Opinions.

Need to vent? Contact the editor at opinions@theotherpress.ca

 

Find your nemesis

Become a better you
by fighting evil
By Aidan Mouellic, Contributor

here is one thing that a lot

of great people have in
common: whether it’s Bruce
Wayne (Batman), Rosa Parks,
Sherlock Holmes, Winston
Churchill, or Nelson Mandela,
they all had nemeses.

These individuals achieved
brilliance because of the forces
they fought, and they wouldn’t
be great without the impact
that injustice had on their lives.
Though the examples I have
given are extreme—I wouldn’t
really want you to have to go
up against a deadly villain like
Batman does, or do like Sherlock
Holmes and face a dangerous
freelance criminal—you can
find your own, less violent arch-
enemy to help propel you toa
better version of yourself.

Your nemesis should be a
force of evil that will motivate
you to fight it, overcome it, and
become awesome in the process.
In our own lives, these evil
forces might not be as obvious
as a Villain in a homoerotic
costume, but if we look hard,

we can find a suitable arch-
enemy. For instance, it could

be issues with anxiety: instead
of viewing your anxiety as a
personal blight, view the anxiety
as a force that needs to be fought
and defeated. You can overcome
it and be a more awesome
person. Or your nemesis could
be a self-defeating habit of
procrastination. Instead of
viewing the procrastination as a
manifestation of your laziness,
view it as an external evil force
that you vow to fight and beat.

Your nemesis doesn’t
necessarily have to be internal.
It can be quite Hollywood if
you want it to be, or it can be
that know-it-all classmate of
yours who you strive to best.
The desire to faceoff with this
classmate will help to make
school more fun, and will help
improve your grades, as well.
But I would warn you to play
nice and not publicly declare Mr.
or Ms. 4.0-teacher’s-pet as your
nemesis; keep this to yourself,
because going public would be
weird.

The people in life who
succumb to evil forces are often
those who fail to acknowledge
their foe, or who see their foe
but choose not to fight. You see
this happening in the people

Going Dutch

Should others pay
attention to Beatrixs
example?

By Eric Wilkins,
Staff Writer

ast week, Queen Beatrix of

the Netherlands announced
that she would be abdicating
the throne to her son, Prince
Willem-Alexander, as of April
30. By doing so, Beatrix is
following in the footsteps of
her mother and grandmother,
Juliana and Wilhelmina, who
also relinquished the title early.
And so, at the ripe age of 75,
Beatrix is making way for
her 45-year-old heir. Is this a
poor choice? Or should other
monarchs be considering the
same?

A king or queen ina
constitutional monarchy is
essentially just a figurehead;
there is very little that they
actually have to do. Aside from

16

Dutch Queen Beatrix
Photo courtesy of AP

ceremonially signing off on
matters that have already been
resolved by others, one could
argue that the main purpose of
a monarch is to attend social
occasions and represent his

or her country proudly. How
exciting. However, in a world
where monarchs have virtually

 

 

who succumb to addiction or
bullying. These evil forces claim
too many lives, but the tables
can be turned if enough people
vow to fight the evil head-on,
and not shy away. To fight
larger causes such as bullying, it
would help to form an alliance,

no real power, saying that such
figures are merely a unique
sort of celebrity would be fairly
accurate.

A king and/or queen is a
romantic, if antiquated, thought.
A fairy tale just isn’t a fairy tale
if a princess isn’t kidnapped, an
evil queen doesn’t try to kill her
stepdaughter, or a wise old king
doesn’t rule over Happy Valley.
It is perhaps for this reason that
people are so attracted to royal
families. Gossip magazines are
always littered with the latest
exploits of Prince Harry or
Prince William, or details on
how completely drab Charles is.
Such mind-numbingly brainless
chatter may be annoying, but
reading it is how some people
relax and take their minds off
of things. And therein lies the
greatest service a member of the
royal family can do in today’s
world: provide a distraction, a
moment of escape, and some
entertainment.

It may seem a bit harsh to
relegate such a highly thought of
position to as low and common

though—it isn’t a one-person
job.

It can take some
uncomfortable self-reflection to
find a suitable arch-enemy. To
attain victory against yours, you
must first be aware of it, then
stand up and vow to destroy

a level as that of a celebrity, but
for all intents and purposes,
royalty is just that. If one is
coming up more often in Hello!
Magazine than The Economist,
then there really isn’t much
more to say.

With that in mind, I
completely side with Beatrix
in stepping down early from
the throne. While her son is
certainly no headline grabber,
he is a younger, fresher face
for the country. At the very
least, he helps to provide a
revitalized image of the Dutch
Royal Family. It makes it
easier for the up-and-coming
generation to connect with the
monarch. Beatrix is like your
grandmother: you love her
and she’s wonderful, but she’s
probably not the first person
you want to introduce your new
friends to.

Returning to the popular
example of England’s monarchy,
the British really have the least
to gain from having their
monarch step down. Yes, Queen
Elizabeth II is 86, but Charles

it. As the great philosopher
Kanye West once said, “That
that don’t kill me can only make
me stronger.” I wish you the
best of luck in your quest, and I
also recommend not wearing a
mask—you'll just end up being
questioned by the police.

is 64 and about as exciting as
paint drying on growing grass.
Holding onto the thought of
royalty just being another source
of celebrity gossip, Charles is
useless. While it would be an
unpopular decision for many,
I’m all for having the monarch
elected. It’s a popularity contest,
after all. Have a vote by the
citizens every five years or so to
pick the most entertaining of the
bunch. It being such a nothing
position anyway, why not
trivialize it more?

Answering the original
question, I do think (the
popularity vote being highly
unlikely of ever even being
a possibility) that monarchs
should step down sooner. Since
there’s no skill involved for the
position, there’s no advantage to
having a head as antiquated as
the tradition.