54 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(04/09/13 4:13pm)
As a result, the College’s School of Arts and Communication has announced the integrated performing arts minor, a revised and remodeled program shaped from the foundations of the theatre minor. Modifications have been underway since fall of 2011, yet the products are finally being seen this spring.
The IPA minor is an expansion of the previous theatrical experiences; it is designed to not only instruct students in technique and performance history, but to “connect people and communities.” As art interacts between individuals and collective societies, classes in the program will focus on the societal concerns that stem from the arts and, ultimately, influence students to create new works of their own.
“In this minor, students recognize that performance is not limited to stage productions but can take place in a variety of venues and forms and for a variety of purposes,” said James Day, assistant dean to the School of Arts and Communication.
The committee formed to reinvigorate the program believed that “theatre” was too narrow a theme for scholarly focus; instead, they broadened the minor to encompass “performance,” hoping this might draw in a greater and more interested population.
They have also given the minor a more fluid structure. Whereas the bygone Theatre and Drama Interdisciplinary minor had four required courses, the IPA minor has only one: VPA 101, or integrated visual and performing arts. Through this base course, students can “gain an appreciation of how our understanding of others and ourselves is deepened through a shared experience in the arts,” Day said. And from there, a number of subcategories arise.
As students progress through the minor, they will have four sections available to them: “Theory, History and Literature,” “Applied Music,” “Visual Arts and Interactive Multimedia” and “Applied Theatre, Dance and Production.” The applied courses allow students to create original work with professional artists, while the “Theory, History and Literature” courses, for instance, study art’s impact on the development of civilization.
Courses like these help to compliment the creative clubs and activities on campus, and as a result, “some students are pursuing this minor to augment their experiences in the many performance-based student organizations on campus or … in their major,” Day said.
And as the minor is still young, it has time to grow and evolve. Students who are pursuing the IPA program can add independent studies as substitutes for elective courses; elsewhere, TTR 391 Internship in Theatre Production is available in the applied theatre section, an opportunity to engage with local theatrical outlets.
The IPA minor’s possibilities have been greatly expanded by the Interdisciplinary Arts Committee, and further college feedback will impact its future developments. Until then, however, its recent inception will be tested by student interest level — the cause for initial changes and the determinant for the next steps.
(04/09/13 2:58am)
By Tom Kozlowski
Opinions Editor
Some of you may have seen Matthew Hernberg’s recent article denouncing PRISM’S transgender awareness week. It was written on the “Young Americans Foundation” site, a paleoconservative sauna for frightened right-wing hotheads, and further plastered on Facebook. I encourage you to read it; then I encourage you to comment on why Mr. Hernberg is wrong. The majority of you will be disgusted by his logic and angered that such beliefs still exist, for his veiled attack on theLGBTQ movement is, sadly, internet bigotry.
Here’s Mr. Hernberg’s target: PRISM, the College’s sexual rights and awareness group on campus, promoted an annual week of transgender awareness by converting several bathrooms in the Brower Student Center and Library Café into gender-neutral facilities, clearly designated by signs. Many people who identify as a different gender than their sex are judged when using the unconventional bathroom. Because they feel uncomfortable, for no fault of their own, they desire an equal and fair social haven in the bathroom, our most private of public places. How does Mr. Hernberg respond?
“(PRISM’s) campaign for equality is nothing more than a social experiment right out of the cultural Marxist playbook … ironically, (it) actually infringes on the liberty and equality of the rest of the student body,” Hernberg said.
Now, Mr. Hernberg is a College attendee with strong conservative opinions. He was even the chairman of the College Republicans in his prime. His opinion, though, is almost fanatical, especially for a changing Republican base. All opinions from either side of the spectrum may be valued for their voice, but it just so happens that some of them are wrong.
Mr. Hernberg is one of those trembling conservatives frightened by the “multiculturalism” movement. Conservatives themselves have been deriding it as “cultural Marxism” since the 1990s, but its definition is hardly concerned with global overthrow of the bourgeoisie. What both of these words describe is the contestation of dominant cultural trends. These types of cultural studies attempt to expose power structures in our traditional society and, if they’re oppressive, challenge them. Consequently, cultural Marxists would likely have opposed slavery, segregation and indentured servitude of the 1950s nuclear housewife. Why? Because these were all powerful cultural ideals in our society that were hard to shake, but that does not justify their existence. They are, or should be, considered despicable, and no different than our culture’s rejection of LGBTQ rights.
But, in Mr. Hernberg’s mind, these changes are an attack on “the very foundation of our great nation.” If this is what defines us a great nation, then I’d rather be a godless heathen listening to the loud rap music and supporting my transgendered peers. These foundations are prejudicial, and they reflect the mentality of aging Republicans and close minded bigots.
If Mr. Hernberg reads, I suggest he examine Judith Halberstam’s study of what she calls “the bathroom problem.” Halberstam, who now identifies as a man, recounts the social stigma against transgendered men and women when using “the wrong bathroom.” The cardinal rule of gender, he says: “one must be readable at glance.” And for those who aren’t easily identified, they face scrutiny, anxiety, fear and sometimes even physical violence. This is not just a specific case study, this occurs regularly. And as our culture becomes more aware of how we constrain the body’s ability to navigate in a binary culture, where traditional gender defenders cry “one or the other,” we must change. We must accommodate these people who face unnecessary obstacles to sharing a normal existence, and we can do that by changing culture.
This, partially, is what PRISM’s unisex bathroom demonstration helps to highlight. Gender, just like our culture, is socially constructed — just as our culture progressed from endorsing racist structures to legislating civil rights, it deserves to progress for the LGBTQ community. But Mr. Hernberg is not convinced.
He believes that your right to use the bathroom is disrupted by letting others feel comfortable in that presence. He believes that dominant culture must be right by the fact that it holds some loose standard. And he believes that accommodating others will divide us into chaos.
“Organizing the community and using what we do in the bedroom to further divide us as a nation, in actuality only divides us more,” he spits. He even dares to quote Abraham Lincoln, who remarked that “a house divided against itself cannot stand.”
Let’s recount what Lincoln did now: he fought against dominant slave culture to help emancipate oppressed people. Now consider what we should do in Lincoln’s legacy: dismantle our malleable culture to erect a fairer, more considerate environment for those with different sexual orientations, even if it means adding a gender neutral bathroom. Mr. Hernberg would do well to remember that just because Lincoln was a white, Republican male did not make him a narrow-minded human being.
Anything termed “Marxist” is a monster to Mr. Hernberg. But that should not conflate the gay civil rights movement with a cataclysmic destruction of capitalist America. This is not a deconstruction of society. Nor is it an opportunity for Mr. Hernberg to cloak real America under the patriotism of his conservative fantasies. Instead, PRISM has rightly turned our heads toward a cultural trend that is unnoticed yet unjust. It has even made straight students feel the discomfort of their transgender peers. If Mr. Hernberg would prefer his two-bathroom model, fine. But I hope he flushes down the shit he’s spewing about a culture long past his understanding.
(03/26/13 5:10am)
The Democratic left may be bending their policies to the conservative right, but here’s one issue that the right can’t get right: changing attitudes over gay marriage.
It’s not a new phenomenon, the GOP has been denying atraditional matrimony, the 14th Amendment, the 21st century and basic human rights for years. But recently, Republican senator Rob Portman shifted in support of gay marriage after his son officially came out. Moreover, swing-state Ohio revealed polls shifting public support in favor of same sex marriage, up to 54 percent. Naturally, Republicans quickly began patching the hull in a ship already sank: they were happy for Portman, they even respected his individual choice to change positions. Why they treat that any different from the concept of same-sex marriage, I’ll never know. But despite the superficial support of his party comrades, no one else would budge on the position. Even as they’re losing votes.
New Gingrich, for example, believes heterosexual marriage will never change “no matter what politicians decide.” Yet, based on the principles of representative democracy that Gingrich just so happens to participate in, he’s responsible to the people. And as society changes its views, so too do laws. This is why Gingrich is unable to own other humans as slaves, regardless of his desires to use slave labor on his moon colony. Culture changes, tradition is fickle. And herein lies the fundamental misunderstanding within the GOP.
Ultimately, government needn’t be making these decisions at all. Religious unions and same-sex marriage could receive the same legal benefits without federal law constructing protectionist definitions. If we allow gay individuals the opportunity to seek their own equally identified unions while saving religious institutions from administering them, the government’s blessings will be cut out completely, pseudo religious precedent finally broken. After all, the limitations of marriage are only socially constructed — it takes a nation of narrow-minded millions to hold us back.
(03/19/13 4:20pm)
Mystery writer Agatha Christie never handled prescription meds in her stories, but “Side Effects” might be the product of her plotline on Lexapro.
Sure, the sets are less exotic — Christie’s Nile becomes a drizzly Hudson River and the Orient is a forever overcast New York labyrinth — but the new film from director Steven Soderbergh is simple modernization of a formula already well-established.
Drama, sub-character investigation, resolution. This one’s just heavily medicated.
In the 21st century of prescription panacea, Soderbergh attempts to make a film as close to an eloquent murder mystery as the times can provide.
To do so, he turns the drug industry and modern emotional distress into weapons as lethal as knives or candlesticks in a game of “Clue.”
Their initial victim, then, is Emily, undergoing unspecified white collar despair. She’s played by Rooney Mara, former “Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” detective, now girl with the manic depression.
It seems strange to watch such a powerful actress as Mara being subdued into a hazy, soft spoken invalid — that’s a role for someone like Kristen Stewart. But like any decent Christie tale, Mara is at the forefront of the murder.
She’s married to actor Channing Tatum’s heavy-handed Martin, a convicted felon of insider training.
Just out from a four-year sentence, he returns to find his wife Emily prescribed to “Ablixa,” but what he also notices are its glaring side effects.
They’re quite common by-products of medication: sleepwalking, lack of memory, and stabbing your husband after chopping some tomatoes.
After all, Ablixa’s the perfect name for a pill that makes you kill your loved ones. This is a murder mystery. What did you expect?
The rest of the film is carried by an antagonism between Emily’s psychiatrists: the heroic-looking Jude Law and the snake-eyed conspirator Catherine Zeta-Jones (then again, that’s how she always looks).
Emily’s stabbing spree has landed her in a psychiatric ward, since it’s the side effects of the pill that made her do it.
But Law’s character suspects differently. All that remains is for the audience to connect the dots while the film catches up in another hour.
Following a formula can make quick hits. Blockbusters, sequels, they make themselves accessible by being equally obvious to an audience unprepared to think.
“Side Effects,” to its credit, takes topical issues in today’s healthcare playground and twists them into a semi-cynical narrative, one screaming “this could happen to you.” That’s probably unlikely though.
The only reason this would ever happen to you is if a déjà vu from other mystery movies kicks in to falsify its originality.
For in a genre so easily bought and sold, “Side Effects” is a clever, ineffective placebo.
You will take it when asked. But upon the credit roll, you’ll only feel a slight sensation of boredom and relief.
(03/05/13 5:30pm)
The College Union Board and WTSR’s Battle of the Bands allowed student bands to showcase their talent on stage while raising money for a worthy cause on Saturday, March 2. Emerging victorious was Knuckle Puck Time, defeating last year’s staunch winner The Dundees.
Each band faced a prepped and persuasive repertoire of student groups vying for the title, but a close decision was called in favor of Knuckle.
Their talent and modernized R.E.M. style were ultimately hailed a fan favorite.
In order to crown a victor and raise money, raffle tickets were available for student purchase, each ticket valued at one vote and $1 to charity. Once bought, students could support their favorite group in the final vote and compete for prizes given by WTSR, the College’s radio station.
Unlike other Rathskeller shows, Battle of the Bands had a dual appeal through entertainment and charity. For band members under the gun, reputation and notoriety are at stake in their performances.
As the winner also receives airtime on WTSR, the ambition to play well exceeds the normal occasion. Yet, on a humanitarian level, the event provided invaluable fundraising for topical issues in need.
Due to ongoing reconstruction efforts in New Jersey and other areas, following Hurricane Sandy CUB’s Rat Chairs decided that the money raised could best be allocated to disaster relief — in this way, audience members felt more involved with the program, both musically and charitably.
“Its great to see students come out and support their friends’ bands,” said Rat Chair Brian Green. “There is a lot of good music around here that people don’t notice, and I believe this event gives students the chance to perform too.”
Battle of the Bands is additionally unique for the extra production necessary for a successful show.
Event organizers had to spread the word to students and local musical outlets, promote the event in advertising, and then audition bands recruited from the area.
WTSR’s contributions were also a large factor in the show’s significant appeal.
“WTSR was a huge part of the success of the event and planned a lot of the details. They were fantastic and really helped make the event go so smoothly,” Green said.
For students and performers who enjoyed this semester’s Battle, they can almost certainly expect to see the shows continue. CUB’s Rat Chairs hope the event’s popularity will grow with such a diverse source of campus talent, while student musicians remain ever eager to jam out.
(03/05/13 5:00pm)
In the past ten years, two similar movements have walked hand in hand toward larger goals — the equality push for same-sex marriage legalization and PRISM’s annual Queer Wedding. Comparatively, their sizes are dramatically different. Yet in scope, they advocate and embrace the same ideals that make their cause all the more worthy.
Here on campus, PRISM is the only organization devoted to nurturing the many sexual orientations of its students and members. They strive for acceptance and tolerance for all walks of life, regardless of “who they love.” Naturally, then, the 10th anniversary of PRISM’s Queer Wedding, held on Thursday, Feb. 28, cast the event under a particularly powerful light, a scene luminous with love and community, yet still carrying a torch amid society’s apprehension.
It was a close-knit ceremony. A small crowd gathered within the Allen drawing room to watch their dearly beloved friends marry lifelong partners — fictionally, of course. But the ceremony was set up to mimic the spirit of a real wedding. An aisle between the chairs, vows exchanged, even a sullen piano playing the intermittent score to a dramatic romance.
More importantly, the PRISM members leading the event were energized to lead a program so dear to them.
“Thanks for coming out tonight, no pun intended,” senior women’s and gender studies major Remy Lourenco said. “We’re here to show that if we can foster and produce love between friends, then we can also do it between couples.”
With that said, four couples were wed for the occasion, each representing a different cultural significance behind marriage. The first, a Hindu ceremony between a sophomore participant and freshman Jordan Stefanski, expressed the passage of love as a series of seven steps around a candlelit table, each movement propelling their union to a deeper spiritual level. As they finished, a particular line resonated with the ritual, “As the heavens are stable, as the mountains are stable, as the entire universe is stable, so too will our union be stable.”
Following the Hindu wedding was the Jewish rendition, wedding debonair freshmen partners Andrew Edelblum and Amanda Vuocolo. Their portion highlighted the notion that “everybody gets married at a wedding,” spiritually if not physically. In reality, though, the crowd was most excited to watch Edelblum triumphantly stomp on the traditional glass, cries of “mazel tov!” hailing from the crowd.
The third marriage was a special case — an Aztec pagan wedding between freshmen Disha Dass and Tommi Granados. Even without a formal religious code to follow, the couple professed their devotion to one another while sitting on an ornate throw rug spread on the drawing room floor.
Finally came the Christian wedding, on this occasion pairing two women: freshmen Hailey Marr and Sierra Shade Holland, with Marr donning the gentleman’s suit. This required some audience recitation of a blessing said in unison and bestowed upon the lovely couple. For the women, though, they were pleased just to be a small part of the ceremony.
“(The wedding) had much more of an effect on me than I thought it would initially,” Holland said. “I was so excited when Hailey p roposed to me, but couldn’t be more grateful to be a part of the beautiful ceremony that took place that night.”
Marr, too, was glowingly in agreement.
“It was a wonderful experience, and each of our ceremonies held similar elements of love, commitment and dedication to one another,” she said.
With a reception, dancing and lavish honeymoons in Eickhoff Hall yet to come, the ceremony came to a close, but not without leaving audience members with a few thoughtful musings.
“We are vulnerable, but that is not a bad thing,” said Lisa Caton, the campus chaplain. “It makes us need each other, and it is a sign of our humanity.”
Ultimately, these sentiments echoed through PRISM’s mission membrane and the larger movement at hand. The drive for same-sex marriage equality on a national scale is just as human as the matrimony witnessed here on campus. It is the definitive sign of faith and reliance that evokes the humanity mentioned above — anyone present at The Queer Wedding could stitch that intangible connection. And indelibly, it leaves a mark.
“By holding the Queer Wedding as an advocacy event, anyone in the audience can see just how simple the right to marry can be,” Holland said. “I was raised to believe that nobody should ever be discriminated against due to their sexual preference, gender, religion, ethnic/racial background or anything else that makes ‘ze’ who ‘ze’ is. This lesson is one I have and will continue to carry with me in my heart and through my life”
The Queer Wedding may not have the national stopping power to end discrimination against sexual equality, legal and real, but that would be an unreasonable request. What it accomplishes, though, is almost immeasurable— the bonding of different students of diverse backgrounds into spiritual unions unlike any other. If college undergrads can manage to fictionally commit themselves to one another, then those couples fighting for unorthodox marriage in reality deserve the love and support witnessed so clearly among PRISM’s members.
(02/26/13 5:51pm)
Pessimism can come naturally when watching the Oscars (especially if you were expecting “Les Miserables” to win Best Picture). Upsets are even quite common. The Academy tends to vote with a particular slant that doesn’t match the winner of a true consensus — “Pulp Fiction” losing to “Forrest Gump” in 1994, Beatrice Straight winning Best Supporting Actress for just four minutes of film in 1976, and “Titanic” over anything else released since my baby videos.
Yes, the pessimism is bitter. Yet, even though I broke my six-year streak of picking Best Picture correctly last night, every winner was justified in their triumph, every actor, writer, and even sound mixer worthy of their praise.
Rarely would I spill my love for winners that I didn’t pick, but 2012 proved a remarkable year for film. Daniel-Day Lewis embodied the spirit of Lincoln with such uncanny similarity that we may never picture the historical figure again. Jennifer Lawrence mastered all range of emotions in “Silver Linings Playbook,” from guttural to impassioned. Even Ang Lee bumped the indomitable Spielberg for a Best Director Oscar. Consider that Lee is a man who once directed “The Hulk.” This is either a comeback or a grave mistake. But an anomaly so strange also reflects the raw power of last year’s cinematic roster.
Still bitter? The fact that “Zero Dark Thirty” and “Skyfall” tied for Best Sound Editing is incredible. No one really cares about the category, yet all its nominees were heatedly strong.
Still crying? The show itself was logistically the best in years. Seth McFarlane hit all celebrities without remorse, ever edgy without desecrating a picture of the Pope (since Sinead O’Connor, that joke has resigned). Suave Sinatra numbers, Jennifer Lawrence tripping upstage, Michelle Obama on Skype, and Adele winning another award — well, at least the former three make a lavish ceremony.
And still trying to sway the Academy? The fact is that the Best Picture category was inundated with so many potential winners that selecting any one of them is some small injustice. “Argo” just so happened to be the best concentrated effort.
Snobby film fans (me and the one other dude who saw “Amour” in America) will still berate for debate’s sake, how nine-year old Quvenzhané Wallis was the real Best Actress and how Ben Affleck only won for that beard. But somehow, the world is at peace. And that’s largely because Quentin Tarantino is a winner once more while Kristen Stewart a winner nevermore.
(02/19/13 6:49pm)
“We all know the parties that have attracted immigrants into this country have been the ruling parties,” said Senator John McCain in 2006. In typical confusion, he also stated “Build the danged fence!” around the same time. For McCain and friends, Republicans can best win the hearts and minds of Hispanic immigrants by building ideological barriers, divides between us and them. Such a failed philosophy is practically ripped from Field of Dreams quotes: “If we build it, they will come.” In actuality, they will come one way or another, but they will not come to your vote.
Such Republican tact, coincidentally, is just how President Obama won re-election.
The Hispanic vote was critical in 2012. Seventy-one percent, in fact, went to Obama, while Romney collected the scraps. As the numbers were released, Republicans finally came to realize the coup de grace they had strategically self-inflicted — just as McCain noted, the immigrant vote is the winning vote, and the GOP is consistently losing it.
This brings us to the current immigration debate teetering on Capitol Hill, one in a series of pleas for reform. The recent State of the Union address made it clear that this was a necessity. Republicans, remembering their dismal election figures, also see an opportunity to gain immigrant sympathy in the next vote. But momentum has been slow; Obama has already refused to haphazardly deport illegal immigrants, against far-right animosity for amnesty, while a consensus on visas and requirements is far from certain.
Now, from within the gridlock, Obama’s immigration legislation has been leaked in USA Today (of all professional magazines out there). It’s classified as a “Plan B” if and only if Congress is unable to act. But if there’s one cry of agreement from the Republican caucus, it’s that Obama’s plan is unacceptable.
For a party awkwardly lifting their arms for an inconsistent immigration embrace, denigrating the President’s hypothetical proposals is a rough start. Some of these radical changes include permitting illegals to gain citizenship over an eight year period, completing criminal background checks, submitting biometric information, and paying both back taxes and fees for any new visas. They’ll also be forced to learn English and U.S. history, coercive notions that should be attractive to All-American conservatives. Evidently not.
There’s also provisions for security: an expansion of the “E-Verify” system that allows businesses to check the legal status of workers, for one. Even more personnel and funding for the Mexican border are on the table, a suggestion that’s been a boisterous Republican darling. Yet, conservative lawmakers still condemn the plan.
The rationale? It would be “dead on arrival” to the Congressional floor, says Senator Marco Rubio. To the GOP’s “rising star,” the plan neglects to “follow through on previously broken promises to secure our borders” and places priorities on illegals over those legally awaiting citizenship. If you disregard that Obama’s leaked proposal addresses the border and then eschew that illegal immigrants are at the core of this debate, Rubio’s statement might make sense. Of course, Rubio prefers to address the fictional President haunting his mind. It allows him to earn the “rising star” status of radical Republican imagination.
Certainly it’s possible that Congress will create a plan before Obama’s is sent to the floor. And certainly Republicans would like a handful of Hispanic votes under their belt. As you can see, the best method to achieve this impossible feat is to bludgeon Obama’s pro-immigration plan back over the border, an expression of Latino-love only possible from the heart of Republican contradiction.
(02/08/13 12:43am)
As the College and Ewing Township find themselves both more interdependent and more responsive with one another, the local Ewing Town Gown meetings have been assembled to broaden these relations. Their Tuesday, Feb. 5 meeting was an example of this goal — at its core, to improve student conduct in a community where residential concerns run high.
Both sides, preparing to tackle local issues, were represented on the board. Heading the meeting was Ewing Mayor Bert Steinmann, joined by Business Administrator James McManimon. Representing the College were Dean of Students Magda Manetas, Director of Housing Shawn Stalling and Student Government President Christina Kopka. Their mission statement: to “improve communications, analyze issues of common concern, and facilitate mutual participation in community, cultural and civic activities.”
These are overarching ambitions, but the meeting quickly channeled into a discussion on student behavior, particularly the call for more supervision and self-regulation.
Manetas illustrated the point with statistics on student incidents from the past semester. Approximately 51 occurred between August and September, with about 141 students involved. Sergeant Dave LaBaw of Ewing Police also discussed the 297 summonses handed out to students for various violations including a majority of underage drinking reports, noise ordinances and property maintenance.
Manetas hoped to offer solutions from the College. For one, a new student code of conduct has recently been instituted after several years of revision. This, she claimed, will help answer misbehavior rife in alternative housing settings and share information quicker with police.
“(The new code of conduct) articulated that off-campus behavior would be included in our violations and would be adjudicated on-campus,” said Manetas.
A representative of the College’s Inter Greek Council also spoke to the public, promising not only more dedicated strides towards disciplinary action within Greek life but also, to the community, greater outward respect.
But for Ewing residents, this would not be enough. Public comments expressed continuing cautions that the student population be more aware of its neighbors, some of whose doorsteps sit directly outside campus. Speakers proposed instituting more service programs, such as the successful Here for Home initiative, while others urged that cameras be erected to catch traffic flow in and out of campus.
Residents displayed their wishes to see students thrive without seeing their own livelihood invaded by late-night ruckus.
Flooded with suggestions, the Town Gown board has seen an increasing demand on their hands for action and strategy. There is potential for partnership between the College and the community if both sides can seek solutions together. Yet, by working directly with the student body to mold its conduct, the College has promised results, a work in progress within a community that just begins where the campus ends.
(02/05/13 6:49pm)
Fat puns, “Joisee” jive and polarized opinions dominate the public perception of New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. To a boisterous East Coast population, he has ascended to some degree of legacy in his first term of unabashed politicking. A weighty reputation rests upon his shoulders — a doer, a mover, a shaker and other physical movements that are notably tiring to do.
And here plunge the jokes again.
(When ever will this state see its promised Ben & Jerry’s reforms?)
But it does not take a scholarly panel to render a rational opinion on Christie, nor does it take a gesticulating Italian-American. It requires a bit of clarity on his agenda instead. For, in lieu of past New Jersey governors, Christie can be praised as a man adamant on his word with divisive policy initiatives fighting to upset many.
Critics would be hard-pressed to dispute Christie as a man of the people. His sober rhetoric can be refreshing in an era of partisanship; slathered in slang, pulsing with brolic, the Governor is able to send honest (and generally unforgiving) words to the people in and out of his state domain.
During a pervasive storm season, Christie is a staunch advocate for citizen safety and state aid. Hurricane Sandy, for example, saw Christie working among the ruins, bulging and sweaty with down-to-earth dirty work (and an appearance on SNL soon after). But for those who avoid his warnings, his candor has a certain charm: “We will not come back to get you,” he insists. Always aggressive, yet charming among the wreckage.
With practicality in mind, Christie is not always blindsided by his party. When a childish NRA ad attacked White House security for protecting the Presidential family with guns, Christie spoke out. “To talk about the president’s children, not by their own choice, but by requirement, to have protection, to use that somehow to try to make a political point I think is reprehensible.” Fellow Republicans called him a sell-out to the gun-ho crusade; I consider his reaction to be rather genuine, folks.
When Christie slumps, however, he’s prepared to fall over. His abrupt cancellation of the rail tunnel between New York and New Jersey scrapped a convenient economic opportunity. Elsewhere, his failure to adopt bipartisan same-sex marriage and medical marijuana proposals is still difficult to stomach (at least for us).
But his most controversial platform remains an iron-fisted dedication towards education reform. The notion is nice. New Jersey does need a comprehensive strategy to combat failing schools and modern innovation. That same sentiment does not stem from his policies, though. Cutting budgets without seeking renewed investment does not lead to later benefits. Attempting to dismantle the SFRA, the state’s school funding formula, neglects the data and background that provide proof of its legitimacy. He prides himself in a savage hunt for teachers unions and their generalized performances. He’s even failed to take advantage of Obama’s Race to the Top school initiative, a bipartisan plan providing grants to certain education incentives. At a press conference, he claimed the Obama administration cheated him out of a grant — in private meeting reality, Christie snubbed a deal with teachers unions that would have made the state eligible (see the Michael Grunwald Times article for hard truths). Where his passion for misguided education reforms come from, only a impossibly meritocratic mind set can say. But that won’t pass the test when state performance is on the line.
There’s plenty to digest here. Christie has larger than life ambitions and a hefty political presence in today’s national arena. He’s a character, for sure; but love him or hate him, some facts on his record could elevate the discussion from his waistline to his head.
Of course, Christie has lustful visions of the Oval Office. Expect to see him running for the GOP primaries in 2016. Or maybe panting is more appropriate. Oh, it’s just too easy. Fo’get about it.
(01/22/13 8:02pm)
In my lifetime, I’ve never seen a more divisive year for Oscar competition than 2013’s reeling lineup (and I’ve lived as long as Betty White). Safe bets for Best Picture can usually be dropped on a standout film. Here, we have several.
An ear to the door of the Academy board room will hear them leaning toward a few overdue winners, the Chosen Ones. Instead, we’ve been handed a nail-biter.
Of course, it’s my responsibility to throw my hat into the ring. Like other film fans, I make predictions as a challenge of expected results — first to be pretentiously pleased when I’m right, then in letter-writing rage when the Academy doesn’t take my advice.
After all, they’re to blame for my sunken gambles. The Oscars may be a nail-biter, but I can still bite the hand that feeds. So, in preparation for that magical night that I haven’t been invited to yet again, here’s a guide to who should win in my film-fandom fantasy.
Always start with the category that you can’t possibly fail. This year’s Best Foreign Film is practically in the arms of French slow- burner “Amour,” a movie already spoon-fed success by critics domestic and afar. Its well-deserving 85-year-old actress Emmanuelle Riva can turn your attention away from her age and directly into her sadness.
Hence, an accomplishment from the French who usually inspire resentment more than anything.
From here on out, though, the Oscars descend into guesswork Hunger Games; an 85-year-old geriatric and a six year old girl grapple over a Best Actress statue, while their contenders — young, attractive women like Jennifer Lawrence — woo the academy with their charm.
Despite six-year-old Quvenzhané Wallis’s overwhelming performance in “Beasts of the Southern Wild,” the Academy tosses aside young actors for later use.
More reasons to hate the Academy. Instead, take a chance on Emmanuelle Riva. The age factor is ever in her favor. Fans of “Les Misérables” are desperate to see Hugh Jackman sing his way towards an Oscar. That may have been possible if this had been another year (like 1832, maybe). But in 1865, Abraham Lincoln helped pass the 13th Amendment.
Or rather, Daniel Day-Lewis did. His down-to-earth embodiment of America’s Civil War president is so textured that you forget the date outside your theater, a mighty reincarnation of a historical figure you’ll never study with the same eyes. Day-Lewis is Lincoln, and expectedly, he’s the Best Actor winner.
Now the final blow. In the past decade, nine out of 10 Best Pictures have also hoisted up a Best Director with them. It’s not hard to couple the two together. It is difficult to pick which one, though. Such an exceptional repertoire of movies in a single year puts a safe guess in limbo.
But, when in doubt, narrow your choices down to “Argo” and “Lincoln,” straightforward, crafty and elegantly designed. If loan sharks demand an answer at gunpoint though take “Lincoln.” Steven Spielberg is a Hollywood heavyweight that tends to steal the show.
In the event that I rig the Oscars, expect to see Quentin Tarantino and “Django Unchained’ claim every award, even some Grammy’s. The Academy, in its closed door smog, begs to differ: take my predictions and you’re bound to maintain some minimum respect the morning after.
That or you’ll have a plausible explanation for why you lost so much money on an old dead white dude from the 1800s.
(01/22/13 6:38pm)
By Tom Kozlowski
Opinions Editor
It’s finally on our doorstep. The time spent avoiding even the thought of gun control has caught up with us, not in some intellectual evolution of momentum, but in bullets and numbers, in calamity as commonplace. For just as we left school, another one fell victim to a scenario beyond imagination. Beyond our glamorization of guns, past our most frightening “what-ifs;” but it’s the “what-if’s” that have shown us what must be done. And I’ll be damned if I allow the NRA to hold our logic at gunpoint.
Their position is lopsidedly simple: the unrestricted, patriotic freedom to lay your hands on firearms. Any grade, any power. As extreme as the pro-gun position is, many blow the anti-gun advocates out of proportion too, a problem all on its own. They blast the anti-gun advocates for what they don’t believe in, the elimination of all guns whatsoever. For the NRA and its ilk, conspiracy and misunderstanding are almost as dangerous as the guns they tout. But there is no police state takeover. There are no political games being played on the graves of Newtown’s victims. There are merely those trying to make a difference and those too narrow-minded to get out of Dylan’sproverbial road.
Fortunately, President Obama’s gun control plan has refocused some of the debate. It’s about time, too. Mass shootings are hardly a black comedy joke where hands should spring up, palms out, shouting “too soon, too soon.” Yet they do, and that must be changed. As does our inability to properly discuss this plan.
Here are some considerations: we do not have unlimited freedom. That’s a big one, I might add. We’re prohibited from yelling “fire” in a crowded theater. We have to buy car insurance, and we’re penalized from driving that car too fast on a highway. One of those already violates the sacrosanct First Amendment — so when did your Second Amendment become Old Testament law? Mine is subject to limitations like everything else. A “well regulated” militia and the government responsibility to protect is citizens automatically nullify that argument, no matter how loud you can yell “freedom” over the Grand Canyon.
Now here’s a question: when have you (or a phone-a-friend buddy) benefited from owning an assault rifle? To hunt with a semi-automatic AK-47 is a long shot; to prevent crimes with, more importantly, it is undocumented. I don’t dispute the legitimacy of carry-conceal laws. What I do know is that every reported case has occurred with a handgun or shotgun. If you support taking high-powered, large magazine weapons from the hands of the mentally ill, then perhaps we should start by taking them from the public. After all, we’re the ones who least need or use them.
I asked my hard-right neighbor an easy question the other day. “Would you pass Obama’s gun control measures if you thought they would save one life?” She said no. I asked again. “Let me remind you that the measures include mental healthcare reform, school safety funding, and a director for the ATF.” Again, she said no. She thought I wanted the government to control our lives.
Such thinking will never make us safer, only more paranoid. This is a debate flooded by emotion, partisanship reigns. And a tact Obama gun plan is only a brief antiseptic. But assess your options again. To potentially reduce 36,000 gun crimes a year or watch them persist — the NRA may have the guns, but the brains aren’t so easily acquired.
(12/05/12 6:04pm)
Despite the logic of protesting students, campus preachers were found this week to be totally and unequivocally right about every word they’ve ever said. Fortunately, this will cut down on time students spend fact-checking them on outdated issues like science, evolution, philosophy and recipes for vegetarian cooking.
The preachers, local messengers of the Divine Being coming to bury us in fire and brimstone, have suspected this for quite some time. In fact, their strength has grown because of it.
Religiously appearing twice a week, the preachers have stormed their post outside the Brower Student Center in biblical proportions, carrying with them only warm tidings and the promise of eternal damnation. Students need this, too; in a collegiate breeding ground of paganism and meal equiv, you can never be condemned quite enough. I know I can’t. So, as the idea grew that whatever shouted suddenly became truth, these middle-aged dudes became prophets.
“Why waste your money at a school that teaches you useless knowledge and bury yourself in debt?” one angel of animosity asked me. Instantly, I knew he was right. What was preparing to enter the job market and securing a future for my children when I could yell at hungover students instead? I dropped out immediately and have since been reading the Old Testament from a box in the street.
Unfortunately, not everyone was as receptive. When being told they were “sinners from birth” and are “going to Hell,” a group of docile do-gooders decided there was no point to following society’s rules any longer. Instead, they rioted across campus, looting a pair of off-brand jeans from a stunned preacher and stealing other student’s plates at the Wok station.
Worst of all, some biology major tried to voice an objection, pitiful and smart like, during a daily sermon. Luckily, the lacrosse team was nearby to club him down with their sin sticks — just getting “Adam and even” with the science dweebs, one preacher remarked. He then handed out parchment of religious texts to replace existing textbooks.
The preachers were also able to disband all clubs with anti-Jesus initiatives, such as the College Democrats, Prism, Library Pillow Fighting and all other religious organizations. They did absolve the frat houses, however. Said one preacher, “Hey, somebody has to turn water into wine.”
But these are only minor adjustments to campus life, aside from the all-knowing preachers taking over the administration and renamining us The Church of New Jersey. Students can now take comfort knowing that, while being singled out and criticized for the things they’re not, they actually are. After all, the preachers said it.
“It was hard being told my sexual orientation was wrong,” said one Prism attendee. “But one look at Saint Ryan Gosling, and the preachers showed me the light and abs of the lord.”
We could learn a thing or two from these noble, soapboxing Trentonites. Really, we should take these missionaries lying down; humility, manners and their devotion to demonizing students on a weekly basis are only a few of the valuable lessons here. Not getting a haircut, as the Old Testament says, is still absolutely right. Our well-groomed preachers said that best.
As winter approaches, though, our omniscient, angry ministers may return to hibernation, getting their voices back for the coming spring semester. But at least we know the truth now, and only when hell freezes over will our friendly, neighborhood deliverers ever be wrong.
(11/09/12 6:40am)
The bloody carcass of Election 2012 has finally been dragged to rest. Beaten past death by gaffe absurdity and pundit clubs, the brawl for the presidency has reelected Barack Obama as the winner of a contest that one can only describe as “I’m not Mitt Romney.”
Liberals, rejoice: You’ve been granted four more years with your boy in office and a smidgen of rationality. Conservatives, where are you moving? Escaping the continued plight of fictional socialism must be the top tier of the agenda. I suggest flocking over the sea and east. There, you’ll be rudely awakened by an encounter with real socialist realities.
Yet, as I write on Election Night, the Romney supporters have slumped to bed. FOX called the election for Obama before midnight, just as the clock struck and their glass slippers faded away. Dick Ross predicted a landslide for the Governor, now his squeaky voice is silent in the sand. And God knows O’Reilly is crying into Limbaugh’s chin.
The College’s Romney rooters have also gone dark. Raucous STUD conservatives shouted a resounding “no!” and then slinked back to their caves. Facebook is abuzz with sadness and doom, but personal human contact is far too grotesque. Ultimately, the balloon has popped. All except for students scarfing chicken fingers in T-Dubs, whose glazed eyes believe that Leonard Lance just won the presidency.
But set flamboyant sarcasm aside: These results do spell sincere consequences, and faith in the President is far from vanished.
Look at the paintballed electoral map. Conservative turf like Colorado blued. Democratic senators like Elizabeth Warren trounced popular Republicans like Scott Brown. Maine and Maryland are legalizing gay marriage. These changes are not as dynamic as the GOP revolution of 2010, but they point clear, national fingers. Where citizens have been offered Republican politics, they have accepted the Democratic leadership instead.
What can we humbly ask from this election? For four years of unrestrained cry Congress in Washington; for four years of increased freedoms, economic and social, and a diplomacy to brighten foreign affairs; and in my highest hopes, our greatest need, a paradise retreat to sense and sensibility.
No one knows where these four years will tread. Not even I can predict just what we’ll accomplish. But at the very least, you can share in the growing anticipation of watching Sasha and Malia hit the dating scene.