Kitsch Magazine: Fall 2012

kitsch

vol. 11, no. 1

pop culture, politics, college, etc.

The

Politically Incorrect Issue

The Bureaucratic Impotency of Washington

The Pig Book

50 Shades of Oh My God I Want Dracula Back

Confidence in government?

Cornell before Facebook

A Feminist Look at Popular Lit

Leader of the PAC

Privileged Poverty

Build your own Super PAC!

#Post-College Problems

...and much more!

letter from the editors

Fall ‘12

Here at kitsch we tend to be opinionated. In a society where PC is more often used for something that is socially acceptable than for a decreasingly relevant computer, expressing an opinion about a controversial issue can be challenging. This semester, kitsch took on the challenge. Inspired by the presidential election, this issue of kitsch investigates political controversies. We go from the streets of Ithaca to national and international realms to see how these issues play out on the ground, and how people are navigating the increasingly political world around them.

It seems that politics have a way of popping up in places we least expect them... Sometimes it’s when we’re trying to relax and watch TV. Mo Rahman reveals some of the subliminal political messages we’re exposed to when we sit down to watch our favorite sitcoms (“When Recreation Becomes Propagation,” p. 54). Similarly, Meaghan McSorley investigates the hate group on True Blood and their political relevance to racial violence this summer (“Blood, Sex, and Political Theatre,” p. 6). Or sometimes, when we’re taking a stroll through downtown Ithaca. This issue’s photo spread highlights “Ithaca Street Art,” and displays a few political statements found in local graffiti (p. 36).

Other times, we are bombarded with a whole slew of political issues when we interact with friends. This can happen online— Robyn Bernstein follows the role social media played on the campaign trail in “Making Friends with Barack and Mitt” (p. 34). Or at dinner—Anna Brenner caught up with Super PAC creators and high school friends in “Leaders of the PAC,” and humorously exposes problems with untraceable funds going into politics, and how productive procrastination can be (p. 25).

And of course, the increasingly powerful influence of technology on our lives is another controversial topic. Our need for fast media has affected the way we process information and interact with each other (“TXT2PICS” by Renee Tornatore, p. 21) and has possibly influenced our trust in government as explained by Henry Staley in “The Bureaucratic Impotency of Washington” (p. 16). It might be even making our entertainment worse. Ryan Larkin explores the questionably worse special effects in movies these days in “Gimmicky Film Technologies” (p. 57).

Finally, the role of women, whether in politics or in pop culture, has also been a topic of contention here in Ithaca and on a national, and even international, level. With the recent sexual assaults on Cornell’s campus, Sarah Hardtke discusses the need to address social norms that prevent us from doing something about it (“The Female ‘Victim’” p. 47). Emma Harman explores how the media portrays wives of politicians, especially in the wake of their husbands’ sex scandals (p. 19). Fictional females also come under scrutiny as Rebecca Lucash exposes the violent relationships in popular novels (“50 Shades of Oh My God I Want Dracula Back,” p.

59).

As eds-in-chief this semester, we’ve enjoyed getting our hands dirty in recent controversies and exploring the vast array of opinions and reactions they engender. Whether those are offensive, shocking, refreshing, ridiculous, inspiring, weird, apathetic, or impassioned, we hope you enjoy the ride as kitsch takes a turn for the politically incorrect.

Rebecca Ochs

Catherine Schrage

1

kitsch magazine

fall 2012

kitsch magazine an independent student publication

editorial board editors-in-chief Rebecca Ochs Catherine Schrage

art editor

managing editor

Charles Wang

Alex Newman

bite size

watch and listen

Meaghan McSorley

Victoria Starzyk

copy editor

zooming in

Evelyn Fok

Rodrigo Ugarte

fiction editor

zooming out

Renee Tornatore

writers

Madeline McCann

contributors

Josh Barrom, Robyn Bernstein, Anna Brenner, Gina Cargas, Nathaniel Coderre, Emily Greenberg, Caitlin Gribbon, Sarah Hardtke, Emma Harman, Jen Keefe, Kristi Krulcik, Ryan Larkin, Adam Lerner, Tia Lewis, Rebecca Lucash, Eugene Ng, Mo Rahman, Henry Staley, Aly Stein, Kaitlin Tiffany, Emily Wilson

artists

Zander Abranowicz, Kayla Figueroa, Joanna Ladzinski, Santi Slade, Emily Wilson

layout artists

Colleen Anderson, Kaitlin Tiffany, Jenny Zhao

copy editors

Nina Andrejevic, Natanya Auerbach, Anna Brenner, Gina Cargas, Emma Harman Esther Hoffman, Joanna Ladzinski, Elaine Lee, Kristi Krulcik, Tia Lewis, Karina Parikh, Henry Staley, Aly Stein, Kaitlyn Tiffany, Victor Zhao

advisors Michael Koch English, Cornell University

Catherine Taylor Writing, Ithaca College

cover art by Charles Wang Kitsch Magazine, an independent student organization located at Cornell University, produced and is responsible for the content of this publication. This publication was not reviewed or approved by, nor does it necessarily express or reflect the policies or opinions of, Cornell University or its designated representatives.

2

Table of Contents 1 - Letter From the Editor 2 - Masthead 4 - Editors’ Page Bite Size 5 - On the Plaza 6 - Blood, Sex, and Political Theatre?

7 - BO Obama & Presidential Pets 8 - I Hate When There’s Urine on the Toilet Seats 9 - Fidel Castro’s 35,000 Sex Partners 11 - Privileged Poverty Zooming Out 13 - Weird Bars 16 - The Bureaucratic Impotency of Washington 19 - Media Portrayals: Political Wives 21 - TXT2PICS 23 - To Snip, or Not to Snip 25 - Leaders of the PAC 29 - Socialism in America 31 - TOMS and Corporate Philanthropy 34 - Making Friends with Barack and Mitt 3

Photospread 36 - Ithaca Street Art Zooming In 44 - The Pig Book 47 - The Female “Victim” 50 - Cornell Through 28 Objects (and Stuff) Watch and Listen 54 - When Recreation Becomes Propagation 56 - BullsHits 57 - Gimmicky New Film Technologies 59 - 50 Shades of Oh My God I Want Dracula Back 63 - The Man We Savagely Love 65 - YouTube Vs. Hollywood 67 - Second Chances for Lana Del Rey 69 - A Series of Tangents on Lena Dunham Fiction 72 - Nothing to See/Hear 73 - The Adventures of Invisible Barack Obama 75 - Dirty Odds 76 - O Fortuna 76 - Ode to a Lisp 77 - The Banker

BECKY

ALEX

CAT

CHARLES

TORY

MEAGHAN

Bonus!

RENEE

RODRIGO

KNOME!

Collectible

Kitsch Editors MADDIE

EVE

Campaign Posters

4

On the Plaza:

Do you have any

parting words for

Mitt “Mittens” Romney?

“You should have you stood up to radical parts of the base.”

- Robert Wang ‘13 “Would you like some peppermint tea?”

- Kevin Burra ‘13

“To Mittens? I want to say something mean but I feel bad. And he had such a gracious losing speech.”

- Joey Zussman-Dobbins ‘13

“I would like to invite him to a tea party.”

- Gabe Kennedy ‘13

5

“I’m not concerned with the very poor, or the very rich.

Just with my fledgling rap career.”

- Adam Lerner ‘13

“I mean, you spent so much money.”

- Melanie Pasch ‘13

“Well, now at least you can just bitch about it.”

- Tarn Susumpow ‘15

Blood, Sex, and Political Theatre?

Meaghan Mcsorley

W

hile I’m not proud, I am a True Blood addict. I know it’s effectively a soap opera. And that it’s all about the cheap thrills, with all the blood and sex. And don’t get me started on how poorly written and acted it is. I will never, however, be ashamed of being a fan of Alexander Skarsgaard, who is a towering Swedish God from an acting dynasty. But I digress.

Throughout its duration, True Blood has sustained an unsophisticated political allegory of the vampire-as-minority. This is most obvious during the title sequence when we see a church sign that reads, “God Hates Fangs,” instead of announcing the service times. This is a transparent reference to a similar message about homosexuals. The show’s creators are adamant that they do not wish to explicitly link the socio-political plight of the vampire in their alternative American society with the actual modern fight of the homosexual. Rather, they hope that the treatment of vampires can be a lens through which to view all abuse and oppression of minorities. It is simply an extended metaphor and obviously not the main focus of the show (which is always the question of Sookie’s next bedmate, and what kind of weird, gory/ kinky foreplay she and the other characters are going to get themselves into).

With that said, True Blood took a turn for the politically relevant this summer. The most recent season added a hate group made up of normal humans (“normal” in the sense that they don’t possess any supernatural abilities) to the mix of “bad guys.” This hate group, called, “Keep America Human,” targets all of the “supes” (Supernaturals) we’ve come to know and love, and Hoyt even gets wrapped up in their midst for a short time. Their message is clear and simple, and is available on their website, keepingamericahuman.com: “Vampires and other covert mutants are stealing our jobs, buying our politicians, controlling the media, and seducing our children. If we have any chance of keeping America human, brave citizens like us have got to stand up and fight back.” The videos they make of their killings (also available on the false HBO-maintained website mentioned above) and the rhetoric of the group are eerily reminiscent of the Ku Klux Klan and of the modern white supremacist movement.

White supremacy got a fair amount of coverage this summer due to the Sikh Temple shooting. For those unfamiliar with the incident, on August 5th, six members of a Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wisconsin were shot and killed and three more injured

by Michael Wade Page. Page committed suicide, bringing the death toll to seven. Since Sikhs wear turbans, it is widely believed that Page mistook them for Muslims. Page was a vocal member of the neo-Nazi/white supremacist movement, who

fronted a band called End Apathy and attended “hate” events around the country. He was also apparently very open about his beliefs during his time in the army from 1992 to 1998.

The shooting raised uncomfortable questions about racism in the United States. For example, anti-Muslim sentiment, or Islamophobia, has intensified in the last decade—on August 6th, the day after the shooting, a mosque in Missouri was burned to the ground. This was the second attempt at arson on this selfsame Islamic Center in only two months. Additionally, the U.S. has seen an escalation in white supremacist movements during the same period of time, and one may question the ways in which the U.S. Army may have recruited these right-wing extremists to fight the War on Terror. So what is “terrorism,” if not exactly this kind of violence carried out on our soil? All of these questions are, of course, nothing new in a post-9/11 America.

Rather, they are being asked again, and more loudly.

The True Blood episode was obviously written and filmed long before that fateful August day, but the coincidence is uncanny. The Oak Creek Sikh temple shooting was not carried out by a white supremacist group, as far as police have been able to tell.

However, it was carried out by someone who shared beliefs with a community of hateful individuals, and who, through these beliefs, was compelled to horrific, hateful violence.

To point out the similarities between the clumsy hate group on television and the reallife hate groups that, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center, are officially on the rise, is not merely an exercise in drawing connections, but rather an attempt to open a conversation. As I write these words in October, it seems that the discussion surrounding this vile crime has all but died out. The New York Times topic, for example, was most recently updated on August 9th. How could one of the best-loved (and best-loathed) shows on television happen upon such a politically-relevant storyline, only to have both it, and the event with which it correlated, fall completely out of political discourse so quickly? Is no one else as upset about this as I am?

While the hate group on True Blood is an unsophisticated, obvious parody of the very real and terrifying movements of the past and present in this country, those who they attempt to target are able to rise up and crush them; this is not the case with the actual white supremacist groups. Unpacking the range of complex issues at the heart of this massacre will take time. The Sikh community has been vocal, if you’ve been listening. We can only hope that our hate groups will eventually be stamped out as completely as the satirical group on True Blood seems to have been, mid-season.◊

6

art by ZanDeR aBRanowIcZ

Bo Obama

A

&

Presidential Pets

merican politics is rarely concerned with the issues. This year’s election was no exception in that respect. Many elections have focused on the personal lives of the candidates rather than their politics, and the news cycle in this election devoted perhaps more time than necessary to the coverage of their wives. While you’ll never hear me complain about hearing CNN cover stories on Michelle’s amazing wardrobe (yes, she and I are on a first name basis—or so I tell myself ) and fantastic arms, or about the oh-so-feminist bake-off in which Mrs. Romney’s cookies were pitted against those of Mrs. Obama, the true star of this election as far as I’m concerned has been one person, and his name is Bo. The White House has played host to a veritable zoo of famous visitors and residents over the years, including politicians, celebrities, dignitaries, writers, and the occasional symbolic wheel of cheese. More importantly, the White House has played host to an actual zoo (if only a petting zoo) of First Pets. Many a dog, cat, and bird, as well as several tigers, bears, and donkeys have had the honor of being a part of the First Family. There’s even a history of candidates’ pets being used to help secure elections, from Nixon’s “Checkers Speech” to Hoover’s use of his dog in campaign ads.

Among these animals is Bo Obama. This Portuguese Water Dog, a gift to the Obamas from Senator Ted Kennedy, is quite a pup. With parents like “Amigo’s Phor What Its Worth” and “Valkyrie’s Dr. Watson Is Here” (who prefer to go by Penny and Watson, respectively), how could he not be?

According to the White House, Bo enjoys “making friends with foreign dognitaries,” “tomatoes,” and “toys.” However, there may be a scandal on the horizon for this adorable canine. The White House admits that despite his breed having a name that strongly implies the contrary, Bo is, in fact, entirely unable to swim. To add further injury to his honest reputation, it turns out that—unlike what many claim about Obama—Bo can prove he is American, making him neither Portuguese, nor particularly amenable to water. One can only hope these lies won’t be the

7

Josh BaRRoM

undoing of his political career.

Despite these rather scandalous allegations made against Bo, he has quite a following. A student in Arts & Sciences Romalda* ’13 had this to say about Bo, “He’s perfect. Bobama—my name for Bo—is the absolute pinnacle of what a dog should be.

I just… I love him so much… I sent him a letter the other day, but he hasn’t gotten back to me yet.” Her effusive sentiment mirrors the feelings of many Americans. Another student said, “[Bo] shows leadership potential . . . he looks very regal.” In an informal poll of several Europeans, when given the option to name any American politician’s pet as their favorite, 75% responded that Bo Obama, due to his sunny disposition, hypo-allergenic qualities, and tuxedo-like coat, was their personal pup of preference.

Even after having received all this praise, Bo has not let it go to his head. According to New York Times journalist Ben Greenman, Bo feels slightly eclipsed by the shadow of Dash, the pet of President Harrison (who is rather less memorable than his dog).

Despite this, Bo is always aiming to better himself, reportedly saying that, “We should never fail to aspire to perfection, even as we know that we cannot reach it.”

Additionally, President Obama has said in the past that Bo is the fourth most charismatic member of his family, coming before both himself and his mother-in-law. He later amended his statement, claiming that he made an error, and that his motherin-law edges Bo out. But we all know Bo’s a pretty charming fellow, regardless of how much President Obama backpedals under pressure.

Bo once gave his perspective on his first one hundred days in office to Ben Greenman, saying, “I feel more pride and pleasure than ever at the prospect of serving the American people and finding ways to make this nation, and this planet, a better place for our children and our children’s children.” While political fortunes change and politicians come and go, one thing is certain: even when the Obamas leave the White House, Bo will still be the First Dog—the First Dog of our hearts. ◊ *Name not confirmed, but we’re not The New York Times, are we?

I Hate When

Urine There’s

on the

Toilet Seats

“B

eugene ng

attleshits” is the name of the game. Basically, be the loudest, grossest pooper you can possibly be, and congratulations! You’ve beaten the person in the stall next to you at Battleshits—for the sake of glory, bragging rights, and regular bowel movements. Now you’re going to have to use the oneply toilet paper and wash your hands in the pressure-less sink, air-drying them because there are no paper towels and the rusting hand dryer on the wall broke circa 2005. Welcome to college bathrooms. For some of you who are new to college, it won’t be sleeping in your own bed or smelling a homemade meal wafting from the kitchen that you’ll miss the most after move-in day. It’ll be using your own toilet—it’ll be the nice, soft toilet paper and the occasional relaxing bubble bath. It’ll be privacy, and getting that high score on Temple Run in the meantime. You’ll realize personal bathrooms truly are a luxury.

The good thing is you’re not alone. Communal bathrooms are, after all, communal, and everybody has to put up with them.

The idea is that everyone is responsible for the cleanliness and overall health of the bathroom, meaning each person treats it like they would in their own homes, rather than waiting for a janitor to come once a week to clean it up. With that in mind, I think some friendly tips are in order, starting with my own number one pet peeve: • Hair shavings. They’re everywhere. Yes, I understand that some of us need to clean up that five o’clock shadow, but leaving facial hair—or any kind of hair, for that matter—on the countertop or in the shower is unacceptable. Girls especially shed hair like cats, leaving strands of hair on the shower walls and even more surrounding the drain. A tip from those of us who understand the hair concept: do not leave your toothbrush on the bathroom sink, ever. It will pick up random pieces of hair and shaving cream—maybe even some snot from the people that like to blow their nose in the sink. You will not want to use that toothbrush ever again.

• Dirty floors. Wear a pair of flip-flops whenever you use the bathroom. Yes, people throw up in there, they wash the dirt off of their grimy bodies in the shower, and must do countless other nasty things, because somehow, that bathroom floor ends up being the landing pad (or should I say dumping ground?) for every bacteria known to man. You don’t want your feet touching that.

• Dirty toilets. You do not want your soft tushy touching that toilet seat, either. As a guy, I find that other men often miss the toilet and go haywire with their targeting. Peeing on an airplane flying through some major turbulence? Then I understand. But when that urine ends up on the toilet seat, on the floor, on the walls, the ceiling, you get what I mean—I weep for my gender.

And if you’re a lady? Be a lady. If you don’t trust the seats to begin with and choose to squat over the toilet seat, I hope you realize that you have even worse aim than the men do. And this goes without saying: flush the toilet. On the list of things I do not understand besides Spanish, failing to flush the toilet is Numero Uno. It just should not happen. I do not want to see it. No one does. Generally, it is pretty hard to make a bathroom smell better, but not flushing the toilet will almost assuredly make it smell worse. Do not contribute to making that smell worse.

• Finally, you know that person who walks to and from the bathroom wearing, well, nothing? Don’t be that person. I don’t care how hot you think you are, how many boys you bring to the yard, or how many packs of abs you have—don’t do it.

For the sake of everyone’s health and well-being, remember that this bathroom is not only yours for the next year—it’s everybody’s. Most of all, it’s mine. And I don’t want urine on my toilet seat. ◊

art by santI slaDe

8

I

Henry Staley

n History of Sexuality, Michel Foucault wrote that “pleasure and power do not cancel or turn back against one another; they seek out, overlap and reinforce one another. They are linked by complex mechanisms and devices of examination and incitement.” In effect, he argues that the cycles and hierarchies of power are affirmed and catalyzed by sex, thus making a portrait of sex and power as top-down entities—symbiotic allies of stride.

Does this translate to copious amounts of power enabling copious amounts of sex? History grins and answers, “yes.”

A 2008 documentary on Fidel Castro announced that Castro has had sex with over 35,000 partners, averaging two a day.

Even though Castro’s Dionysian prowess is common knowledge in Cuba, it is surprisingly uncontroversial. This is because Castro’s entourage keeps a dossier of his lovers and distributes annual “compensation packages” to them. According to the documentary, “Those who he slept with could expect flowers on their birthdays and valuable gifts.” However, Castro was purportedly unable to offer such gifts in bed. One Cuban actress reported, “You can’t imagine what a brute he is, what a selfish monster. He just pulled down his pants and was quick.” Some women complained of his chattiness: “He talked incessantly, on such ‘romantic’ topics as the future of the revolution or agricultural reform.”

Others spoke of his vulgarity and aloofness, reporting that he often smokes and reads during sex.

It is no surprise that Castro’s sexual endeavors are devoid of intimacy—he only has so much love to give. His body count is amassed through a clinical procedure, mandating that his bodyguards survey the streets and beaches of Havana to procure his partners. Castro once said of himself, “I am Cuba.” With such a personality cult surrounding him and his command of Cuba’s power infrastructure, this claim is shockingly accurate. As a result, Castro has a busy life where leisure time is scarce and love is procedural.

This largess has not gone on without consequences, however. One lover Castro impregnated tried to kill him, first with poison and then with a rifle. After these unsuccessful murder attempts, Castro proclaimed, “Nobody can kill me, Marita [failed assassin]… Nobody.” He then proceeded to make love to her.

Castro was also aware of Marita’s romantic entanglement with Venezuelan dictator Perez Jimenez, but was no stranger to overlap with other men of power. Famous actress Ava Gardner became known as “the little bitch who’s hiding Fidel” to potential assassin Marita, who often saw a drunken Gardner strolling into Fidel’s bedroom. Via Frank Sinatra, Gardner had also crossed-

9

Fidel C 35,000 Sex

Castro’s x Partners

art by JOANNA LADZINSKI

paths with JFK and Ernest Hemingway, both of whom she was rumored to have slept with.

The overlap is no surprise. In the Kennedy Administration’s attempt to kill Castro, Kennedy coordinated a plan in which his mistress, Judith Campbell, was to be sent to Cuba to poison Castro with the aid of mobster Sam Giancana. The plot never came to fruition and both leaders were able to sustain their lothario status with minimal consequences, albeit Kennedy for a significantly shorter amount of time. Given his short life, however, Kennedy’s concentration of sex was astounding, even in comparison to Castro. Kennedy’s string of affairs and misdemeanors led him into a slap-back with Jackie, who also tallied many partners.

Some of the partners came during the marriage, some came after; some JFK had only heard of (Marlon Brando), and some he was related to (Robert Kennedy). It is not by chance that Brando and Kennedy overlapped. Gore Vidal once included both in a list of contemporaries of unrivaled libido, saying that himself, Brando, Kennedy, and Tennessee Williams “were promiscuous to a degree that is not possible in the age of AIDS.” JFK couldn’t deny his sex drive; he once said, “I get a migraine headache when I don’t get a strange piece of ass everyday.” Bill Clinton, however, president after the spread of AIDS, was still capable of rivaling Kennedy’s promiscuity, but not as capable of keeping it secret.

Not only does this confluence of power and sex transcend generations, it is also geographically universal. In the Eastern hemisphere, Mao is history’s unrivaled alpha Casanova. Mao’s mistress, Chiang Ch’ing, once described sex with Mao, saying, “Sex is engaging the first time around, but what sustains interest is power.” Mao’s physician argued that the two collaborated for pleasure, explaining that, “Mao’s sexual potency waxed and waned with his political power. During the Great Leap Forward, he was insatiable.”

North Korea’s Kim Il-sung was a close second, garnering countless affairs and resultant pregnancies. During Il-sung’s reign, if you asked any Korean how many children Il-sung had, they would reportedly answer, “We are all his children.” One of Il-sung’s legitimate sons and successor, Kim Jong-il, repeated his father’s behavior, and often paid Scandinavian models to attend his villa.

Peeking behind the curtains of history, we find that politicians worldwide of past and present harness not only bureaucratic sway, but also extreme sexual prowess. Castro, Kennedy, Clinton, Mao, and Il-sung belong to a club of excessive neophytes of power and sex that few humans will ever enter into.

All are endowed with the secret ingredient Henry Kissinger once revealed when he told us, “Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac.” ◊

10

Privileged Poverty

W

hile I don’t doubt for a second that actual poverty exists—that there are millions upon billions of people in the world working hard simply to secure food for their families—that is not the subject of this essay.

This essay is about privileged poverty—or, more specifically, college-educated, I’m-in-my-twenties-and-my-career-hasn’ttaken-off-yet, humanities-major-induced poverty. Programs like Teach for America and City Year have done a lot to spread this condition, as has the title “Administrative Assistant.” I use the word “poverty” even though something more along the lines of “financial inconvenience” is in order.

ADAM LERNER

Privileged poverty entails tough decisions like whether or not to get guacamole with one’s burrito and whether to buy a going-out dress new or vintage, even though one most likely does not need any new clothes at all. Some afternoons, one must decide between a happy hour at a local pub (even with drink specials, one will likely end up burning through the twenty in one’s wallet) or drinking with one or two, or no friends at home where one has seven or eight cold Yuengling Lagers in one’s fridge. Even worse, one might have to choose between attending an awesome electro-rave upstate and flying to visit friends across the country in grad school—tantamount only to Sophie’s Choice.

art by CAT SCHRAGE

11

Privileged poverty, though closely linked to the hipster movement, is not exclusively avant-garde. It has existed for generations. Ever since NYU students began moving to the East Village instead of the more lush apartments between Washington Square Park and Union Square—or, for that matter, ever since Nick was forced to live in that tiny house overshadowed by Jay Gatsby’s larger estate—privileged 20-somethings have complained that their taxes are too high, and that no one really gets them.

When the typical suburbanite graduates from college, he or she not only has a history based on conspicuous consumption and no marketable job skills, but he or she has also cultivated tastes for more expensive adult products. He or she will likely want an apartment in Manhattan or, at the very least, some trendy part of Brooklyn. He or she will likely want to bask in his or her youth through overseas travel, and will likely want to eat exclusively organic and artisanal foods that cost two or three

“

Privileged poverty entails tough decisions like whether or not to get guacemole on one’s burrito...

”

times their traditionally-grown counterparts. Yet, he or she will only be capable of earning around $13 an hour (the going rate for mouthy assholes). For this reason, he or she will be forced into privileged poverty for a few years before he or she decides to go back to graduate school and up his or her earning potential through marketable skills.

Though suburban poverty can be seen as a residue of undergraduate elitism, it is an important evolutionary trait. Most suburbanites, living between the middle and upper classes, grow up without real notions of scarcity. Try as they might, tenyear-olds are not very good at spending money. After one purchases an Xbox, a few games, a week’s worth of candy, and a brand new skateboard, one finds that one has only spent around 450 dollars and somehow would rather stay home and use these new gadgets than go out and undertake the exhaustive work of spending more. Truly expensive products like private school, international vacations, and health insurance are typically only desired by adults with well-formed tastes.

And so, only through this experience of learning to choose between organic smoked gouda and going to that Wilco show, going from the relative plenty of dining halls and parents’ charge cards to coping with the tough cost-cutting decisions that actual people need to make, do these young people slowly become “real people.” Well, not real people per se, but many end up working at non-profits and donating the extra dollar to charity when renewing their licenses at the DMV. Some are even known to participate in the occasional fun run, unless of course they have light shin splints or just don’t feel like it.

Prader-Willi syndrome is a sort of congenital genetic disorder that can oftentimes express itself as an inability to tell when one is full and stop eating. This is what the average privileged young person must overcome. These well-to-do folks, even with all of their parenting books and Montessori pre-schools, are not very good at raising children conscious of the world around them. If the trust funds and charge cards are entrenched in the family tree, or if the privileged person in question takes a job in finance straight out of school, sometimes this situational PraderWilli will snowball and be passed on to his or her children on an even greater scale. This is where shows like My Super Sweet Sixteen and The Real Housewives, along with votes for Mitt Romney, come from.

Yet, to assuage the fears of any forlorn readers, I must remind you that privileged people are not in any real danger. This is all a simulation. Much like the actual poor can always resort to panhandling and church basements, impoverished members of the middle class always have a pristinely preserved childhood bedroom waiting for them and a job with someone who owes their parents a favor.

And thank goodness, because actual poverty is hard—almost as hard as taking 21 credits with extracurricular activities and a boyfriend. Phew! ◊

12

zooming out

Weird Bars

when international bar-hopping takes a turn for the bizarre Becky ochs

W

hether domestic or international, with family or friends, luxury hotel or hostel reservations (or none at all), travel is almost always unforgettable. Unless, of course, it’s the details of that weird-ass bar you ended up at on your semester abroad, spring break, or ubiquitous Euro trip. No, you didn’t just have too many shots of mystery local spirits. That hazy memory of a midget dance routine the morning after a big night out was real.

Ordering a drink with your own blood as a key ingredient was not a bad dream. And, unfortunately, you did in fact eat something out of a chamber pot. Travel can broaden your horizons and open your eyes to new perspectives and opportunities. It can change your mind, and shed light on differences across time and space. But most importantly, the people you meet in the diverse places you visit reveal some of the commonalities we share as human beings. One of these is the desire to have a drink in the weirdest environment possible.

Museums, historical sites, cultural festivals, and natural wonders are obviously on world travelers’ “Places To See” and “Things To Do” lists. It may be surprising to learn, however, that funny, strange, and downright creepy bars also make those lists.

This article investigates the best, the worst, and the just plain freaky of some of the world’s strangest gin joints. For some, the outings to these locales were planned, while others quite literally stumbled upon them. But either way, you can’t deny the bizarre allure of these places.

Le Cercuil – Brussels, Belgium Have a taste for the macabre? Le Cercueil, French for “the coffin,” certainly lives up to its name. Although the entrance looks like that of Diagon Alley’s Leaky Cauldron, this Brussels bar is more morbid than magical. With dark, gothic décor, you can sit at tables made out of coffins, some of which contain a lifesize skeleton eerily illuminated beneath a thin pane of glass. The waiters are dressed as undertakers and will deliver your beer in a skull mug. Rumor has it that you can even get a syringe filled

13

with your own blood injected into a shot of vodka—a whole new twist on your traditional Bloody Mary.

Take a look at the rest of the cocktail menu and you’ll find grotesquely titled concoctions like Le Sperme du Démon (Demon’s Sperm) and Le Jus de Cadavre (Cadaver’s Juice). Opened in 1974 just after The Exorcist was released, this stoner-rock bar seems to be hit-or-miss among those who decided to check it out. Some disappointed visitors complain about overly loud heavy metal music and not being able to see further than the mug of beer in front of their dimly-lit faces. Another reviewer had better things to say about the view, but did warn the bar’s female patrons to steer clear of white shirts—the black lights allow people to see right through. So, if you’re feeling like something a bit more en tombe than en vogue, Le Cercueil is the place for you. Just remember, ladies, don’t wear white.

designed to remind diners of the act of defecation,” and, in fact, many of the owner’s ideas came to him while on the toilet. Food is served in chamber pots and beer in urine specimen bottles, and instead of napkins you’ll find only toilet paper. Add in the rotating bar stools and tables, and good luck keeping that bratwurst down.

Although the bar’s atmosphere may make you want to run for the bathroom, getting there can be quite hazardous. Every 10 minutes, papier-mâché rocks fall from the ceiling, and even if you miss those there is the constant threat of a giant hammer that comes down on the heads of unsuspecting patrons. Past patrons have compared navigating the network of obstacles to being on an Indiana Jones set. If you finally make it to the restroom, there are still risks; in the women’s room, there is a “kilted figure” rigged so that a siren goes off in the entire bar when curious women lift up the kilt to see what’s underneath. But as precarious as getting to the bathroom at Das Klo may be, don’t get too drunk that you mix up the actual toilet with the chamber pot containing your dinner.

Hobbit House – Manila, Philippines Not into such a grotesque environment? For more lighthearted fun, head to Manila and check out the Hobbit House.

Paintings from Tolkien’s novels deck the walls of the candle-lit interior, and guests can get a picture with one of the many “hobbits” working there—the bar is entirely staffed by “little people,” according to its website. If that weren’t enough, the Hobbit House also hosts the Hobbit Concert, a show featuring its staff of dwarves and midgets dancing around and waving pompoms.

The best part? They’re all sporting I <3 Midgets T-shirts.

While this may not seem very politically correct, the bar was in fact opened in 1973 by Jim Turner, a college professor and Peace Corps volunteer. His intentions were to provide Manila’s otherwise unemployed and stigmatized “little people” with jobs.

His efforts to get these individuals off the streets have proven to be incredibly successful—the bar has garnered visits from prominent individuals, including the U.S. ambassador to the Philippines. Offering over 100 beers and a wide variety of Filipino food, as well as more typical American-style grub, the bar is a hit with both local and international crowds. It is also known to be a great live music venue. So if you want some good beer, good food, and good pictures with midgets, put on your Legolas ears and brush up on your Tolkien trivia—the Hobbit House is waiting for you.

Club 69 – Buenos Aires, Argentina

If you don’t want to put your personal safety or gastronomical integrity at risk, or are just looking for something more risqué, you can try Club 69 in Buenos Aires. This Porteño spectacle opens to the public every Thursday at Niceto Vega nightclub in the city’s trendy neighborhood of Palermo Hollywood. As its name suggests, Club 69 is sexy, but it is not a strip club. Rather, it is a burlesque experience, with a performance at the beginning

Das Klo – Berlin, Germany

If dancing midgets isn’t your thing (honestly though, who are you?), hop a plane to Germany for something more aberrant. Located in former West Berlin, Das Klo is known to Englishspeaking patrons as, “The Loo,” or simply, “the toilet bar.” The website is almost entirely in German (GERST 2000, you have failed me), but it describes Das Klo as an exemplar in Erlebnisgastronomie, or the gastronomic experience—the bar takes that experience to a whole new level. With an impressive network of booby traps and rather unpleasant surprises, this place’s goal is to incite as much disgust and discomfort as possible. A British voice on the website sums up the bar’s feel: “everything here is

14

zooming out of the night (around 2AM in Buenos Aires). Female entertainers in elaborate, yet skimpy costumes parade theatrically around the stage and are later joined by their male counterparts as the show progresses from playful dancing to softcore porn. There are also some male-only dance routines that range from drag to break-dance-turned-strip-tease in the Magic Mike tradition, though the dancers don’t quite measure up to Channing Tatum.

As the night unfolds, the club gets fuller and the crowd gets rowdier. Two moving stages complete with stripper poles begin their slow progression through the main dance floor as the curtain closes on the show, and the club turns into an all-out party. However, the dancers continue to entertain throughout

20 pesos (around four dollars), this place is a must if you find yourself in Buenos Aires on a Thursday. And who knows, if Cornell doesn’t work out for you, maybe you’ll find your calling at Club 69.

Curio Parlor – Paris, France

Slightly less explicit than Berlin’s in-your-face toilet bar and Buenos Aires’s X-rated Club 69 is Paris’s speakeasy-styled establishment, Curio Parlor. According to kitsch editor Meaghan McSorley ’13, this prohibition-themed bar is nearly impossible to find: “The window has a double pane, so it looks dim and black from the outside, and all you can see is a stuffed raccoon between the panes.” But difficulty locating the actual door isn’t the worst part about the bar’s entrance. Meaghan added, “the door is also free of signage, so you walk by at least three times, looking like an idiot to all of the people who can see clearly out of the window.”

Once inside, it’s all taxidermy animals, pinned beetles, and butterflies—the theme is Victorian decay and, obviously its namesake, curio parlors. It is full of small nooks, with over-stuffed velvet furniture for lounging, and equipped with a downstairs bar and small dance floor for when the night begins to pick up.

The bathroom is a special treat, with a mirror that has a pane of glass in front and a parrot in between, creating a shadow box of sorts. The cocktails are exorbitantly expensive (12-15 euros apiece!!) but artisanal in their concoction. It’s a popular expat bar, but it also attracts certain groups of very chic, young French professionals in silk blouses and expensive suits.

Despite the difficulty in finding the entrance, this bar is worth checking out. A tip for finding it without looking silly: past patrons say: “just look for a cranky black doorman skulking outside, et voila!”

Whether you’re looking for something on the sexy side, can’t wait for The Hobbit movie to come out to get your Tolkien fix, want to satisfy your lifelong desire to chill with goth stoners, like the idea of previewing how your food is going to look when it comes out the other end, or have a taxidermy fetish, cities across the globe seem to have something for every weirdo out there. Next time you’re traveling, ditch the guidebooks and skip the clichéd pub crawls. Strange as they are, these bars and other odd establishments are undoubtedly unique in what they offer. Check them out on your next trip abroad and you’re sure to have an experience that—though remembering it may be a challenge—you won’t want to forget. ◊

the night; some maintain their perch on the small moving platforms while others mingle through the crowd. They also happen to be very friendly, happily posing for photos with their whips, wigs, and fishnets. They’re inviting as well—my friend and I were enthusiastically welcomed aboard one of the moving platforms this past summer, discovering too late that it is equipped with a ladder on the side for easy mounting and dismounting. At only

15

The Bureaucratic

Impotency

of Washington

an in-depth look at why our confidence in government is at its lowest since Watergate Henry staley

photos by Emily wilson

I

n the middle of the 1979 energy crisis, economic stagnation, and the chaos of the Camp David Accords, President Jimmy Carter delivered his notorious “Malaise Speech,” diagnosing the country as sapped in vitality and brimming with intemperance. He read, “We can see this crisis in the growing doubt about the meaning of our own lives and in the loss of a unity of purpose for our nation.” Eventually, the tone became more didactic as he told that, “human identity is no longer defined by what one does, but by what one owns,” shaking his head at his nation’s materialism and excess. Although the speech lifted his approval rating to a still abysmal 37 percent, critics lambasted him. Carter had broken a critical post60s taboo: politicians do not condemn their constituents—denunciation is a one-way street in Washington.

In 2012, this denunciation of our politicians is in record agreement and acrimony. A recent Gallup poll announced that in 2011, 14 percent of American voters responded to “how much trust and confidence do you have in our federal government?” with “a great deal.” In 2010, they answered the same question with “most of the time,” or “just about always,” 19 percent of the time, sinking to a level unseen even at the time of the Lewinsky Scandal (’98—39 percent), the Bombing of Fallujah (’03—37 percent), and the A.I.G. bailouts preceded by the collapse of Lehman Brothers (’08 —32 percent).

An ABC News/Washington Post poll dating back to the wake of Watergate (’74) proves that in 2011, confidence in the U.S. government had reached the lowest in 35 years: 26 percent of citizens reported optimism in “our system of government and how well it works.” This poll does not necessarily align with presidential approval ratings. Obama stood at 48 percent according to the Gallup approval ratings poll conducted the very same month, hinting that some profound shift in the American ethos has caused us to see Washington as a hamlet of bureaucratic impotency and despondency.

16

zooming out The year of the first poll (’74) may have some significance, argued Paul Lincoln Sawyer, a Cornell English professor teaching “Culture and Politics of the 1960s,” who I sought out to draw ties between the skepticism of the counterculture in the sixties and the apathy of mass culture today. He argued that this pessimism comes more from our pocketbooks than our cultural legacy, citing that “there are so many reasons to mistrust government other than just going back and remembering the sixties. For one thing, we’ve never had the amount of prosperity that we had up until about 1973.”

Since then, the rising and falling recessions of the seventies began to “pressure the notions of what liberals and the government could do as a whole.” Essentially, the majority of our faith in our politicians comes from our perception of how aptly they maintain economic stability.

That “perception,” however, is suspect, as an increasingly agenda-promoting media has skewed our ability to see into our politicians’ aptitude. Sawyer also sees the balkanization of mainstream media into ideological camps as a potential generator of distrust. “The power of the media is extremely important,” he says. “People get the sense that there aren’t alternatives [to the Republican-Democratic agenda]. The problem with the media today is precisely the limited coverage. The media closes off discussion of issues that could actually help to improve people’s lives, and therefore people feel disillusioned with government.”

If the media is not concerned with people’s lives, then what is it concerned with? Many count it as another casualty of the increasingly business-oriented American establishment, see-

“

[The media’s] bitterness towards politicians does not make them an ally of the disenfranchised populace.

”

ing the mainstream media as corporation-driven. Not only do tycoons like Rupert Murdoch get inordinate power from informing news coverage, the parties that TV stations may be rallying for are more and more wary of their reliance on corporate donors. When the parties fall to business interests, so do their voters.

Sawyer further credits the nudging of businesses into the public sphere and media as another factor in the alienation of people from power, citing the seventies as the turning point: “Since the sixties, the whole political establishment has moved to the right, and business groups became proactive and entered

17

into politics in a way that they had not before. In the late seventies, the business roundtable was founded, and it was looking for an agenda that would put business interests front and center.

Conservative business interests have really captured the government.” Business’s seizure of political interest has furnished a shift in “who” is really being represented, leaving voters unhappy with Washington’s direction.

The media often shadows the people’s distrust of politicians, but news anchors’ and journalists’ bitterness towards politicians does not make them an ally of the disenfranchised populace. The number of people who also don’t trust the media suggests that there is a greater conglomerate of power-holders that is both increasingly robust but increasingly the whipping post of the republic. A look at Christopher Hayes’ Twilight of the Elites has given a title to this conglomerate in simple, class terms—the Elite. Hayes’ theory diagnoses the Elite as living their hey-day at the expense of the rest of the country’s faith in our nation’s meritocratic composition. These misplaced values have caused a crisis in the nation’s belief in self-reliance, and leave a nation that cannot place trust and enthusiasm in its leaders.

Many philosophers, including Hegel and Nietzsche, preach that a nation’s nobility, whether leaders or just elites, have to be the ideal representatives of a country’s potential. When these representatives of success prove themselves untrustworthy and unjustly powerful, we are left to wonder if the system is rewarding the right virtues, and if it is adequately filtering the “best” representatives. Since our system’s elites are inadequate, Hayes argues, it has furnished a top-down proliferation of discontent.

This idea allows for thinking of populism as a reverberation of the elite’s enmity. Hayes points out that “the reason for the last three decades of accelerating inequality have produced a deformed social order and a set of elites who cannot help but be dysfunctional and corrupt.” It is no wonder that the explosion of left and right uprisings, led by the Tea Party and the Occupy movement, are dependent on a multilateral anti-elitist fervor that attacks the kaput corporate and public spheres.

Sawyer attacked this unregulated inequality by believing “there is an increasing awareness that politics caters to the

rich. Our system is pretty dysfunctional. Long ago it stopped its ability to help middle-class people, not to mention the oftenoverlooked poor.” This, combined with government’s perceived favoritism of an elite that does not deserve its status, creates a particularly caustic threat to the nation’s unity. Towards the end of the 20th century, leaders began to forget Plutarch’s warning: “An imbalance between rich and poor is the oldest and most fatal ailment of all republics.” Thus, business and politics, two conduits for elite recognition, are seen as alienating mechanisms, increasingly operating on a citadel out of reach from the rest of the people.

Joseph S. Nye Jr. and Phillip D. Zelikow argue much the same in the book Why People Don’t Trust Government, and have found that people are increasingly aware of government bias: “Cynicism about government becomes the new conventional wisdom. Those who believed that ‘the government is pretty much run by a few big interests looking out for themselves’ rather than for the benefit of all the people has risen from 29 percent in 1964 to 80 percent in 1992.” The turning point, of course, was during the eighties, when American government reached the zenith of business zeal. With this increasingly entrepreneurial attitude antagonizing regulatory government, Bill Clinton proclaimed, “the era of big government is over,” allowing a new generation of inequality to aspire without obstacle.

Dissolution with government because of its catering to the wealthy is a definite factor, but the wealthy is as distrustful of the government as the poor. A “trust in government index” of 1994 shows that both blue-collar and white-collar workers have faith in government at an equally low number: 25 percent. Others sight that it is not necessarily an inequality issue. Why People Don’t Trust Government states that “the erosion of trust certainly predates the period of growing inequality (essentially a post1980 development), the productivity slow-down (which became

“

apparent in the late seventies), the globalization of the economy, and the technological impact of computers and telecommunications…it also suggests that it is not particularly correlated with a particular economic indicator such as inflation, unemployment, or growth. Certainly, at times, the economy’s performance may have made it more difficult to regain confidence in government, but the initiating factors appear to derive from elsewhere.”

Where in the “elsewhere” do we find the most severe slander of politicians? Often it comes from politicians themselves. Negative campaign advertisements have spiked in the recent elections, showcasing politicians’ untrustworthy histories and characteristics. Sawyer points out, “Attack ads work. This translates into a certain incredulity. That way, if someone were to knock on their door and ask them if they trust politicians they would say ‘no way.’ It’s hard to know how deep that goes.”

Sawyer also qualifies that the depth of these ads has lasted: “This isn’t new. People will always say ‘I don’t trust politicians’ but not any more than they say I don’t trust lawyers, bankers, or whatever. It makes them feel savvy, skeptical, and not naïve.”

Now, with all the potential sectors (business, elites, campaigns) suspect, let the focus return to those filling out the polls and respond to the psychological shift that has turned us sour.

A common thread runs throughout these explanations: heightened awareness. In a time when personas can be curated in Facebook profiles, opinions can be quipped in tweets, and information about far-away occurrences can be accessed in portals to the public world we carry in our pockets, we have become a profoundly self-conscious generation. The political dialogue reflects this consciousness, as 2012 has become the year of the percentages. We rejoice in mathematical terms that strive to define ourselves and our compatriots: the disenfranchised 99 (Occupy) or the dependent 47 (Romney), the percentages that decided the 2012 elections, and the disillusioned 81 percent who either “some of the time or never” trust the government (Gallup).

German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer reminds us that, “republics are reflections. People have always been very discontented with government, laws, and public institutions; for the most part, however, this has only been because they have been ready to blame them for the wretchedness which pertains to human existence as such.” With more self-consciousness over our own wretchedness and the faults of the masses and the elites, our generation is in the process of an existentialist crisis. To soothe this crisis, we project our discontent on those who put themselves in the public sphere. Thereby, if we see politicians with a lens of malaise, it is only because it is through the same lens with which we see malaise in ourselves. ◊

To soothe the crisis, we project our discontent on those who put themselves in the public sphere.

”

photo by CAT SCHRAGE

18

zooming out

media

portrayals:

political wives

emma harman

W

hen you think of marriage and political scandal, the names Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton are likely the first to come to mind. The former President’s affair and ensuing scandal was, at least in the minds of many, the jumping-off point of the political affair phenomenon.

The Clintons’ relationship started back in their college years at Yale, where they (by most accounts) first encountered each other in a class about politics and civil rights. Both equally strong-willed and passionate, they complemented and challenged each other constantly, making for a high-energy, somewhat tumultuous relationship. Years later, they became the most powerful couple in the country, with Bill serving as President and Hillary as First Lady. The President’s penchant for affairs may not seem out of the ordinary in light of recent politicians’ affairs and resulting “political wife” stories peddled by the media, but it is different in one key regard. The affair and subsequent scandal led to a reversal of power that has contrasted sharply with the portrayal of the women in the rest of this increasingly-prevalent type of stories.

stand by your man

Tammy Wynette’s “Stand by Your Man,” one of the most covered country songs of all time, has found new purpose in politics as the anthem of the wronged political wife. Google “political wives” and nearly every article will reference the phrase at least once; even recognized sources like The New York Times and The Huffington Post are guilty of it. Other articles aren’t much better: top results include, “The Hottest Political Wives,” and “The Politics of Pretty.” Even those who have experienced the ordeal of a political sex scandal are aware of Wynette’s shadow. Back when news of the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal broke in 1998, Hillary Clinton was quoted as saying, “you know I’m not sitting here, some

19

little woman standing by my man like Tammy Wynette.

I’m sitting here because I love him, and I respect him, and I honor what he’s been through and what we’ve been through together.” This level of meta-awareness is sobering; it proves that the process has been repeated so many times that even those who are part of the phenomenon know to separate themselves from Wynette’s catchphrase. More often than not, however, this is not the case. Why do so many women in politics tolerate the media’s ad infinitum use of the same tropes and clichés? And why do we, as viewers, buy into this perpetual cycle of scrutiny and judgment?

It might have something to do with the cyclicality of the political wife’s “character” arc; it’s something we’ve all seen before, and, for the most part, we can predict how it ends. It doesn’t escape my notice that by acknowledging these consistencies, I am contributing to the long list of observers who willingly feed into the disparagement of the political wife. It is a cycle many of us are guilty of—the news of a new sex scandal provokes nearly the same reaction every time: an eye roll and a muttered “Really?

Again?” And then we are left to pick a team. Will she stay? Or will she go? Before we know the solution, the news circuits find another sound bite, another video clip, and another marriage to dissect, and the story becomes another blurred memory in the long history of politics.

Political wives are placed under the microscope as a matter of course. A transfer of political power requires that the new torchbearer, usually a man, be thoroughly examined. That examination extends to everyone connected to him. Because the man is the one truly in the spotlight, and because his words are the ones that eventually lead to his success or downfall, the media is left looking for fodder. They seem to find it in the politician’s wife, and everything is fair play: her makeup, the shape of her body, her body language, and her looks, to name a few standard points of criticism. The media also tends to force a divide between the figure of the “mother” and of the “working woman,” and such a split is one that some wives accept willingly. In her speech at the Democratic National Convention on September 4 this year, Michelle Obama said that her “most important title is still ‘mom-in-chief.’”

the mommy card

To be clear: being a stay-at-home mom does not make a woman superior to one who embodies the concept of the working woman, nor does being a working woman with no children entitle her to claim triumph over the mothers of the world. A woman can exclusively focus on her children, exclusively focus on her career, or dedicate her time to both. All are legitimate niches, and the denigration of either extreme is a step back for womankind. If the idea of feminism is to create equality between women and men, regardless of their roles in the world, why are some political wives so quick to discard their roles as career-women, or even their careers themselves, in order to take up the mantle of motherhood? The answer is multifold: motherhood lends these women the appearance of approachability, the projection of warmth and empathy, and a way of verifying and validating their femininity.

As Diane Glass, a columnist at The Seattle Times, writes, “It’s because the ‘mommy card’ in politics isn’t about being a mother at all; it’s about catering to our public neurosis about women in power. Being a mother affords female candidates the approachability factor. Child-free apostates are viewed with suspicion.”

Although Glass refers to candidates, her argument that “this notion of what a ‘real woman’ is seems rather limiting” is true for all women, whether political candidates or wives of those candidates and politicians. Limited to the last few decades, here are some of the names that might stick out in the discussion of political wives and the sex scandals they’ve lived through: Hillary Clinton, Jenny Sanford, Silda Wall, Maria Shriver, Anne Sinclair, and Huma Abedin. Then there’s Jackie Battley, one of Newt Gingrich’s ex-wives, who supposedly was still in the hospital recovering from uterine cancer when Gingrich asked for a divorce. These are all women with education, who have life experience, and have undergone struggles, with one more thing in common: the media has reduced them to byproducts of their husbands’ infidelity. They have been made living symbols of patience and subordination, and have been placed in a court of public opinion that shifts between condemning and supporting them on a whim.

the good wife

Of all the various responses of political wives that the media has covered and dissected, the situation between Jenny and Mark Sanford particularly sticks out. The infidelity press conference generally has two main features: first, a repentant man standing behind a phalanx of microphones, either bumbling through an apology or emotionlessly intoning a speech about the immorality of such an affair; second, the statue of a political wife by his side, with either an expressionless face or a jaw clenched tight. But when former Governor of South Carolina Mark Sanford stood behind the podium to apologize for carrying on an affair with his Argentinean mistress María Belén Chapur, his wife, Jenny Sanford, was nowhere in sight. Instead, she released a statement that didn’t deny her husband forgiveness, but still took him to task for his infidelity: “There is no question that Mark’s behavior is inexcusable. Actions have consequences and he will be dealing with those consequences for a long while.”

Many women welcomed her departure from the norm, and outpourings of support spread quickly across the blogosphere.

Her reaction to her husband’s political affair, combined with the post-affair role reversal of the Clintons—with Hillary as Secretary of State, and Bill out of the spotlight—has made steps towards changing the normal arc of the political scandal story.

Despite the examples of Hillary Clinton and Jenny Sanford, the phenomenon of the political affair and its typical aftermath is now so ordinary that it has spread to the realm of television drama: the Emmy-award-winning series The Good Wife centers around a fictionalized representation of a wife dealing with the fallout after her political husband’s affair. The popularity of the series is a testament to how intrigued, and possibly fixated, we are on the trainwreck aftermath of a political sex scandal. As viewers, whether of TV shows or media fanfare, we have a responsibility to not judge the figure of the political wife too harshly: we have not walked in her shoes, and she has enough to deal with already.◊ art by Cat schrage

20

zooming out

TXT2PICS

the transition of social media from written to visual content

Renee Tornatore

R

ecently, I shared a web resource titled, “Adorable Costumes for the Kids of Art History Majors” with my friend. It was a blog post featuring a photostream of disgruntled children dressed up as Frida Kahlo, Vincent Van Gogh, and Andy Warhol, complete with penciled-in unibrows and ear patches. My friend then promptly made her Facebook profile picture the portrait of the Frida Kahlo child, followed by the same Instagram upload. Countless “likes” and witty dinner banter ensued.

art by CHARLES WANG layout by Cat Schrage

21

Just the week before, I had shared a link to a New York Times article with my housemates. I received no “likes,” and no affirmation of them reading it. Among six 20-something females, there was no subsequent witty dinner banter about how women in Hollywood are starting to “step off the scale” and embrace eating burgers and chocolate cake.

“

Reading a lengthy blog post or article takes time, often too much time for members of GenY...

countless new apps) is much easier and quicker than typing out a status update on a tiny keyboard. It also appears that it is preferred; a 2012 study by ROI Research found that when users engage with friends on social media sites, the pictures are the most enjoyed. 44 percent of survey respondents are more likely to engage with brands that post pictures, in comparison to any other media form.

Similar statistics found in an infographic recently released from Mashable reveal that on Facebook, videos are shared 12 times more than links and text posts combined. Similarly, photos are liked two times more than updates composed of text only. The infographic study also notes that Instagram is on pace to beat Facebook’s acclimation of 100 million users in a fouryear span. Additionally, on YouTube, 100 million users are taking social action through uploaded videos every single week. Lastly, photo and video posts on Pinterest are referring more Internet traffic than Twitter, StumbleUpon, LinkedIn, and Google+, one more statistic showing the dramatically increasing role of visual media usage.

”

I didn’t send them a lengthy piece about the minutiae of tax returns or a tutorial on how to code Java. I shared a lighthearted, easy read about the rise of “normal-sized” female celebrities onscreen and the introductory phase-out of rail-thin screen sirens.

Regardless of the article topic, there was no interaction with the piece—or with me.

This experience is not unique to me, but rather is reflective of a larger trend in social media. According to a study conducted

by BBC in 2010, the average student’s attention span is 10 minutes. Reading a lengthy blog post or article takes time, often too much time for members of GenY to tolerate in order to obtain information. As people become more pressed for time in their everyday lives, there is an emerging need for publishers to get to the point quicker than ever. Therefore, there has been an increase in the usage of visual social media.

The rise of visual social media has been most noticeable in 2012, as social networking websites such as Pinterest and Instagram have made their place in the digital sphere. The success of these sites suggests that there has been a major shift in the way people receive information. Since people have both lost interest in consuming mass amounts of text and are faced with increasingly limited time, images have become a way to communicate information in a quick and succinct manner. Not to mention, an image is more visually striking than tedious lines of text on a page.

Some of the earliest forms of social networking involved blogs, where users spewed out hundreds or even thousands of words per post. Following the outbreak of blogs came Facebook statuses—a shorter way to communicate the goings-on of one’s personal life or of issues at large in the world. With the onslaught of Twitter, which is considered a “micro-blog,” Facebook status updates were cut down. Over the past year, however, there has been a tendency to skip words altogether, allowing visual communication by way of pictures and videos to do all of the talking.

Visual media sharing sites such as Instagram and Pinterest have moved to the forefront of the social media world, enabling users to stay connected on the go without having to carefully edit their expressions.

The rise of visual social media is a result of shifting habits of technology users. As more people engage with social media through their smartphones, snapping a quick picture on the phone and uploading it with one tap of a finger (thanks to

A series of events in the first half of 2012 illustrates the onslaught of visual social media and its rise to notoriety: January 2012 – President Obama joins Instagram February 2012 – Over 700 YouTube videos are shared on Twitter each minute March 2012 – Facebook rolls out Timeline, placing greater emphasis on storytelling through images and videos April 2012 – The number of Instagram users grows by ten million in ten days with the release of the Android app (total number of current users: 40 million) May 2012 – Tumblr introduces Storyboard, a collection of stories and visuals June 2012 – Pinterest users follow more brands than users on Facebook or Twitter

So what do all of these statistics and numbers tell us about our generation? Are we moving towards an even shorter attention span as the networks we navigate are inundated with pictures and videos? Will we continue to read less and less as Pinterest and Instagram keep growing? And how extensive will the visual branches of social platforms such as Facebook and Twitter (that were originally almost entirely text-based) become? Since the desire to get information and connect with others instantaneously and effortlessly is turning into a recognized need, is there a new medium on the way that will enable us to share our lives with one another in an even more seamless way? Given recent trends, it seems as though finding this method could lead to the death of text-based communication as we know it. ◊

22

zooming out

To Snip, to Snip?

or not

the history of circumcision and the current debate Tory Starzyk

C

ircumcision: often taboo, sometimes painful, rarely a personal choice. It evokes images of rabbis, and infants; snipping, and clipping; and throbbing discomfort below the waist.

First documented in ancient Egypt in 2345 BC, circumcision is one of the oldest medical procedures still in existence. Paradoxically, despite its long and rich history, circumcision remains the focus of contentious debate; it seems that parents, physicians, and religious leaders haven’t been able to agree on whether or not to cut that foreskin.

In fact, on August 29 this year, the American Academy of Pediatrics released an official position on male circumcision, in which it reversed its previous stance on the issue, which was made in the 1990s. This new position holds that the health benefits of circumcision are clear, and highlights the role of circumcision in reducing the spread of STIs as well as decreasing the risk of both urinary tract infections and penile cancer. Overall, they determined that the benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks, especially since there is no indication that the procedure interferes with sexual function, sensations, or satisfaction.

But this isn’t just an American issue; the city of Berlin, Germany, recently legalized the circumcision of male babies. This was a groundbreaking decision after a local court in Cologne banned the practice for all residents, not even allowing it for religious reasons. Other Northern European countries have occasionally prosecuted those who perform the rite, saying that laws against genital mutilation are not gender-specific.

In the U.S., circumcision rates of newborn males have declined sharply in the past ten years, dropping from 79 percent in 2002 to 55 percent today. Researchers from Johns Hopkins University argue that if this rate continues to fall, we could see an increase of over $4.4 billion in healthcare costs: STIs and other genital infections will result in an enormous expenditure that researchers argue is avoidable. Circumcision removes the foreskin at the end of the penis, which would otherwise serve as a haven for bacteria and viruses that cause diseases including HIV, herpes, genital warts, bacterial infections, and urinary tract infections. Accordingly, there is a recent trend among HIV prevention policies in developing nations to incorporate circumcision in campaigns. So, if the potentially negative consequences

23

of having an intact penis are so numerous, why are people still choosing to go au naturale?

non-medical factors

A few summers ago, I worked at a pediatric urologist’s office in Westchester, NY. I saw pretty a good mix of both circumcised and uncircumcised penises, and asked the doctor with whom I worked about trends in circumcision. He said that it waxes and wanes in popularity; at the time, uncircumcised penises were on the rise. It was rare that a decision was made to postpone circumcision until the child could decide for himself. In addition, not all medical insurance plans cover it; hence many lower-income families’ decisions are based on whether or not Medicaid pays for the procedure.

Opinions on circumcision vary both historically and geographically. Some religions not only require it, but celebrate it— in both Jewish and Islamic cultures, circumcision is seen as a rite of passage. Jewish religious law specifically states that circumcision is obligatory for Jewish-born males and for uncircumcised male Jewish converts, and is conceptualized as a holy covenant made with God. This is the basis of the “bris,” a Jewish ceremony that commemorates this important moment; in this practice, a certified mohel cuts off the foreskin of the infant on the eighth day of life. The rite is considered so important that in Orthodox communities, the body of an uncircumcised Jewish male will often be circumcised before burial.

Islam also incorporates circumcision into its practice. Since Islam draws from the Torah (the first five books of the Jewish Bible), it is possible that this aspect of Islam was borrowed from Jewish law. However, Islamic law is not as adamant about circumcision; the practice is mentioned in some hadiths (Islamic texts containing sayings or acts that express the prophet Muhammad’s approval or disapproval), but not in the Qur’an. Some Sunni scholars argue that circumcision is recommended; others, that it is obligatory. The hadith has been used to claim that the requirement of circumcision is based on a covenant with Abraham. Even though they endorse male circumcision, Islamic scholars note that it is not a requirement for converting to Islam.

who decides?

This covenant with Abraham is also the basis of the Jewish law, and carries over into some Christian practice. Although many modern Christians do not strictly enforce circumcision, some still quote the Bible as proof of why all Christian males should be circumcised. After all, Jesus himself was circumcised!

The Bible states in Acts 7:8: “Then [God] gave Abraham the covenant of circumcision. And Abraham became the father of Isaac and circumcised him eight days after his birth. Later Isaac became the father of Jacob, and Jacob became the father of the twelve patriarchs.” Not only does this excerpt establish circumcision as a holy covenant, but it also shows that after being circumcised, the loins of Abraham were blessed with great fertility.

The social implications of this literal interpretation cannot be denied; circumcision equates fertility. And many men across cultures cherish that which proves his masculinity.

As a result, this excerpt has been used as the justification for some Christians to circumcise their sons, especially in many African churches. These include the Coptic, Ethiopian, and Eritrean Orthodox churches; it is even a requirement for membership in the Nomiya Church in Kenya. But most other churches do not find any mandate in the Bible to carry on the Jewish tradition of circumcision. In fact, some even deem the practice barbaric and pagan, as is the case in many South African churches. This was true in earlier centuries as well; the Roman Catholic Church formally condemned the ritual observance of circumcision and ordered against its practice in the Ecumenical Council of BaselFlorence in 1442. Currently, however, the Church maintains a neutral stance on circumcision as a medical practice.

Regardless of their particularities, Jews, Muslims, and Christians have all had a major hand in the spread and evolution of circumcision practices. Colonization, war, and globalization have all shaped the current geographical trends we see today.

For example, circumcision in South Korea is largely the result of American cultural and military influence following the Korean War. Similarly, many African countries have either adopted or rejected the practice as a result of colonization and the spread of Islam. But how medicine fits into such a wide spectrum of beliefs and practices is not always immediately apparent.

art by SANTI SLADE layout by Cat Schrage

Parents face a tough decision of whether or not to circumcise their sons at birth. There are typically three parties involved: the parent, the infant, and the physician or religious leader who performs the operation. Each party has its own input and opinion to give, excluding the infant of course, and parents may disagree on how to address this issue. As a minor, the infant has no input on how he wants his penis to look; by law and logic, the infant cannot make this decision for himself, but a consenting parent can. In this country, despite whatever medical or religious authority dictates, parents are the ultimate authority on whether or not to circumcise their infant.

But why not wait until a man is old enough to determine for himself the fate of what lies below his belt? Some, such as those in the National Organization of Circumcision, believe that circumcision denies a man's right to genital integrity, and to the choice itself. They argue that medicalized circumcision began during the 1800s to prevent masturbation, which was believed to cause disease, and claim that accepting this supposed “selfmutilating procedure” means accepting repressive history and culture of medicine. More than privacy or politics though, the foreskin is healthy tissue, and all surgeries impose risks to the patient. What is the moral imperative for cutting off healthy tissue?

Many parents believe that the small risk of surgery as an infant greatly outweighs the risk and pain of surgery later on. In addition to surgical risks, circumcision as an adult is extremely painful and requires a long culturally unaccepted recovery period. Recovery may take as long as six weeks and requires abstinence throughout the entire healing period. Circumcision in society today is rarely seen as “real” surgery. With the exception of certain religious ceremonies, it is a private occurrence, carried out in infancy and never to be spoken of again. Besides vasectomies and hysterectomies, it is not socially acceptable to be in the hospital, especially as an adult, for procedures that concern the genitalia. Perhaps by preemptively opting for infant circumcision, parents are sparing their children from embarrassment and pain later on.

So whose decision is it to circumcise? Who knows best?

Does medical literature outweigh cultural, religious, or individual concerns? These are all questions that each parent and physician should consider when making the decision on whether or not to circumcise an infant. Although the current medical evidence clearly points towards circumcision, the practice varies in context and is a deeply personal decision, reflecting thousands of years of application and change. I feel no personal authority to endorse the procedure or condemn it. Therefore, it is up to parents and potential parent to decide the future of circumcision. So, will you snip or save?◊

24

zooming out

Leaders art and layout by CHARLES WANG

of the

PAC ANNA BRENNER

I

always knew Eyck Freymann and Danny Ben-David would end up on the front page of a newspaper.

From the moment I met Eyck during our ninth-grade orientation at Trinity, our elite and virtually windowless private school on Manhattan’s Upper West Side, I instinctually knew this eloquent, sharp, and self-admittedly pompous kid was destined for politics. My first impression of then-sophomore Danny involved my likening him to a techie version of Bob the Builder: Can he code it? Yes he can! The more I learned about these boys—who eventually became my friends—the more correct I discovered I was. Upon graduating from Trinity, they ended up at Harvard and MIT, respectively.

25

I didn’t even miss a beat when, while out to dinner with friends last July, Danny pulled out a copy of The Wall Street Journal and pointed to an article on the bottom, left-hand corner of section A1.

“Eyck’s on the front page of The Wall Street Journal,” he announced, matter-of-factly.

“Oh. Good!” I responded, glad but unsurprised. “What for?”

“His Super PAC. They interviewed me about mine, too,” he continued, “but I guess they cut that from the article.”

“Aw. Damn, that sucks.”

Our food came and all conversation stopped.

The all-knowing Wikipedia defines a Super PAC as a “political committee that may raise and spend unlimited money to independently support or oppose candidates.”

“

I chose the name The Talkin’ Smack PAC, and then I registered myself as the Treasurer and the Celestial Archduke, because you’re allowed to do that.

So how, exactly, could two 17-year-olds create Super PACs of their own? And what do these now barely-legal boys intend on using them for?

I decided to interview both of them to find out.

I managed to catch up with Eyck over video chat on a relatively quiet Tuesday afternoon. The bare white walls of his Harvard dorm room swarmed into vision and—there he was—looking far better-rested than anyone at Trinity ever did. After going through the usual casualties (Hi! How are you? It’s been so long!

How’s college?), we got down to business. ~~~~~~~~~~ So first of all, I’m going to start off pretty generally: what made you decide to create a Super PAC? Okay, from my end this is kind of lame, but from Danny’s [Ben-David’s] side it’s kind of awesome…Danny’s 18th birthday present for me was, “Hey Eyck, do you want to be the youngest Super PAC owner in history?” And I said, “Okay.” And he said, “I’ve called the Federal Election Commission, I’ve talked to their lawyers, I’ve figured out exactly what you need to fill out on your forms. Name your Super PAC, decide what position you want to have in your Super PAC, and I’ll tell you exactly how to fill out all the information correctly.” So I did, and I chose the name The Talkin’ Smack PAC, and then I registered myself as the Treasurer and the Celestial Archduke, because you’re allowed to do that— and I actually have to get around to sending in my statement that says that I raised zero dollars and zero cents, otherwise they will fine me.

But anyway, it was really cool. I didn’t expect to get the publicity; I just thought it would be funny. Before I knew it, The Wall Street Journal was interested, and they ran a story about it on A1, and they referenced The Talkin’ Smack PAC on the front page.

And Politico ranked me the third funniest Super PAC in America.

I wanted to get together with the Joe Six PAC and the Raptors for Jesus PAC and do an event called the “Pack PAC,” but I didn’t get around to it, since college started.

Okay. So what, exactly, was the inspiration behind the name The Talkin’ Smack PAC? Was it just you having fun?

I wanted something that rhymed.

”

That’s understandable.

And I also think that it’s funny and true that Super PACs do talk smack about people. And I think that the fact that I should be allowed to start one is basically a demonstration of the fact that we shouldn’t have them.

Makes enough sense. You’ve sort of already begun hinting at your answer to my next question, but do you think that the creation of these penniless PACs with humorous names is a product of political disillusionment, or an attempt at revealing how faulty the current political system is? Or was it just for fun?

It’s kind of for fun, and it’s kind of to prove a point to yourself that literally anyone can start one of these things, and that now, as silly as it sounds, I run an organization that’s capable of raising and delivering unlimited amounts of untraceable money to politics. And I can do that from foreign sources, I can do that from corporate sources, and there’s no way anyone can track me, because the FEC doesn’t keep those types of records. So there’s something very wrong about it and I think we need to make some finance reforms. But the reason I personally created it was because it was given to me [as a birthday gift].

Cool. Anything else you’d like to tell people at Cornell?

There are websites called OpenSecrets.org and a couple of others that are watchdog groups following Super PACs and who’s running them, and they have an automatic system that creates a page for each Super PAC created. What’s funny is if you Google “The Talkin’ Smack PAC,” they have an OpenSecret page. And, on one hand, it’s silly because this watchdog group is actually watching me. On the other hand, it makes you realize that what I have is actually a weapon. Because if I wanted to, I could potentially raise large amounts of money and donate them anonymously, if I had the means. So, just because it seems like it’s a joke doesn’t mean that it’s not legitimate. ~~~~~~~~~~ We proceeded to ask each other about the other Trinity graduates at our respective colleges (Do you guys see each other a lot? How is everyone else doing?) and then said our goodbyes.

26

zooming out

That evening, I reflected on how atypical my friends had been— after all, these kids created super PACs for fun and none of us thought it odd.

Danny was more difficult to get a hold of.

Swamped with work at MIT (go figure), he kept postponing our video chat date until finally we determined that it would be easier to conduct the interview via Facebook. I messaged him my questions and dutifully waited for a response. ~~~~~~~~~~ So, what made you decide to create a Super PAC?

I’ve been interested in Super PACs and their implications since the Citizens United Supreme Court case. I became increasingly interested as Stephen Colbert began exploring the legal weirdness of Super PACs, and one night while I was avoiding some homework I decided to just make one already.

27

Do you think that the creation of these penniless PACs with humorous names is a product of political disillusionment, or an attempt at revealing how faulty the current political system is? Or was it just for fun?

Originally, I made ZoidPAC? for fun. As it started to get attention, however, I realized that there’s something larger at play here. This election cycle has been the first to feel the full effects of Super PACs, and it has not, by any account, been pretty.

I’m quite appalled that this campaign has been defined more by fundraising than by issues; I’m even more disturbed because it’s obvious how well injecting money works towards political ends (regardless of party, too: Scott Walker (R) and Elizabeth Warren (D) are both recipients of huge pools of out-of-state cash).

I feel as though making a ridiculous Super PAC draws attention to how ridiculous Super PACs fundamentally are—and I hope it’s helping spur a debate about what can be done to stop the fundraising flood.

What was the inspiration behind your Super PAC name (Why Not ZoidPAC?) and how did you get the question mark after the PAC?

What was it like being interviewed by The Wall Street Journal? And just getting all that publicity in general?

“Why Not ZoidPAC?” is a play on the phrase “Why not Zoidberg?”, a reference to the show Futurama. Zoidberg has become a meme online (“Need a new doctor? Why not Zoidberg?”) and I decided to adapt it into a PAC name. My other idea was “The PAC That Smiles Back,” but I was more afraid of Pepperidge Farm’s legal team than of Comedy Central’s.

The question mark actually took more work than you might realize; I had to call up the FEC and confirm that non-alphanumeric characters were allowed in PAC names. The basic rule seems to be that your PAC name must be readable over the phone by you to an FEC worker sitting at a desk, so a PAC just named “~!@#$*(“ or something is probably out of the question.

The publicity was weird, mostly because I completely didn’t expect it, although I feel like I should have. There are numerous watchdog groups that read every filing and form PACs send the FEC, and something like ZoidPAC? was a nice slice of humor to break the norm. I’m pretty sure every time I send in one of those Form 99 memos, for instance, Politico mentions it somewhere.

Interviewing with The WSJ was bizarre, mostly because at first it felt the interviewer was implying I was supposed to have a larger political cause behind my PAC. On the other hand, PAC stands for Political Action Committee, so she wasn’t exactly wrong in the assumption.

“

leaders of the PAC

...making a ridiculous Super PAC draws attention to how ridiculous Super PACs fundamentally are...

”

Is there anything else you’d like to tell people at Cornell?

Yes! When you form a Super PAC, you get to choose your own title in the PAC. Since PACs are federally recognized entities, you can now be a Federally Recognized ____. Hence, I’m President, Treasurer, and Grand Poobah of Why Not ZoidPAC? You can also send in something called Form 99, which is a miscellaneous memo to the FEC. I’ve had quite a bit of fun with those.

Oh, and one more thing: Getting woken up by a phone call from CNN Money remains one of my weirder morning alarms. ~~~~~~~~~~

So, what did I learn from my conversations? Well, our current political system is one giant, anonymously-funded mess (again, go figure), and my friends are probably a little crazy (surprise!).

Most importantly, I learned that we all really should start practicing productive procrastination. While you were playing Words With Friends or compulsively cleaning your dorm room, you could’ve been making your own Super PAC. ◊

Hey, Kids! Try This At Home: Make Your Own Super PAC in Three (!) Easy Steps Instructions by Danny Ben-David 1. Go to the FEC’s Forms page and print out “FEC Form 1 - Statement of Organization” and the “IE Committee Letter.”

(The URL is here: http://tinyurl.com/formasuperpac ) 2. Fill out the five pages. Parts 1-4 of Form 1 are straightforward; for Part 5, only check the first box on 5f, leave Part 6 blank, write “Treasurer” under Title or Position for part 7, and your personal info for part 8. Mark your bank’s info in part 9, sign the relevant info on the IE Committee letter, and get an envelope.

3. Stuff the five pages in the envelope and address it to the Federal Election Commission at 999 E Street, N.W., Washington, DC, 20463.

Slap on a 44-cent stamp, drop it in the mail, and wait a few days.

Congrats, if you followed these simple steps, you should now have a Super PAC! Remember to file quarterly or the FEC will send you an angry letter.

28

zooming out

Socialism in

America

the forgotten history of the U.S. socialist movement

Gina cargas

I

n late September, Fox News host Bill O’Reilly ran a segment entitled “Capitalism versus Socialism; Romney versus Obama.”

In it, O’Reilly portrayed Governor Romney as a valiant protector of American capitalism, while President Obama was a “socialist sympathizer” scheming to “run the entire U.S. economy from Washington.” O’Reilly’s commentary was typically sensationalist, but his critique wasn’t exactly unusual. Obama’s presidency has been marked by frequent accusations of socialism, particularly from critics of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the 2010 statute that aims to streamline health care and decrease the number of uninsured Americans. It’s not necessarily an unfounded claim: universal healthcare and wealth redistribution are both policies that might fit a socialist agenda. What’s truly interesting is that these critics—Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, and Rick Santorum—all equate socialism with anti-Americanism. Contemporary political discourse categorizes any private institution as strictly superior to any public institution. To many, capitalism is the foundation upon which America was built, and socialism is therefore a malignant foreign force determined to undermine American liberty. Unfortunately, these associations neglect the reality of socialism and its prominent place in United States history.

The goal of this piece is not to glorify socialism, nor is it to condemn capitalism. Like all economic and political systems, the two theories put into practice have advantages and drawbacks. But the ignorance of—or perhaps the refusal to acknowledge—what socialism really entails, along with the denial of its place in American history, is embarrassing when anyone does it, but especially when it’s coming from the lips of respected thinkers and politicians. While socialism never quite got its chance in this country, its ideas certainly made a massive impact on the way we live now. Similarly, many modern hotbeds of conservatism (which often translates into socialism-bashing) were once strongholds of the American Progressive movement.

Take Oklahoma, for example. In the 2008 presidential election, over 65 percent of Oklahoman voters chose Republican candidate Senator John McCain—who was often painted as a protector of the free market—over Obama. This September, Oklahoma launched its second suit against the Affordable Care Act, a bill the right-wing has often claimed represents an overextension of federal power. During her speech at this past August’s GOP convention, Governor Mary Fallin hailed her state’s

29

layout by BECKY OCHS independent history and praised early pioneers for their risky ventures into the oil business. “President Obama wants us to believe that Oklahomans owe that success to the federal government,” she said in a clear show of disdain for all government interference. She revealed her staunchly capitalist perspective, one that’s shared by many of her state’s voters. But, according to M. Elizabeth Sanders, Cornell Professor of Government and author of Roots of Reform, the Sooner State was once a bastion of radical progressive ideals and the Socialist Party of America.

Oklahoma’s large population of farmers and industrial workers strongly resented what they saw as an exclusionary two-party system, and seeds of discontent soon blossomed into leftist reformism. In fact, between 1912 and 1916, Oklahoma contained the largest population of Socialist voters in the country.

Similarly, nearby Kansas was once a breeding ground for Progressive and Socialist thought. In the late 1800s and early 1900s, Girard, Kansas was home to the Appeal to Reason, a national Socialist weekly newspaper with over 700,000 subscribers, not to mention Eugene V. Debs, the charismatic leader of the Socialist Party of America and co-founder of Industrial Workers of the World. While these states represent the most surprising centers of Socialist activity, the early 20th century saw a widespread Progressive movement that brought Socialist officials to locations throughout the country. Northern cities with high concentrations of industrial and transportation workers often enjoyed large Socialist populations, and, in 1912, cities as farflung as Milwaukee, Schenectady, and Berkeley all boasted Socialist mayors. Across the United States, 160 councilmen, 145 aldermen, one congressman, and 56 mayors were elected as Socialists.

Under Debs’ leadership in the first two decades of the 20th century, socialism became an important part of the Progressive movement, which promoted the belief in a future in which “people are capable of changing their condition for better or worse.”

The Progressive movement fought for social rights like the 40hour work week, a minimum wage law for women, compensation for work-related injuries, and social insurance for the elderly and disabled. In spite of the impactful work by the era’s leaders, both the Progressive movement and related Socialist contributions remain largely forgotten today.

“At the national level, Socialists were greatly disadvantaged by electoral rules,” said Professor Sanders. “The first-past-the-

post, single-member territoriality defined districts used for Congress and the Electoral College that advantaged the two major parties.”

To socialism’s further detriment, states began to forbid “fusion” candidates on ballots as early as 1890; that is to say, third parties were no longer permitted to endorse major party candidates. The fusion system had allowed major party candidates’ votes to count on third parties’ line, which kept minor parties on the ballot. Fusion voting also made major parties more considerate of, and sometimes even deferential to, third-party candidates. Although widespread dissatisfaction in the U.S. pushed many voters toward the Progressive movement, relatively few were drawn to socialism.

As if these new electoral rules weren’t restrictive enough, the government began actively repressing socialist activity. In 1917, the Oklahoma Socialist Party organized the Green Corn Rebellion, an armed uprising in protest of World War I, a war which many farmer and worker organizations passionately opposed. According to Sanders, what the party hoped would be a mass people’s uprising was swiftly met with violent government repression, arrest, and jail terms that effectively served as the death sentence for the Oklahoma Socialist Party. Shortly thereafter, the Postmaster General banned U.S. mail circulation of the Appeal to Reason, branding it with the all-too-catchy nickname “The Squeal of Treason.”

This was one of the first instances of associating socialism with anti-American thought. According to Ron Ehrenreich, a

art by Zander Abranowicz

member of Syracuse-based Socialist group CNY Reds for more than 30 years, this disadvantageous link has evolved into the prevalent association of socialism with foreign ideologies and, eventually, fascism.

“Even up through the Cold War and the McCarthy era, socialism remained one of the most popular concepts in the world,” Ehrenreich said. “It got a bad name because it had such a good name that people thought they could capitalize on it.”

By that, Ehrenreich is referring to foreign leaders like Mussolini and Hitler, both of whom claimed allegiance to Socialist parties. Stateside, Americans began to see such European dictators as the dangerous result of socialism, an impression fortified during the Cold War. But even before the Red Scare rolled around, the Socialist Party remained on the fringe—even amongst radical progressives.

“Another major disadvantage for Socialist parties was that ‘native’ American radical parties soaked up a lot of discontent,” Professor Sanders explained. Parties like the Greenback Party and the Populists strongly supported labor unions and government regulation, without doing away with private property rights for small business entrepreneurs. Their values lined up with those of socialism, but their “home-grown” reputation made them far more palatable to many American voters.

“In short,” Sanders said, “the American radical tradition provided an outlet for protest and political pressure, for democracy and egalitarian reform, that didn’t have the baggage of socialism.”

So, socialism never quite took hold, and the result has been well over half a century of assumptions and accusations of antiAmericanism tied up with the term. Now, however, the negativity is stronger than ever. Even in the fifties and sixties, Republican presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower and Richard Nixon accepted the reality and effectiveness of social programs, particularly those of FDR’s New Deal.

“But today’s Tea Party Republicans return to the discourse of the early Cold War,” Sanders added. “Branding any government welfare or regulatory program, or progressive taxation as ‘socialism’ is absurd.”

But many modern progressives and socialists don’t see the renewed use of “socialist” as an insult, or as the last nail in American socialism’s coffin.

“In the 1920s the Democratic Party was sort of like ‘Republican Party Lite,’ a lot like it is today,” Ehrenreich said. “But once the Socialists were getting five or six percent of the vote, enough to throw elections, the Democratic Party totally realigned their politics. “ Besides, Ehrenreich says, revolution is unpredictable. “I think history’s not as settled as we might imagine it to be,” he said. “Once, Lenin was in Switzerland addressing a bunch of students there, and he said to them: ‘The revolution in Russia will not take place in my lifetime, but in yours.’ When the meeting was over, he had a telegram waiting for him, because there was a revolution. You just don’t know.”

Although there may not be a major revolution any time soon, there are currently some shifting ideologies. For many, the popularity of last year’s Occupy movement points to widespread discontent with U.S. politics—the same dissatisfaction that bred the Progressive movement and the New Deal of the early 20th century. As history and Ehrenreich suggest, it seems the future of socialism in America is not quite settled yet. ◊

30

zooming out

T O M Sand corporate

philanthropy

W

alking through campus, it’s difficult not to spot a pair of TOMS gracing students’ feet. This canvas shoe with a conscience is a trend among young people, and is one of many products in today’s market that has tapped into the increasing alignment of consumer culture with philanthropic ideals.

Why has social consciousness among corporate brands become so popular recently? For one, it is a great marketing tool.

Charity-oriented business models appeal to buyers, who with little effort can instantly feel good about what they purchase, knowing part of the proceeds go to someone in need. Unlike donating to charities by clicking a button on the computer or by sending a check in the mail, buying from a brand that donates a percentage of its proceeds to a good cause is a tangible way for consumers to feel like they’ve made a difference with the money they’ve spent. It is also extremely lucrative business-wise, since philanthropic efforts raise the profile of a company and allow it to stand out for doing something unique or creative.

However, it is necessary to question how genuine this newfound social consciousness really is. There are companies that exaggerate the impact of their campaign and even mislead consumers into thinking that their money is going to a good place.

the movement TOMS Shoes was founded by Amazing Race contestant Blake Mycoskie after a trip to Argentina in 2006, during which he noticed how many children were forced to go barefoot because their families could not afford to buy them shoes.

Thus, the brand gained popularity through its One for One Movement—for every pair of shoes sold, TOMS donates a pair of new shoes to a child in need. Although TOMS began with merchandise consisting only of its trademark canvas slip-on, a design based on the Argentine espadrille, the brand has become increasingly trendy since it was founded six years ago. Nowadays, you can purchase a pair of TOMS wedges, glittery TOMS, “vegan” TOMS—and, yes, you can even buy TOMS for your wedding. So why does TOMS focus on giving shoes?

31

the wonderful world of neoliberal charity

Robyn Bernstein

According to their website, children in developing countries who grow up barefoot are at risk of disease, injury, and inadequate education. Soil-transmitted helminthes (more commonly known as intestinal worms) are a leading cause of disease in developing countries and can penetrate the skin through bare feet.

Shoes, therefore, help prevent children from contracting these infections and having to deal with the harmful long-term effects they may have. Additionally, many schools require shoes as part of a uniform, so children cannot attend school if they don’t have shoes. To help out, TOMS has distributed over one million canvas shoes to children in 25 countries, including the U.S. Another successful example of the “buy this and we’ll donate money” model is Product Red, a concept started by Bono and Bobby Shriver. The goal of Product Red is to “engage the private sector in raising both awareness and funds to help eliminate AIDS in Africa.” Several brands partnered with the organization to create Red-themed products, where portions of the sales would go to organizations in African countries focused on fighting HIV/AIDS. The most recognized of the Product Red campaign merchandise is probably the Gap’s, which was launched in 2006. The brand created bold logos like EMPOWE(RED) and

“

Why has social consciousness among corporate brands become so popular?

INSPI(RED) on red T-shirts, which proved to be relatively popular, partially due to the backing of dozens of celebrities in advertisements and commercials. Alicia Keys, Russell Simmons, and Julia Roberts are among those who’ve put their support behind the brand. You might also remember the red iPod Mini with Bono’s figure emblazoned on it,

“

It is necessary to question how genuine this new-found social consciousness really is.

”

which debuted about five years ago. Whether opting for attire or an electronic device, Product Red, like TOMS, enabled consumers to feel charitable with their purchases.

questionable motives, questionable impact

On the surface, brands like TOMS and Product Red seem simultaneously modern and progressive with marketable products and an ability to have real social impact.

The idea behind these products is inherently good and, at the least, raises awareness for important social and health issues around the world. However, the problem I see is that these companies often overstate the impact their products will have on the respective charities and movements.

TOMS, for example, has donated millions of shoes to children in need, and has even published a “Giving Report” on its website, illustrating the brand’s good deeds and accomplishments.

However, although shoes are something all children should have, is that really the most important issue in these children’s lives? One of my friends, who studied abroad in Senegal last semester, told me that the biggest problem she saw there was not what was missing from the children’s feet, but what was on the ground. Yes, there are already charities that work to provide clean water or healthy meals for children in developing nations. But issues of malnutrition, water-borne disease, and sanitation appear to be more urgent, and targeting them likely has a larger potential to improve overall health in communities than providing shoes does. Likewise, a criticism of Product Red is that, although the company’s mission is to fight AIDS, many of its funds go to distant research causes that don’t directly impact the lives of people in Africa affected by the disease. While they value making a difference in the lives of people in developing countries, both Product Red and TOMS, along with buyers of their products, may not always have as direct of an impact as is portrayed.

Companies like these try to market their products so they

art by CAT SCHRAGE become synonymous with specific causes or charities. This trend has been called “cause branding” by some critics. While these companies may have good intentions, it’s difficult not to be skeptical of their underlying motives. Mark Rosenman writes in the Stanford Social Innovation Review that causes like Product Red are “just one more example of the corporate world aligning its operations with its central purpose of increasing shareholder profit, except this time it is being cloaked in the patina of philanthropy.” A direct donation to charity is therefore likely to be more efficient and beneficial than purchasing an item from TOMS, Product Red, or a similar company, since, in most cases, 100 percent of the money goes to the cause.

32

zooming out

a break from cynicism

In the past, I was never one to jump immediately to buy an item just because the company donates some of its proceeds to charitable causes. However, I recently changed my mind. While shopping at Nordstrom, I noticed a collection of knitted scarves and hats by a company called Krochet Kids International (yes, I was browsing the tween section). I picked up a white knitted winter hat and read the tag, which revealed that the item was handmade by a woman in Uganda. The tag also explained that part of the money from the sale would be going directly to her.

Inside was Lanyero Lilly’s (the woman who knit the hat) signature written in scratchy blue ink. I bought the hat and later went on the company’s website, which has a picture and story for all the women who make items for Krochet Kids.

I looked up Lanyero Lilly’s name and found her smiling picture, along with a story that explained how she was abducted by rebel forces for eight years during the war in Northern Uganda.

With the money she earns from Krochet Kids, she will provide an education for her children. Under the Dreams For the Future

“

These companies overstate the impact their products will have on charities and movements.

”

section she writes, “I dream of owning land and building a home for myself and my children.” After seeing Lanyero Lilly’s picture and reading all the comments from people who bought her hats and scarves, it was difficult to feel cynical about these types of products. Putting a face and story behind a garment is something rarely done in the fashion world and, when it is, it can make a lasting impression.

feel-good, do-good

33

After buying the hat, I was feeling pretty good about the credibility of Krochet Kids International. With some further research I found that it is a legitimately registered non-profit organization with financial information readily available on its website. TOMS, on the other hand, is a for-profit business that relies on other non-profit businesses to distribute its shoes. That said, there are hundreds of shoe companies that give zero dollars to charity. This brings up the question of whether doing something is better than doing nothing, and there may not be a simple answer. So while it is easy to be cynical about causes like TOMS, I definitely don’t disparage them for donating shoes to help children who need them. In a world where self-interest dominates, companies like TOMS can be refreshing.

Although I don’t believe TOMS is being shady in its business practices, I do think it’s crucial for consumers to think about where their money is going before they contribute to a “cause.”

Given that there are so many causes that deserve attention, and because we can only devote our resources to a few of them, it is worthwhile to consider each one carefully. For example, take Kony 2012, a campaign to arrest Ugandan war criminal Joseph Kony, who was accused of kidnapping and raising a guerilla army of child soldiers over the course of several decades. The campaign received a ton of hype and seemed like a serious issue—that is, until further investigation revealed that Kony no longer posed as great of a threat as was originally made out to be. Granted, Kony is still a terrible man, but the campaign likely exaggerated the impact his forces had at the time. Based on this example and what can be discovered after looking further into corporate philanthropy like that of TOMS, it is clear that it is important to uncover what’s really behind the glossy veneer of helping and making a difference. For now, I say don’t stop buying TOMS. But look at other ways you can make an impact with your money and don’t be too easily swept away by a feel-good, do-good message. ◊

Making Friends with Barack & Mitt: how the presidential candidates utilized social media to get closer to young voters

Kristi Krulcik

F

or many of us, this November meant stocking our thought arsenals with political ammo, readying our peers for life-ordeath debates, and wiping the sweat off of our creased brows.

We were focused. We were driven. We were strategic. We were ready to kick some ass (or elephant).

Amidst myriad challenging prelims, hotties flanking us on either side in the library, and a sudden shortage of caffeine rations, we sometimes struggled to find time to prepare for E-Day. Election Day was, for many of us, our first chance to choose who became victorious. We knew our duty and wouldn’t allow for any petty interruption in our planning. Our strategies were shifting 24/7, constantly monitoring the prevalence of politics. This election was like no other because the presidential campaigns had a secret weapon: social media.

Utilizing social media as a political platform is the latest and greatest technique from presidential candidates. Young voters are no longer turning to the passé news programs and newspapers anymore; they expect politicians to get chummy in their established daily routines.

With the onslaught of social media mobile applications and websites, people are now susceptible to political messages 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Friends’ opinions are broadcast on social networking walls, constantly feeding us various viewpoints, and the 2012 presidential candidates, Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, joined this phenomenon. By using social media to reach youth, they hoped to establish a higher level of relatability.

Sarah Boxer, a producer at CBS, followed Romney on his campaign trail ever since he announced his candidacy last June.

Part of her position involved updating sites like Twitter to keep voters informed on the latest news. She has noticed the effects that social media has on the population’s political viewpoints, commenting, “I think checking… one’s Twitter feed has become

the equivalent of refreshing the Drudge Report or even The New York Times’ homepage for many campaigns this election cycle.”

The sources for political information are shifting to revolve around what is most convenient for young voters today.

The influence of social media on this year’s election is unprecedented. Voters now exchange, refute, and support information in 140 characters or less. They plaster their thoughts all over Facebook and post inspirational photos on Tumblr. While voters do play an important role, it is the presidential candidates’ involvement on such sites that is the most notable.

The Obama and Romney campaigns both targeted young voters through their social media accounts. They strived to become relatable, important, and understood. By using social media, the candidates are able to reach their youngest supporters, all while monitoring the current political climate. Therefore, seems like a win-win situation for both the candidates and voters.

Zac Moffat, the Digital Media Director for Romney’s campaign, believes that each social media outlet has its own value for a campaign.

While Twitter shows voters’ latest political views, Facebook uncovers how people are “reflecting upon it”, and Google puts “structure to all of the madness.” Twitter especially allows candidates to engage voters because, as Moffat points out, it represents the “conversations occurring in real time.” By properly targeting and utilizing each medium, the candidates have

34

zooming out been able to broadcast positive messages to young voters.

For people like Cornell University freshman Jenn Lambert, social media acts as a foundation for debate material. Lambert enjoys engaging in passionate political discussions with family members and peers, and often turns to her news feeds and shows like “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart” and “The Colbert Report” for updates. “I look for general knowledge,” says Lambert, “just to know what’s going on in the political atmosphere.”

Lambert gathers political points from her news feeds and researches them further online before using them in a debate. “It’s the easiest way, I think, for me to connect to the campaigns and to find out what is going on through something [like looking at my newsfeed] that I already do every day,” she said. The presidential candidates recognized the power of social media on their campaigns and used it, as Lambert described, to “build bridges between the young voters and the candidates.”

Obama certainly took advantage of this new “bridge” in late August when the President signed on to Reddit.com for an “Ask Me Anything” session. The extensive social site is said to have over three billion page views per month and is a popular news outlet for young people. Obama’s appearance on Reddit therefore enabled him to reach myriad young voters in a setting that was previously unutilized in political campaigns.

Obama has also taken advantage of sites like Tumblr. His recently created Tumblr account features informal posts from supporters urging people (and especially women) to exercise their right to vote, volunteer, and sport Obama swag. The blog is casual; it invites voters to ask questions, submit posts, or sign up to volunteer. The site’s donate button declares, “The other guys have corporate lobbyists and super PACS on their side; we’ve got you.” Subscribers also receive emails from the likes of President Obama, Joe Biden, Michele Obama and young supporters (one email’s subject line read: “I’ll totes [volunteer] with you”).

Romney has taken a similar approach towards social media. Although I followed his use of social media much less than Obama’s, I know that he also has accounts on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram. Governor Romney also offers contests open to voters and forums to exchange thought-provoking information.

“

The social media campaigns, although they vary in effectiveness for each candidate, all had one thing in common: their casual approach. Clearly, candidates were striving for acceptance in our social circle. They no longer want to be seen as two older guys who like to talk, smile, and kiss babies; they too, are savvy social media users who prefer to be on a first-name basis with us. They’re ready to “keep it casual” and “keep it cool.”

This new direction in presidential campaigning has made it easier for young voters to stay informed. Now that we are of legal voting age, our civic duty is staring us in the face. In July of 2011, political pundit Tucker Carlson said on C-SPAN’s “Washington Journal” that “there is this feeling that everyone has a civic duty to vote… but far too few people are beseeching voters to learn something about the issues before weighing in on them.”

Carlson went further by saying, “There are sources of information that were unimaginable 20 years ago… There’s really no excuse for being uninformed, it seems to me. And if people don’t know what’s going on in American politics, it’s totally their fault.”

Carlson understands that voters today have nearly unlimited sources for political information. The presidential candidates realize this as well and are using these sources, predominately the social media channels, to broadcast their messages to young voters.

The influence of social media in this aspect of our lives begs the question: why do political candidates even want to enter our social circles when they’re likely to become vulnerable to our daily exchanges of opinions? The answer is simple: politicians want to energize and greet their voters on a relatable level. They want us to rally behind them with an enthusiasm that will sustain them well beyond the election. Through social media, they can monitor and be part of the gossip. They now can have an “in” with us, and so far, it seems that we have welcomed them.

We may not be at the point of making friendship bracelets reading, “Mitt & Me” or “Barack’s Got My Back,” but we may just want to pay some attention to the informal tweets, posts, emails, and photos flooding our news feeds and fulfilling our daily social media needs. Interacting with other supporters, opponents, and candidates alike can electrify the way we gather political information. Social media allows for extended interaction, discussion, and clarification, all in a convenient way that fits into our respective daily routines. We should embrace this shift in campaign strategy and simply consider these presidential candidates as fellow human beings who aim to inform us. Their new technique puts the choice in our hands. It is now up to us, the young voters, to determine who will be the victor.

Voters now exchange, refute, and support information in 140 characters or less.

”

While this article was written before Election Day, the results of the election and breakdown of votes by age group suggest that Obama’s use of social media and other new ways of reaching young voters paid off: nearly 60 percent of voters aged 18 to 29 sided with the President. ◊ layout by Cat schrage

35

tic c e l c ne

n of

tio mpila

co

a

Ithaca Street Art

mm

from

co o t i t fi graf

sign

de unity

identified artists in this spread: Ryan Curtis (hummingbird), J (neon script) and Anna Krajewski (Glinda)

identified artists in this spread: Kurt Piller (fracking skull), J (GIAC graffiti), Ryan McGuire (hand bunny), Gerry Walsh (eye), Alice Muhlback (fox)

identified artists on this spread: Jackie Richardson (hand box), J (man in hat), Jim DeGraffe (civilians on blue background)

identified artist: Roti (fish)

photos and layout by Cat schrage and meaghan Mcsorley please note that not all artists could be identified.

THE PIG BOOK: Cornell before Facebook

S

Becky OCHS

ince college students today have never had to navigate the social scene without the help of Facebook, Twitter, email, texting, and other new ways to stay in touch with each other, it is difficult to imagine how past Cornell students functioned without these things. How did people learn about and remember philanthropy events, birthday parties, and other special occasions before those pesky-yetcrucial Facebook invites or mass texts? While that in and of itself may seem daunting, think back to O-Week freshman year. Unless a person you met (read: potential friend) lived just down the hall, the general protocol was to get each other’s numbers or add each other on Facebook. While this results in a major clean-up of Facebook friends circa spring semester sophomore year and an even more entertaining deletion of all the First Name plus Identifier cell phone contacts à la Dana WritingSeminar, Ryan CheesefriesatNasties, or any Upperclassman followed by Frat Name, it was definitely a useful way to stay in touch with or remember people you might not otherwise run into again.

And what about those dire morning-after situations when you feel a pressing need to verify that the guy/girl you hooked up with the night before was in fact hot? While you may not know that person’s full name or the (not so) clever moniker he/she appears under on Facebook, a little sleuthing generally—and sometimes unfortunately—answers the burning question. Did generations past live in (blissful) ignorance, unable to ever know for sure how powerful the beer goggles were?

While we may not always realize it, generations before us (including many of our parents) had extensive social circles and raged at frat parties when they were in college. They made friends and secured invites to notable events without ever receiving a text or Facebook friend request. So how did they negotiate the college scene without the tools we have had at our fingertips to help us manage our social lives? The answer, at Cornell at least, was the Pig Book.

The Pig Book, a sobriquet given to Cornell’s New Student Record, was a directory printed each year containing names and photographs of new students at the University. Published by the Gamma Chapter of national service fraternity Alpha Phi Omega (APO), the New Student Record included a listing of all new Cornell students who replied to a summer mailing. The book was divided into two

44

zooming in sections: members of the incoming freshman class, and transfer students. Student photographs were sorted alphabetically, and beneath the submitted photo appeared each student’s full name, hometown or home address, high school attended, and college at Cornell. Even those who wanted to maintain some sense of anonymity had a place in the Pig Book—anyone who replied late, failed to include a photograph, or did not reply at all had his/her name listed at the back of the book under “Addenda.”

Pamela Tan ’97, editor of the New Student Record for several years when she was at Cornell, explained the process. “We’d be responsible for the content at the front of the book,” said Tan, “[then] an outside publisher would handle the vast majority of the logistics: collection of new student pictures/info, layout of the pictures into the yearbook format, collection of money, etc.” The book was then sold on campus by members of APO, which Tan explained, “received a percentage of the proceeds.” At the time, the sale of the New Student Record funded many of APO’s service initiatives. “It was a wonderful fundraiser for APO,” said Tan, as well as “a great, pre-Facebook way for new students to be able to identify all the other new students they met.”

“

Purchasing such a book may seem odd to us now, but in its time the Pig Book was quite popular. An ad in the September 5, 1980 issue of The Cornell Daily Sun boldly exclaims, “PIG BOOK IS HERE!” suggesting the student body was eagerly awaiting its release. Additionally, while the Living Learning Center’s 1980 Activity Fair in Willard Straight Hall (the equivalent of today’s ClubFest) did not experience much success overall, APO’s booth selling the newest copy of the New Student Record was a shining exception as the busiest locale. According to a September 9, 1980 issue of The Sun, given the largely “non-academic outlets” that attract students early on in the semester, many organizations did not seem to effectively reach the student body. However, considering that one student even compared getting through the crowd around the APO booth to maneuvering through Grand Central Station, the attendance indicated a heightened intrigue in getting to know the members of Cornell’s newest class.

Although the Pig Book did help freshmen and transfers remember other new students they had crossed paths with, the Pig Book was not always used for this purpose. Tan noted, “Unofficially, the rumor was that fraternities would use this book for less appropriate reasons—e.g., to identify attractive women and to deface

Whether they are potential friends, promising rushees, or sought after hook-ups, Cornell’s newest students remain somewhat of a novelty, both to each other and to the upperclassmen.

45

”

THE PIG BOOK: Cornell Before Facebook

art by CAT SCHRAGE the photos of others they found less attractive.” Members of the Class of ’79 who I spoke with confirmed this rumor and revealed other ways the Pig Book was used. In fact, attractive female students were not only identified; they were also sought out and personally invited to fraternity parties.

Since the Pig Book was followed by the release of a campus directory once the academic year was underway, students could use the Pig Book to find a freshman or transfer student they had met and then proceed to look them up in the directory. This provided intrigued upperclassmen with these women’s dorm rooms and campus phone numbers, thereby enabling fraternity members to hone in on their latest targets and sorority members to recruit the most attractive new faces on campus. The book’s nickname reflects this practice; although it has not been verified, the general consensus is that the name came about in reference to the “fresh meat” it contained.

Greek organizations also used the Pig Book to aid in the recruitment process. Fraternities and sororities would often cut out pictures from the Pig Book to help them remember names and faces during the rush period, in addition to some personal information or facts about the rushee. According to Delta Kappa Epsilon’s House Terms and Expressions, 1966-1970, photos from the Pig Book were attached to “rushing slips,” paper cards that were placed inside the rusher’s jacket pocket and used to record information about a rushee. These cards were an integral component in the recruitment ritual:

“All part of the tactical wizardry conceived in the previous weeks, long hours between terms in the dovetailed dissection of collected intelligence, identities summed up and catalogued on index cards: name, hometown, school, extracurricular activities, position of father, family income, antecedents, race, religion, salient personal characteristics, tailor (if any), nuances, likes and dislikes.”

Although Facebook has yet to add a specific place to list the name of one’s tailor in its “About Me” section, there are certainly similarities between the site’s role in rush today and that of the Pig Book several decades ago. In this sense, it seems as though the book was also a good pre-Facebook way to keep track of and remember the numerous men and women who rush.

The Pig Book’s usefulness didn’t end after college, however, nor did its entertainment value diminish with time. This past

layout by JENNY ZHAO September, I was able to speak with several members of the Class of ‘79 who unearthed their freshman year Pig Book when they returned to Ithaca for Homecoming festivities. While flipping through the pages, they searched for photos of old friends and stumbled upon those of forgotten classmates and ex-boyfriends and girlfriends. Most of the memories conjured up were fond, but everyone had a good laugh at the bad haircuts and oversized glasses immortalized in the book.

Although there is no longer a Pig Book, there is certainly still an allure in scoping out freshman prospects. Whether they are potential friends, promising rushees, or sought-after hook-ups, Cornell’s newest students remain somewhat of a novelty, both to each other and to the upperclassmen. But with technology shifting social strategies and interactions into the digital realm, I wonder what memories from our college experiences will still be there in 30 years when we return for Homecoming.

While external hard drives and on-or offline archives allow us to store massive amounts of photos, documents, and other information, Facebook albums and soon-to-be-deleted texts seem hardly tangible when I project into the future. Somehow I can’t picture my 50-year-old self going through Facebook albums from my college days—and that’s not only because it’s only a matter of time before Facebook is replaced by something else (remember MySpace?). It’s because digital innovations are not merely adding to the ways we socialize and remember things—they are completely replacing them. In this sense, it’s almost sad to me how not getting a senior yearbook picture (not that I got one, so maybe this is hypocritical) is unsurprising, while not having Facebook is grounds for an eye-bulgingly incredulous “WHAT?”

Yes, smartphones, texting, email, computers, and social media and networking sites have made our lives easier. And yes, they have allowed us to both meet and stay in touch with people whom we may otherwise not have been able to. But don’t underestimate the importance of more old-fashioned ways of interacting with friends and remembering your college experience, no matter how unforgettable the moments may seem.

So go print out some pictures instead of Instagramming them.

Write a letter instead of a wall post. Your future self might appreciate it someday. ◊

46

zooming in

The

Female

“Victim:”

eradicating

C

social

ornell’s suspension bridge, cradled in the middle of a forest and overlooking the renowned gorges, is a favorite spot for prospective students and their families, as well as Cornellians seeking a reminder of their campus’ beauty. On September 2, at 3:45 AM, a female student was aggressively grabbed and raped in this very location. This incident marks only one of the numerous sexual assaults that have been reported since the start of the academic year.

The Cornell University Police Department has reported six assaults since classes started. With an undergraduate population clocking in at just over 14,000 students, the chances of knowing one of the victims are slim; and at less than one -hundredth of a percent, the chances of being one of the victims are even slimmer.

Looking at these vague statistics, it is easy to find naïve comfort in the numbers. However, the comfort we shroud ourselves in turns a blind eye to the very real and traumatizing effects these incidents have already had on members of the Cornell community. On a larger scale, our naivety is ignorant of the fact that one in four collegeaged women will experience sexual assault. This statistic, exacerbated by the social discomfort of discussing rape, indicates the assaults that have plagued Cornell’s campus this year are merely the tip of a much larger iceberg.

Isolating the problem of sexual assaults specifical to Cornell, it becomes evident that the history of aggression against Cornell’s women has been an extensive one. Sexual assault is a deeply ingrained issue that has resurfaced on campus in a highly publicized manner every year. The 1980s were marked by a series of sexual assaults and forcible touchings, culminating

“

norms

Sarah Hardtke

in the rape and homicide of graduate student Dzung Ngoc Tu. The “Collegetown Creeper” terrorized the early 2000s by breaking into and entering numerous girls’ apartments. According to CUPD’s Annual Security Reports, there were eight reported incidents of forcible sex offenses in 2004. In 2007, there were three of these offenses, followed by five in 2009, and eleven in 2011.

With the recent upsurge in sexual assaults, there has been increased engagement in social dialogues concerning the circumstances and dynamics of rape. Despite these multiple dialogues, campus discourse generally tends to align with one of two positions. Some perceive rape as an unfortunate, but inevitable, aspect of society: one that has nothing to do with “them,” per se. Herein arises a sense of detached responsibility, and consequently, an apathetic level of engagement. Others perceive rape as an anomaly, an exception that affects six out of 14,000 students.

Both of these dialogues act as buffers, distancing us from rape through a shallow comfort, all the while further victimizing the female figure. Instead of falling into these complacent paradigms, the campus must address the issue of sexual assaults systematically and passionately, motivated by aspirations of empowering and protecting the female figure, rather than victimizing her.

Silence on the behalf of the general student body is most directly the consequence of perceiving rape as an exception. According to Tom Moore ‘14, op-ed writer for the Daily Sun, events like the recent sexual assaults create “a real fear and it really mobilizes people for a second.” The sexual assaults on campus have induced a hyper-anxiety and a fear in our discourse, as well as in our actions. However, there is a brevity to this campus-wide

The vague statistics of police reports do not account for your friend who doesn’t remember giving consent.

47

”

“

...if we over-generalize rape culture theory, we erroneously assume that gender norms are fixed and definitive...

fear, since it lasts only for a moment, or even “a second,” before it starts to quiet down, thereby leaving the individual to retreat to his/her niche of naïve comfort once more.

Debunking the erroneous beliefs concerning rape’s prevalence is the fact that the reported offenses released by CUPD massively underestimate what goes on behind closed doors. The vague statistics of police reports do not account for your friend who doesn’t remember giving consent. They do not account for the girls this weekend, or last weekend, or the weekend before that, who engaged in sexual activity that could easily be considered forceful or non-consensual. Nor do they account for the girl who doesn’t say anything, fearing social repercussions or the stigmas associated with seeking help.

The even greater issue at stake, however, is that our impassivity unconsciously assumes an inevitability of assault. If we are apathetic because assaults and rape have always happened, then we presuppose a “rape culture.” Moore articulates the rape culture argument in his op-ed article, “Our Monsters, Our Men,” suggesting that sexual assaults are an extension of the gender norms college culture perpetuates. Gender roles, he argues, “force women into roles of submission, passivity, and objectification,” while forcing men into roles of “domination, aggression, and predation.”

Moore creates a prey-predator paradigm, thereby providing a concise account of the motivations behind sexual assaults.

In further commenting on his rape culture argument, he says “There are pervasive norms defining how men and women interact in a social context. There are a lot of forces pushing women into roles of submission, and men into roles of dominance.”

According to this account, frat boys would always be tough athletes and sorority girls would always be humble and soft-spoken, right? A look at Cornell’s Greek life swiftly negates that notion, in turn destabilizing the greater concepts of rape culture and fixed socio-cultural norms. There is an inherent aspect of our own social dialogue and experiences that inevitably contributes to the sexualization of the female, to the dynamics of the “slut” and “bro.” However, if we over-generalize rape culture theory, we erroneously assume that gender norms are fixed and definitive, rather than malleable and progressive.

”

This is not to say that rape culture is not a real, valid problem; it is, and it is reiterated on a daily basis in our social discourse, as well as in our greater sociocultural structures. However, the existence of oppressive gender norms and sexualized discourse does not mean we should presuppose that assaults are inevitable. We should keep in mind our society’s capacity for progression and change, a change that is first elicited on an individual basis. The unfortunate events of this semester, exacerbated by the silence of many, may leave us with a depressed notion of the 21st century woman. In delineating

art by charles wang

layout by becky ochs

48

zooming in

the history of violence against women at Cornell, it’s easy to forget a direct parallel of history: that of women’s empowerment. The history of violence against women at Cornell is inextricable from the history of women’s presence and education on our campus. Cornell University was the first major Eastern institution to open its doors to women. Today, the student body is almost 50/50 in terms of gender demographics. There are 30 groups devoted to women’s issues, a Women’s Resource Center, and various women’s academic and athletic groups.

During an Introduction to Psychology lecture this semester, Professor Harry Segal asked how many women in the room had ever dumbed themselves down, fearing a boy would dislike their intelligence. In a predominantly female class with over 500 enrolled students, only a handful of females raised their hands. Cornell women are a far cry from submissive or passive. They are intelligent, motivated, and just as vocal as their male counterparts. The upsurge of reported assaults should be taken as a reification of the vocal nature of Cornell’s women. We continually subvert and destabilize the very gender norms that are presupposed by a victim-victimizer paradigm.

So, at what point do we stop being silent, not just as women, but as a community? Maybe it takes finding a body at the bottom of one of the gorges to elicit a collective reaction amongst us, like the 1981 rape and murder of Dzung Ngoc Tu. Or maybe it takes a phone call from a friend saying she doesn’t remember what happened the night before. Most of the time, those calls are in reference to humiliating nights, such as the time my friend thought she might have sung a rendition of Cee Lo Green’s “Fuck You” to an ex and his new girlfriend in front of an entire fraternity (which, as it turns out, she had).

But, unfortunately, sometimes it’s a phone call more along the lines of, “I cannot remember if I had sex last night. And if I did, it was something I didn’t consciously give consent to and didn’t really want to do.” Hopefully, in a community with females as strong-willed and motivated as Cornell’s, we will not allow it to go this far for more members of our community. On a liberal campus situated in midst of a progressive society, we have destabilized and degenerated many an oppressive paradigm, and have the potential to continue to do so.

She was not asking for it, she is not overly promiscuous because of her clothing or sexual history, and she most certainly does not have the means to shut down the biological mechanisms of her body when being raped. The more we talk, the more we engage in discourse and mobilize our resources toward addressing this problem, the more we will move toward negating these types of erroneous dialogues. In the words of Moore, “It is exactly the time to talk about it, you talk about crisis when campus is in crisis.” ◊

49

Cornell’s history through 28 objects

(and stuff)

S

Aly stein

ome of these objects we encounter every day, others are safely hidden away in the University archives. All, however, are important to the history of Cornell University. This article was inspired by the British Museum’s “A History of the World in 100 Objects,” which in turn inspired the New York Times’ “A History of New York in 50 Objects.” These objects were uncovered through research, experience, and conversation, but are not the only 28 objects that could sum up Cornell’s history.

3. Cornell Chimes: 1868

Jennie McGraw, the daughter of Cornell trustee John McGraw, inherited his fortune and continued her father’s legacy of giving to the new institution. She decided to donate the original set of nine bells that has since expanded to 21 bells. The “chimesmasters” are the select few who have perfected their musical bell talents and undergone rigorous training. Each morning the chimes ring the “Jennie McGraw Rag” in honor of the generous donor, and then maybe a Taylor Swift song or two.

4. Rulloff’s Brain: 1871

1. Morrill Land Grant Act: A self-proclaimed genius, Edward Rulloff escaped conviction for 1862

This year marks the 150th anniversary of the act that made the formation of Cornell possible: the Morrill Land Grant Act. Lately, there has been much talk of education reform, but Justin Morrill really knew how to do it. As a senator, he proposed the Land Grant Act that helped expand higher education opportunities by providing federal land to each state for building an academic institution. It originally sought to promote the teaching of agriculture and mechanical arts, considering those were the sectors producing the most money for the country at the time. When President Lincoln signed the Morrill Land Grant Act into law in 1862, it became the most progressive education bill of the era.

2. University Charter: April 27, 1865

With Ezra Cornell’s pledge of an initial endowment of $500,000, the land from his farm, and the income provided from the selling of Morrill Act land, the New York State Senate signed the University Charter and officially established Cornell University.

Since the first swearing-in of A.D. White, the charter has been presented to each president of Cornell during the inauguration ceremony.

several horrific crimes, including killing his wife and daughter.

He remained a free man despite these allegations, until he was found guilty of killing a Binghamton store clerk. Rulloff’s execution was the last public hanging in New York, and now his brain is part of the Wilder Brain Collection in Uris Hall. Rulloff writes in his piece Monstrum Horrendum, “One hundred years from now when the mental abilities of the average person have advanced to meet my present capacities, this epistle will surface: then and only then will the world know forever that an enduring genius was once murdered by the clamoring citizens of Tompkins County, New York.” Nah, he’s definitely still crazy. But at least he has a bar named after him!

5. Sage Hall: 1875 Opened as a women’s dormitory, Sage Hall made Cornell the first coeducational school in the Ivy League. Henry Sage gave money for the construction on the condition that Cornell provided an education for women equal to that of men.

Truly exemplifying “Any person, any study,” Sage Hall represented the progressiveness of Cornell as an institution, as well as the feminist movement that was beginning in New York around this time.

Volume 1, Number 1 of the Cornell Sun: September 16, 1880 6.

Before The Daily Sun began publishing, the only source of news at Cornell was a weekly literary publication. In March of 1880, an editor of that publication named William Ballard Hoyt

50

zooming in (’81) committed himself to producing a daily along with the help of a few friends. Originally four pages long and called The Cornell Sun until 1882, the newspaper would go on to become the first collegiate member of the Associated Press.

sequently be three more bears after him—up until 1939, when the real bear was replaced by the bear costume that we know today. The ferocity of the mascot has decreased with the ferocity of the football team, but I’m pretty sure that’s just a coincidence.

7. The First Dragon Day: 1901 Although the exact date of the first Dragon Day remains unclear, records show that Willard Straight ’01 was the original mastermind behind the celebration. Known for his antics as a spirited prankster, Straight believed that there should be a day devoted to the College of Architecture, to which he belonged. Beginning as a celebration of St. Patrick’s Day, Dragon Day evolved in the 1950s into what we know of it today, with the construction of an actual dragon and the associated costumes and celebrations.

11. Barton Hall: 1917 Before Avicii came to Barton Hall and students defecated on the bleachers, Barton was a drill hall for the Department of Military Science. Notable for its gothic architecture, and expansive size, it was at one point the largest unpillared room in existence. So the next time you’re looking for a pillar to pee behind: 1. Don’t do that because that’s gross, and 2. Don’t bother because there aren’t any!

8.

The Dean’s Hat: 1903 This isn’t your typical top hat. And no, it isn’t Abraham Lincoln’s top hat either. It’s actually a representation of leadership in CALS. The “Passing of the Hat” tradition was established when Liberty Hyde Bailey received the hat from I.P. Roberts upon his installation as dean of CALS. It upholds its original symbolic purpose and is still used during inauguration ceremonies.

9. Alpha Phi Alpha charter: 1906 Alpha Phi Alpha, the first fraternity for African-American men, was founded at Cornell in 1906. Seven undergraduate students, who were dedicated to defending the rights and promoting the responsibilities of African-Americans, organized the fraternity.

These “seven jewels,” as they were known, included: Henry Arthur Callis ’09, Charles Henry Chapman ’06, Eugene Kinckle Jones ’08, George Biddle Kelley ’08, Nathaniel Allison Murray ’11, Robert Harold Ogle, and Vertner Woodson Tandy. Many distinguished African-Americans have been members of Alpha Phi Alpha, most notably Martin Luther King Jr..

Touchdown the Bear: 1915 10.

Cornell’s football mascot and the original Big Red Bear. Most may think of Touchdown the Bear as just some guy dressed in a bear costume prancing around at athletic events, but in reality there was once a real Big Red Bear. The original Touchdown came to campus in 1915, and there would sub-

51

12. Willard Straight Hall Mural: 1927 Stop stuffing your face with the free popcorn from Willard Straight for one second and look up. See those walls? See that mural on those walls? Kind of cool, right? In fact, the painter commissioned to paint the murals, Ezra Winter, chose to use the space to represent the phases of human character that Willard Straight himself had embodied. Willard Straight was one fancy man, and supposedly a well-rounded human as well.

13. Freshman Piker Beanies: 1924 Up until the 1960s, it was tradition for all male freshmen to wear beanies. One of the 11 strict rules published in the freshman handbook, this rule was taken very seriously. One student, Frank Morelli ’24, refused to wear his cap and was subsequently chained to a tree for two hours and dunked in the lake. Don’t feel too bad for him, though. He ended up becoming a gangster and was eventually shot in Utica.

14. War Memorial: 1931 The War Memorial located on West Campus is dedicated to the 264 Cornellians who died in World War I, including Willard Straight ’01. The door to the shrine is engraved with the insignia of the four Army divisions in which Cornellians served, and the names of those who gave their lives. Similar shrines have been constructed across campus to commemorate the Cornellian lives lost in subsequent wars, linking military history with Cornell’s history.

15. Ivy Group Agreement: 1945 The Ivy Group Agreement was signed as a way to maintain the value of football while “keeping it in fitting proportion to the main purposes of academic life.” The agreement set rules for

eligibility, scholarships, and post-season play. The rules of the Ivy League would eventually expand beyond football, but would remain within the eight elite universities. Since then, Cornell has claimed victory in the sense that we “grow the ivy,” rather than win Ivy League titles.

16. Gettysburg Address Copy: 1949 In 1949, Marguerite Lilly Noyes gave Cornell a copy of the Gettysburg Address in Abraham Lincoln’s own handwriting.

This is one of only five known copies of Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address. It passed through the family of George Bancroft and was eventually bought by Noyes, who then donated the document to Cornell in honor of her husband, who would become chairman of the Board of Trustees. The speech represents a defining moment in American history, and Cornell has the real thing.

see him on Sunday Ticket anymore, but if you’re lucky you can catch him as a guest star on Days of Our Lives.

19. Johnson Museum: 1973 The Johnson Museum opened in 1973. The building was designed

by I.M. Pei, who is largely considered to be the “Frank Lloyd Wright of the 1970s and 1980s”, having designed other notable buildings including the glass pyramid outside of the Louvre in Paris.

The Museum was intricately designed to include a square cut in the center to avoid obstructing the view from the Arts Quad. Just last year, a $22 million addition was added on to the Johnson Museum, further expanding its 35,000 works of art from across the world. An object with lots of objects inside of it, how fitting!

20. The Stump: 1977 Up until 1977, the stump outside of Willard Straight served as a soapbox for political protests and a means for students’ voices to be heard. Students mobilized around the stump, which was a relic of an old elm tree. When the stump was still on campus, so was political activism, especially during the 60s and 70s when the Cornell campus was hot with protests and political angst. Recently, the stump has re-emerged in the form of a wooden structure, upon which angsty students have written their requests, including my personal favorite: “Plants should have voting rights!”—Peter Smet ’14.

21. Grateful

Dead play Barton Hall: May 8, 1977

Photograph of the Occupation of Willard Straight: April 20, 1969 17.

This photo represents a decade of student protests at Cornell.

Angry at the administration’s decision to punish black students for a disruptive protest, 100 Cornellians from the AfroAmerican Society occupied Willard Straight during Parents’ Weekend. After a group of Delta Upsilon brothers broke into the Straight, the students armed themselves and set a list of demands, including what is now known as the Africana Center. This set off a series of negotiations with faculty and administrators, and eventually spurred a string of protests that set Cornell into a crisis of civil liberties.

18. Ed Marinaro Sports Illustrated Cover: 1971 Cornell football thrived with Marinaro on the field. He took all of the major national player awards except the Heisman Trophy, and broke his own record with 1,425 yards on the field. The Big Red won the Ivy Crown for the first time when Marinaro was a senior, and he even graced the cover of Sports Illustrated for his tremendous efforts. However, after six seasons in the NFL, Marinaro hung up his helmet and put on his acting hat. You can’t

This was considered one of the best shows in the Dead’s 30-year career, and many Deadheads still listen to archived music from that specific show. An anonymous alum fulfilled every Deadhead stereotype when he described how he “sold acid and bumper stickers… an eventful and unforgettable day. We broke into the building across from Barton Hall [because] of the snow, 100 or more of us, many tripping, and smoked pot in there until the doors opened.” The band paid tribute to that famous night in 2010 with another show by the reassembled band Furthur, which includes Bob Weir and Phil Lesh of the original Dead.

22. Pew Sundial: 1980 Former President Dale Corson helped design the Pew Sundial that now rests on the Engineering Quad. Corson has called the sundial a part of his legacy, and even helped repair it in 2006. The sundial can tell time within a 30-second margin of error. That way, when an engineer wakes up in Duffield to walk to Snee, s/he can check the sundial to make sure s/he isn’t late!

52

zooming in 23. The Pumpkin: October 8, 1997 On October 8, 1997, a giant pumpkin appeared on the spire of the McGraw Tower. The pumpkin remained atop the 173foot tower for an entire Ithaca winter, until university officials, fearing that the pumpkin might hit someone if it fell, took it down. Three years went by without knowing how the pumpkin could possibly have reached the top of the tower, but an anonymous tip to The Sun explained that the instigator had climbed to the top of the tower while his accomplices sent him the pumpkin on a rope. After successfully jamming the pumpkin into the spire, he climbed down back into the tower, and then the three troublemakers “laughed their asses off for 15 minutes and went and had a beer.”

26. Fences: 2010 After a string of unfortunate suicides (six during the 2009-2010 academic year), the University installed fences along campus bridges. Established with the idea of preventing further suicides or impulse jumps, the fences remain a topic of contention and intense debate. The fences remain to this day, as the University takes the next steps to install nets under the bridges. Will these fences and nets remain objects of Cornell forever?

Cornell Basketball makes it to NCAA Sweet Sixteen: August 2010 27.

The University Mace at the installation of President Skorton: 2006

24.

When a president takes office at Cornell, he (or she) gets to dress up all fancy in academic regalia. In 2006 President Skorton took office, and in his hand was the university mace. You are probably wondering, what is the story behind that object?

Luckily, I have the answer. Designed in London at the request of President Deane Waldo Malott, the mace is used during commencements and inaugural ceremonies. It contains a globe to represent the universality of Cornell’s interests, as well as the authority of the president.

After Cornell defeated Wisconsin to advance in the tournament, Fox Sports reported that it didn’t really look like the players knew how to celebrate. As the first Ivy League school to make it to the Sweet 16 since 1979, the Big Red basketball team had never experienced a win quite this sweet. Under the leadership of the seniors, Cornell did it big with an 87-69 win. In the next round, the Big Red suffered a loss to Kentucky; still, Cornell’s short-lived run as part of the Sweet Sixteen will go down in history as one of the Big Red’s best basketball seasons yet.

28. This is Cornell: 2011 Media is the future, and this video brings it all together. Directed and produced by Alex Silver before he graduated in 2011, this YouTube video should be watched by all past and present Cornell students. ◊

layout by RODRIGO UGARTE

Hockey jerseys retired by Ken Dryden ’69 and Joe Niewendyk ’86: February 2007 25.

Dryden and Nieuwendyk both had impressive careers while at Cornell, as well as afterwards. Each player received NHL awards, and won the Stanley Cup with their respective teams.

Their numbers (1 and 25) are no longer worn by Cornell players. Cornell hockey remains a pretty big deal, and Harvard still sucks.

53

When Recreation Becomes

Propagation: the infiltration of politics into modern sitcoms MO rahman

M

y Thursday night ritual of sitting in front of a television watching as many of my favorite sitcoms as possible may seem mundane, and it wouldn’t be completely wrong to think so. As much as I love these shows, they aren’t intended to stimulate deep thought or conversation. Yet, more often than not, many of these programs either openly discuss or more subtly take a stance on current political issues.

In the world of media, there exists a theory known as the Elaboration Likelihood Model. The Model holds that, in order for a viewer to be an ideal processor of information, he or she must be both motivated and able to understand everything that is being visually presented.

Although this occurs rarely, such a level of understanding is called central processing. As a central processor, one must be completely aware of the informational messages that are being conveyed. However, for the majority of people, peripheral processing is the way to go; with either motivation or ability, or even with neither, peripheral processors easily fall into traps set by the media. Given that I am indeed a peripheral processor, I have to wonder: are there perspectives, ideas, and biases being sold to me at all times?

Taking a deeper look at current popular sitcoms: Parks and Recreation and 30 Rock flaunt independent liberal women that rarely existed in television before. 30 Rock’s Liz Lemon (Tina Fey) and Parks and Recreation’s Leslie Knope (Amy Poehler) serve as role models for many women viewers: with firm seats in top-tier jobs, the protagonists prove that sex and seduction aren’t necessities in establishing respectable careers for women. Despite the strong roles these females play, the conservative men that supervise our leading ladies hold their own equally

54

zooming out

art by CAT SCHRAGE

well in these sitcoms.

While 30 Rock’s Jack Donaghy is an authoritative Republican and Parks’ Ron Swanson a taciturn Libertarian, both are always ready with a wealth of wisdom to impart on their protégées. Though not taking a clear partisan stance, these television shows construct “personalities” for the right and left, albeit in varying degrees. The representation of liberals is funny, easily persuadable, and, more likely than not, female. The libertar-

“

By guest-starring on these sitcoms, polticians are indirectly selling themselves to the public...

”

ians are supposedly social recluses who are respected for their roughness. And the Republicans… well, they’re the middleaged, handsome, corporate, self-made men that the media has always portrayed them to be.

Speaking of middle-aged Republican men, one of the more recent episodes of Parks and Recreation featured the 2008 presidential election’s Republican candidate, John McCain. Performing a small role, McCain drops by for a few seconds and is completely snubbed by the wary Leslie Knope. 30 Rock, following the same trajectory, guest-starred Condoleezza

55

Rice, who played Jack’s ex-girlfriend.

Small acts like these, though seemingly harmless, have a large political impact. By participating in these shows, the politicians and the shows themselves provide mutual support for one another, and that support often progresses to endorsement.

When it comes to endorsements, Modern Family is also not lacking. Supported openly by both Ann Romney and the entire Obama family, the creators haven’t kept their sentiments a secret. Steve Levitan, co-creator, recently tweeted, “Thrilled Ann Romney says ModFam is her favorite show. We'll offer her the role of officiant at Mitch & Cam's wedding. As soon as it's legal.”

Cam and Mitch, the endearing gay couple in question, certainly would not be supported by Mrs. Romney had they been real human beings—the Romneys have expressed in the past that marriage should be traditional, always between a man and a woman.

In a sense, this type of endorsement works as product placement would. By guest-starring on these sitcoms, politicians are indirectly selling themselves to the public, making themselves seem relatable and showing that they can be as commonplace as our favorite sitcom characters. Though these politicians don’t play a role that would directly represent their political views, the sheer fact that they are present indirectly pressures the viewer to be aware of everything these politicians represent.

While none of the aforementioned sitcoms are outwardly supportive of any political party, it’s worth thinking about the messages we are compelled to process as viewers. Are we deliberately walking into a trap in which we can’t help but be persuaded? Or are we so unaware during the viewing process that nothing fazes us, nothing redirects our attention, and nothing conflicts with our preconceived notions? Whatever it is, it’s significant to remember that even mindlessly watching television could alter our outlook, for better or for worse. ◊

BullsHits

Overrated Hit

art by Charles Wang layout by Becky Ochs

Movies JEN KEEFE

T

here are some things that make sense in this crazy world of ours. Water freezes when it gets cold, puppies are and will always be adorable, and Madonna will never stop trying to look like she’s 25. Some things, though, just don’t make sense. One of these things is the enduring popularity of movies that I can only describe as “the worst.”

These are those movies that everyone talks about for just about ever once they come out, those movies that make tons of money, those movies that pretty much everyone has seen—despite the fact that, in reality, they’re not that good at all. Here are what I consider some of the most recent nausea-inducingly crappy hit movies.

Maybe the most obvious example that comes to mind is James Cameron’s 3-D space epic Avatar. This movie got roughly all the hype in the world, even though it’s a wellknown fact that this film is just a blend of Pocahontas and FernGully, with blue aliens in the place of “the noble savage.” You can’t ignore the way the white guy comes in to save the day because those barbarians are too unsophisticated to save themselves; there’s an undeniable colonialist component here that is hideously uncomfortable. I can’t lie though: it’s really pretty. But that’s not enough to make it a good film.

Here’s another one: Inception. It might just be me, but my brain literally hurt after watching this movie. When it was over, I left the theater confused, with a headache and a vague sense of discontent. To make it worse, though, is the fact that, after its release, no one, I swear to God, no one stopped talking about it—what had happened, how it had ended, and what it all meant.

Next up, Twilight. Maybe I’m a little bit biased here, but I’m not really into the emotionally-abusive-pedophile/ necrophiliac love story. And it’s not because I didn’t read it—I tried. I admit it. I wanted to know what all the hype was about, but I couldn’t get through the first book without wishing I’d never learned to read in the first place. The movie, somehow, makes that wonderful text come alive in new, sparkling ways, with a lead actor who looks a little bit like a foot, and a romantic heroine whose greatest role is “the girl

who looks down and bites her lip.”

But why do these movies do so well?

And why do so many people seem to love them… when they’re really not that good?

Avatar and Inception are all flash. When a movie is as much of a spectacle as that, it doesn’t need a great plot or a great script.

Avatar’s visuals are what make it “amazing;” since it looks like a veritable work of art, it doesn’t matter that the plot is recycled and the script is mediocre. Inception has a complex story and structure that doesn’t really take the viewer anywhere except to hell and back—loose ends aren’t tied up, while plot holes open and don’t close. It’s as if the filmmakers figured they could just confuse the viewer so much that they wouldn’t care about “that stuff” by the end. But neither of these things makes a good movie.

For a movie like Twilight, on the other hand, there’s already a strongly dedicated fan base thrilled to see the novels brought to life on screen. Picture the thousands of screaming girls at a Breaking Dawn midnight premiere and you might get the idea. And, of course, it doesn’t matter if it’s good or not, it just matters that it exists. After it has come out, all of those rabid fans are going to say it was amazing; they’ll go see it more than once, obsess over it, and make YouTube music videos about it. This might honestly be the very definition of an overrated movie.

For the sake of my sanity, however, I’ll just have to believe it’s all a matter of taste. ◊

56

Gimmicky

zooming out

New

Film

TECHNOLOGIES D

uring the earliest days of cinema, filmmaker Georges Méliès astounded the world with his innovative use of special effects. Famous for his work as a magician, Méliès would endlessly devise new ways of manipulating the camera to produce “trick films” that presented audiences with wondrous and inexplicable sights. The trick films were some of the first in history to use effects like dissolves, superimposition, time-lapse photography, art direction, and artificial lighting. These innovations might seem basic today, but they were once considered to be almost miraculous.

20th century audiences delighted in the trick films because they had never seen anything like them before. Méliès’ work possessed a certain magical aesthetic that turned cinema into a spectacle and made the ordinary seem extraordinary. The recent popularity of 3-D movies suggests that people continue to

Ryan larkin

gravitate towards this magical, astonishing quality in modern times. However, circumstances appear to have changed. Innovation has progressed in a direction that raises some very disconcerting questions about the future of cinema, and it is no longer clear whether astonishing technological developments will continue to be a positive influence on the art form.

3-D: style over substance

Ostensibly, James Cameron’s Avatar is an excellent example of the ways in which 3-D can enhance the cinematic experience.

The movie effectively uses the technology to create a fantastical and immersive environment that dazzles viewers in the same way that Méliès’ set pieces did more than a hundred years ago.

Yet beneath all the glamour of Avatar’s world is a simplistic story that audiences have already seen many times before. Nearly every film critic on the net has connected Cameron’s script to movies like Pocahontas, FernGully: The Last Rainforest, Atlantis: The Lost Empire, The Last Samurai, and Dances with Wolves. Top Rotten Tomatoes critic David Edelstein even admits in New York Magazine that, “Yes, on one level it’s a crock: predictable, sentimental, and tin-eared… the narrative would be ho-hum without the spectacle." Clearly, Avatar did not become the highest-grossing movie of all time on the strength of its script; its success was derived almost entirely from its mode of presentation. The film is ultimately a disappointing triumph of style over substance.

the awkward side of CGI

The three Star Wars prequels are another infamous example of a time when style won out over substance. The general consensus regarding the prequels, especially Episodes II and III, is that too much effort was put into their CGI (computer-generated imagery) and not enough was put into their scripts. Die-hard fans of George Lucas’s original trilogy will rarely miss an opportunity to point out the narrative flaws, lackluster character development, and poor writing that dragged the prequels down.

They are also likely to point out that the films were boring, a fault

57

that can only be partially attributed to bad dialogue.

George Lucas shot a great deal of the three prequels in a room filled entirely with blue and green screens. The hope was that these screens would enable Lucas to create exotic environments using CGI; the result would be a cheaper and cleaner image than he could get by filming at actual natural locations.

Unfortunately, this decision had some regrettable consequences—not only were Lucas’ camera movements restricted due to the limited size of his set, the actors in his shots were forced to awkwardly interact with characters and objects that they could not see. These factors made the already sterile-looking Star Wars prequels seem even more artificial and lifeless, and the pacing of the films suffered as a result.

know how to take full advantage of the effects he had discovered. His films continued to rely on “tricks” rather than character complexities, camera movements, and storylines; consequently, people started viewing them as tawdry.

Modern films now seem to be following a similar trend, with an increasing number of directors putting minimal effort into developing anything beyond special effects. If there is any reassurance to be grasped from the story of Méliès’ decline, it is that future filmmakers were able to use his discoveries to achieve higher artistic ends. While there is no way of knowing whether the gimmicky technologies of today will be the high art of tomorrow, one can only hope that films based entirely upon them will soon fade out. ◊

one sense at a time, please Less well-known films like Spy Kids 4 have taken the styleover-substance relationship one step further by incorporating scent-based technology in addition to 3-D. This technology, once known as “Smell-O-Vision,” uses scratch-and-sniff cards to present audiences with a variety of aromas that are supposed to further immerse them in the material they are watching. As one might expect, however, the technology is actually quite distracting. Imagine watching a film laden with obnoxious visual cues, while in a theater full of sniffing noises. Then imagine having to look away from the screen every so often to scratch a card on your lap and hold it up to your own nose. Then imagine doing all of this while facing a barrage of 3-D images. Even if Spy Kids 4 had an amazing script, it is unlikely that anyone would be able to truly notice it through all the sensory stimuli. This type of film takes the notion of spectacle way too far.

“

Méliès’ work possessed a certain magical aesthetic that turned cinema into a spectacle.

”

put an end to the gimmicks

Aldous Huxley’s novel Brave New World imagines a form of motion picture that provides the sensation of touch in addition to sight and sound. These pictures, called “feelies,” are completely devoid of any artistic merit; they are designed to stimulate the senses without provoking any emotion or thought. When I look at technologies like 3-D and Smell-O-Vision, I cannot help but wonder whether misdirected innovation has begun to lead cinema in the direction of the “feelies.” Brilliant as he was, Méliès was eventually accused of lacking creativity because he did not

art by CHARLES WANG

58

zooming out

50 Shades of Oh My God I Want Dracula Back Rebecca Lucash

A

nyone who’s been on a subway recently (or a bus, or really anywhere where people might have time to read) may have noticed an alarming number of women (and some men— that’s right, I saw you!) reading E. L. James’ Fifty Shades of Grey.

As of July alone, the trilogy had sold over 20 million copies in the US; by January 2012, the trilogy had outsold the Harry Potter series on Amazon’s UK site—so deny it all you want, but I know most of you have read it.

For those of you who actually haven’t, Fifty Shades is the story of Anastasia Steele, a senior at Washington State University, who meets the irresistibly sexy and dangerous Christian Grey during an interview for the school paper. The story is essentially another Twilight, since Ana spends the entire novel trying to make decisions about her and Christian’s relationship: should they be together? Is his past just too dark for Ana? Is he actually a psychopath? Okay, so maybe that last question is mine, but Ana should have asked it anyway.

I began to wonder not only why this trilogy had become extremely popular, but also where it came from. If, as many people would argue, Fifty Shades is just Twilight with more sex and fewer vampires, what does its success say about women today? Are these simply both books we love to hate, or is there something more here?

where did these even come from?

To answer this, I’m going to have to start at the beginning—because, surprise!—Fifty Shades actually started out as Twilight fanfiction. For those of you who aren’t familiar with the genre, fanfiction is a quasi-legal (it plagiarizes a great deal) form of storywriting. Fans of a particular book or series write their own versions of the text with new characters and plot lines. I haven’t read much fanfiction, but here’s an example: a Harry Potter fanfiction writer once posted a short story in which she herself was a character. Harry fell madly in love with her and they got married (screw Ginny!). Fifty

59

Shades, meanwhile, started out as the disturbingly-titled fanfiction “Master of the Universe,” in which Christian Grey was Twilight’s Edward Cullen, and Anastasia was Bella Swan.

At this point, “Master of the Universe” is no longer online; now that her books are such a success, James was worried about copyright issues and removed the original fanfiction draft, and perhaps for good reason. Although James’ American publisher, Vintage, did tell the press that “Master of the Universe” and Fifty Shades of Grey are “two distinctly separate pieces of

work,” Jane Litte, founder of the blog “Dear Author,” revealed that the two books are 89 percent similar when run through Turnitin.

In fact, in many places, only the character names were changed.

So while Fifty Shades of Grey is not overtly plagiarized from Twilight, it’s hard to ignore that it was originally intended to mimic Meyer’s series.

Taking these similarities into account, it’s probably unsurprising, then, that those of us who didn’t like Twilight are equally unlikely to enjoy Fifty Shades. Lila (’13) said it all: “I have no interest in Twilight, so extending Twilight beyond its natural death was painful for me.”

Twilight

All right, so Fifty Shades is a Twilight knock-off. But is Twilight really so bad?

The answer is yes—yes, it is. To everyone who is going to cry out and claim that I just missed the romance, or argue that I must have never even read the series, I’ll save you the trouble: I’ve seen the movies and I’ve read the books. Plus, I can suppress my sarcasm and say, “awww” when my friends start describing their ideal weddings, so it’s not like I’m bitter. But when it comes to anything Twilight-related, well, it hurts.

In a recent Huffington Post article, one high schooler tried to challenge the popular opinion that The Hunger Games’ Katniss Everdeen is a stronger character than Bella Swan. Renee DuShane defends Bella, insisting, “She takes it back to 18th-century romance where the girl falls hopelessly in love with a boy who would take a bullet for her. When did that scenario become a sign of weakness in women?”

How about when the boy who would take the bullet is an emotionally abusive psychopath? According to Debra Merskin, a journalism professor at the University of Oregon who focuses on representational ethics in mass media, Twilight’s Edward Cullen exhibits traits akin to those of a compensated psychopath, or CP. A CP is defined as “an individual who approaches the psychological extreme of psychopathy but is able to pass for functional in society.” Most crucially, the CP is aware that he is missing Eros (used here in a wide sense to mean love rather than just sex or intimacy). CPs are also endowed with “the ability to be simultaneously charming and evoke pity.”

Edward clearly displays these characteristics in Twilight.

Take, for example, his confession to Bella that he almost ate her the first time they met. He tells her, “I thought of a hundred different ways to lure you from the room, to get you alone. And I fought them back... I had to run out, to get away before I could speak the words that would make you follow...” Somehow, even though Edward is essentially telling Bella that he wanted to murder her, he still comes across as gallant. How sweet and chivalrous that he ran away before he could suck out all of her blood!

And how sad that such a nice young man has been cursed with this terrible fate! Edward may be struggling against his nature, but that doesn’t change the fact that he’s dangerous, or that he says all the right things to make Bella fall for him.

“

One thing that both critics and fans have commented on about the Twilight series is that, to adolescents, almost anything can feel like a life-or-death situation. Melissa Rosenberg, who wrote the Twilight screenplay, has an even worse example: “We’ve all had the experience of being that age and feeling that everything is life and death,” she told The New York Times in 2008.

“You know, ‘I have nothing to wear today, I’m going to kill myself.’

What’s so wonderful about this story is that everything actually is life and death.” First of all, I hesitate to agree that teenagers really take everything that seriously, and I know I am not alone in that opinion. So if this is just the outlook of a certain group of women who believe that teenagers overreact to everything, is it really one we want to be spreading in literature? Is that what we want to be teaching teenage girls? That having a boyfriend is truly that serious, and if he leaves you, you should jump off a cliff? Books that show teen life as being about matters of life and death go beyond just connecting with readers; they actually validate these views.

Regardless of what the Huffington Post article claims, Bella is not strong enough as a character. And I am not saying that she doesn’t manage to overcome obstacles (in the fourth book she does manage to defend her child from an army of bloodthirsty vampire royalty). The main problem is that she has no selfconfidence without Edward.

When Bella first describes herself, she states, “physically, I’d never fit in anywhere. I should be tan, sporty, blond—a volleyball player, or a cheerleader, perhaps—all the things that go with living in the valley of the sun... I had always been slender, but soft somehow, obviously not an athlete; I didn’t have the hand-eye coordination to play sports without humiliating myself—and harming both myself and anyone else who stood too close.” Without Edward to reassure Bella that she is, in fact, desirable, she has no confidence in herself. It is not until Edward has literally transformed who Bella is by changing her into a vampire that she truly believes she is beautiful.

Fifty Shades throws the reader into the same kind of body-image insecurity that permeates Twilight.

”

Fifty Shades of Grey

I’d argue that, with these messages in mind, Fifty Shades of Grey manages to pick up where Twilight left off. From the very first sentence, Fifty Shades throws the reader into the same kind of body-image insecurity that permeates Twilight: “I scowl with frustration at myself in the mirror.” Ana, like Bella, does not believe she is beautiful, and she spends the rest of the book wishing she could be as sexy as her roommate Kate, and feeling intimidated by the gorgeous blondes who work for Christian.

Even without these insecurities, Ana is the perfect victim for predator-psychopath Christian Grey. She is a virgin, has never been drunk before, and is just graduating college—in other words, she has barely started her adult life. Case in point: Ana and all of her graduating friends are looking for “internships” after college... because everyone knows women can’t have real

60

zooming out jobs. Lila, ‘13 sarcastically notes, “My only qualm about a story of a man beating his girlfriend is that she got an internship after college.”

The biggest problem with Fifty Shades, however, is the way it normalizes the psychopathic behavior already seen in Twilight’s Edward. Christian is just as obsessive and violent, but without the excuse of being a vampire. Instead, he is the abused son of a crack addict, adopted by the wealthy Grey family and unable to adjust to normal human relationships; we feel bad for him because he is the classic compensated psychopath. While Edward can find Bella using weird vampire senses, Christian tracks Ana’s cell phone. Edward wants to drink Bella’s blood; Christian wants a BDSM relationship and to “punish” Ana when she “misbehaves.”

I’d like to stand up for Fifty Shades and say that it is the story of a young woman finding her sexuality (and that it

has a dark side). But it’s not. [Spoiler Alert!] Even though Ana leaves Christian at the end of the first book, her final thoughts are that “the physical pain from the bite of a belt is nothing, nothing compared to this devastation.” This suggests Ana would rather be abused by Christian than live without him. And their relationship as a whole has so many parallels to abuse it is impossible to name them all. The most obvious example is that, when Ana is injured while being “punished,” she makes excuses for her bruises by remarking to her friends that she is just really clumsy. She tells Kate, “I fell over and landed on my behind,” and then adds to the reader, “[Kate] doesn’t think to question my explanation, because I am one of the most uncoordinated people in Washington State. I never thought I’d see that as a blessing.”

Well, that’s because it isn’t. It’s just hiding the fact that Christian got away with his assault—“I cry out again. ‘No one to hear you baby, just me.’”

why these books are BAD

I can concede that Fifty Shades of Grey, at least, is probably not meant to be read by teenagers. What is concerning is that as female readers grow up, there is likely to be a natural progression from Twilight to “grown-up Twilight.” And the messages these books send about sex and relationships are appalling.

Some journalists disagree with me on this point, noting that teenagers may be able to connect with Bella and Ana’s attitudes towards sex. Neither Bella nor Ana have an interest in boys until “the one” comes along and changes everything. But even then, sex with Edward/Christian makes Bella/Ana very nervous. Both women are utterly confident in their choices (yay, a single moment of decisiveness!); but they are still worried about what is going to be done to them—not with them, or by them—because they really have no say in the matter.

When Ana tells Christian she is a virgin, for example, he tells her he is going to “rectify the situation” by making love to her. “‘You are one brave young woman,’ he whispers. ‘I am in awe of you.’”

Terrence Rafferty, a writer for The New York Times, posits that female readers can connect to these relationships not in spite of, but precisely because of the way the books link sex with danger. He writes, “the vein that Ms. Meyer’s story taps most obviously is simple—basic fear of sex. Bella is, recognizably, every teenager who is terrified of going all the way, and Edward, less grounded in reality, is a fantasy incarnation of that scared girl’s ideal boyfriend, infinitely—you might say eternally—patient with her trepidation.” This is totally wrong. Bella constantly pressures Edward for sex. He is the one who insists that it is a) too dangerous and b) might send Bella’s immortal soul to Hell. Likewise, Christian feels guilty about initiating Ana into sex through BDSM,

61

telling her, “you really need to have some idea what you’re getting yourself into.”

I think that these books take the anxiety surrounding sex a few steps too far by representing sex as something that should be scary. Outside of their respective relationships, Bella and Anastasia face constant threats from just about every other man they know. Bella must constantly reject the advances of her male friends, and narrowly escapes being gang raped during a trip to Port Angeles. Ana is almost raped by her

“

Even the consensual sex in these books is violent.

”

closest guy friend when he tries to take advantage of her being drunk for the first time. While Edward and Christian save Bella and Ana from these attacks, is what they offer really any better?

Even the consensual sex in these books is violent. Maybe Bella and Edward love each other (they are married, after all, when they finally do have sex); but in the first Fifty Shades book, Christian is not in love with Ana. Ana’s friends may think they see love in Christian’s body language, but if he can’t convey it through words, I don’t believe it. It doesn’t help that in the end, Ana’s submission to him is more important than their actual relationship.

In general, sex is equated with violence in both Twilight and Fifty Shades. When Bella and Edward are together, there is a constant threat that he might kill her. He’s too strong and too thirsty for Bella to ever be safe while she is still human; on the first night of their honeymoon, he actually breaks the bed and shreds all their pillows, and Bella is bruised from head to toe. Edward may be horrified, but Bella is still begging him for more. In Fifty Shades, the fact that Christian can only have relationships based on dominance/submission means that Ana will never be his equal in the bedroom. He gives the commands when they are together, and only offers pleasure through pain.

Sex is always on the man’s terms in these relationships.

Neither Bella nor Ana ever gets the final say in initiating sex, and neither possesses any sense of agency in the act. Even when Ana and Christian do have what he refers to as “vanilla” (a.k.a. old-fashioned, plain) sex, Ana is very careful to do whatever Christian wants. After all, he is making such an effort to put up with her lack of submission and not to hurt her. I strongly agree with the University of Oregon’s Professor Merskin, who suggests, “if the information coming to girls is that a dangerous, psychopathic boy is good boyfriend material, I argue they are psychically and physically in danger.”

what the phenomenon has done to society

There have been a few lighter, funnier outcomes to the popularity of these novels. Whether it’s the kinky sex section at Spencer’s Gifts (“get a Fetish Fantasy Bondage Bed for only $289.99!”), or women who swear Fifty Shades has revitalized their sex life, there’s no denying that these books have somehow taken root in popular culture.

All the same, I will never say this is for the better. Take one of the 2012 issues of Cosmo, for instance. The magazine suggested one way of adding some S&M excitement to the bedroom routine: “use the back of a brush to swat [your man’s] thighs when he steps out of the shower—wet skin is more sensitive.” Mocks Jezebel writer Ben Reininga, “To increase the arousing nature of this kinky surprise, I’d suggest you get up early, before he's awake, hide behind the toilet with a towel over your head, clutching the brush with both hands, and give a little war-whoop when you start swatting.

That ought to really blow his mind.”

The only thing I’d give credit to Cosmo for in this case is turning the entire idea of Fifty Shades on its head. The magazine is written for women—for example, the tips they offer are things for women to introduce into the bedroom. Their suggestions may be weird, but the majority of them are ways for women to take initiative and assert themselves. So while I wouldn’t recommend tip number four in the article (“press a fork into different parts of his body”), maybe there’s a way to spin this positively after all. Either way, I think I’ll be sticking with The Hunger Games. ◊

art by KAYLA FIGUEROA

62

zooming out

The man we SAVAGELY love!

Jen KeEfe

T

he other day, I was talking with a dear friend (let’s call him Andrew) about this article. I asked him what he thought of Dan Savage. Almost instantly, poor, sheltered Andrew asked me, “Who’s Dan Savage?”

If you, like Andrew, don’t know, I can fill you in.

First of all, since I’ve been at Cornell, Dan Savage has visited twice—once to give a talk about his “It Gets Better” project, and another time to interview students and profile the University for his MTV show Savage U. It might surprise you, but he says Cornell is one of the kinkiest, sexiest schools in the country. He should know. Dan Savage is a sexpert.

Savage is a professional sex columnist who writes for The Stranger, a Seattle-based alternative newspaper. His column answers readers’ questions and gives them advice on topics as varied as relationships, LGBT issues, fetishes, or any combination of those—and more. He also releases a podcast called “The Savage Lovecast” every week. He’s the man who popularized the term “pegging,” and he loves sex toys; his podcast is even sponsored by Adam & Eve, an adult products retailer. He’s an advocate for open relationships, and describes his marriage as “monogam-ish.” He’s not afraid to talk about any aspect of the sexual spectrum, whether it’s watersports, nipple clamps, cuckolding, or anal fisting.

Basically, he likes to talk about tied-down, dirty, kinky sex— and he likes to tell other people to do it, too.

That’s not all he’s done, though. Savage and his husband Terry started the now-famous “It Gets Better” project in 2010, in response to the bullying-related teen suicides that year. The project seeks to teach adolescents, especially LGBT youth, that

“

life goes on beyond high school, and bullying is something they can bounce back from. He is also a gay rights activist, and is stolidly sex-positive. In perhaps his most important act, after Republican Senator Rick Santorum stated that homosexual acts “undermine the fabric of our society,” he launched a campaign to redefine ”santorum.” I doubt there’s anyone in America now who can see his name without thinking of, well, the frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex.

It probably shouldn’t come as a surprise that Savage could rub some people the wrong way—conservatives, prudes, the faint-of-heart, and grandmothers (except for the really naughty ones). Every once in a while, he has the same effect on his readers and listeners. Savage, being the extremely outspoken man he is, voices some unpopular opinions. Not everyone agrees, for example, with his statement that “monogamy is ridiculous.” Some people are understandably uncomfortable with the idea of their partner having sex with someone else.

He’s also been accused of much worse. Some people have called him biphobic, transphobic, and a rape-apologist.

There was an infamous column in which he seemed unsympathetic to a rape survivor.

A woman wrote to Dan after being raped by an ex-boyfriend: “Since that incident, I cannot stand sex with my husband. I completely flip out when he tries to initiate sexual contact. My skin crawls. I become panicked and feel repulsed. I just cannot handle it.” However, she was able to sleep with another boyfriend (she was in an open marriage). She said the sex left her “feeling loved and whole and wonderful.” Her husband’s jealousy of this other man spiraled into depression. Savage told the woman she should break up with her boyfriend; he called her “cruel and selfish” for not taking her husband’s emotions into consideration. He also said that if her marriage was important to her, she should have already ended the other relationship (adding, wisely, that she should go into

He likes to talk about tied-down, dirty, kinky sex — and he likes to tell other people to do it, too.

63

”

art by SANTI SLADE

therapy because of the assault). Most surprisingly, Savage closes out the column by calling her “a total shit.” I can’t say that I disagree with Savage entirely, but I certainly don’t completely agree with him either. His aggression in this situation seems uncalled for. The woman was clearly traumatized by her experience, and was looking for advice, not an attack. While his advice was valid, maybe he should have also suggested leaving her husband if her relationship with her boyfriend was more fulfilling, especially in a time of emotional need.

Then there’s the strange incident where he called the cisgendered (gender-normative) male Attorney General of Washington, Rob McKenna, a “female-to-male transsexual.”

Because the man is not actually transsexual (which no one before Savage seemed to think he was), attacking him for betraying the trans community seems a little baffling. It is almost as if Savage was using transsexuality itself as an insult—as if transsexuality is wrong. It’s a weird comment from such a visible LGBT rights activist, and it—predictably—didn’t make the trans community happy. They responded with a glitter-bombing, one of Savage’s own preferred methods of protest. The question remains—did he mean it as an insult? Or was he just mistaken? The comment is difficult to unpack. While it could be incredibly dry sarcasm, its sincerity implies he really did think Rob McKenna was an FTM transsexual. If that was the case, Savage should have at least done a little more research before making a public statement.

As for the biphobia—in 1999, Savage said that “avoiding bi guys is a good rule of thumb for gay men looking for long-term relationships.” This statement demonstrates prejudice against the bisexual community. On the other hand, this comment is one that Savage made more than 10 years ago. Since then, Savage has made it clear that his opinions continuously evolve throughout his life. Perhaps this particular comment may no longer be an accurate indicator.

Despite the gaffes he’s made throughout the years, Dan Savage is an ally to any sexually active person: gay, straight, sado-masochistic, diaper-loving, whatever. His political and social activism is prominent (and opinionated!), and he’s been writing since 1991, so he clearly has authority on the subject. Most importantly, he can talk honestly and unabashedly about anything, no matter how perverted or vanilla. For Savage, sex isn’t weird—it’s normal, it’s natural, it’s important, and it’s awesome. ◊

64

zooming out

YouTube vs.

layout by COLLEEN ANDERSON

Hollywood

internet fame and fanbases

T

he idea of being “YouTube famous” sounded ridiculous seven or eight years ago when the video-sharing website was in its infancy. Celebrities were people who walked on red carpets and lived in mansions in Beverly Hills—they weren’t awkward kids with webcams, iMovie, and an unexpected sense of humor. But today, the Internet is growing, and with it, the world of entertainment is evolving. Names like Jenna Marbles, Nigahiga, and Smosh are invading the “real world” as we watch their videos and come to know them as people. With millions of subscribers, these big names on YouTube are making a powerful impact on the Internet generation, shaping the way we speak and see humor. But what are YouTube celebrities, really?

The most powerful YouTubers fall into several different categories. First, there are the gamers, or video game commentators, who film their gameplay and record their reactions or opinions for the world to see. Big names in the YouTube gaming industry include SeaNanners, PewDiePie, and Machinima. Another booming area of YouTube is the music community that, in a sense, created Justin Bieber. It has also given a career to growing musicians such as Tyler Ward or Christina Grimmie, as well as humor-oriented singers such as Schmoyoho, creator of the “Bed Intruder Song.” Then there are the vloggers, or video bloggers, who rule over their own cult following of sorts. Most wellknown are Hank and John Green, iJustine, and Tyler Oakley. Last is the king category of YouTube fame: comedy. Although Jenna Marbles can be seen as a vlogger to some degree, her slant toward creating a humorous performance is clear. She, along with others such as Tobuscus, CommunityChannel, and DailyGrace, is well-known for her specific and unique humor and, to some individuals, her ability to turn any crappy day into sunshine and butterflies.

YouTube celebrities garner their fame through very different methods, whether it is the sheer luck of having a video “go viral,” the charm of their personality, or actual talent. No matter how they gained their fame, however, all well-known YouTubers compel their subscribers with the personal feel of their videos.

They are more accessible and influential than movie stars, because successful YouTubers make their viewers feel like friends, and the communities those viewers create feel tight-knit. When

65

Tia Lewis

they open up their lives and personalities as honestly as possible, YouTubers become extremely relatable in a way that a Hollywood star would have difficulty achieving. Traditional celebrities are often distanced from their fans through the characters they portray, or because of the fact that there are agents and assistants serving as a buffer—the YouTuber has no middleman.

Because these Internet celebrities are more relatable to the average person, fans are welcome to interact with them in very informal ways, giving opinions and advice with little or no restraint. In most cases, the creator of the YouTube channel does all of the scripting, filming, and editing themselves. Because they are usually amateurs who control all the production aspects of their videos, these individuals have far more incentive to read the comments posted or tweets tweeted with the goal of improving their video quality. YouTubers scroll through pages of feedback themselves to plan their next steps, since they have no one to filter through it all for them and give them the stats each time. The YouTuber’s fan base can therefore influence almost anything about the channel. Viewers can complain about jokes they didn’t get or editing techniques that fell flat, as well as give compliments and suggestions—praising the discussion of Honey Boo Boo Child or requesting more Q&A sessions.

YouTube is a community, abrasive at times, but far from the aloofness that makes Hollywood seem so far away. The direct connection between personality and subscriber is a defining factor in what separates the video-sharing website from the entertainment capital of the world. It brings people together and connects them to the entertainers that they have come to admire.

popular YouTube personalities Channel Name: JennaMarbles Real Name: Jenna Mourey Number of Subscribers: 4.2 million Video Style: Comedy Vlogging Known For: Honest ranting, hilarious insight, cute dogs, “the face” Background: Jenna shows off her vulgar, brutally honest sense

of humor in all of her videos, which include a variety of relatable topics. She covers subjects like, “How To Trick People Into Thinking You’re Good Looking,” does drunk makeup tutorials, and imitates famous people such as Lady Gaga and Sarah Palin. Her uploads are weekly, posted on what she calls, “Sexual Wednesday,” and nearly always feature her two dogs, Marbles and Kermit.

Channel Name: Tobuscus Real Name: Toby Turner Number of Subscribers: 2.3 million Video Style: Comedy, Gaming, Vlogging Known For: Humor, singing, funny gameplay videos, cult following of subscribers Background: Toby’s “literal trailers,” in which he creates songs that describe in a straight-forward dead pan to poke fun at the action and shots in various movie or video game trailers, are his most popular videos by far. He also has two other channels on which he creates “Daily Vlogs” and plays games from Minecraft to Skyrim, and he is well known for referring to his viewers as “Audience.”

achieved YouTube fame with his memorable reactions to horror games such as Amnesia, he now plays a variety of different games from Happy Wheels to Just Dance 3. As one of the arguably most genuine people on YouTube, it seems as though Felix can only rise from here.

Channel Name: iJustine Real Name: Justine Ezarik Number of Subscribers: 1.2 million Video Style: Parodies, Vlogging Known For: Quirky personality, interesting life, being Apple-obsessed Background: Justine is an exemplar of YouTube’s potential for community, often making videos with fellow YouTubers and always letting her audience into her life with unedited iPhone vlogs, reviews, gaming videos, edited vlogs, and more. She is infamous for having lots of channels: five that she uses actively, and one or two created on whims. She is an active social media user (most notably on Twitter) and has landed various TV gigs thanks to her YouTube popularity. Dabbling as a “lifecaster,” she once wore a livestreaming camera on her head for months, an experience which shaped her tendency to include subscribers in every element of her life.

a new type of fame YouTube can be a garish and disheartening place, saturated with recordings of cats in boxes and lyric videos made by ten-year-olds who can’t spell.

But there remains to be found, amongst all the weird and the boring, a plethora of people with talent and skill. These YouTubers, though popular for different reasons and in different ways, all have dedicated viewerships and consistent posting schedules. They have become professionals in the art of amateur video-making, and personify the notion of liberating music, comedy, and entertainment content on the web. YouTube art by ZANDER ABRANOWICZ will likely never top Hollywood in terms of profitability or visual impressiveness, but it creates Channel Name: PewDiePie a new world of entertainment for a new generation. Quirky, Real Name: Felix Kjellberg endearing, unique: it is a generation of the Internet and for the Number of Subscribers: 2.1 million Internet. Imperfect in personality and appearance, this is what Video Style: Gaming, specifically horror Known For: Reactions to jump scares in games, colorful com- makes this generation, and the YouTubers themselves, special.

Fame is unique to the person who claims it, and everyone has mentary, cursing Background: JennaMarbles was the fastest-growing channel on an interesting story to tell—with the advent of YouTube, they’re YouTube before PewDiePie came around and started gaining willing to tell it. ◊ hundreds of subscribers a day. Although Swedish gamer Felix

66

zooming out

Second Chances for

Lana

Del Rey

in defense of a retro singer with a sultry twist

L

ana Del Rey first stepped into the spotlight with her song, “Video Games,” which was followed by an infamous Saturday Night Live performance and a firestorm of unimpressed, confused, and even horrified tweets by viewers. People wanted to know: who was this girl who sang slow, sad songs and spun awkwardly on stage? And why was she performing on SNL? It seemed to be a shaky, if not catastrophic start for the young singer; yet somehow she managed to turn the fame around in her favor, using it to create the foundation that has led to her growing success in Hollywood. Some chose to forget about her, and many others cast her music off as uninteresting or just plain bad. But that is more than a missed opportunity—it’s a mistake.

There is so much more to Del Rey than meets the eye and ear.

overcoming criticism & rise to success Since the dreamy, vintage music video for “Video Games” shook up YouTube when it went viral in the fall of 2011, Del Rey, born Elizabeth “Lizzy” Grant, has been on the ride of her life.

She has been thrown through controversy over the legitimacy of her lips, the economic status of her father (spoiler alert: he probably owns multiple yachts), and the sexism in her songs.

She has revealed a past composed of alcohol dependency at 14 and life in a trailer park. But even putting her personal life aside, the criticism related to her music has not been scarce.

Rob Sheffield of Rolling Stone called her “just another aspiring singer who wasn’t ready to make an album yet.” Pitchfork’s Lindsay Zoladz was equally unimpressed, calling her album Born to Die out of touch “with the simple business of human emotion.”

But I see it differently. Del Rey has had demos floating around the Internet for some time now, and her experience in writing and singing is there, without a doubt. Furthermore, many of the things that these critics dislike seem hardly unintentional. Sheffield, for example, targets her voice as the main

67

Tia lewis

source of her problems, describing it as “pinched and prim.”

However, I see this as adding to the unique appeal and emotional strength of her music. Sure, her voice isn’t flawless, but it is certainly relevant to her lyrical themes and lovely in its own sensual way. And while Zoladz may not emotionally connect with the lyrics of “Born to Die,” Del Rey’s songs have captured human emotion to a tee for many other listeners. Del Rey understands struggle, as well as the darkness that undoubtedly exists within people, even though few would like to believe it is there.

Despite her troubles, Del Rey is now the face of H&M and the new Jaguar sports car. She has eight or nine new songs that just came out on an album called Born to Die: Paradise Edition, and she is branching out into acting and writing for film. That said, the 26-year-old seems to have an exciting life ahead of her; but until we see how her screenwriting dreams turn out, we are left to enjoy her music.

born to die

The album Born to Die is, at its core, a summer album. Its lyrics and beats scream summer heat, freedom of the open road, and carefree romance. On the album, this mysterious singer is more than an SNL performer who flubbed—she is an Americano hip-hop-meets-indie-pop-rock mix of husky, jazzy vocals and a lavish bad-girl persona. Despite its summer feel, Del Rey’s music is the kind of entrancing work that can be enjoyed all year long without tire. The emotion in her voice echoes the urban, yet oddly poetic, lyrics in each song. This gives the listener insight into a life they may never have lived, as well as touching those who have gone down a similar path. Since many people may not see what I do in Del Rey or her music, perhaps the following overview of the first four songs on Born to Die will spark some interest in giving her music a second glance, and in giving

Del Rey herself a second chance.

Naturally, the song “Born to Die” comes first on the album.

With strings blazing, the instrumentals drag the listener down into a low couple of stanzas, then sweeps them back up with the chorus, showing off a bit of Del Rey’s vocal range. With the lyrics echoing of a past in which problems were likely drowned in beer, cheap wine, and loud music, all in the midst of a wild romance, “Born to Die” is an anthem to youth. There is an innocence, or perhaps naïveté, to the song that makes it strangely endearing, even though its focus seems to be about living fast.

It’s a good song to start the album off, since it gives the listener an idea of the seductive singing to come, and is a perfect example of the powerful yet broken romances that Del Rey loves to write about. The most memorable line is undoubtedly: “Sometimes love is not enough and the road gets tough, I don’t know why.”

“Off to the Races” comes next with a more prominent beat and a quicker tempo that seems to capture the essence of the song—a strange love story that whispers wrongness—and is, of course, laced with references to Los Angeles and New York, cities that almost incessantly make appearances in Del Rey’s music. The song is upbeat, sexual, and peculiar, and Del Rey makes it clear that she always falls for the older gangster type.

The instrumentals are magical as always, but the lyrics to this one don’t quite capture me like those of her other songs. She also says “loins” in the chorus, which has always seemed kind of hilarious to me.

Then comes “Blue Jeans,” and with it, the James Dean references! (This theme is not uncommon in Del Rey’s music; other currently unreleased songs of hers, such as “Children of the Bad Revolution,” “Hollywood’s Dead,” and “Puppy Love,” include repeated allusions to the stars of old Hollywood.) If that doesn’t set up the vibe for this song, I’m not sure what does. I believe “Blue Jeans” has one of the best melodies as well as some of the best instrumentals on the album. The story is about a girl who is fanatically committed to her lover, despite the fact that he is no longer in her life. “I will love you till the end of time, probably a million years,” Del Rey promises rather dramatically. And I’m sure that those who have experienced a love-at-firstsight kind of relationship will find these lyrics believable, whether they are still with the person or not. “Blue Jeans” is the kind of song I would encourage my friends to listen to first, in hopes of turning them into Lana Del Rey fans. The best line: “Love you more than those bitches before.” I believe you, Lana.

“Video Games,” the song that made Del Rey famous, is quieter than the previous ones. It’s more melancholy, more nostalgic, and even lovelier. There’s nothing like a song lamenting the near perfection of a past romance—and this song is it. The kindness of her words and the piano in the background capture her powerful emotions well, painting a sad picture of a girl who loves her man but dislikes the monotony and simplicity of their relation-

ship. It doesn’t surprise me that the song went viral, especially with the hipster-pleasing video collage and the nice change of pace from mainstream music in terms of instrumentals. “Video Games” captures what it’s like to be in love but simultaneously desire freedom. The best line has got to be: “Heaven is a place on earth with you.”

Lana’s lasting legacy

The list of songs continues. In fact, Del Rey has created at least 50 more songs than the ones on her official album, Born to Die, many of which can be found online under the pseudonyms of May Jailer, Lana Del Ray, and her real name Lizzy Grant. These songs vary between alternative folk and Hollywood sadcore, a genre defined by slow music with depressing tones, but all of them feature Del Rey’s signature whispery voice and fantastic storytelling. I would highly suggest listening to her music, because in my opinion, the Lana Del Rey persona of Lizzy Grant embodies magic and musical uniqueness at its best. Laced with social criticism and masked by sultry desire, Del Rey’s music is too brilliant to ignore.

I know I’ll be obsessing over the cover art, listening to the songs on repeat, and stalking her website for future tour dates.

Her music is the kind that I will still listen to years from now— with melancholy, happy memories floating in the back of my mind, and her haunting lyrics and voice reminding me of summers with windows down, hair a mess, and the beat humming in my bones. ◊ art by ZANDER ABRanOwIcz

68

zooming out

A Series

of Tangents on

Lena Dunham KAITLYN TIFFANY

L

ena Dunham. 26 years old with a feature film and an HBO series under her belt. Who doesn’t hate her? And love her?

And think she’s gross? And wonderful? And weird and brilliant and creepy and cool? Every time I talk about her I’m expressing a different emotion that spills out as fluidly and frantically as a Facebook rant, and as sporadically as a Twitter seizure.

There’s almost too much to say about someone who is both an idol and an anti-hero. She’s the celebrity of the digital age, the frenemy you love to hate, the artist you wish you were. I don’t think there’s any way around it: Lena Dunham requires tangents.

art by CAT SCHRAGE

69

Starting with …

the time we all got mad at people for being rich Lena Dunham’s parents are rich. She still lives with them in their massive Manhattan apartment. This is the truth. Her mother, Laurie Simmons, is an accomplished photographer and designer; and her father, Carroll Dunham, is a successful painter. Her first movie, Tiny Furniture (2009), was shot on the video camera she received for her twenty-first birthday with $25,000 worth of financing from her parents’ friends. She and her Girls co-stars are all from the same art-world elite background—Brian Williams’ daughter Allison plays the character of Marnie; screenwriter David Mamet’s daughter Zosia is Shoshanna; and Jemima Kirke, Dunham’s childhood friend and daughter of Bad Company drummer Simon Kirke, plays Jessa. Is it cool for us to hate them because their mommies and daddies helped them get famous?

Sure. Or it would be, except for the fact that they are talented as fuck. They’re the girls you’re jealous of in high school because they are, quite simply, just way better at things than you are. You feel obligated to make up some crass reason that they get to be that way. But the girls of Girls aren’t just privileged and unjustly lucky; they’re also funny, smart, endearing, mean, and really, really good at what they do. Girls works because, as New York Magazine says, it takes “cossetted white New Yorkers from educated backgrounds” and “mines their lives for the universal.”

Because their performances are sheer dynamite, you can ignore the fact that all these ladies got to be here through birth and circumstance. And they definitely don’t think they’re better than you. Jemima Kirke gave birth six weeks before the pilot episode of Girls was filmed, on which she commented, “Yeah. My vagina still hurt.” I promptly forgot to hate her.

those dumb things people sometimes make in college If you’ve seen Tiny Furniture, you’ve seen a video of Lena Dunham stripping down to a bikini before swimming and brushing her teeth in a fountain at her alma mater, Oberlin College.

Also, if you were into YouTube in 2007, you might have seen its million-and-a-half hits on the debate of what qualifies as “fat.”

Such is life on the Internet. Dunham removed the video in 2010, saying, “I didn’t want you to Google me and the first thing you see is a debate about whether my breasts are misshapen.” Fair.

Right after graduation, she and her friends Isabel Halley and Joanne Avillez started a web sitcom called “Delusional Downtown Divas” about “spoiled art-world brats trying to get famous.”

It’s openly self-mocking, featuring fake interviews with each of the “divas.” Dunham’s alter ego Oona states, “I wish I didn’t stand out so much. I’d love to know what it’s like to just exist.” It’s awkward because it’s almost the same as the British Absolutely Fabulous, and also because of the fact that these caricatures are so deeply rooted in what some people view as the truth behind Dunham and her friends’ lives. This hollowly tragic lack of direction seems to be the inspiration for Girls. Dunham states on the DDD website homepage, “[The divas] spend their days smoking pot, changing outfits every few minutes, and plotting about how to worm their way back into the art-world they were raised in—but now they’re adult women with professional aspirations, not just kids stealing pretzels from Leo Castelli’s gallery kitchen.”

Both of these projects are a bit off-putting and strange in an attention-seeking way. And if that was all that Dunham had to show from her college years, I think I would have said there wasn’t much behind her getting the go-ahead to make a movie other than her privileged art-world connections. But then there are her pretty-good short films, Pressure and Tight Shots, and the absurdly insightful Hooker on Campus, on which Dunham says, “You go to these parties and it’s like a desperate search for somebody to pay attention to you. Sometimes you do feel like a soliciting hooker walking around campus. So that’s the root of the idea… the part of myself that thinks I’m not that good at college.”

And then there is Creative Nonfiction. Boom.

It’s not a dumb thing. It’s not a dumb thing people make in college. It’s one of the things, I think, that I have been most jealous of in my entire life. Creative Nonfiction is approximately an hour long and features Dunham as Ella, a film student with a crush on her truly horrific male friend, Chris. The film is Dunham’s first foray into everyone’s favorite thing about her: the horrible, horrible sex she has had. There’s heartbreaking falsehonesty, gruesome jokes, openly not-fun-to-look-at bodies, and ridiculously stellar dialogue between her characters. She gives us a lady body we’ve never seen before on screen and awful, uncaring, heinous male characters we’ve never seen anywhere but real life. It’s an omen so big, it can’t be ignored.

TMI “Every time someone says, ‘TMI’ to me, an innocent fairy dies. Every single time.”

Dunham is a self-dubbed and unapologetic overshar-

er. She’s the modern filmmaker/actress/celebrity combo that has surrendered her privacy to the utmost degree. She puts not just herself, but also her family and friends out into the blatantly autobiographical spotlight of her work. If you stalk the shit out of her prolific and easily-accessible Twitter (like I do), you’ll see just how much she’s willing to give.

@lenadunham: “If you don’t speak English then don’t get a job that requires speaking English okay?—The shameful part of myself I hate the most.”

“I would delete the last Tweet but I need you to know me.”

When Dunham is asked about her love life, as most interviewers want to do, she usually replies along the lines of her New York Magazine answer: “I’m not great at dating but I need to do it to relax. Also it fuels this thing that we’re doing [referring to Girls].” This is so self-serving and manipulative I can barely stand it. But the thing is, I don’t care, not even a little bit. It makes for damn-good television. While Dunham is willing to throw her own privacy out the window (and that’s brave enough in itself ), the real hard-core, stomach-churning ballsiness of her is that she’s willing to do it with everyone else’s privacy too. The situations on Girls are absurdly personal, shockingly poignant, and almost always based on fact. Obviously someone’s guts are being spilled on television every single time it airs. And is that patently unfair?

Who knows? Who cares? Dunham’s dedication is to truth— to giving us all the stories, all the realism, all the everything about what it is to be in your early twenties and have no earthly clue what you’re going to do with your life or how you’re going to navigate the relationships in it. It’s not about playing nice and turning every single eccentricity into an adorable quirk. It’s not about being endearing or funny or charismatic, even though those moments definitely happen. It’s about being real—lovable and hateable in equal measure, and not shrinking away from it.

the lady issues

You don’t talk about Lena Dunham, or Girls, or even the “female celebrity” at all these days without talking about the lady issues.

The main thing about Girls is not the “working woman” element. None of the girls are ostensibly successful, and there’s none of the familiar job discrimination shtick. Dunham’s character Hannah openly admits in one of her most-quoted lines, “I am unfit for any and all paying jobs.” No, the thing about Girls is that the sexual revolution has come and conquered… and now what? The sex on Girls is not your standard HBO thinly-veiled porn. It’s not some kind of reward for the viewer’s “cultured” and “adult” television-viewing habits. It’s weird and uncomfortable to look at for dozens of reasons, and it’s serving a genuine narrative purpose. Elaine Blair of The New York Review of Books published an article entitled, “The Loves of Lena Dunham” that makes solid points about the use of sex on Girls. Blair says of Hannah’s unique romantic entanglement: “Hannah’s is a situation that would be impossible to depict without a graphic sex scene, and offers a clear example of what sex scenes are good for. If all you

70

zooming out want to do is convey an erotic tension between two people, you can leave out explicit depictions of sex acts. But if you are interested in the psychological implications of what happens between people during sex, you need to show something of the sex.”

Truly, the openness about Hannah’s less-than-conventional body, the less-than-typical sex she has with it, and the less-thanfunctional relationships that she fosters with this sex, is all I have ever seen of revolutionary feminism on TV. And she’s not the only one on Girls with some sexual abnormalities to discuss. The most conventionally attractive of the girls is the uptight bestfriend character Marnie, who is physically repulsed by her over-

“

She gives us a lady body we’ve never seen before on screen.

”

doting and seemingly perfect boyfriend. The first episode shows a scene with Hannah and Marnie sitting in the bathtub together.

Marnie tells Hannah, “His touch just feels like a weird uncle putting his hand on my knee at Thanksgiving. I feel like such a bitch because I can feel him being so nice to me—and yet it makes me so angry.” Also in this episode, the awkward and hyperactive Shoshanna views her virginity as her “biggest baggage.”

She spends an uncomfortable five minutes trying to convince a man to have sex with her, saying, “Other than the fact that I’ve never had sex, I’m probably the least virginy virgin ever.” Episode Two of the show opens with the girls waiting around fruitlessly for Jemima Kirke’s character Jessa to show up to her own abortion.

Meanwhile, Jessa picks up a stranger at a bar. She is later exuberant when he holds up his fingers and says, “Umm. You’re bleeding.”

Everyone loves a good story of lady friendship and solidarity.

And while Girls is that, Dunham also delivers much more. Whereas Bridesmaids said that women could be funny only when the men were silenced, Girls rises to the challenge and lets both have some spotlight.

Dunham’s male characters, notably those of Marnie’s boyfriend Charlie (Christopher Abbott), Hannah’s (sometime) sexual partner Adam (Adam Driver), Shoshanna’s eventual virginity-taker Ray (Alex Karpovsky), and Jessa’s new husband (Chris O’Dowd—holy shit) are just as complicated and well-rounded, if only slightly less focused, as their female counterparts. Sure, Girls is a show about friendship and the 21st-century woman. But it is also a

71

show about the 21st-century person. Abuses and tenderness are heaped from both directions—man to woman, woman to man.

Blair encourages us to “Let [ourselves] go. Dunham has Hannah’s back. Hannah doesn’t need our motherly concern, our chivalrous evocation of the women’s lib barricades.” Blair continues, “with her humane and humorous depictions of both characters, Dunham has set the viewer free from having to keep score on either the man’s or woman’s behalf.”

a love letter (kind of)

Why do I love Lena Dunham? Because I don’t. She keeps a spreadsheet on her computer with the categories “Boys I have kissed,” “Boys I have slept in the same bed as but not kissed,” and “Boys I did not kiss but have had a weird emotional moment with.” This is so bizarre, and so something you would want to mock the shit out of if somebody you knew ever confessed it to you. I want to talk about her behind her back as if she’s the girl I know who only ever posts Taylor Swift lyrics as her Facebook status.

But how can you not be wildly enamored with the fact that, according to her oh-so-addicting Twitter, Dunham had a set designer for Girls tag a Brooklyn wall to appear conspicuously in the background of a Season Two episode with the words “Rape is never legitimate?” This statement is in light of the controversial remarks Representative Todd Adkin made this August, in which he used pseudo-scientific claims about the likelihood of conception resulting from “legitimate rape” in order to advocate against the legality of abortion. There is a clear envy of the freedom of her platform. But it’s accompanied by this strange sense of comfort: I feel good about having her out there to say stuff for me.

I love Lena Dunham because she’s not the girl on TV who makes you wonder why you can’t have cooler and funnier friends or a different pair of shoes to wear with every outfit you own, or even how anyone has that much time to maintain nail polish. She’s not making something that’s “cute.”

She’s not the one you want to be.

She’s the one you are. Frankly, you’re a little annoyed at her for talking about sex and friendship and money issues, and purpose.

You don’t really know what makes her any more qualified than you to say it—and that’s because she’s not. That’s just it. In describing her own character, Dunham says, “She’s real but she’s also really frustrating at times. She’s not constantly endearing. She’s real and complicated, and weird and annoying.” Her only qualification is that she is “real” in the way that critics have never intended it before now—in every wonderful and disturbing way possible. ◊

Nothing to See/Hear

Emily Wilson

Oh, the things our race has seen Writhing in its own machine Arms stretched quite out Mouths fraught with drought Eyes cemented to a screen Limbs jerked about Tongues carrying clout As all the retinas whisper mean, Candid delusions Nerve intrusions To the queen Their tattles bend ‘round curves She garnishes hors d’oeuvres Enacting a routine And in plain sight Of their horrid plight She sighs and christens it serene Every lobe is numb No more a feast, but a crumb Is ripe for all to glean And the mind, so settled Despite nerves that meddle Mutely welcomes stray caffeine Oh, the things our race has seen Far beyond such vile cuisine And for that we shout, “Sure, muck about!”

But obey the brain god, Dopamine

72

The Adventures of

Invisible Barack Obama Chapter XIX: Captured at Last?

Nathaniel Coderre

“Tell Mitt Romney to go fuck himself,” Barack whispered angrily to Clint.

“What do you want me to tell Romney? I can’t tell him to do that. I can’t tell him to do that to himself.”

Clint replied.

That old bastard, he was doing all of this just to toy with Barack.

If only he had known that Clint Eastwood was hot on his trail. It was all because of Donald Trump, eccentric billionaire (and secret Republican informant), who had gained access to Barack’s deepest, darkest secret. Barack Obama was not born in the US. In fact, Barack Obama wasn’t even born on this planet.

He was born on Socialistica, a faraway planet where everyone had the power of invisibility. Little did he know, Eastwood had defeated an entire fleet of Socialistican warships single-handedly during the 80s. So Eastwood hunted Barack along the campaign trail until he finally trapped him and took him back to the Republican ice-lair to be tortured.

Now he was here, at the Republican National Convention, with only a narrow window of opportunity to escape. He continued to subtly struggle with his bonds. He knew that after Mitt Romney’s speech ended, he was as good as dead. But his bonds were too strong. There was nothing for Barack to do but sit and wait.

“Hey Clint, before you kill me, I just thought that I would let you know. I poisoned Ronald Reagan.”

Clint stuttered at an awkward point in his speech.

“Reagan was about to completely abolish the minimum wage laws, Clint, could you imagine that?”

Barack snickered.

Clint at this point was so distracted his speech stopped making sense.

“Let’s see…what else? I hypnotized Rick Santorum back in 2006. That dynamic young man could have ruined everything for us. Oh, and who do you think suggested invading Iraq to George Bush? That NEVER made any sense. The only terrorists that we have actually killed, I killed myself.”

Clint turned on Barack, his speech almost completely forgotten.

“That’s right, I killed Bin Laden personally.” Barack exclaimed. “Republicans will never be able to top that.”

Clint quickly wrapped up his speech as best he could and walked off the stage, dragging Barack along with him.

“I let you gab for a long time, freak.” Clint growled, “Now it’s my turn. What did you think you were going to be able to do, brag your way out of the mess you are in? You aliens are so arrogant. Mitt Romney’s speech will not be the highlight of the night. In fact, we took barely an hour to write it. After his speech, we will unveil our big surprise. That’s right, Barack. You. This night will go down in history as the night the American people discovered their President is an alien.”

Of course they would do that, thought Barack. Not only would that ruin his career, but also the entire Democratic Party. Barack’s people had worked hard to maintain a certain image, but now he would only be

73

looked upon with fear and contempt. The country would go through the most dramatic rightward swing in its history. The very notion of taxes would be associated with secret alien oppression. Barack had always known the risks for himself, but he had not realized the magnitude of its consequences for Socialistica’s plans.

Suddenly, without warning, a gigantic hole was blasted through part of the roof. Debris scattered throughout the room and dust cluttered the air. Slowly but surely, an old figure in a wheelchair made its way through the dust. Barack grinned; that could only be one man.

And so it was. Out of the dust came the unforgettable face of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He faced Barack’s guards, lowering the gigantic metal bazooka from his shoulder.

“Gentlemen,” he said, “Let me introduce you to my friend, Fear Itself.”

A lot more debris flew as Roosevelt opened fire, mowing down everyone in sight.

Once the room was quiet once more, he made his way over to Barack to free him of his bonds. “Did they really think that they could just broadcast your location on national TV without one of us noticing?”

Roosevelt cackled. “Good to have you back in the fold, O. Let’s get out of here.”

“And this,” Paul Ryan finished, “is how we explain why Clint Eastwood’s speech was a flop. What do you guys think?”

All of the gentlemen began debating amongst themselves. The meeting room quickly became loud and unruly. Donald Trump suddenly stood up, motioning for silence.

“I love it, Paul,” he said, “my only concern is that the voters will get the impression that we are losing this galactic war, an impossibility. We are the chosen party of the founding fathers after all.”

Many people murmured in agreement. In the far corner of the room, a hand timidly went up.

“Yes, Mitt?” Paul Ryan groaned. Several people rolled their eyes.

“Are we really in a galactic war?” Mitt muttered.

Everyone in the boardroom laughed the same short, high-pitched giggle. “Do you want to take this one, Mr. Jefferson?” Paul said to the shadowy figure at the head of the table.

74

Dirty Odds Emily Greenberg

What were the chances I’d meet you there, the same night my parents split up? I guess the same chances as a coin landing on heads or tails, of my own parents meeting up all those years ago. She was twenty-two, he twenty-four. They met at a friend of a friend’s apartment. She hadn’t wanted to go and was dragged by a slew of well-intentioned friends who thought it their utmost duty to coax her from the library.

He, on the other hand, had done everything short of sleeping with the host to get an invite. He’d flitted around from job to job for the last few months, always quitting or getting fired before collecting his third paycheck. Free alcohol was a strong motivation for a starving, unemployed college grad. So was the lure of college women, so clueless and desperate. My mother was one of these. She hadn’t had a drink in months, and—her liver having taken a leave of absence and her friends nowhere to be found—she passed out at the top of the stairs, right as he arrived fashionably late. Really, what were the chances? It’s just the luck of it, the dirty odds.

Here’s what I remember the night we met: Music ricocheting off lonely plastic cups. The soft buzz, the gentle hum of conversation. The static whispering in my ears, teasing me with sweet nothings. The clatter of heels, the clinking of ice. And the tap tap tap of your hands on the table one two three one two three.

Like you just couldn’t stand still. Like you were already bored with the place, already planning your next adventure. You fidgeted, ran your hands through your hair, and walked outside singing.

At the time, it reminded me of my father singing in my ears: find a penny, pick it up, all day long you’ll have good luck. The stutter of the hard consonants leaving his lips, the clang of the metal dropping into a ceramic jar. He’d sing this little tune every time he found a penny.

“Pennies are good luck!” he’d say, his dark eyes wild with the same metallic gleam as the coin, his thick mustache twitching with excitement. “Everyone could use a little luck!”

He’s been a pretty unlucky guy. His mom died when he was a teenager. Car accident, I think. He doesn’t really talk about it. His dad was really messed up after that, drank his way to near insanity. So my dad had to raise his sister like she was his daughter, had to work nearly full-time while going to school. Only, his sister ended up killing herself, slitting her wrists one morning. Just like that, gone. That was just the beginning of his poor luck.

We used to drop pennies in an empty pickle jar, he singing as metal clinked against metal. It’s like the song started in his toes and moved upwards, until he puffed out his chest and extended his arms.

Heads or tails. I grabbed two beers and followed you outside, letting the night air slap me across the face. The porch swing was empty. I looked up: you were on the roof, feet dangling over the edge. I climbed the fire escape, and stepped onto the roof. I handed you the beer and sat down. You thanked me with your eyes, just glancing up briefly to accept the drink: the whole city was reflected in them, all the lights just pinpricks.

I remember my mother flipping a coin between her manicured fingers, her white teeth just barely poking through her lipstick. Chicken or hamburgers for dinner. Red sweater or blue dress. Angered betrayal

75

or blissful ignorance. Yes or no. Heads or tails.

I used to sit with her on the living room couch, swirling the remnant dregs of my tea while the last streaks of light streamed through the open window waiting for my father to arrive home from work. He always made up little stories about why he was late. Busy at the office, lots of traffic. We believed them. They were comforting.

I’d gotten the phone call an hour earlier, just before meeting you for the first time. .

“Hey, honey, your father and I want you to know that we love you very much. And—” “Uh-huh.”

“Well, see, the thing is—”

I hear the screen door slam shut.

“So there’s no easy way to say this—”

The screen door shuts again. The neighbors must have been outside.

“And, um, your father and I love you very much but—”

Her breathing shallow now. I can almost hear her heart about to jump from her chest.

“We’ve been having some disagreements, you see and—”

More pacing, her footsteps heavier, slower.

“Well, we thought it would be the best thing really if—”

“We need to spend some time away from each other just to—”

I held the phone at arm’s length from my ear so I could hear the faint hum of her speaking but not the individual words. And I made up my own.

So what are you doing up here anyway?” I asked.

“Trying to communicate with other life forms. Or I’m an undercover cop on a stakeout. Or both. Or neither. Your pick. It’s James, by the way,” you said. It was like having infinite choices without any of them mattering. Really, what were the chances that I’d meet you the same night my parents split up? That I’d take my chances with you, my dirty odds?

O FORTUNA Condescending waiters think that I’m thirteen and boys announce that my cerebral palsy-induced strut is “cute.”

Fuck.

Anna Brenner

ODE TO A LISP Simmering esses Hissing Sizzling It’s like, She’s so hot, even her language burns.

76

The Banker Caitlin Gribbin

From the roof of my apartment, I watch seals at Central Park.

Bent over my basil, pretending I don’t care, I glimpse their rubber bodies in that stale hour when the sun hasn’t splashed the Chrysler building but the stars have been all drunken up.

I wonder why I never wanted to train seals; at my high school reunion, I said that’s what I did.

A block from where I live, pretzel men open The Times.

I smell hotdogs in dirty water and will myself to buy one for all those wasted years, but like a backseat kid, I turn and the stand shrinks into sidewalk.

The florists nod over two-day-old bouquets; I remember buying Laura carnations.

Some boys still do because they can’t afford roses and their girls don’t care.

If someone had told me to grow flowers they would have saved my life.

At the subway, I count tiles on the wall, hoping The Wall Street Journal’s caricatures look nothing like who they’re meant to be, hoping my kids could get here before the train comes, that when I see the headlights, I’ll know when to go, that it’ll be quick and everyone will still be on time but there’s always some guy holding flowers, some kid tugging his sleeve and the train’s here, and I step on it.

77

Thank You! The Artists, Organizers, and Supporters of the

21 Boxes Project

Joe Shelton, our Cayuga Press Liason

Our Advisors at Cornell and IC, Michael Koch and Catherine Taylor!

Roti, Jim DeGraff, “J” of GIAC, and all the other street artists we featured

Sparks, our Ithaca Art Spirit Guide Jennifer Yang, Our Web Wizard!

Dinosaur courtesy of Box #15, by Kurt Piller

To all of the art students who shared Tjaden Computer Lab with us during layout and didn’t throw us out!

78