FirstCall - Dolphin Student Group Web Accounts

FirstCall
Better Than the TV GUIDE
Rob’s “Must See” TV!!!
Page 4
A Stranger Among Us
Brian Hertler gives us an outsider’s
view of Penn. Page 6
The Undergraduate Magazine
Published Independently at the University of Pennsylvania
Vol. IV, No. 13 | February 23, 2004
True Lies
Art Mirroring Art
Does anyone who Hugo Chavez really
is? Ask Carlos Byrd. Page 4
Mickey Jou explores the timeless inspiration of Vermeer. Page 8
WHITES ONLY NEED APPLY
BY MICHAEL PATTERSON
College Republicans uneven the playing field again
I have started a scholarship. It is for $250 and may
go only to people that meet certain criteria. You
must be white for one thing. Not only should you
be white, but your pride in your rich white heritage
needs to be apparent. Of course, this naturally
means that you should be from a well-to-do family that makes at least six digits a year. Anything
less would simply be pathetic. The last things
come as obvious requirements for this scholarship—Christian heterosexual men need only apply.
Just because the historical oppression of non-white
peoples by whites still plays such a prominent role
in our nation’s struggle for equality does not mean
that people can get offended by this scholarship. If
it seems racist to you, then that just means you are
not thinking clearly on the matter. After all, whites
are an oppressed group. Doesn’t everyone know
that?
White Power...
People may be confused by the previous paragraph. No, I have not suddenly lost my principles
and joined the Penn Republicans. Neither have I
joined many other white Americans by indoctrinating myself with racist, bigoted views. Sadly, the
fictional scholarship described above is a matter of
reality at Roger Williams University.
I could hardly believe what I was reading when
my roommate instant-messaged me a link to a February 16th CNN.com story detailing the actions of
the College Republicans of Roger Williams University. The organization there, strategically considering the timing of Black History Month, has begun
offering a white-only scholarship. Originally set at
$50, contributions from around the country have
bumped this sickeningly racist offer up to over
$3,000. The scholarship application asks for an essay: “In 100 words or less, write why you are proud
of your white heritage and explain what being
white means to you.” Also, naturally, they want a
picture of the person applying so they state that the
applicant “Must attach recent picture to confirm
whiteness. Evidence of bleaching will disqualify
applicants.” Sounds controversial, no? But this is
indeed happening. The RWU College Republicans,
protesting against programs such as affirmative action and minority scholarships, have decided that
the best way to point out the flaws of what they oppose is to mimic them.
First of all, the hypocrisy in the actions of the
person who spearheaded this scholarship must be
made clear. Jason Mattera, the President of the
College Republicans at RWU, is on a minority
scholarship himself. This $5,000 scholarship that
Mattera, of Puerto Rican descent, won and accepted
Source: Arthur S. Siegel (1942)
Continued on Page 5
The Imminent Terror
of Gray Dawn
PHILADELPHIA SPECTATOR
BY ANDREW PEDERSON
surprises: arrests and rape charges, for instance. But
overall the show has gotten skanky, low class, and
tame. Where is the Hawaii cast to cause some genuine
controversy or hit on real issues like in San Fransisco?
It has become tired, old, meaningless, and boring. I
understand MTV’s need to show teenagers and young
adults as they are, really I do. But the show is practically
sexploitation. When was the last time you saw a hot tub
in Philadelphia?
The Philadelphia cast will be staying somewhere
in Old City. I am frankly worried about this. Most
people see the mansions and lofts and so forth the Real
Worlders live in as perfect, well-furnished, desirable
Founded in 1859 at Ripon, WI, the GOP today heads a long tradition of candor and common sense. For one and for all, they are the
politicians we can trust—the ones we have to trust in this unsure
world of recession, warfare and electoral colleges. True to form,
this week the National Republican party’s website features the
economy in its “Inside the Issues” section. Naturally, with complete astuteness and an infallible lack of exaggeration, the GOP
platform is, quite simply, the best goddamn thing in the world.
With this plan, poverty in all its forms is eradicated, the middle
class keeps more of its hard-earned money, and the unemployed
are whisked out of their financial dilemmas on gossamer wings of
pure Reaganomics. Male pattern baldness too, has been eliminated. AIDS, Cancer, Ebola, Polio, Whooping Cough, horrible
diseases which once ravaged whole countries, are now safely in
check solely because of the foresight of the divine forces incarnate in Dick Cheney’s gleaming head. A shallow bath in beetroot
combined with just one follicle of the Cheney cranium is also said
to generate pleasure reproducible only in the finest harems in
Arabia. Just ask Dan Gomez. No mirror on Mt. Olympus is as lustrous as that magnificent depository of knowledge, and certainly
the powers of Dick’s luminous melon have done more for us in this
age than the combined miracles of antiquity.
It is an unprecedented phenomenon. Everywhere, people
report newly discovered healings and miracles; the blind are beginning to see, the lame are beginning to walk, and the lepers are
now prospering in workplaces around the country with competitive dental and 401(k) plans. No more shall we walk in the valley
of the shadow of death wreathed in darkness, for we have seen the
light, and it is glinting off the polished dome of Dick Cheney.
In this age of wonder, when every act of government brings
forth wine and fish for the masses, one is astounded to learn of
any dissent against the glorious regime of the Forces of the Light,
whether it be against the unquestionable tax cut panacea or the
War Against Middle-Eastern Oppression It is true that even here,
in the land flowing with milk and honey, there are those who
would dare to align themselves with a certain opposite force, an
axis if you will, of pure evil. They are not strangers to us; we see
them every day, almost everywhere around us. They forget our
names, they stiff us on inheritances, and most of all they undermine and constantly antagonize our system of economic perfection. They are the Axis of the Elderly.
Even as we speak, splinter cells of radical elderly folk begin to
Continued on Page 7
Continued on Page 5
BORIS SHOCHAT
Coming Soon: The Real World Philly
BY ROB FORMAN
It has finally happened. Philadelphia will be hosting
MTV’s The Real World. The show, by all means the
original American reality program, will film its fifteenth
season in the City of Brotherly Love—or now The City
that Loves You Back. But will Philadelphia love MTV?
That remains to be seen from April to July, when production and shooting take place. Sorry, readers, casting
is already underway. Maybe next season.
The Real World has taken MTV viewers around the
world, and though it began as a true look into something like real life, recent installations of the series have
proven predictable. The casting is done in such a way
that personalities clash. Fine. But I’m really sick of the
show being all about sex, night clubs, and bickering.
Granted, the latest edition, San Diego has seen some
F EBRUAR Y 23, 2004 | FIRST CALL | VOL . IV N O . 13
P AGE 2
FirstCall
Vol. IV, No. 13 | February 23, 2004
The Undergraduate Magazine
Managing Editor
Jordan Barav
Editor-in-Chief
Julie Gremillion
Assistant Editor
Robert Forman
Columnists
Robert Forman
Roz Plotzker
Brian Hertler
Writers
Chan Ahn
Mickey Jou
Daniel Nieh
Michael Patterson
Andrew Pederson
Etan Rosenbloom
Lauren Saul
Seth Scanlon
Anna Strongin
Artists
Boris Sochat
Stephanie Craven
Layout Editor
Krystal Godines
Layout Staff
Andrew Milanez
Anna Stetsovskaya
Business Manager
Joseph (Trey) Hollingsworth
Promotions Manager
Leah Karasik
Distribution Managers
Jaqueline Hayward
Marissa Sapega
Contact Information
330 John M. Huntsman Hall
3730 Walnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19104
(215) 898-3200
fcpaper@wharton.upenn.edu
Web Site
clubs.wharton.upenn.edu/fcpaper
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 a weekly commentary
published at The Wharton School of the
University of Pennsylvania. First Call’s
mission is to provide members of our
university community an open forum
for expressing ideas and opinions. To
this end, we, the editors of First Call,
are committed to a strict policy of
not censoring opinions. Articles are
provided by regular columnists and
writers from the university community.
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.
Editorial
CALLING ALL ASSHOLES
Here at Penn, many of us decided to sacrifice
our love of nationally-ranked sports teams in favor of Ivy League, nationally-ranked academics.
At times I wonder what it would be like to be at
Michigan or UT or Stanford. Then I hear about
CU-Boulder, and I realize I may not be missing
much.
If you haven’t been paying attention, Colorado University at Boulder is in the midst of a
sports scandal unlike any we’ve seen recently.
The controversy has culminated in a grand total
of 7 allegations of rape by football players since
1997, most of which occurred under the realm
of Coach Gary Barnett. The most vocal of the
accusers is former Colorado place kicker Katie
Hnida, who claims she was verbally and physically harassed by teammates while she was at
Colorado.
In the stupidest series of moves ever, Barnett
made repeated comments about Hnida and her
abilities or lack thereof. In August 2000, Barnett
said, “Katie struggled with her performance, and
as a result never earned the respect of her teammates. If that prompted certain treatment toward her, I don’t know.” He followed that up this
month with the even more brilliant comment:
“Men respect people with ability. Katie Hnida
was not only a girl, she was terrible, and we
did her a favor.” He then called her a “sideshow
act, a publicity stunt”. Essentially, being a girl
is bad enough, but she was also a poor kicker,
and if she’d been any better, she wouldn’t have
been abused or raped. So, clearly, it’s her fault.
Thanks for clearing that up, Coach.
In the wake of the uproar, Barnett says he
knew nothing about the incidents. Unfortu-
nately, the police report from an alleged rape
in 2001 claims Barnett knew at the time. Next
move? Insert foot in mouth.
During a press conference on Wednesday,
Colorado President Elizabeth Hoffman placed
Barnett on administrative paid leave pending
an independent investigation by the University.
Should the committee find Barnett did not foster an atmosphere of alcohol, sex and abuse, he
will be reinstated
We’d like to know, how on earth can you keep
a man of such atrocious behavior on staff at a
University? Even the Boston Globe fined Bob
Ryan a month’s pay and cancelled all publicity
after his unacceptable comments last year about
smacking Joumanna Kidd. If Colorado doesn’t
fire Barnett, they make an extremely disturbing
statement about the overwhelming necessity of a
good football team.
Then I read in an article that a pending
lawsuit against Barnett is also filed against the
University for supporting a culture of misbehavior toward women. The University can’t fire
Barnett even if they want to because he deserves
due process from his employer. More importantly, if the University were to fire Barnett and
say, “yeah, we screwed up,” they lose the lawsuit
against themselves.
Perhaps the best we can hope for is that Colorado will wait until the closure of the lawsuit to
fire Barnett. In a worst-case scenario, Barnett
will have his cocky Larry King Live statements
fulfilled and be back at the Head Coach position.
We knew CU-Boulder was liberal; we just didn’t
think progressive meant choosing football over
morality.
SOUND ADVICE
Julie Gremillion presents the old, the new and the diehard favorites.
RETRO REWIND
“My Prerogative”
Bobby Brown
In honor of yet another Bobby
Brown arrest on Friday,
February 20th, we highlight
his most famous song as a solo
artist. Off his 1988 Don’t Be
Cruel album, “My Prerogative”
spent quite a while at number
one and helped the album reach
the same peak. The record also
gained acclaim for LA Reid and
Babyface who produced a few
of the tracks. At the time, we
didn’t realize that Bobby doing
what he wants to do meant
assaulting his wife and getting
arrested for a slew of stupid
things, including drunk driving.
His most recent crime is a parole
violation. Sorry, Bobby, but now
the Georgia courts are more
than happy to tell you exactly
what you can and can’t do. You
can deny liking the song all you
want, but you know you loved
it in grade school. You tried
imitating Bobby’s little dance
while you blasted your stereo.
It’s okay. We all did.
IN STEREO
“Stole”
Kelly Rowland
We’re in an era of groups
devolving into solo acts, and
Kelly Rowland joined the fray
with her solo debut Simply
Deep. More famous for her hit
single “Dilemma” with Nelly,
“Stole” is the leadoff track on
the record and a great place to
start, especially with that album
title. The song is about a few
kids who had brilliant futures
if only they didn’t get caught
up in “being cool”. No, I didn’t
say TLC or “Waterfalls,” you
just had a moment of extreme
déjà vu. Christina Aguilera had
the same little ditty in the form
of “Beautiful,” which followed
another simply deep TLC
song titled “Unpretty”. These
beautiful, airbrushed, plastic
surgeried pop stars do give us a
great perspective on self-esteem,
don’t they? At any rate, the
song’s pretty catchy and has
a good melody. If you aren’t
careful, you may really start
liking it.
EDITORIAL ADVICE
“Komm Süsser Tod (Come Sweet
Death)”
Shiro Sagisu
Don’t get scared; Rob Forman
swears by this Japanese pop
song. Despite the title, this song
is all about love and loss and all
of the feelings you feel after the
end of a relationship. Coming off
the soundtrack to a classic anime
movie, The End of Evangelion,
lyrics written by Japanese
Hideaki Anno, and composed
and arranged by Sagisu, this
semi-pop-ballad is hauntingly
performed entirely in English.
With deep sentiments like “It all
returns to nothing, it just keeps
tumbling down, tumbling down,
tumbling down,” “In my heart of
hearts, I know that I will never
love again, I’ve lost everything,
everything, everything that
matters to me matters in this
world,” and the calm, simple,
and enchanting background
accompaniment, it’s hard to not
be moved. Even better if you’ve
seen the movie and can place the
song with the stunning visuals.
F EBRUAR Y 23, 2004 | FIRST CALL | VOL . IV N O . 13
Get Up, Stand Up
Grad Students Assert Their Rights
BY ANNA ROBERTS & JESSICA WORK
Almost one year ago, on February
26th and 27 th of 2003, Penn graduate
students cast their votes in a union election. According to exit polls by the Daily
Pennsylvanian, over 60% voted in favor
of representation by GET UP (Graduate Employees Together, University of
Pennsylvania), an affiliate of the American Federation of Teachers. Today, the
union has not been recognized, and the
votes have not even been counted. The
reason? Penn has filed an appeal with
the National Labor Relations Board, the
division of the federal courts responsible
for labor litigation. The administration
understands that negotiating through the
court system is the perfect way to stall a
bargaining process, and it’s likely that by
the time a ruling is made, all the grads
who voted will have already left Penn.
The long and extensive appeal is grounded on the assertion that grads are not employees, but students, and therefore not
eligible for the labor rights which unions
fight to guarantee. This same argument
was already rejected by the NLRB in
2000 in a similar appeal filed by New
York University, and certainly the true
motivation behind this appeal is to fight
against precisely what the DP polls have
shown: Penn grads made a democratic
decision to form a union.
Why did graduate students take this
step? In September of 2000, most graduate students earned living stipends of
little over $12,000 a year with no health
insurance in exchange for their duties
as teaching and research assistants. The
estimated cost of living in Philadelphia
is $18,000 a year for a single adult. Add
this to the fact that rents in West Philadelphia, where most graduate students
live, have doubled in the past four years,
and you have cause for real financial
problems. Further, financial packages for
grad students often stipulate they are not
allowed to take other jobs, even if they
can find time between a full course load
and 20
to
30
hours
a week
working
for the
u n i v e r s i t y.
S i n c e
G E T
UP has
begun
organizing (but
ostensibly in no
relation
to their
a c tivities),
P e n n
has increased
t h e
average
g r a d
student
living
s t i pend to
$15,000
a n d
added a health insurance package. Although this is a step in the right direction,
grad students with children will point out
that Student Health Services, the primary
care provider under the current medical
plan, has no pediatrician.
All this may be justified if we assume
grad students are simply enduring six
years as poor, overworked apprentices
whose efforts will be more than compensated once they begin their careers in the
cushy world of academia. Unfortunately,
career prospects are dimming through
exactly the same process that has led to
grad students being responsible for so
much of our undergraduate education. It
works like this: Penn gains a competitive
edge
over
other universities by
paying high
salaries
to a small
number of
top-notch
professors
who
gain
recognition
and prestige
through
their writing
and
research.
Since teaching undergrads is a
relatively
low-prestige
and
low-priority aspect of
their career,
professors
hand their
TAs the responsibility
for correcting papers,
w r i t i n g
tests, leading recitations and holding
office hours. In their capacity as employees, grads are also responsible for teaching undergraduate seminars, and the
additional slack is picked up by adjuncts
who, by the way, get paid $3,500 per
course. Since the bulk of undergraduate
education is now taken care of by grads
P AGE 3
and adjuncts, universities have less and
less incentive to hire more faculty. In
fact, the percentage of full-time university faculty shrunk from 80% in 1970 to
60% in 1995.
Setting aside moral outrage at the
blatant attempts by Penn’s administration to sabotage a legitimate democratic
election, why should undergrads be concerned about this issue? There are several
practical reasons. First, our TAs play a vital role in our education. A recent survey
of several universities including Yale and
NYU showed that grads and adjuncts are
responsible for 50-70% of all hours spent
teaching, which doesn’t include office
hours, preparation or time spent grading.
We need our TAs to be accessible to us,
and whether they can afford to live near
the university and have adequate medical
care directly affects their competence as
educators. Second, grad unions at other
universities have successfully bargained
for more teaching support, including
intensive English-language courses for
foreign TAs. As a result of pressure from
GET UP, Penn recently expanded TA
training from a mere three hours to two
days. Other issues that grad unions have
addressed include providing office space
for all TAs, which many do not have, and
limiting class size. Finally, many of us
plan to become graduate students. Our
decision to pursue an academic career
should not be contingent on our ability to
get by on an unlivable wage of $12,000 a
year with no health benefits. Ultimately,
the bottom line is that Penn must drop its
appeal and count the votes now—not only
in respect of democracy, but for the benefit of grads, our learning conditions as
undergrads, and the continued prestige
of this institution.
Anna Roberts and Jessica Work are seniors in the
College. You can write to thm at annarobe@sas
and jwork@sas.
P AGE 4
F EBRUAR Y 23, 2004 | FIRST CALL | VOL . IV N O . 13
THE REALITY WILL NOT BE TELEVISED
BY CARLOS BYRD
“The first media coup d’etat” proclaims,
perhaps quite righteously, the official website of the controversial documentary The
Revolution Will Not Be Televised. Controversial, I state, because for many, viewing
the documentary has become an eye opening experience. Before, foreigners, especially
U.S. citizens, were subjected to a filtered
image of Hugo Chavez and his government
in Venezuela. Spokesmen of the U.S. government, newspapers in Florida, domestic and
international media stations helped create
a Chavez who was eloquent, volatile, antiamerican almost to the point of supporting
terrorism, and most importantly, a Chavez
dangerously emulating Fidel Castro. With
this documentary, foreigners finally have a
chance to meet the Venezuelan president
face to face. They can take a peek at the
way politics works in Venezuela and make a
fairer judgment of the man so many in Venezuela blame for the alarming levels of insecurity, economic woes, social polarization,
and inescapably high levels of bureaucratic
inefficiency and corruption that plague Venezuela. Despite these misgivings, Chavez
represents for many in Venezuela, especially
the poorer stratum of the population, a genuinely caring and devoted president, a man
in whom they can trust, a man who fights for
the rights of the oppressed and challenges
the oppressors.
Chavez is a contradictory figure. He legitimately believes in his revolution. I do not
doubt in any way that he has given his “best”
for Venezuela. However, a detailed perusal
at his closest followers uncovers corrupt
schemes of multimillionaire proportions
and complete disregard of the democratic
process. His huge government projects are
perfect vehicles for commissions, inefficiency and political gains. At the same time,
he cares about the people in the “barrios,” as
demonstrated by the medic program “Barrio Adentro,” his emission of micro credits
for the small businesses and other social
projects of the sort. Some may see these
programs as a continuation of the lifelong
philosophy of subsidizing everything in
Venezuela; others may refute that, though
inefficient and short-lived, these programs
convey and transmit something grander
than economic efficiency, dignity, a desire
for progress. It is hard to grasp who is Hugo
Chavez Frias.
I went to see The Revolution Will Not
Be Televised in hopes that it would show
another side of Chavez (I knew it was proChavez) that would broaden the foreigner’s
conception of the Venezuelan problem and
its complexity. Aided by the new perspective,
a foreigner would be able to understand Venezuela needs somebody who jealously values
nationalism over everything else and who
understands the poorer classes have been
neglected. At the same time the foreigner
would understand that Chavez’s attempts
to govern and manage have resulted in
more impoverishment and devolution of the
middle class and stagnancy for the poorer
classes. However, the documentary ascer-
“To my disbelief The
Revolution Will Not
Be Televised ended
up being political
propaganda subtly disguised as an
objective documentary.”
tains none of these assumptions. To my disbelief The Revolution Will Not Be Televised
ended up being political propaganda subtly
disguised as an objective documentary.
Ironic as it is, the documentary emphasizes media manipulation as the probable cause for the failed coup d’etat of April
2002, while at the same time manipulating
the viewer’s perspective of the events. In a
nutshell, the video can be summarized in
two parts. The first part depicts Chavez as
the man of the people. It shows him at several political rallies and campaigns, kissing
old women, playfully interacting with the
crowd, carefully listening to everybody’s
problems, which he duly notes and archives.
We also get some insight into his personal
thoughts and reflections. The second part
of the video focuses on the events of April
2002. It is in this part of the video where
the directors Kim Bartley and Donnata O
Briain blatantly distort the events and artificially heighten the romanticized ideal of
Chavismo.
Western culture and music usually associates certain melodies and musical notes
with sensation and feelings. For example,
Sidney Bechet’s “Blue Horizon” immediately conveys sensuality; the music from
“The Phantom of the Opera” conveys dark-
ness. This is, of course, an inexorable truth.
In The Revolution Will Not Be Televised,
whenever a leader from the opposition appears, dark tenebrous melodies resonate in
the background. Whenever Chavez or his
collaborators appear, triumphant music or
Venezuelan folkloric music complements
the moment. The dark music combined
with the brusque editing of images creates
enmity and hostility from the viewers’ part
to anybody antagonist to Chavez.
Mistranslations, recurrent throughout
the documentary, distort the viewers’ perspective on Chavez and his detractors. In the
film, a bare-chested young man shouts to
the camera Chavéz ¡Maldito! Prometiste que
no nos ibas a quitar las garantías, phrases
that most closely translate to “Chavez, damn
you! You promised you wouldn’t take away
our rights.” When the young man speaks of
“rights,” he’s indirectly referring to Chavez’s
failed attempt to activate El Plan Avila, a
military mobilization designed to curb civil
liberties and implement a military control
of Caracas. In the documentary, the young
man’s angry complaints are savagely altered
to, “Chavez, fuck you!” Furthermore, there
are moments in which the film portrays a
certain crowd as pro-Chavez, when in fact,
just by listening to what the crowd says, I
“Whenever Chavez
or his collaborators
appear, triumphant
music or Venezuelan folkloric music
complements the moment.”
realized they were anti-Chavez.
The film has a myriad of details that bias
the viewer’s opinion in favor of the Chavez
regime. Some argue the private media
incited an atmosphere of do or die in the
opposition on April 11th when an angry mob
of Chavez’ followers waited expectantly and
with dubious intentions near the presidential palace. Yet, what is undoubtedly true is
that just as the huge march was approaching
the infamous side of the shooting, Puente
Llaguno, Chavez exercised his legal right
as president and overtook the airwaves,
right when presumably his followers started
shooting the peaceful demonstration. The
networks decided to adopt a split screen, half
showing the president talking, the other half
showing a peaceful march desperately escaping a deadly ambush. The documentary
claims the Chavez followers never fired at
the march with a disparate camera view that
holds no time/space cohesiveness with other
camera angles at the time of the shooting. To
discover more manipulation and distortion
just read the small pamphlet that is given
when viewing the documentary. In it, Wolfgang Shalk of BBC London and Thaelman
Urgelles enumerate many inaccuracies and
distortions that further validate the film’s
inherent political intention.
More importantly, the film holds a particular sway with U. S. citizens because it
plays the “Bush angle”. It tries to show that
the U.S. government once again forcefully
interfered in a sovereign country’s politics.
These assumptions are not only ignorant
and conceited; they allude to America’s
pretentious notions of self-grandeur. Venezuelans decide Venezuela’s fate. No doubt,
the U.S. has its agents in Venezuela. But the
coup d’etat was simply the withdrawal of
the armed forces’ commanders’ support for
Chavez, catalyzed by the multitudinous civic
demonstrations and the resulting desperate
attempts on Chavez’s part to stop the march
with the activation of the Plan Avila.
Notwithstanding all these aberrations,
the documentary effectively persuades
and convinces the passive viewer. They eat
their “no more media manipulation”—super-sized. My fellow spectators’ astonishment at the media’s unfair demonization
of Chavez vexed me. I was disappointed at
their oxymoronic attitude. They let their
preconceived notions about media manipulation be satisfied instead of taking an active
posture and attacking the documentary.
Moreover, they leave the theater feeling like
Venezuela is another U.S. puppet. If Chavez
is right in anything, it is his staunch nationalism. Anyhow, the film has raised eyebrows
nationwide. It has been shown across campuses and cities. Sentiments of sympathy
for Chavez have risen. For better or worse,
Chavez marks a pivotal moment in Venezuela’s history. The rest of the world better sit
down, buy some popcorn, preferably made
from some third world country’s cheap corn,
and enjoy the ride.
Carlos Byrd is a member of the Penn community.
You can write to him at cbyrd@19832003@ya
hoo.com.
BEST BETS 2/23 - 2/29
Rob Forman’s picks for the week
Monday: Straight Plan for the Gay Man (Comedy
Central, 10 PM) is, naturally, a parody of Queer Eye
for the Straight Guy. The “Flab Four” take a gay
man and pull the wool over the world’s eye. Will
people believe he’s straight? After all, what gay man
says, “Please slopify me?” I don’t know, but this
sounds like a hoot. Possibly a hoot and a half.
Tuesday: Fraiser (NBC, 9 PM) finally returns to
the air with “Caught in the Act.” Compared to
last season, the show truly has returned to form
with the haughty, high-class funny. This is the last
season of the show, but unlike Friends, Fraiser has
been woefully mistreated by NBC thanks to airings
of extra-long Fear Factors and rescheduled Will &
Grace episodes.
Wednesday: Angel (WB, 9 PM) follows tradition
with “A Hole in the World” by shoving heartwrenching pain in our faces after last week’s classic and memorable laugh-fest. Leave it to Joss
Whedon, creator of the series and writer/director
of this episode to lift spirits and finally unite two
characters, only to kill someone off. The plot arc
has begun, and it starts with a bang. I realize that
after last week’s warranted rant it may seem trite to
use the show as my Wednesday Best Bet, but I was
planning to use this episode anyway. The Gregory
group in the Van Pelt Piano Lounge is still around
and is in fact growing, in case you don’t want to
watch alone.
Thursday: ER (NBC, 10 PM) asks us to “Forgive
and Forget.” The show may have turned into a
prime-time soap opera that happens to take place
at a hospital, but they can occasionally get major
disasters right. This week, we don’t have helicopter
crashes or outbreaks of the Ebola virus (seriously,
how many times can that happen to one hospital
in Chicago?), but a madman on the loose with an
Army tank, and he’s bent on punishing the County
General staffers. And one of said staffers has a
heart attack.
Friday: Monk (USA, 10 PM) awkwardly metes out
“Mr. Monk Gets Married.” If you haven’t seen this
charming, thoughtful, and hilarious series, tape
it or watch it; just see it. Tony Shalhoub, recent
Emmy winner, plays a detective with OCD, who
painstakingly goes through life and notices things
mere mortals cannot. Funnier than almost anything on network TV.
Saturday: America’s Most Wanted (FOX, 9 PM).
So I’m really stretching here. Saturday really is
a television wasteland. But at least you get some
precious edutainment in case one of the featured
felons happens to walk past you on the streets of
West Philly.
Sunday: 76th Annual Academy Awards (ABC, 8
PM) will finally answer the questions burning in
this country’s mind for the last few months. Will
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King finally earn the Best Picture prize for fantasy movies
everywhere? What will Nicole Kidman do since she
was rightfully snubbed? And will Sofia Coppola
wear a better dress than the one she wore to the
Golden Globes? Tune in for the not-so-live telecast: there’s a 5-second delay.
If You Can Only Watch One: (Sunday). Thought
I was gonna say, Angel, didn’t you? Well, I would
have, but it is the Oscars…
F EBRUAR Y 23, 2004 | FIRST CALL | VOL . IV N O . 13
P AGE 5
Dishonorable Diatribe
BY CHAN AHN
Toward the end of the Fall 2003 semester,
I found out I had not gotten into a psychology class for which I had registered, listing
it on Penn-In-Touch as my first choice.
How come? Apparently, it was a “Benjamin
Franklin Seminar,” and I am not a “Benjamin Franklin Scholar” so the registration
system automatically rejected me. The
registration system was basically telling me
I was too dumb to get into the class—not to
mention that I wasted my first choice on the
selection.
Schools that offer general honors programs, such as the one offered by Penn, tend
to have limited resources. The University of
Texas, for example, has almost forty thousand undergraduates so it is hard, if not
impossible, to cater to the needs of every
student. Thus, the general honors program
was created to do just that for a selected few
of the brightest individuals. Other schools
that boast general honors program have at
Penn’s holier-than-thou hierarchy
least twice Penn’s number of undergraduates
and most of them are public schools: UCLA,
the University of Iowa, the University of
Delaware, and the University of Maryland
to name a few.
So why does Penn, ranked first in terms
of faculty resources by U.S. News, have a general honors program? Why is Penn the only
Ivy that has a general honors program at all?
Apparently, none of our Ivy peers feel the
need for an honors program to distinguish a
selected few from the rest. Penn clearly does.
In addition to the general honors program, Penn is the only school in the Ivy
League with an undergraduate business
school. Although I am a proud Whartonite,
I must admit Wharton is as elitist as, if not
more than, the general honors program.
There is a list of things that non-Wharton
students cannot do in Huntsman. The ability to reserve a study room is one privilege of
being a Whartonite. Non-Wharton students
cannot use computers in Huntsman or the
Lippincott Library. Even if you think you can
get around it, say by signing up for a “fake
Wharton ID” as my friend in the College calls
it, and gain access to computers, you will
soon find that you cannot print from computers in Wharton buildings because your
ID is a “fake Wharton ID.” Did you know
they charge fees if a College student reserves
a classroom in Huntsman? No wonder
people roll eyes and ask “have you sold your
soul yet?” when I say I am in Wharton. Although these things seem so minor that one
should not really care about them, it is these
little things which leave the impression that
Wharton people are snobs. Most of us are not.
Penn students may not all be the same,
but we are equal; our parents pay the same
outrageously high tuition, we have the same
president that is retiring this June—she
probably got sick of West Philadelphia—we
all think the Penn Bookstore is ripping us
WHITES ONLY
GRAY DAWN
Continued from PAGE 1
Continued from PAGE 1
is only open to minority groups and does
not permit whites to apply. So this raises
a rather fair question: if Mr. Mattera
feels so strongly that these minority-only
grants are prejudicial, why did he accept the scholarship he is receiving? It
would seem that if he were a principled
individual, he would have shunned something he considers biased and that, as he
states, gives him “an inherent advantage
over [his] white peers.” I contend that
this speaks something to his character,
but this should not be the focus of what is
wrong with this whole situation.
This action, befitting of a College
Republican group, goes far beyond being
merely politically incorrect. This action
represents outright racism. Yes, racism.
Even the GOP of Rhode Island says that
this scholarship has “racist overtones.”
Of course, there is a question that surely
several ask. Why is it racist to have whiteonly scholarships but not minority only?
First off, minority scholarships were
initially started decades ago in response
to the legal restrictions placed against
people of color in this nation. At a time
when many universities were given the
option of denying admission to individuals for being African-American, Latino,
Asian, or any other classification that
didn’t match their criteria for their whiteonly institutions, these scholarships were
sometimes the only help available to
people of color. Private individuals came
forward at the time and donated money
in the hope of uplifting the minority communities in this country out from the
squalors of a racist society. These scholarships have continued to this day, still
striving for the equalization of the educational playing field that sadly is far from
realized. In looking at why a scholarship
for minorities has ever been necessary,
it offends the very dignity of any decent
American who believes in the work left
to do in achieving racial equality that one
would seriously put forward a white-only
monetary award.
Even beyond the socio-historic reasons for why this RWU College Republican scholarship is wrong, there exists
a very disturbing parallel in the wording
of their application. This notion of pride
in one’s “white-heritage,” as if whiteheritage really existed, raises strong overtones with notions of white-power that
drove the false idea of a white-heritage
among groups as “diverse” as the Ku Klux
Klan, the Third Reich, and other white
supremacist groups throughout the U.S.
and Western Europe. What the RWU College Republicans and groups that echoed
their support for this scholarship, such as
the Penn Republicans, are doing is invoking the logic and some of the ideology that
allowed the spread of racism in epidemic
proportions for centuries.
Make no mistake in my intent in including the Penn College Republican’s
in this article. In the February 19th Daily
Pennsylvanian, the Vice-President of the
Penn College Republicans, Stephanie
Steward, stated that she thinks the scholarship is an “absolutely brilliant thing to
do.” Really Ms. Steward, “brilliant” characterizes this act to you? The only word
that I can think of to aptly describe this
scholarship is “racist.” But there is one
more point, a rather controversial and
surely sensitive point that many may mention. What about those few people who
are racial minorities themselves and are
supporting this white-only scholarship?
After all, the point of this white-only
scholarship is to protest the unfairness of
minority scholarships. These people who
happen to be opposed to things such as
affirmative action are merely doing what
they think is right, regardless of their own
race.
In response to that point, I would say
that the conservative Republican groups
around the country can push forward
any few minority individuals they want
to show that they have the support of
people of color in this debate. But if a
vote were taken based on the overall
views of Latinos, African-Americans, and
Asians around the nation, I guarantee
that people such as Jason Mattera would
not be very well represented. I know civil
rights activist and Presidential candidate
Al Sharpton has some comments on this
issue. It was he who, in referring to the
conservative African-American Supreme
Court Justice Clarence Thomas, stated
“Justice Thomas may be one of my people,
but he’s not my kind of people.” That is
something to think about.
In the end of this debate, the RWU College Republicans, the Penn Republicans
(if they so chose to) and any other group
in this country has the absolute right to
start a scholarship raised through private
funds that only whites may apply for. This
is the right of free speech as enshrined
in the First Amendment.However, individuals willing to stand up to this racist
propaganda have the First Amendment
right to speak out against bigoted actions.
Those that would dare invoke the very
recent memories of “whites only need apply” and ignore the help that so many underprivileged minority students continue
to receive from scholarships designed for
people of color deserve the outrage of the
community. The RWU College Republicans have my outrage and hopefully the
outrage of every Penn student with any
common sense.
I truly hope that Penn proves itself
better than our peers in Rhode Island.
Michael Patterson is a junior in the College. You
can write to him at mjp2@sas.
off.
Certain small actions on Penn’s part,
however, make it seem that some of us are
holier than others when we really are not.
Of course, some of us Penn students use
spreadsheets better than others, but that is
beside the point. Of all the Wharton people
I have met, none of them are special enough
to warrant special study rooms or special
computers. Of all the BFS people I have
met, most of them do not even want to take
the seminars because such seminars often
do not fulfill the College’s general education requirements. Why Penn does these
things remains a mystery, but one thing is
clear—Penn needs to stop emphasizing how
students are not equal. Before we are Wharton students or Benjamin Franklin Scholars,
we are Penn students.
Chan Ahn is a freshman in Wharton. You can
write to him at chanh@wharton.
put down their knitting and
engage in all out terrorist
warfare. A few outstanding
examples are all that’s necessary to illustrate the potential
danger of this apocryphally
harmless demographic. Not
surprisingly, nearly all examples of this domestic strife
are documented in Florida.
Coincidence? I think not.
Take for instance the case
of the world’s oldest bank
robber, Red Rountree. First
convicted of grand larceny
in Florida in 1999, Rountree has been convicted of
robbing banks twice in the
past five years, using only his
imposing nonagenarian stature and an envelope labeled
“Robbery” in red marker.
Facing a potential 20-year
sentence at age 91, Rountree
shows little remorse. Like all
elderly people, he is a hopeless Social Security junky.
Explaining himself to the
Orlando Sentinel in 2001, Rountree only offered, “I rob banks for the money. Social
security is all I have, and I like to live good.” Social Security. Living good. Does the
insanity ever cease?
Rountree is not alone either. One of his contemporaries, Roland Clark, just weeks
ago robbed a bank with his wife Deloris to cover “medical bills.” Shamelessly, the couple
feigned a bomb threat with a bag of sand and attempted a getaway in their ’78 Lincoln
before a dye pack mixed amongst the money exploded and stopped them dead in their
insurgent tracks. Is there no justice in a country where people put their medical expenses before the glory of the Father Land?
The threat is clear. Soon the elderly will move to threatening notes or perhaps
even weapons of some kind: a sharpened knitting needle or a rolled up TV Guide, for
instance. For the sake of safeguarding both stolen currency and burgled Social Security
money from being squandered on trivial personal expenses, as if it were some sort of
Federal Program to alleviate poverty, I say, “Social Security for Society!” We must strike
and strike fast at the heart of these as yet inchoate but dastardly plots on the part of
the Wrinkled Ones to undermine the efforts of our magnificent leaders. Poverty is but
an invention in their eyes, a tool to aid the ends of the wicked. If only they would open
their eyes and see the enlightened truth of the GOP: the time has come to work or to
die.
Andrew Pederson is a freshman in the College. You can write to him at awl@sas.
m
s
i
l
l
a
c
t
s
fir The Dueling Lipsticks:
Seriously, tampons
don’t look like that.
F EBRUAR Y 23, 2004 | FIRST CALL | VOL . IV N O . 13
P AGE 6
Hans Goes to Philadelphia
BY BRIAN HERTLER
I received a strange package in
the mail today. It seems that my
mother, as she was cleaning out
our attic last week, came across the
travel diaries of my great-greatgreat grandfather, Hans Henrik
Hertler, who accidentally took a
trip around the world in 1839.
Apparently, Hans had been driving his goat-cart to a nearby village
when he became wrapped up in
reading The Wond’rous Maggik
Elf-Sworde, an early fantasy novel,
and traveled an extra ninety miles.
Trying to find his way home, and
also nearing the end of his book,
he wandered aboard a ship and,
amazingly, found his way to Philadelphia.
A short excerpt from his notes,
I hope, may not be unworthy of
publication in this fine magazine:
Friday, Feb. 23, 1839
Today, as I continued my wanderings in this strange American
city, I forded a western river with
Goatstein and came upon a great
place of learning. The customs
and people of this place struck
me as most peculiar. Many of the
women-folk have fantastical symbols written across their backsides,
and many of the men’s shirts carry
misspelled obscenities. Passers-by,
discussing their recent degrees of
inebriation, seem to boast of low
alcohol
tolerance—something
typically kept a secret in my
hometown. I began the day by
purchasing some bread and finelychopped meat from a sidewalk
vendor; I fed it all to Goatstein,
who bleated happily.
Not forgetting the strange circumstances that brought me here,
I fixed upon a single goal: reading
the next volume of Wond’rous
Maggik Elf-Sworde. Some friendly
interrogation brought me to a
library, but upon entrance I was
blocked by a set of revolving metal
bars. The gatekeeper informed me
that only students were permitted
inside, but I offered him a handful of goat-feed and we quickly
reached an understanding.
I found my Elf-Sworde with
the help of a librarian and sat in
a plush chair to read. Goatstein
scrambled onto the cushions beside me. No sooner had I entered
the world of Wond’rous Maggik,
however, than a voice called to me.
“What ho there, young rustic!”
I looked up and found a blackrobed scholar before me. “I say,”
continued he, “I fear that your
goatish friend is sitting upon my
favorite cushion!”
I apologized, and we wrestled
Goatstein bleatingly to the floor.
As the scholar sat beside me, I
noticed he carried a book entitled
The Realm of the Real and the
Order of the Symbolic. At once
interested, I inquired about the
events transpiring within. He explained, at great length, about the
progression of the Self—through
its split with the Real and with
the Primal Object, its movement
into the Symbolic domain, and its
emerging desire for the locus of the
signifier, or the Other. In turn, I
told him about my own book, that
the combination of four Elemental
Crystals allowed the domination of
the Dark Lich, the activation of the
Wond’rous Maggiks of Amatha,
and the quest of the Masterful
Avenger.
The scholar and I, having
found a common interest, became
friends immediately.
He said
he was a member of the “Phillymathian Society,” and urged me
to join. “Come,” said he, “we will
eat fancy cheeses and laugh at our
own cleverness. I daresay that,
with your advanced knowledge of
philosophy, you’ll fit in splendidly.”
“Regardless of any knowledge,” I replied—and, indeed,
my knowledge came quite as a
surprise to me—”my interests rest
firmly within the pages of my fine
literature.”
“A book-lover, then! I expect
you must spend a lot of time taking literature courses in Bennett
Hall.”
“Indeed!” Suddenly I had a vision of reading fantasy novels with
the greatest minds in the New
World. Much stimulated with the
prospect, I bid the lad good-afternoon and rushed out of the library.
Goatstein followed close behind.
On my way out, the gatekeeper
stopped me and demanded that I
open my bag for him. Thinking
quickly, I buried my Elf-Sworde
under a clump of oaten goat-feed,
and he was none the wiser.
Everything appeared to be
coming up Hans. Not only had
I gotten my next book, I’d found
that the students here appreciated
fine fantasy novels as well.
As I walked, I happened to
glance at a local newspaper. A
student in the editorial page was
calling for President Van Buren to
raise taxes and institute some sort
of “well-fare” system. I worried for
the lad; perhaps the love of fantasy
worlds can sometimes go too far.
Goatstein and I entered the
English building, a crumbling
structure that must have been
built a hundred years beforehand.
Hoping for some insight into
the Elf-Sworde books, I asked a
teacher to direct me to a lecture in
current fiction, and I soon found
myself in the back of a crowded
classroom. The students around
me carried copies of Oliver Twist, a
new book by Charles Dickens.
The professor walked in and
began to lecture about the novel.
I looked on with another student,
but the contents of the book
quickly disturbed me. Standing
up in place, I politely interrupted
the class. “Excuse me,” I said, “but
the bulk of the action seems to
concern one young man, correct?”
“Of course,” the professor replied, “Oliver is an orphan who
falls in with a band of thieves.”
“Then I declare I am confused.
I read for several pages, and this
Mr. Dickens never explains the
maggikal powers that young Oliver possesses.”
“Quite naturally, goat farmer,
because he has none.”
“Then is he not a master
swordsman? How defends he
himself from enemies?”
“He does not defend himself—
that is why we pity him!”
“In that case,” said I, “there
is no reason to read the book.” I
snatched up a nearby copy and
cast it onto the ground. Goatstein,
beside me, sprang forward and
commenced to chew upon it.
“Why,” the professor cried,
“then you are an ignorant buffoon!
This is a work of great literature,
and needs no maggiks or swords,
or indeed any interesting element,
to be great! You are a rustic fool to
question it!”
I offered fisticuffs to the man,
since he had insulted my honor,
but the mass of students echoed
him with shouts of their own—
they called me an unlearned peasant, an ignoramus, a barbarian.
Had I been betrayed? Rising from
their seats, the students gathered
around me, struck me about the
head with their books, and ejected
me from the classroom. Goatstein
quickly followed, as they grabbed
his stubby horns and threw him
out after me.
I declare myself much insulted
by the incident. It seems that
many students here cannot tell the
difference between boring novels
and fantasy novels. Perhaps I
will seek out this “Philly-mathian
Society” and find some people who
appreciate good reading.
Brian Hertler is a junior in the College.
You can write to him at hertlerb@sas
F EBRUAR Y 23, 2004 | FIRST CALL | VOL . IV N O . 13
P AGE 7
The Iron Fist of Sponsorship
Is money getting in the way of truth?
BY ANNA STRONGIN
Scandal. That is definitely not a word one
would associate with a medical journal.
With The National Inquirer—yes . With
Dialysis & Transplantation—definitely
not. Somehow this wicked word wiggled
its way into the ordered, impartial world
of scientific research, when the magazine
rejected an article questioning the effectiveness of a dialysis medication.
Currently, the government is considering funding increased doses of Epogen, a
drug that increases the level of red blood
cells in patients with kidney problems, for
Medicare recipients. Dennis Cotter, the
president of a nonprofit health research
group, wrote an article criticizing expansion of the use of the medication. The
article could have proven disastrous for
Amgen Inc., the company that produces
Epogen.
All this is pretty standard stuff. There
is nothing scandalous about wanting increased demand for a product. After all,
what company doesn’t want that? Let’s
delve deeper. Amgen is one of Dialysis &
Transplantation magazine’s primary advertising clients. And did you know that no
science publication can exist independent
of pharmaceutical company advertisements, with the exception of the New England Medical Journal? Combined, these
two facts scream that the scandal label is
warranted in this case.
No wonder Wharton degrees are in
such high demand. There really appears to
be no enterprise, public or private, that is
not impacted by business and economics.
While I am willing to accept the fact that
REAL WORLD
Continued from PAGE 1
and livable homes. The truth could not be
further away. The entire house is gutted by
the production company before the roommates move in. New walls are installed with
space for camera crews and producers to
walk around outside of the characters’ lives.
Microphones and cameras are strategically
placed. It may look like a music video, but
as you might expect, there is little privacy
and it’s not entirely safe. I would hate to
see a building in Philadelphia’s beautiful
historical area turned into an ultra-modern
music video flat. Not to mention that when
MTV moves out, no one else can move in.
The place is completely unlivable. The city
of New Orleans was furious with MTV for
trashing a beautiful Southern mansion in
the historical district and leaving it to ruins.
Somehow, I doubt MTV has suddenly developed a conscience.
Each year on The Real World, the cast
members are set up on a job, whether it be
running a local television station show or
working for a travel company. Philadelphia’s
seven will likely be working for restaurant
maven Stephen Starr. Which restaurant is
anyone’s guess, and what function they will
serve is also a mystery. But come April or
May, if you just happen to walk into one
of the restaurants and get bombarded by
production assistants asking you to sign
a waiver form allowing MTV to use your
likeness from now until eternity, don’t be
surprised. Hell, why not try to get in with
one of the cast members and be featured in
a sexually enticing way? The temptation is
there.
This brings me to my main question
giving me pause: is The Real World good
for Philadelphia? Sure, it will give the rest
of the country a look into our youth culture
side, our night scene, visits to any or all of
the varied cheese steak operations, and several panoramic shots of the skyline. I don’t
doubt a prevalence of South Street visitations or soft pretzel vendors. Maybe UPenn
the decisions most companies make are
meant to promote their own interests over
those of the public, I also feel a line needs
to be drawn at the point where such selfinterest places financial profitability above
health.
Had the article rejected by the magazine only emphasized the fact that the
larger quantities of Epogen do not appear
to significantly improve patients’ health, I
could somewhat understand the editor’s
decision not to publish the article. In actuality, Cotter emphasized the fact that in-
No wonder Wharton
degrees are in such high
demand. There really appears to be no enterprise,
public or private, that is
not impacted by business
and economics.
creased doses of the drug were associated
with higher death rates in addition to addressing the issue of whether the positive
effects were worth the cost.
Granted, the specifics of the correlation
between the two things have yet to be established. Death and even physical injury
are not things that should be taken lightly.
Therefore, even if ultimately it is proven
there is absolutely no connection between
the medication’s amount and rate of patient death, as of today, the possibility that
the drug has negative effects does exist.
will be featured in an episode for god knows
what reason. The Franklin Institute, Rocky
Steps and Philadelphia Art Museum, the
Liberty Bell, Independence Hall, for sure.
But what kind of good can a show like
this do for the community at large? The sex,
the smut, the controversy… Philadelphia
has been doing such a great job cleaning
itself up, giving itself a character as a city,
and improving on the national scene over
the last decades. Will The Real World be
equivalent to a big publicity stunt? Will
prices go up as the city catches Hollywood
fever? Will the show work with the Greater
Philadelphia Film Office to help bring
awareness of the Philadelphia movie scene
to the national eye? Will the show have no
effect on normal life, at least for we college
students? Most importantly, will I or will
anyone I know be caught on television in an
awkward, likely drunken, state of stupor? I
invite you all to mail in your opinions, as
I’m intrigued by the possibilities and, for
once, what others have to say instead of my
opinion.
Little information is known about the
exploitation-fest’s characters or locations;
rumors are abuzz on the Internet. A website
has already been created to track any and
all information about the upcoming show.
Apparently there are some Philadelphia
denizens who have been praying for this
eventuality for the last 14 years. Seriously,
what took MTV so long to get here? Two
seasons in NYC, two in Europe, but nothing
in one of America’s biggest, most historical
and cultural cities? Anticipation is high. I’m
eager to see where things take place, how it
affects us all, even though it will be Summer vacation for most of the shooting cycle,
and what shit goes down. And something
always goes down. So, here’s my official
welcoming cheer, on behalf of First Call, to
one or two southerners, a homosexual or bisexual, an innocent, some ethnic diversity, a
few partiers, and whole lot of skin. Welcome
to Philly!
Rob Forman is a sophomorw in Wharton. You can
write to him at robertf@wharton.
This means that the primary responsibility of healthcare representatives—be they
physicians, scientists, or medical journal
publishers—is to convey these risks to their
patients, allowing them to make informed
decisions.
The actions of the magazine are absolutely inexcusable for compromising
its own integrity. At the same time, the
behavior of the pharmaceutical company
isn’t much better.
The editors could have found a better
way of dealing with the problem of offending one of their biggest sponsors. Pairing
the article criticizing Epogen with one that
supported its usage in larger quantities, for
example, could have eliminated the problem of creating a bias against the drug.
Doing something along those lines would
have put all possible information out on
the table, allowing consumers to use it
to reach their own, independent conclusions. The failure to do so is definitely the
journal’s offense.
This error pales in comparison to the
crime committed by the pharmaceutical
companies—the crime of exerting control
over the medical journal’s content. It is
quite frightening to think that the drug
companies out there provide primary financial support for these magazines and in
return demand that the magazines reflect
their interests and goals, while disregarding those of the public. Threatened by the
withdrawal of support, medical journals
across the board are forced to choose the
lesser of two evils—cutting out information
critical of products the advertisers produce
over being forced to close down for lack of
resources and thus depriving consumers of
information, entirely.
Neither Dialysis & Transplantation,
nor any other publication, should have to
make that choice. It is completely unfair to
compromise on the amount of information
available, especially in terms of failure to
mention risks associated with particular
procedures or drugs.
Nothing good can come out of messing
with the “invisible hand”. That is just the
bottom line. Pharmaceutical companies
may just be exercising their economic
freedom in moving that hand to a position
most favorable to them—one that would
increase the demand for their product. But
in doing so, they transport the power of
that hand to a sphere—the distribution of
information—in which it was not meant to
have any influence. Directing from behind
the scenes, this force is dangerous both
because it limits the relevant knowledge
readers can attain from such a publication
and because this limitation is extremely
difficult to detect—the absence of something necessary. This forces involuntary
ignorance onto people, an ignorance which
could significantly impact their well-being
and not in a good way.
That is truly scandalous. Even though
it may not be as exciting as Janet Jackson’s
breast at the Super Bowl, this scandal has
the upper hand because it actually affects
people.
Anna Strongin is a sophomore in the College.
You can write to her at astrongi@sas
THE UNDERGRADUATE MAGAZINE | P UBLISHED I NDEPENDENTLY AT THE U NIVERSITY OF P ENNSYLVANIA |F EBRUAR Y 23, 2004 VOL . IV NO .13
lastcall
critically informed.
Sexcapades on the Silver Screen
BY ROZ PLOTZKER
Last weekend, I got myself to a Ritz theater and managed to indulge in two beautiful hours of cinema. It’s not
often that recreation finds its way into my planner, and
when I get the chance to have a little down time, I like to
make it count. “Screw you, BBB homework, I’m going to
the movies,” might be one of the most liberating sayings
in the world right now. I would recommend you take a
ridiculously hard BBB course so that you, too, can experience the thrill of blowing it off. Going to the movies might
sound a little lame, so it has to be a good movie to make up
for the fact that I can’t say something more stirring, say,
“I’m going to Disney world!”
The Ritz film bill, Philly Weekly, and my neighbor Tim
have all pushed for a movie called The Dreamers. From
what I’d been told, it was an NC-17 flick about a university student studying abroad in Paris in 1968—a.k.a.
“the year that rocked the world” according to
author Mark Kurlansky. The student finds sexual
freedom after meeting two attractive French brunettes; one male, one female. “The Dreamers is an
overripe, super-sensual multiple orgasm of a film,”
says the Philly Weekly movie review. “Awesome,” I
thought. “French Y Tu Mamma Tambien, with Italian director Burtolucci. Perfect.”
The danger of skimming movie reviews is ignoring paragraphs that explain details like the hot
brunettes are fraternal twins who never grew out of
the “I’ll show you mine if you show me yours” stage.
Yes, there were graphic sex scenes that warranted
the NC-17, but the use of sex and nudity—what it
represented—wasn’t exactly sexy. In my evolutionary anthropology class, we talked about Bonobo
monkeys: the only primates other than us that have
sex facing each other. This discussion was replete
with PowerPoint slide photos: the female on her
back with her legs up, looking at the camera and
seeming about as bored as the first lady must feel
when she and George Dubya do, well, anything. Mr.
Bonobo looked very focused on the task at hand.
To give you an idea, the photos gave me the same feeling that the nudity in The Dreamers did: worth looking
at, some cultural value, and in a way fascinating and raw
because sex is provocative. But arousing? Nope. Call me
a Darwinist, and maybe I’m reading too much into my
ANTH class, but it seems like sex in the movies is evolving.
My first memory of seeing a sex scene in a movie is tied
between the 1990 movies Mr. Destiny and Ghost. I’m not
sure which I saw first, but I remember watching both in
my living room after Hebrew school. Remember those
WB afternoon movies on Saturday TV? Right after Star
Search, with Ed McMahon. Anyway, the sex scene from
Mr. Destiny occures when Jim Belushi’s wife fills a room
with tall, white candles and dresses up in grape-colored
lingerie as a birthday present. They start kissing; eightyear-old Roz covers her ears: ewww kissing noises! smak
smak slup gulp smak. If my memory is correct, the camera
pans to the candles right after Jim and his purple present
slip into bed. The Ghost scene is a no-brainer. The clay,
Demi and see-through-Swazey, the mushy music. It was
groundbreaking. Never before had a movie made necrophilia seem so romantic. Both scenes are sexy, both are
PG-13.
Fast-forward a decade to a theater in 2001. The next
two showings of Monster’s Ball are sold out. Yes, Halle
Barry is bangin’, which might have something to do with
the initial success of the movie. That and the fact that the
acting and story-line were incredible, but who knows. Regardless, the one scene everyone talks about the minute
they get out of the theatre is the in-your-face sex scene between Halle Berry and Billy Bob Thorton: “I think the director was just trying to show off.” “That was awesome!” “I
thought it was way to long, it’s like ‘Okay, they’re doing it,
moving on.’” “How do you think Billy Bob shot that scene
without getting aroused?” “…I didn’t get it.” It wasn’t a
typical love-making scene: no slow Marvin Gaye music,
no suggestive angles that leave room for imagination. Just
good honest thrusting and heavy breathing. I’ll admit the
“I didn’t get it” comment was mine. It took an in-depth
conversation with my friend Liza before we figured out
the point. “I think it was just to show that they were both
really desperate people,” Liza finally said. That’s why the
scene was frantic, and why the love-making was graphic
the same way the rest of their lives were. Maybe it was a
little overdone. Ten minutes is a long time to watch any
scene without dialogue, let alone music-less sex. By now
it’s almost expected that if a movie is at the Ritz, rated R,
and has anything sexual in the theme, you’re guaranteed
to see some private parts interacting with each other.
We’ve reached the point in film where gratuitous sex
is the status quo.
I spoke to a co-worker about this phenomenon.
She’s about my mom’s age, so I asked what was considered shocking back in the days when you could
watch movies at the drive-in—or ignore the movies
at the drive-in. In order to understand evolution, we
must understand our ancestral lineage. “Summer
Place,” she said. “Well at that time it was risqué because the girl got pregnant out of wedlock,” Cynthia
rolled her eyes—she’s also a nurse at women’s health.
“But you know what? My daughter and I saw a movie
a few years ago where the scene just faded to black
after the two characters started kissing, and when
the next seen showed the girl pregnant, my daughter
whispered to me, ‘mom, when did they have sex?’ She
couldn’t figure out that it was implied. Today, people
just need to have it spelled out for them, I guess.”
Where do we go from here? Sex has already gone
from suggested to romantic to graphic and finally to
representative of non-sex. I hope you’re not thinking
bestiality—you pervert. My theory is the backlash
idea. Eventually, the see-saw will tilt again and subtlety
will make a comeback. Until then, for a mere $8.50 you
can enjoy penises, boobs, and pubic hair—as long as you’re
over seventeen with ID.
Roz Plotzker is a junior in the College. You can write to her at
rosalyn@sas.
The Dutch Touch
BY MICKEY JOU
Ever the movie junkie, I recently saw two
films that, coincidentally, were heavily influenced by the now-celebrated Dutch painter,
Jan Vermeer. The first, quite obviously, being
the much-anticipated, semi-biographical film
The Girl With A Pearl Earring, based on the
novel of the same name by Tracy Chevalier.
The second is an older but very influential film
from the French cinema tradition, Belle et la
Bête, directed by Jean Cocteau and released
in 1946.
My rule about good movies: they have
to pull you in completely. If you don’t feel
like you’re in a different world, climbing the
treacherous Mount Doom beside the halfcrazed Frodo or frolicking in the delicious
fields of Tuscany with Diane Lane, then what’s
the point? The Girl With a Pearl Earring and
Belle et la Bête both cast this kind of cinematic
spell, though each film achieves the effect in
different ways.
Cocteau’s movie is a sumptuous, distinctive
retelling of a beloved and well-known fairy tale
classic, which makes his interpretation quite a
feat considering that the general public tends
to reject new interpretations of old classics.
Note the controversies over Disney’s version of
Alice in Wonderland, Hercules, and just about
every other fairy tale adaptation by the studio
for examples. Cocteau’s influence is substantial: Disney’s version of Beauty and the Beast
takes manyof its cues from Cocteau’s desire to
Vermeer’s Art Transcends the Canvas
make the titular Beast into a more complex
and humane character.
The authenticity of the film comes not only
from the director’s determination to tell a fantastic tale in the cynical environment of postWorld War II French cinema, but also from a
genuine, child-like delight in creating beautiful images for their own sake. Josette Day’s
somewhat cold and statuesque performance
as Belle aside, Cocteau incorporated much
of Vermeer’s artistic perspectives—from the
costumes of that time period to the particular
lighting oft used in Vermeer’s paintings—that
materialize before our eyes. The rustic world of
fairy tales, the one that we’ve always imaged
for ourselves, is complete with country cottages, a dark forest, and an enchanted castle,
which, by the way, is an original idea from the
imagination of Cocteau.
In contrast, the modern cinematic accomplishments of Girl With A Pearl Earring
attempt to create a world of historical fiction
in Delf, Holland, circa 1665. The beautiful,
young, but emotionally resilient protagonist,
Griet, is played by the wide-eyed Scarlett Johansson. She says little but sees much while
working as the servant girl in the tumultuous
household of Jan Vermeer, portrayed by Colin
Firth. Firth’s exceptional skills of saying-a-lotwithout-ever-actually-saying-much can be attested by fans of BBC’s Pride and Prejudice or
the recent Renée Zellweger romantic comedy,
Bridget Jones’s Diary.
gant wife, Catharina, nonetheless makes a
The wonderful thing about paintings is deep impression with the things she doesn’t
that it is a silent art medium, but in spite of say but expresses with her body language and
that silence, the canvas is able to express great expressions.
passion and an intense love of beauty through
It is easy to see that the two worlds of enbrush strokes, colors, and perspective. Direc- chantment—Cocteau’s fairy tale landscape and
tor Peter Webber successfully applies the quiet Webber’s misty docks of Holland—are both
and expressive quality of Vermeer’s paintings inspired by the authenticity and realism of
to the little-known, mysterious world of the Vermeer’s paintings. Vermeer captures the esDutch painter—what was his life like? What sence of his time without telling the full story:
sorts of people filled his world? And what the subjects of his paintings—most famously
did they do? Even with the sparse dialogue Girl With A Pearl Earring and The Young
and the danger of being eclipsed by the lush, Woman With A Water Jug, both alluded to in
unrestrained, although somewhat Harry-Pot- the two aforementioned movies—are always
ter-esque, musical score, it is difficult to be caught in a specific moment without much
unimpressed by the ensemble of actors who explanation as to what they have done before
very silently play out the romantic triangle or will do after: simply that they are doing. It
and sexual jealousies between women pos- is with this tug of the imagination that Cocsessed—in one way or another—by a brilliant teau tells the story of a Beast, ashamed of his
painter. The relationship between Cornelia savagery and seeking redemption in the love of
(Alakina Mann), the manipulative daughter a beauty and that Webber takes us on a jourof Vermeer, and Griet (Johansson) is especially ney to the heart of the mystery of Vermeer’s
remarkable. I don’t believe a word was ever life. Vermeer’s works, in short, are invitations
spoken directly between the two throughout into his world: a world where every moment
the film and, save a particularly violent en- is full of beauty and magic and a world which
counter, most of their interactions are back- inspires yet more worlds of splendor.
handed and secretive: illustrating through a
few exchanged looks, the depth of communication and emotion in a relationship between
two women. Though she has more spoken
lines than any other character in the movie, Mickey Jou is a sophomore in the College. You can
Essie Davis, as Vermeer’s jealous and extrava- write to her at myjou@sas.