Page 307 – Flat Hat News

Backstreet Boys are back in town

-

November 16, 2007

After their last album, “Never Gone,” proved to be more of the same, I was worried the Backstreet Boys would grow desperate and try something “new.” But they surprised me along with the rest of their aging demographic by their commitment to tradition. Their latest release, “Unbreakable,” isn’t what I would call adventurous, but that’s just fine.

p. I myself am not a fan of the Boys, but an incriminating VHS of me belting out “As Long As You Love Me” at a karaoke parlor has kept me looking over my shoulder, anticipating such an accusation since high school. I popped in “Unbreakable” with equally horrifying visions dancing before my eyes. Strangely enough, the atrocity I prophesied never came true. Despite the urging of the gods, desperate to steer me from such folly, I have to admit — I enjoyed this album.

p. Before you discard this paper and show it the meaning of being lonely, allow me a chance to explain. “Unbreakable” isn’t great, but it’s not bad, either. It’s shallow, easy-going, decently written and unimaginative pop music.

p. “Unbreakable” would be better named “Unambitious.” If I didn’t know better, I’d say these tracks were the rejects from earlier projects. But, as an esteemed reviewer, I refuse to jump to such wild conclusions. Plus, recycling isn’t necessarily a bad thing, as earlier Backstreet albums adeptly brainwashed a nation of pre-teen girls into wanting it “that way.”

p. If you’re looking for an album showcasing exceptional musical ability and penned with meaningful lyrics, you’re definitely barking up the wrong tree in the wrong forest with this one, but if you want more mindless pop from the Boys, you might be in luck.

p. In an age in which so many artists are busy trying to branch out, expand their fan-base and grow artistically, it’s a welcome relief to see the Backstreet Boys riding the gravy train that brought them success in their youth, even though most of these guys are in their late 30s now.

p. My initial plan for reviewing this album involved taking long and necessary therapeutic breaks between every track. “Any Other Way” single-handedly undermined my plan, and robbed me of my self-respect.

p. The song, as absurdly catchy as it is produced, encouraged sing-alongs in the way only a Top 40 hit can. I absolutely loved it. As my roommate watched in horror, I clicked the repeat button in iTunes and let the dreamy vocals wash over me for a solid 15 minutes.

p. Thankfully, “Helpless When She Smiles” brought me to my senses. My ears did not bleed, but the lyrics, saturated with powerfully stale metaphors, had me teetering on the verge. Who couldn’t be moved by these words? “I’m a house of cards in a hurricane / A reckless ride in the pouring rain / She cuts me and the pain is all I want to feel.” Listening to their melodramatic cries, I actually felt their pain. It literally hurt to listen to this song. If that isn’t art of the highest caliber, I don’t know what is.

p. “Love Will Keep You Up All Night” is a quintessentially mediocre pop anthem. The vocals are a shoddy emulation of Bryan Adams and the musical arrangement is truly the result of an unholy union between Daniel Powter and a coked-up Lindsay Lohan. It’s that bad.

p. For those long nights when you yearn to lose yourself in a generic pop ballad, they’ve included “Panic” and “Inconsolable.” Neither song is anything special, but they each have a delicate balance of synthesized drums, lovesick self-loathing and unidentifiable pop sound effects. They’re worth listening to only if you’re a longtime fan.

p. A little ring structure links “Another Sunday Afternoon” with the album’s intro track, but don’t feel bad if you fail to notice: I’m pretty sure the Boys themselves didn’t catch on until the MySpace comments started rolling in. I analyzed their cryptic words, but failed to see what sort of message they were trying to communicate. The mystery hasn’t kept me up all night — yet.
The song is surprisingly well-written and flirts with actual depth. The words are interesting, and the rhythm is deliciously infectious. It made me wonder why they didn’t just release an EP containing only this and “Any Other Way” and hope no one would notice it was 40 minutes shorter than a normal outing.

One ‘Fight Club’ virgin finally reaches the promised land

-

November 16, 2007

0

No matter how inviting, slow-moving or lingering, I will always miss the bandwagon.

p. I was one of the last to (reluctantly) purchase an iPod, take an interest in “Project Runway” during the second half of the third season or read “The Lord of the Rings” after the release of the movies.

p, I have never picked up a copy of “Harry Potter.”

p. The advantage of the retroactive appreciation of a fad, however, is 20/20 hindsight. It’s easier to contextualize a phenomenon when you’re not living it. What you lose in cultural credibility, you might compensate for in the freshness of your interpretation.

p. I saw “Fight Club” for the first time a few weeks ago. It blew me away. I promptly headed to the nearest Barnes and Noble and purchased Chuck Palahniuk’s gritty cult classic. I guess you could say I was like one of those virgins who has progressed through most of the bases, but never actually engaged in the act itself.
I knew of “Fight Club.” It dominated the final year of the last millennium and followed us into the next. I maintain that it must be one of the five most cited movies of our generation. I also knew about the Palahniuk craze. His stuff was edgy, crisp, avant garde and easy to read. Perfect. I thought I knew the gist of it. I thought it was probably a sub-par action flick, more cool than cerebral.

p. I mean, honestly, what was I to think? My Kansas high school boasted at least one fight club of its own (perhaps there were more; we all know the first rule of fight club). My burly, swaggering peers, many flunking classes or in constant legal trouble, whispered of a fight club. I rolled my eyes and thought of the hair in the hallway from the last catfight or of that guy (the cute one) in my study hall who got arrested after lunch. Fistfights were what happened when language and brains broke down.

p. And then, of course, Edward Norton became ineffably cool, and Brad Pitt grew into even more of a sex icon than before. Why was this unassuming, unimposing man so awesome? Why was this pop figure a revolutionary? Norton’s filmography list was and remains short enough to have kept him out of my sights for a few years, and I was never a fan of the glamorous braggart.

p. Still, as I moved through the years, “Fight Club” followed me. As an aspiring novelist, I’ve taken many fiction classes and participated in fiction workshops. Before seeing “Fight Club,” I was stricken by the fact that so many (not all, but quite a few) young men write in the same hardboiled, shocking, borderline-vulgar style. Why were all the characters swearing, punching and copulating like rabbits? Why were all these rabbits angry with the world? From whence did this new cynicism, this angst come? The new idea had become the degraded — “the trash of the world.”

p. When I (tardily) watched “Donnie Darko” my freshman year of college, I ate crow. The cult classic, I came to realize, deserved its worshipped status. Its depth and quirkiness caught me off guard, and I realized I was going to have to give my generation a bit more credit. So, as Palahniuk pumped out more of his hard-hitting novels, sporting covers that could not but catch my eye, I began to take notice. “The Illusionist,” “The Painted Veil” and “Kingdom of Heaven” sparked an interest in the enigmatic Edward Norton. I wondered what he was doing in a Brad Pitt action flick.
Oh, the error of my ways.

p. My enlightenment — my Tyler’s kiss — came on a cold September night, when I finally watched the soap-sporting disc I borrowed from a friend. I was positively glued to the screen; I think my mouth may have hung open a little bit throughout the film. I gasped, smiled, cringed. It took my breath away. Again, I looked at it as my former snob self. How could such a cerebral movie have such a broad fan-base? And I mean broad — every boy I ever knew, and probably quite a lot of girls.

p. Though somewhat self-indulgent and perhaps a little sloppy toward the end, Palahniuk speaks poignantly of the concerns of a postmodern world. Though he laments our spiritual desolation and the lack of opportunity for heroism in a competitive, capitalist society, Palahniuk is no revolutionary. White collar yuppies trade their monotony for a dangerous “space monkey” persona. If mind-numbing materialism is bad, equally so is Project Mayhem, which offers a glimpse at the other end of the spectrum.

p. It is the tension of the modern man, split between a super-civilized desire for order and a craving for the violent savagery of a state of nature. We, Palahniuk suggests, hover in limbo. All that’s left is to forge what personal connections we can with those around us and perhaps let off a little steam.

p. Listen up, romantics: angst is back in vogue — and we’ve substituted freedom-fighting with human lard-based soap products.

p. __Beth Sutherland is a junior at the College. She would like to join a local Fight Club.__

Staff Editorial: Doubts on Nichol

-

November 16, 2007

0

The decision facing the Board of Visitors over the potential renewal of College President Gene Nichol’s contract is the most important issue that the College has confronted in the last three years.
The ramifications of this decision will be far-reaching, leaving no student, faculty member or alumnus untouched.

p. With the future of the College and every member of its community at stake, all concerned groups and individuals should focus on the facts and allow the BOV to make a logical, calculated decision.

p. The release of an e-mail correspondence between former College President Timothy Sullivan and Nichol has led many to conclude that Nichol intentionally misled alumni and students when he announced last February that the Campaign for William and Mary had reached its $500 million goal.

p. While our confidence in Nichol has been considerably shaken over his misinterpretation of this e-mail and his inadequate response to disgruntled donor James McGlothlin ’62 J.D. ’64, we have not seen irrefutable evidence that Nichol lied about his knowledge of McGlothlin’s intentions. His response to these allegations, which he articulated in a meeting with The Flat Hat’s editorial board yesterday evening, was that he believed that Sullivan was referring to a future pledge from McGlothlin to the College, as opposed to the $12 million dollar estate pledge that was booked in 2005 before Nichol became president.

p. Nichol maintains that he made an honest mistake in misinterpreting Sullivan’s e-mail. While the wording was somewhat ambiguous, Nichol’s inability to respond to this e-mail and actively pursue contact with both Sullivan and McGlothlin is inexcusable. Nichol said that he would rather not comment on his relationship with the College’s former president, but his failure to consult Sullivan on an important issue like the removal of the Wren cross and his inability to recognize the urgency of Sullivan’s e-mail raises important questions about Nichol’s leadership capabilities.

p. The e-mail may be the news of the day, but everyone in the College community should understand that this is part of a larger, complex problem that will dictate the future well-being of this university. We encourage the BOV to release any other pertinent documents or information that may enhance the public’s understanding of this difficult issue. As BOV Rector Michael Powell articulated in a recent statement to the community, “The Board [of Visitors] is fully aware of the facts surrounding this matter and it is the Board that will consider whether anything in this episode bears on the performance of College leadership.”

p. This is precisely what the College needs at this time. We are not making an argument for restricting free speech, but blind hatred and systematic attacks on Nichol by various groups are hindering the delicate job with which the BOV has been tasked. Continuing dialogue on the issue is something that we will continue to encourage — particularly since Powell has notified the community via e-mail that the BOV would welcome submissions — but this decision should not be made in the public forum. Moreover, making accusations of dishonesty without proper evidence is irresponsible and undermines this important process.

p. Since Nichol’s honesty in this case cannot be indubitably proved or disproved at present, the deciding factor in the BOV’s decision should be his judgment as a leader, and the board should consider all of the decisions he has made over the past two and half years, good and bad. Based on the current evidence, The Flat Hat is quite disappointed with many of his choices as president, particularly his inability to see potential problems with a disgruntled donor and his apparent lethargy when it came to contacting both McGlothlin and Sullivan.

p. The situation with Sullivan is particularly discouraging. It is apparent from the e-mail that Sullivan had offered his counsel in the past, yet it seems that Nichol failed to consult with Sullivan before removing the cross.

p. The apparent lack of contact is troubling. At the time of the Wren cross decision, Nichol was still learning the terrain and adapting to life at the helm of the College, and his predecessor’s wisdom likely would have proved to be an invaluble asset. In the e-mail, Sullivan states, “I could have told you where this decision would go,” implying that Nichol may have had a better idea of the potential consequences for his actions had he contacted Sullivan before removing the cross. We are concerned that Nichol has a pattern of making poor decisions without consulting others.

p. Nichol has underperformed in several cases, but it must remain the BOV’s decision as to whether his accomplishments as president — some of which are quite notable and have improved our school — outweigh the alumni alienation and other side effects of the Wren cross debacle. It is difficult to believe that a president can lead this College under such scrutiny and ridicule, but Nichol remains convinced that he is the right man for the job. While we are unhappy with his leadership at the moment, we recognize that a solution will come with the BOV’s eventual decision. We hope that whatever decision is reached, the best interests of the College are preserved and continue to be the ultimate priority for all concerned.

Pro-choice production

-

November 16, 2007

0

In a shameless act of self-promotion, and because I can’t go more than a few weeks without writing about reproductive rights, I want to encourage everyone to set aside one night this weekend to see Vox: Voices for Planned Parenthood’s fall play, “Jane: Abortion and the Underground.”

p. If you are not aware, Vox is the College’s reproductive rights organization. We’re officially affiliated with Planned Parenthood, and we exist to raise awareness about sexual health, birth control and politics surrounding reproductive rights. With ‘Jane,’ we’re attempting to raise historical awareness about a woman’s right to choose in hopes that it will provoke others to join our fight.

p. ‘Jane’ is a student-run theatrical production that details the story of a secret abortion collective in Chicago. The group was active during the late 1960s and early 1970s, before the Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade made abortion services legal in the United States. The women of Jane (the name of their underground group) were a mix of students, housewives, mothers and feminist activists, and members of the Chicago Police Department, medical community and clergy helped promote its services.

p. Danielle Garrett ’08 and Morgan Berman ’08, the two student directors for ‘Jane,’ explained that the main goal of production was to simultaneously celebrate the bravery and compassion these women illustrated, while remembering how limited women’s health options were only several decades ago. Essentially, we admire what they did for women desperately seeking abortion services, and we never want to return to a time in which this type of basic health care is not legal or accessible.

p. Just last month, a World Health Organization/Guttmacher Institute study was released showing that abortion rates are not actually lower in countries where abortion is illegal, but the procedure is simply more dangerous.

p. It showed that about 20 million of the abortions performed each year are considered “unsafe” and about 67,000 women die as a result of complications from these abortions. The study also found that in Uganda (where abortion is outlawed and sexual education only teaches abstinence), the estimated abortion rate was 54 per 1,000 in 2003. In contrast, the abortion rate in the United States was 21 per 1,000 that year, and in Western European countries (where abortion laws are less restrictive and contraception is more widely available), the rate was only 12 per 1,000.

p. While these statistics cannot prove the need for legal abortion alone, they indicate that the more options women have in terms of information, available contraception and abortion services, the less women will feel the need to obtain unsafe abortions.

p. Facts like this remind us that women don’t choose abortion because it is convenient, but because it often seems to be the only option. Moreover, making abortion illegal will only make it unsafe. To reduce abortions, we can work to make birth control more accessible, ensure public schools teach comprehensive sexual education so teens know the consequences of their actions and support adequate pregnancy and child care leaves for both women and men.

p. In the end, ‘Jane’ is not necessarily about being “pro-choice,” but about supporting sound public policy and health care for women. Through ‘Jane,’ Vox hopes to show the horrible repercussions involved in outlawing abortion — we want to steer the abortion debate toward ways to reduce its prevalence, rather than its safety or accessibility.

p. Devan Barber is a senior at the College.

With released e-mail, Nichol supporters feel lost

-

November 16, 2007

0

When I ask people around campus about the recently released e-mail between College President Gene Nichol and former College President Tim Sullivan, the response is totally unlike anything I have ever seen.

p. Ask someone about Nichol’s other controversial moments, or about one of George W. Bush’s policies, or even about that pop quiz your professor gave on the first day of class, and you will find one of three responses to the decisions of leaders: defense, attack or apathy.

p. Sometimes people like a leader’s decision, and they defend it, as many students did after Nichol removed the Wren cross. Disliked decisions are attacked. Apathy is most common, inspiring only a shrug.

p. But the reaction to Nichol’s e-mail is none of these three, is something I’ve never seen, even through all the ups and downs of Nichol’s tumultuous three years as president. People look at the ground when asked about the e-mail. They frown. They sigh a lot. They don’t know what to say.

p. They are sad. They are hurt. It hurts, this e-mail and its implications. It hurts us because we wanted to like Nichol, wanted to join him in his quest in making the College a better place, wanted to cheer him on along the way.

p. But we don’t know if we can do that any more. We, who understand the pettiness of Nichol’s detractors and the importance of his contributions to the College, are unsure if we can still defend him. The revelations of this e-mail may be too much to forgive. So, the dream of a better College dies with our faith in Nichol. Nichol’s real betrayal, his real crime, more than anything else, no matter what they say, is allowing that dream to die. It was his dream, too. Now cracks a noble heart.

p. It is unclear whether Nichol was being honest when he announced in February that the Campaign for William and Mary had reached its goal of $500 million, which included the then-revoked $12 million from James McGlothlin ’62 J.D. ’64. Some critics claim that Sullivan’s e-mail shows Nichol knew at the time that the donation had been revoked, but the wording of the e-mail is vague and I remain unconvinced.

p. Nichol likely thought Sullivan was referring to a future donation. After all, the donation had been booked years prior and Sullivan’s e-mail only says McGlothin “is not prepared to give any more money at this time.” We now know this refers to the revoked donation, but it could easily have been read as referencing future gifts. I, for one, am not comfortable condemning Nichol of dishonesty under such ambiguous circumstances.

p. His statements during a Oct. 22 interview with The Flat Hat, however, leave despairingly less room for interpretation: “Tim [Sullivan] and I talked about the donation and had communication, but there was no indication that this was revoking this past pledge.”

p. Nichol could have misinterpreted Sullivan’s e-mail back in December, when the revoked donation was not publicly known. But this interview was a matter of weeks ago, when furor over the re-voked donation was loudest. Nichol’s critics were saying, very specifically, that the then-unreleased e-mail showed Nichol could have known about the donation. This turned out to be true, though Nichol implied that it was false in his Oct. 22 interview.

p. I have re-read both the interview transcript and the e-mail many times and I cannot find a way for Nichol’s implication to be true.

p. Nichol led us to believe he couldn’t have known about the revoked donation. He said that it wasn’t clear at the time, which is true. But what he left out is that it’s now obvious that the e-mail does indicate that the donation had been revoked and that he had misread it. He allowed us to believe that the e-mail made no mention of the donation, though he knew that to be false. That’s far too big a detail for its omission to be a mistake. That’s far too big an omission for it to be anything but a deliberate misrepresentation.

p. I am saddened that this is how Nichol’s presidency may well end. I am saddened that Nichol’s enemies — who have not been fighting Nichol so much as the loss of the regional, WASPs-only, good-ol’-boy college they remember — may be brought closer to their goal.

p. I am saddened that Nichol’s gifts to the College — gifts, such as the Gateway Program, which are much more valuable than any amount of money — might end. I am saddened that we might now never reach the noble, righteous place towards which Nichol has been leading us. I am saddened that our president — a good president, a good leader and a good man — may have sacrificed all he could have brought to the College for one little infidelity.
Nichol is a great leader and president, but his fault is this dishonesty. And, as Antony said of Caesar, it is a grievous fault, and grievously hath he answered it.

p. There are people who would cite this as a victory, but, this week, we all lose. Our loss is not from any public relations snafu, which will be forgotten long before today’s freshmen receive their diplomas.

p. Our loss is not one of petty, small-minded political minutia such as the location of the Wren cross. Our loss is the immeasurable, unprecedented growth the College would have experienced under years of Nichol’s leadership and which we will probably never know.

p. __Max Fisher is a senior at the College.__

Dress up to satisfy your libido

Opinions

-

November 16, 2007

0

Roleplay is a sexual adventure that can be adapted from the tamest fiction to a full-blown fantasy with all the accoutrements.
It’s about taking your fantasies and making them realities. Just because it’s roleplay doesn’t mean you necessarily have to be good at acting, though can be helpful.

p. If you think your partner might be offended by your fantasy or will laugh at you, then sharing your fantasy may not be a good idea. The backlash from releasing that information could cause permanent damage to your relationship, because every time you have sex they’ll know what you really want to do. A dominant-submissive fantasy can be healthy: As long as both of you trust each other and are clear on the rules you might give it the green light.

p. Acting out a one-person play is boring. If you didn’t have a partner in crime, why would you care whether your fantasies ever left your head? One of the sexiest parts of roleplay is the hardest: You’ve got to tell your partner about your favorite fantasy. This can be hard because sometimes it’s difficult to put words to a fantasy — all you can express is a feeling, a noise or a movement. Close your eyes and try to walk them through how it starts. Be detailed.

p. You can start your fantasy like this: “It’s like we’re on ‘Lost,’ and we’re the only ones on the island. Then it starts to rain and we huddle up close together.” Awkward to say out loud? Yes. Slightly nerdy? This is the College. Potentially hot? You bet.

p. It is best if you’re extremely explicit when describing your desires, and this all depends on how well you know and trust your partner. This is your time to let your partner know everything you’ve ever wanted, and it’s a huge turn-on for them.

p. For one, it’s better than watching a porno together or reading a sexy novel because they know this isn’t just how Fabio likes it, it’s how you want it. Second, think how much better playing out the fantasy will be if she does that thing with her tongue exactly how you dreamt it, or he makes sure to put you up on the desk the way you told him to.

p. Some ideas for roleplay are common. You could revert back to childhood and have one person be the patient and one be the doctor or nurse, get a little wild with Tarzan and Jane or grab a ruler and be the sexy professor.

p. Unique themes that say something about you are great as well. I had a friend tell me that his ultimate fantasy would be having a girl dress up as a nightelf priestess from World of Warcraft. There are probably many people who would echo that, but, personally, the male draenei have always caught my eye.

p. In short, don’t think about your fantasy as embarrassing or weird. If you’re with someone who cares about you, they want to hear your fantasies so they can fulfill your desires.

p. Having revealed your fantasy, let those creative juices flow. Depending on how extreme your ideas are, a trip to Big Lots or Target might be warranted. No matter what costume you choose, face makeup is not recommended because the amount of sweat you’ll produce later. The result could leave you looking like an Oompa Loompa.

p. To satisfy male fantasies, it might be enough to put on a push-up bra and some stilettos; and for some women a shirtless man and some changes in facial hair may suffice.

p. The sky is the limit, though, and if you decide to go big budget, there are plenty of online stores willing to help you. Your fun is really never over, because after your private show it’s time for you to take the stage.

p. __Emily Powell is the Flat Hat sex columnist. She owns a preying mantis costume.__

Students perform love, sex, drama

-

November 16, 2007

0

Second Season will present “Unidentified Human Remains and the True Nature of Love” tonight and tomorrow night at 8 p.m. in the Studio Theater of Phi Beta Kappa Memorial Hall.

p. “This is not your standard William and Mary theater fare,” Director Laurie Wolf said. “It is definitely a Second Season type of show. It’s in the studio, in the round and in people’s faces, including all of the sex, violence and mind games the characters play with one another.”

p. While the show’s plot is too complex to boil down into a quick summary, it focuses on the two themes of love and violence, which weave together the individual characters’ stories.

p. To illustrate this concept, Bess Kaye ’08, publicity director and master lighting technician for the show, designed posters with the slogans: “How far can pleasure go before it becomes pain?”
“It’s about trying to negotiate relationships of all sorts in the post-modern world — love, friendship, sexual partners,” Wolf said.

p. This is not your typical love story, as shown in the character of Candy, played by Brittney Walker ’10, who experiments liberally with her sexuality. In one scene, both the man and the woman she has been dating show up uninvited and are surprised to find that Candy hasn’t been honest with either of them.

p. In the midst of its themes regarding the chaos surrounding love, the show is framed by a story about a serial killer who preys on the town and infiltrates himself into the lives of the other characters.

p. “We live in a world where violence touches us,” Wolf said. “Catastrophic events exist around us, just like the serial killer in the play, but how do they touch us? Are they eventually gone again? If they’ve touched us personally, they might have lasting effects. How do we have the strength to go on?”

p. The show was written by Canadian playwright Brad Fraser in 1989 and has a relatively short history of performance. In the same year, Time magazine named it one of the “10 Best Plays of the Year.”

p. The cast roughly compares the play to the movies “Crash” and “Requiem for a Dream,” because of its emotional intensity, as well as the eventual coalescence of the individual characters’ stories.
Rolfe Shiflett ’08 plays the main character, David.

p. “David is an everyman in that he has a lot of hopes and dreams and not all have been fulfilled,” Shiflett said. “He has to figure out what to do with his life when that all goes away.”

p. The seven performers have a tight bond and are proud of their work.

p. “Everyone has really pulled their own weight,” Shiflett said. The other featured performer is Keegan Cassidy ’10.

p. The show is scheduled to run approximately one hour and 45 minutes. Audience members are warned that there is no late seating for the play due to the intensity of the opening scenes.

p. Tickets cost $5 at the door, with a portion of the proceeds benefiting Broadway Cares/Equity Fights AIDS. Profits from a silent auction of Broadway posters will be donated to the same charity.

‘Jane’ speaks about abortion

-

November 16, 2007

0

At 7 p.m. tomorrow and Sunday, Vox: Voices for Planned Parenthood will present “Jane: Abortion and the Underground” at Ewell Recital Hall.

p. Morgan Berman ’08, the co-chair of Vox’s special events and director of “Jane,” discussed the play’s aim to inspire and educate students across campus, especially “people not yet involved or unsure about their opinions on Planned Parenthood and reproductive freedom.” The production celebrates financial and emotional costs suffered by members of Jane who provided a refuge for women in need of care.

p. “The play displays [the members’] compassion for women they were serving,” Berman said. “All reproductive health care should be safe, affordable and accessible.”

p. The production also seeks to educate students on the quality of life for women and the female voice before the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion in America, as well as the infringements on women’s reproductive rights.

p. Berman added that the production is a “fundraising event for Vox, so [they] can continue setting up socially aware plays like this.”

p. Written by feminist playwright Paula Kamen, the historically based play centers around Jane, an underground network of college women and middle-class housewives that illegally provided abortion services during the early 1970s.

p. The network’s services became a trusted source of refuge for women seeking to abort their pregnancies during a time that pre-dated the Roe v. Wade decision, which legalized abortion in the United States.

p. The network, synonymous with the Counseling Service of the Chicago Women’s Liberation Union, provided safe, practical and reliable health facilities and clinics for 11,000 women in the Chicago area. Members of Jane were self-taught in the abortion procedure; they had neither medical background nor experience.
The play raises questions about abortion, addressing the impact on the physical safety and well-being of women if it is made illegal.

p. “Making [abortion] illegal doesn’t take care of anything,” Berman said. “In countries where abortion is illegal, abortion rates have remained the same, while women’s mortality rate rose. We want to prevent that.

p. “Pro-choice isn’t pro-abortion — it’s pro-choice, a woman’s choice to choose abortion or life for her unborn.”

__Editor’s Note: This article was edited Nov. 17.__

Studying abroad too closely resembles a Disney vacation

-

November 16, 2007

0

“In some respects, study abroad has become for this generation what going to college was for their parents,” Laura Pappano recently wrote in The New York Times. “Being in a place a dozen time zones away, where Internet service and cell phones are unreliable, provides one of the first chances for true and prolonged independence.”

p. Pappano went on to describe expensive programs that cater to a uniquely American desire for creature comforts and security. New York University, for example, recently opened a study abroad center in Ghana with accommodations that rival those at NYU itself. The reason? Students studying in Accra, Pappano wrote, “expect a standard of food and housing (and sleep) that is not typical in West Africa.”

p. All of which is enough to make a student wonder: Are study abroad programs sheltering us from culture instead of exposing us to it? It seems that a truly immersive semester abroad is becoming a rarer and rarer commodity these days — the much-touted “study abroad experience” has been homogenized into oblivion. If being in Ghana is phenomenologically similar to being in America, then something’s afoot in the nether regions of higher education.

p. The crux of the problem, as I understand it, is that students aren’t willing to surrender certain standards of living in exchange for a broadening of their proverbial horizons. Somehow we’ve tricked ourselves into believing that it’s possible to experience new ways of life without abandoning our comfort zone.

p. Studying abroad in, say, Florence sounds appealing at first blush; less palatable is the idea of sleeping on the floor of a stranger’s one-bedroom apartment for four months and going without hot water for days at a time. Normatively, we tell ourselves that encountering displeasure is inherently bad. When it comes to going abroad, though, the inverse is true.

p. Judging from the stories I’ve heard, there are plenty of students who go abroad in search of nonstop partying. They seek an extended spring break where the workload is low and the inhibitions are lower.

p. These hedonistic tourists aren’t the ones you hear about when you talk to the folks at the Reves Center. In fact, administrators often act like the hedonistic tourist types don’t exist at all, even though certain programs seem to cater almost exclusively to such people. We’ve all heard of these Americanized bubbles, wherein classes are bullshit and nightlife reigns supreme.

p. I can’t imagine that the “party central” mentality is boosting the reputation of America abroad. As the informative Reves Center staff often points out, college students are prominent cultural ambassadors.

p. If we, the ostensibly educated elite of this country, reveal ourselves to be ignorant of — and immune to — non-American worldviews, then foreign citizens will have no reason to eschew stereotypes; they can go on thinking that we live in nothing more than the land of primitive capital punishment, oppressively privatized health care, commercialized mass religion, material excess, pervasive solipsism and much, much more. It’s always been kind of assumed that sending students abroad augurs well for America’s respectability. But what happens if the students turn out to be really, really big assholes?

p. Granted, it’s impossible to evaluate each and every study abroad program out there, but somehow the wheat needs to be separated from the chaff. If we refuse to support costly programs that portray an ersatz, Disneyfied version of their respective countries, I think more students could afford to go abroad, and they would have better experiences. By “better,” I mean more indicative of a region’s culture and heritage — more edifying and less uniform.

p. Economically, though, this outcome seems unlikely. Dubious study abroad opportunities will continue to arise for the same reason that the planet’s most popular landmarks have become banal tourist traps: It’s more profitable that way.

p. The NYU students enjoying their swanky home-away-from-home in Ghana are likely very wealthy. NYU makes a pretty penny from their tuitions, and Ghana’s economy probably receives a boost from the American sector, too. Thus, cultural rifts will be nurtured and encouraged as long as someone stands to gain financially.

p. And yet, if students set out in search of the eternal buzz, and foreign institutions welcome them with open arms, we have no right — let alone an effective method — to stop them. Of course we could try to herd everyone together and fly them to Disney World instead; it has none of Earth’s destitution. It’s literally pluperfect. Reliable shuttle buses. Killer happy hours. The star-studded, racially diverse cast of “High School Musical 2.”

p. It’s hard enough to motivate sympathy for other people on America’s own campuses — now we’ve started erecting international bastions of apathy.

p. A semester abroad merits careful reconsideration. We shouldn’t receive academic credit for denying reality.

p. __Dan Piepenbring is a Confusion Corner columnist. He is studying in Disneyland Paris next semester.__

I’ll take ‘College alumni’ for $1,000

-

November 16, 2007

0

Answer: Jeff Spoeri.
Which College alumnus competed in the “Jeopardy!” Tournament of Champions?

p. Though a ‘Jeopardy’ champion now, years ago Speori ’87 hardly considered it a viable goal.

p. “I’ve always been into trivia,” Spoeri said. “I was coming out of college in the heyday of Trivial Pursuit. It was always a running gag — someday I’m gonna pay off my law school loans on ‘Jeopardy.’” Ironically enough, he did just that. Since his debut on the game show last fall, he has won over $114,000 and competed more than eight times.

p. Spoeri’s success on ‘Jeopardy’ has been as unexpected as it has been unfathomable. Spoeri said he does not actively prepare for the game show. In fact, he purchased but one book, “Shakespeare for Idiots,” in anticipation of the ongoing Tournament of Champions. He laughed, though, because it has yet to come in handy.

p. In fact, Spoeri’s lack of preparation is justified in that, according to him, most of the questions are “esoteric, obscure … a lot of it is luck of the draw.”

p. He performs no superstitious rituals, but does make a point to sleep well the night before a competition; the first time he appeared on the show in a wildcard round, his continued winning demanded he film five consecutive rounds in one day. The next day he was knocked out in the first round, which he chalks up to exhaustion. Since then he has made a conscious effort to sleep sufficiently the night beforehand.

p. The Tournament of Champions, in which Spoeri competes this week, features 15 former winners competing for the $250,000 grand prize and the title of Champion of Champions.

p. His success somewhat stemmed from Spoeri earning his undergraduate degree in government and performing arts from the College. He then furthered his education with a Master’s degree from Vanderbilt University and a J.D. from Washington University in St. Louis. Currently, he works as the director of development for the Charles E. Schmidt College of Science at Florida Atlantic University.

p. Spoeri credits his minor in theater for his accomplishment on ‘Jeopardy.’ The selection process for the game show favors not only intelligence, but also personality, attitude and audience appeal. All the applicants are all exceptionally bright, but Spoeri also discovered that ‘Jeopardy’ looks for amiable candidates who will draw fan following from viewers and who will be entertaining competitors.

p. “Interesting, enthusiastic people have an edge [in becoming contestants],” he said.

p. Spoeri’s theater experience behooved him in the selection process. He listed his lack of stage fright as an advantage when filming the shows.

p. “You don’t think about the 12 million television viewers, but you do think about the 200 live audience members,” he said.
Affiliation with the College proved particularly helpful last year when he was asked a Daily Double question about the founding of the Phi Beta Kappa honor fraternity. Spoeri correctly answered that 1776 was its inaugural year. The clue was a “traveling clue,” which included a short video filmed at the location. Spoeri’s familiarity with the campus and its history led to his correct response.

p. Additionally, Spoeri underlined the value of his degree from the College on the whole. “Having a WM degree is a real feather in your cap,” he said.

p. His brush with fame has left Spoeri unfazed. He said that Alex Trebeck is not nearly as intimidating as he is portrayed on the show, and that he is actually down-to-earth.

p. “On TV, he may come across as condescending, but he is really polite, nice and personable,” Spoeri said.

p. He also defended Trebeck’s true abilities, which are oftentimes suppressed as the host.

p. “Alex is a bright guy — no doubt about it,” Spoeri said.
During Spoeri’s first winning streak on the show, Trebeck even offered contestants advice. Trebeck told Spoeri that though the game covers a wide range of topics, contestants could prepare themselves by studying for specific categories.

p. Game show fame is not as glitzy as it appears to be. Spoeri said he took vacation days from his job at FAU to appear on ‘Jeopardy.’ Initially, contestants earn $1,000 for appearing on the show, but much of the money is spent on travel and hotel costs. Upon returning for the Tournament of Champions, however, Spoeri was welcomed with prepaid for accommodations and the excitement of reuniting with his former opponents.

p. Although not altogether active in the ‘Jeopardy’ community, many avid contestants network via J! archive pages online, which each person can use to track progress and communicate with one another.

p. Spoeri also cited Facebook, e-mail and blogs as other resources contestants use to keep in touch. “I’m excited to go back [to the tournament] to meet new people and catch up with acquaintances from shows past,” Spoeri said.

p. As for advice, Spoeri suggested that potential game show candidates “try and try again” and to “be persistent, be yourself.” He touted good fortune in getting through selections his first time around, and cautions that there are innumerable qualified candidates. ‘Jeopardy’ sifts through the masses and plucks the most interesting and audience-friendly, yet ultimately clever, to air on television.

p. The “Jeopardy!” Tournament of Champions airs at 7:30 p.m. on ABC. The tournament began Nov. 7 and will conclude tonight.

ABOUT US

FOLLOW US