April 4, 2005 - Dolphin Student Group Web Accounts

The Undergraduate Magazine
Vol. V, No. 17 | April 4, 2005
Veronica from Mars?
Rob saves your boring and loserish TV
Tuesday.
Page 3
E-Confessional
Shira interpets (and shares) the posted
shame of internet losers.
Page 4
It Ain’t That Bad!
Liberal Rebuttal
James defends Sonic Youth against you
and your losery cronies.
Page 7
Felix Yelin loses patience and rips
Andrew a new one.
Page 8
WAY BACK PENN
BRIAN HERTLER | SLEIGHT OF HAND
I’M CLOSE TO GRADUATION, and Penn is shrugging
me off. Instead of tuition bills, I’m now getting requests
for donations, which I promptly throw in the garbage.
I recently made a generous donation on my own, actually; I rented a cap and gown for Commencement. For a
few hours I get a piece of black cloth and a slab of black
cardboard, and it only costs me forty dollars.
But I’m not here to whine about getting ripped off.
I’m here to whine about getting old.
I’m growing out-of-touch with today’s youth. This
newfangled “crunk” music is just noise to me. Modern fashions escape me. I
remember when I first saw kids with “popped collars”: for a few minutes, I
couldn’t believe they were serious. I thought to myself, “My little brother dresses
like that”— and then I realized that my little brother was in college now. When I
was younger, only the crazy homeless people talked to themselves; now there are
hands-free cell phones, and I don’t know who’s crazy and who’s a Penn student.
But I still have a few things to teach the young folk. You whipper-snappers
don’t know how easy you’ve got it. When I first came to Penn, Huntsman Hall
didn’t even exist yet. We didn’t have any high-tech “face books” or any fancypants iPods. The only place to eat on Fortieth Street was Papaya King, and we
were darn lucky to have even that! When my generation wanted to walk across
Hill Field (as we used to call it), we walked across the grass—and we couldn’t
even appreciate Women’s Education along the way.
Life keeps getting better for you Penn youngsters. Take the High Rises, for
example. When I first got here, they were a mess— they had bursting pipes and
floods, cockroaches, constant fire alarms, and elevator shutdowns. But the University had the good sense to install space-age plastic furniture in the rooms and
to replace the walls with sheets of glass. Now all the infrastructure problems
have gone away!
I seem to recall some other old problems that no longer trouble us...
The Penn Bookstore used to face competition from a store called Steve &
Barry’s, which sold Penn-themed clothing. It was terribly unfair for Penn: due
to the so-called “free market,” the Bookstore had to charge much lower prices
for clothes. But Steve & Barry’s went away three years ago, so now the Penn
Bookstore charges whatever it wants and makes a ton of money. And that’s why
tuition has gone down.
Wharton students used to commit suicide when they couldn’t keep up with
their studies. But now, thanks to the miracles of modern science, they have Adderall to help them!
Penn Dining, believe it or not, was once an outdated and inefficient system,
poorly suited to life in a major city. In the “dark ages” of my freshman year, in
fact, I was actually forced to buy an expensive plan that I didn’t want. But nowadays the meal plans are “convenient” and “flexible,” as I’ve been assured by the
JELLY TIME
MARIAN LEE
Continued on PAGE 7
TOUR DE EVIL
An insider’s look at Huntsman Hall
L A U R E N S A U L | W E E K LY S A U L U T A T I O N S
HUNTSMAN HALL. Penn’s
lone fix of Au Bon Pain where
you can use dining dollars (!!
Freshmen), silent study lounges,
escalators and “Wharton News”
TV screens. This week, as I
walked around the building doing my normal thing, I got to
hear Penn’s set of tour guides
talk to their charges about
Huntsman and its greatness. They said: “This is the home
of Penn’s business school Wharton, one of the best in the
country.” “Huntsman is one of the most expensive buildings
on college campuses today.” And indeed, Huntsman makes
being a workaholic the most convenient prospect ever. In
fact, the building itself actually encourages such compulsive
behavior, which may be the stuff that makes the most successful (though harried) alums. Here is my tour, to all of you
prospective Pennsylvanians:
Huntsman is an extremely efficient place. I will show
you how this is so in many ways. For now you must trust
me. Here is a black garbage can. In this building, throwing
things in the garbage never involves a walk longer than ten
steps. Garbage cans are everywhere, in black rectangular uniformity, so that while they are not noticeable to someone who
isn’t looking, like those of you on the tour who are spacing out
right now because you were dragged by your older siblings
or obsessive parents to see Penn, ordinary students are less
likely to continue their littering career in this monstrosity of
a building.
If you are a tired Wharton student—that is, if you are
lucky enough to be accepted to the number one business
school in the country, in case you have forgotten our ranking after I’ve said it seventeen times on this tour—and you
don’t feel like expending any energy to climb up the stairs,
you don’t need to waste any, for these escalators run 24 hours
a day, always ready to carry you up to your next engagement.
A step to further this concept would be to put square-shaped
moving walkways on every floor, with little exits every once
in awhile. On the G-level there could be the ABP fix exit, the
study lounge exit, the advisory exit, the G6-big lecture exit,
exits for classrooms, and the bathroom-break exit. If Wharton changes its curriculum one more time and gets another
gigantic donation from a happy alum, we may just put these
walkways into place. In that case, I would be able to give you
this tour without even physically moving.
In that direction is the bathrooms, on every single floor.
The bathrooms are usually clean and they even flush for
students, to maximize the amount of people who can take a
break in the rushed period between classes. Full length mirrors (at least in the women’s bathroom) enable Wharton’s
ladies to take a careful look at themselves before going back
into the public eye. The counter-mirrors were not sufficient
for this purpose. As a result, right after lunch is over, a second
line builds within the women’s bathroom, in addition to the
usual one: the self-examination line. Make-up tends to smear
by the time afternoon approaches.
Study rooms are located between the classrooms throughout this hallway. They each have a working computer with
two monitors, along with some other fancy equipment.T h e y
fill up quickly and are therefore also governed in an efficient
way. If people do not show up for their reservation within ten
minutes of the starting time, their room may be taken away
either by the room hijackers who want the room to still be
theirs and spend those ten minutes hoping the interlopers
will not show up, or anyone who finds the empty room and
discovers its neat-o magic boards suit their fancy.
Huntsman has two Au Bon Pains. One is located on the
outside and is visible to any passerby. This one is usually
crowded, as it accepts dining dollars and therefore serves as
a magnet to young undergraduates. People whine about the
sandwich line, pouring out their own soup, and the numerous
payment lines that accumulate inside of this ABP. The truth
is that no matter how it were arranged, at certain times of day
there are simply too many people who want their $6 chicken
sandwich right now!! People stake out a claim at the circular
tables you see, but in the winter there’s always one person who
leaves the door open, so that napkins, gloves and pastries fly
away from ABP’s involuntary customers. There also exists,
however, a “secret” ABP on the second floor of this building,
in MBA territory. The same product exists here, without the
mad rush of anxious undergraduates. I will not take you to it,
because I would rather not be assassinated by a wily MBA.
For our final stop, I will take you down to the “forum level”
of Huntsman. The F-level is the true hub for undergraduate
students. This is where we hang out before our classes, where
we schmooze and make last minute decisions, and finally,
this is where we alone can check our email. No other school’s
students have access to the computers you see dotting the
landscape. No Whartonite understands what would be so
difficult about allowing a college account to log-in, but hey,
Continued on PAGE 6
A PRIL 4, 2005 | FIRST CALL | VOL . V N O . 17
P AGE 2
FirstCall
Editorial
Vol. V, No. 17 | April 4, 2005
The Undergraduate Magazine
Editor-in-Chief
Robert Forman
Editors
Andrew Pederson
Lauren Saul
Assistant Editor
Anna Stetsovskaya
Columnists
Shira Bender
Christine Chen
Robert Forman
Adam Goldstein
Julie Gremillion
James Houston
Mickey Jou
Michael Patterson
Andrew Pederson
Roz Plotzker
Lauren Saul
Anna Strongin
Thuy Tran
Writers
Taylor W. Buley
Felix Yelin
Artists
Shira Bender
Jay Kim
Layout Editors
Krystal Godines
Jay Kim
Business Managers
Alex Chacon
Greg Lysko
DEATH TO THE MEDIA
Lately, our nation has grown obsessed with deathbeds. For the past three weeks,
the papers have focused on the sad story of Terri Schiavo, a woman who remained
in a vegetable-like state for over a decade. Her brain was damaged after her heart
stopped beating briefly, probably due to the repercussions of long-term bulimic
behavior. She continued to exist with the aid of a feeding tube and died two weeks
after it was removed.
It seems the Pope has reached his final days immediately after Schiavo finally
died. Reports on the Pope’s condition vary. It is Saturday afternoon, and while
some members of the media reported he suffered from heart failure yesterday, he
is still technically alive. The media had the same problem when it came to Yasser
Arafat’s death several months ago. About a week passed between the time when
Israeli newspapers reported Arafat’s death and his official passing.
Modern technology has affected every path from life to death, as science enables
us to understand the process of death in greater detail. The media are reporting
each step Pope John Paul II takes to his final resting place, making the minutiae
of his life’s last moments a matter more public than ever before. At times their
reports move ahead of the truth. One must wonder if a world leader would want
news headlines to change each time a detail of his condition changes. The world
now knows his death is imminent. Yet, every few hours, a new headline is released
stating the failure of a new organ.
Human beings deserve more respect in their final days. Regardless of the specific case—whether it’s a world leader like the Pope or the terribly unfortunate
Schiavo—neither of them would have liked to know such thorough reports about
their last days were provided to the rest of the world. The painfully self-conscious
Schiavo would not have wanted her hospice photos gracing news pages. The media
as a whole should take a step backward, because their current behavior is downright disgraceful.
Marketing Manager
Leah Karasik
Marketing Staff
Lauren Saul
Anna Strongin
JULIE GREMILLION | SOUND ADVICE
Julie presents the old, the new
and the diehard favorites
Advertising Staff
Ruchi Desai
Webmaster
Rachit Shukla
Contact Information
330 Jon M. Huntsman Hall
3730 Walnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19104
(215) 898-3200
fcpaper@wharton.upenn.edu
Web Site
clubs.wharton.upenn.edu/fcpaper
Blog
http://fcpaper.blogspot.com
Submissions
Email letters to the editors and
guest submissions to
fcpaper@wharton.upenn.edu.
Students, please include your
school and class.
Editorial Policy
First Call is the undergraduate magazine
of The University of Pennsylvania. First
Call is published every Monday. Our
mission is to provide members of the
community an open forum for expressing ideas and opinions. To this end, we,
the editors of First Call, are committed
to a policy of not censoring opinions.
Articles are provided by regular columnists and writers. They are chosen for
publication based on the quality of writing and, in the case of commentaries, the
quality of argumentation. Outside of the
weekly editorial and other editorial content, no article represents the opinion of
First Call, its editorial board, or individual members of First Call other than the
author. No content in First Call unless
otherwise stated represents the official
position of the administration, faculty,
or student body at large of the Wharton
School or the University of Pennsylvania.
Next issue: April 11, 2005
Warning: Techno songs may be hazardous to your health or cause wrinkles
from a permanent look of disgust.
RETRO REWIND
“Love Will Tear Us Apart”
Joy Division
IN STEREO
“Playgirl”
Ladytron
EDITORIAL ADVICE
“Desperate Guys”
The Faint
Most people are probably not familiar with
Joy Division, and I would consider that a
good move. Formed in the late 70s, they released this relatively successful single “Love
Will Tear Us Apart” in 1980. They never hit
the charts with any singles although they are
allegedly “influential and critically-praised”.
The band is most famous for its lead singer
Ian Curtis who killed himself a month after
this single was released. Since the band swore
it would break up if any of its members left,
the remaining three members left Joy Division behind and formed New Order, which
ironically became an incredibly successful
British band. The song itself was written as a
cynical response to The Captain and Tennille’s
“Love Will Keep Us Together”. People suspect
an autobiographical strain to the song since
Curtis was having an affair at the time and in
love with two different women, thus believing
“love” would eventually crack his marriage.
The single was re-released in 1983 and this
time hit the UK charts at #19, and the song itself has been featured in various forms of pop
culture including the film Donnie Darko and
the novel Destroy by Italian writer Isabella
Santacroce. The song is typical “Synthpop”—
80s techno music with heavy synthesizer and
the reverberating vocals that seem distant a
la Tears for Fears and every other male solo
artist in the 80s. The lyrics don’t really seem
to fit the beat of the song; they sound forced
into the musical arcs, crammed together at a
faster speed to make sure they fit the timing.
If you like Electronica music or the other euphemisms 80s music employs, you may enjoy
the song, but I was not a fan.
Another UK techno band is “storming” the
world with what appears to be video game
background music; I suspect they just ripped
Final Fantasy’s soundtrack and added the
words “Hey Playgirl” about 100 times. Along
with Bruno, one of the characters from the
movie Fame, Ladytron proves you do not
need actual instruments to create a song.
Unfortunately for Ladytron, Bruno was far
more successful in proving his point since
Ladytron can only muster something closely
resembling music and not the real thing.
With two guys on electric keyboards and two
women on vocals, they are part of a revival of
“New Wave” in the UK but not very successful. Nevertheless, the group will be releasing
its third album this summer, which the group
claims will be its best yet. “Playgirl” is from
the group’s 2000 album 604, which some
critics claim was just another British retro fad
with pop ditties that last for a night and nothing more. I’m surprised the song even lasted
a night; maybe the club only played it once.
The lyrics of the song are relatively interesting—lots of repetition and the same verse
three times. The general tone seems to be of
a “playgirl” who’s ruining her life and trying to
“sleep her way out of her hometown”, clearly
indicating the band is very original thematically as well as musically. I have no stomach
for “new wave” music but if you enjoy video
games, you should feel right at home, especially if you figure out a way to cut out the
lyric track.
You can blame Editor Rob Forman for all
three of these song selections. You would
think The Faint is yet another British techno
stain on the world, but these five guys hail
from Virginia of all places. They started out
the normal way creating songs with a guitar
and compiling lyrics and keyboard and bass
with it. Then they discovered the power of
the synthesizer and all hell broke loose. In
fact, on their website, The Faint perfectly
describe the delusional element critical to
Synthpop music: “from our point of view,
synthesizers seemed to have a limitless and
almost magical quality to them, magical in
the sense that you could create a keyboard
sound out of almost nothing.” After a few
records to wet their feet, The Faint released
their latest album Wet from Birth in 2004
which was produced by Mike Mogis of Bright
Eyes. The song isn’t particularly exciting in
any way, once again employing the tactic of
speeding up lyrics because they don’t actually
fit the song at all. It’s about a guy who wants a
girl but doesn’t think he has a chance with her
because he’s a “desperate guy”, and the end of
the song is “I knew you knew I knew...etc”
over and over again. Don’t you love how it
rhymes? The absolute best part of the song
is the first 9 seconds in which the band is
not heard at all; instead we get the opening
strains of the incredibly amazing Caprice No.
5 or “Insane Violin” by the Italian virtuoso
Paganini. The violin runs are repeated occasionally during the song, vastly improving an
otherwise awful concoction. I guess I have to
give them extra credit for knowing Paganini
and being smart enough to ride a little bit on
his coattails.
ro
La
A PRIL 4, 2005 | FIRST CALL | VOL . V N O . 17
P AGE 3
GET A CLUE... BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE
ROB FORMAN | MY 13-INCH BOX
NANCY WHO? TV’s coolest
detective needs your help figuring out why no one watches her
show. I am, of course, speaking
of Veronica Mars, UPN’s critical
darling on Tuesdays at 9 p.m.
with a cult-sized audience currently being slaughtered in the
Nielsen ratings by an equally
lauded FOX hit, the American
Idol-fed House. It’s the penultimate column of year—and next
week’s will, of course, be dedicated to next season’s pilots—so
this might be the last chance I get to talk about it. Plus, I opted
not to do research on last week’s Supreme Court case between
MGM and Grokster because this is easier, and I had papers
due in my classes. Remember that list of six shows to watch
this season from way back in September? The one I, uh, don’t
ever mention because all of the shows are either massive hits
or were given early full season orders? Well, Veronica was on
that list.
So, yeah. The show hasn’t exactly taken off. And I have
no idea why. Clearly I’m not private-eye enough. This year’s
Save One Show poll conducted by E! Online declared Veronica
Mars the winner—by a landslide—with 56% of the electorate!
Considering the voting pool was almost 700,000 strong, that
translates to about 400,000 votes for Ms. Mars. Which is
approximately one-eighth of the number of viewers Nielsen
thinks she has. To put this in context, Arrested Development
was the runner-up… with only 9% of the vote. Unscientific?
Maybe. The fact remains, a small vocal audience has found
this show and wants it to stick around for a while.
Why would
anyone be addicted to this
show?
Well,
as an addict, I
could tell you
why I’m addicted. But that
would come out
weird and pleading— and probably
wouldn’t
convince
you
because
you’d
still be lost once
you tuned in.
Don’t get me
wrong; I want
you to give the
show more than
a simple chance.
You could, for
instance, forsake
Tuesday’s repeat
of House to catch a glimpse. If you do? Here’s your “brief.”
You know the drill from “God, Save Our Bluths” a few weeks
back. So, open up a notepad and start jotting.
“A long time ago, we used to be friends…”
The Main Characters
1.
Veronica Mars: A smart, fearless 17-year-old, apprentice private investigator dedicated to solving Neptune’s
toughest mysteries. She sneaks through back alleys and scopes
out no-tell motels with a telescopic-lens camera, attempting to
uncover the California beach town’s darkest secrets—including who killed her best friend, Lilly, and created a scandal that
cost her father his job, his home and wife. With all of the cases
this girl juggles, how does she find time for schoolwork?
2.
Keith Mars: Neptune’s ex-sheriff. He supposedly
blew one of the biggest cases in the town’s history and was
removed from office. He now owns and operates a private
investigation company, where Veronica temps as his assistant
and secretary.
3.
Wallace Fennel: Duct-taped to the school flagpole in
his skivvies in the series premiere, Wallace has moved from
Veronica’s lackey to her best friend, trading insults and favors
with aplomb.
4.
Duncan Kane: Veronica’s unmotivated ex-boyfriend
and one of the most popular kids in school. He’s got a secret
he isn’t telling, one that only a prescription label will reveal.
My vote is for raging looney, but I’d prefer he stick around
and grow out of his “my father is a billionaire, I’m set for life”
phase. Nothing like your sister getting killed to depress you,
huh?
5.
Logan Echolls: “Every school has an obligatory, psychotic jackass. He’s ours.” No truer words were ever voicedover, Veronica. Over the course of the season, Logan has
shown much more of a dark side than any teenager, even one
spoiled then beaten for misbehaving, ought to. But we love
him for being a jerk.
6.
Eli “Weevil” Navarro: Probably the most underutilized character on the show, Weevil is somehow the leader of
a local bike gang and a high school student. He’s somehow
connected to Lilly Kane, one of the show’s big mysteries, but
in more of a Romeo/Juliet way than in a suspect way. He’s
instrumental in helping Veronica out in some cases—he owes
her, like many people she’s helped—but at other times he’s entirely invisible.
The Minor/Recurring Characters
1.
Lianne Mars: Veronica’s
wayward mother, who split before
the show began. Childhood sweetheart of one Jake Kane. Having
affair with same Jake Kane. Has a
secret, a reason for leaving, but she
never wants Veronica to find out.
What’s a detective to do? Find her,
of course!
2.
Lilly Kane: Veronica’s
best friend. See below, re: dead.
Seen through flashbacks to when
she and Veronica were friends, and
when Duncan and Veronica were
dating. Oh, good times. Besides
some girly-er talk than I’d like to
get into, Lilly’s got a secret, too. A
big one. But she hasn’t told anyone, as far as we know. And now
she’s dead.
3.
Jake Kane: Local software tycoon-billionaire. Having
affair with one Lianne Mars. Possibly Veronica’s father, but Veronica uncharacteristically—or
out of love for Keith—shredded a paternity test before reading
the results.
4.
Celeste Kane: Wife of Jake Kane. Loves her son,
Duncan, a lot. Hates Veronica almost as much. Yeah, that
doesn’t stink of “how dare you have a child with some other
woman, bastard.”
5.
Sheriff Lamb: The replacement sheriff in Neptune,
CA. He arrested Abel Koontz for Lilly’s murder, and is a constant thorn in Keith and Veronica’s respective sides.
6.
Abel Koontz: Convicted for the murder of Lilly
Kane. On death row, and Jake Kane’s payroll through a number of connections. Money is going to his currently unseen
daughter. Veronica doesn’t think he did it, and pumps him for
information harder than you can say Hannibal Lecter.
7.
Aaron Echolls: Logan’s action-hero movie-star father. Quite the promiscuous man, with a penchant for beating
sense into his wannabe-psycho son, Logan. He got stabbed by
an ex-lover. It was a bloody mess.
8.
Lynn Echolls: She pops pills! She’s hot! She’s…
missing? Lynn Echolls was last seen, by viewers anyway,
standing on the edge of a bridge, looking down into the watery
depths.
9.
Trina Echolls: A C-list actress riding on her father’s
coattails, she seems to have no concern for her step-mother’s
disappearance. Though she doesn’t mind insulting Logan or
using Lynn’s credit cards.
10. Meg Manning: A stunning blonde and anchorwoman for Neptune High School’s student TV news. After
Veronica foiled an internet scandal attempting to bring her
down several notches, she reminded Veronica that the loner
does still have friends in the in-crowd. And now Meg is dating
Veronica’s ex, Duncan.
11. Mac: An even bigger outcast than Veronica, Mac is a
computer whiz who Veronica can turn to when her own techskills fail. She is in the lower income bracket of the high/low
Neptune dichotomy. Mac was accidentally switched at birth
with another student at school, who happens to be in the upper echelon.
12. Deputy Leo: Veronica’s current boyfriend, who I’m
pretty sure she’s just using to get access to information on the
Lilly Kane case. Of course that would be cruel, because this
love-struck puppy is falling fast for our girl.
The Mysteries
What would a detective show be without mysteries? Sure,
CSI solves crimes of the week and ties things up into nice, neat
bows. So does Veronica. But Veronica also has a number of
mysteries being slowly revealed over the course of the season,
each with an emotional tie or parallel to said mysteries of the
week. Here are the big ones:
1.
The Lilly Kane Murder: Found dead a year before
the series premiere. Viewers get to see scenes through flashbacks, but we don’t know who killed her. Keith Mars believes
it’s Jake Kane, so he went after the dead girl’s father. This got
him laughed out of the title of sheriff. The new guy easily
caught and convicted Abel Koontz, currently on death row.
But Veronica is sure things don’t add up and Abel is playing Patsy. For instance, Lilly was caught driving her car by a
red-light camera two hours after her supposed time of death.
Other evidence doesn’t match up, and neither do various
suspects’ stories/alibis. So who killed Lilly? Viewers will
know by the season’s finale.
2.
Lianne Mars’ Disappearance: Not long after the
Lilly Kane Murder, Veronica’s mother skips town, only leaving behind a note, “Veronica, I have to leave for awhile. I’ll
be back for you. Love Always, Mom”. Veronica has tried to
track her down, and in doing so has learned some things
she might not have wanted to know… for instance, her real
father might not be Keith Mars, but Jake Kane. Mother and
daughter had a tearful reunion recently, but how Lianne’s
flight relates to Lilly Kane is still anyone’s guess.
3.
Veronica’s Date Rape: Very little has been done on
this particular facet of Veronica’s character. At an oh-niner
party, she drank a rufi-colada, and woke up the next morning
to do the walk of shame. Despite this violation, or perhaps
because of it, Veronica is one tough chick. But a girl this
inquisitive is going to find out who did the deed. And then
payback?
4.
Lynn Echolls’ Death/Disappearance. So, is she
dead or isn’t she? No clue, but Logan refuses to believe she’s
dead, she merely escaped from Aaron, and frankly I have my
suspicions he’s right. Especially given the investigation into
her death coincided with another investigation about a supposedly dead person, who wound up quite alive and happily
away from the grasp of her father.
Top Gags/References/Quotes
Veronica Mars is literally littered with self-referential
gags and humor, despite being touted as a drama, as well as
pop culture and literary references. Here are my favorites:
1.
Father/Daughter Banter. I don’t think any parent/
child has the kind of honest, glib relationship Keith and
Veronica have. Well, maybe Lorelei and Rory on Gilmore
Girls.
a.
Keith: “Who’s your daddy?” Veronica: “I hate it
when you say that.”
b.
Keith: “How was your date?” Veronica: “Oh. You
know, lousy conversation, but the sex was fantastic.” Keith:
“That’s not funny.” Veronica: “I don’t know. I’m pretty sure it
was.”
2.
Veronica’s Voice-Overs. VOs can be cheesy in most
cases on film and TV, but when you’ve got Veronica snidely
remarking on the action and/or illuminating the plot, it’s acceptable. Especially with gems like these.
a.
“You know those people who can predict when
change is coming in their life? I’m not one of them. Change
has a way of just walking up and punching me in the face.”
b.
“Forbidden barn? Check. Implied polygamy?
Check. Ladies and gentlemen, we have a cult.”
3.
Episode titles are plays on novels and song titles
like “Wrath of Con” and “Clash of the Tritons.” Granted,
there are a few misses like “Lord of the Bling.” Yeesh. And
when I saw “Betty and Veronica” was a title, I was worried…
but it was explained because Veronica used Betty as an undercover name. And if you don’t know what that’s referring
to, I’m disappointed.
4.
Self-Reference. In one episode, the teaser ends
with Veronica lamenting losing touch with a friend. She says
“We used to be friends, a long time ago.” Cut directly to the
opening credits and The Dandy Warhols theme song starting “A long time ago, we used to be friends”.
Want to catch up on missed episodes? The Grokster case
hasn’t been decided yet, so you could P2P it. I mean, if it’s the
choice between possible cancellation and “illegal” downloading of episodes I think the producers wouldn’t mind. And
I’m sure someone on Penn’s campus has the entire season on
Wirehog… really, I’m absolutely certain someone does.
Rob Forman is a junior in Wharton. You can write to him at
robertf@wharton.
re
fo
ar
e,
a
I
r
P AGE 4
A PRIL 4, 2005 | FIRST CALL | VOL . V N O . 17
THE SECRET CONFESSIONS OF #1231
SHIRA BENDER | IN ALL SHIRIOUSNESS
HAVE YOU
EVER done
one of those
r a n d o m
G o o g l e
searches for
nothing
in
particular and
come up with
a real gem of
a
website?
The kind of
site that’s just so intriguing to you that you
simply must give it a prominent spot in your
AIM profile, as well as pass it on to several of
your like-minded friends and family members? That just happened to me about two
minutes ago. I typed in something like “weird”
or “bizarre” (yes, I have way too much time on
my hands), and I found this website which,
among other things, includes a section for
people to confess their “strangest secrets.” I
don’t know why, but for some reason these
anonymous confessions intrigue me. Granted
I don’t know who any of these people are,
but somehow that doesn’t faze me. I’ve been
clicking on the “miscellaneous” link over and
over again since I came across this page. The
experience is reminiscent of hearing a couple
of lines out of a conversation and having to
piece together the rest to try and figure out
what was going on in the discussion before
the speaker reached the point where the
phrase, “I like to pick my own scabs and eat
them,” (confession #278, from 3/9/05) actually made sense in context. In any event, I
find them quite entertaining, and I wanted
to share some of them with you, as well as my
take on who these people truly are.
Confession #1213 - 03/28/2005 - 07:30
PM: “After over 20 years of abusing drugs and
alcohol I have been clean and sober for more
that 3 years. I regret that. It’s hell trying to get
to sleep at nite.” I’m guessing this is a 37 year
old male who is suddenly feeling his age and
is trying to somehow rebel against his wife’s
nagging to lay off the sauce by going online
and attempting to be witty about it. It’s not
working, and he’s currently realizing that he’s
actually sleeping much better at night and has
nothing to complain about.
Confession #915 - 03/17/2005 - 01:
07 PM: “I look absolutely AWFUL without
makeup. I fear that if my boyfriend sees me
without it he will break up with me or never
do me again.” This one doesn’t really think
she looks awful without makeup. In fact, she’s
pretty, and she knows it. She likes to pretend
in front of other people that she has this insecurity, when really her actual insecurity is her
fear of losing the attention of those who pity
her. And she also knows her boyfriend is as
big a loser as she is, and that he will be on this
website reading the confessions; he’s the one
who told her about it to begin with. Hence,
confession #924 - 03/18/2005 - 08:46 PM:
“I know my girlfriend wrote a confession in
here,” followed by confession #964 - 03/20/
2005 - 08:13 AM: “I know that my boyfriend
confessed on here that he knows I confessed.”
Oh man, are they cute or what.
Confession #887 - 03/17/2005 - 09:10
PM: “Today I bought and smoked my first
pot, and I am hooked.” No he’s not. Or she’s
not. Either way, no, 887’s not hooked on
pot after smoking it for the first time, 887 is
simply trying to sound cool for the billions
language.” He’s even better at procrastination
than I am. That’s impressive. I wonder what
“all kinds of abusive language” directed at
astronomers looks like. “Dear International
Star Registry: You fucking assholes, I can’t
believe you actually try to count and name
the stars. You sacrilegious imbeciles, you
have no appreciation for the magnitude and
of people 887 hopes to reach through 887’s
anonymous online “confession.” What really
happened is that 887 bought some pot from
someone who completely ripped him off and
then proceeded to smoke it, only to end up in
the midst of a coughing fit, after which 887
pretended to have gotten high so that 887’s
friends wouldn’t shun 887. 887 needs to have
a talk with 1213.
Confession #324 - 03/11/2005 - 12:58
AM: “I bring an old pillow whenever I go to a
hotel. I switch the pillows so they are left with
crappy ones and I get the comfy ones.” This
one, I believe. Don’t ask me why. Just a hunch.
Sounds genuine.
Confession #581 - 03/14/2005 - 12:13
AM: “I sent an angry email to the International Star Registry, using all kinds of abusive
awesomeness of God’s work. And you tried to
fucking make me pay to name my star after
my chinchilla?? I hate you all. Bastards. Fuck
you. Die. Sincerely, 581.” Somebody give this
guy something to hate, fast.
OK, that’s enough of that. These people
have inspired me. I have a few confessions
of my own to make. We Jews don’t get to do
this too often, since we’re taught to embrace
our guilt, not try to relieve ourselves of it. I’m
strangely excited about this. OK, here goes.
I’ve got 10.
1.
In first grade, I borrowed a book
from the classroom. It was a Hebrew book
about this kid named Gingi. I brought it
home, placed it on a shelf, and forgot about it.
By the last week of school, the teachers were
investigating the missing classroom book,
and none of them suspected me of anything.
I was so ashamed of being so overdue with my
return that I simply kept quiet about it. I still
have the book.
2.
My mom used to be friends with this
weird woman who has two daughters around
my age. I hated both of them. Their cat hated
them too – it jumped out a 3-story window.
Anyway, we were at their apartment one time,
and I saw this really cool bookmark with tigers
on it. I stole it.
3.
I won the spelling bee in fourth
grade, even though I spelled “vivid” wrong.
The teacher didn’t notice, so I didn’t say anything. I wanted that ribbon.
4.
I know nothing about politics,
though I pretend to quite often. I live in dread
of someone asking me about some really
important political figure and revealing my
inadequacies.
5.
I can’t tell the difference between
different brands of bottled water, and I make
fun of people who like one kind better than
another, but I secretly like Fiji the best because
it’s got the funkiest shape and comes from rain
water that’s been sitting under volcanoes for
decades. No joke, read the label. Any water
that comes from an aquifer in a “virgin ecosystem” in Artesia has got to be something
special. (Confession #5.5: I’ve never heard of
Artesia. Nor do I know what “aquifer” means.
That was 5.75.)
6.
I often don’t remember to brush my
teeth at night until it’s too late. Too late = post
4:00 AM, which means I won’t be remembering several other pre-bed requirements,
such as removal of the bra, contact lenses,
jeans, etc. By that time, the movement from
computer screen to pillow is about the only
objective I can successfully accomplish. And
yes, I lie to the dentist. I figure, if he can’t tell,
I’m home free.
7.
I have no Hispanic friends. Does
that make me a Republican?
8.
I used to pluck the wings off of flies
so I could see how they fared as handicapped
insect citizens. Of course, I would scream at
my friends for trying to drown ants in the
pool. That’s just inhumane.
9.
Sometimes I hate people for no
reason whatsoever. And it’s real hatred, mind
you, not just a momentary dislike (see March
21st issue of First Call).
10. I didn’t really have 10 confessions
to make when I started this list. I just figured
it sounded like a nice number to aim for, but
here I am at the 10-spot, with nothing left to
confess other than my lie which placed me in
this trap to begin with.
That felt good. Maybe I’ll start confessing
daily on that website I found. I think more
people need to do this; it’s quite a satisfying
activity. Maybe I should convert to Catholicism, I hear they get to do this kind of thing all
the time. 11. Just kidding, mom.
Shira Bender is a freshman in the College. You can
write to her at shiratb@sas.
Jay Kim is a junior in the College. You can write to her at jihea@sas.
P AGE 5
A PRIL 4, 2005 | FIRST CALL | VOL . V N O . 17
THE EVILS OF RENDITION
...and Rod Stewart
M I C H A E L PAT T E R S O N | O U T O F T H E F O L D
IF I’VE SAID IT ONCE, I’ve
said it a thousand times – whipping people until they bleed to
death is just wrong. Connecting
electrodes to someone’s testacles
is not cool. Forcing a person to
listen to Rod Stewart is wrong.
Indeed, anyone who sat through
the bloodbath that is Mel
Gibson’s The Passion knows the
evils of torture. It should be no
surprise then that the U.S. State
Department released an annual report last week declaring human rights and the violations thereof a serious concern.
Unfortunately, it did not include a section on fighting Rod
Stewart’s music.
In discussing the report,
Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice
stated that the
U.S. “will make
it clear that ultimately success
in our relations
depends on the
treatment of their
own people.” OK,
sounds
good.
So the Bush administration will
look at how other
countries treat
their own people
in deciding what
sort of rapport
they enjoy with us. I have just one question about this policy
– exactly how many people does a country need to suppress /
maim / kill before our relations with that country suffer?
Libya, for example, enjoys warming relations with our nation despite being labeled in this year’s report as being one of
the “worst violators” of basic human rights. Instead, economic
ties are improving between our two nations since they took responsibility for the 1988 Pan Am bombing over Scotland that
killed 270 people. While it is a great start, doesn’t Libya have
a lot more progress to make before we hop in bed with them?
Then there is Pakistan, also mentioned as a violator of human
rights. This is a nation where perpetrators of a tribal raping of
women are rarely punished, and where a military government
rules undemocratically through a coup d’etat. Yet just a week
ago, the Bush administration announced an agreement to sell
Pakistan F-16 fighter jets. Yes, that’ll teach them. We will sell
them bigger and better jets than they have now. If they didn’t
care about all those rapes before, they sure will now!
Oh, I know, we should send some of these offending nations our terror suspects. Wonder what would happen then?
Well, wonder no further that the case of Maher Arar, a
35-year-old Canadian who was traveling through the U.S.
in 2002. He claims, and new records released through The
New York Times corroborate, that U.S. agents took him into
custody without explanation and sent him to Syria for interrogation. Once in Syria, Mr. Arar was held in a small, dark cell
for over 10 months and periodically beaten with metal cable.
The Justice Department claims that he was ‘deported’ to Syria
based on secret intelligence that Arar was a member of AlQaeda. Odd, considering 1) wouldn’t the U.S. government
want to interrogate Mr. Al-Qaeda ourselves, and 2) deporting
him would involve sending him to Canada. Now I know he’s
brown, but Canada actually has many people of Arab descent
who are citizens of their nation. Apparently Syria had the right
idea, sending Mr. Arar to Canada after a year of ‘questioning’
yielded nothing they found important.
Interestingly enough, President Bush has boldly stated in
the past year that the United States does not practice rendition – sending people to other nations for interrogation – and
that we wouldn’t send prisoners to countries where torture is
used. Yet through the work of Human Rights Watch, Amnesty
International, and several other organizations, case after case
has been uncovered where we have in fact sent prisoners to
such nations as Syria, Egypt and Jordan. These are all nations
internationally known for prisons and police who victimize
those in their custody. These are all nations who have been
criticized by the U.S for violating human rights.
Apparently, all our administration wanted from the governments of Syria and others was a written promise, which
would be impossible to enforce, that they would not mistreat
those we turn over to their custody. Yet how in the world can
we expect countries we implicate in our own State Department issued reports to suddenly uphold basic standards of
personal decency when we hand people over to them?
No, our government isn’t stupid. It knows what it gets
when sending people such as Mr. Afar to Syria. If the U.S.
can’t torture
those it holds
to gather intelligence, it
sends
them
to
nations
that will. In a
recent press
conference
at the steps
of Congress,
Wendy Patten,
U.S.
Advocacy Director
for
Human
Rights Watch,
hit the mark
when she said,
“Rendition
to torture is
the legal and
moral equivalent of engaging in torture directly.” Aside from
our direct acts in Iraqi and Afghani prisons, we might as well
be the ones with the metal cables in our hands.
Seeing Secretary Rice standing in front of the cameras,
declaring how other nations treat their citizenry holds great
import to the Bush administration, was just classic. Almost
like propaganda, minus the usual cheesy slogans. Imagine
what would happen if we started sending prisoners to Cuba! I
hear the U.S. has some property down there that would be just
perfect for holding people...
Michael Patterson is a senior in the College. You can write to him at
mjp2@sas.
CLEANING UP THE NUCLEAR OPTION DEBATE
BY TAYLOR BULEY
THERE’S BEEN A LOT OF TALK about possible Congressional action to institute the “nuclear option” in the Senate. As part of the trend of political rhetoric that prevents clear understanding of the issue (see also: “tort reform”), this tricky pseudonym makes this debate a little
ambiguous. So, before we get into the debate, let’s figure out exactly what this term means.
fil•i•bus•ter n.
1.a. The use of obstructionist tactics, especially prolonged speechmaking, for the purpose of
delaying legislative action.
b. An instance of the use of this delaying tactic.
2. An adventurer who engages in a private military action in a foreign country.
Unlike the House of Representatives, the Senate was founded upon principles of extended
debate, which include the filibuster and the right of the minority to exercise it. To end a filibuster, “cloture” of a “super majority” of 60 votes are needed. If a full Senate was in session, 67
votes are needed. Today, Republicans control 55 seats, five short of invoking cloture solely on
party lines. Through Rule 62, the majority can call for a parliamentary ruling by the Senate’s
president, Vice President Dick Cheney, on the constitutionality of this procedure. Mr. Cheney
can change the rule to a simple majority vote.
The “nuclear option” is the suggestion for a radical change in the way Congress does business. Currently the rules allow a Senator to stall congressional action through filibuster. Fortified with a good rest, a steam bath, and a sirloin steak Senator Strom Thurmond set the record
for this, talking for 24 hours and 18 minutes (and at one point reading out of the phonebook)
in an attempt to prevent, through boredom, a Senate vote. The nuclear option reform would
prevent such occurrences by changing Senate rules so that debate could be ended with a simple
majority 51 votes, preventing attempts to block or delay Senate action on a bill by debating it at
length, offering numerous procedural motions, or other obstructive actions. This change was
dubbed the “nuclear option” for the potential fallout of a change in what Frist calls a “formula
for tyranny by the minority” (and, no, they did not choose the name because the President
wouldn’t be able to talk about it, as he does have troubles with the word “nuclear”).
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tennessee) introduced the option, but has offered no
specifics. He said he would release details after Congress returns from its Easter recess on April
4th. Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) responded with a statement welcoming Frist’s
“more constructive approach.” Meanwhile, Bush has asserted that his nominees have a right
to an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor. Frist may attempt to change Senate rules so that
debate could be ended with a simple majority 51 votes. Republicans currently control the Senate by a 55-45 vote.
The filibuster presents two possible problems: first, the possible effects of vulnerability to
political extremism; and second, the possible “fallout” of constitutional change.
As speculation mounts that Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist is planning to resign due
to health concerns (he has thyroid cancer and currently breathes through a hole in his windpipe), so does fear over the potential effects of the institution of a simple majority vote.
Democrats worry that Republicans are going to use their majority in the House and Senate fill the judicial branch with conservative viewpoints outside the mainstream. They want to
ensure that court decisions like Roe v. Wade don’t get overturned by a galvanized conservative
court. While I understand this concern, the premise isn’t particularly valid—if Rehnquist (a
staunchly conservative Supreme Justice) steps down and is replaced by another staunchly conservative justice, the Supreme Court balance is unlikely to be affected.
Republicans are anxious about what might happen if the Democrats are allowed to continue their filibustering tactics. They worry that if Dems are allowed to simply stall congressional
action whenever they so please, the continuity of government could be affected. Say, for example, Rehnquist does step down during Bush’s second term and Democrats stall his replacement
ad infinitum. What then? Shall the United States forever lack another Supreme Court Justice
until one party balks in this political game of chicken? In these times of tremendous partisanism and inflexibility, I fear that this dismal prognostication might actually come true.
The Republican concerns are somewhat aggrandized, too. A friend of mine who works at
the DLC made an excellent good point on the subject—she noted it’s not that Democrats are
really stalling the entire judicial nomination process. They’ve only blocked 10 of the President’s
229 judicial nominees. Moreover, these are lower court nominees, not their “supreme” counterparts.
Nevertheless, the filibuster has been used for some not-so-benign causes. For example, in
the ‘50s it was used to block civil rights legislation (check out a 1959 New Yorker article that
discusses this here). Should we bust the filibuster to prevent such occurrences from happening
again?
While in the past the filibuster has been used as the means for some Mephistophelian
ends, it is a vital element of the constitutional process. Yes, civil rights legislation was stalled
for an extended period of time, but the system did eventually work itself out. If we disallow
its future use, we could potentially unbalance the system and cause huge political fallout. Any
simple majority in congressional approval might create a Judicial branch disposed to “political
majoritarianism” (sic). This is the democratic flaw that Madison warned us about in Federalist
10:
[A] pure Democracy, by which I mean, a Society, consisting of a small number of citizens,
who assemble and administer the Government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority
of the whole; a communication and concert results from the form of Government itself; and
there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party, or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is, that such Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and
have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.
Although we should not support political power moves, we do need to support our democratic process and its Constitutional safeguards. While the “nuclear option” might prevent the
“tyranny of the minority,” it provides an opportunity for rule by the majority.
Taylor Buley is a junior in the College. You can write to him at tbuley@sas.
P AGE 6
A PRIL 4, 2005 | FIRST CALL | VOL . V N O . 17
AT LEAST OSCAR THE BEST BETS
GROUCH WON’T
4/4 - 4/10
GET WRINKLES
CHRISTINE CHEN | TEMPEST IN A TEAPOT
DISCLAIMER. Smiling is good. Moreover, smiling, happiness,
kittens and rainbows are wonderful. If I didn’t believe this, then
I would have problems. But there is a time and a place, folks, a
time and a place.
Mona Lisa, La Gioconda in Italian, or La Joconde in French.
Perhaps the most scrutinized and enigmatic expression emanating from Leonardo da Vinci’s oil painting on poplar wood is her
smile. In person, I was most surprised by the fact that the
painting is actually quite small, measuring up to a mere 30 x 21
inches. I don’t think I spent more than a few minutes viewing it
as it was shielded by glass and protected by a three foot rope barricade, yet this comparatively tiny work of art has spawned such
debate for hundreds of years. Every person seems to have their own unique take on the meaning behind the Mona Lisa smile. The Smith-Kettlewell Eye Research Center in San Francisco
found the variation in interpretations to be deeper rooted at the source; somewhere between the
receiving the visual information by the eye and processing in the brain, the changing nature of
the smile may be caused by variable levels of random noise in the human visual system. Professor
Margaret Livingstone of Harvard University proposed an explanation that the smile is drawn in
low spatial frequencies, and thus can best be seen with one’s peripheral vision, implying that the
angle at which the painting is viewed can skew the viewer’s perception of the smile.
The Starving Artists. Perhaps it is because they are starving, and make little to no money,
hence the starving part, regardless, they are not big on smiling either.
Why aren’t you smiling your face off? So I’m standing around, minding my own business
while waiting in line, and it has to happen. By “it,” I mean the “Why are you so sad? Smile!” comment from some random stranger. I’ll feign some semblance of responsiveness by producing my
signature sheepish half smile that I save for such occasions as this. A better question would be,
“Why aren’t you smiling your face off?” To which a proper and logical response would be “Because I’m waiting in this boring line that is moving a snail’s pace and I’m famished, and now I’m
not smiling because I don’t like you.” The point is we shouldn’t have to smile all the time if there
is no reason to. I think some people would question my mental condition if a freakish smile was
eternally plastered on my face.
Smile, it won’t crack your face. Actually, it will. Clinical trials have scientifically proven that
smiling causes wrinkles. Why do you think Andie McDowell, the ever loveable and always smiling southern belle of Groundhog Day fame is on all those age-defying wrinkle cream commercials? So, smile now, but you won’t be smiling when you look twenty years older than you really
are, Granny (or Gramps).
Jaded Celebrity Cool. Catherine Keener is by far my favorite embittered, manic-depressive,
typecast actress. Others may be more familiar with her real-life husband who played the male
escort opposite Debra Messing in The Wedding Date.
Random “Expert” Opinion on Smiling and Celebrities. Fond of Fondue, a sophomore at Columbia University says, “I remember Julia Roberts saying once that she tries to keep her mouth
shut around photographers... but she’s such a liar... she smiles like crazy.”
Oscar the Grouch. Oscar was my favorite Sesame Street character as a youngin’. He is arguably one of my earliest influences. He really spoke his mind to the other muppets on the Street
and grounded them in the trashcan that is reality. Not to mention his flair for fashion. His garbage lid for a hat was really cutting edge.
Nadia. There was this one girl who I will refer to from here on out as Nadia. I knew her from
elementary school through high school, and she never stopped smiling. Quite honestly, I was
actually more than a little perturbed by this aspect about her. She was always small for her age,
and the taunting never eased up, whether it was over her clothes or some other trivial superficial
“flaw” that was outside the realm of what was accepted as normal dress or behavior amongst our
peers. She was a social pariah, an outcast in the shark laden world of middle school. Sure, she
was a little eccentric, but she was smart and had some interesting things to say. When the lunch
time block was split into four sections in seventh grade, and I was separated from my regular
group of friends, I was lucky enough sit by chance with Nadia and get to know her better. I still
remember her burnt toast, cream cheese and lox sandwiches, and her offering me her mini Hostess muffins every lunch without fail. It amazed me that Nadia never complained about the burnt
toast, while my little sister would throw out entire packages of Lender’s Bagels that she kept
burning in the toaster nearly every morning. I don’t think Nadia ever grew taller than 4-foot 8,
so she was this tiny, beaming ray of eternal outer bliss even though she had it rough as a victim of
daily bullying and your typical vicious preadolescent mean girls or, perhaps worse yet, the subject
of pity. If anyone had a right to not smile, it was she. In some ways I think I was more bothered
by how others treated her than she was. I actually never saw her again after seventh grade, but
I ran into her at Liberty Village last summer. She looked exactly the same—messy mousy hair,
mismatched clothes and all—and even though she was just getting off a grueling ten hours of
work at Le Creusette, during our very short chat, she smiled the whole time.
Christine Chen is a sophomore in Engineering. You can write to her at cachem@seas.
HUNTSMANLY
Rob’s TV picks for the week
It’s the last regular edition of Best Bets for the 2004-2005 Academic Year! So
pay attention and have your remote control handy.
Monday: 24 “Day 4: 10:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m.” (FOX, 9 p.m.) Do I have qualms
about recommending the same show twice in a row? Not in this case. The FOX
promo department is calling this installment the most shocking, pivotal episode
of 24 ever. As you know, the show’s season is usually broken into 8-episode arcs,
with the final episode of each arc knocking the stakes up several notches. This
is episode 16, so, true to form, the biggest event ever to happen on 24 is happening—yes, bigger than the nuclear bomb going off. If you’ve seen the promos, have
been following a certain character’s in-flight plot, and know the character coming
back on April 25th, you really, really ought to know what the producers are up to.
And damn if it isn’t good! So good, you have three, yes three, chances to watch
it this week—Monday, Friday, and Sunday starting at 9 p.m. It’s the can’t miss
episode! So, uh… don’t miss it?
Tuesday: House “Fidelity” (FOX, 9 p.m.) Rerun alert! But, without Amercan Idol
leading into it, most of you probably didn’t see this episode—in my opinion the
best of House’s short life. Last time this Sherlok-Holmes-as-a-doctor series had a
repeat, it scored big in the Nielsens (probably because, again, people hadn’t seen
it in December). Dominic Purcell gives a great performance, but I’m not revealing the cause of his wife’s affliction. That would be telling.
Wednesday: Eyes “Whereabouts” (ABC, 10 p.m.) When ABC scheduled the new
season of Alias on Wednesdays right after Lost, I almost died. Two impossibly
addictive JJ Abrams shows in a row? It’s too much! Now, ABC raises the stakes
with mid-season’s most entertaining show, an hour-long about private detectives.
It’s glamorous, it’s suspenseful, it’s intriguing, it’s got heart, and it’s damned awesome. Hope you caught the premiere last week (I couldn’t resist recommending a
Locke episode of Lost), but if not, you’ll be able to catch on quickly. ABC Wednesdays are, officially, the best night of primetime TV.
Thursday: CSI “Ch-Ch-Changes” (CBS, 9 p.m.) Yes, this is the second repeat on
my recommendation list. Why? Because I can. This, the 100th episode of CSI,
was the most watched episode of its history and probably one of the better episodes. Plus, any time Aisha Tyler is on TV, you’ve got to watch. I don’t know why,
but the original series is just so much better than the spin-offs (unlike Law &
Order, where SVU towers over its three siblings). Watch out… Quentin Tarantino
is writing and directing the season finale of CSI… which finally has a cliff-hanger!
That’s something watch-worthy.
Friday: Living With Fran “Pilot” (WB, 8:30 p.m.) Hahahahahahahahahahahahahah. Damn, there’s no onomatopoeia for The Nanny’s laugh. You get the point.
Fran Drescher is back on TV! In an even worse sitcom! When a med student
suffers a breakdown, he returns home to find everything has changed. With a
mother dating a hunk a few years older than him, a teenage sister with issues, and
a stranger living in his closet—no, I’m not being metaphoric—this viewer’s belief
has been tautly stretched.
Saturday: Saturday Night Live “Cameron Diaz/Green Day” (NBC, 11:30 p.m.)
What’s Ms. Timberlake up to these days? Well, frankly, I don’t know. I also don’t
know if the two are still dating. I imagine it will be part of a sketch. But Ms. “I’ve
Used Sperm For Hair Gel” is apparently doing some sort of reality show with
MTV—and who isn’t these days—so it’s all about that. Does anyone else miss the
days when she used to make really bad R-rated movies?
Sunday: Arrested Development “Spring Breakout” (FOX, 8:30 p.m.) Okay. I
don’t know how many times I can recommend this show. Seriously. But I’m worried this might be the next to last time, since this is the next to last episode filmed
this season and renewal isn’t certain. Anyway, this episode brings in guest star
Zach Braff as a parody of the “Girls Gone Wild” filmmaker—it’s Mr. “Girls With
Low Self-Esteem,” himself! And just when you thought you’d never see Kitty
Sanchez, she’s back for more blackmail. If you don’t watch this show… well, I’ll
just say we’re not on speaking terms.
If You Can Only Watch One: 24.
Continued from PAGE 1
the restriction makes some of us feel elite. If our college friends bother to take a visit in our
land, they must ask to use our account before they are able to do anything. A fair system. A
final feature of the forum that I’d like to point out is perhaps less obvious to you innocent visitors. First, I ask you: What time is it? Do not look at your watch! Just look around and try
to gauge what hour of the day it is! Ah, I suppose you can’t. It could be 1 p.m. or 1 a.m. right
now. You’d have no idea without checking a computer or looking at your wrist. The forum is
one of the few places on campus that enables people to ignore the distinction between night
and day, as both look the same. Casinos use a similar strategy, because it helps rake in their
profits—without circadian cues, people can convince themselves they haven’t been there for so
long, and therefore will tend to stay much longer, playing the slots until they reach oblivion. In
the forum, no one is gambling, besides a few stock-aholics of course. Instead, it is the place of
endless hours of work. The soda machines and other amenities let people continue thinking
it’s still the daytime. But in reality, the darkness lets the students you see around forget how
many consecutive hours they have been in the same building, and how many there are to go
before it becomes “too late.”
Therefore, my visitors, realize this: Huntsman is not a beautiful building. Huntsman,
instead, is a structure with architecture and amenities that encourage the behavior patterns
which will form the world’s most successful set of managers, once they survive OCR and the
widespread efforts to psych each other out.
Lauren Saul is a sophomore dualing in the Whollege. You can write to her at lcsaul@wharton.
m
s
i
l
l
a
our dose of
c
t
s
weekly wisdom
r
i
f
OOH! 2 BY 4S! IT’S TIME
TO GO CLUBBING!
A PRIL 4, 2005 | FIRST CALL | VOL . V N O . 17
P AGE 7
JAMES HOUSTON | THIS MACHINE KILLS FASCISTS
SONIC WHO-TH?
A primer for Spring Fling malcontents
A FEW WEDNESDAYS AGO, you picked up The Daily
Pennsylvanian on your way to Econ and learned the “underground punk band” Sonic Youth had been chosen to headline
Spring Fling with Cat Power and Citizen Cope opening. You
were overcome by a wave of emotion that fell somewhere between your anger when your roommate spilled a margarita on
your Dispatch CD, your sadness when Landon and Shavonda
hugged goodbye on the last episode of The Real World, and
your shock when you were first told that being from Long
Island or Northeast Jersey doesn’t give you the right to call
yourself a New Yorker. What the crap were they thinking?
You could sorta understand that Chingy and Nickelback were
too busy saving the world, but did they even try to get O.A.R.
or Mario or Simple Plan? A reflex fired and you spiked your
cup of ABP urban blend like a football, ruining your Diesel
pants and white Nikes/Uggs. Life sucked.
If that wasn’t you, you’re excused—see you next week. To
the rest: Chill. Barring any diaper malfunctions or whatever
it was that delayed P-Funk’s 2002 set by an hour, this will be
the best Fling concert in four years. SPEC should be commended for steering clear of college-rock clichés and Clear
Channel’s current stable of radio studs to bring us these
critically acclaimed artists who understand that music will
stagnate and die if its practitioners stop taking risks.
I admit I thought Citizen Cope was a band the first time
I read the name, so you’re off the hook if you did too. It’s
actually the alias of one Clarence Greenwood, a scruffy acoustic-grooving dude currently touring in support of his RCA
debut The Clarence Greenwood Recordings. While his album
title suggests he’s a big Eminem fan, CC’s music most evokes
the brief solo success of Everlast: Heavily rhythmic, vaguely
depressing tunes mumbled and drawled by a white guy who’s
just a goatee hair away from being as cool as he thinks he
is. He clearly puts a lot of thought into his character-driven
lyrics, and although some feel like Tom Waits leftovers, others are brilliant—in “Pablo Picasso” he channels an insane
panhandler who insists the woman in his favorite painting is
real: “If I had a pistol I’d brandish it and wave it / She’s the
only one alive that knows that I’m not crazy / She’s gonna
testify on my behalf down at the Navy / So I can get some
peace and provide for my babies.” His hip-hop-influenced
arrangements are lush, but should transfer well to the stage.
We could do much worse with our #3 slot.
Cat Power: Also not a band! Ms. Chan (pronounced
“Shawn”) Marshall began recording under her feline sobriquet in 1996 and broke through in 2003 with the haunting
You Are Free. Among her loyal fans then were Eddie Vedder
and Dave Grohl, who thought so much of her that they joined
her backing band. Now, behind one of the best-reviewed
albums of the 00’s, she plays for packed houses on both
sides of the Atlantic. We’re very lucky to have her. Imagine
Flannery O’Connor’s stories recited melodically by a heroinravaged PJ Harvey (which is to say, Nico), and you’ll have an
idea of Marshall’s willowy southern gothic. Some of her uptempo songs irritate, but her whispered ballads are exquisite.
Downlo—ahem—acquire “Good Woman” and the harrowing
“Names” when you’re done with this. After listening to them,
you’ll either patch your broken heart and buy Fling tickets
immediately or demand your nine minutes back and go outside to kick pigeons.
At the very least, I hope those of you who say you’ve
never heard of Sonic Youth don’t pretend to be fans of The
Simpsons. If you were, you’d remember the “Homerpalooza”
episode where Homer joins the sideshow of a traveling music
festival and rubs elbows with rock stars, including the icons
coming to Penn next week. Sonic Youth’s significance and
influence are inestimable. The abridged history: in 1981,
bassist/guitarist Kim Gordon joined guitarists Thurston
Moore and Lee Ranaldo in Manhattan. Drummers came and
went. Their music gravitated away from the pure avant-garde
as the ‘80s wore on, but they never imitated or compromised.
1988’s Daydream Nation made them famous. Two years
later, they signed with Geffen Records while remaining total
masters of their creative domain. This was an important
precedent—until then, fear of ceding any artistic control to
a major label deterred alternative bands from seeking wider
audiences. In the ‘90s they opened for Neil Young, broke the
Top 40, headlined Lollapalooza, and finished the decade secure in the knowledge they had shaped it.
Sonic Youth’s art has never been a simple pleasure. They
prefer feedback and noise to middle eights and choruses. A
lot of their songs are long and their lyrics don’t always make
literal sense. But the awareness of something substantially
better that the instant, stomach-gurgling gratification of
Jimmy Eat World and similar musical fast food is well worth
the effort required to get it. And that’s not to say they can’t
write a hook—just listen to “Teen Age Riot” on Daydream
Nation. What distinguishes them is that the hook is never
the ultimate goal. If the swirling soundscapes created by The
Flaming Lips and post-OK Computer Radiohead appeal to
you, here’s your chance to see a major inspiration for both.
Anti-commercial elitism is a very tired shtick and I’m not
ashamed to say I liked “The Middle”, but SPEC’s selections
are excellent. The Fling concert will never be anyone’s dream
lineup, so singling this year’s bill out as bad would be dumb
even if it weren’t so good. The gripe that SPEC should aim
foremost to please is valid—the assumption that an act is bad
because you haven’t heard of him/her/them isn’t. Besides,
hoping for a chart-topper to descend on us is looking increasingly futile. Sonic Youth are admittedly past their prime, but
so were P-Funk, and if we’re being honest, so were Busta
Rhymes and Wyclef when they each headlined. This show
will give you fewer opportunities to high-five and pretend
you can dance, but it will stretch your assumptions about the
creative and emotional potential of sound. Now that’s what
I call music.
James Houston is a senior in the College. You can write to him at
jhouston@sas.
GETTING OLDER
Continued from PAGE 1
Penn Dining website. I wouldn’t personally know, since I haven’t entered a dining hall in three
years, so I’m forced to take their word for it.
The best publication on campus, First Call, used to have a weekly columnist who wrote
stupid fiction all the time. Thank goodness I’ll never have to read one of those stories again!
Penn students used to be wimps. On our twenty-first birthdays, we used to stop drinking
after seventeen or eighteen shots-- you know, to avoid being hospitalized. I guess we’d forgotten how college students are supposed to act. Luckily, this is no longer a problem.
The old Penn Administration, under the bumbling leadership of President Judith Rodin,
had never missed an opportunity to spend our money —and it acted with zero regard for
student wishes, financial responsibility, or common sense. Thus we had those silly glowing
snowflakes on Locust Walk, the pointless metal uprights on the 38th Street Bridge, and the
imported, custom-designed bricks on the outside of Huntsman Hall. That kind of excess used
to really make me cynical! But the new Administration seems to be finally addressing student
concerns, such as the essential CVS-to-city-block ratio, which had been dangerously low, or
our need for elaborate “get out the vote” events during UA election time.
Not every change has been an improvement, though. For one thing, there used to be a lot
more beggars on the streets of West Philadelphia. I don’t know where they’ve all gone, but I
assume they died of starvation because we didn’t give them enough change. In other words,
we’ve failed them—we ought to be ashamed!
I know I speak harshly, but I’ll probably miss Penn once I’m gone. Maybe when I’m old I’ll
make a massive donation and rename one of the Quad houses after me. This will be right after
I make millions of dollars with the skills I’ve learned here— skills such as mocking obvious
authority figures, or analyzing Heart of Darkness, or writing forty-minute essays about racist
feminist poets in the Modernist era...
All right, I was being a little sarcastic there at the end.
Brian Hertler is a senior in the College. You can write to him at hertlerb@sas.
Your Ad Here.
• Daily Pennsylvanian rates too expensive?
• Want an advertisement for an entire week instead of only one day?
Full Page — 16” x 10”
Half Page — 8” x 10”
Quarter Page — 8” x 5”
Business Sized — 2.3” x 5”
First Call, the Undergraduate Magazine, offers a number of ad sizes
E-mail fcpaper@wharton.upenn.edu for information on prices,
to recruiters, businesses, university organizations, and student groups. policies, and publications dates.
THE UNDERGRADUATE MAGAZINE | A PRIL 4, 2005 VOL . V N O . 17
ACADEMIC FEUD FOR THOUGHT
ANDREW PEDERSON | BRUT FORCE
DEAR MR. PEDERSON,
I congratulate you on making me respond to your column in First Call this past week.
I also congratulate you on making me read it twice... with complete disbelief. As one of
the premier liberal columnists on this campus (along with Elliot Sherman and Kevin Collins for the DP), I cannot believe how awful all of your arguments have been in arguing
against academic diversity. In fact, the argument in your column was so clichéd I thought
you were actually making a parody of half-brained leftnecks in society. Alas, when I realized it wasn’t humor you were putting forth, I was forced to issue the following response.
First, thank you for addressing the academic freedom movement that is taking the country
by storm. It is about high time we got it into a national debate. Let me address your points...
Your first point is on gender and racial diversity, namely how as a liberal you find these
goals to be important to counter past racial and gender discrimination in society. I am sure
that, as a liberal, you have either heard or argued that women and minorities bring a unique
perspective to academia and that therefore it is vital to have their unique perspectives to give
people a better understanding in life. Yet you do not seem to extend that argument to political diversity. Do you not believe that having more intellectual diversity on campus would
lead people to experience a better understanding of different ideologies and different ways
of thinking? As a former member of Penn Forum, I know how hard it is to find conservative professors to debate things on this campus. A better outreach (not affirmative action
or preference) and welcoming of professors that do not slant left (whether they are libertarian, conservative or whatever) would truly improve the campus setting.
There is always an abundance of extreme left professors so you do not
have to worry about missing any ones that have communist leanings.
You then give a condescending point that maybe there are no conservative professors on campus because their ideology cannot withstand
“rigorous academic scrutiny.” Mr. Pederson, I assure you that this is not
the case. The few right-leaning professors in academia have had some very
productive output. Abagail and Stephen Thernstrom have very effectively
dismembered the arguments for discriminatory racial preferences in their
book “AMERICA in BLACK AND WHITE”. Penn’s very own Alan Kors
helped engage the fight for academic freedom by starting the Foundation
for Individual Rights. Stephen Gale (not conservative, but definitely nonliberal/non-traditional) has been a leading expert on terrorism. Imagine
the outcry if I turned the argument around and said that the reason
there were few minority professors on campus was because they weren’t
smart enough (which you seem to be implying with conservatives) or that
women didn’t have the innate ability for science (hmmm...I wonder what
happened to Larry Summers)? Not only is every effort made to bring in
minority professors (therefore rejecting any acceptance of the status quo of
all “white males”), but even special departments are set up that some would
question as academically legitimate (e.g. Hispanic studies, LGBT studies,
etc.). Your last thread of an argument might be that conservatives have not
faced discrimination in society that women and minorities faced in society
and therefore it is justifiable to have different standards. However, the key
word is in society. While conservatives currently have power in government
there has been discrimination in academia, as I will show in a bit. It is practically irrelevant that Republicans hold office in D.C. when on campuses,
the educational heartland of the country, they are not represented and are
what some would call an “oppressed minority.” Even if you take other “conservatively-dominated” arenas such as the military, corporate boardrooms
and the like, you do not have such a skewed ratio as you have in academia.
In fact, I would argue that because of how out of touch today’s campuses
are with the rest of American society, campuses should be self-interested in
being better representative of society in order to be taken seriously again.
Second, your stats are a little off. While the very well educated (i.e. academic types who stay in academia) tend to be liberal, most college-educated
individuals who go out and work instead of staying in school tend to lean more
towards conservativism. In fact, it is the uneducated and those who just have
a high school diploma who make up the majority of Democrats. This makes
sense since it correlates with economic social classes. So, don’t be too hasty to arrogantly say education leads to liberalism. I have become more conservative as I progressed through school and
know many people who have similarly evolved. Not to dis those who are liberal, but I gradually
saw how, in my opinion, fraudulent liberalism was and how conservatism fit my principles better.
Third, while few studies have been done on academic bias, the one Mr. Buley points
out shows that almost 50% of students have perceived academic liberal bias. Examples
of reported bias can be found at www.noindoctrination.org and www.thefire.org and
www.academicbias.com, to name a few sites. I also encourage you to read The Shadow
University by Kors and Silvergate, and Brainwashing 101. There are many, many stories
about professors being intimidated into silence (or face the wrath like Summers did), students being screwed over or the like. Instead of dismissing these cases, it would be intellectually honest of you to disclose that these cases exist and it is important to address.
On my side, it is intellectually honest to admit that there are many good liberal professors who do not allow their bias to seep through in lectures. At Penn,
Rogers Smith is an example of that. While most people know his strong leftwing
views, he made sure to teach in a fair and balanced way. If he did disclose his opinion, he would make sure to give it outside the realm of what he presented as fact.
In conclusion, I believe that the goal of the academic freedom movement is to improve
education by increasing intellectual diversity on campuses. Conservatism is not a singular
ideology that can be compared to child-molestation, as you seem to imply. On the contrary,
it is an ideology that has kicked your party’s ass for the last few elections and you guys could
stand to understand it better instead of making ignorant and stupid assumptions that all
of us as Bible-thumping, racist homophobe whackos. Most of us do not call for affirmative
action for conservatives unlike you do for minorities/women, but just an outreach and an
end to any kind of discrimination that would make a conservative feel unwelcome, such as
a professor being told that his Ralph Lauren hat with an American flag was too extreme.
It is only in your best interest to recognize that there is a belief system outside of liberalism, and for your own future political survival, it is best you guys start understanding it.
DEAR MR YELIN,
Thank you for courageously opining for the sake of the quivering, oppressed Conservative minority on campus. I am sure once
they manage to overthrow the liberal conspiracy machine and reestablish order and morality in the world, your name will be among
the gilded honored writ in the annals of history. Until then, I think
you’d better take the extra ten minutes to read my article a third
time and suspend your disbelief.
My first point was not to directly compare the campaign for intellectual diversity with programs like Affirmative Action. Indeed,
I was sarcastically pointing out the fact that those who push for intellectual diversity are not at
all interested in actual diversity, since they are not concerned with any kind of variety except that
which could benefit themselves. To that end, they are only interested in the limited promotion of
their own narrow views.
That is precisely why I don’t extend the logic of promoting racial and gender diversity to intellectual diversity; a person deserves equal consideration for his views, but not a sheltered niche for
the sake of representation. Women and African Americans are not different species who see the
world radically differently and who can give us a “unique” perspective. Affirmative Action and
pushes for gender diversity merely make up for the harmful precedents of repression by attempting
to provide fair consideration in an open forum. Conservatives don’t qualify, since they are already
amply represented in society and not at
all repressed, neither now nor over the
course of recent history. I do argue for a
different standard, because it is laughable
to call Conservatives a “repressed minority” in any context.
Even though you later suggest that
a Conservative controlled government
is “irrelevant” since it is not an accurate
representation of society, I must point
out that academia, as an institution, is
just as arbitrary of a depiction of society
as is the government. Therefore, even if
Conservatives have faced discrimination
in academia, by your logic, it is equally
as impertinent. You cannot separate
government from society and then expect
academia to reflect it.
In addition, I did not at all imply
that Conservative academics were inherently inferior in the quality of their work,
nor did I warrant a comparison to Larry
Summer’s highly publicized blunder,
which has entirely no application in
this debate. The fact that Conservative
professors exist and make meaningful
contributions is far from an indication
of the integrity of their political philosophy. After all, there are great numbers
of people with compromised ethics who
have done great things. Henry Ford,
for example, was not a stupid man, nor
was he an insignificant figure. He was,
however, an unforgivable racist who on
many occasions expressed sympathy for
the Nazi party. Similarly, a political ethos
can be logically bankrupt, but that does
not necessarily prevent achievement. In
regard to your comments about questionably “legitimate” academic departments such as Hispanic and LGBT studies, I have no idea what
you’re talking about, but it does make you sound like a Bible thumping racist.
I believe that the high proportion of liberal academics indicates that the majority of people who
have an advanced education cannot justify many facets of the Conservative ethos. The fact that a
large number of people with college degrees are Conservative is easily explainable when one examines the industries they work in and the high salaries they enjoy. The rank and file stock broker
or small business owning Republican is merely willing to turn a blind eye to some of the faults of
Conservatism in exchange for financial return. In many cases, I would be willing to bet that Conservatism fits bank accounts better than principles.
However, since these arguments are so “awful” and “clichéd,” let me conclude by pointing out
the dearth of available data pertaining to the issue at hand. On college campuses as well as in
society in general, the distribution of political ideology and how it correlates to variables such as
income, religion and race is not yet clear, and no one has yet established concrete causes behind
either liberalism or conservatism. This is in addition to the fact that political designations are not
discrete categories into which everybody can be easily placed. That being said, the data with regards to student intimidation and liberal bias on campus is even less widespread, and the best any
Conservative can dredge up is a gaggle of meaningless colloquialisms. The ACTA study so fondly
cited by Buley, for example, is a ridiculously biased exaggeration with such a miniscule sample
(.3%) that its results are statistically insignificant.
My main point is this: despite the uproar of Conservatives, there is in fact no real indication
that higher education is being compromised by the liberal majority among faculty. Therefore, before any meaningful research has been done, it is absolutely ludicrous to encourage campuses to
curry the favor of Conservative faculty.
Finally, I’m not a Democrat, nor do I follow any particular party line enough that I can be
referred to as part of a plural “you guys.” Your final remarks cross the last frontier into outright
hypocrisy by accusing me of following an assumed laundry list of standpoints while you insist that
I am making an over-generalization. After all, how can Conservatism be more than a “singular
ideology” while Liberalism remains exactly that?
Felix Yelin is a senior in the College. You can write to him at fyelin@sas.
Andrew Pederson is a sophomore in the College. You can write to him at awl@sas.
IN THIS CORNEER WE HAVE...
BY FELIX YELIN