e ee I Qari By Erin Sanderson, Nexus (Camosun College) VICTORIA (CUP) — Students vote three times a day. In fact, students vote as many times as they eat or drink in the day. As students, we also have that many chances each day to change the world. After all, our consumption is what keeps corporations rolling. When we purchase bottled water, we vote for the privatization of water. This means we vote for companies like Coca- Cola to go into places like Plachimada, India and set up a bottling plant where they aren’t necessarily wanted. The people there know the value of their water and don’t want to see it pumped out of the ground and bottled up Buying bottled water means that we support the basic idea that it’s okay for corporations to make money off a resource that was here way before all of us and is, like oxygen, a basic necessity of life. * What happens when water management becomes private? Motivation becomes profit. Not people, not the environment, not equal access. Companies like Suez Environment go into really poor countries in the developing world and, with the help of the International Monetary Fund, force them to give up the management of their water supply. They then increase the price, put locks on the wells, and leave people with two options: either spend a large portion of their meagre earnings to get that “Buying bottled water means that we support the basic idea that it’s okay for corporations to make money off a resource that was here way before all of us and is, like oxygen, a basic necessity of life.” by a company whose main goal is profit. If students buy bottled water it means they vote for companies like Nestlé, who have been sued in numerous states for continuing to extract water, even after large public outcry and significant localized environmental harm. 16 water, or—for those who don’t have that option—die. Students vote with their wallets whether they know it or not and some things are worth voting against. Water and profit should be kept separate, for the benefit of all. CBS “Saints” leave gay ads on the sidelines Network’s selection of what is appropriate advertising is bewildering By Angela Espinoza adies and gentlemen, I ask you, what comes to mind when you hear “Super - Bowl”? Is it the thunderous screams and cheers of face-painted fans? Perhaps it’s a pile of overpriced comfort food that’!l disappear long before the epically overblown halftime show plays out. Maybe it’s just those insane, million dollar ads that air during the show. We love those crazy commercials, and for good reason too; if they’re not funny, they at least have some simple message going for them. Unfortunately, this year’s main message seemed to be keeping a closed mind. Joining NBC in the world of media morons, CBS refused to air a promotional ad for ManCrunch. com commercials submitted this year. The Super Bowl is no stranger to the raunchy ads, so they can only have a good reason for banning this one. In this commercial, spokesbabe Danica Patrick walks around a mansion narrating the current life of a fictional retired football star. The ex-player is seen walking around in a pink sweat suit for half the commercial and never saying a word throughout, responding only with effeminate giggles and noises. Some would see this stereotypical portrayal as homophobic, and I am one of those people. But if this is the same CBS we were talking about a minute ago, they probably banned the ad because it was offensive to the breeders, not the gay community. There’s a big part of me that wishes the issue ended there, but CBS had to push the envelope by “The Super Bow! is neither the time nor the place to cram personal beliefs down someone’s throat; that’s what the nachos and beer are for!” com, an online dating service geared towards gay men. Before you say anything, let me break down this ad. The commercial features two men wearing generic football jerseys watching the game in question. As they reach for the bowl of chips between them, their hands touch. Their eyes meet; cheesy music plays and the two men begin kissing. The website’s logo appears and the commercial ends with another man staring at them bewildered before slowly turning to the camera. As far as Super Bowl commercials go, this ad is painfully low budget, but it’s nonetheless funny and above all things, cute—perfect for Valentine’s Day, right? Wrong. Keeping in mind that there are families watching, the commercial is far from racy, and I’m going to push the point further by mentioning that the two lead actors don’t even look like they’re actually kissing each other. Another ad banned by the network was one of two GoDaddy. airing an anti-abortion ad. The commercial was based on the fact that while pregnant, average nobody Pam Tebow became ill and her doctor insisted she get an abortion; Pam ignored her doctor’s suggestion and today her son Tim Tebow is a college football star. I’m going to be blunt and say I stand on the pro-life side of this incredibly stupid debate—and I say stupid because everyone should be entitled to do what they feel is right for themselves—but even I know an event like the Super Bowl is neither the time nor the place to cram personal beliefs down someone’s throat; that’s what the nachos and beer are for! There is no comprehending what on earth CBS was thinking this year, or in past years when similar actions were taken. Whether they like it or not though, at some point they’ ll have to get with the times and stop discriminating subjects that should no longer be considered taboo.