Skip to main content

Day: 19 November 2012

Cheerleading

When the word ‘cheerleading’ is mentioned, the same mental images appear for all of us: the all-American high school girls, in tiny, midriff-baring uniforms, doing the splits and somersaulting 16 feet into the air. However, cheerleading is fast becoming an everyday exercise option and is in fact the latest fitness craze to sweep the UK.

Cheerleading routines involve a lot of dancing, jumping and lifting or, if you’re feeling particularly confident, complex stretches and flips. It therefore provides an entire body workout, making it the ideal fitness class. Cheerleaders are encouraged to work on their stamina and their muscle strength, so it is likely that a cardio workout will also form part of the session. Some classes may even require you to work with weights for a short time. So, while cheerleading is a fast way to burn calories, it also vastly improves your overall fitness.

Now, I’m aware that cheerleading is often seen as a girl’s sport (thinking back to sexist mental images), but it can be equally as fun to take part in for men! Lads are often needed to help with major lifting stunts, for example. Cheerleading is not a sport that focuses on gender, but one that revolves around team work. This makes it a perfect sporting choice for students, as it enables you to keep fit and to make a whole new bunch of friends. Just think of all of those socials you’d be required to attend!

For those of you who feel you would like to give it a go at shaking a pair of pom poms, UoM has its very own cheerleading squad. Sessions are held on Thursdays from 8-10pm, at Didsbury Sports Centre. Now’s the time to make those American All-Star dreams a reality!

Stoning Tories doesn’t give you the moral high ground

Protesters seem to have confused Sussex for Biblical times, as Tory MP Mike Weatherly found out when 50 pro-squatting protestors hurled rocks and other missiles at him when he came to speak at the University of Sussex.

He had been invited by the University’s Conservative Future group, to debate the controversial new squatting laws that the protestors take such issue with. Mr Weatherly had been campaigning for the criminalisation of squatting ever since his election to parliament in 2010, and as such was the perfect person for those opposed to the new squatting laws to say engage with and perhaps challenge using logical arguments in an environment where free speech is tolerated- perhaps within some sort of debate format, some could argue.

Whilst I jest, it seems so entirely shocking to the point of distress that these protestors seem to struggle with the basic idea of: when you are trying to show how someone is wrong (in your mind) by making them the victim, by, for instance, subjecting them to a violent attack, you shan’t gain many fans when you have made your ‘baddie’ into a victim.

There is a reason why we hold free speech so dear within this country, and indeed in most liberal countries, as it allows everybody to say what they think, and it allows for discussion of ideas so people can call out governments when they say silly things and hopefully lead to a situation where we end up with policies that aren’t entirely stupid. Of course, this doesn’t always happen, and people will always disagree with some things, and some governments will always pass stupid laws: but at least we can criticise them freely.

At the point at which headlines can go out exemplifying the fact that you are directly contradicting freedom of speech, and that you prevented from happening an event at which this person who you disagree with so heavily could have been questioned, could have been proven to be wrong (which you presumably believe they are, considering you campaign for the opposite side) then you have found the point at which you undermine all your aims and look rather foolish.

There’s a reason we condemn Iran for stoning people, a reason why we allow free speech: because without it our democracy is nothing.

 

Why universities need a ‘smart drug’ policy

Brainpower enhancing substances, such as Ritalin and modafinil, are being taken by an increasing number of students. New research from the US has discovered that at an average university, one in six students have experimented with some kind of performance enhancing drug. With their popularity growing in the U.K. also, universities need to develop a ‘smart drug’ policy.

Ritalin, the medicine given to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), is fairly easy to buy online. Heightening the mind’s alertness, it improves concentration and short term memory. In short, everything you want to be at its best on exam day. It’s not expensive either – around £3-£5 a pill. If it’s real. A huge counterfeit market is emerging, to satisfy the increasing demand for the drug. Coming mainly from Pakistan, there are many fake pills on the market for cheaper prices, usually £1-£2. These counterfeits are often just a mix of caffeine and ephedrine, yet these placebos are said to often still work. Similarly, modafinil is prescribed for the treatment of narcolepsy and excessive daytime sleepiness. It stimulates the mind, keeping it alert and able to process things quickly. Many students use it as a revision aid, helping them to put in even longer hours into revision.

Whether taking these drugs counts as cheating needs to be established. On the one hand, Ritalin is not an illegal drug to those who obtain it through prescription. For those who obtain it otherwise, it is a Class B drug, alongside cannabis and some amphetamines. Surely for those obtaining it through prescription, it is legal and right for them to be able to take it into an exam? After all, you wouldn’t stop somebody bringing in a prescribed asthma pump. However, it seems as though something fundamental changes when the person taking the drug has not obtained it through prescription. Speaking to students at the University of Manchester, they all thought that taking a drug to overcome some deficiency was fine, but to heighten the brain to some unnatural level gave the remaining students an unfair disadvantage. If the university agrees, the question is then left what they should do about it.

In some universities in the US, they have already brought in random drug testing before exams. Liberty University, the largest university in Virginia, subjects its students to ‘random, mandatory drug tests’.  Students coming to the university sign a contract agreeing to cooperate fully with Liberty University’s drug testing program, including the supervised furnishing of hair, urine or blood samples at a time and place determined by the University. A similar system could be brought into UK universities, where a random selection of students are drug tested before every exam. Many people, even those who believe taking ‘smart drugs’ does count as cheating, are against such an intrusive and untrusting system. It would subject many innocent people to quite invasive testing; an arguably stressful experience right before an exam. Furthermore, we treat other forms of cheating in a completely different way. For example, to tackle people sneaking notes into an exam, there are invigilators walking up and down the aisles. There are not mandatory random strip searches as you walk into the exam room. It would seem silly to bring in invigilators to look out for people who look like they might be taking a performance enhancing drug. There are no outward signals to look for. What, then, should the universities do?

One option would be for universities, and other institutions who feel they might have students or employees taking performance enhancing drugs, to put pressure on the government to develop stricter drug rules. As the majority of Ritalin sold in the country comes from unwanted prescriptions, there must surely be a case for tightening up how freely these prescriptions are given out. This is an option that will require time and effort, it will not solve anything in the short run.

Another option would be for the universities to invest in sniffer dogs. Trained specially for ‘smart drugs’, certain sniffer dogs can detect Ritalin and modafinil, amongst others. This would be a less intrusive method, with the benefit of checking everyone for the performance enhancers.

If universities want to maintain the credibility of their exam results, they need to formulate a comprehensive ‘smart drug’ policy. The usage of them is becoming more and more frequent, as is other students’ dissatisfaction at the fact their university is doing nothing about them. There is no obvious route for universities to take, but doing nothing is not an option.

My Political Hero: Leo Tolstoy

Tolstoy was one of a number of princes of his era within the Russian Empire who, while both capitalism and imperialism were exploding and oppressing the common people, rejected this not with the dreary “scientific” state socialism epitomized by Marx and Engels, but with a critique of the nature of the state itself. Kropotkin, Bakunin and Tolstoy all imagined a world were humans were viewed neither as the value of their labour nor as a market commodity, but simply as human beings deserving of dignity by the sheer virtue of their humanity.  These were the anarchist princes, and, though as a political philosophy this may seem somewhat idealistic, it was rooted in the humanist aristocratic virtues of the period. Where Tolstoy differed from the other anarchist princes, apart from his dislike of the term ‘anarchy,’ was his emphasis on the life of Jesus Christ.

Tolstoy detested the institutional mystical Christianity of the Russian Orthodox Church, writing in his theological magnum opus The Kingdom of God is Within You that a priest would more likely try and sell a copy of the Lives of the Saints than direct a believer to the Gospels, which tell the story of the life and teaching of Jesus Christ.  For the rationalist Tolstoy, the divinity of Jesus was not an abstract doctrine, but was rather rooted in the deep compassion and true humanity of his teachings, particularly of the Sermon on the Mount. Tolstoy took these commandments literally, extrapolating from teachings such as “turn the other cheek,” and “do not swear oaths” a radically pacifist political philosophy that was opposed to not just the militarism of the Russian Empire and its state church, but also opposed to the notion of statehood itself, as for Tolstoy the state is dependent on institutions of violence such as the army, the police and the legal system, echoing Weber’s definition of a state as that which has a “monopoly on the legitimate use of violence.” Tolstoy’s essays are as starkly beautiful as his fiction, emptying imperial claims to religious authority with the simple “How can you kill people, when it is written in God’s commandment: ‘Thou shalt not murder’?” He was the first modern, and still most prominent, Christian anarchist.

In his opposition to the Russian state, Tolstoy created a religious theory of non-violent resistance, and it was this in particular that influenced those key 20th century political figures of resistance Martin Luther King and Mohandas Ghandi. Ghandi himself corresponded with Tolstoy and was advised that only through passive resistance and love could the British empire be defeated, which he translated into his doctrine of Satyagraha. Tolstoy’s reasoning on non-violent resistance was dual; firstly, violence begets violence and is therefore an inappropriate tool for the creation of a peaceful society , expressed in the Gospels as “he who lives by the sword dies by the sword”; secondly, violence, even if it leads to a positive consequence, it is forbidden by God.

Vegetarianism and teetotalism may seem an odd adjunct for a worshipper of a man who caught precisely 153 large fish in one load and famously preferred wedding guests to drink wine over water. In this sense Tolstoy probably had more in common with 1980’s hardcore punk fans than Jesus Christ, who was never known to describe himself as either vegan or straightedge. However, his vegetarianism was based on spiritual means, a Christian love of humanity extending to a love of all living beings, and he saw the slaughterhouse as a brother to war, violating man’s supposedly natural propensity towards sympathy towards living creatures, as is testified by the massive turnover of workers in slaughterhouses. Often I am personally struck by the weak connection made by many flesh eaters between animals and meat, although my convictions on vegetarianism are based on a more modern ecological arguments.

Though Tolstoy is most famous for his works “War and Peace” and “Anna Karenina,” his influence extends far outside the literary world. After resisting state violence for many years, and inspiring this resistance in countless others, he died in 1910. He was a man of unrivalled spiritual maturity, literary talent and political conviction.

If you want us to endorse your hobbies, endorse our politics

This writer is not the sort of person who often engages in marching for democracy or participating in mass protests. This is not because I don’t value my freedom or regularly disagree with actions taken in Westminster, but because I choose – for reasons which are entirely my own business – not to demonstrate on the streets. I respect the choice of those who do. And I’m sure we would agree that in a democracy it would be fundamentally not in the spirit of things to disrespect or penalise me for my choice. I am not somehow an inferior citizen simply because I have not felt the compulsion to take to the streets.

It is with this in mind that I voice my grave concern about the University of Manchester Students’ Union’s offer to ‘fast-track’ student societies to Silver and Gold STAR Awards if they send five or ten of their members to Demo 2012. The STAR system determines ‘levels of funding and resources’ available to societies – Gold or Silver status permits discounts and services unavailable to Bronze societies, and more importantly, Bronze societies get less money. This status is upgraded partly through society members taking part in ‘Student Action’, including fundraising and volunteer work which is itself an estimable attempt by the Union to make a difference in the community. Even this, however, can worry smaller societies – or large societies that do not engage with political or social affairs – with the thought that their resources are being undercut by more politically active groups. The penalisation of societies that are – in the eyes of the Union – not as politically useful is a disturbing notion. But the attempt to coerce students into taking part in a political protest for financial recompense is nothing short of bribery.

Asking societies that usually concern themselves with interesting board games, Red Dwarf marathons or comic operettas to either turf out their members as warm bodies to boost the numbers at a political demonstration or suffer from low levels of funding – whatever the cause of the demonstration and however just – is alarming and offensive on several levels. The Exec Team shock me alone by the fact that they would willingly drag a cause which they clearly feel so passionate about into the muck of Muamar Gaddafi level politics. The democratic integrity of their cause is clearly less important to them than increasing its apparent popularity, using tactics that were last seen in Manchester in the duplicitous electioneering of the 18th century. The Union executives are using their power over people – a power routed in the control of the funds without which many societies would be unable to operate – to commandeer the freedom of action and expression which is unique to each of those people, and utilise it to further their own political agenda. This is a violation of our right to think for ourselves.

What’s more, the sheer ignorance of the gravity of their actions is readily apparent in Tweets made by my union representatives, entirely missing the point of the uproarious reaction to their announcement by saying pro-cut marches would be ‘against Union policy’. This shows a sad inability for the Union to see politics in anything more than black and white – simply because I find their ultrapartisanship so disgusting, I am not necessarily an ardent member of the Tory party wishing to go on a pro-cut march. Manchester University encompasses students with a broad spectrum of political ideologies and an even broader spectrum of hobbies. The Students’ Union should be mature enough to realise this, and more importantly to realise that its constituents are too intelligent to be duped into shouting chants that they don’t necessarily agree with purely so that they have the money and support to pursue their extracurricular entertainment.

In short, I’m not going on their damn march just to foot the fee for my society’s next batch of member-specific novelty hats, nor would I be doing so if I had intended on going to Demo 2012 in the first place.

Students who are not left-wing in their politics, or merely can’t muster the enthusiasm to go all the way down to London and mill around with a placard for a day, already found it difficult to identify with the University of Manchester Students’ Union, or foster a sense that it is an organisation which caters to their needs or represents their opinions. This recent policy, grounded on an abhorrent miscalculation by the Union themselves about the political makeup of Manchester’s students, will hardly help matters.

Pure Love

8th November 2012, Apollo

8/10

It’s a question of which countless music journalists have spilt litres of ink  over: in a music world dominated by pop-R&B and club hits, who will be the saviours of modern guitar music? Many bands have promised to fit that mould in genres ranging from indie rock to grit-pop (who remembers that?) but few people claim it with the conviction of Pure Love, an earnest, transatlantic rock-n-roll revivalist duo.

Taking to the stage of the Apollo as the first opener to an act of the magnitude of Lostprophets is a daunting proposition for any band, let alone one that doesn’t even have an album out. If there are any nerves, they don’t show; the group burst into ‘She’ with the tight interplay of seasoned veterans, not the stand-in members who make up the rhythm section and guitar/keyboard. This is to say nothing of frontman Frank Carter. He imbues the upbeat jams with a fervour and crowd relation that harks back to the dangerous days of rock, only without the menace which dogged (or made, depending on your view) his tenure as singer of hardcore punk band Gallows. This newfound good nature is evident in his response to an audience member shout of ‘ginger prick’ of which his reply is to laugh compare the heckler to ‘Justin Bieber’- where once he may have gone for a slap.

His energy is matched, and often rivalled, by lead guitarist and collaborator Jimmy Carroll. Carroll is a figure seemingly born to rock; this is evident in his guitar theatrics, from soloing to thrashing it around in front of his amplifier for feedback. To say that the group only gets by on being a spectacle would do them down, however. Whilst Carter may cajole ‘snail pits’, arm-waving and Freddie Mercury-style vocal displays out of his audience, they have no problem displaying their moody, soulful side on ‘Anthem’. Prefaced with a dedication to every worker in the room, the sombre tune has every right to be called a ‘classic’, a rarity considering the fast-paced nature of modern music.

Leaving the stage to applause from a crowd who doesn’t even know the lyrics is a good omen for a young band with eyes firmly set to bigger things. Saviours of modern rock? Maybe so.

 

 

Tame Impala

On a mercilessly cold Mancunian evening, the Ritz played host to Australia’s proud sons of the stage – the psychedelic quartet, Tame Impala. The band has enjoyed unbridled success since their formation in 2008, rising to international acclaim after the release of their debut album, Innerspeaker – they have not looked back since. Tame Impala can be described as riding on the crest of a wave, which is understandable given that this current tour coincides with the release of their second album, Lonerism. Prior to the album’s much anticipated release, fans were offered a tantalising taster of what to expect with the release of the single ‘Elephant’. In the milieu of hyped-up expectation, it goes without saying that the Ritz enjoyed a full house, consisting of young and old alike.

But the responsibility of warming up the crowd (and boy, did we need it!) was left to a Norwegian, glockenspiel-sporting, dream-pop collective, aptly named Young Dreams. The band, eased the crowd with a toe-tapping performance, the combination of their rustic and intricate instrumentals being somewhat reminiscent of Fleet Foxes. But regardless of the upstarts’ impressive display, it was to be Tame Impala’s night.

One can be forgiven for assuming they was in the band’s hometown of Perth as they walked out barefooted across the stage, clothed in little more than attire suited for the beach than for a Mancunian winter, donning oversized t-shirts and frayed denims. Opening with ‘Be Above It’ off the latest album, it proved to be a wise choice as it eased the crowd in gently before erupting into ‘Solitude Is Bliss’, providing enough incentive for the first crowd surfers to be seen overhead. From here, they slip into an astounding display of a psychedelic free-for-all, peppered with the driving drum beats of Julian Barbagello and the heavy bass lines of Nick ‘Paisley Adams’ Allbrook. After a lengthy instrumental, the opening to ‘It’s Not Meant to Be’ captures the audience, but this comfort blanket is swiped away and is replaced with the lesser known ‘Music to Walk Home By’.

“Go wild to this next one if you know the words!” Kevin Parker, lead vocals, tells the audience. Half muttered suspicions of Elephant were correct, and this crowd pleaser has the entire audience thrashing around. ‘Feels Like We Only Go Backwards’ and an Innerspeaker favourite ‘Lucidity’ quickly follow, before returning to the latest album offerings of ‘Alter Ego’ and ‘Mind Mischief’.

All the while, the visuals presented on the screen behind the band show a pulsating green dot that develops into an eye, complete with pupil and iris. Forgive this fan, but the promise of Tame’s reputation for providing stimulating visuals was alluring, and this particular display was ultimately an anti-climax.

Those not deterred by the visual display were euphoric, prompting dad dancing among the older generations and a number of girls on shoulders among the audience. The band was now clearly in high spirits as they effortlessly jam their way through ‘Why Won’t You Make Up Your Mind?’ and ‘Desire Be Desire Go’, but it is ‘Apocalypse Dreams’ that is chosen to close the set. For their triumphant encore, synth player Jay returns to the stage first and throws sweets out into the crowd, cheekily adding “taste the rainbow!” after asking “who wants skittles?”. ‘Half Full Glass of Wine’ is chosen as the concluding song and whilst Kevin is swigging at his beer, the band improvise, with the heartbeat bass line filling the void until he regains control of the mic to close the gig and what was, for an hour and a half, an altered state of consciousness.

Savages

7th November 2012, Gorilla

8/10

I’m about to make two statements from which you can draw your own conclusions.  Savages are a group of young women playing incredibly raucous rock music who performed on Later…with Jools Holland a few weeks ago.  Their show at Gorilla seemed to be attended primarily by middle-aged men.  Are their genders and the average age of the audience connected?  Who knows (probably).  Would all those men have been there if it had been four fat guys playing loud music?  Who knows (probably not).  Regardless, Savages played the absolute hell out of that venue, performing with significantly bigger balls than many male musicians I’ve seen lately.

Despite the number of people who were seemed to be there out of curiosity, or to show that they’re still cool, Savages really seemed to connect with the audience.  From the word go, they were giving it absolutely everything they had, while still managing to look impossibly cool.  It reminded me of the kinds of shows I used to go to when I was fifteen, where my friends and I would go absolutely batshit crazy just because we could, and there seemed to be quite a bit of that going on at the front.

There were some moments that could have been awkward, but singer Jehnny Beth managed to smooth them over.  One of those was the theft of a 12” from the merch stand, prompting her to shoot the crowd with an incredibly intense glare while half singing, half chanting “There’s a thief in the room”. Which begs the question, why would anyone want to steal from someone so utterly terrifying?  They closed their show with the same track they performed on Jools, ‘Husbands’, which was one of the most raucous, rousing performances I’ve seen in a long time, ending a genuinely mind-blowing show.

Debate – Should the Students’ Union boycott brands?

YES – Alex Goldhill

The Students’ Union is first and foremost a democratic organisation, run by students elected from the body it represents, and with a limited amount of funding. It is bound by two main duties, the first to represent the will of the student body (or at least the part of the student body that actually bothers to take an interest in these things), and the second, to ensure that the resources under its control are used in the interest of the students.

I believe in maintaining the Union boycott of certain brands for two reasons; one ethical and the other health related.

The ethical reasons are fairly straightforward.

Coca Cola, which is not stocked in the union on ethical grounds  has a long history of human rights abuses, both against its workers and against third-parties. The Colombia Solidarity Campaign (CSC) started the International Boycott following the murders of eight Sinaltrainal (Colombian Food and Drinks Workers’ Union) which they say the company is complicit in. There have been numerous past boycotts against the company also, and elsewhere it has been reported that Coca Cola is responsible for groundwater shortages at their bottling plants in India, according to the India Resource Center.  The boycott allows the Students’ Union to send a message to the world, on behalf of its members, that this will not be tolerated.

Firstly, by continuing to punish brands for their past actions we send a message to the industry that these policies will have long-term negative effects, discouraging others from employing them and also by making an example. Secondly, Coca Cola is an industry leader and by highlighting them we send a message to the industry as a whole.

As for the health reasons, I am sure it will come as no surprise to you that the fizzy drinks and sweets provided by brands such as Nestle and Coca Cola are not exactly healthy. Now I won’t argue that the Union should boycott Coca Cola in order to save the students from unhealthy products; that argument is flawed on so many levels. It’s patronising to students to tell them what they can and cannot drink, the widespread availability of these brands makes such an effort ineffective, and it’s downright hypocritical whilst the Union still supplies cigarettes, alcohol and other unhealthy products (another debate for another day).

By boycotting Coca Cola the Union frees up its budget to supply the students with better alternatives, both in terms of health and ethics.

NO – Antonia Jennings

Our Students’ Union is not there to make our decisions. It is there to support students, and represent the diverse demographic that makes up our student body. The range of opinions the students at the University of Manchester have should be reflected by our Students’ Union, which should be impartial and politically independent. By boycotting certain products it appears as though the union is acting politically on our behalf, something I don’t think anybody wants or expects it to do.

If people want to boycott brands such as Nestle or Coca Cola, of course they can and will. If enough students wanted the SU to not supply certain brands, they would choose not to buy them – resulting in a lack of demand, and the SU would stop ordering these products. The fact is the Students’ Union not stocking certain brands does not even make a negligible impact. If students are determined to buy a Nestle product, a two minute walk to Sainsbury’s will let them.

The companies and brands the Students’ Union boycotts seem to be chosen in an ununiformed manner. While it is true Nestle and Coca Cola have terrible unethical scandals to their name, we should scrutinise other companies such as GlaxoSmithKline. The University continues to receive huge amounts of money from the pharmaceutical giant, despite its $3billion fine from the Food and Drugs Association (FDA) this year for improper marketing and unethical behaviour. The Students’ Union has not publicly protested about this at all, even following Andrew Witty, CEO of GSK receiving an honorary degree from the University this year.

I am all for boycotting unethical brands. However, I do not think that the Students’ Union should be doing this on our behalf, without all students voting on the matter. With turnouts as low as they are for referendums such as this one (often less than 5% of the student body), it is unjust for the Students’ Union to make a decision that will affect all students. If people want to boycott products they can and should, but it is not the place of the Students’ Union to do so.