791 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(04/16/09 12:00am)
Author: Murray Dry After the Vermont legislature enacted the gay marriage bill into law last week, over Governor Jim Douglas's veto, news reports described Vermont as the fourth state to achieve this task, after Massachusetts, Connecticut and Iowa. Vermont actually deserves more credit than that, since every other state that now has gay marriage achieved that result through its state courts' interpretation of their state constitutions. Vermont did it the right way, because the constitutional arguments that take the decision on gay marriage out of the political process are as problematic as the constitutional arguments that took the abortion decision largely out of the hands of the electorate. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the foremost advocate of women's rights, acknowledged that the Court went too far in Roe v. Wade in an interview she gave in October of 2008. Her point was that legislatures also have a role to play in defining civil rights.The Vermont Supreme Court decided, in Baker v. State (1999), that the state constitution's "common benefits" clause required that same-sex couples receive the same benefits from the state as married couples. The court left it to the legislature to decide on marriage or civil unions. The legislature, after an emotional debate in both houses similar to the one that took place recently, decided on civil unions, and Governor Howard Dean signed the bill. Ten years after the court decision, the legislature, after calling hearings on the issue, decided to bring a bill for same-sex marriage to the floor. The bill passed by a substantial margin in the senate and a margin just under two-thirds in the house. After the Governor vetoed the bill, the House mustered the necessary votes to override the veto, 100-49.As a result of such action, the issue is not likely to divide the state as it would have if the court had interpreted the state constitution to require gay marriage. Chief Justice Jeffrey Amestoy, who wrote the court opinion in Baker v. State, had served as the state's attorney general and did not want Vermont to become another Hawaii, where the state court's decision was overturned by a constitutional amendment, as California's supreme court decision has been overturned by a constitutional referendum. The Campus, in its editorial last week, called this a "bittersweet victory," criticizing the governor for his "blatant disregard for civil rights and public opinion." And my colleague, Professor of Russian Kevin Moss, likened the governor's veto to Governor George Wallace's "standing in the school house door" to prevent desegregation of the public schools in Alabama. While I thought, and hoped, that the governor, who did not favor same sex marriage, would simply let the bill pass into law without his signature, he decided that the issue was important enough for him to vote his conscience and veto the bill. He surely did not veto the bill to win political support. The Campus does not mean to say that the governor should follow public opinion when he decides what bills to veto. So the serious charge, which both the Campus editors and my colleague lodge against the governor, is that the bill supports civil rights and to veto it was the equivalent of supporting the racist policy of racial segregation.The reason that legislatures have a role to play in defining civil rights is that neither our federal nor our state constitution defines rights in detail, thus necessitating interpretation. The broader the judicial interpretation, the narrower the range for democratic self-government. For example, if there is a draft in the future, only males will be called up, not females, since combat restrictions remain in place for women. That may or may not be sound policy, but the Constitution does not forbid it and should not be interpreted to forbid it. Likewise with the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays in the military. The policy may no longer be sound, but that does not mean that courts should tell generals about "unit cohesion."The analogy between race and sexual orientation that is used to attack traditional marriage laws fails to acknowledge the distinctiveness of the legacy of race-based slavery. The natural equality of rights of our Declaration of Independence suggests a color-blind Constitution; it does not necessarily suggest that there is no place for classifications based on sex or sexual orientation. There has been no United States Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage because the advocates rightly estimate that the Court would decide against them and they do not want that precedent. The strongest argument my colleague makes in his essay last week is "Civil rights are not a zero sum game: recognizing my rights will not deprive you of yours."He may be right, and because I can appreciate the case that he and someone like Andrew Sullivan make for allowing gays to marry, I am pleased with the Vermont decision. But the opponents of gay marriage are not bigots and they have legitimate concerns. These concerns involve the optimal conditions for child rearing. The strongest case for retaining the traditional definition of marriage is to allow the body politic to affirm its preference for having a child raised by a mother and a father, rather than by two mothers or two fathers. Once marriage is redefined, as it now is in Vermont and in three other states, public authorities there will not be able to express any preference for having children raised by a heterosexual couple.It's important for self-government in America that judges appointed for life do not take every controversial question regarding civil rights completely out of the political process. So I come back to where I started: three cheers for Vermont, the first state to get to gay marriage the right way.
(04/16/09 12:00am)
Author: Kaity Potak As the celebrations of GAYpril get under way, last week's decision by the Vermont state legislature to overturn Governor Jim Douglas' '72 veto against the proposed marriage equality bill could not have come at a more appropriate time. With a bold swiftness that inspired heated debate across the state, Douglas vetoed the bill that proposed replacing civil unions with civil marriages for Vermont's same-sex couples. Less than 24 hours after his veto, though, Douglas' opinion was overridden by both the Senate's overwhelming majority of 23-5 and then immediately thereafter by the House with an equally impressive vote of 100-49. As Vermont Democratic Chairwoman Judy Bevans said in a press release last week, "Our country can once again look to Vermont's citizen-legislature as leaders. We provide the light of hope to young gays and lesbians in other states who have no civil rights at all. By its actions today, Vermont declares that equality is, still, the fundamental basis for democracy."Douglas has, in the past, been very clear about where he stands on the issue of marriage equality in Vermont. "I believe our civil-union law serves Vermont well and I would support congressional action to extend those benefits at the federal level to states that recognize same-sex unions," said Douglas earlier in the month in a formal statement regarding the bill. A representative from the Douglas administration was unavailable for comment.Vermont, which was the first state in the union to allow civil unions regardless of sexual orientation, is now the fourth state to legalize same-sex marriage, joining Massachusetts, Connecticut and Iowa. Vermont is the only one to do so through legislative action instead of judicial ruling.Now that the law has been enacted, Beth Robinson, board chairwoman of the Vermont Freedom to Marry Task Force, said its focus will be to provide support to Vermonters and to reach out to those who still do not support same-sex marriage."We're the first state in this country that has enacted a marriage bill through our representatives," Robinson said. "That puts us ahead of the pack, and I think this is absolutely a first for Vermont."Last week's decision was also an enormous personal victory for Vermont's gay population. In a treatise entitled "Why I don't want a Civil Union," Professor of Russian at the College Kevin Moss ardently argued that granting only civil unions was comparable to a public admission that gay people are second-class citizens."Gay couples don't want to change the definition of marriage," he wrote. "We don't want gay marriage. We don't want same-sex marriage or same-gender marriage. We don't want a separate category just for us: as the courts have recognized, that can only be discriminatory. We just want equality. Marriage."But doubt still exists about how to reconcile those values of marriage and equality, and the surrounding controversy, it seems, has implications that extend far beyond the realm of gay rights into a much more general investigation of social patterns. As Laurie Essig, assistant professor of Sociology and Women's and Gender Studies, pointed out, there remains something strange about the fact that more than 1,000 state-granted rights and privileges of American citizens are determined by a social construct that many find to be increasingly insignificant."Why can't we all have the same rights and privileges regardless of marital status? Why can't we define our families as we wish?" said Essig. Chelsea Guster '11 and Christine Bachman '09, co-presidents of the Middlebury Open Queer Alliance, support such critical dialogue. "The question is not necessarily why don't queer couples receive the same treatment that heterosexual couples do, but why aren't all of these rights and benefits bestowed upon people in general? I have absolutely nothing against two people that want to be together, but why are these rights even associated with marriage to begin with?" Guster said.Essig elaborated futher on the social trappings linked to marriage in our society."Marriage is not randomly distributed throughout the population," Essig said. "It has a particular racial and class formation. It has become not just a set of rites, but a set of 'rights' that are about property, status, race and sexual purity. While I celebrate with gay marriage advocates for obtaining their rights, I would also like to focus on healthcare for all. On families defined by love, not the state; and a government that does not create a sexual elite of married couples to have more rights and privileges that the majority of Americans who are unmarried do not enjoy."To be sure, many other disfranchised groups may also struggle with the inequalities associated with being gay. Today, 96 percent of white women in the U.S. will marry at some point in their lives, while less than 45 percent of black women will. Seventy percent of black children today are born outside of marriage. In fact, only 23 percent of Americans are actually part of nuclear families, which includes step families."Why shouldn't all of these rights be given to all of the people possible?" Bachman said. "This is addressing gays and lesbians in couples, but for many people this isn't the only issue. What about single people? What about three people who love each other? They need support too. There are many questions and communities that are not being addressed in the same-sex marriage struggle."As for Douglas' place in such a struggle? Whisperings of positioning himself within the GOP and looking out for the future of his political career erupted last Monday after his veto. While some expected his vote, many of his constituents still found it dismaying."I think it is likely that he is looking out for his future, voting along party lines," Bachman said of Douglas' decision. Disappointed after last week's proceedings, Robinson accepted that the Task Force may not be able to rely on the governor for support in the future the way they had previously hoped. "The fact is," said Robinson, "the governor had the opportunity to be part of something special and important. He passed it up and I just feel bad for him."Instead, the Task Force's efforts are focusing on reaching out to Vermonters and joining the already active dialogue to which people such as Essig have contributed."I hope that we can now begin to be neither for or against gay marriage," said Essig," but rather for the rights of all residents of the U.S."
(04/09/09 12:00am)
Author: [no author name found] Following the veto issued Monday by Vermont governor Jim Douglas '72 against a pending bill legalizing same-sex marriage - legislation that passed by wide margins in both the House and the Senate - lawmakers were not the only ones up in arms. Across the nation, onlookers promptly delivered an outpouring of protest against Douglas' decision. At Middlebury, Professor of Russian Kevin Moss penned an op-ed that appears in today's pages. His argument about civil rights, particularly that they are "not a zero-sum game: recognizing my rights will not deprive you of yours" strikes a chord no matter what one's position on the issue in question.Upon discussing Monday's events, we at The Campus were instantly prepared to decry Douglas' blatant disregard for civil rights and public opinion. And when the veto override came the next day, we rejoiced, knowing that the governor had bowed in response to overwhelming constituent support for the bill.But the debate over same-sex marriage is about more than politics. It is, as Douglas said in his veto statement, an "intensely personal" issue - one that finds libertarians aligned with liberals, and constitutionalists allied with many conservatives. Douglas made his choice about the veto based partly on his personal belief that "marriage" should remain between a man and a woman. Naturally, we may never know exactly how much of the veto was influenced by Douglas' personal convictions. But for this reason, we must evaluate Douglas not merely on the outcome of his decision but on the very philosophy that led to that decision. In a statement announcing the move, Douglas claims that he does, in fact, believe in granting full and complete civil rights to the gay community. This seems confusing. How could a governor who professes to support civil rights now scuttle a bill meant to extend those same rights to an underrepresented minority? In fact, while Douglas is a strong supporter of Vermont's current civil union law - which, as it stands, fails to deliver the same rights that legal marriage does - the governor has also expressed interest in expanding the scope of civil unions such that they would receive the same federal benefits that marriages already enjoy.Sadly, Douglas' call for Congress to legislate federal-level civil unions for same-sex couples is unrealistic and unattainable - at least in our lifetimes. Perhaps the governor knows this, making his politically infeasible offer of an alliance with civil rights activists little more than an empty gesture. For this attempt at spinning the issue, we must protest not merely the governor's decision to issue the veto, but the political strategy standing behind it, as well.
(04/09/09 12:00am)
Author: Veracity Butcher Ever wonder why the morning after felt slightly stilted? You'll get ready for a date (or some fated dance party, expecting to meet a hottie boombody), have an amazing time indulging in pre-coital mating processes, but when it comes to the sex, fizzle out.I hate unfulfilling sex because I know it's sometimes half my fault. There are times when I've just not been that into it. I was there mentally, but my body resisted. Sex was uncomfortable.Women store their ejaculate in the back of their vaginas, and sometimes to get fully wet need a little finger coaxing to stimulate lubrication. Using lube during sex helps reduce painful friction and can make it last longer.One might assume that a girl goes dry because she has ceased to be horny, but ejaculation and arousal don't have a simple correlation. Some women have experienced lubrication during sexual assault. Theories suggest that our bodies have adapted to rape, engaging our arousal muscles to protect ourselves from injury. Our bodily functions don't know better.Using lube, or water, during sex is perfectly natural. Just avoid submerged sex. I retract the claim I made in my first article. The wetter not always the better. The pH levels of the vag get disturbed and you risk infection if you douche with anything, particularly douchebags. Good sex is like a three course meal: you want to relish every dish. Take your time. Have some wine.Long-lasting sex helps women achieve orgasm; after about twenty minutes of pounding, her groin muscles involuntarily contract, and some women even come. After the first orgasm, she'll be able to peak quicker. Jonathan Margolis, in "O: An Intimate History of the Orgasm" says that if a woman is stimulated right after coming, she is likely to orgasm successively. If you're skeptical, I beg you to try.Men can be multiorgasmic too, it just takes practice. Learning to contract the PC muscles, the ones which control urination, can actually prolong ejaculation and supposedly, allow men to have dry orgasms. You can practice while you pee! Kegel exercises are beneficial for both sexes, and train muscles to be more sensitive and responsive.Chia and Abrams' "The Multi-Orgasmic Man" explores the process of arousal and ways to, essentially, defy nature and prolong pleasure. Women could get a lot out of the book as well. Its philosophy is based on Chinese energy flow and reflexology, but suggestions like licking the roof of your mouth are enticing - I wonder why it tickles. The book also offers masturbation exercises to help men hone their jedi skills. Sounds like a fun read.Its up to us to meet our partners halfway; why not enjoy the process? Most of us shave before a date. I suggest we masturbate. You can get away with five o'clock shadow, but your self-esteem suffers when you leave a sexual experience disappointed. Seriously, you can't walk around with a loaded pistol. Don't take your body for granted. Just think. Everyone can benefit from another orgasm or two, shouldn't we be pursuing the best of all possible worlds?Please e-mail me anything at vbutcher@middlebury.edu.PS: Don't flush feminine hygiene products!
(04/09/09 12:00am)
Author: Kevin Moss The governor of Vermont, a Middlebury graduate, has vowed to veto Sen. 115, the bill that extends marriage equality to same-sex couples. He says he has friends on both sides of the debate, and that beliefs are "deeply felt and passionately expressed." He also says, "For those on either side of the vote to sternly judge the other's morality and conscience is the only true intolerance in this debate."I grew up in Louisiana in the '50s and '60s, where beliefs about race were equally deeply felt and passionately expressed. Most in my family were passionately anti-integration. They applauded another governor, George Wallace, when he stood in the schoolhouse door, courageously standing up for states' rights and for the right of the majority to decide for the minority. Many people passionately believed that the governor was protecting the God-ordained division of the races. Yet I think today few people would have any problem judging the morality and conscience of those who wanted to keep blacks in their place and out of white schools. Would we claim that "the only true intolerance would be to sternly judge" racist views, while intolerance of people because of their race must be respected? Just because a belief is deeply held does not necessarily mean it has to be respected or treated as equivalent to every other belief.By threatening a veto of marriage equality, Douglas today is doing the equivalent of that other governor standing in the schoolhouse door. Fifty years from now his grandchildren will probably feel the same way about his legacy as I do about my grandparents' racism.Comparing Douglas to Wallace does not, of course, mean that discrimination against gays and lesbians in 2009 is exactly the same as discrimination against African-Americans in the '60s. Yet the fact that they are different kinds of inequality should not be used to deny gay and lesbian Vermonters the right to marry, as some have attempted to do (I'm thinking of Sen. Randy Brock and a young woman who testified). Civil rights are not a zero-sum game: recognizing my rights will not deprive you of yours. Nor are civil rights only based on one kind of discrimination. They belong equally to all.Julian Bond, chairman of the NAACP, recognized this when he said, "When someone asks me, 'are gay rights civil rights?' my answer is always, "Of course they are." Even more eloquent was the statement of Mildred Loving, whose interracial marriage led to the Supreme Court ruling on miscegenation in 1967:"I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people's religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people's civil rights. I am still not a political person, but I am proud that [my husband] Richard's and my name is on a court case [Loving v. Virginia] that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight, seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about."Last week's special edition of The Campus meant that I couldn't get this letter in before the governor's veto. By the time this goes to press, the legislature will likely have confronted both the veto and the necessity to override. I have collected over 200 signatures from Middlebury faculty, staff, spouses and friends opposing a veto and supporting marriage equality in Vermont. Even if the veto is overridden and we can celebrate, which I hope we can, I urge the Middlebury community to remember Governor Douglas's shameful stand in the door of equality.Editor's note: Governor Douglas' veto was overriden on Tuesday by both the Vermont State House and Senate. This Op-Ed was submitted by the author prior to this event.
(04/09/09 12:00am)
Author: [no author name found] 4/7 - State lawmakers voted to override Governor Jim Douglas' Monday veto of a bill allowing same-sex couples to marry.The Senate passed the bill with enough support to garner the two-thirds majority needed to override the veto, 23-5. The House announced its 100-49 vote on Tuesday, which effectively legalizes same-sex marriage in Vermont. For detailed coverage of the impact of Douglas' veto, the legislative override and the new law, see next week's issue of The Campus.
(03/19/09 12:00am)
Author: Elizabeth Scarinci The steeple of the Congregational Church of Middlebury is the most defining characteristic of the town's skyline. But despite the steeples that dominate many Vermont towns, religion is a declining landmark of the state. The most recent American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS), released March 9, showed that a record 34 percent of Vermonters claim no religious affiliation, making Vermont the most secular state in the country, followed by New Hampshire and Maine.The Program on Public Values at Trinity College recently conducted the last of three surveys from 1990 to 2008. On a national level, Americans who claim no religion almost doubled from 1990 to 2008. In 1990, 8.2 percent claimed no religion, which spiked to 14.2 percent in 2001 and is now at 15 percent. The number of people answering "None" grew in every state.Vermont's status as the leader of "Nones" is an issue that Vermonters themselves can unfurl. Professor Larry Yarbrough, chair of the Religion department at the College, speculates that part of the reason is that Vermonters are independent and freethinking."For the most part, they are not susceptible to be led one way or another, and that definitely comes in [to play]," Yarbrough said.Anne Brown, communication director of the Episcopal Diocese of Vermont, said that religious institutions could be better communicating their missions and relating them better to Vermonters' lives."I think this is a response to the failure of the institutional religious bodies to respond in a creative and helpful way to the search for meaning," Brown said. "We have often been more focused on maintaining tradition than on meeting people where they are with something that works for them."Yarbrough said he would be interested in a survey that asked the people who claim no religion if they were spiritual but just did not associate with an organized religion. He speculates that many Vermonters who find themselves spiritual would say that they can encounter God in nature.Associate Professor of Religion Rebecca Kneale Gould said that, in some circles, religion is becoming less relevant, while in other contexts, particularly conservative, evangelical ones, religion is on the rise. In the former category it is often the case that people are turning to nature as an alternative form of spirituality. Gould has published a book called "At Home in Nature: Modern Homesteading and Spiritual Practice in America" which interprets the lives and practices of people who live closer to nature and find spirituality through living harmonious, self-sufficient and anti-consumerist lives."In term of the homesteading movement, it is often the case that people are born and raised in Jewish and Christian families, and then these religions cease to be meaningful to them for a lot of reasons," Gould said.She commented on the cultural shifts in the 1960s that played a role in the rise of homesteading. "These people would say that nature was it, that nature is the ultimate authority and source of meaning," said Gould.Yarbrough said that on many issues and even among admittedly religious people, "Vermont has been ahead of the curve." He commented that Vermont has been supportive in giving leadership roles to gays and lesbians in the church and has been at the forefront of the movement to allow civil unions to same-sex couples. Brown added that the liberalism of the church has both attracted and discouraged people."We have lost some people over the liberal attitudes of many in leadership in the diocese, but we have also gained some who have been attracted by our inclusiveness," Brown said.St. Mary's Church in Middlebury proves to be the exception to the trend, having seen an increase in attendance over the last several years. Father William Beaudin of St. Mary's Church said that is largely due to the church's relationship to the College, active clergy and social outreach. "Middlebury is a rarity because it only has one immediate parish community," Beaudin said.Yarbrough speculates that some people will turn to religion in hard economic times."My guess is that religious attendance will go up in some places," he said. "They want to get back to their roots. They want some sense of security and long-term purpose." Gould stressed the complexity of the issue of reported religious "decline." She said that it is important to recognize that not everyone fits into the categories that the survey provided, which were: "Catholic, Other Christian, Other Religion or None." She proposed the complicated scenario of someone who shies away from the religion that they grew up with, but is still shaped in a major way by that religion. Perhaps after her children are born, she may bring them to church on a more regular basis, but she actually doesn't go along with much of the church doctrine and would never become a member. She primarily likes the hymns, the general spiritual atmosphere and the opportunity for her children to learn something about their religious heritage. But she has a hard time stomaching what others - including the church authorities - think she ought to believe. "How would you categorize a woman like that one?" Gould queried, "Is she religious or non-religious?" "Religion is really messy," Gould said. "This survey makes it look structured, but the numbers cover over a situation that is much more complicated than that.""As a former mentor of mine used to say," Gould concluded, "You can turn people into numbers, but you have to turn them back into people again.
(03/12/09 12:00am)
Author: Vera Butcher There's been a lot of sex talk on campus. The "I Heart Female Orgasm" lecture was well attended by both sexes, Robert Jensen came to campus for a male-only discussion on pornography, and a film in which he's featured, "The Price of Pleasure" - a documentary on the effects of pornography - will be screened in Axinn 229 tonight at 7 p.m. We're lucky to have access to these resources, and it's wonderful we're opening up to each other through using them. But I still feel that at Midd, we're talking about sex more openly than we're actually doing it.You know that small tinge of shame the morning after a blurred night. Okay, if you're lucky, you don't. But picture it: you get on your weekend dancing shoes, pregame with your friends, then head over to a see-and-be-seen party where you bustle through the half-chitchatting, half-dancing crowd to the bar, pour yourself a drink and proceed to check everyone out. You may be picky or you may have no scruples at all, but within the first five minutes you know exactly who you would sleep with. If you're single and ready to mingle, you go for it. There are a few faults with this strategy, and not just because drunken sex can be awful. You deny yourself the joy of getting to know someone you sleep with in a meaningful way. Getting comfortable with someone. Being able to freak freely. It's also hard to feel the butterflies if you haven't courted someone. No matter how hot or cool a person is, interacting on a late-night level will be exponentially less sexy than, say, a daytime rendezvous. My best sexual relationships have always been with people I got to know.Okay, now it sounds like I'm espousing monogamy, but I'm not. I think having random sex can be empowering too. Sometimes it feels good to have no strings attached. But what about sleeping with one of your friends, someone you know and trust? Having an F-Buddy always sounded fun to me. Sex can be great outside of exclusive relationships. But why not have a steady partner, or even partners, to practice with?Relationships like these are less common, I think, because sleeping around is conceived as dirty. Terms like "slut" and "player" oversimplify the entire collaboration. The only people who are truly dirty are those who resist using protection and continue to be promiscuous. Just because we're living in a bubble does not mean we're not susceptible to disease. Women our age are more prone to HPV than ever, and although men cannot be tested for it, they do spread it.Trust is so essential in having a healthy sex life. If we continue to be horny scenesters, we deprive ourselves of great sex (great sex = sex + orgasm, orgasm = pure glee, you see where I'm going with this) and we may even be putting ourselves at risk. Talking about sex is not enough. Rationalizing too much can even get in the way of doing the do. We know the ins and outs. Now lets explore how to use what we know (and always, what our partners teach us) to achieve optimal results.Questions? Remarks? E-mail vbutcher@middlebury.edu.
(03/05/09 12:00am)
Author: Andrey Tolstoy Every age projects its anxieties onto a perceived conflict between humanity and technology. In Plato's time, it was feared that literacy would destroy the art of oration. At the end of the nineteenth century, it was feared that horse-drawn-carriage-loving London would drown in manure. Ours is the age of Google-phobia.There has been a flurry of articles in the past year - notably by Nicholas Carr (The Atlantic Monthly) and Andrew Sullivan (The Atlantic Monthly), less notably by David Small (The Middlebury Campus) - decrying the impact of Google, Facebook, instant messaging, online porn, etc. on our ability to socialize, read a book, pay attention, exercise, call our parents, have healthy sex, finish homework, etc.This happens periodically as our vices, which hitherto had been calcified in some supposedly innocuous form, find new ways of expression, and are therefore perceived as new demons, borne out of a changing society corrupted by its Faustian disregard for the tried and true tenets of the past.The root of this problem is the fallacious belief in moral progress. Surely, each of us has a way to go as a human being - and many would claim that their lives are devoted to self-perfection - but our concurrent belief in eternal human truths, evidenced by the timelessness of our cultural heritage, suggests that every generation repeats the same cycle, and doesn't advance relative to its predecessors.What we are afforded by every technological advance is the opportunity to rewrite the same cultural texts in the language of our own time. Those whose hindsight is less than 20/20 regard this as the displacement of forms they come to perceive as traditional and more legitimate. Much to their distress, the dominance of the novel has been supplanted; for the public - by film, for writers - by modernism. Our current predicament is that of postmodernism: redefined authorship, cross-genre and crossmedia. What many see today as rare uses of the Internet for curious but ultimately trivial means will be seen by our successors as the art of our time - and inevitably as better than that of their contemporaries.When Nicholas Carr writes, "In Google's world, the world we enter when we go online, there's little place for the fuzziness of contemplation," it is nothing but alarmist hogwash. He knows well that online circulation is greater than that of print - and if it leaves little place for contemplation, it is the content, not the medium, that we have to blame. The question implied by Carr et al. is whether we've finally arrived at the medium that will alter its content. Let us entertain the notion by looking at another disciple of the Church of Cultural Apocalypse.With the self-righteous tone of a man familiar with, and resigned to, his weaknesses, Andrew Sullivan laments the growing list of books he wants to read, but cannot bring himself to: "I think I'll start with Nietzsche at some point. But right now I have a blog to fill." Under the lens of his own criticism, he is an apt illustration of why the Internet is seductive, dangerous, and should be approached with no less than full-body protective gear.Yet readjust the historical field of view, and it becomes clear that Sullivan's behavior is only symptomatic of the binge that follows any kind of liberation. Imagine the vigor with which our predecessors must have taken up writing when it occurred to them that their thoughts - their thoughts!! - could be graphically reproduced and disseminated. Or look at the first films ever made: they just show people walking and trains moving, like those early days of livejournal, when most entries were about taking naps and eating sandwiches.Culture is not Andromeda. Get over it.
(03/05/09 12:00am)
Author: H. Kay Merriman "Sometimes there are advantages to 'coming' early," sex educator Dorian Solot joked to the occupants of a crowded Dana Auditorium last Thursday, Feb. 26. Solot's pun 'set the mood' for the rest of the evening. Laced with innuendos, tips, facts and positive encouragement, the "I Female Orgasm" lecture 'aroused' laughter and discussion about the sometimes elusive "Big O."Both the men and the women in the audience held high expectations for the event."I expect the males in the audience to learn something. It's a public service, really," said Jess Minton '10.5.Mark Hannah '11, a self-described "aspiring porn star," bragged that the workshop "should be like Math 101." From public services to porn, Solot and partner Marshall Miller - "We have both professional and personal experience," Miller explained with a wink
(03/05/09 12:00am)
Author: Lea Calderon-Guthe To see Robert Jensen standing behind the wooden podium at the front of Ilsley Public Library's basement meeting room, no one would have guessed that this slight, bespectacled and amiable man, an associate professor at the University of Texas at Austin's School of Journalism, would condemn the direction of today's society and paint a picture of the end of the world.But on Feb. 28. as the 15 or so audience members gasped in shock or nodded in righteous agreement, Jensen graphically described the state of pornography and used it as a measure of our society's ills. He began very simply."Pornography is what the end of the world looks like," Jensen said. "If you look at pornography honestly, what you will see is a vision of a set of values, values rooted in hierarchical systems around gender, around race and around an economic system that I think are fundamentally unjust and unsustainable. If you look at especially the direction pornography is going and is likely to continue, what you see is a very disturbing picture about what the end of these systems looks like. And it ain't pretty."The Addison County Coalition against Domestic and Sexual Violence organized Jensen's talk, titled "The Pornification of Pop Culture," and most of the audience members were women from domestic violence and child abuse prevention programs. Jensen's approach to pornography elicited many nods and knowing looks in these women as he stressed again and again his fundamental theory of pornography: the eroticized subordination and domination of women. He supported this theory with an explicit depiction of the evolution of the sexual script in pornographic films - these films, generally of heterosexual intercourse produced for a target audience of primarily heterosexual white men, are what Jensen meant when he referred to pornography. When pornographic films first became socially acceptable in the '50s and '60s, they featured primarily vaginal intercourse between a man and a woman. By the '80s and early '90s, anal sex was a wildly popular feature, and in today's pornography Jensen cited acts known as double penetration, gagging and a-- to mouth as common elements. Why the change in the sexual script? Jensen said an executive in the porn industry explained it to him the best when asked about the move to anal sex in the '80s."Anal sex is not part of the regular sexual preference of most straight women," Jensen said. "[The porn executive] said, 'Men know this.' He said, 'When men get pissed off at women, they think to themselves, 'Boy, I'd like to f--- you in the a--' as payback. But most men are not in situations where they can do it, so they like to watch it done to women on the screen.'"The brutality reflected in this response is the same motivation Jensen pointed to behind the more recent pornographic evolutions.He placed his theory in line with femininist critiques of pornography - that pornography itself is not a bad thing, but that the way in which it is made and the attitude it reflects towards women are horribly damaging to both women and society."We could have had pornographic scripts that were focused on egalitarian sexuality with mutual pleasure, with lots of foreplay and expressions of intimacy and caring," Jensen said. "It didn't happen."Melissa Deas of the Domestic Abuse Education Program, which works with men who commit acts of violence towards women or children, raised the issue of porn's psychological effects on men."Men objectify themselves as well as they objectify women," Deas said. "We need to go deeper into that and think about teaching men to view themselves as sacred and their sexuality as sacred and precious."Jensen acknowledged this idea, but not to the extent Deas wanted. She called for social reform at the ground level in teaching men that their bodies are sacred life-givers just as women are taught that their bodies are sacred vessels for life. But Jensen only went as far as recognizing the objectification of men. "[Men] are trained to take all of the complexity that comes with being human and reduce it to this task of obtaining sexual pleasure," Jensen said. "In a patriarchal society, that's how sex is most commonly defined for men."According to Jensen, in pornography, everybody loses their humanity, but the consequences remain considerably more dire for women than for men. To illustrate his argument, he referred to noted writer Margaret Atwood's famous description of fear between the sexes. When Atwood asked a group of men why they were afraid of women, they said they were afraid to be laughed at. When Atwood asked a group of women why they were afraid of men, they said they were afraid to be killed.Jensen's argument is that pornography increasingly propagates both of these fears, and it does so ever more effectively as it infiltrates pop culture in more seemingly inocuous realms."You can see the paradox I'm raising," Jensen said. "In a civilized society, how is it that you can have a mass media that becomes more and more accepted at the same time it is becoming more and more cruel and degrading to women and more and more overtly racist?"At the culmination of his talk, Jensen summed up his characterization of pornography as industrially produced and marketed upon the subjugation of women in a sexual way.He answered his own question using his earlier proposal of pornography as a depiction of the end of the world."Pornography calls into question the assumption that we are a civilized society, that in fact the systems out of which our society is built are truly civilized," Jensen said. "If you have an unleashed patriarchy, an unleashed white supremacy and an unleashed, predatory corporate capitalism, [pornography] is the image of the world that they produce [...] an image in which the most important feature is that there is no empathy possible."Jensen's portrayal of contemporary society is not optimistic But despite his forecast of doom and gloom he remained inspired and he hoped to spur his audience to action rather than depress them."If the world were a bad place just because people were bastards, you couldn't fight that," Jensen said. "Human beings are what they are. If you can see that human nature is channeled through institutions and systems, then you can say, 'Well, I can fight that,' and so it creates the possibility of action. "For me, that action doesn't have to come with guarantees of short-term results to be meaningful."
(02/26/09 12:00am)
Author: Veracity Butcher Getting off is something we all enjoy differently. Depending on our preferences, we engage in oral, vaginal, anal, monogamous, self-satisfying, random, gleeful, gender-bending, memorable, fleeting and surprising sex. Human beings are unique from most animals in their lust for sex. Sex, to us, is not just for babies. Birth control has been around for centuries; Ancient Egyptians experimented with it, and rewashable sheep skins and linen clothes were used before latex condoms hit the market. And then there's the pill, the patch or the ring. Now we just have too many choices to even fully realize what we actually crave.The clitoris is the only organ on the human body that has evolved solely for pleasure. Over the course of history, man has developed quite a large member/body ratio in proportion to his animal counterparts. Our bodies aren't just built for reproduction, we're built for good sex. Orgasming is an ethereal, muscle-snatching experience that we desire. Perhaps we should pursue it more often.What gets you really excited? Chances are, if you're a male, you're more stimulated by images than most women. Pornography can be appealing to women too, but since most pornos are made for a male audience, women just aren't as into it. Personally, I don't mind watching sex on screen if the porn star has natural breasts, and if the story is good, as in the film Short Bus. Women, however, tend to get more turned on by emotion or imagination. In fact, the chances of women being able to orgasm solely through fantasizing is higher than in men. Guys may think about sex all the time, but they don't get off just by thinking. Unless they are really concentrating.Women are often perceived as more sentimental, and men as more action-oriented. It's a gross generalization, but its interesting to keep in mind throughout your sexual education. Different levels of emotional attachment are more sexy to different people and that may have something to do with our evolutionary programming. New research indicates that when a hetero man sees a hot woman in a bikini, he uses parts of his brain associated with handling tools and the intention to perform actions. Women, interestingly, aren't particularly turned on by a naked man unless he's hard: his readiness for sex is what we find sexy. Straight girls can totally be excited by a naked woman if she is in a sexual pose. It's possible that females and males are equally as interested in sex as an "act," but what that act really entails, emotionally and physically, varies according to our personal desires.It's all fine and well to ponder what we are as sexual beings. It's necessary to understand sex as a complex act that manifests itself in countless ways. And while considering the possibilities can make for some racy discussions, what I'm concerned with is not just what Middlebury College students are saying, but what they're doing. In bed. "My walls are really thin, or I'd think no one ever hooked up," says a sexually frustrated junior. "Middlebury needs a forum to date and reach out to each other besides the Bunker or Midd Confessional. We don't overlap much or communicate across social groups." I'm sure that over the weekend, a few of us stumbled home with a stranger (or a friend) and made the "walk of shame" in the icy bright morning. Let's not kid ourselves anymore. Acknowledge yourself as human - armed with both instinct and logic. We all want to cum, so let's pursue pleasure with perspective on what actually pleases us.
(02/26/09 12:00am)
Author: Alyssa O'Gallagher If the name Peter Shaffer sounds at all familiar to you, you are probably one of three distinct types of people: an English major, a theater major or a rabid Harry Potter fan. Unfortunately for all of you Harry Potheads out there, a scantily-clad equiphilian Daniel Radcliffe did not grace the Town Hall Theater with his presence this weekend. While perhaps Shaffer is best known, of late, for casting everyone's favorite wizard in the most recent run of "Equus", the Middlebury Community Players (MCP) chose this past weekend to perform one of Shaffer's more comedic plays, "Lettice and Lovage," originally written for another Potter alum, Dame Maggie Smith.If you've never heard of this thoroughly British comedy, you may be wondering, as I was, how such a blatant typo made its way into the title. It turns out that Lettice does not refer at all to the vegetable, but to the title character, Lettice Douffet (played by the College's own Director of Health and Wellness Education Jyoti Daniere). While Daniere is probably best known around campus for organizing various health workshops, including everyone's favorite "Let's Talk About Sex Week," she also has some thespian blood running in her veins. Her character, Lettice, is a tour guide in the Fustian House, an old English hall which, while boring, apparently has historic significance. She begins regaling visitors with her own "improved" version of history and gets away with it for quite some time, as apparently many college tour guides do. Did you know that McCardell Bicentennial Hall actually is not the biggest building in Vermont? That is until Lotte Schoen, a Fustian house employee (played by a very convincingly British Elizabeth Christensen), apprehends and promptly fires her. A strange turn of events finds the women reunited 10 weeks later in Lettice's apartment, bonding over - what else - alcohol and dead historical figures. While the scene certainly had its merits (Daniere and Christensen really did play quite convincing drunkards), the novelty of two grown women stumbling drunk faded quickly for me. I mean, who hasn't seen their parents on New Year's? While I wasn't dazzled by the story Shaffer builds in the second act, my mild disinterest in the plot did give me time to really focus on the acting. I was genuinely impressed by the sheer quantity of lines Daniere was able to memorize and flawlessly deliver. In my last foray into acting, circa fifth grade, I had enough trouble memorizing three lines, while Daniere tackled close to three hours of dialogue with seeming effortlessness. But what I really found myself most hung up on was Christensen's nearly flawless British accent, something which I, after years of trying to imitate Harry Potter, still have not mastered. While the act itself was a little underwhelming, Schaffer deserves commendations for introducing me to the nearly forgotten 16th century term "quaff," which I interpreted to mean "knock it back." And I do concede that my relative age and more frequent exposure to quaffing may have left me a little desensitized to the true hilarity of the drunken revelry, which really seemed to strike a chord with the rest of the audience. Theatergoer Heidi Huestis, whose sister Robin Huestis was the production's costume designer, found the drunken revelry to be one of the most hilarious spectacles in the show. If Act II left me in a little bit of a daze, Act III, undoubtedly the comedic high of the play, remedied the situation and left me ultimately with a good taste in my mouth. We learn that Lettice and Lotte have developed an interesting relationship where each week, they reenact an important historical figure's execution complete with real guillotines, axes and execution blocks. Act III is delivered in the form of one particularly catastrophic reenactment that leaves Lotte with an axe lodged in her neck and Lettice charged with attempted murder. The interaction between a distraught Lettice and her court-appointed lawyer, Mr. Bardolph (played by Thomas Jackson), and the altogether unbelievable nature of her terribly true story, reaffirm Shaffer's comic genius.If its true that all's well that ends well, then I'd have to say that MCP's production of "Lettice and Lovage" was a success. As for Shaffer, I think he may have relied a little too heavily on Dame Maggie Smith's comedic genius to obscure his own shortcomings, particularly in the second act.
(02/19/09 12:00am)
Author: Andrey Tolstoy When they're not busy polluting our server with oversized miscreants from Photoshop (a.k.a. seizures in a crayon box), staff at the Center for Health and Wellness Education are busy polluting our minds with propaganda most prepubescents would find intellectually offensive. When they should be the stewards of wise counsel for young adults (emphasis on both words), they instead resort to the peppy, outdated, prohibitive, sophomoric balderdash that poisoned most of our high school health education classes. This February, their undesired attention will be directed at our sex lives. It's "'Let's Talk About Sex
(02/12/09 12:00am)
Author: Alex Blair Franz Ferdinand has always been a dance band. On their 2004 self-titled debut, the lads from Scotland used energized guitar and bass rhythms to create the grooves on tracks like the top-ten single "Take Me Out" and the disco throwback "Darts Of Pleasure." Five years later, the band is still making people hit the dance floor, but this time around they seem to have fully embraced the dance-rock genre, making an excellent album brimming with sonic delights and textures. From the opening bass line of "Ulysses," the first single and opening track on the band's long awaited third album, "Tonight: Franz Ferdinand" there seems to be a bit more bounce and groove in their instrumentation. Listen a little longer and keyboards and synthesizers kick in, creating electric feedback that transforms the song from a slow, bass-heavy romp into a dance-pop gem. When lead vocalist Alex Kapranos snarls "but last night was wild," the track's louche undertones rise to the surface, setting the stage for everything that is to come. "Ulysses" encapsulates the entirety of the album: debauchery and dance. The aptly titled "Tonight" is a concept album based on an evening on the town filled with drugs ("I'm bored/Let's get high"), alcohol ("I can imagine/Having a drink with that guy"), and, most prominently, sex ("Lick your cigarette, then kiss me/Kiss me where your eye won't meet me"). In a recent interview with the indie music website Pitchfork, Kapranos stated that the album is a "nighttime record . . . it's got the moods of night to me, it's not like an L.A. sunshine kind of record. There's the idea of suggestion, which makes the night so much more exciting." With a mixture of saucy lyrics and dance grooves and beats, "Tonight" delves deep into the atmosphere of an all night party and doesn't let up for a moment. On "Turn It On," Kapranos bellows the song's title over a backing of electronic rhythms while on "No You Girls," the band's best song since "Take Me Out," the cockiness of the lyrics ("I never wonder/How the girl feels") is matched by the swagger and catchiness of the chorus. "Live Alone" is a full-out disco track with a pulsating beat and waves of synthesizers that create an irresistible hip-shaker. The band's foray into electronic music culminates with the album's longest and most ambitious track, "Lucid Dreams." The near eight-minute epic begins with the familiar dance-rock formula found on the previous songs, but in its final four minutes it turns into pure electronica. The guitars and vocals completely disappear, leaving only a steady thump and droning synthesizers to fill the void. Here the group sounds less like Franz Ferdinand and more like the Crystal Castles or Justice, but it works. Occasionally they'll throw in a few surprises like the opening of "Bite Hard" with its gentle piano playing or the blistering guitar solo at the end of "What She Came For," but even these tracks have catchy, kinetic grooves at their core.Every night out must come to a close, and Franz Ferdinand's finishes with the album's last two tracks, which play as soothing lullabies. "Dream Again" resembles a '60s psychedelic piece with its woozy vocal melody and imagery of "mountains," "oceans" and "canyons". The song still makes use of keyboards and synthesizers, but here they are sparse and used to accent the tune's languid pace. Tonight's final track, "Katherine Kiss Me," is even more stripped down. A mere acoustic guitar is backed by a single piano while Kapranos sings about the morning after. When he proclaims "Yes, I love you" to Katherine, it seems like the album's lyrical theme has changed completely, but Franz Ferdinand wouldn't let it end on such an affectionate note. Kapranos' last words reveal that he really doesn't "wonder how the girl feels," bringing everything full circle and making "Tonight: Franz Ferdinand" one of the best releases of the new year and a hell of a night out.
(02/12/09 12:00am)
Author: Veracity Butcher If you're having bad oral sex, it's not just your lover's fault. Like all intercourse, good oral sex relies on reciprocal participation. Both partners should aim to glean as much gratification from the act as possible. Plainly, aim to come. Here are a few tips on how to do your part.First off, make sure you're fresh and clean. Musty privates are a huge turnoff. Shower if you know you're going to get some. Also, trimming your hair makes it easier for your lover to push your buttons.I can't stress enough how important it is to ask for what you crave. Whether you're going steady or having a one night stand, the whole point of sex is mutual pleasure. Denying your desire will keep your partner from the potential satisfaction he or she might experience in getting you off.Going down on your girl during foreplay makes sex a million times better. Remember to pay attention to both erogenous zones down there. The G-Spot is not a myth. Think of going down on her as preparing her body for actual sex. You can't go from zero to 60 without shifting gears. Get her worked up. Even if she doesn't come during oral, her chances of orgasm during sex heighten if you get her juices flowing beforehand.Giving a good blowjob is an exact science. Every person has their own sexual proclivities, so what works for one guy will not work for all. Just keep in mind that men are sensitive in a few areas around the penis. Use your hand(s) as well as your mouth. Whether you choose to spit or swallow is up to you, but I have heard that guys care more about being able to blow their load in your mouth than what happens to it afterwards. Do what makes you comfortable because the joy in oral is not just reserved for the recipient.There are a few principles that apply to both male and female oral stimulation. For one thing, wetter is better. Second, start soft. Just like when giving or getting a massage, you and your partner should take time to get a sense of each other's styles. Going too rough or too fast right away can be off-putting. Not to be a downer, but you can get STDs from unprotected oral sex, so don't be afraid to ensure your safety. Most importantly, listen and respond. Listening to each other will help you get into a give-and-take rhythm. One of the most beautiful parts of sex is the feeling that you're pulsing in unison with another being. Good oral sex relies upon communication. Speak up if you want it, if you like it, if you want to try something new or if you just want to skip the finale and get down to business. Listening to each other is essential in discovering what gets you off. The more you know about what excites you and your lover, the greater the chance is that you both will feel more ecstatic, more often.
(02/12/09 12:00am)
Author: H. Kay Merriman Valentine's Day is only a few days away, and if you are not a member of the couple spotted holding hands at the Atwater salad bar, you might be feeling a little desperate. With such a small community, Middlebury can be an intimidating place to find a date. Never fear! Juan Machado '11, instructor to the Winter Term workshop "The Art of Seduction," has come to the rescue! Much to the dismay of many single Midd kids, Machado's workshop was cancelled, but just in time for Feb. 14th, he offered his secrets to seducing that he says are "proven effective."Machado clarified that his methods are not by-the-book rules, but an "art" to be practiced, adapted and mastered."[Seduction] is an art because there's no prescription, no script to a lady's or a gentleman's heart," he said. "It all varies according to different people and settings, and there's always a good amount of improvisation required."If Machado's "art" seems too fluid or vague, rest assured that there are a few hard-and-fast guidelines to follow and various techniques to employ."The key components are all social: project confidence, possess a sense of humor, connect with people and be seen as the social center," Machado explained.One way to exude social mastery is by what Machado terms "peacocking.""Peacocking means to dress a bit flashy, even wearing something a bit tacky like a cowboy hat or a ridiculous pair of sunglasses," he elaborated. "It's the equivalent of wearing a conversation piece, and it serves two purposes: to make you stand out in a crowd and to give the opposite sex an excuse to approach or compliment you."In order to fully "peacock," the seducer must possess confidence, Machado's secret to any seduction. He described how he would have helped participants in the workshop to develop this confidence."At the heart of everything is confidence," said Machado. "Our first activity would have been to pick up a phone book and call strangers to ask for movie recommendations. Truly, what you say and how you look are much less important than how you conduct yourself. Without confidence, you won't get anywhere."However, a high level of confidence does not guarantee success. Machado revealed that even as a master of seduction, his heart has been broken."Don't go head over heels for someone, and if you can't help it (I'm often a victim of this), then don't make it obvious," he said. "It's unattractive to go begging for someone's attention, and they will probably lose interest in you. Instead, keep it cool."Machado listed nine types of "seductive characters" or nine "Jungesque archetypes" - personas utilized for flirtation. A self-proclaimed cross between "the Charmer" and "the Charismatic," Machado seemingly abides by his own advice to "keep it cool." Others, though, act quite differently."Ideal Lovers, for example, seduce people by feeding their fantasies of romance and adventure and include the famed Casanova,"he explains. "The Dandies, meanwhile, play with gender fluidity to appear mysterious and include the ranks of Rudolph Valentino and Lou von Salome."Ideal Lovers, Charmers and Dandies alike, once achieving their desired "seduction," must work to maintain and sustain the objects of their affection. Machado offered a prognosis for the current "state of seduction" at Middlebury."Mastering seduction is only good for picking up men or women," he said. "If you want a long-term relationship you have to be interesting, and I think that overall we are a pretty interesting group of people. There's always room for improvement, however."What exactly qualifies Machado to pass this judgment and make these suggestions, you ask?"Years and years of experience ranging from miserable failure to eventual success," he responded.So will the master of the "art of seduction" spend Valentine's Day with someone he has previously seduced or be out and about practicing his technique? The answer remains a mystery, but if you see a "Charismatic" in a "peacocking" outfit, you may want to thank him for the tips or put on your most confident smile and try to use his techniques on the master himself.Happy Valentine's Day!
(02/12/09 12:00am)
Author: Jason Gutierrez MOVIE: The ReaderDIRECTOR: Stephen DaldrySTARRING: Kate Winslet, David Kross and Ralph FiennesAs the film award season reaches its apex in a few weeks, it seems only natural to take a look at one of the films the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences deemed good enough to nominate as one of the year's best picture. I've had many gripes with the Academy Awards and the films they choose to celebrate, and in a year as cinematically weak as 2008, its tough to fault their nominations too much; however, "The Reader" falls far short of what a Best Picture nominee should look like. Based on Bernhard Schlink's world wide best seller, "The Reader" tells the story of Hanna Schmitz, a stern-looking German woman who, of course, has a dark secret. After helping home sick teenager, Michael (aptly played by David Kross), she quickly seduces the young lad. The two develop a relationship wherein sex is preceded by Michael reading the best works of Western literature to Hanna. They go on a bicycling vacation, make their way through The Odyssey, have a lot of sex, and Michael falls in love with Hanna, who remains icily aloof for her part. The romance comes to an end, and Michael enrolls in law school several years later. While there he bears witness to Hanna's trial for crimes she committed as an SS officer during World War II. The aforementioned situations obviously affected a more mature Michael, as evidenced by the flash-forwards to 50-ish Michael (played by a dour Ralph Fiennes), who stares pensively into the distance and slouches everywhere. This, apparently, is the manifestation of middle-aged angst. The film, directed by Stephen Daldry, is a beautiful film to watch. The cinematography by Chris Menges and Roger Deakins strikes the proper balance of beautifully lush landscapes during the first half, which are replaced with a minimal palate of harshly foreboding grays and browns. The performances are likewise fantastic, especially by Kate Winslet. Hanna is not a particularly likeable character, and it speaks volumes about Winslet's performance that she never really asks us to like her, she merely presents a simple and flawed woman, paying little mind to what the audience might think of the character. She is matched by young David Kross, who plays Michael with equal doses of youthful na'veté and angst. It's a crucial performance without which "The Reader" would've been lost, and it's a performance that has been lost in the shuffle while everyone rushes to heap praise on Ms. Winslet. That, unfortunately, is where the strengths of "The Reader" end. Daldry, whose previous credits include the marvelous "Billy Elliott" and "The Hours," has an ear for the obvious. "Have you always been weak?" Hanna asks Michael as she undresses before their first coupling. Cue the sad piano chords. Pan to Michael's hurt face. Cut to Hanna, realizing she has hurt his feelings. It's all very stock, and so obviously cues the revelation that Hanna has a dark past that any kind of mystery surrounding her is immediately erased by the ham handedness of Daldry's direction. Screenwriter David Hare doesn't do the project any favors either, shoving as much empty symbolism into the character's mouths as he can get away with. "The notion of secrecy is central to Western literature," one of Michael's teachers tells him; this barely masks Hare telling the audience that this is a movie about secrets and literacy. Get it? Dialog problems and Daldry's lack of subtlety aside, "The Reader" has an integral, and far more crippling problem: there are two separate, albeit interwoven, stories and neither Daldry nor Hare are able to decide which is the film's central focus. There is the story involving Hanna, her secret and her shadowy past. There is also a story about Michael, his first love, his inability to really move on from Hanna and how this affects his life. But neither is really developed enough to have dramatic impact at their conclusions. Even when held up against such underwhelming films as this year's Best Picture nominees, "The Reader" is a real disappointment, and its inclusion in the Best Picture race to the exclusion of more deserving films like "Che" or "Revolutionary Road" is a mistake. Considering the talent involved, "The Reader" should have been a marvelous film, but with the exception of most of the performers, no one made good on their potential. The results are mixed at best - certainly not "best" anything.
(02/12/09 12:00am)
Author: Mike Waters At a beer tasting class during my semester abroad in Denmark, the host introduced himself as "a part-time alcoholic," which makes sense. In Denmark, with its government-funded education and universal healthcare, one can afford a part-time schedule. Me, I'm an American. I work full-time.My name's Mike, and while I'm kidding about being an alcoholic, I do have a problem: lately this publication has played host to not one, but two sex columns, which seems a gross misrepresentation of the lives of your average Middlebury College student. If you, like me, have ever, say, walked around this campus after dark on a weekend, you might have noticed that it seems far more Middlebury students are drunk on a regular basis than copulating actively. In fact, this ratio is probably considerable. I'd be willing to wager that on an average weekend night, perhaps 75 percent of Middlebury students will consume an alcoholic beverage (perhaps Director of Health and Wellness Educaton Jyoti Daniere will prove me completely out of touch on this statistic), while a significantly smaller number will practice what they've learned from the most recent installment of a Campus sex column. Furthermore, while our administration would be loath to admit it, probably a sizeable majority of those engaging in sex consumed alcohol beforehand. It seems to me that the alcohol-drinking masses are criminally underserved, which is where I come in.I'm no expert on alcohol, but I've had my share. I enjoy a good drink, as well as the occasional bad one, and I think there can be a place for both. In this column, I hope to explore this world of alcohol as it relates to the college experience, and specifically, the Middlebury experience. I'm not here to over-glorify it or rehash embarrassing Friday nights, but I'm also not here to turn up my nose to light beer or the most foolish of foolish drinking games. I just believe that alcohol - in all its forms - plays a sizeable enough role in our college lives that it is worth looking at. I don't believe that you have to drink to have fun, but I do know that some of the best times I've had with my friends have involved drinking alcohol, both to excess and in moderation. And I believe that with a more open conversation about both situations, we can avoid some of the troubles that alcohol can most certainly cause.Over the course of the next few weeks and months, the subject of this column may vary widely. I've got in mind reviews of different alcoholic beverages (with a nod to my own limited qualifications), profiles of different microbreweries, investigations into the broader alcohol industry and where our specific place is in all of this. I don't have a detailed plan, but if alcohol figures as widely into our lives as I think that it does, I doubt that I'll be starved for material. I suppose that this column, like any good night out with friends, begins without a certain idea of where it will end up. But I think that with equal parts seriousness and silliness, we can make it till morning. Although that might just be the alcohol talking.
(01/22/09 12:00am)
Author: Jaime Fuller LAWLESS TOILETS CAUSE TROUBLE AT INAUGURATIONPresident Barack Obama's inauguration on Jan. 20 drew millions of people, but the lack of portable toilets led John Banzhaf, professor of public interest law at George Washington University, to threaten legal action against the Presidential Inaugural Committee. Banzhaf is well known for his famous lawsuit against McDonald's, which he blamed for causing childhood obesity.The reason for his interest in the 5,000 portable toilets on the National Mall is his fear that designating the facilities by gender will result in longer lines for women and possible sexual discrimination lawsuits for the Committee. "Women take longer than men to use the restroom," Banzhaf said. "Having the same number of facilities for men and women does not gather equal results. Failure to equalize this disparate treatment might rise to sexual discrimination suits."In a legal notice he sent to the Committee on Jan. 13, he warned that by overlooking this matter, President Obama and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi were priming themselves for a humiliating predicament, but that the problem had an easy solution."Solving the potty parity is simple," Banzhaf said. "Don't sex-designate them. We are all used to using same restroom on trains, planes and buses. Why is the inauguration any different?"- The GW HatchetCOLLEGE APPLICATION NUMBERS BREAK RECORDSAlthough the forecast for the Middlebury College Admissions Office is not too optimistic, elsewhere applications for the class of 2013 are up by as much as 19 percent, such as at Harvard University.The prestigious university received 27,278 applications, the largest reported increase among all colleges across the nation. The University of Chicago, Amherst College, Northwestern University and Dartmouth College followed close behind with increases of 18, 17, 14 and 10 percent, respectively. The upward trend was a result of demographics, aggressive recruiting, the ease of online applications and more students applying to even more colleges as a safety net, according to officials. The rise in applications is expected to continue next year, when 3.2 million high school seniors will graduate, the largest group in the nation's history. "These are amazing numbers," said William R. Fitzsimmons, dean of admissions and financial aid at Harvard, speaking of the university's flood of applications.However, the rise in applications is not simply caused by the expanding young adult population in America; recruitment of low- and middle-income students in new regions by elite colleges also contributes to the rise. The awarding of financial aid to families making as much as $180,000 by Ivy League universities also has led students to consider a pricey education despite the economic crisis. Unfortunately, the rise in application also leads more hard decisions that admissions officers have to make about the merits of choosing different applicants, which is why Northwestern recently hired a new admissions dean, Christopher Watson, from Princeton, who was accustomed to rejecting many exemplary applicants."We anticipated having to go down the path of having to make more difficult choices," Mills said, adding that Watson helped with "making very fine distinctions among very similar applicants."- The New York Times
