudes towards genre film.
Best Actor: Adrien Brody — The Brutalist
Winning awards in most major precursors, including the Golden Globes, Critics’ Choice Awards and the BAFTAs, Brody’s win for his role as László Tóth in Brady Corbet’s The Brutalist would earn him his second Oscar, his first being for leading actor in The Pianist. Timothée Chalamet’s win at the SAG Awards for his portrayal of Bob Dylan in A Complete Unknown may cause some hesitation in people predicting Brody as a lock for winning the category, but this late in the race, it likely won’t shake his dominating momentum since the Golden Globes.
Best Director: Sean Baker — Anora
For over a decade now, Sean Baker has established himself as a prominent voice in independent cinema, dedicating himself to a gritty, guerilla style of filmmaking. In time, he will be remembered as an auteur of sorts, and his direction in Anora feels like a grand thesis statement to his filmmaking.
Brady Corbet, who won at the Golden Globes, the Critics’ Choice Awards and the BAFTAs, is the runner-up here, though The Brutalist’s underperformance as a film at guild awards gives Baker the edge.
Best Supporting Actress: Zoe Saldaña — Emilia Pérez
If you’ve been following this awards season or any news about recently released films, chances are you’ve seen the name Emilia Pérez appear at some point, often coupled with criticism or outright vitriol. Apart from the film’s divisive take on Latin America, controversial comments made by actress Karla Sofia Gascon and director Jacques Audiard have thrown a wrench in the film’s entire awards campaign. Despite this, Zoe Saldaña’s sweep throughout all precursors signifies that she’s unaffected by the controversy and has distanced herself from her co-star’s comments enough to secure her wins.
Best Supporting Actor: Kieran Culkin — A Real Pain
Of the four acting categories, supporting actor seems to be the most locked this season with Kieran Culkin sweeping all precursors to the Oscars. There’s not much else to comment on in this category; it’s one of the strongest sweeps we’ve seen in the category recently.
Best Adapted Screenplay: Conclave
Had A24 handled Sing Sing’s release better, or if Nickel Boys received a wider release before the season began, this category may have been more competitive. Fortunately for Conclave, this win is locked with its fellow nominees being dwarfed by its momentum. With additional love from the SAG Awards, this may be one of my most certain predictions this year.
Best Original Screenplay: Anora
This category has been tricky to predict. The Substance took home best original screenplay at the Critics’ Choice Awards and Cannes, while Jesse Eisenberg’s A Real Pain received the award at the BAFTAs. Anora hasn’t received screenplay wins apart from the WGA, but its status as a Best Picture and Best Director frontrunner makes it a safe prediction to complete the trinity for Baker. Its primary contender here is The Substance, another exemplary screenplay equally deserving of Oscar recognition whose oddity as a body horror may steer voters away.
When approached with the right mindset, Valentine’s Day is a fun and worthwhile holiday, despite the complaints of its critics.
Valentine’s Day is a holiday themed around good old-fashioned love. By celebrating love, you celebrate something that brings people together, creates beautiful memories, and in many ways, keeps humanity sustained and thriving. So, you might be wondering, how is it possible that anyone could hate such a day?
Well, when conducting research on this topic, I was shocked by the number of online posts from Valentine’s Day detractors. From topical Reddit posts to student-run news sites to personal columns, it seems like everyone has a grudge against this ooey gooey romantic holiday.
Listen, I get it; a holiday centred on love is bound to come with some issues, and there are understandable reasons why it might leave some people in a dreary mood. But when you begin to look at this time of year for what it is rather than what it isn’t, you’ll find a whole lot to appreciate.
Let’s start with perhaps the most obvious criticism: not everyone is in a relationship, and that might leave some people feeling lonely on a day centred around togetherness. That’s where movements like “Galentine’s Day,” which promotes friendship between women, come into play. I appreciate that this type of movement promotes the love shared between friends, and I strongly believe this should be encouraged on an even wider scope. Spending time with friends is certainly a special and valid way to celebrate Valentine’s season, and I think more people should embrace this mindset.
But what if all your friends are out with their significant others on Valentine’s Day? Even in that case, I think there’s something to appreciate in the concept of togetherness, even if it’s something small you do for someone you appreciate or a sentiment you share. Maybe it’s an opportunity for you to hold the door open for someone, tell a friend that you enjoy spending time with them or buy a box of chocolates for an appreciated family member. Being single doesn’t mean you’re alone — it just means you might have to look outside the stereotypical, romantic notion of “love” to find the feeling of togetherness you’re seeking.
That’s all well and good, but I hear you asking: Isn’t it terrible that we only devote one day a year to loving our partners? Shouldn’t we make an effort to do that every day, rather than waiting for the arbitrary date of Feb. 14?
Yes. You should make an effort to love your partner every day. But if you wait until the 14th of February to make your partner feel appreciated, that’s not the fault of Valentine’s Day. That’s on you.
There seems to be a misconception that Valentine’s Day is somehow the only day that people show love to their partners, and while this might be true in some relationships, it’s certainly not the right way to go about things. Loving your partner is something that should be a constant in any relationship. Valentine’s Day, then, should be a day where you go above and beyond to do something special and memorable that you might not have the time or money to do every day.
But think of it this way.
In a proper relationship, someone might make an effort to tell their partner they love them every day of the year. They might spend time watching movies with their loved one, or talking about how their day went over dinner, or maybe text back and forth throughout the day or tell jokes to make their partner smile and laugh.
However, there might not be time every evening to go to a candlelit dinner or watch the sunset on the beach. It’s those sorts of special activities that Valentine’s Day provides the perfect excuse for — a romantic date night that’s more memorable than what you might do on the average day.
Again, if you choose to wait until Valentine’s Day to make your partner feel appreciated, that’s not the fault of the holiday. It’s not the calendar’s fault that you aren’t showing commitment to your partner or aren’t devoting enough energy to your relationship.
If this sounds like you, it’s something you need to re-evaluate within yourself rather than blaming a romantic holiday for your struggles.
Do you wait until Halloween to watch spooky movies? Do you wait until your friends’ birthdays to spend time with them? Do you wait until Christmas to tell your family you love them?
Let it be known that I’m not a sappy guy who believes love overcomes all and can never be defeated. I’ve spoken openly about my beliefs on the hypocrisy of prenups and my annoyance towards public displays of affection. But that most certainly doesn’t mean that I hate the idea of love, nor do I believe it’s not worth celebrating. Love is something beautiful that is uniquely shared between lots of us, and I absolutely believe it’s something to appreciate. I think the fact that we have a holiday dedicated to love is wonderful, and it’s time we stop blaming it for our personal problems.
Valentine’s Day isn’t perfect. It’s hard to fault people for feeling lonely when all their friends are going out on dates or posting sappy pictures on Instagram. But when you take a moment to stop searching for what you don’t have and start appreciating what you do, you’ll find Valentine’s Day has a whole lot to love.
In their last board meetings before the February student election, BUSU’s BoD discussed various budget updates, student levy adjustments and club funding.
Since the last Press update in January, the BUSU Board of Directors (BoD) has met twice. The first was a January special meeting and the second was their regular February meeting. Both contained relatively minor BUSU news, but as Brock students, it’s still important to stay informed about what our elected governing body is deliberating on, whether minor or major.
Here’s a rundown of what the Board discussed.
January Meeting
Only seven voting directors were initially present at the BoD special meeting on Jan. 20, but more trickled in as it continued. Unlike most other special meetings, this one is available to the public in its near entirety.
The majority of the meeting entailed discussing club funding appeals from the Sudanese Student Association (SSA) and the Gujurati Students Association (GSA), both of which came to the Board to request more funding after being unsatisfied with prior funding decisions by the BUSU Clubs Policy Committee (CPC).
The story was much the same for both clubs: despite having well-organized presentations and extensive explanations for the funds they requested — the SSA had numerous large events planned that would benefit students and raise money for humanitarian aid in Sudan through Sadagaat Canada, while the GSA planned a large cultural event for Chaitra Navratri, a festival celebrating Goddess Durga — their requests were deemed too much for BUSU to shoulder.
The SSA requested a total of $13,871.04 and the GSA requested a total of $4,934. These are not huge numbers when compared to some of the funds granted to other clubs, which the CPC would soon elaborate on, but Clubs Administrator Jamie Wong explained that if both associations sacrificed elements of their events, like using Brock venues or raising their ticket prices from $10 or $15 to $30, they could reduce the necessary funds from BUSU or even fully fund the events themselves.
Ultimately, the BoD decided to uphold the CPC’s decision for both clubs, approving only $1,350 for the SSA and $464 for the GSA.
Wong and Clubs Manager Chloe Villers then launched into a club funding update that revealed there wasn’t even enough money in the budget left to accommodate both clubs. Even after an additional $50,000 of surplus funds and the $27,282.76 obtained from closed club banking accounts supplemented the base $146,000 after the money ran out last year, only $15,000 was left for the year. This, however, is a significant improvement over the situation clubs were forced to navigate in 2023-24.
The Board saw exactly how club funding has been allotted throughout the academic year, asking questions about some of the larger amounts — like the $24,767.32 for the Muslim Students’ Association or the $20,701 for the Model United Nations club — and what the CPC’s priorities are when allocating funding.
Wong explained that even those clubs with large requests work to generate revenue to offset costs, and at the end of the day, the CPC gives funding based on how many undergraduate students benefit — since this money comes from undergraduate students in the first place — and how well the request suits each club’s mandate, even over charitable circumstances.
Hence, while the SSA’s events would benefit several hundreds of students and fit their specific mandate as a cultural club, BUSU couldn’t justify giving so much money when the SSA’s revenue could be used to fund the event over a charitable donation, no matter how worthy the cause.
Similarly, while the GSA’s large, formal event fit much of the same requirements, BUSU couldn’t give that much money when an increased ticket cost for an event that included planned social engagements, a full meal and entertainment could give the club more than enough money to cover the cost.
With the club funding matter settled, the board moved in-camera at 8:31 p.m., where they remained until 9:24 p.m.
BUSU General Manager Robert Hilson then gave an eight-month Division 1 budget update. There were various shifts in the numbers, including an additional $7,882 in revenue, almost $24,000 in reduced staffing costs and a reduced $26,955.88 in office expenses thanks to a lower consulting fee than expected for the upcoming EDI audit through BUSU’s law firm and BUSU’s new LED lighting helping to save them $10,000 in property fees.
If the numbers progress as they are, Hilson said, BUSU could be looking at a surplus of almost $64,000 by the end of the academic year. This is up from their previously estimated $724, to which Hilson said:
“We’re doing slightly better, but we’re still not going to finish with tons and tons of money left over, which is what we don’t want to do, we want to actually use the resources we have in a given year.”
What this extra money might be used for, Hilson didn’t mention, nor did the board discuss, but that will likely be a topic of discussion later on in the academic year.
Hilson then gave his regular General Manager’s report, which included updates on the new student building, BUSU events in January, and an upcoming EDI audit. Perhaps the most noteworthy update was that applications for BUSU executive positions are currently open, and will be until Friday, Feb. 28.
With all of the agenda items finished, the board adjourned their special meeting around the 9:40 p.m. mark. The specific meeting minutes are not available on their website as of writing.
February Meeting
The BUSU BoD’s regularly scheduled February meeting began with an in-camera session which lasted little over two hours, from 7:10 p.m. to 9:31 p.m.
Following this, the board jumped into a review of the student ancillary fee increases for the 2025-26 academic year, led by Hilson. While the specifics are fairly complicated, the board can essentially vote to increase fees by a certain percentage — 2.39 per cent for per credit fees and 5 per cent for sessional fees based on inflation — following a previous Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that Brock students voted on in years past. This MOU does not extend to all fees, but most of what could be increased, save funding for BrockTV and The Brock Press, was proposed to do so.
This is a mostly minuscule increase, representing only an additional $0.79 for each undergraduate credit, and an additional $40.06 in sessional fees — which support students’ health and dental insurance, the universal bus pass, the business student levy and the engagement levy.
After some questions, the board voted in favour of the updated student ancillary fees for the following year.
Due to time constraints, Hilson’s General Manager report was not read aloud nor shown on-screen, meaning public eyes cannot readily see what was on it.
BUSU President Anusha Pahuja, seemingly back from her non-paid leave, provided a verbal report to conclude the meeting, which touched on several topics, including a potential increase in spring/summer public transit service rates for students and the Brock Senate’s recent approval of the new Student Self-Declared Absence Form, which accommodates mental health reasons for missing class or class assignments. Previously, explained Pahuja, professors weren’t always accommodating towards mental health situations, which this form aims to rectify.
After some further clarification on Pahuja’s report, the board motioned to adjourn, closing the meeting at 9:49 p.m.
The National Football League (NFL) continues its global ascension with regular season football heading to Ireland in 2025 and Australia in 2026.
Dublin joins growing international markets to host games in 2025
In a news conference on Feb. 7 during Super Bowl week, the NFL announced their plan to host a regular season game in Ireland during the 2025 season.
“We are delighted to officially bring a regular season NFL game to Ireland as part of our 2025 International Games slate,” said NFL Executive Vice President of International League Events and Club Business, Peter O’Reilly. “We’re looking forward to making our regular season debut in Dublin, bringing our game to a large and passionate Irish fan base and underlining the NFL’s commitment to global growth.”
The NFL Dublin game is one of seven confirmed international games on the calendar for 2025 and the second time the NFL will play in Dublin.
As part of the American Bowl Series in 1997, Ireland housed a preseason matchup between the Chicago Bears and Pittsburgh Steelers at Croke Park, which will also serve as the venue for the 2025 game.
With the Steelers’ connection to Ireland through Dan M. Rooney — the father of Pittsburgh President Art Rooney II, who served as a U.S. ambassador to Ireland from 2009 to 2012 — the Steelers have been selected as the designated team for the occasion and will battle a yet-to-be-determined opponent.
“We are very excited to be the designated team in the first regular season game to be played in Ireland this upcoming season,” said Rooney II. “The opportunity for the Pittsburgh Steelers to play in Ireland is truly special, not only because of the Rooney family history there, but also to play in front of the growing number of Steelers fans in Ireland.”
Along with Dublin, the other markets and designated teams that will play an international NFL regular season game in 2025 include three games in London (Cleveland Browns, New York Jets, Jacksonville Jaguars) as well as a game in each Berlin (Indianapolis Colts), Madrid (Miami Dolphins) and São Paulo (Los Angeles Chargers).
All matchups and dates for the 2025 NFL International Games will be announced when the NFL’s schedule is released in the spring.
Melbourne becomes first city added to 2026 NFL International Games schedule
The NFL took the first step in confirming the 2026 NFL International Games slate by announcing the inaugural regular season game in Australia in a news release on Feb. 5.
“Expanding to Melbourne, Australia, a beautiful city with a rich sports history, underlines our ambitions to become a global sport and accelerate international growth,” said NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell. “We look forward to making history in what is an important market for the NFL and a significant next step in expanding our international footprint.”
Like Dublin, Australia hosted a preseason game during the 1999 American Bowl Series between the Denver Broncos and San Diego Chargers in Sydney.
For 2026, the Los Angeles Rams have been named the designated team due to their ties to Australia through the NFL’s Global Markets Program.
The Rams are one of two teams alongside the Philadelphia Eagles to be awarded international marketing rights in Australia from the NFL, as a way to expand their global footprint while growing the game of football abroad.
“When we first identified Australia as one of our global markets, it was not only because of our passionate fans who reside there, but also because of the important role Los Angeles plays in serving as a gateway to Australia and many countries across the Pacific,” said Rams Owner/Chairman E. Stanley Kroenke. “Today is an exciting day for Rams fans across the world, especially in Australia.”
The game at Melbourne Cricket Ground is the first of a potential eight international games that the NFL plans to announce for the 2026 season.
To date, there have been a total of 55 international regular season games played between Frankfurt, London, Mexico City, Munich, São Paulo and Toronto, with the number of games and markets hosting regular season football set to grow in the seasons ahead.
For more information on the NFL International Games, visit nfl.com.
