My favourite colour is Kelly green however, but that’s beside the point.

I’m Irish — or at least my heritage is. It’s something that holds no significance 365 days of the year, but on March 17 my “Irish right” supposedly entitles me to don green and celebrate my family’s homeland. But the holiday is no longer exclusively for those with Irish roots.

Many non-Irish use it as an excuse to drink, dance and celebrate Irish culture. As the saying goes, it gives everyone the opportunity to be “Irish for a day.”

However, the stereotypes perpetuated through this holiday are, in fact, quite contrary to the traditional customs of St. Patrick’s Day in Ireland. March 17 marks the anniversary of the death of St. Patrick, one of the patron saints of the country. The feast of St. Patrick has been observed in Ireland for centuries and for Irish Catholics, this day is recognized as a holy day of obligation. Believers attend morning mass and many partake in a celebratory feast in the evening. Similar to Christmas practices, St. Patrick’s Day celebrations traditionally have a focus on family, friends, community and faith.

For a holiday deeply connected with Christian beliefs, many hold the notion that St. Patrick’s Day is about giving into the vices many Catholics abstain from during lent. Because St. Patrick’s Day is considered a feast day, it is acceptable to eat, drink and be merry even if lent requires you to fast and abstain from temptations.

Needless to say, as many Irish immigrants sailed to North America, the customs of St. Patrick’s Day came too. Celebrating Irish heritage and the feast of St. Patrick grew in popularity as non-Irish citizens opted to join in the day’s celebrations.

What many don’t realize is although drinking is synonymous with St. Patrick’s Day in North America, in Ireland St. Patrick’s Day is recognized as a national holiday — meaning that until the laws were changed in 1970, bars were not permitted to operate on this day. So although many wear green as they head for the bars in the name of Ireland, the practice is not a traditional Irish custom at all.

However, only devout Irish Christians still partake in the religious customs of St. Patrick’s Day. For the majority, March 17 is now seen as a non-secular celebration of stereotypical Irish culture.

But one question has always perplexed me: why Ireland?

I am a big fan of Irish culture and am proud to say that not only am I Irish on St. Patrick’s Day, but all the other days as well. But Irish is not the only culture that deserves a celebration.

Perhaps it’s the excuse to party that has secured Ireland’s place on our calendars. Everyone loves to have a good time and if people are given an excuse to drink, few will turn that invitation down.

But the misconception that St. Patrick’s Day is about drinking and drinking is the basis of Irish culture, has contributed to the stereotype that Irish people are drunks. Not only that, but nationally celebrating Irish culture while ignoring the other vast number of culturally inspired holidays seems unfair.

Those celebrating St. Patrick’s Day in Canada seem to fall within two schools of thought. The first are those who appreciate the traditions of Ireland and celebrate the rich music, dance and heritage that either fascinates them or is a part of their roots. The other — and probably more popular group of St. Patrick’s Day enthusiasts — celebrate the more superficial side of the holiday.

Regardless of where you fall, the important thing is to remember the Irish stereotypes paraded today are not representative of actual Irish culture. There are no leprechauns or pots of gold, no lucky charms and there’s no more binge drinking in Ireland than there is in Canada.

Last Friday marked the opening ceremony of the 2010 Paralympic Winter Games, which will run from Mar. 12 until Mar. 21. The Canadian Paralympic team comprises 55 athletes, who will be competing in four of the five sports at the Games. As usual, the Paralympic Winter Games will be held at the same venues as the Olympics. In other words, these gifted Canadian athletes will be competing at home, in Vancouver.

Then why are they only receiving 57 hours of TV coverage? Paralympic sports are divided both by gender and by type of physical disability, with the goal of levelling the playing field for all competitors. This means while there are five sports at the games, there will be 64 separate events. However, CTV and their affiliates have decided to broadcast 27 hours of English content and 30 hours of French content during the nine-day event. While this is a record for Canadian coverage of the Paralympics, it will mostly be spent on highlights — not the events themselves. To make matters worse, the games are mostly being covered on CTV’s other networks, or will only be accessible online. This is a stark contrast to the nearly 24 hour, seven-day-a-week coverage the Olympics received.

Coverage for these games needs to step up. This team is made up of athletes who train as hard as Olympians, and are skilled at their sports. These athletes bring home medals and work to support their goals. Many of these athletes are close to setting world records in their sports.

The reason the Paralympics deserve more than a measly 57 hours of coverage is not because the games are on home soil, but because these are great athletes and because society has an opportunity to learn what “disability” really means.

Going back to Woolstencroft, she was born missing both legs below the knee and her left arm below the elbow. She now races downhill at electrifying speeds. Too many people in our society would meet her and label her as “disabled.” The Paralympics give an opportunity for people who do not have experiences with disability to see how these obstacles are overcome.

This is not to say having a disability in our society means nothing; accessibility is a huge issue both on and off Western’s campus. However, disability does not mean unable, it means a different type of able — an able which could simply need a different set of tools. Tools on campus might mean more ramps and more electric doors, and on the slopes it might mean prosthetic limbs or specialized equipment.

While I may be able to watch Woolstencroft’s next winning run on YouTube or on a network dedicated to airing Paralympic sports, the point is the same audience who spent weeks in front of the TV for the Olympics may never see her or her teammates’ athletic ability.

While 57 hours may cover highlight reels, there won’t be enough time to cover what really matters — the athletic ability of the competitors, and the stories of how they made it to the Olympics.

James Duthie — Duthie has proven throughout the Olympics he can do more than just his regular shtick of moderating the assorted jocks and goons TSN assembles for its hockey coverage. Duthie was natural, eloquent and, at times, humourous while serving as the co-host of Olympic Daytime. Early on in the games when Duthie mistakenly introduced a speed skating event as a women’s hockey game, he deadpanned “That was one of the strangest women’s hockey games I’ve ever seen,” when the feed came back to CTV studios.

Brian Williams ­— At his 13th Olympic games, Williams has proven he is timeless. Williams’ interviews were as legendary as ever, as we saw in several informative and telling question and answer sessions. His talks with Brian Burke and Joannie Rochette — two figures experiencing unbelievable grief — were highlights of CTV’s coverage. Williams was able to induce the pair to open up to audiences about the unimaginable tragedies occurring in their lives.

The helmet cam — The view from Daron Rahlves’ helmet as he spiralled out of control on the second jump of the men’s ski cross was absolutely phenomenal. Watching the skier’s gaze shifting through focusing on the jump, preparing for the landing, slowly turning up toward the sky as his skis entered the frame above him and the inevitable thud when he it the ground was unlike any shot we’ve ever seen at an Olympics. It gave a great perspective on the speed, amplitude and inherent danger of the sport.

The Bad

Jamie Campbell — I would tell Campbell not to quit his day job, but he was already fired by the Blue Jays where he served as play-by-play man from 2005-2009. The problem with Campbell is that he comes across as knowing absolutely nothing about the sports he covers. Surely he could have done a bit of research ahead of calling the snowboard halfpipe and freestyle skiing competitions instead of relying heavily on his colour analysts. Instead, Campbell was extraordinarily unprepared, not knowing many of the names of the tricks the athletes were performing. Plus his incessant cheerleading for Maëlle Ricker during the women’s snowboard cross — “Make it home, Maëlle! Make it home!” — was a tad much. Leave the cheering to the fans.

Lisa LaFlamme — It’s hard to criticize LaFlamme — whose day job is the National Affairs Correspondent for the CTV National News — because she was so far out of her element at these games. However, the Olympic Daytime co-host’s unfamiliarity and blinding ignorance with anything sport-related became increasingly evident throughout a series of jumbled intros, softball interviews and canned banter. LaFlamme’s unguarded bias and boosterism was also extremely irritating, even by CTV’s standards.

The Ugly

Michael Landsberg — Why are you here? Landsberg was a decent Sports Desk host about a decade ago who found a niche in moderating the sports discussion program Off The Record. Why CTV would take him out of the familiar confines of his OTR set, where he can talk about professional wrestling and fighting in hockey till the cows come home, and transplant him to Whistler to interview drunk Canadian fans is beyond comprehension.

Much Music’s Olympic Coverage — We get it, CTV. You own a whole whack of stations. But there was really no need to invite all of them to Vancouver. Especially Much Music, whose juvenile teenage audience doesn’t know the difference between Kevin Martin and Ricky Martin. Hosting your coverage from a bar is one thing — doing half-naked body shots in a hot tub mere moments after the tragic death of Georgian luger Nodar Kumaritashvili is another. It doesn’t matter what demographic your station appeals to — that was classless.

You couldn’t have picked a more inconvenient time to have a natural disaster.

Come on, who decides to get hit by a quake during the Olympics? The Olympics! Didn’t you know the whole world would be distracted? Not to mention you’ve copied Haiti, minus the massive death toll. That’s a disaster faux pas, Chile, in case you didn’t get the memo.

In light of your colossal screw-up, please take note of the following guidelines for future reference. (Other countries feel free to listen up, too. I’m sure some of you African states are just dying to have another drought.)

First and foremost, don’t have a natural disaster during other major events. The Olympics were a no-no for obvious reasons. But interrupting a finale of Dancing with the Stars or The Bachelor with breaking coverage of your tragedy wouldn’t be any better. With one exception: should you have an environmental catastrophe while being the country featured in an upcoming season of Survivor, that is just good TV for us here in North America — all the drama, none of the nagging sense of obligation.

Second, don’t rip off other disasters. The earthquake thing, with its shocking death toll and widespread devastation, was hip the first time around. Kind of like that 2012 movie –– you don’t make a sequel for something like that. And guess what, Chile: right now, you’re the sequel that nobody’s going to watch.

Third, give us a breather! There are only so many disasters our poor hearts can handle. Haiti took a huge toll on our emotional well-being, not to mention our wallets. We threw fundraisers, raised the cash, and we’re feeling pretty darn good about ourselves. Couldn’t you have given us a bit more time to bask in our philanthropic successes before plopping another tragedy in our laps?

Overall, Chile, your timing couldn’t have been worse. Maybe next time you can have a natural disaster at a more convenient point in the year. The off-season for hockey, perhaps. Or at least give us a little variation to spice things up — why not a volcano or a monsoon? At the rate you’re going, you won’t be capturing the international spotlight any time soon.

Better luck next time, Chile.

With first-year entrance grades averaging at 87 per cent, you’d expect Western students would be, by-and-large, an intelligent crowd.

Not so.

A walk through campus will quickly disillusion anyone who ever pictured university as an exclusive academic institution, full of only the brightest and the best.

Instead, Western is infamous for its comically dim-witted student population. Take, for example, one of my personal favourites found on the ever-popular — and well supplied — Facebook page, Overheard at UWO:

Prof: Just a reminder the exam is this Saturday

Girl to her friend: What are you gonna wear for it?

Sadly, this conversation is far from an exception — it seems our student minds are far more concerned with alcohol and aesthetics than Einstein and economics.

Another overheard comment encapsulates Western students’ flippant attitude towards higher learning:

“All my friends at Queen’s think us Western kids are dumb. But whatever; we are richer.”

“Yah, their parents are probably working for our parents.”

While these comments are hilarious, and perhaps exaggerated, they nevertheless bring to light a serious issue — Western is full of idiots.

During my career as an English major, I’ve been floored a few times when peers — in fourth-year classes — have asked for the definition of an adverb, or have reacted with surprise when told the hamburger-style essay is unacceptable in university.

It’s hard to tell whether this decreasing intelligence pool is the fault of high schools or universities, but most likely the blame falls on both.

Certainly most would agree high school grades are inflated. Any upper-year who has attended a first-year class will admit higher entrance averages have no correlation with improved aptitude in frosh — if anything they seem to be losing their mental stamina by the minute. Ask any professor, and no doubt you will receive an earful on how students are increasingly under prepared and under qualified for academia.

Our public education system is in a sad state — many can boast of sailing through high school with an A+ average, despite regularly skipping class and typically writing assignments the night before they’re due.

As for the students who actually do work hard — unless high schools start awarding 110 per cents, there’s not much room for reflecting excellence in grading when a sub-par effort can earn an 85 per cent.

It’s no surprise Western admissions fails to separate the slackers from the studious, with little to go on except for extra-curricular involvement, inflated grades and the odd reference letter. And while I sympathize with the registrar’s office, it’s ultimately up to universities to separate the doers from the dough-heads.

Universities should be striving to intensify the admissions process through more rigorous application requirements — class attendance rates, and examples of schoolwork would be a good start.

Admittedly, when it comes down to it, large research-oriented institutions like Western are more worried about their grant funding and bottom line than their academic excellence.

However, as long as this organization calls itself a “university,” it carries the responsibility of weeding out the less-than scholarly. While Western may be proud of its 87 per cent entrance average, accepting inflated grades is nothing to boast about.

For the position of University Students’ Council president, this year’s field featured six candidates, with academic backgrounds covering the spectrum. A spectrum, however, that did not include anything from science or engineering.

The microcosm that is our campus is unfortunately representative of a larger issue in North American politics. For the enormous role that health and technology play in our society, paradoxically, it would be an anomaly for a medical doctor or an engineer to hold some sort of prominent political position. Even as issues of environmental science continue to demand an increasingly large portion of our attention, the demand for environmental scientists leading the people does not exist.

We’re well aware of politicians that also hold the title of environmental activists.   Most people know of Al Gore, former American vice-president and the person behind An Inconvenient Truth. He is not, however, a scientist. He may understand, or at least trust the science behind climate change, but he is not directly involved in the research being conducted for our sakes.

Scientific illiteracy, for whatever reason, is unfortunately common. Most politicians running for office have backgrounds in the fields of law, economics or political science — possessing only an understanding of the workings of society and how to deal with people. When phrased this way, it’s understandable these are usually the people who choose to govern others.

But having only this breed of politicians is inadequate, and often it creates obstacles when it comes to scientific endeavour. A lack of understanding when it comes to the issues at hand, coupled with their ulterior motives of remaining in office result in selfish choices that rarely benefit the people who have chosen them to serve.

Granted, a government completely saturated with scientists and engineers is not ideal either. The goal is to have a balance of leaders who are able to proficiently deal with every aspect of our lives, and make informed decisions on important issues.

It’s unsettling to think that the people controlling issues of health and the environment are at best completely uneducated in the fields, and at worst making important decisions based solely on the personal wealth or power that results.

Refocusing the magnifying glass on our own campus politics, realistically there are no important decisions to be made that will affect the health of students.  It does not take a degree in environmental science to grasp how cutting down on waste is beneficial for the environment. Yet for whatever reason, science and engineering students still aren’t eager to step into the roll of campus leader.

Maybe these B.Sc.-bound students just have no desire to interact with people. Perhaps the very public nature of the role is the only thing shielding us from the barrage of ambitious engineering student ideas. Or perhaps the problem is that most just simply don’t care.

But as environmentalism becomes more of a hot-button topic and with the realities of climate change weighing down on our future, indifference can no longer be tolerated. Governments — whether federal, provincial or campus-based — are in need of a scientific uprising. It is time more science-minded individuals represent the issues and problems they have dedicated their lives to solving. With a larger spectrum of expertise making these important decisions, our society has a better chance of thriving and our collective voices have a better chance of being heard.

I witnessed this abomination when I was in Toronto recently. With the snow flying, an extreme wind chill and a freezing –10 C temperature, a friend and I decided to step into Starbucks to grab a coffee and defrost our faces.

Unfortunately, a dog chained up outside didn’t have the same option. While the owner sipped his latte, the poor pooch pawed at the window in hopes of getting out of the cold.

My friend and I noticed this dog, and I reflected on how I think I’m too selfish to own an animal because I would much rather have the freedom to come and go as I please, rather than having to stay home with a new pet.

A pet comes with responsibilities, including spending a significant portion of your time with your animal, whether it’s at home or elsewhere.

I’m not willing to make the sacrifices, so this is what would probably happen if I owned a pet: “Hey pooch, you sit outside in the freezing cold while I go get my latte and chat with my friends. Oh, and I’m going to be at school during the day, and I’m going out at night, so are you cool with just hanging out by yourself? Don’t worry, alone time is delightful.”

The cruelty in this statement is obvious.

I know there are exceptions to every rule, but in general students should not own pets for multiple reasons.

First of all, pets are expensive. Veterinarian bills, grooming and food don’t come cheap. Pet owners are responsible for making sure their animal is fed and healthy, and if cat food isn’t in the budget, maybe you should wait till it is.

Secondly, living space is often a factor for students because of their transitory living situations. Space and lifestyle are two areas where students may find themselves compromised when considering owning a pet. What are you going to do with your pup when you’re at school or at the bar?

Similarly, there’s also the training factor. Shockingly enough, a brand new puppy generally doesn’t come house trained. I have friends who live in a divided house and for the first three months they had to take their puppy everywhere they went because the dog would bark and soil the house. This meant they couldn’t go to the movies or out to dinner without arranging for a puppy sitter. Sacrifices had to be made, so they spent most of their time at home.

I’ve also noticed many students deciding it’s a great idea to get a shared pet with the rest of their housemates. However, people need to consider who’s going to take the pet on holidays and what’s going to happen once school is over.

Having a pet isn’t a temporary thing — it’s a long-term commitment. Students need to carefully consider whether they’re responsible and stable enough to own a pet.

Ask yourself: are you able to commit the next 10 to 14 years of your life? Maybe you are, but I would argue the majority play the ignorance card and avoid considering these factors when staring into the adorable eyes of a fluffy kitten.

Having a pet as a companion can be a wonderful experience, but if you’re anything like me and can’t spend much time at home, it’s better to wait until after you graduate.

This brings us back to the Starbucks situation. What’s so bad about taking the time to chat with friends over a coffee? Nothing at all. But when you have a pet, sacrifices have to be made, and coffee dates during the bitter cold wintertime might have to be cancelled. It’s up to you to decide if it’s worth it.

It’s no secret many students have no interest or aren’t “in-the-loop” when it comes to the USC. Recently, I was talking to a media, information and technoculture student about the gimmicks used throughout the presidential campaigning process. Her response: “I don’t really care about elections — the presidents don’t really do anything anyways.” She then told me she knew someone who was running and showed me the campaign tag on her knapsack.

To make matters worse, a good chunk of my Facebook friends have also changed their statuses to something along the lines of “vote so and so for USC president.” Don’t get me wrong, I am all for people supporting their friends. It just bothers me how easily people will advocate something they don’t really know much about.

USC campaigning feels more like a high school popularity contest. But the candidates aren’t the ones to blame — it is the apathy sprouting from the student body. Many don’t see the point in doing real research and don’t think they have been given a good enough reason as to why they should.

As much as those in the USC want to believe their fellow students are voting for the right reasons, the reality is most of them don’t put that much thought into whom they are voting for.

Yes, the president is only in office for one year. How much can be done within that year? Probably not a whole lot. It is still disappointing, however, that students won’t take the time to do a little research outside of Facebook — or a few catchy campaign videos.

If we care enough about our buses going on strike, or where our hard-earned summer money goes, then why don’t we pay more attention when it comes time to select a person to make some very real decisions on our behalf?

Young people are always being told to vote and we complain that politicians don’t care enough about the issues that affect our demographic. But if we can’t get students to vote for something that directly affects them, then how can we expect them to vote in a federal election?  Maybe the general attitude towards USC elections is a symptom for a more serious problem — or maybe the problem is just pure laziness.

Hurdle 1: The Western/USC Lease Agreement

One of the perks of owning a university is the ability to create contracts with exclusivity clauses: charging companies for the exclusive right to market their goods and services on your property.

This is why Centre Spot prices are expensive, why Subway’s “Famous $5 Footlongs” cost $7. It’s also why the Spoke can’t grow beyond its current size and why the University Students’ can’t offer prepared/pre-packaged food for sale.

There are currently exceptions — the atrium yogurt bar is an added USC retail operation Western has temporarily allowed. The same goes for the Spoke’s pre-packaged salads — it’s a grey area of the contract Western has permitted, but is unwilling to allow the USC to expand upon.

So if Goldfarb wishes to offer $3 meals, he needs to account for not being able to make the meals ahead of time, not being allowed to offer soup or more salads, and not being able to run it outside of the Spoke.

Hurdle 2: The Costs

As has been noted, the USC long-term strategic plan “Vision to Lead” puts an emphasis on services over profitability.

Sacha Kumar, USC vice-president finance, noted MF3 would cause financial problems for the Spoke down the line.

“While $3 is great on the service side, it raises questions of long­–term potential,” Kumar said. He noted several fixed costs the Spoke faces annually, while questioning whether the proposed numbers have actually been vetted.

“You can’t just sell a sandwich for the same price you bought the ingredients for,” Kumar said. “It’s not that simple.”

Kumar pointed out MF3 would likely not add anything to the Spoke’s bottom line, leaving students to subsidize the operation by taking money from other budget lines.

Hurdle 3: The True Potential

In his feasibility study of MF3, Goldfarb acknowledges the proposal’s only weakness is the service could be too popular.  If anything, that should set off a few alarm bells.

Right now, the feasibility study places demand for MF3 at over 1,600 people per week — hundreds of people willing to pay double the price for food they could easily prepare at home.

And that’s the real problem here. These $3 meals are not going to be Subway subs. They’ll be tuna salad slapped on Wonderbread — or something equally bland. In other words, a meal you can still make for a cheaper price at home. The Facebook petition set up supporting this issue is already 2,000 strong, but how many are aware of what meal they’ll be getting?

I can understand backing this — it’s an effective political gimmick which really speaks to the populism inherent in any USC election. But to stand behind it as a financially sustainable proposal stretches the boundaries of logic.