Rachel Tepper & Karl Improv
Archive for January, 2007
Editorial Cartoon
Wednesday, January 31st, 2007 | Rachel Tepper & Karl ImprovRachel Tepper & Karl ImprovWe’re getting another tuition increase?!
Wednesday, January 31st, 2007 | Nathan EverlyIt’s becoming an annual tradition for the University to announce a tuition hike soon after winter break. Earlier this month the Executive Vice Chancellor sent out a mass mailing announcing that tuition would increase to $34,500. Now, as usual, this 5.2 increase increase from last year represents yet another year where the tuition hike is larger than the rate of inflation. That difference may seem small, but it does add up in the long run. For example, tuition during the 2001-2002 school year was set at $25,700. A quick calculation using numbers from the United States Department of Labor Statistics would tell you that this amount would have to rise to $29,255 today in order to keep up with inflation. And yet here we stand today with college tuition priced at $32,800 and another tuition hike looming.
So what are the reasons for the steady rise in college tuition? They vary, of course, from year to year, but healthcare and energy bills are now seen as the primary culprits. According to the Commonfund Institute’s Higher Education Price Index, energy utility costs for all universities have risen by more than 25 percent since 2005. This increase is troubling, to be sure, but at least the University is capable of doing something about it. Energy conservation programs have been created to deal with the problem and these initiatives have usually been judicious and cost-effective (of course, this doesn’t include the $16,000 Olin Library solar panels which supply a mere 1/16,000th of the university’s power). The problem of rising healthcare costs, on the other hand, is a little more worrisome. In 2006, the Kaiser Family Foundation announced that premiums for employer-based health insurance plans rose by 7.7 percent.
The problem of rising healthcare costs isn’t new, of course, and it isn’t something that is restricted solely to universities. On a national level, the cost of healthcare continues to rise with almost no end in sight. In 2004, the United States spent 1.9 trillion dollars on healthcare and easily topped every other country in the world in healthcare spending. According to analysts, this level of spending is expected to increase to around 2.9 trillion dollars by 2009 and reach 4 trillion dollars by 2015. What makes this even more worrisome is the fact that government entitlement programs such as Medicare and Medicaid foot a significant portion of this bill. Add in the new and hugely expensive Medicare prescription drug plan and you have a level of spending that is simply unsustainable in the long run. In short, there is a very real threat that healthcare entitlement programs will bankrupt the government.
So what does a looming national healthcare crisis have to do with Washington University in St. Louis? Quite a lot, actually. At some point the cost of healthcare is going to reach such an astronomical level that people will simply be unable to pay for it. You’re seeing evidence of that already with rising health insurance premiums. The only way that this country can control healthcare costs is by making choices, hard choices, about what it is willing to pay for. In much the same way, this University needs to decide how it will function and financially sustain itself somehow without annual tuition hikes which shift the burden to students. A good first step would be eliminating the mandatory student health insurance plan. It’s an expensive plan that doesn’t offer adequate coverage. Sure, raising tuition would be much less painful for the University. But it must realize that doing that is a short-term solution that will eventually become unsustainable.
There will come a time when middle-class students, the ones who aren’t wealthy and don’t qualify for financial aid, would rather forgo coming here than saddle themselves with huge amounts of debt. If this university lets that happen, then it will not, as the executive vice chancellor claimed, be “balancing rising expenses with offering an outstanding educational experience.” Instead, it will merely be building its reputation on the backs of its students.
Nathan is a junior in Arts & Sciences and a Forum editor. He can be reached via e-mail at [email protected].
Devlin interview reflects poor journalism
Wednesday, January 31st, 2007 | Staff EditorialSusannah Cahalan, a University senior, made national news last week by publishing interviews with alleged kidnapper Michael Devlin. It wasn’t the content of the exclusive interviews that received the most attention, but rather her method of obtaining them. According to the St. Louis Post Dispatch, Cahalan signed in at Devlin’s jail as his friend, not identifying herself as a member of the media. While hundreds of journalists had their requests for interviews systematically denied, Cahalan got the story.
Such an approach to journalism is not one we see appropriate as fellow journalists or as Washington University students. Though some have defended Cahalan’s alleged actions and used clips from her interview in their own reporting, Student Life believes that journalism requires a higher ethical standard. Cahalan’s exclusive interview with Devlin does not justify the dishonest means she reportedly used to obtain it.
Journalism, at its very core, demands a commitment to truth and devotion to the public. Seasoned journalists Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel surveyed hundreds of their colleagues to determine the main principles of journalism. Two points stood out at the top of their findings: that “journalism’s first obligation is to the truth” and “its first loyalty is to citizens.” When Cahalan deceived individuals in the pursuit of her story, she violated both of those principles. Most obviously, the commitment to truth and honesty was lost in the pursuit of this story. While she obtained an incredible and exclusive interview, she did so at the cost of staying committed to the accuracy and honesty that reporting and journalism depend upon.
Perhaps even more disturbing though, Cahalan’s reported actions violated the journalist’s loyalty to their citizens. The media exists to inform the public of relevant issues, to help the public make informed daily-life decisions and to serve as a check on the government. At the point where the media blatantly disregards the necessity of honesty and professional ethics, it sacrifices the principles that have allowed it a good relationship with the public. This relationship is necessary to allow the media to garner the information that is newsworthy. It is this relationship that allows individuals to work with the press to communicate vital information to the public when it is risky to that individual’s well-being. If the journalistic community shows it is concerned more with making deadlines and getting the scoop that it violates an individual’s expectations of privacy, it greatly betrays its public.
Some journalists have taken the situation in a different light. Bill McClellan, a veteran columnist for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, recently argued that journalism should be viewed as a trade, as opposed to a profession, and as such requires only a base level of ethical code. Essentially, so long as a reporter “gets the story” and attempts to portray it accurately, he has fulfilled his ethical duties regardless of whether or not the individual he was speaking with understood that he was leaking his story to the public. The end of getting the information justifies the means, McClellan claims.
Student Life does not share this view. The pursuit of a story, no matter how newsworthy or exclusive, cannot validate the use of dishonest techniques. Rather, it diminishes the credibility of all journalists and lessens the public’s ability to trust the media. Deceptive reporting may get the scoop, but it deals journalists a significant blow in maintaining – and even deserving – the trust of their public.
Warcraft and Wash. U.
Wednesday, January 31st, 2007 | David SongEvery now and then – and this may be especially true, for one reason or another, among Asian-American circles – certain horror stories surface concerning computer gaming and dismal school grades. Every time I hear, “Dr. Li’s son spends too much time at the computer,” I can imagine in my head the typical story: A fairly bright, promising student gets his first taste of a computer game in middle school, or maybe later in high school. He – it’s much more often than not a he – is introduced to this unexpectedly entertaining game about, say, space aliens or medieval knights, by a classmate, a cousin, or, if the game is very popular, by mere word of mouth. “Just try it,” says a friend, “it’s fun; lots of kids are doing it.” So it happens that he inserts a CD – probably a burned CD, not that he especially cares about this – into his computer. He plays the game at odd hours, which begin to creep up on him, and he begins to realize that he’s spent the last few hours tapping at the keyboard and clicking the mouse, hours originally set aside for SAT prep or the biology test on Wednesday. Months, even years pass. He continues to play computer games – he’s probably branched out and experimented with new ones – with schoolmates and friends, while his grades begin to plummet. Maybe his parents find out and try to set limits, but having grown up in the Information Age, he can outsmart them in the field of computers and questionably obtained computer games. In short, he gets addicted to computer gaming. (Addiction is a word I use lightly here for fear of trivializing the more serious problem of drug addiction; I am certain, however, that few Washington University students are using heroin.)
I am thinking back to high school because in college there is no longer the imposing, looming parental figure threatening to take away someone’s computer games, or video games – or for that matter, beer pong and hooking up. I am mentioning computer games, however, because they possess the capacity for addiction and obsession. The horror story extends into college, where the student spends time in front of the monitor to the point where his G.P.A. plummets even further down than it did in high school, past the 3.0 and into the 2.0-somethings. Time spent at the keyboard continues, for lack of intervention by parents and (perhaps) by friends. If he’s fortunate, he realizes himself the degree of his involvement with computer games, and sets restrictions on himself, but the temptation is always there.
The game of choice, when I was in middle school – when someone handed to me a burned computer game CD – was called “Starcraft”. Today, the game of choice – that is, the most addicting computer game – is called “World of Warcraft;” if all computer games were drugs, I have been told, “World of Warcraft” would be crack cocaine. If you do search for “Warcraft” on Facebook, you will find a number of groups, including “The Girlfriend Coalition Against Warcraft,” “Warcraft Ate My Soul,” and “Center of Warcraft Rehabilitation.”
Over winter break, I was deeply curious about the addictive properties of this game in particular, and downloaded a 10-day trial version of the game. Some friends cautioned me against this, telling me things ranging from “prepare to say goodbye to life” to “stay away from that game, for the love of God.” From that experience of 10 days alone, I can only imagine of the near-endless potential a game like World of Warcraft has to addict and obsess any of its players.
I am aware of the potential of any computer game – provided it is immersive and entertaining enough – to mesmerize me and drain away hours that could be put to better, more productive use, and this, I think, is true for many people in college as well. Faced with an eight-page literature essay or a stack of chemistry problem sets, it’s not easy to readily deny the urge to go do something – anything – else. Money and accessibility are not problems. A game like World of Warcraft costs about $15 dollars a month – not overly expensive compared to, for example, movies – and the capability of anyone to obtain through the Internet games through questionable means (no one seems to care about that) is endlessly huge. The temptation is always there – not just to play “World of Warcraft” or (for nostalgia’s sake) “Super Mario,” but to watch “24” or “Grey’s Anatomy” for hours. What wards off the temptation is, of course, no longer those looming parental figures, but our looming desires to do something that’s not pointless. In other words, desires that partly mark the transition in college to adulthood.
David is a sophomore in Arts & Sciences. He can be reached via e-mail at [email protected].
Band’s hype unfulfilled in new album
Wednesday, January 31st, 2007 | Rebecca KatzOh, what a shame it is that yet another potentially promising indie band has gone to waste. Clap Your Hands Say Yeah! (CYHSY) released their first album in 2005, which was received with an insane amount of hype. Based on guest appearances by both David Bowie and David Byrne at their shows and the allure of a band name that actually commands you to applaud (whoever said not to judge a band by its name was dead wrong), CYHSY should be enticing, new, and fresh, right? Wrong.
Their debut self-titled album was praised by mp3 bloggers, but anyone who actually listened to it in its entirety and did not jam a pencil into his eye would have given it a less than impressive review. CYHSY released its second album, “Some Loud Thunder,” this time with a record label, a little over a year later. I was willing to give CYHSY a second chance, but the five-member indie pop group disappointed me once again.
The prime problem with “Some Loud Thunder” is the vocals. Contrary to popular belief, actually trying to sound like you cannot sing is not enjoyable. The title track is absolutely unbearable from the get-go. Alec Ounsworth’s voice is whiny and raspy, making it nearly impossible to make out more than four words in a row. “Underwater (You and Me)” has somewhat discernable lyrics, but the sound is repetitive and monotonous, and I truly could not wait for each song to end. The pain inflicted by listening closely to the droning and moaning of Ounsworth’s words was insurmountable.
The instrumentals throughout the album, however, are actually pretty inventive, combining piano, guitar, harmonica and even some electric sounds to create unique melodies. The introduction to “Goodbye to the Mother and the Cove” involves a violin and a guitar gradually integrated into a steady beat; unfortunately, as soon as the vocals began, I could not push the stop button fast enough to prevent the nails-on-the-chalkboard effect on my eardrums. The musical talent is just utterly conquered by the lack of vocal talent.
Whoever declared music as solely lead vocals forgot the important aspects of harmony that adding backup voices can provide. CYHSY notably idolizes The Talking Heads, yet they fail to recognize that even David Byrne needed backup sometimes. And his voice was not akin to the groans and moans of one of Jack Bauer’s tortured terrorists. I’m pretty sure Ounsworth could use all the help he can get.
Is our pop scene really so desperate that a band with a catchy name, creative song titles and moderately publicized releases can gain a blind following? Personally, it was physically painful for me to listen to “Some Loud Thunder” in its entirety. I praise the musical talent in the band and the melodies are original. However, the lyrics could be incredibly inventive and no one would ever know due to the legitimate lack of quality in Ounsworth’s voice. If you absolutely must check it out, stick to listening to the instrumentals. I would not clap my hands and say yeah! (or even take my hands out of my pockets for that matter) for this one.
Meet me at the mall…
Wednesday, January 31st, 2007 | Rebecca Katz
Scott BresslerWhat is it about mall music that makes or breaks the shopping experience? Background music affects our emotions, our outlooks and our mindset more than we may actually realize. I set out to find what exactly sends us running away from a store or gives us that urge to splurge.
Society today undoubtedly links fashion with music. Between the lyrics incorporating big name designers (“They buy me all these ice-ys/Dolce and Gabbana/Fendi and then Donna” or “They say they love my ass in/Seven jeans, True Religion/I say no, but they keep givin'”) and multiple designers with DJs, music inevitably manipulates the consumer.
After a survey of the tunes that make us tick and the pulsing beats that encourage us to spend, I split the stores and their musical selections into three groups.
1. Casual Wear Stores:
Top hits and variations
With distressed denim and unfussy Oxford shirts to give customers the perfect cavalier look, Abercrombie and Fitch was teeming with shoppers. The music was bass-heavy and featured the familiar thump of the Pet Shop Boys (a British electronic/pop/alternative group that has been around since the early ’80s). The music complemented the edgy garb with a sound so energized and elevating that the clothes nearly danced off the hangers by themselves.
True to their trendy yet edgy merchandise and often innovative style combinations, Urban Outfitters is deeply in touch with the music world, releasing its own “mixtapes” and exposing its shoppers to a selection of often “underground” indie rock, alternative, electronic and techno. I was graced by the music of Thom Yorke as I walked in the door, and two Original Penguin sweater-clad employees greeted me with a “hey.” Going from the subtle electronica of good ol’ Thom to a song off The Walkmen’s new album, the shopping mood remained the same. The music inspired thinking: the loud yet strange sounds allowed the shopper to really hear the music rather than attempt to sing along and use the melodies to inspire creativity during the shopping process. Urban Outfitters delves into the unknown of music and shares it with eager shoppers.
2. Upscale boutiques:
‘Refined’ musical selections
In the world of boutiques and urbane chic, jazz is a must. In one such Milwaukee boutique, I was delighted to walk in to John Coltrane’s “Giant Steps,” getting me in the groove to shop in a smooth and classy way, providing the necessary funk to keep me going, but not overwhelm my senses. A little Herbie Hancock followed, though the sparsely stocked store was a bit too expensive and sophisticated for his sounds.
3. Department stores:
A musical medley
The ultimate example of the changing dynamic of music from store to store is the classic department store. The experience of walking into Nordstrom differs depending on your department of choice. There is that larger-than-life shoe department with standard classical music to suit all tastes, or the makeup and handbag department, featuring only the most recognizable of oldies. Venturing onward to the more upscale but still youthful Savvy, geared towards young adults, the music selection of Radiohead and Wilco gained my approval. Both these artists are recognizable to the musically proficient, yet are still reminiscent of Urban’s cutting-edge tunes. Walking through the men’s department to the sound of more classical music (the store was not trying too hard to inspire shopping creativity in the males) brought me to the Juniors department where I was ostensibly blasted with top 40 hip-hop and pop jams. Bombarded with noise and teenage girls scrambling around to pick the perfect pants, I quickly exited the store and concluded my quest with a slight headache.
At the end of the day, music has the same effect in stores as it does in each and every one of our lives. It inspires shoppers, discourages shoppers and inevitably shapes the aura of stores, be they designer boutiques or your nearest Hot Topic. Even grocery stores delight hurried consumers with background noise. Searching for something new to tune into? Go shopping and see what music you can scout out. Maybe a dose of mall music is just what you need to get into a new groove, or to send you running back to your favorite albums. Just don’t let the melodies manipulate your wallet.
Sophomore Slump
Wednesday, January 31st, 2007 | Jason Anderson
Jason Anderson
We all love Nana
Wednesday, January 31st, 2007 | Brian StittWhen I was five years old my father sat me in front of the TV and popped a copy of “The Bridge on the River Kwai” into the VCR. I’m sure he was simply trying to keep me from watching “Katy the Caterpillar” for the 200th time but I also feel like it was an attempt to introduce me to one of the best male bonding movies ever created. At the time I thought the movie was incredibly long and boring, fair for a 5-year-old with ADD. I did get something from the experience, though, that my Dad may not have anticipated and certainly did not intend. When I revisited the film at age 11, remembering the enthusiasm in my Dad’s eyes when he watched Alec Guinness stare down Colonel Saito, I finally understood why two hours of marching, whistling and posturing was so exciting for him and it became so for me as well. I appreciated the film even more because I had such a strong memory of disliking it as a younger child.
Having my opinion forcibly changed by a static piece of artwork was moving, and from that point on I refused to let my age dictate the kind of entertainment I would enjoy. I threw all age-appropriateness suggestions out the window and began enjoying the joys of all kinds of movies and television regardless of age level. This led not only to my fanaticism for the gritty and gut wrenching “Homicide: Life on the Street” when I was in grade school, but also to my growing addiction to the ridiculous Canadian melodrama “Degrassi: The Next Generation.” Now I enjoy watching everything from Jim Jarmusch movies to “The Wiggles.”
The reason I bring up this seemingly pointless anecdote is even more self-serving than this column may seem up to this point. My favorite TV show has been pulled off of KETC, the local PBS affiliate, and I am raging. That pointless anecdote was an attempt to justify the fact that my current favorite show is a Canadain television show produced puppet show intended for preschoolers. “Nanalan'” follows the adventures of Mona, a 3-year-old girl, who spends every day with her Nana while Mom and Dad are at work. The cast also includes Nana’s dog Russell and Nana’s neighbor and sometime love interest Mr. Wooka.
The show plays as if Tom Green made a puppet show about a stoned toddler and I absolutely love it. From the meta-fictional aspects of Mona watching a puppet show put on by Mr. Wooka, a puppet himself, to the simple lessons learned on each episode like colors are different and some food is crunchy, this show fills me with unadulterated joy for one half hour. To illustrate my devotion, “Nanalan'” aired at 7:30 a.m. on Saturday mornings and I never missed an episode. Lack of sleep may play some small role in the borderline religious experience I enjoy while watching the show, but does that make it any less valid?
Several weeks ago, however, my entire world came crashing down as if the Hindenberg and the Titanic collided in mid-air. Not only was my show pulled from the air, but all mention of it on the KETC Web site disappeared as if to specifically mock my affection for the program. I initially assumed it was a one-week mistake but as the Saturdays came and went I was not treated to my usual thirty minutes of Nirvana but to brainless garbage like the insipid “Saddle Club” and the ridiculously idiotic “Dragon Tales.” I miss the simple and nuanced beauty of the improvised dialogue and the Tom Waits quality of Mr. Wooka’s singing voice (“We All Love our Nana” is my second favorite song right now behind “Gwen Stefani’s “The Sweet Escape”). I thought the Web site (nanalan.com) may pull me from the depths of my hell but the limited material served only to whet the blade that sliced my guts to pieces every weekend. I was unable even to procure DVD copies of the episodes finding only the early shorts that inspired the show. These are a small comfort but still I yearn for more.
So I turn to you, dear readers, as a last resort. Call up the Nanalan Web site and peruse the videos and music available. If you find even one moment of joy on the entire site I encourage you to email programming at KETC via [email protected] and tell them that you demand the return of Nanaland and preferably at a more college friendly time slot. And then all of my father’s best efforts to keep me from watching terrible children’s programming will not be in vain.
Movie’s cast outperforms script
Wednesday, January 31st, 2007 | Brian Stitt
Smokin’ Aces
Rating: 2/5
Director: Susannah Grant
Starring: Jennifer Garner, Kevin Smith, Timothy Olyphant, and Sam Jaeger
Now playing: Esquire, Galleria 6
A much overlooked but nonetheless essential element in good storytelling is tone. Tone allows patients to regularly die on “Scrubs” without affecting the giddy mood and enables the Cohen brothers to use extremely dark material as comedy. From the looks of the trailer, “Smokin’ Aces” seemed to take the anarchy friendly tone of “Natural Born Killers” and blend it with Guy Ritchie-style kinetiscism and the smart crime sensibility of writer/director Joe Carnahan. The film brims with thuggish charm, which draws the viewer in, but Carnahan never really gains traction. The reason, as you may have guessed, is a lack of cohesive tone.
The story is simple, but the script has half a brain so everything seems little clearer than it actually is. An aging mobster has put a million dollar contract out on Vegas magician and wannabe gangster Buddy “Aces” Israel (suddenly a headliner Jeremy Piven) who is about to rat to the feds for immunity. While FBI agents (Ray Liotta and Ryan Reynolds) try to track down Buddy to put him in protective custody, word on the contract gets out and a long list of hit men and women come out of the word work to collect the million dollar prize. Sort of. Andy Garcia gets a lot of screen time as the agents boss who is hammering out details for Buddy’s deal.
It does involve a fairly interesting assortment of assassins (Neo-Nazi punkers the Tremor Brothers are a standout) and includes some hilarious moments (Jason Batemen is brilliant as a spotty lawyer dripping with sleaze) and even some heartfelt, introspective moments with the boozy, strung-out Buddy “Aces.” But every time the movie starts to speed up, some story element comes in that needs 15 minutes of explanation and offers zero rewards. The movie lurches from first gear to fifth and then back to second so often that all of the great moments are lost in the bizarre transitions.
Carnahan tried to shove two completely different moods together, which is doable (i.e. Stanley Kubrick, Alfred Hitchcock, Quentin Tarantino) but not without masterful control of tone. In “Smokin Aces” we have moments of unrestrained, lead-heavy, balls to the wall shootouts, shoved next to long exposition scenes with Andy Garcia without any thought as to why this might seem odd. If Carnahan had embraced these differences and exploited them, it may have made the action seem even more over the top when at times even the Tremor brothers seem bored. What he gave us is a graceless pile with an interesting cast and unfulfilled potential.
Jones’s voice makes for strong album
Wednesday, January 31st, 2007 | Andrew Senter
MCT DIRECT
Norah Jones
Not Too Late
Rating: 4/5
Tracks to download: “Sinking Soon,” “Sun Doesn’t Like You,” “Broken”
For fans of: Alison Krauss, Joss Stone, Dido
Norah Jones’ new album, “Not Too Late,” is an accomplished and at times magnificent blend of jazz and folk music. Jones is accompanied by a sterling set of musicians who elevate many of the tracks with their skilled artistry. But the true highlight of the album is Jones’s raspy and soulful voice, which she can skillfully manipulate into a sound that is either powerful or sensuous, depending on the situation.
The album opens with “Wish I Could,” a pleasant song that feels a bit languid and is not particularly engaging. But this song is the exception. Following the opener is “Sinkin’ Soon,” a fantastic song that is accompanied by piano and banjo parts that evoke early folk and blues songs. Next is “The Sun Doesn’t Like You,” a beautiful song that Jones sings with a bittersweet conviction, reminding listeners how “Time won’t pass us by/Won’t tell me lies/Someday we all have to die.” Afterwards is “Until the End,” a sweet and gentle song in which Jones sounds both confident and charming.
The rest of the album follows in this general pattern. A few of the songs are not very engaging, such as “Thinking About You,” a listless love tune and “My Dear Country,” an unconvincing political statement. These songs are contrasted with pieces such as “Broken,” a haunting character study about a man who is misunderstood by society because “He’s got a broken voice/And a twisted smile/Blood on his shoes/And mud on his brow.” Jones is able to empathize with the protagonist in a way that makes the listener feel both compassion for the man and outrage at the society that judges him. Jones has also become adept at singing love songs, both about heartbreak and pleasure. “Little Room” is a joyful song that emphasizes how, in matters of the heart, the most important thing is who you are with. She is also able to sing about heartbreak, as in the touching “Wake Me Up.” In this song, Jones gently tells the listener how she would prefer to sleep off the day after a break up. She does not claim to be weak or helpless; she knows she will move on. But like many of us, she needs a little time to recover after being hurt.
Norah Jones’ new album is a mature and confident record. Jones’ voice has developed into something that is able to evoke a surplus of images in and emotions in the listener, and “Not Too Late” is a wonderful showcase for that.