Now That's Entertainment . . . Volume 5, Issue # 3


	Volume 5 Issue # 3 January 29, 2004 "U-Pass or not, get over it!" There are some people in this world of ours that just don’t get it. No matter how many times we beat them over the head, they never quite figure it out. We all know at least one person (unfortunately) with this all too common affliction. Some people call me a pessimist, and I continually reassure them otherwise; I am a realist. Perhaps I am overly influenced by my learnings in undergraduate psychology. Perhaps I am all too familiar with Freudian dream analysis, Jungian archetypes and Rogerian empathic reflection. Maybe. But the heavy influence of existential thought has prevailed through my random observations and perceptions of experiences this past year or so. Life is not timeless, spaceless or infinite by any stretch of the imagination. We are finite beings living on a finite world that seems to have little to no inherent meaning to it.
	Everyone asks, “What is the meaning of life?” Simply stated, it is what you make of it. Sure, it’s easy to make a statement like that, but infinitely more difficult to truly comprehend and appreciate such a perspective, which relates right back to what I said in the beginning. There are some people in this world that just don’t get it and I fear never will, regardless of incessant bombardment of a complex truth. One of these people, I argue, is Eugene Lee.
		Now, this is not a personal attack on Eugene by any stretch of the imagination (so to speak). After all, he is a fellow Tupper alumnus from the class of 2000. And he thinks he is a fellow UBC Thunderbird, despite going to UBC Robson Square and not the Point Grey campus for which I have grown quite the affinity. He complains that he did not receive a U-Pass, the universal bus pass for all UBC and SFU students. I can appreciate the value of this bus pass, but I for one abhor it as it is an additional $160 fee I have to pay each year now, on top of my every rising tuition. But that’s a different matter altogether.
	In an article last October, Eugene Lee writes: I am disappointed at UBC and the Alma Mater Society for not allowing me to opt into the U-Pass program or to opt in to pay fees to become an AMS member. Although I am a UBC student, I feel like I am not a UBC student: I do not have the same rights and benefits as UBC students who are taking credit courses; I do not have any sort of student picture identification card stating that I am a UBC student; and I have no student union to represent me. The Commentary.
	No Eugene, you are not a UBC student. You do not have the same rights and benefits as UBC students taking credit courses. That’s what you get for not getting the necessary GPA or what-have-you to grace our Point Grey campus. “Boo hoo, woe is me.” Suck it up and live with it. The U-Pass is a privilege, not a right.
	A couple weeks ago, Eugene writes another tear-jerker for The Commentary wherein he addresses the issue of friendship, and of greater interest to me personally, the concept of dependency. He states, “I do not understand why we cannot be dependant on friends if the dependency is mutual.” I beg to differ. Someone should be whole in and of himself, and not require a friend to complete him. (Here’s my realism again) Ultimately in this world, the only person or thing that will always be there is yourself. No one else. Pets die. Parents pass away. Friends move on, even lifelong friends unless you both die in the same freak accident. If you become so dependent on another that you cannot live without them, you are restricting your life’s possibilities and the breadth of possible experiences. Say for example that you love to travel. You can’t wait to visit the Pyramids at Giza or to walk the Great Wall of China, but your friend can’t stand a tropical climate. She sacrifices for you anyways and goes along to have a miserable time. What kind of friend are you? And is your friend happier as a result of your dependency? Your requirement for their presence? The answer is clear.
		I shudder to think that I may have fallen into the grips of dichotomous thinking. Friendship has its merits; there is no doubting that. My assertion is that if both parties are complete in and of themselves, the experiences they share are that much more meaningful than if they rely on one another for completeness. Two whole people can share a better experience than one and a half people.
Site Promotion	Eugene proposes that “there should be no boundaries in friendship. Boundaries are only questionable if it is psychologically or biologically harmful to one's self. The less a friend wants to do for another friend, the weaker the friendship. The more a friend wants to do for another, the stronger the friendship.” The obvious example here is sex. The greatest and most satisfying intimate relationships are based on friendship. Your significant other can be your best friend, and not just an ass you want to tap (so to speak). If your “friend” asks you to perform oral sex, this is not necessarily psychologically or biologically harmful if both of you are “clean.” Indeed, the person on the receiving end may be very happy. But does this improve the friendship? “The more a friend wants to do for another, the stronger the friendship.” If I, as a friend, convinced you to want to screw a dead cow in the middle of Antarctica, would you do it? The answer is clear. Eugene, I know you mean well. But get your head out from the clouds and live on Earth with the rest of us. Idealism as inspiration is fine, but not as a life-determinant. You remind me of some of those "hopefuls" from American Idol - "She bang, she bang" - you really don't have a clue. U-Pass or not, you gotta live with what life throws at you, be it a bad friend or an overcrowded downtown bus.

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws