Let students borrow more money

Jacquie Charlton's piece in last week's Mirror ["The student loan juggernaut", Apr. 16] claims the government bailed out the banks because students are having trouble finding 25 kilobucks in time. But Canada's banks have already been bailed out for all time and then some: take a look at the Bank Act, at http://canada.justice.gc.ca/FTP/EN/Laws/Chap/B/B-1.01.

After wading through hundreds of kilobytes of diversionary fine print, you will come to where it says that banks in Canada don't need any cash reserves. If they want money, they just find someone else who wants money, lend them some and wait for it to come back, with interest. All they do is enter the number in the computer and vadangggg! all the money you can eat, from thin air.

So the solution to the student loan "crisis" is simple: lend even more money to students until they can pay it back. In fact, why not just make low-interest loans to anybody who needs it--think of the money we'd all save through the elimination of welfare and unemployment insurance, medical costs related to poverty, crime related to poverty, etc. But nooooooo, we're still prehistoric here. The naked emperors have such a way with words--they own them.

All right, I'm getting really worked up now, I'd better stop before the keyboard goes through the floor.

--Martin Peach

Josh Bezonsky, typical anglophone

A big thumbs-down to Josh Bezonsky for his melodramatic column ["Won't you take me to... Cabbagetown", Inappropriate Behaviour, Apr. 9]. Bezonsky says he's picking up stakes and leaving his home town in search of bigger and better things--something thousands of young Canadians do every year. But instead of presenting his moving as a normal part of a life's journey, he resorts to the cliché that a depressed economy and politics are forcing him down the highway of broken dreams (aka the 401).

What a typically anglophone thing to do. If only his depth was as stunning as his simplicity.

--Mark Jensen

To hell with Satan

I found the headline for your article on the Electric Hellfire Club ["Satan is just alright", Apr. 9] totally inappropriate. I know about Marilyn Manson and the Electric Hellfire Club, but what I don't know is this: why does a normally well-spoken newspaper such as the Mirror drag itself through the mud by publishing such a fucked-up article? If you are proud to publish that article, with sentences such as, "there is a church across the street from me and when the congregation pass my house they always stop and do the sign of the cross. I find it rather flattering," then that is disgusting.

Anyone in his right mind who knows who God and Jesus Christ are would not stand for any flavour of satanism, disguised as folk, pop, or what-have-you.

Not all people digest your stupid articles, even if you think it is fine to publish crap like that in the first place. And no, Satan is not alright. If they think so, they can go ahead--but not on my time.

--Anne McDonald

Treason is a relative concept

With regards to Andrea Rudolph's comment in last week's letters section ["Cha-rest! Cha-rest!", (e)Mail, Apr. 16], I find it interesting how people can rant about such dumb concepts as treason in our political system.

Her comments are as ridiculous as they are unfounded. How can you judge a politician's supposed treason? Is there some sort of scale to measure that? Treason is totally in the eye of the beholder. Ask separatists who the biggest traitor is, and you'll get Charest as an answer. You'll get Bouchard as an answer if you ask federalists. The thing is, most politicians want to gain access to power, first and foremost. To do so, they dilute their "ideology" (look at what Bouchard is doing with the referendum question; he'll postpone it...) so as to get the acceptance of the optimal proportion of the population. That's why they often "turn coats" on several issues, including the political and constitutional one.

If we want to make this system more "mature" let us not focus on who's the biggest traitor, but rather on the ideas and values politicians put forward; on their influences (lobbies or others), their class interests, etc. That way, we will be able to shift the spotlight from the "sensational" to what really matters.

--Hugues Lamarche