Dolphin Student Group Web Accounts

FirstCall
Get Bushy
Hertler forecasts doom for the Dean
Page 8
Like Water for Chocolate
A SEAS student gets lucky
Page 2
The Undergraduate Magazine
Vol. V, No. 2 | September 27, 2004
Full of Sound and Fury
Underground Shakespeare acts up
Page 7
Look at Me, Dammit!
Pederson on Hilton
Page 3
CHUTES AND LADDERS:
The Ladder Theory oversimplifies navigating the sexual maze
BY LAUREN SAUL
EVERY SO OFTEN, someone comes across an old website
and decides to start forwarding it obsessively, until others
catch on as well. For a while, the site grows into a newly revived craze in a way not unlike Lacoste’s recent re-entry into
the socially savvy universe. After it’s posted on numerous profiles, something else comes up, and it is forgotten. This is precisely what happened with The Ladder Theory website (http:
//www.intellectualwhores.com/masterladder.html). It was
quoted, it was mulled over, it was laughed about, and some
people grew offended as their friends tried to convince them
that this was everyone’s personal “manifest destiny.” Then,
with the onset of the Bush/Kerry parody of Woodie Guthrie’s
patriotic song, it was promptly forgotten. What’s offensive is
often entertaining, and regardless of the truth factor in the
ladder theory, it makes people think.
Dallas Barabasz-Lynn, a computer science graduate from
the sunny state of California, takes credit for this “theory.” He
calls himself the “chief intellectual whore” in the site’s operation. The humor of the ladder theory derives in part from the
satirical tone. It is written in a theoretical format, while everything else about it conveys the crude and animalistic side
of humans. Basically, Lynn asserts that people assign each
member of the opposite sex a space on a “ladder” so that all
attraction assessments are relative. The most unattractive occupy the “abyss” below the ladder, while those at the top rungs
are unreachable. For women, he argues, there are in fact two
separate ladders that are completely detached from one another: the friend ladder and the attraction ladder. Lynn goes
into much detail about the attempt to jump from one ladder
to the other, the role of friends with benefits, “cuddle bitches,”
“footstools,” and other entertaining terms. Lynn even makes
a diagram with a mathematical formula that uses the hypotenuse of a triangle to describe levels of desirability disparity
between members of couples. He puts base sentiments, like
“why is she with that guy?” into mathematic expressions.
As expected, the ladder theory is misogynist. Lynn has
been rejected more by women than by men, and it shows with
every strike of the mouse. His own experience prevents him
from analyzing men’s ulterior motives with as much depth.
The site criticizes women who deny that their methods of assessing attraction are based on wealth, looks, and novelty. It
ignores the numerous men who deny the shallowness of their
own interests. That being said, if a woman had bothered with
such a project, and she was bored enough to come up with
this kind of theory, it would probably have an anti-male tone.
It would be unnatural for anyone to try to analyze their own
sex’s obnoxious features with the same level of care.
The straightforwardness of the ladder dooms its credibility. Its points may be somewhat valid when it comes to the
initial phases of meeting people. The problem is that Lynn
forgot that people have personalities, and unless both people
in a couple don’t want to have anything to do with each other
besides having sex, which does happen, personal compatibility matters as well. Many people admit that most of the
time others start to look different after a bit of interaction has
taken place. Whether it’s because of an obnoxious attitude or
good feelings, people unconsciously knock others a few rungs
up or down on the ladder on a regular basis. For example,
being with someone who mistreats others will plunge them
into the abyss or, if you happen to be attracted to that kind of
thing, make them more desirable. In fact, frat parties offer
another example of this situation. People evaluate each other
in a way that is not unlike what Lynn describes, whether it’s
at the door or from a distance at the party. Then the dealings begin, and depending on people’s interests, the ladder
position is reassessed on account of more nuanced factors.
Continued on PAGE 7
A KICK IN THE RIGHT
DIRECTION
TINMEN’S LANDING
BY ADAM GOLDSTEIN
Me, I'm the Lonesome Kicker
Extra points, field goals at your service
One might think it comes with glory
You might think different after you listen to my story
… My wife's out with her quote-unquote friend
And my son can't look me in the eyes
But that's the life I live
The Lonesome Kicker
IS THERE ANY MORE maligned position in all of sport than the kicker in
football? Pinch runners, third string quarterbacks, male field hockey players,
mascots. Do any of these characters in sport suffer as much disrespect and disinterest from fans and teammates as The Lonesome Kicker? As Adam Sandler
so eloquently explains in his Saturday Night Live sketch, the kicker is expected to
make any extra point or field goal within reasonable distance and thus receives
no accolades when he satisfactorily performs his job. But anytime a kick is
missed, the kicker is blamed in full for his gaffe. No matter how infrequently the
kicker may shank wide right, with every miss comes talk that his job may be in
jeopardy. A botched field goal or extra point is simply held to be unacceptable.
Yet for all the scrutiny and vitriol that is reserved for the kicker, few seem
to care about his craft. The vast majority of coaches are loathe to use a high
draft pick or scholarship to acquire a kicker of merit. They believe instead there
will always be a player on the table who can be the kicker. Most members of a
football team have a similar indifference towards their kicker and reason that
because he does not have to face the constant violence that they must endure, he
is not a “real” football player. Further, they argue, how hard could it be to kick
a ball forty yards through two enormous uprights, when they are throwing pinpoint passes 60 yards down the field and tackling 6’5”, 240 lb behemoths?
Well, after watching my usual dose of collegiate and professional football
these past few weekends, I have come to the conclusion that this generally held
view concerning the worthlessness of the kicker is wrong. Very wrong. The
kicker is a valuable commodity to a football team. During the course of a season, he will most likely score more points than any other player on his team. No
member of the club will be called upon to perform under greater pressure than
the kicker; and no one will be expected to single-handedly win more matches.
Since in most youth and high school football leagues kicking skills go untaught
and children learn from an early age that chicks go for the quarterback rather
than the guy taking the extra points, there is a scarcity of quality kickers in college and the NFL.
Anyone who has been watching big-time college football this season has
witnessed the importance of place kicking and the apparent lack of talent in
this position. On September 4th, underdog Oregon State was poised to hand
defending national champion Louisiana State a crushing defeat in its first game
of the season. During the course of the game, Oregan State’s kicker Alexis Serna
had already missed two extra points, allowing the game to go into overtime.
In overtime, with his team needing only a successful PAT to match LSU and
to keep OSU in the game, Serna pushed the kick wide right, ending his team’s
chance for a monumental upset. Two weeks later, LSU would be the one to
find itself stricken by kicking woes. A missed extra point by Tiger kicker Ryan
Gaudet paved the way for LSU’s 10-9 loss to Auburn. Coincidentally, Auburn
was only able to win after a penalty allowed them to retake a missed PAT of their
Continued on PAGE 5
MARIAN LEE
MUSICAL CHAIRS AT THE U.N.
Stuck at the international kiddie table
BRENDAN HOUSER | WEIGHT OF THE WORLD
President Bush’s speech to the United Nations
General Assembly kept the UN in the headlines
last week, and observers reassessed the status of the
UN’s ongoing struggle to stay on the front lines of
international affairs. Japan, Germany, India, and
Brazil have a plan to improve the UN’s effectiveness; specifically, they argue that they should each
receive a permanent seat on the Security Council.
A leading supporter of this plan is British Prime
Minister Tony Blair, who reaffirmed his support for
Security Council reform in a meeting with Indian
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh last Tuesday.
However, despite the excitement, reconfiguring the
Security Council is not the answer to the United
Nations’ woes.
The five permanent, veto-wielding members of
the UN Security Council are the United States, Russia, Britain, France, and China; all other UN member states rotate through the Council’s ten non-permanent seats and lack veto power. The permanent
membership has remained unchanged over the
Council’s fifty-nine-year history, except that Rus-
sia’s seat used to belong to the Soviet Union, and
the Republic of China (Taiwan) used to occupy the
Chinese seat. The five permanent members share
several qualifications. In particular, all participated
in the defeat of the Axis Powers in World War II
and are major nuclear powers. Also justifying their
special status are the following factors: all but Russia are among the world’s six largest economies, all
but the United States have played leading roles in
world affairs for many centuries, and collectively
they represent nearly two billion people.
Nevertheless, few would argue that the Security
Council performs with optimal efficacy. Analyzing
whether each of the four prospective candidates
deserves a permanent seat is therefore a worthwhile
endeavor.
Japan and Germany are most notable for their
phenomenal overall economic performance since
their defeats in World War II. Indeed, they currently boast the world’s two largest economies outside
of the United States, although both countries have
experienced economic difficulties in recent years.
Continued on PAGE 5
S EPTEMBER 27, 2004 | FIRST CALL | VOL . V N O . 2
P AGE 2
FirstCall
Editorial
Vol. V, No. 2 | September 27, 2004
The Undergraduate Magazine
Managing Editor
Jordan Barav
Editor-in-Chief
Julie Gremillion
Assistant Editor
Robert Forman
Andrew Pederson
Lauren Saul
Columnists
Robert Forman
Brian Hertler
Brendan Houser
Mickey Jou
Michael Patterson
Andrew Pederson
Lauren Saul
Anna Strongin
Writers
Victor Bonilla
Christine Chen
Adam Goldstein
James Houston
Steve Landis
Andrew Migdail
Roz Plotzker
Artists
Stephanie Craven
Marian Lee
Layout Editor
Krystal Godines
Layout Staff
Anna Stetsovskaya
Business Managers
Jordan Barav
Alex Chacon
Greg Lysko
Marketing Manager
Leah Karasik
Marketing Staff
Lauren Saul
Anna Strongin
Distribution Managers
Steve Landis
INDECENT PROPOSAL
Last week, an unfortunate and now widely discussed accident occurred during an on-campus
party at the Castle in which Matthew Paris fell several stories. Though officials would not comment
to the DP on the presence of alcohol, other people in attendance did, and we can all be virtually assured alcohol was a major influence. We’ve all heard of the infamous “21 shots on your 21st” myth,
but few of us know anyone who actually tried to accomplish the feat. While we cannot guarantee
Matthew was trying to fulfill the legend since we weren’t there, several sources admitted to the DP
that he was consuming shots. It’s not a far stretch to put two and two together.
This accident is a sad and regrettable event on campus, but I personally feel the response to it has
been mostly inappropriate. Fraternity and sorority presidents have banned all social events for the
next two weeks, two being a rather arbitrary number but conveniently ending right before the start
of Greek Week. Allegedly, the decision was voluntary by all chapter presidents, but we all know that
really means two or three Bosses within the organization, whomever they are, passed down a verdict
titled, “Voluntarily Ban all Social Events”. Basically, every chapter is being punished for what is really the responsibility of one person. Why discipline the few when you can go after the many?
Essentially, those few Bosses are trying to cover their asses after the fact for something that may
or may not be blamed on them. I wonder if the chapters agree to a comparable vigil every time a
student leaves a frat party and returns home too drunk to do anything but lie on the stretcher on
the way to the hospital for stomach-pumping? First instinct would be to punish the Castle since
the accident occurred on their property during their party. This particular party, however, was university-registered, and no evidence exists indicating the Castle did not follow all of the rules. They
had a bouncer, an alcohol monitor, and the basic 18 to enter, 21 to drink policy. Not to mention, as
someone pointed out to me, no one knows how much drinking may have occurred before the student even arrived at the Castle. So, the Castle is free and clear.
With the only remotely logical option gone, the Bosses made the ingenious and brilliant decision
just to punish everyone instead of punishing no one. But, let’s think about the true victims of the
ban. Sororities, which aren’t even allowed to host parties with alcohol, are the first on the list. Sigma
Kappa’s charity benefit for Alzheimer’s Research, Rock the Dock, was initially cancelled until the
chapter begged for permission because they had already sunk so much money into the event. Other
fraternities who had nothing to do with the event are put on hold as well. Where is the logic behind
penalizing everyone just because you can’t handle pointing the finger at the real culprit?
I understand the University cannot directly address the causes behind what happened because of
the privacy and medical information issues, but they have declared no foul play was involved. Since
when do we start dishing out restrictions over accidents? When we arrive at the point where one
irresponsible student who became extremely over-intoxicated threatens to cancel a charity benefit
for Alzheimer’s, what have we truly gained? Do we honestly expect people to learn from this mistake and prevent all future accidents because we cancel social events for two weeks? I could care
less about the freshmen or anyone else who may not have a “cool” frat party to attend this weekend.
What worries me is the indiscriminate edict set forth that actually causes more harm than good. If
we really want people to learn from this accident, why don’t we teach and encourage them it’s actually cooler to be responsible—not clear the schedule and expect them to stay home and find religion.
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
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
ENGINEERING STUDENT
SATISFIES WOMAN
BY ANDREW MIGDAIL
IN WHAT WILL SURELY go down as a milestone for engineers
Eventually, Tyler coaxed Bergen out of the bathroom and the
everywhere, a male student from the University of Pennsylvania rest, as they say, is history.
School of Engineering Arts and Sciences (SEAS) actually brought
“Really, this is unprecedented. In 37 years of teaching, I’ve
a woman to orgasm Saturday night.
never seen anything like it,” exclaimed Engineering professor Ivan
The student, Michael Bergen, a senior from Trenton, New Jer- Lundgren. “The fact that one of my students actually had sexual
sey, met Janet Tyler, a junior in the Wharton school, at a frat party intercourse with a real woman is surprising enough, but it wasn’t
where he drank two beers and, in his own words, became “majorly even a prostitute. Needless to say, it’s a real coup for the school and
intoxicated.” Tyler approached Bergen, who was
for the field in general. It’s too bad she’s obvistanding in the corner discussing a particularly
ously just using him.”
engrossing physics problem with a fellow engi“Honestly, I didn’t even see it coming,” adThat one of my stuneer.
mitted Tyler. “I was just lying there waiting for
dents actually had
“She was so hot when she walked up to me, I
him to finish and then, all of a sudden, bam!
sexual intercourse
almost threw up,” said Bergen, “but then I started
It’s too bad I’m just using him.”
telling her about the operating system I was deAs for the future of their relationship, Berwith a real woman is
signing, and she got really excited.”
gen is optimistic.
surprising.
“Normally, I only date guys that are really pop“This is the greatest thing that’s ever hapular or good looking, but this time I was looking
pened to me. All of a sudden, I’m the big man
for a relationship with real, tangible benefits in
on campus, and Janet and I are completely in
the long term, and this is the age of the internet, so Michael looked love. I think we’re going to get married. I don’t even care that my
like a good prospect. Then he told me he was going to be the next operating system project fell through.”
Bill Gates, and it was all over,” said Tyler.
After talking for “about an hour,” the couple found their way
Editor’s note: Unfortunately, Janet and Michael broke up
back to Bergen’s room which was, according to Tyler, “like com- shortly after this article was written.
pletely covered in Tron posters. I was a little creeped-out by the
black light and all the pictures of his mom. Then he started hyper- Andrew Migdail is a freshman in the College. You can write to him at
ventilating. It was weird, but I just kept telling myself ‘The next Bill amigdail@sas.
Gates. The next Bill Gates.’”
S EPTEMBER 27, 2004 | FIRST CALL | VOL . V N O . 2
P AGE 3
PARIS, TURN OFF YOUR RINGER
ANDREW PEDERSON | BRUT FORCE
I HAVE LONG BEEN OPPOSED to reality TV on a moral
basis. In my eyes the false dramatizing of the lives of “ordinary” people and then selling it
to a public hungry for entertaining invasions of personal privacy is only slightly less revolting than the rape and murder
of a small to medium-sized litter of puppies. Still, no matter
how obviously foul this format becomes—as in Wife-Swap,
Amish in the City and Joe Millionaire— a great number of
people will still rise to the defense of whatever “reality” trash
happens to be clogging the airways at the moment.
Despite patronizing and half-baked themes, many are
addicted to these programs as outlets for a latent scopophilia
that cannot be sated by mere voyeurism. Rather, they look
to “ordinary” celebrities in reality TV to give them a more
vicarious way to enjoy fame. Though the shows are about as
real and accessible as they are intelligent and provocative, to
some they appear to be a type of fame which is close at hand.
Even if they themselves cannot at the moment participate,
it becomes more possible for the show to relate in some way
to their personal lives, if only through a loose semblance of
semi-familiar settings and mundane plot lines. As a consequence, even normally rational people are drawn into the
cult of fame.
Reality TV, more so than any other cultural influence,
has taken fame, packaged it in a million different wrappers
and begun to distribute it out to a drooling public pining
for more. To that effect, the millions of reality TV fans everywhere are no more than a mass of spread-eagled famewhores. Whatever taste of the celebrity they can get, they
pounce on immediately and suck down to the last drop.
Let us take the useful example of Paris Hilton and her
recent publication: Confessions of an Heiress: A Tongue in
Cheek Peek behind the Pose. I hesitate to call it a “book” since
books are usually written by and for people who are actually
literate. Whatever it may be, within its pages, Hilton has
lumped her “confessions.” Some would have hoped that this
would be a published version of the internet video sensation
that we missed, but alas, though it is in full color, it contains
no hardcore pornography. Instead it is a 178-page spread,
filled mostly with pictures rather than words, in which
Hilton gives advice on “…my friends and dating tips and
dos and don’ts of dressing. It’s kind of like a girls’ guide.” I
think I speak for most males when I say: “OH SHIT!” More
girls acting like Hilton? An army of heiresses interrupting
intercourse for a million cell-phone calls at once? It could be,
quite literally, the end of the human race.
Hilton began her recent climb to fame on her ridiculous
reality show The Simple Life and its sequel. Before making
an ass of herself to a wider audience by attempting actual
work, Hilton’s name recognition was almost non-existent.
Now, thanks to the scourge of reality TV, we have to listen
to her pander useless advice about topics she knows nothing
about— which is just about everything. Normal dumb-asses
are trying enough; however, with the always available mouthpiece of fame, Paris Hilton subjects us to every tremor of her
life, including her cervical whims and brilliant cogitations on
the trials and vicissitudes of the wealthy non-worker.
When people like Paris Hilton become famous, it is not
because they possess any special skill or even because they
are mildly interesting and at times provocative. Hilton and
others are sheer abstractions of the will of the American
public to set apart certain names above others so they can
put standards to ideals and faces along with their own personal ambitions. Some time ago, this required at least some
measure of rationalization in the form of a unique talent or
accomplishment which would justify a status of universal
isolation and acceptable emulation.
Fame, it seems, has transmuted its original boundaries in
reality and evolved into a creature of its own. Fame for fame’s
sake or the pursuit of fame as a virtue in and of itself has
become acceptable in vernacular culture, personified best in
moronic, bland and otherwise merit-less celebrities of Paris
Hilton’s milieu. As sad and pathetic as it is, people would
desire to be Paris Hilton only because she has money and is
known to millions of people.
Without anything to aspire to, celebrating the fame of
people like Hilton leaves us as empty as her soul. How can
we define ourselves as people if those we honor don’t actually
have anything honorable about them? By worshipping useless people, we seriously harm our own sense of self and any
acceptable standards by which to judge others, not to mention risk becoming as vapid and as boring as are Hilton and
her damn Chihuahua.
Famous people should be famous for something they
actually do, a skill or a perspective that enriches rather than
debases our own lives, not simply because they have a recognizable name. Paris Hilton is in this way a crusader for the
mass of popular culture which will mercilessly mow down
anything and everything of substance if it will only sell five
percent more Heiress brand toe rings. In her world, people
are no longer real; only their clothes, accessories and images
are. Save our hopes for any kind of respectable collective
identity and leave Hilton to enjoy her crappy literature,
slutty fashion line and grainy homemade porn by herself.
Hopefully avoiding empty idols like her will help to slow the
continuing campaign of identity and cultural destruction
loosed upon us by reality TV. Perhaps if we ignore Paris Hilton and the specter of abstract fame long enough, they will
finally just go away.
Andrew Pederson is a sophomore in the College. You can write to him
at awl@sas.
WASTED BUT EQUAL TIME
BY JAMES HOUSTON
Bush is a snowblower, Kerry is a turncoat,
politics is a circus, and we are all losers. Welcome to MusicTown.
I REFUSE TO ACCEPT that not everyone
from my generation watched Empire Records twice a week during the summer of ’96,
so I’m not going to explain that reference.
Anyhow, I stood in the Penn Bookstore last
Tuesday staring blankly at the heap of political polemics occupying the central display.
There seemed to be a different one customwritten for every nattering nabob of negativism in Philadelphia. Unambiguous words
like “lies” “genius” “crime” “faith” and “hate”
jutted out like weeds from the dust jackets.
To appreciate the problem more fully, I
went to a larger bookstore. An Amazon.com
search for books published after 2000 with
“George W. Bush” in the subject field returned 176 results. “Republican” returned
39. Iraq: 539. “Terrorism:” 2,425. While
“John Kerry” only returned 5, all of them
were published in the last twelve months.
With American literacy in deep trouble, far
be it from me to whine there are too many
books being written. But the danger posed
by these hardcover tabloids that have both
the generational speed and lasting significance of fruit flies is that they seek to replace
quality with quantity.
A caveat: I don’t think all current events
books are bad. I know there are intelligent
contemporary writers who value consumer
enlightenment over royalties and swayed
votes, and I think their books are possible
to find with a little practice. (Hint: If there
are Stars and Stripes anywhere on the cover
without ironic purpose, run!)
I left the bookstore on Tuesday with the
infamous Kitty Kelley’s latest dirt-mine, The
Family, in which she trains her crosshair on
three generations of the Bush clan, and Unfit
for Command, the bestselling anti-Kerry
book by longtime JFK antagonist John
O’Neill and a Dr. Jerome Corsi. Together,
these books are the vanguard of the new
jaundiced political journalism for two rea-
sons. First, they’re the most general. They “Author’s Note” to admit in a roundabout
each make a character-based case against way that her book is full of hearsay. I guess
one of the two main candidates for president she thinks there’s a substantial difference bethis year. They don’t focus on the economy tween my saying “Guess what, Amy Guttman
or religion or oil; they’re simply about Bush was a Bon Jovi groupie” and “I heard a rumor
sucking and Kerry sucking. Second, they that Amy Guttman was a Bon Jovi groupie.”
both made huge commercial splashes—com- Nonsense.
mercial cannonballs, if you will. Many peoIf you’ve read the book, you may be
ple bought and continue to buy both of them, mad that I’ve simplified it by ignoring the
and they lamentably received more attention hundreds of pages devoted to W.’s father and
than any other books this year.
grandfather and their various women and
I read The Family first. The book is ter- children. I answer first that their stories are
rible primarily because Kelley just restates told based on the same leftist slant and dubithe popular rumors about the President ous research, and second, give me a frigging
that, in over three years, the left have failed break! The motives behind The Family are
to conclusively prove: he did coke, he went as transparent as Alex Kerry’s Cannes dress.
AWOL, he could have stopped 9/11, yadda No, I don’t know any Kelley “family friends”
yadda yadda. My favorite part of the self- who can testify that she timed her big fat
proclaimed First Lady of Unauthorized publicity bomb to drop on the eve of the
Biography’s appearance
election, nor can I prove
on Hardball was when
that she only included
Alas,
countering
an
Chris Matthews asked
Prescott and H.W. to deavalanche of conserher what misperceptions
flect the charge I’m about
her book aimed to correct,
to make, but I will swear
vative propaganda
and all she could manon any holy book you
with an avalanche of want that the primary
age was an unresponsive
dodge that would make
purpose of The Family is
liberal propaganda
Britney Spears’ publicist
to make George W. Bush
just buries the truth
blush. She was similarly
lose votes this November
flustered when refusing
2nd. If you sincerely want
twice as deeply.
to tell Matt Lauer who
to argue it was written to
she was voting for on The
be an edifying historical
Today Show. Anyone seriously think she’s survey, I’m all ears.
voting for Bush?
I could definitely go on about how awExisting to propagate gossip isn’t The ful The Family is, but I’ve spilled enough
Family’s only offense. The bulk of Kelley’s ink. Switching sides, there’s Unfit for Com“evidence” comes from people she inter- mand. It’s shorter and narrower in scope
viewed. This should instantly raise a red flag than Kelley’s book, which is good because
for anyone who knows that her reputation as its quality of writing and research is almost
a writer of pulpy, mean biographies has been as bad. The point, of course, is that Kerry’s
established for nearly two decades. I submit, Vietnam service was disgraceful and his war
then, that the type of person who willingly protesting was slanderous. As with The Famgoes on the record with her shares her wick- ily, the lion’s share of evidence is testimony
edly partisan agenda. Moreover, a disturb- gathered by the authors, which creates the
ing number of the sources are asserted to be flipside of The Family’s problem: only people
“family friends” “classmates” and other vague who already hated Kerry were interviewed.
relations to the principals that cast doubt on But they could have at least kept their stories
their “I know what he’s really like” accounts. straight. We’re told that Kerry “objected to
And of course, the sources for the really juicy the performance of the officers who were
parts are anonymous. Worst, Kelley uses her his senior” and then twenty-five pages later
that “the reality was that Kerry was always
deferential to his superiors and that he limited his criticism to his peers.” By the end of
the book, we’re so inundated with subjective,
disputed reports that the very concept of “the
reality” is tongue-in-cheek.
John O’Neill’s name on the cover is
mostly to slake the bloodthirst of conservatives left unsatisfied by his 1971 debate with
Kerry on The Dick Cavett Show, in which he
advanced a similar argument to Unfit for
Command. Most of the book is either written by Dr. Corsi or indicative of Alzheimer’s
overtaking O’Neill, since he is referred to in
the third person in all but one chapter. But
since the whole book carries O’Neill’s grudge,
the tone is angry. Ann Coulter probably
threw her copy across the room in frustration upon seeing that Corsi beat her to the
observation “John Kerry could not have been
a more perfect poster boy for the Communist
Daily World if he had been recruited and
trained by the KGB itself.” Why wasn’t I
invited to political civility’s funeral?
The Equal Time Rule mandates balanced exposure for Republican and Democratic advertisements. Alas, countering an
avalanche of conservative propaganda with
an avalanche of liberal propaganda just buries the truth twice as deeply. Forgive me for
generalizing, but people who are looking for
illumination don’t buy books like The Family and Unfit for Command . They buy them
to have their pre-existing opinions validated
or to proudly carry around as badges of their
partisanship. I did get some dirty looks in
Van Pelt from liberals who saw me reading
Unfit for Command. For not trying to conceal its intentions and for ending about four
hundred pages sooner, Unfit for Command
is the better book, which is like saying Haim
was the hotter Corey: the answer is dwarfed
by the inanity of the question.
The Family: D Unfit for Command: CPop political writing: Go sit in the corner
James Houston is a senior in the College. You can
write to him at jhouston@sas.
P AGE 4
S EPTEMBER 27, 2004 | FIRST CALL | VOL . V N O . 2
BEOBUSH:
An Ironically Uneducated and Unrefined Sequel to the Anglo-Saxon classic
Translated from the original manuscript passed down through generations of monks by Stephen Landis, professor of Anglo-Saxon literature at the University of the West.
We have heard the story of Scyld
and Healfdane, in their glories and
treasure-acquiring abilities. We have
heard now the tale of Beowulf, the mighty king,
who in might and great Anglo-Saxonness
conquered the monster Grendel and its
unfortunate progenitor.
you have overcome so many great iron-wielding
obstacles, that in a poetic sense could
resemble dragons and demons,
that I am sure you, and by you again I mean
you but mostly I, will thrust
yourself out in glorious second-term exclusive
BYOB inauguration parties!”
Now let us hear the story
of his descendents, the house of Texas,
the ruling house in the resplendent white mead hall
On Pennsylvania Avenue, across from
the sea of monsters (known to the Geats as “I-95”)
and amongst the unfortunate
inhabitants called Americans.
But sly Dick Cheney, who, when conquered
in battle by the Texas House seventeen
hundred years before, when the Republicans
liberated the Swedes from their oil fields in Norway,
weaseled his way into the King’s house with
his slick smile and Haliburton connections,
a company which the King relied on for precious
spices imported from the wild middle east,
where men learned math and wrote things down
(they were also descended of Cain), answered
his King, whose heart he controlled through
the same machination that kept his own heart
beating, an artificially intelligent creature
residing where a pacemaker might ordinarily
be placed, with powerful words that rung
in that resplendent white hall:
The pardon-giver sat in his mead hall, with
his closest warriors, and wept for his
Kingdom’s most unfortunate plague.
“Oh, it seems the election might be lost
to us, we have lost so many precious
18-25 votes! And what’s worse, the wise
men have predicted that they might actually
vote this year! Ah, my people are assaulted
by a most vicious evil, Awareness,
which I will hitherto call ‘Cain’ after its
ancestor,” The mighty King George
W. Hrothbush lamented.
His most trusted warrior Karl Rove
(known as “The Scyld”
for his role in protecting Hrothbush from
political defeat) reassured his Almighty
figurehead, “My King, you have
defeated greater evils; You,
and by you I mean you but mostly I,
have conquered the executive position
in Texas, long held by the Danes, and
overcome mental handicaps that no other
bill-vetoer has ever been able to conquer!
Well, except maybe Magnificent Millard Fillmore,
who in an unfortunate turn of events
was apparently erased from any
historical importance, but besides him,
“My King, my most glorious executive-positionappointer-under-majority-vote-by-the-senate-er,
I remember the days when you and I would retreat
On hunting trips with our friend
The fair Scalia of the Lombard tribe,
When we would together hunt werewolves
And faeries and other fairy-tale folk,
And later you would boast your accomplishments
So that your name would be immortalized, because
In our semi-pagan culture we did not
Totally believe in an afterlife beyond oral
Tradition and immortality among the livings’
Memory. Not once did you worry when
Attacked by a seven thousand headed serpent,
Nor that time when a wolf-creature ripped
Your arm off and when you had to recover it from
The beast’s lair later that week, I remember you
Did not even cry. With the utmost composure,
You squished your face like a lemon and asked me
To “get my arm back or my dad will
Have you fired.”
The three lords paused and Sighed,
Reflecting on the golden age of their
Old ages, when they were but newly elderly
Chaps with the dream of taking over America
And its resplendent white hall, where the mead
Flowed like stock tickers and the women
Pleased any King orally and he could lie
About it to his subjects, who only loved
Him more for his boldness and apparent
Human weaknesses. Breaking the silence,
Brave King Hrothbush expressed his thanks:
“My lords, your companionship in
Battle has been unsurpassed by any others
In our time, and in the time of our fathers, except
In the time of my father, who in latter days
Ruled this grand Land for four glorious years, marked
By strength in battle and…victory in battle
Over…foes that were able to wield arms. But listen,
warriors, I have been visited by the Lord
in my sleep. In my dream, the land was rolled
out before me, and I was guided west by the light
of His glory, and into the land of the Californians I was
Sent, and there given a vision of a great warrior,
With holy power surpassing even our own, nay even
Our combined strength, Added to three-fifths of my father’s
And one-third of Haliburton’s financial assets,
And even against that it would be a close fight. The man
I saw was surely blessed by God with gifts of power, both
In words and in strength and in playing
Robotic death machines in the films
Of grand Hollywoodland. The Lord spake thus:
‘Hrothbush my son, call for his aid, you must
tap his power, only then will you defeat Awareness
by the 18-25 voters and only then will you
captivate them with fear so great that they
would not ride their bicycles within ten blocks
of a voting machine. Call for him, my son.
Call for Arnold.’ Thus spake the Lord our God.”
Stephen Landis is a freshman in the College. You can write to him at
landist@sas.
S EPTEMBER 27, 2004 | FIRST CALL | VOL . V N O . 2
P AGE 5
CRACKING WISEGUYS
ROB FORMAN | MY 13-INCH BOX
I HAVE A PROBLEM with
televised news programs.
I’m not quite sure when or
where it began. It could be
the incredibly slow pace of
the 6 p.m. news or the sometimes-rasping, sometimesinsomnia-curing qualities of
Dan Rather’s voice. Unfortunately, any and all of my
treasure trove of Dan Rather
jokes have been put on the backburner. Suffice it to say, the
“headline, blood and tragedy, soft news, weather, hard news,
sports, weather” format bores me to death.
Cable news channels are no different. CNN,
FNC, MSNBC… With the exception of a good round
of Crossfire or Hardball—who isn’t in the mood for
thought-provoking debate when it’s good?—there’s
nothing really interesting about these shows.
I believe I can sum up my dislike for the news on
television in one slogan, one I saw every day this summer as I emerged from New York City’s Penn Station:
“We report. You decide.” The slogan in question
belongs to none other than the FOX News Channel.
Who the hell do they think they’re kidding? Every
news report, print or otherwise, has a bias—watch
out, you’re being opinioned at... right now—and FNC
has the audacity to claim otherwise? I may be more
media-savvy, or cynical, depending on your point-ofview, than most, but the idea that anyone tells “the
truth” in news is a hard one to swallow.
News programming is all about bias, and these
shows and channels which claim to be “fair and balanced” or the like come off, at least to me, as overly polite
and pretentious. C-SPAN’s coverage of the British House of
Commons is something to watch, as are the two aforementioned current affairs debate programs. Why in the name of
[insert your deity] are the political national conventions so
boring? Because of the politeness. I’m no linguist, but there
might be some connection between the roots of polite and
politics. Political commentators may be ripping Dubya a new
one because of his continued inability to speak in public, but
are they laughing at him, as I almost guarantee you they do
privately behind closed doors? No. It’s dishonest and abiding by standards of decorum, and I’m Howard Beale-ing my
ass the other way—or at least flipping the channel...
To Comedy Central and the recent Emmy winning or,
better, returning champ, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.
Honesty. Those children’s books always claimed it was the
best policy. Finally, a politically charged “news” show in
agreement. If you can’t smell the liberal slant on the show,
frankly you should have your septum checked for deviations.
But a left, Democratic leaning bias doesn’t reserve all parody,
satire, and judgments for right-wing’s conservatism and
Republicans. The Daily Show pokes fun at everyone, from
Kerry to Bush and all of the little people and ketchup heiresses in between.
And thank [deity]. No. Screw political correctness.
Thank God someone is making with the fun. Someone
has to point and say: “this is ridiculous.” Indecision 2004,
indeed. If the candidates were any less exciting, I might
need to seek out Prozac. Jon Stewart has something missing in normal political commentary: irreverence. Revere is
something CNN and the others seem to do. George Bush is
a sacred cow. The Daily Show provides a necessary dose of
base defilement.
All praise aside, The Daily Show is nothing new. Standup comedians have been speaking aloud what’s on people’s
minds for a very long time now. How do you think Seinfeld
connected to audiences through its run? By pointing out the
little things in life everyone makes fun of, and doing a much
cleverer job making fun of those things. Though not always
political satire, Saturday Night Live does a good job of keeping people honest by humbling them.
The Daily Show isn’t perfect. Certain “reporters” and segments miss their mark or overdo a joke—all comedy suffers
KICK
Continued from PAGE 1
own. Perhaps not so coincidental is the fact that Serna and Gaudet are walk-ons, non-scholarship players who made the team through a series of tryouts their freshman year. Instead of securing a top kicking recruit out of high school for their squads, OSU and LSU thought it better
to spend one of their 85 allotted scholarships on a backup center or third string quarterback or
some other marginal player. This athlete will most likely end up seeing limited playing time in
his career and will not be nearly as vital to the success of his team as will Serna or Gaudet.
In stark contrast to the kicking crises which have befallen Oregon State and Louisiana State,
one need only look at the situation which has unfolded for my beloved University of Maryland
football team. There, coach Ralph Friedgen promised then freshman kicker Nick Novak a
scholarship if he could prove to Friedgen that Novak would contribute significantly to the success of the Terrapin football team. Spurred on by this challenge, Novak vowed to become one
of the best kickers in college football. Five years later, Novak has achieved his goal, earning his
scholarship, becoming the ACC’s all time leading scorer, and helping turn Maryland into a legitimate National Championship contender. Novak’s exploits should convince college coaches
that using scholarships to recruit and cultivate talented kickers can significantly improve the
quality of their teams.
Looking at the rosters of various NFL squads, one realizes the quality kicking vacuum is not
unique to collegiate football. Morten Anderson, the starting kicker for the NFC championship
contending Minnesota Vikings, is 44 years old. Steve Christie, my favorite kicker from Tecmo
Superbowl, is 36. The Titan’s kicker, Gary Anderson, is 45. The only reason these players are
MUSICAL CHAIRS
Continued from PAGE 1
Offsetting their economic clout, however, is the fact that
both Japan and Germany maintain decidedly modest military
and diplomatic profiles in the wider world. Germany has sent
peacekeepers to Afghanistan and participated in nuclear nonproliferation negotiations with Iran, and Japan has assisted in
post-war Iraq and has sat at the table with other powers during talks on the North Korea crisis. Both powers substantially
rely on their allies to make major foreign policy decisions.
Furthermore, German enthusiasm for European integration
undermines its rationale for obtaining a permanent Security
Council seat, especially since France is more than willing to
ensure that the Franco-German voice be heard.
Whereas Japan and Germany claim seats on the basis of
their previous economic success, India and Brazil stake their
claim on their future economic significance as the leading
powers, along with China, in the developing world. Many
analysts have made optimistic predictions about the coming rise of big developing countries. For example, Goldman
Sachs released a report in 2003 predicting that China, India,
Brazil, and Russia would see such remarkable growth by 2050
that they would join the United States, Japan, and Britain as
similarly. In fact, the people involved with the show hesitate
to refer to it as a “news show,” perhaps because they respect
the CNN-types and the factual information provided or perhaps because they know they’re doing something different,
something better.
One finds similarly political satire shows on television,
such as South Park, but The Daily Show has one key difference: it’s daily, or as daily as it can be. Even the turnaround
time on South Park, roughly three to four weeks from idea
to screen, which is very fast by scripted standards, provides
a mere 14 episodes per year. The Daily Show airs more than
that in any given month and reaches a very niche, important
market: the 18-34 year old male. This doesn’t mean younger
and older people or women, don’t watch. As far as
news programming goes? You want to target this
elusive group, you go to Jon Stewart and his wacky
cohorts. Why else would Kerry make a stop by the
set on his campaign trail?
Why target this demographic? Everyone knows
America doesn’t have the highest voter-turnout rate.
And lest I start sounding like one of the hundreds of
politicos on Locust Walk, I’ll get to the point—not
simply encourage you to register and vote.
The 18-34 segment is shamefully underrepresented. It’s no wonder Congress caters towards the
interests of the elderly. They vote in high numbers
and big percentages. Personally, I find it a travesty.
Unless you want the AARP controlling legislation
for the next four years, regardless of your political
affiliation, you owe it to yourself and others to get
informed and vote. I want the people in Washington who supposedly represent me and my opinions
to act in my best interests, not those of the average
CNN viewer, which, if you didn’t infer, leans a tad toward the
ancient side.
The service The Daily Show provides is entertaining bits
of news with a comedic flare but is valid information nonetheless. That’s why it is so important. When you’re making
fun of something, you’re being more honest than any serious
newscaster—no matter how factual Dan Rather’s reports
may or may not be.
Rob Forman is a junior in Wharton. You can write to him at
robertf@wharton.
able to remain in the league so long is that there are so few decent kickers available, and no
team is willing to spend the money on a solid kicker they can hold onto for multiple seasons.
Everyone scoffed at the Raiders when they signed Sebastian Janikowski in the first round of the
2000 draft for big money. Yet Janikowski is still with the Raiders. He helped lead the team to
the 2003 Superbowl and has been one the league’s best kickers over the last five years. Compare that to a team like the Washington Redskins that had five different kickers in 2000,have
had nearly that many since then and have not reached the playoffs since 1999.
Let’s say, just for kicks, that an NFL executive happens to read over this article and after
weighing the evidence, concludes that maybe, just maybe, he has underrated the importance of
the kicker to his football team. Well then, no one in their right mind would assume him to take
the incalculably stupid and untested step of drafting a successful college kicker over all but the
most proven college quarterback. Or would they? I mean, if a kicker is successful in college,
one can pretty much assume that he will have success in the pros. All the dimensions of the
field are the same, the ball is the same, the grass and wind are the same. It is reasonably safe to
say that if a college kid can hit a fifty yard field goal with regularity, he will be able to do so in the
NFL as well. The same type of extrapolation can not be applied to the college quarterback. In
the NFL, playbooks are more complex, secondaries are faster, linemen are stronger. The most
successful quarterback in college may likely flop in the pros. But don’t take my word for it; just
ask Cade, Akili, Tim, or Ryan. So then, Mr. NFL executive, come this spring, why don’t you use
your first round draft on Nick Novak, just for kicks?
Adam Goldstein is a freshman in the College. You can write to him at adamsg@sas.
the new Group of Seven leading economic powers, relegating Germany, France, and other rich countries to the second
tier. Nevertheless, based on GDP figures for 2003, India and
Brazil remain in the economic league of South Korea and the
Netherlands, so it remains a little early for them to sit at the
table with the major powers.
Reconfiguring the Security Council is not the
answer to the United
Nations’ woes
India does have other ostensible justifications for claiming a permanent seat, including its billion-strong population
and its nuclear-power status, but awarding permanent Security Council seats on the basis of second-tier nuclear-power
status would open up Pandora’s Box. India is one of several
countries that rejected the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and the inspections of the International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) so that it could produce or
obtain nuclear weaponry. The other countries in this category
include Pakistan, Israel, North Korea, and perhaps Iran, and
virtually no one would advocate awarding a permanent seat to
any of them. Inasmuch as India has rejected one of the most
important initiatives of the United Nations and maintains a
fragile truce with its nuclear neighbor Pakistan, the international community would be both reckless and hypocritical in
awarding India a permanent seat on the Security Council.
But Tony Blair’s support for new permanent members
is misguided for a more fundamental reason. The Security
Council was largely impotent throughout the Cold War due
to the rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union,
and after a relatively productive period during the 1990s,
it has once again fallen prey to internal rivalries, especially
between the United States and France. Adding new participants to the fray is unlikely to resolve deadlocks. The United
Nations could surely benefit from reform, but expanding the
permanent membership of the Security Council is the wrong
place to start.
Brendan Houser is a senior in Huntsman. You can write to him at
houserb@wharton.
S EPTEMBER 27, 2004 | FIRST CALL | VOL . V N O . 2
P AGE 6
DON’T MUTATE, DON’T TELL
A N N A S T R O N G I N | A TA S T E O F M E D I C I N E
NOTHING IS QUITE SO
PARADOXICAL as an ethical
dilemma, for it is the root of
both incredible strength and
debilitating weakness. On one
hand, such a dilemma exemplifies the height of human
intellect and reason, but on the
other hand, it leads to indecisiveness and uncertainty.
There is no question that man is remarkable for his attempt to resolve a situation in terms of maximizing overall
benefit. However, if no happy medium presents itself, then
the individual is condemned to an eternal struggle—being
too intellectually advanced to choose between two extremes
but not intelligent enough to figure a way out.
Such a scenario could be applied to many different problems in today’s society including the notable issue of privacy
and genetic screening. Now that the human genome has been
sequenced and mutations responsible for a myriad of disorders have been determined, it is becoming a lot more feasible
to detect mutations and their potential effects through genetic screenings.
In theory, such a procedure can be incredibly beneficial; a
person with a history of a particular condition, such as a certain cancer, heart disease, or Alzheimer’s, may come in and
be screened for mutations associated with those disorders in
her own genotype. If none is found, all the better, but if a
mutation is detected, this information could be used to alert
her doctor so he can monitor and provide treatment to the
patient in a timely manner.
Overall, the concept seems to be ideal for curbing rampant hereditary disorders, but leave it to our society to make
everything much more difficult than it needs to be.
Instead of lauding the effectiveness of finding and treating disorders that could plague entire families, bioethicists
uncovered an ethical dilemma by claiming there is a conflict
between a patient’s autonomy and a physician’s “duty to
warn.”
This conflict arises when the time comes to decide what
to do with information of a detected genetic mutation.
Should the physician take the initiative to tell the patient’s
family members about a problem that could manifest in any
one of them? Or, must he or she abstain from breaching the
doctor-patient confidence at all costs?
It is nice and easy to think that one option would always
be opted for over the other, but in reality things don’t happen
this way. Often, patients diagnosed with genetic mutations
opt not to convey information about their condition to their
family members, leaving the physician to calculate the probability of a lawsuit for a breach of confidence or a lawsuit for
failure to forewarn family of a disease likely to develop over
their lifetime.
Within this situation, two competing rights—the right to
know and the right to privacy—exist and thus constitute the
basis of an ethical tension.
But it shouldn’t be that way at all. There is absolutely
no reason why an individual should not want to reveal the
results of a screening to his or her own family.
Genetically speaking, the immediate family can be considered part of a single unit, since each member shares a
similar genotype. In those terms, telling a sibling or a parent
about a mutation that showed up in the patient doesn’t even
constitute a breach of privacy.
Kin selection is a theory that explains altruistic behavior
in animals. According to this principle, an animal noting a
dangerous situation will sometimes give up its cover to warn
its family of imminent danger, putting itself at risk to save
them, because the ultimate selection unit for the animals is
the gene rather than the individual. The sacrifice is intended
to preserve the genotype.
If such a complex mode of behavior has been observed
in squirrels and birds, you’d think a society sophisticated
enough to have ethical dilemmas would also be advanced
enough to take the big picture into account. You’d think that
a person informed that genetic screening has detected a mutation associated with breast cancer would not even need to
be encouraged by a physician to tell her family. You’d think
that she would be the first to volunteer the information in an
effort to ensure that the well being of the ones nearest and
dearest to her.
Apparently, though, that’s far from what is on the mind
BEST BETS
9/27 - 10/3
Rob’s TV picks for the week
Monday: Monday Night Football (ABC, 9 p.m.) – The classic battle of
Cowboys versus Redskins... well, not so classic in football. Hopefully John
Madden will stay very, very far away from the mic. Woo! Football!
Tuesday: Scrubs “Her Story” (NBC, 9:30 p.m.) – A point-of-view change
sheds some hilarious light on guest-star Heather Graham’s Dr. Molly Clock.
Elliot (Sarah Chalke) takes over as narrator for Zach Braff ’s J.D. Personally,
I was hoping she’d kill him after destroying her love life last year, but a week
as main character will have to suffice.
Wednesday: Kevin Hill (UPN, 9 p.m.) – The critically acclaimed pilot airs...
just stay away from The Mountain, thanks. The show stars Taye Diggs and
is about a not-so-sensitive male lawyer discovering his softer side through
Sears and the sudden responsibility of fatherhood.
Thursday: CSI “Down the Drain” (CBS, 9 p.m.) – Hopefully this week’s
ratings will continue to ruffle Donald Trump’s hair... plus the always hot
Reiko Aylesworth. Last week’s premiere scored 30 million viewers—twice
that of The Apprentice 2. Guess NBC isn’t so Must-See anymore.
of people undergoing genetic screenings. Their primary
thoughts focus on the worry that permission to disclose
information about the outcome will lead in disclosure elsewhere as well.
For fear that news of an anomaly in the genotype will get
back to employers and result in discrimination, people are
endangering their own families. But if that’s truly the only
concern, why not establish some sort of contract with the
physician that permits information release to specific family members only? Better yet, why not just create a law that
provides an exception for family from the privacy clause? By
arguing that in terms of genetics, everyone who shares alleles,
collectively, comprises a single entity, a case can be made for
information disclosure without ever stepping into the messy
bounds of privacy.
Ultimately, though, these limitations placed on doctors
aware of a genetic mutation in one of their patients must be
removed. With all the problems facing the physician today, he
definitely doesn’t need to be burdened with another one.
It’s not fair to have him make a decision not based on
what is best in the situation, but what is the best way to avoid
getting sued. He should not have to devote an indecent number of hours trying to establish the potential of a detected disease—how strongly it manifests itself in the afflicted person
and what interventions, if any, are available, before making a
final decision about whether it is worthwhile to break doctorpatient privacy. And he definitely should not be plagued by
the indecisiveness so characteristic of an ethical dilemma.
Why? Because this isn’t a dilemma at all. There is just
one option here: to inform the family. The situation could be
set up so that the issue of privacy doesn’t even come into the
picture, but it should not even come to that.
Regardless of the discomfort that may come with it, a
patient should volunteer the information about his genetic
status without any kind of coercion in order to make sure his
family is protected as much as possible.
We pride ourselves on being so much superior to all other
living creatures, so let’s make sure our behavior isn’t inferior
to that of squirrels.
Anna Strongin is a juniorin the College. You can write to her at
astrongi@sas.
LADDER THEORY
Continued from PAGE 1
Admittedly, beer goggles and pure horniness reduce things to Lynn’s projection much of the
time. But if it goes for longer, the pie
graph grows more complex.
Lynn ignores this concept of reassignment altogether. Human beings aren’t
computers, however much simpler it
would make things in his mind. People’s
wants extend beyond the shallow categories Lynn enumerates. Those wants don’t
have to be admirable or deep. They can
also include predilections about material objects, sex, or personal habits. No
theory is ever going to be able to describe
preferences, because each person has different desires. Jane may be a neat freak
while John likes to chew his toenails and
eat them. In one episode of Sex and the
City, the main character, Carrie, had to
end things with her otherwise perfect
politician boyfriend because he wanted
her to pee on him.
When it comes to committed relationships, one aspect of the ladder theory is true: it would be hard for one person to stay with
another who is lower than preceding people on that ladder. For this reason, Lynn pities the
ordinary folk who “top out the ladder” with someone stunning. And he is right. It’s just that
the ladder is much more dynamic than he would like to admit.
Lauren Saul is a sophomore dualing in the WHollege. You can write to her at lcsaul@wharton.
Friday: Joan of Arcadia “Out of Sight” (CBS, 8 p.m.) – Six Feet Under’s
Sprague Grayden joins the oft-moralizing show’s cast. Few shows on TV
have Joan’s ability to make you laugh out loud one minute and bawl the
next. And only one has Amber Tamblyn.
The Ride Home
Saturday: Lost (ABC, 8 p.m.) – What, you missed the phenom!? The two-
A poet’s dilemma:
hour pilot as it was meant to be seen—together. The first half ’s airing scored
18 million viewers—the biggest drama premiere for ABC in a decade—and
grew in the second half hour. Seems like Lost was found. If you want to be
in on this year’s watercooler show, start watching while you still can!
Sunday: Desperate Housewives (ABC, 9 p.m.) – Check out Teri Hatcher and
her quirky femme friends down on Wisteria Lane. Probably the second best
of the year’s drama pilots, it looks like ABC might just make a move away
from its dearth of mediocrity. Something to pass the time between now and
the triumphant return of Sydney Bristow and Alias.
How to describe the lights crawling
across the floor of the subway?
I wish I were a poet, so I could deftly
arrange metaphors into a song about you.
Instead, I’m left speechless, watching
beacons fade over empty seats.
If You Can Only Watch One: Lost (Saturday), then watch the third
episode on 10/6!
Andrew Migdail is a freshman in the College. You can write to him at amigdail@sas.
S EPTEMBER 27, 2004 | FIRST CALL | VOL . V N O . 2
P AGE 7
UNDERGROUND SHAKESPEARE
DOES MACBETH JUSTICE
MICKEY JOU | SITES AND SOUND
THE IDEA of reviewing
the performances of Underground
Shakespeare,
the campus Shakespeare
troupe, is an intimidating
one. Wilt thou slander the
passion of these worthy actors? I thought to myself.
Didst thou comprehend the
eloquence that flow’d from
the feathered plume of the
great Bard himself? No, sir, I certainly didn’t. Last year, I
attended a performance of Romeo and Juliet, only to find
myself relying on dim memories of high school English class
to keep track of what scene the actors were playing and why
they were all yelling and sobbing as if someone had died. This
year’s attendance of Macbeth brought no fewer bewildering
moments. I have to admit, I didn’t always understand every
line that came out of the actors’ mouths. But with this particular fact in mind, I praise the actors who participated in this
production of Macbeth, who moved me to tears at the news of
dead wife and children and had me seeing sights along with
the mad king.
Threatened by possible rain showers, the performance
was moved indoors to the Rooftop Lounge of Harnwell, allowing the audience to feast their eyes on a dramatic backdrop of cityscape and twinkling lights. But the backdrop of
the cityscape was as elaborate as the set was going to get. Per
the mission of the troupe, the show focused mostly on the
performances of the actors, using only essential props and
costumes and no set at all. The lack of elaborate costumes
and props did not hinder presentation of the drama, however; by using these theatrical aides sparingly, director Brad
Pennington and costume designer Christine Fisher demonstrated their solid understanding of the symbolic nature of
clothes and objects. The thick red wine at the coronation
feast not only evoked the idea of blood but also added visual
reinforcement of the violence and drama of the scene, as the
red wine was continually threatening to spill over due to Macbeth’s unstable table manners. One can trace the transfer of
power by looking at who was wearing the crown, and simple
costumes and props, such as an army uniform jacket and
swords, assisted the audience in recognizing the characters
and their role in the play.
Perhaps the most interesting costume designs were those
for the impeccably well-dressed Lady Macbeth, played by
Kate Davis. My first sight of her solidified her image in my
mind as the perfect “Daisy” from Fitzgerald’s imagination.
Though merely a “lady” of high social status, her outfit—a
black backless shirt, a conservative A-line skirt with the
added edge of a sheer tulle hem, long, period earrings, a slim
gold chain, and carefully styled 50’s wavy bob—exuded the
polish and sexuality of a power-hungry woman, not unlike
Nicole Kidman from To Die For. Her eventual ascension
to the throne as queen to Macbeth’s king led to a change of
wardrobe but continued to be consistent in its style and taste:
more elaborate period jewelry, an ankle-length skirt still
tinged with a certain sexual ambition with its suggestive material, and a now provocatively plunging black shirt. These
subtly conservative and stylish outfits highlighted the ambition and sexuality of Lady Macbeth and added considerable
edge in Davis’ performance.
Another performer who took full advantage of the minimalist direction and setting of the performance was the hilarious Ben Kamine, who played a drunken Porter appearing in
the middle of the play. In the Rooftop Lounge, the audience
was seated as in an arena: the “stage” was an area sandwiched
between two sets of audience facing each other. This arrangement offered both an intimacy and an added dimension that
the traditional theater experience in which the audience is
separated definitively from the stage does not. Kamine utilized this seating arrangement skillfully; in an off-guarded
demeanor that he had perfected, Kamine cautiously, but with
“drunken ease,” made eye contact with and slurred his jokes
directly at the audience, releasing some of the tension already
built up in the drama. This directness also served a second
purpose: by interacting with the audience, Kamine effectively
invited the audience to become a part of the show, to become
the silent witnesses present at the scene of the murder and at
the royal court and not merely spectators off stage.
Dan Koch’s Macbeth, however, was the performance that
stole the show. With a remarkable control of self, Koch delivered an unsettling and convincing interpretation of the murderous king. From his first trembling, rasped doubts about
the planned murder to the flood of beseeching ramblings of
a madman at the coronation feast and his final spitting of
curses and resistance at MacDuff, Koch was evidently familiar with the sonorous potential of every syllable, commanding
the stage with a wide range of vocal expression. Toward the
end of the show, Koch’s body language was nearly explosive,
every muscle on his body is tense, and even though Koch
seemed to let his limbs fall beside him, there was a subtle but
conscious positioning of the arms and the hands that conveyed the hysteria and defeat in Macbeth’s mind.
Contrasted against a nervous Macbeth and a desperate
MacDuff, played by a forceful and emotional Dave Kurnov,
Adam Corbett’s Malcolm was played much too quietly. I had
a hard time believing him when he tried to portray himself as
an evil character. His lines were delivered evenly, and though
it was clear he understood the meaning, flow, and sound of
the lines well, he lacked a defiant precision and grittiness in
his gestures and expressions needed to maintain a stage presence in light of the other figures. The overwhelming performance of Kurnov, for example, sharpened considerably since
his first hesitant entrances on the stage. This contrast between the emotional MacDuff and the almost stoic Malcolm
was especially jarring when the prince meekly responded to
MacDuff ’s distraught rage at the news of his family’s death.
This same contrast between characters who commanded
the stage and those who did not could be observed in the trio
of “weird sisters.” Often seen standing to the side of the stage
but in plain view of the audience, Carolyn Sealfon (Witch 1)
was the most convincing of the three witches. At any point in
time during the performance, the expression on Sealfon’s face
was one of delight; her purposeful body posture along with
her persistent stare and creepy smile made her the creepiest
witch around. The indifferent looks of the other two witches
(Stephanie Hughes and Jennifer Heim) did not work as well;
their folded arms and casual stances were too informal, giving them the appearance of being more a part of the audience
watching the show than the witches who delighted in the pain
and suffering of this tragedy.
Fortunately, Pennington was well aware of the need for
a dynamic actress on stage in order to avoid having Koch’s
domineering presence paralyze his Lady Macbeth. A formidable Davis, who brought with her an instinctual fluidity, was
cast in this role and provided the perfect wife for Macbeth.
Her natural gestures and soothing words in response to
Koch’s tense, articulated movements and speech added an
explosive unease that accentuated her own treachery and
persuasiveness. Though her presence on stage in the latter
half of the show was scarce, her own descent into madness
was believable and electrifying. I couldn’t take my eyes off
Davis scrubbing her hands to get the “blood” off, re-enacting
the night of the murder in near hysterics—almost screaming,
nearly sobbing.
Even though my experience with Shakespeare has been
limited mostly to high school, I enjoyed watching a performance supported by a strong cast and an interesting stage
crew of witches. Throughout the show, the trio of actresses
who played the “weird sisters” could be found magically disposing of dead bodies, holding the wash basin for the queen,
and setting up the coronation. The talented cast and crew of
Underground Shakespeare made it easy for outsiders such as
me to sink into an enthralling night of murder, intrigue, and
vengeance—Shakespearean style.
Mickey Jou is a junior in the College. You can write to her at
myjou@sas.
A KICK DISCOUNTS A THOUSAND WORDS
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
THE ALLEGATION MADE LAST WEEK that Robinson, a Wharton Junior, physically assaulted a protester at the Republican
Youth Convention is quite serious. The video coverage that has
been made available to the Penn community and the rest of the
country shows a man who bears a striking similarity to Robinson
kicking a young woman while she was being held on the ground by
Secret Service officers. Since the video’s debut in the Penn community and the publication of DP articles, Mr. Robinson has exercised
his right to stay silent on this issue, remaining in relative safety
studying away from Penn this semester. In all honesty, I doubt
most Penn people will know anything certain about this incident
until legal challenges, if any, are initiated.
So, in the interim, what exactly can we take from this event? For one thing, regardless of
whether this act involved one of our own students or an evil Robinson look-alike, it was a pathetic, disturbing event that should not have occurred. To kick this woman while she was being
held to the ground is only marginally above putting a cigarette out on a Cocker Spaniel puppy.
Beyond just the obvious issues raised by this incident, there are far more troubling implications from what happened at the Republican Youth Convention. With the breakdown of order
between the protestors and attendees, we saw America at its worst. But even more disturbing,
we saw something that has become far too common in the American political landscape.
Gone are the days when one would use rhetoric to beat the competition. Vanished are those
times when America came together to make decisions based on intelligent, reasoned discourse
on national issues. Instead, we have those controlled by the most conservative, rightist elements of the Republican Party clashing with those who push for the most liberal, progressive
values of the Democrats. When this happens, as we saw, the results can be fairly substantial.
While this sort of political battling between extremists has been ever-present in the U.S.,
seeing it rise to the level of those who would be the future leaders of the Republican Party
in this case, and perhaps of the Democratic Party as well, really troubles me. Watching Scott
Robinson or his evil clone kicking that AIDS activist with something of a half-smile on his face
just says it all. It was the look that has become all too familiar among people ranging from the
common extremist to those in the highest levels of both the Left and Right. It was the look of
pleasure that results from making a member of the opposing side suffer. It was vicious, and it
was wrong.
Perhaps I have become overly discouraged by the manner in which political discourse
continues to evolve. Unfortunately, I feel I have little recourse. For example, I get contacted
by some of Penn’s conservatives occasionally to discuss my views on certain issues, given my
involvement with numerous liberal or progressive groups on campus. With some of these
individuals, the discussions are amicable, despite how much we may disagree. With a couple
of central players in the conservative movement, however, the results are not the same. One
particular person, who of course shall remain unnamed, once labeled me insane because I work
for a reproductive rights organization which supports abortion rights. That place, he labeled
“an insane asylum.” Or, take another instance, when friend of mine who is head of a progressive group on campus received a forward from a conservative here at Penn who left a reference
calling her a “bitch” in the e-mail. That’s right; she is a bitch for no other reason than politically
disagreeing with him.
These are the future leaders of the country indeed.
Those that represent their respective political persuasions owe it to themselves and to those
around them to conduct themselves with respect, intelligence, and, perhaps most importantly
of all, class. What Scott Robinson/evil clone apparently did at the Republican Youth Convention was anything but classy. It was crass, void of ethical soundness, and should be punished. I
hope that in the end, it is not a Penn student who is found responsible for this act. Regardless
of who did it though, this was an act from which no good can arise and speaks volumes about
what we have to look forward to in the current political climate.
Michael Patterson is a senior in the College. You can write to him at mjp2@sas.
m
s
i
l
l
our dose of
a
c
t
weekly wisdom
s
r
fi
AIRPLANE ARMREST?
THAT’S POLAND IN 1939.
TAKE IT BEFORE SOMEONE ELSE
DOES AND NEVER LET GO.
THE UNDERGRADUATE MAGAZINE |S PONSORED BY THE W HARTON J OURNAL | S EPTEMBER 27, 2004 VOL . V NO .2
lastcall
Critically
Informed
A MURDER MOST POETIC
BRIAN HERTLER | SLEIGHT OF HAND
The University Administration
Awakened to a horrid situation:
The body of the College Dean!
A grisly, bloody murder scene!
The Federal Bureau of Investigation
Descended on the College Green.
“This killer’s trail,” Lynn thought, “will prove his flaw,
To punish him by Pennsylvania law.”
And so, not knowing what she’d see,
She rushed into the library,
And, at the desk where he’d been sitting, saw
A copy of that day’s DP.
The Special Agent heading up the case,
Lynn Cohen, was familiar with the place;
Last spring she’d earned a Penn degree
In Criminal Psychology.
A horrified expression crossed her face;
This murder was a shock to see.
The headline read, All graduate student pay
Reduced by twenty-five percent today.
The students say they’re not surpised
(Good thing they never unionized)
Their recent raise had caused, to Penn’s dismay,
The budgets to grow oversized.
Dean Bushnell, dead, lay facedown on the grass,
With stab wounds from a nearby shard of glass.
Beside her lay a crumpled note,
On which (in blood) the killer wrote,
“This favor to the graduating class,
Comes courtesy of Penn’s scapegoat.”
This was the final clue—now Lynn had seen
The reason why the College lost its Dean:
The killer must’ve read this page
And flown into a bloody rage;
And, crashing through the window to the Green,
Had killed the first man he engaged.
“Aha!” Lynn cried, “The killer left a clue!
We’ve got his handwriting—a motive, too:
He saw himself as persecuted,
(Exactly how is still disputed)
And when he could see nothing else to do,
The Dean was wrongly executed.”
As Lynn reviewed the timeline in her head,
A man approached in tears, his clothes stained red;
He vowed to never kill again
And asked her for a plea bargain.
“I guess that murder’s not the way,” he said,
To get more money out of Penn.”
Her keen eyes caught the imprint of a shoe,
And then some more—a trail came into view.
The steps ran backwards from the crime
As if retracing steps in time.
Lynn followed close, until they led her to
The old aluminum peace sign.
His gentle speech aroused Lynn’s sympathy—
And at the trial, juries would agree.
So that, quite soon, a court decree
Reduced his charge to Murder Three
In two-to-five they’ll set the killer free
To finish up his Ph.D.
There was a hole, with glass all scattered round;
It seemed a heavy weight had hit the ground.
“I guess he landed here,” said Lynn,
“But where could such a fall begin?”
She quickly noticed, when she looked around,
The Van Pelt window broken in.
To end this story, we can safely say
Lynn solved the mystery and saved the day.
The graduates felt some frustration,
Having lost some compensation,
But they’d all learned that murder doesn’t pay,
And only brings incarceration.
Brian Hertler is a senior in the College. You can write to him at hertlerb@sas.
A TACTICIAN NEVER REVEALS HIS SECRETS
BY VICTOR BONILLA
AS THE PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE HEATS UP, what is
arguably the most important difference between the two
candidates receives relatively scant coverage. And no, I’m
not referring to whether George W. Bush is the antichrist,
although that is of course a compelling and relevant issue
as well. I’m referring to the question of whether to fight the
war on terror using primarily the military or to return to
the Clinton/Kerry doctrine of making it a law enforcement
issue.
The law enforcement (LE) approach seeks to arrest
terrorists and try them in courts of law, as if they were just
really nasty common criminals and not combatants. A key
flaw with the LE approach is that it is far too light a touch
for dealing with terrorist strikes that are most certainly acts
of war. The rest of the world has recognized that trying to
take on America in direct warfare is like challenging Michael Moore to a pie-eating contest. A smarter approach,
America’s enemies have seemingly decided, is to effect
American policy change by sponsoring terror, thereby
attempting to shape America into their preferred mold
instead of just flattening it. Bomb a train, as was done in
Madrid, and you can swing an election in favor of the proappeasement candidate.
Despite the inherent problems of allowing judges and
juries to dictate the course of war, a much bigger problem
exists with the LE doctrine: rules of a fair trial require
disclosing intelligence techniques and valuable information relevant to each case. Unlike in conventional criminal
trials, intelligence secrets used in catching one terrorist
would likely have a role in catching his colleagues; hence
disclosing those methods and sources would be disastrous.
Consider a few other possibilities: the prosecution refuses
to disclose the information and loses, letting Tommy Ter-
rorist go back to fight another day and joke with his friends
about how the Americans allow females in the courtroom;
the prosecution wins the case with the disclosed information, and information once confined to the intelligence
community is now in the hands of outsiders; the prosecution loses and John Edwards represents the defendant in
a countersuit, winning millions in a moving story of the
triumph of the little guy who stood up to Big Intelligence.
You get the picture.
The Constitution does not protect foreigners who bear
The rest of the world has recognized
that trying to take on America in direct
warfare is like challenging Michael
Moore to a pie-eating contest.
no relation to America, except in their determination to
destroy it. The LE approach seeks to treat terrorists the
same way we treat common American criminals, sending
them to jail after giving them a fair trial to which they are
most certainly not entitled and one that we need not go out
of our way to provide.
The alternative is to treat the war as a military problem
and bring the fight to terrorists and their supporters. The
law enforcement doctrine would have no room for an offensive campaign against, say, the Taliban. While you’re
certain to find plenty of mention on Theresa Heinz’s—I
mean, John Kerry’s—website of how Bush robbed police
departments to give money to Scrooge McDuck, you’ll
find nothing—zilch—on offensively taking on terrorism.
This doctrine intends to spend plenty of money preparing responses to terrorist attacks a noble aim, but fails to
include any plan to uproot the actual terrorist groups. It is
a completely defensive position, one that gives the ball to
the enemy and says, “Try to score, and take all the time you
need to line up your shots.”
The current military approach tackles the issue of rogue
state sponsorship, aiming to prepare for potential attacks at
home, secure borders and ports, and also keep the enemy
on the defensive. Considering how angry we hear the world
is at us since we invaded Afghanistan, al-Qaeda hasn’t
exactly done a bang-up job of getting the message across
on our soil. “Conventional” wisdom would hold that we
should have been hit again and again, unless there is some
truth to that crazy idea that Bush is actually holding down
the fort.
During the eight Clinton years of cross-examining terrorism into submission, we prosecuted 40 terrorists in trials that took six months or more. Since 2001, we’ve killed
or captured thousands, most notably a great number of
top al-Qaeda officers, with the help of others such as Saudi
Arabia, Pakistan, and France.
Just seeing if you’re paying attention on that last one.
LE certainly failed during the Clinton years, in which
al-Qaeda hit us five times. At least John Kerry could get a
memorable TV ad out of this one: “Announcing a bold new
plan to win the war on terror: It’s called, ‘Sit Around and
Try not to Die!’”
Victor Bonilla is a senior in the College. You can write to him at
vbonilla@sas.