(07/02/07 4:00am)
The driver of the car in which David Halberstam died pleaded not guilty Tuesday to a charge of misdemeanor vehicular manslaughter, the Palo Alto Daily News reported July 11. Halberstam, the Pulitzer Prize winning journalist and five-time bestselling writer originally selected by the University to deliver the May 2007 commencement address, was killed in a three-car accident in Menlo Park, Cali., April 23. Kevin Jones, 26, a first-year graduate student in journalism at UC Berkeley, was spoken for in San Mateo Superior Court by his lawyer Laurel Headley. Jones could be jailed for up to one year and charged $1,000 if he's found guilty. The judge set his trial date for Nov. 13 at 8:30 a.m.Jones was making a left-hand turn on a red light and hit another car with a green light, local authorities said. The two cars slammed into a third due to the impact of the crash. Halberstam died of massive internal injuries.Jones and the two other drivers were in stable condition, none were speeding or under the influence of any substances, local authorities have reported. Halberstam had just given a lecture titled "Turning Journalism into History" at UC Berkeley, and was on his was to an interview for his new book, The Game, about the 1985 Super Bowl between the Baltimore Colts and the New York Giants, as his widow Jean Halberstam told the Associated Press; Jones had volunteered to drive him. Mrs. Halberstam has called on universities not to permit students to chauffer guest lecturers."Mr. Jones has been distraught since the moment of the accident, and he continues to be distraught," Headley told The San Jose Mercury News last month. "He lost his mentor in that accident, and obviously the notice of charges is not welcome. It just adds to the tragedy of the whole situation.
(05/01/07 4:00am)
CORRECTIONS APPENDED AT BOTTOM:A man who spent nearly 20 years in jail due to a wrongful conviction joined his prosecutor, with whom he is now friendly, at a panel discussion sponsored by the Justice Brandeis Innocence Project last Tuesday. In 1984 Dennis Maher was convicted of rape, but the New England Innocence Project used DNA evidence to prove his innocence."I consigned myself to dying in prison," Maher said, "but I always had hope that DNA would exonerate me."The discussion's participants also included Bernard "Bee" Baran, whose guilty verdict for child molestation was overturned; his attorney John Swomley; Robert Feldman, a New England Innocence Project attorney; and J.W. Carney, Maher's prosecutor. The talk followed a screening of the documentary After Innocence, which shows the reentry into society of seven wrongfully convicted individuals who were freed through DNA evidence.Many of the panelists expressed surprise that Maher was not angry about the time he spent in jail.Anger would not have gotten him anywhere, he responded. "I learned I had to be strong to survive."Swomley expressed more passion and outrage than his client."Baran is my age. He went off to prison when I went off to law school," he said of Baran's missed opportunities.The lawyers discussed the two cases in detail, using them to illustrate flaws in the American legal system. Feldman cited two of its common pitfalls: bad lawyers and mistaken eyewitness accounts. Baran said his first attorney was incompetent, often was drunk in court and did not investigate the case sufficiently. "His crime was being a gay teenager and working in a day care center in a blue collar town in the 1980s," Swomley said. "He was victimized as certainly as the other children in this drama by a system that went so out of control that the truth became whatever the believers believed it was."Brandeis' Innocence Project is the third investigative program through a journalism program, and not a legal institution. Most innocence projects only review cases in which DNA evidence is available, but the project here uses investigative journalism methods.According to flyers distributed at the event, only 10-to-20 percent of potential wrongful conviction cases have any DNA material to test. The other 80-to-90 percent require hands-on investigative reporting.Florence Graves, the director of the Schuster Institute for Investigative Journalism, said she hopes people have learned from the event that wrongful convictions are far more common than many people think; "The criminal justice system is in dire need of reform on many levels," she said.The Justice Brandeis Innocence Project is currently researching the case of a Massachusetts man who was convicted for murder, a case referred to them by the New England Innocence Project."You're thrown right into the case. Everyone watches SVU and Law and Order, but it's really hard to believe [a prisoner's] life [could be] in the hands of students. This is experiential learning at its best," said Shakiva Wade '07, an intern at the project. Due to a reporting error, the article incorrectly stated that Bernard "Bee" Baran is a convicted child molester. This guilty verdict was overturned. Additionally, the article incorrectly stated that the Justice Brandeis Innocence Project is the only journalism-based innocence project; Brandeis' project is the third.
(12/05/06 5:00am)
In a stunning turn of events that few could have anticipated in the aftermath of former Seinfeld star Michael Richards' onstage racist meltdown, funnyman Chris Rock was forced to retire from comedy this week after reports surfaced that he, too, has used a certain racially charged slur on more than one occasion during his stand-up routine. Other comedians such as Dave Chappelle and Bernie Mac are reportedly considering similar career moves. Chappelle had no comment but referred all questions regarding fading careers to former costars Charlie Murphy and Donnell Rawlings. By now, Richards has surely come to terms with the idea that his professional future will be inevitably confined to motivational speeches at KKK rallies and romantic dinners for two with Mel Gibson. Personally, I'm surprised he has yet to blame the entire hideous episode on substance abuse and check into rehab to room with Congressman Mark Foley. "You have an actor who is trying to be a comedian who doesn't know what to do when an audience is disruptive," said fellow comedian (who is actually funny) George Lopez. "He's an actor whose show has been off the air, he shouldn't ever be on a stand-up gig." Not to worry, George. I think it's safe to say Richards won't be taking the stage any time soon. Now what to do about those 24/7 Seinfeld reruns? Is it even possible to boycott half of the programming on TV? In other news, Tom Cruise looks a lot less crazy now, doesn't he? As this is the Justice's last issue of the year, I thought it would be fitting to take a look back at the unfortunate year in American pop culture. So, in no particular order, here's a brief retrospective:O.J. thought it would be a good idea to publish a book about how he would have murdered his dead ex-wife. Mel Gibson offended half of Hollywood and will soon release the epic Apocalypto, which tells the story of how the Jews killed all the Mayans. Dick Cheney shot his friend in the face and he's still the vice president. Enough said. Who knew Cheney had any friends? There's one more reason not to hang out with Dick Cheney, if you didn't have enough of them already. Hogan showed the world he knows best, and if you try to argue with that (or step within 15 feet of his hot daughter), he will beat your behind into an over-the-hill shadow of its former self. Kevin Federline proved that if you don't have smarts, looks or talent then you end up broke, divorced and homeless. A similar punishment should be brought upon the 2,000 people who purchased K-Fed's debut album. Joey Lawrence made a bald semi-comeback on "Dancing with the Unemployed Stars" and immediately went back to being a semi-has-been. Danny Bonaduce made every alcoholic in the country feel better about himself. Flava-Flav proved that people will compete over anything or anyone if it's filmed for a reality series. Jack Bauer killed about 1500 more terrorists. That giant Burger King guy scared the crap out of everyone by popping up on every channel, and Snoop Dogg was occasionally released from jail.Here's hoping 2007 provides as much material for satire as this year has.
(10/24/06 4:00am)
Remember Wesley Snipes? You know, that actor who used to be in a ton of ass-kicking action movies during the '90s, but these days, only pops up when someone has the urge to produce another sequel to Blade? Snipes, a Ph.D. in Ninja studies and bad acting, was charged last week with filing false tax-refund claims for 1996 and 1997, as well as for failing to file any returns for five years in a row. Way to be discreet, Wesley. A warrant was filed last week for Snipes' arrest and the actor could face heavy fines and as many as 16 years in prison. Snipes could, no doubt, use the jail time to read through the massive pile of scripts he has been offered over the last few years. That should take care of at least a couple minutes of his sentence. According to a federal grand jury indictment, Snipes filed amended returns for 1996 and 1997 seeking over $11 million in refunds based on section 861 of the U.S. tax code, which Snipes and his cohorts believed exempted him from paying taxes on domestically-earned income. The former star has also requested special treatment from the court because he actually believes himself to be the U.S. Marshal he played on screen in 1998. Snipes sought returns on the $19.2 million he earned in 1997 and the nearly $3,100 he has made since.Snoop Dogg was reportedly busted for attempting to carry a concealed weapon through an airport security checkpoint. "Fo' rizzle?" you may ask. Yes, fo' rizzle indeed. I cannot tell a lizzle.According to law enforcement officials, Snoop (real name Calvin Broadus) attempted to walk through an X-ray machine in an Orange County, Calif. airport at the end of September with a 21-inch collapsible baton stuffed not-so-inconspicuously into his laptop case. Upon further inspection the rapper was also found to be traveling with half of the marijuana in California. The D-O-double-G was not arrested, though detectives did force him to watch Soul Plane nearly 20 times during the interrogation in an attempt to coerce a confession. Tom Arnold and Method Man could not be reached for comment. Snoop himself did provide a brief statement to reporters, though no one in the audience had any idea what the hell he was saying.
(10/10/06 4:00am)
Ludacris has had a busy couple of years since his last studio album. From taking on Oprah to his role in the Oscar-winning film Crash, the Atlanta rapper and former radio DJ has had his share of publicity, positive and otherwise, since his last trip to the recording studio. The Justice participated in a conference call with the 12-time Grammy Award-winner to discuss his latest and most personal album, Release Therapy which reached No. 1 on the Billboard 200 albums chart upon its recent release. While the record includes the requisite share of lighthearted club songs, the rapper best known for songs like "Move Bitch" and "Pimpin' All Over the World" took a much more reflective approach this time around: "I wanted people to see more of a serious side of me," he said.With songs like "War with God" and "Runaway Love," Ludacris' newest release demonstrates a substantial shift in subject matter. The latter song, featuring Mary J. Blige, appears to be Ludacris' answer to critics who have accused the Illinois-born rapper of objectifying women."A lot of women don't talk about what's going on in their past and they carry a lot of baggage with them," he said. "Whether it's dealing with child abuse or early pregnancy or just something that's gone on in certain individuals' lives." The rapper credits his five-year-old daughter as his inspiration for addressing the issues that young women face. "One of the things I learned from Crash was that the first thing in trying to solve a situation or an issue is to get people to talking about it," he said.Despite having sold more than 10 million records, Ludacris still wants to distinguish himself from other MCs and set the record straight with those who have taken shots at him in the past. "I think that a lot of rappers are very one-dimensional and this album is very three-dimensional," he said. "I want to keep people guessing. I want people to always expect the unexpected from me." Something no one would expect is Luda's self-described list of influences, which includes artists like Frankie Beverly and Maze, James Brown, Michael Jackson and Prince. "I happen to listen to a lot of rock 'n' roll," he said. "Like Three Doors Down and Red Hot Chili Peppers, of course, Linkin Park, you know, just to name a few."On "War with God," Ludacris fires back at some unidentified, less established rappers. New hip-hop sensation T.I. is reportedly the song's main target. "If people send warning shots to me I'm always going to defend myself and send warning shots right back," he said. "I'm not the one to be toyed with or messed with or played with."Release Therapy's first single, "Money Maker," features hip-hop prodigy Pharrell and has climbed to number two on the Billboard Hot 100 charts and quickly become a fixture in clubs around the country.On "Do Your Time," Luda enlists fellow MCs Pimp C, Beanie Sigel and C-Murder, all of whom have recently spent time in prison, to convey the reality of life behind bars. "I put three people from hip hop that have all done some real time on the song to tell their stories," he said. Ludacris insisted he isn't trying to glamorize prison life. "I know a few guys who are in prison, and jail isn't something that should be celebrated," he said. "There are so many black men in jail, and not all of them are guilty. We have to start thinking about these statistics and figure out if anything can be done." Ludacris-who in addition to his critically acclaimed role in Crash has appeared in 2 Fast 2 Furious, Hustle & Flow and the television series Law & Order: SVU-has had to field questions from many in the hip-hop community over his focus on acting over the last few years. "[Because of] the roles that I've picked I honestly believe people have taken me a little more seriously and I hope that it would not hinder or hurt how people view me as a rap artist, because they can distinguish between the two," he said.
(08/29/06 4:00am)
The Justice Brandeis Innocence Project, which investigates cases of possible wrongful convictions and aims to shed light on injustices in the criminal justice system, has received a second $75,000 grant to continue the work it began on a provisional basis last year."This was a bit of a miracle," said Prof. Pam Cytrynbaum (AMST) about the grant from the Oklahoma-based Ethics and Excellence in Journalism Foundation. The project received the same amount from the foundation last year.Cytrynbaum, an associate director at the Institute for Investigative Journalism, spent last year developing a provisional innocence project, working with student interns on cases, while also teaching two classes. Unlike last year, this semester students in Cytrynbaum's "Investigating Justice" seminar will work on the Innocence Project's cases. The class will serve as the "launching pad" of the project. The New England Innocence Project, which only works on cases that prove innocence using DNA evidence, refers cases without DNA evidence to the Brandeis project."While most of the innocence projects focus on DNA evidence, 80 to 90 percent of the cases that need investigation have no DNA evidence," said Cytrynbaum, who has played a prominent role for several years in the relatively new practice of journalism-based innocence projects.The grant will go toward paying her salary, student researchers, speakers and "all kinds of costs that go into really building something," she said, adding that she is looking into hiring an additional professional reporter "who can really move this along."Cytrynbaum stressed that her teaching this year will be intricately tied to the Innocence Project case work."Students will be meeting with attorneys, delving into court documents, working with investigators . hav[ing] to master thousands and thousands of pages of police reports," she said.Cytrynbaum attributed the project's success to the "incredibly smart" Brandeis students who "care tremendously about world outside them everywhere." Micheline Frias '07, a student researcher and spanish translator with the project, said her experience has been very rewarding. "When you read about the cases, the number of innocent people in jail, you can't turn your back on it," she said.Frias, a journalism minor, said working on the project has made her remember why she "wanted to be a journalist" in the first place. Every other journalism course she has taken has been "theoretical." With the Innocence Project, "you were actually learning hands-on." In addition to preparing students for professional journalism, Cytrynbaum said students learn about the shortcomings of the criminal justice system. "It's astonishing, beyond shocking how often the system lets us down," she said.University Provost Marty Krauss said, "This is clearly a terrific opportunity for students to work with outstanding journalists, gain hands-on knowledge [and] to participate in seeing wrongful convictions are exposed."Editor's Note: Justice news editors Rachel Marder and Noah Bein are research assistants for the Justice Brandeis Innocence Project.
(05/23/06 4:00am)
To the Editor:In his column "Prince not worthy of addressing grads" (May 2 issue) Joe Farbeann describes Prince El Hassan bin Talal of Jordan as "a man who has played an instrumental role in shaping the policies of a repressive government." It's crucial that before one judges the Jordanian government or royal family, one be exposed to a native's perspective. As a Jordanian citizen, I would like to respond to Farbeann's views and offer my own. First, the issue of women's rights. Farbeann claims that the Jordanian government "has largely condoned the practice" of honor killings. I will not deny that these crimes occur in Jordan. Farbeann completely fails to mention, however, the measures taken by royal family members to combat this tragic trend, albeit not a widespread one. King Abdullah, Queen Rania and Queen Noor have continually been outspoken critics. In 2000, the allegedly "repressive government" proposed a bill-twice in two months-calling for the cancellation of Article 340 of the penal code that offers leniency to killers in crimes of honor. The lower house of the National Assembly rejected this proposal. Thus, it is neither the royal family nor the King-appointed upper house who "condones" honor killings, but rather a body elected by the people. As for Farbeann's comment regarding torture in Jordanian prisons, the more urgent issue, I believe, is that the United States is sending some of its own prisoners to secret jails overseas. According to The Washington Post, the CIA has sent "terror suspects" to countries where torture during interrogation is legal, including Jordan. It would seem logical that when reproaching the Jordanian government for ill-treatment of prisoners, we also acknowledge American shortcomings that promote this kind of torture. Furthermore, Farbeann accused Jordan of "censoring newspapers." True, newspapers avoid printing satirical cartoons of the country's leader, a common practice in American press. However, Jordan is not a democracy, but a constitutional monarchy, which provides rights to its citizens and encourages a freedom of the press consistent and harmonious with Jordan's particular values and culture. Although Farbeann had the best intentions in describing Jordan and some of its challenges, the conclusions he draws about the government and the royal family are flawed and baseless. All countries face domestic challenges, Jordan most definitely included among them-and the United States ought not to be forgotten. A constructive way to analyze a country's reform efforts is to follow its steps toward progress rather than handpick isolated incidents from the country's national archives. After all, it is easier to claim that Arab governments "are given a pat on the head as long as they make reforms while running closed autocratic states" than to take a minute to recognize the impressive magnitude of such reforms within their respective histories and geopolitical contexts.-Farrah Bdour '07
(05/02/06 4:00am)
This year, the administration has apparently decided to reverse course from last year's enlightening commencement speaker. After choosing a woman who has devoted her life to furthering civil rights-Supreme Judicial Court Chief Justice Margaret Marshall-the University is bringing a man who has spent his life denying people's rights. Addressing the Class of 2006 will be Prince El Hassan bin Talal of Jordan, part of the inner circle of that country's monarchy. Brother of the former king and uncle to the current one, Prince Hassan is inextricably involved in the Jordanian government's questionable human rights record and suppression of political opponents.During Prince Hassan's long tenure as a prince, the kingdom has been consistent in repressing political opposition, censoring newspapers and swiftly punishing dissenters of all stripes. Criticising the royal family (Prince Hassan included) is a serious crime that will likely land the offender in jail and at the mercy of the regime's torturous intelligence services. Moreover, despite the monarchy's claims of reform, serious problems persist. According to Amnesty International, the king can detain its citizens without charges, and suspects in state custody are often tortured. Amnesty International also notes that so-called "honor killings" of women persist in Jordan, and the government has largely condoned the practice.If you were to read the fawning description of the prince on the Brandeis Web site, however, you would not know any of this. In the press release announcing the prince as a speaker and recipient of an honorary degree (just like the one the Dalai Lama was given in 1998), Prince Hassan is portrayed as a progressive intellectual, not as a man who has played an instrumental role in shaping the policies of a repressive government. The press release dwells upon the work he has supposedly done to advance religious freedom, lauding him as "a leading international advocate of interfaith dialogue and understanding." Indeed, Prince Hassan has spoken frequently of religious tolerance, but the record of his government belies this.The 2002 International Religious Freedom Report issued by the State Department reveals a number of alarming facts. In Jordan, as in Afghanistan where the prosecution of Christian convert Abdul Rahman generated international outrage a few weeks ago, Muslims are forbidden from converting to other faiths. The government appoints imams and forbids them from criticising the government. Muslim opponents of the regime are frequently detained with baseless accusations of terrorism. Furthermore, members of the Druze and Baha'i minority faiths in Jordan routinely face discrimination, with the government embarking on a vicious campaign to officially deny and suppress the religions. I wonder how Prince Hassan explains that when he attends his international conferences on religious understanding.Although Jordan is considered a "moderate" government by Middle East standards-meaning that it looks good in comparison to Syrian Ba'athists or Saudi Islamists, which isn't that hard to do-it is a repressive state in regards to political freedom, human rights and women's rights. By inviting a prominent Jordanian government figure, Brandeis is engaging in an unfortunate but all too typical form of condescension toward Arabs. Put another way, if the British or French governments were as repressive and undemocratic as Jordan's, Brandeis would certainly not invite a British or French leader to speak. The Arab world, however, is held to a different standard, one that acts as though universal human rights mean a different thing to people in the Middle East. Thus, Arab regimes such as Jordan's are given a pat on the head as long as they make reforms while running closed autocratic states. Brandeis would be well-advised to reverse its decision to welcome Prince Hassan as a commencement speaker. For a university founded upon the principles of justice and tolerance, this choice is odd at best and offensive at worst.
(04/11/06 4:00am)
I expected The Rose Art Museum's vault to be a guarded dungeon at the bottom of a dark stairwell. After all, the storage space is where some of the greatest works of modern art find their home, and my expectations were set for something grand. What I came across, however, was even better than what I had imagined.The amount of quality art that the Rose Art Museum owns is surprising. For its small, intimate size and collegiate location, one would not suspect that behind the museum's 10,000-square-foot gallery, there lies an 18,000-square-foot storage area filled with around 8,000 paintings, sculptures, prints and photographs. The Rose is the home to the largest modern art collection in the region.While maybe not as foreboding as a dungeon or intriguing as a hidden room, the vault is equally as dramatic. Upon entering (an act which requires both a key and a security code to unlock two foreboding double doors), the tour was greeted with a musty smell and a climate-controlled chill. The heavy security made it feel like we were trespassing into every art lover's dream. Piles of paintings overflow from the shelves and a wall of chain-link fence screens are packed with hanging works. Stacks of boxes, cardboard and art cover every inch of the room with the exception of the small floor space in the center, which barely fits 15 people. The entire setup appears less like an art sanctuary and more like an art jail.As I became frustrated and a little bit confused with what seemed like poor maintenance of the vault, Raphaela Plateau, chief curator of the museum and our personal guide, pulled out a Czanne. As one of the forefathers of Modernism and great names of Impressionism, Paul Czanne was undeniably groundbreaking, and seeing one of his paintings laid any thoughts about the room's dcor to rest. The piece ("Young Swimmer," left) was a gift to the museum in 1991. Small in size, its beauty is striking, set apart by its broad brush strokes and meticulous effort.One of my favorites of the tour was Pablo Picasso's "Reclining Nude," also a gift to the museum in 1991. Seeing the Picasso up close yielded the same excitement and giddiness as the presence of a celebrity. The painting held emotion in its colors and fractured female subject, whose face and body seemed disjointed yet poised. Also impressive Jim Dine's "Double Red Bathroom." Like the rest of Dine's work, this piece sets itself apart from other art with its three-dimensional components. The work consists of two connected canvases, both painted bright red with the occasional splatter or painted flower. Two medicine chests, a towel rack, a red toothbrush and even a red roll of toilet paper jut from the canvasses, crafting the image of a life-size bathroom wall. Another personal favorite of mine was Roy Lichtenstein's "Forget It! Forget Me!" (above). The comic-like image depicts a distressed male "fed up" with his girlfriend. In addition to capturing the viewer's attention with its large size and bright colors, the work also stimulates identification with average teenage-dating frustrations. By getting up close and admiring the skill and precision that went into each individual dot, I appreciated a depth hard to absorb in a gallery setting The newly acquired Andy Warhol portrait of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis was a refreshing image of the University's namesake depicted in bright colors-purple, green and red-in Warhol's typical print-with-paint style. The painting was also slightly bigger than I expected, juxtaposing a respectability with the works' more playful hues.Despite the number of incredibly powerful paintings displayed in the vault, we barely scratched the surface of the works the vault holds. The Rose Art Museum has specific criteria regarding gifts that it can accept, in order to allow it to continue with its mission of housing only modern and contemporary art. While each piece is considered on a case-by-case basis, condition and shelf life are also important factors considered when the museum accepts gifts. Between the picky criteria and the hefty grants the museum receives, the Rose has been able to build a collection of both quantity and supreme quality.
(03/28/06 5:00am)
The author of Dead Man Walking concluded a day-long discussion of capital punishment and flaws in the criminal justice system with a speech to over 500 people in the Spingold Theater last Wednesday. Sister Helen Prejean talked about her experiences with death row inmates during the "Day of Innocence" event sponsored by the University's Institute for Investigative Journalism and the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences.Sister Prejean, a Roman Catholic nun from N ew Orleans, has worked as a spiritual adviser to death-row inmates since the 1980s and has become a significant figure in the movement to abolish the death penalty. She wrote Dead Man Walking in 1993, which was later adapted into the Academy Award-winning movie starring Susan Sarandon and Sean Penn.At Spingold, Sister Prejean talked about her new book The Death of Innocents, which discusses wrongful convictions and executions. After her speech, she answered questions from students and autographed copies of the book.Sister Prejean spoke at length about the plight of the poor in America's major urban areas and how poverty makes violent criminals more susceptible to capital punishment. She said this is especially true in her home state of Louisiana, where the vast majority of death-row inmates are poor. "There's a saying around the neighborhood that those without the capital get the punishment," she said.She also said many Americans are not close to understanding the death penalty because the process is hidden away from sight; most executions take place in the middle of the night behind closed doors. She said her goal in writing Dead Man Walking was to "wake people up" to these issues.Sister Prejean acknowledged that our society believes the death penalty is how we attain justice for the families of murder victims, but our government believes capital punishment should be used only when dealing with the most atrocious murders."Whose death isn't the worst of the worst?" she asked. Sister Prejean said our justice system is cumbersome and complicated, and that "we get clogged in our own legal death machine."From the day they are sentenced, inmates suffer through the thoughts of their impending death many times before it actually happens, she said. As opposed to terminally ill hospital patients who may not fully comprehend their mortality, she said all the inmates with whom she has worked are fully aware of their fate."We keep trying to look for a humane way to kill people, and we're never going to find it," Sister Prejean said. "You cannot take away a human being's consciousness and imagination."Prof. Pam Cytrynbaum (AMST), the associate director of the Institute for Investigative Journalism, said people from all corners of the Brandeis community came out to the event. She said she was deeply moved by the response from students."It hit Brandeis students right in the gut because Brandeis students are unusually interested in social justice," Cytrynbaum said.She said Sister Prejean's personality was a significant factor in getting students interested in the issues."[Sister Helen] is absolutely irresistible," she said. "When you have a colossal force of such personality who is actually right, it's hard to not want to somehow get involved, and Brandeis students want to get involved."Sister Prejean answered questions at the Women's Studies Resource Center earlier in the day, followed by a showing of the documentary After Innocence-which tracks the lives of several exonerees after they have left prison-and a discussion with Dennis Maher, a Massachusetts resident who was released from a wrongful prison term in 2003. Maher was convicted of rape in 1984 and was exonerated by DNA evidence after serving 19 years in jail.
(03/21/06 5:00am)
As a senior at Brandeis, I've seen plenty of anti-Americanism on campus. When the American military invaded Iraq on March 20, 2003, for example, I was not surprised to see a student-led, bongo drum-pounding rally in Rabb Quad. Almost three years later, however, many Brandeisians still express a general disgust with our country and government that goes well beyond criticizing its policies. Political presentations, teach-ins and club-sponsored events, classes and even everyday conversations seem rife with general anti-Americanism.Perhaps the extremely progressive liberal-arts environment contributes to this situation. After all, neither college students nor New England are typically known for praising the U.S. government. Granted, I would be the first to condemn certain things about the United States: an unjustified invasion, a less-than-eloquent (or competent) president, bid-rigging and political cronyism-the list of our country's political shortcomings goes on and on. But should we hate America for this?One can easily criticize the government, but it seems more difficult to appreciate one's fortune of living in a country that fundamentally upholds the values of freedom and human life. Alongside myriad non-governmental analysts, government employees prove their commitment to these pursuits by constantly attempting to discern the best policies for the nation and to answer the question "What is the right thing to do?" Every day, investigations, committees, federal courts and bodies such as Congressional Research Services furnish candid perspectives that not only criticize government actions but also provide quality recommendations for improvement.These processes simply do not exist in many other countries. Two weeks ago week in Kenya, for instance, a newspaper that published an article criticizing that nation's prime minister was visited by masked policemen who destroyed the presses, torched papers and assaulted staff members. When reading such news, shouldn't we feel at least somewhat thankful to live under a government that allows criticism and even criticizes itself? A Cairo cab driver once affirmed this when he told me, "You Americans hold up your signs that say, 'Bush! Bush!' or 'Kerry! Kerry!' We hold up signs and we go to jail!" A country like his fundamentally differs from America.As for President Bush and his poor decisions, he and his colleagues still act with the fundamental belief that all people deserve certain rights by virtue of being human and should be treated as such. Look at Iraq: There's no doubt that America is running a police state, but surely it would be more manageable if, say, American troops rooted out insurgents by killing many Iraqis in certain problematic areas of the country. Cast a wide net to make sure the fish are caught, right? Or perhaps we could wage a more successful war on terror by announcing that America will respond to terrorist attacks by murdering the families of those responsible. It would definitely be justifiable (and certainly feasible), right?The answer, of course, is a resounding "No." We make no such policies and never will because we consider them absolutely unacceptable and antithetical to our democratic beliefs. Our ongoing difficulties in Iraq clearly show that America goes to great lengths to accomplish our political goals without surrendering its fundamental integrity as a democratic nation.In China, police opened fire on poor rural protesters who lost their land to state repossessions. We lament the loss of civil liberties since 9/11, but in Nepal, the king has instituted martial law and revoked many human rights and democratic freedoms to fight his own war against Maoist separatists. And I shouldn't even have to mention Sudan. These countries and several others unabashedly deny their citizens fundamental liberties and human rights as state policy. The United States, on the other hand, refuses to treat citizens of other countries in such disgraceful ways, let alone its own people. No doubt there have been some inexcusable mistakes by careless Americans (like Abu Ghraib), but these occurrences are anomalous and have absolutely no place in the goals and policy of the U.S. government.Is this an argument for spreading democracy throughout the world? No. Am I imploring you to always agree with the decisions of the American government? Absolutely not. I simply believe that especially in a time when much of our country has such low morale, we should not forget our privilege of being citizens of a country with extremely high democratic values when we criticize America. Our government continuously engages in an ongoing, critical dialogue with itself to ensure that its policies and procedures are as morally and legally appropriate as possible. Governments have no obligation to be this self-critical and many don't try. Realizing this, for the first time in a while, I'm feeling proud to be an American.
(01/31/06 5:00am)
Iranian poet and torture survivor Ala Khaki spoke about his experience as a political prisoner in his native country Thursday in Pearlman Lounge before a full room of politically diverse students. In the presentation, "Democracy in Iran: A Past and Present Experience," Khaki shared stories of his personal battle against the autocratic regime of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi in the 1970s and explained how his political struggle led him to write poetry. "I could not believe that I could live in a society where this was going on behind everyone's back," said Khaki, who was jailed twice for opposing the government in underground publications and for, according to the charge, "attempting to violate the security of the country." I wasn't sure if I would come out of that place alive or not," he said.Khaki read from Return, a collection of his poetry written in English between 1978 and 2005 about life as a political exile, released this month. He told the audience about rallies he attended for democracy that ended with citizens being thrown from buildings or beaten to death. "You see these things and you can't accept this as normal," Khaki said. It was after his first arrest, Khaki said, that he decided to continue writing, no matter what the cost.Following his second release from prison, a family member in the military informed him that he was on a military "hit list" for his political dissents and democratic pursuits. Under advisement from his family, Khaki emigrated to the United States, joining the millions of Iranians living in diaspora since the revolution and the Shah's ascent to power in 1953. Audience members stayed for an hour of dialogue with Khaki following his presentation."[Khaki] really shared so much. He was so honest and open and I think that was really important to the audience," said Sam Vaghar '08, founder of Positive Foundations, the club that brought Khaki to campus. Positive Foundations, a club dedicated to providing a platform for students interested in social activism, was chartered last semester. Ben Woodring '06, who is an English major, said he liked Khaki's integration of poetry with political ideas. "They do go hand in hand," Woodring said. "I think poetry could possibly be one of the most profound vehicles of expression." Rebecca Wasser '08, a member of Positive Foundations, said the majority of the seats were filled, and by conservatives and liberals alike. "We had people from certain organizations that usually . would [not] come to such an event, but found either Ala Khaki's story so interesting, or the message we are trying to send so important, that they showed up.
(01/31/06 5:00am)
At 82, television producer Aaron Spelling proves that he is just as crude as some of his perverted characters after being hit with a sexual harassment lawsuit Thursday. This lawsuit comes months after the lawyer of Spelling's former nurse, Charlene Richard, e-mailed many of Spelling's former stars, including Jessica Biel, Shannen Doherty and Heather Locklear, encouraging them to come forward with any stories of Spelling's harassment history, which prompted Spelling to launch a libel lawsuit against Richard and her lawyer. Spelling, the mastermind behind such shows as Melrose Place, Dynasty and 90210, was accused by his former nurse of groping her and asking for sexual favors. Richards claims that Spelling began his inappropriate behavior shortly after he hired her in the fall of 2004. She claims that he would grab her "breasts, groin and genital area," expose himself and solicit her for various sex acts, claiming that other stars had willingly consented. She also alleges that he fired her just months later, after she refused his advances. Spelling's attorney denies Richard's claim, asserting that Spelling is a "complete gentleman." Considering Spelling's age, his lawyer would be better off claiming senility.Oprah Winfrey tore author James Frey into a million little pieces Thursday when she confronted him about his allegedly fabricated memoir, A Million Little Pieces. Oprah publicly withdrew her support for Frey and admitted to being embarrassed about initially standing up for the author after it was revealed that large chunks of the book were fabricated. Investigative research by the Web site The Smoking Gun showed that many parts of his book, including his time spent in jail and dental surgery without novocaine, were made up. Oprah's initial endorsement of the book about Frey's supposed journey from addiction to rehabilitation led it to become a best seller, with 1.77 million copies sold last year. After the website's revelation permeated the media, Frey admitted to some embellishments for "dramatic effect," but insisted that it was basically his life story. Oprah backed him up in a phone call to Larry King, saying that the controversy was "much ado about nothing." Oprah changed her story Thursday, accusing Frey of "betraying millions of readers." Betrayal or not, Frey's book remains popular, even if it is only slightly based in truth.
(12/13/05 5:00am)
"It felt like I was chewing on glass. Every time he talked, I felt like someone was crushing me."This is how a Brandeis senior described her experience sitting in the same classroom as a student who she believes had raped her a week before. The moment this senior-my friend-walked out of class that day, she went straight to the campus police to file a report. She realized that after days of crying and not leaving her room, this-and he-were not going away.Since then, she says she has dropped the class. She has also considered dropping out of Brandeis. This is because since then, this student says she secured a "no contact" order from the campus police (which prohibits the accused from having any contact with her), brought her case to the University Board of Student Conduct (UBSC), filed a report with campus police, sought medical attention and psychological counseling and has spoken to a victims' advocate at the Middlesex County District Attorney's Office. Yet somehow, despite this by-the-book brave response, since then, "it's been months and the only one affected is me," she says.I wish I could tell you more about the story, but because the UBSC won't officially confirm the outcome of her case, or even that her case occurred, I cannot do so. At the end of each academic year, summaries of the hearings are usually available online; this does not help now.But e-mails from the Office of the Dean of Student Life, provided by the victim, indicate she is to be alerted ahead of time when the accused student will be on campus for purposes other than attending class, and that he is otherwise prohibited from being on campus except for legitimate, academic-related reasons that the administration preapproves. This clearly indicates sanctions of some kind being imposed upon the accused.I also can't tell you anything about the criminal proceedings, because the District Attorney's office has yet to bring criminal charges against the accused. The accused and his lawyer have also declined to speak, citing privacy concerns. THE PRECEDENTThis student's story, however, is not unprecedented.I spoke to a member of the Class of 2005, who provided documentation indicating that the UBSC heard her case in the fall of 2003. This alumna says her then-boyfriend forced sexual intercourse on her without consent. The victim says the accused was found "responsible" for sexual misconduct, and the sanction recommended by the board was an immediate suspension of the responsible student that would remain in place until the girl graduated.UBSC members say they make decisions on a case-by-case basis, and there are no standard responses to sexual misconduct, which includes, but is not limited to, accusations of rape. The UBSC cannot find a student responsible of "rape" because rape is a criminal offense. Brandeis does not have the resources or authority to address such a charge. Instead, the University is supposed to provide a timely response to policy violations, while criminal proceedings can drag out for years.The former student says Dean of Student Life Rick Sawyer decided the sanction was too severe, since she would be going abroad the next semester, and there would be no risk of her seeing him. She says Sawyer told her the accused was not a danger to anyone on campus but her. She disagreed. The accused remained on campus the next semester, and the suspension was supposed to be enforced upon her return in the fall. But he appealed, on grounds unknown to the former student. The appeal hearing was never held because he took summer school and graduated early. In the fall of her senior year when she returned, the former student says she saw him on campus twice in one mid-semester weekend. An administrator, she says, was supposed to send him a letter before school started, informing him that he was not allowed anywhere on campus-a University restraining order of sorts-but according to her, this letter was not sent until she demanded it, and by then it was too late. The rest of the year, her friends served as her primary protection, calling her whenever they saw him on campus. When I asked Sawyer about this case and my friend's case, he declined to comment in order to protect the privacy of those involved.THE PROBLEMAccording to the National Crime Victim Survey, fewer than 5 percent of rapes are reported to the police. What is even more distressing than this statistic is that when a complaint is made, and a student does find the courage to seek justice, there is still no guarantee that proportional disciplinary action can be taken, or that victims will be made to feel safe on campus. In response to such complaints, Sawyer assures he is interested in hearing from students who feel the system is unjust, but says that "we don't put people in jail. We can't." He explained that the University's jurisdiction is limited to the policies and values outlined in Rights and Responsibilities, and isn't a substitute for criminal proceedings and accountability.According to Sawyer, in UBSC sexual misconduct cases in which the accused is found responsible, suspension is very often the outcome. Unlike suspension though, sanctions that require constant monitoring are difficult to manage, and according to Sawyer, are "not preferred." Restricting the accused from University activities or limiting access to areas on campus is much more difficult than enforcing suspension. Sawyer says he wants to hear from students who feel sanctions are not being carried out, and assures he will address issues in a timely and fair manner. Yet these two Brandeis students feel their complaints have not been adequately addressed.THE REACTIONMonths after the current Brandeis senior brought her case to the University's attention, she says she still has to avoid the walk from Rabb to Shapiro in fear of running into the accused. She has dropped most of her extracurricular activities and says she can barely handle going to classes. She doesn't feel sanctions are being effectively enforced, because she and others say they have seen him in places he is not supposed to be without her receiving prior or adequate notice."The best thing I got at Brandeis was very willing listeners. That's it," she says. She is already suffering emotionally-she feels like "just flesh, a shell"-she certainly shouldn't have to suffer because of the system as well.If the UBSC exists to ensure the safety of victims, why are its sanctions seemingly so ineffective at providing protection? If it's logistically impossible to enforce certain sanctions, then why are they ordered at all? Why does my friend still not feel safe? Why did the Brandeis alumna feel her college experience was ruined, even after she sought justice and relief? Why should victims be encouraged to file reports, if this may only cause them more grief and resentment?THE ARGUMENTIt is very true that incidents of sexual misconduct are difficult to prove and extremely challenging to adjudicate. It's not just a problem at our University. Lines are blurry, drugs and alcohol are often involved, the students usually know each other, and the accused may be a student of good standing. Yet despite the challenges, Brandeis makes it clear that no is no, that sex must be consensual.Involved administrators assert their faith in the process and trust in the judgment of the student and faculty board members, who are trained in issues of rape, sexual assault and harassment. The board spends a significant amount of time deliberating on cases of sexual misconduct, and does its best, according to one board member, to get to "the point where the person we find responsible is punished in a way we feel meets the egregiousness of the action." Yet, while the accused can appeal a decision, the accuser can't. For students who bring forth accusations and find the results unjust, there is little they can do except express their dissent to members of the administration who ultimately have the final say-and in some cases, it seems, ultimately don't listen. At the very least, despite all the complications and justifications, sanctions agreed upon by both the administration and the UBSC should be effectively enforced. If they can not be, then we really need to reevaluate the system. Also, communication between the accuser and the administration must be improved.Students need to feel that their concerns are made a priority.Right now my friend feels they are not. Instead, she is completely disillusioned with a University that she says does a good job of looking like it cares but isn't doing enough to make sure she feels safe.Editor's note: The opinions stated in this column are the opinions of the writer, and are not representative of the views of the Justice.
(12/06/05 5:00am)
Breaking from the trend of such unfortunate appellations as Apple Martin, Coco Arquette and Pilot Inspektor Lee, celebrity baby Violet Affleck, the newborn daughter of Ben Affleck and Jennifer Garner, might just have a chance of avoiding the usual late-night talk-show jokes.The child, born on Thursday afternoon at a Los Angeles hospital, is the first for both parents. While Garner's show Alias has just been canceled, the actress will have plenty to keep her busy in addition to maternal duties. She has a new movie, Catch and Release, due out next year. Affleck, on the other hand, will have no problem being a stay-at-home dad for the time being. After a string of box office failures, most notably Gigli, Affleck will not appear in any films this year. This is Affleck's first hiatus from the big screen since he began his career in 1994. Industry insiders hope that the baby will inherit all of Garner's good looks and none of Affleck's acting skills.Brad Pitt is proving to the public how much he really does want kids. According to the Associated Press, Pitt filed a legal petition this past Friday to change the names of Angelina Jolie's two adopted children to Zahara Jolie-Pitt and Maddox Jolie-Pitt. We can only hope that this may lead to Pitt and Jolie's first biological child, as it would be a major disservice for Hollywood's hottest couple to deny the world their beautiful offspring. While Lost's incredible success both in ratings and at the Emmys warrants celebration, it seems that a few of the show's stars are handling the revelry in an irresponsible manner. This Thursday, Michelle Rodriguez and Cynthia Watros were arrested in separate incidences of drunk driving within 15 minutes of each other on the Hawaiian island of Oahu. Both women were released on $500 bail. While it is all right to have a few drinks after work, there is no reason why members of such a large and diverse cast can't find themselves a designated driver, lest they become lost in a jail cell.
(12/06/05 5:00am)
You're 16 years old, and life in high school is going pretty well. You've got lots of friends, you've got high ideals like everyone else and you are class delegate to the student government. But one night, police bust into your home and demand that your father hand you over. They tell your father that either he turns you in, or you will be killed. In a panic, your father contacts a lawyer who assures him that you are a minor and if you cooperate, you will be returned after questioning because you're only a child. Fearing for your life, he chooses the lesser of two evils, and before you know it you're at the police station. Only you aren't returned. You and others like you-teenage girls-are handcuffed and shackled with your hands tied to your feet and left on the floor for two weeks. Why did this happen? You are told you are a subversive-as the Student Union delegate, you dared to voice your high ideals. For over two years, you are one of los desaparecidos (the disappeared); you are kept prisoner without knowing where you are or what the charges are; you're held without a trial, without contact to a single person who knows you and could tell your family where you are or that you are still alive. For over two years, you are threatened with rape, sexually abused, beaten, starved, forced to drink from toilets and electrocuted.On Wednesday, Nov. 30, Patricia Indiana Isasa talked at Brandeis about being an Argentinian political prisoner from 1976 to 1978. She and the other girls grew up in prison. As their bodies matured, they kept track of one another's height against a door frame. She is one of the lucky ones, because she lived. Though she must remember the horror every day, she tells others what happened in her quest for justice: This is lucky. She lived, but 30,000 others did not. Where is the justice for this horror? Barely anywhere, it seems. In a documentary Isasa helped produce, which was shown at the event, the very people who participated in her imprisonment and torture were interviewed, and they denied it ever happened! After participating in her torture, three men went on to become a politician, a federal judge and a mayor! What kind of world are we living in when this can be true?These should sound familiar: Las Madres de Plaza Mayo and Las Abuelas of Argentina, or Las Arpilleras in Chile, who lost family during the military dictatorships of those countries in the 70s and 80s. The really sad thing is, many of you have probably never heard of them. Did you know that pregnant women desaparecidos had their babies taken away from them, and that the children were given to members of the regime to raise as their own? Most of us don't know that college students and university professors were secretly drugged, weighed down and dropped into the sea so that their families would never, ever know what happened to them, let alone be able to mourn their deaths.And if you did know these things, did you know that the people who committed these atrocities have not been held accountable? Patricia Isasa did say that since the documentary came out, eight people have been identified and proven to have been responsible for some of these acts of terrorism, and sent to jail. But there must be more. Not only should more of the criminals be brought to trial, but those handed a jail sentence must also apologize to the people of Argentina and Chile. Those convicted must be forced to listen to the people explain the impact their terrorist actions had on the lives of the surviving desaparecidos and their families. And the criminals who have not yet been tried need to be punished.Why should you know about these things? Why should you care? Because what happens to anyone in the world happens to us. They are part of our worldwide family. If we hold the perpetrators accountable, maybe we can stop future terrorism. Isasa repeatedly complained that there has been no accountability for the people who illegally "disappeared" thousands of people in Argentina and Chile. The reason they could get away with it is because there were no consequences at the time, and 30 years later, the world is only slowly beginning to denounce their reign of terror. The reaction has not been severe enough. The consequence is that acts of terror and genocide committed by governments against their own people continue. If you can't imagine that what happened to Isasa could happen today, ask someone in STAND about what's going on in Sudan right now. To remain silent about this issue when we know the truth is to support it.
(11/22/05 5:00am)
While watching an E! True Hollywood Story on Demi Moore in an attempt to kill time before Saturday evening festivities, I was surprised by the program's sudden interruption by a "breaking news story." Expecting another natural disaster or a terrorism alert, I laughed out loud, relieved, when the anchorwoman broke the news of Christina Aguilera's wedding, which had taken place earlier that day. The pop diva married longtime boyfriend music mogul Jordan Bratman at a Napa Valley resort. The couple met when Bratman started working at her management company, AzoffMusic Management, three years ago. Although most likely taking a break for her honeymoon now, Aguilera continues to work on her latest album, which she says is a "throwback to the 1920s, '30s and '40s." I wish the couple all the best, and commend E! News for its excellent and up-to-date coverage. After all, celebrity marriages are just as worthy of program interruptions as President Bush's latest disaster relief efforts. Russell Crowe finally hung up on his court case stemming from the phone-throwing incident. This past Friday, Crowe pleaded guilty to third-degree assault for throwing a phone at a hotel concierge back in June. The judge let Crowe off with a slap on the wrist, giving him a conditional discharge, which means he must avoid being arrested for the next year or else he will face jail time. He also had to pay a court surcharge of $160, pocket change for a high-paid actor such as Crowe. The incident occurred in New York last summer, when in a failed attempt to reach his wife in Australia, a frustrated Crowe hurled the phone at the night manager of the Mercer Hotel in Manhattan. The phone hit the concierge in the face, and he was taken to a local hospital to be treated for cuts he sustained to his cheek. While it's his first criminal offense, this is not Crowe's first issue with anger management. For example, he allegedly bit his bodyguard's ear in 2004. Maybe Crowe should consult Mike Tyson, a hot-headed celebrity who might sympathize with Crowe's problem, for tips on how to channel his anger more efficiently.
(11/08/05 5:00am)
Twelfth Night or What You Will-even the title invites multiple interpretations. Brandeis' Hold Thy Peace acting troupe stuck to this notion Thursday night with a production of the William Shakespeare comedy, a tale of mistaken identities and truth revealing deception. The ensemble offered a twist that promised extremely creative entertainment, transplanting the play-originally set in continental Europe-to modern-day Hollywood. Unfortunately, it fell an inch short of expectations. Although some individual performances were strong, more could have been done with the form and theme of this timeless comedy. In the original play, Viola (Leila Alciere '09) and her brother Sebastian (Vicki Schairer '09) are separated after being shipwrecked on the coast of Illyria (now Albania). Viola cross-dresses to be closer to Orsino (Erik Potter '07), with whom she is smitten. Orsino, however, is in love with a mourning actress, Lady Olivia (Kate Roller '09), who believes Viola is the male Cesario, and in turn falls in love with her. Throughout the play, Sir Toby (Adam Ross '07) and others orchestrate a prank against Malvolio (Brenda Green-Sisson '09), Olivia's servant, by leading him to believe that she is in love with him.Modernizing Shakespearian classics is a very popular practice, as the opportunities for creative genius abound when adapting time and setting. This play made only a few references to its surroundings and missed great opportunities in interpretation. Malvolio, upon being pronounced insane, was sentenced to the very Elizabethan punishment of a dark dungeon jail-the modern Hollywood solution, a mental hospital, alongside the likes of Mary-Kate Olsen, might have worked better. The mannerisms, accents, interpretation of words and even some costumes of the characters could have been more modern as well, which would have added to the believability of the play's new setting.Overall, the actors themselves proved very promising. Alciere, Roller and fellow first-year Aaron Finegold have obviously come to Brandeis with theater experience, and they should only grow in skill while here. Roller's Olivia was strong and funny, and she has a great deal of experience in musicals. This was apparent in her acting style, and it would be interesting to see her performing in that genre. Finegold's Sir Andrew Aguecheek is the classic comedic character, and Finegold had the appropriate charm for the part, winning over the audience from his first overstylized bow.On the other hand, Potter's Orsino was uncomfortably overstated-he was the only actor forcing an Elizabethan accent. Sadly, he often spoke with his eyes closed, and as such, seemed forced and not relatable. The double danger of Twelfth Night is that both comedy and Shakespeare often lend themselves to amateurish overacting. In the intimate theater-almost-in-the-round that is the Schwartz Auditorium, wide-eyed emotion is conveyed loudly. The line between acting naturally and acting like you are acting is hard to distinguish when trying to speak in Shakespearian English. Many actors avoided this trap, especially Beth Seltzer '07 and Chavah Levine '06, whose mastery of the language stood out in their portrayals. It is only through the playbook that the audience learned that Olivia, Orsino and Antonio were supposed to be "movie stars"; the clown Feste, a tabloid reporter; Toby, Olivia's publicist; and Malvolio, her manager. But none of these facts were apparent on stage-including them in the playbook only made the audience more aware of their absence.Despite my overall desire for more cohesiveness of theme, there were entertaining moments. Great instances of absurdity popped up often, many delivered with the natural talent and physical comedy of Finegold and the impressive timing of Seltzer's Feste. The duels were designed as fist fights with oversized boxing gloves instead of swords, and the garden scenes found Toby, Fabian and Andrew hiding behind potted plants. Both these instances of silliness were hilarious and well-received by the small audience. It was unclear why the Priest (Elyssa Kanet '09) was dressed as Elvis Presley in his Las Vegas years, but this anachronism's absurdity was greatly welcomed by the audience. Still, Hold Thy Piece produced the comedy as it was meant to be: fanciful and improbable. The character Fabian (Levine) seemed to sum it up best: "If this were played upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an improbable fiction!" Editor's note: Aaron Finegold '09 is a member of the advertising staff of the Justice.
(10/25/05 4:00am)
Tabloids beware: Britney Spears is suing anyone daring enough to publish stolen photos of her month-old son, Sean Preston. Following a photo shoot of Spears, her husband Kevin Federline and their baby, the pictures were stolen, Spears reported in a press release on Friday. In the past, Spears has been very welcoming to the media's invasion of her privacy-as long as she benefited from it, of course. For example, Spears commissioned official coverage of her wedding to Federline, and she even sold camcorder footage of her and Kevin to UPN for Britney and Kevin: Chaotic, a reality series featuring the couple. Spear was originally planning on continuing this profitable habit by selling her photos of baby Federline to People magazine. However, Spears ended up backing out of the deal, telling the New York Post that she was afraid of "selling out her baby." Thus far, Spears' baby has maintained a low profile. Only poor quality, telephoto lens pictures of the baby have made it into the papers. This sign of responsibility and respect for her baby comes as a surprise from the same person who asked the crew of her reality show what their favorite sex positions were while on camera.Lil' Kim (right) is once again causing controversy and this time it's not for wearing nothing but a pastie to the MTV awards. Following a New York Daily News report that the rapper wrote bounced checks for the crew working on her latest music video, Lil' Kim fought back against the allegations. Lil' Kim blamed the monetary mishap on the video's director, Kirk Fraser, and his company. A representative for Lil' Kim explained that Lil' Kim and her record company, Atlantic Records, fulfilled their financial obligations to Fraser and that it was his job to pay the staff working on the video. Fraser turned around and laid the blame on his line producer, Heidi Tannenbaum, whom he claimed did not keep accurate records of finances, resulting in a need to reissue the checks. He also insisted that the check fiasco has now been taken care of, and the crew has been paid. While, Lil' Kim may be off the hook for this scandal, she's not out of the doghouse yet. She recently entered the Federal Detention Center in Philadelphia, where she will be serving a one-year sentence for lying to a grand jury about a 2001 shootout in New York involving her posse and a rival hip-hop group.
(10/18/05 4:00am)
Early in Robert Johnson's career, he was considered a mediocre delta bluesman, mostly disliked by his contemporaries and never mentioned in the same breath as someone like Son House or Bukka White. A myth says he went down to the 'crossroads' one day and made a Faustian deal for his guitar skills. Today of course, Johnson is thought of as the most well-known and greatest bluesman to ever live. Johnson's story is one in a long line that plays into America's uncanny cultural proclivity for creating new personas and larger-than-life back stories-for reviving the past and reinventing it. So it's not so outrageous to say that the reissuing and repackaging of artists' works is a particularly American phenomenon-it's just one more particularly monetary form of it. Reissues, by and large, are releases of albums on compact disc that have not ever been on CD, have gone out of print or are getting a sound quality boost. With the advent of CD technology, a majority of pre-1985 albums were released on CD immediately. The technology for transferring tapes was primitive at the time, so many early CDs sounded shoddy. During the '90s, companies quietly went through their back catalogues to put out better transfers of albums. The reissuing and repackaging of albums, as we know it today, only became popular toward the turn of the century, once its commercial viability was proven.David Bowie is one of the founders of this particular trend. In the early '90s, he took control of his own catalogue to oversee its reissuing. He went through all his old sessions' tapes, and included three to four bonus tracks at the end of each disc-either demos, incomplete rehearsals or live takes. These were then packaged with the "David Bowie Collection" seal of approval and marketed to fans as if part of some sweet commemorative Elvis dinner plate collection, incomplete unless taken as a whole. But reissuing is not inherently bad. Inevitably, new technology will eclipse old, and any excuse for hearing that drum sound on "Be My Baby" more vividly should be taken as necessity. The problems begin with the needless reissuing of albums that have already been reissued, and are not sonically improved. Of course, it is the companies, not artists, who make the bulk of the profits from this dubious practice.The one complete success of this trend is the reissue of albums that have gone out-of-print or never been on CD. So many lost classics have finally been given the attention they deserve. Recently, that includes Gary Higgins' brilliant folk-plea Red Hash, recorded in 1972, months before he was sent to jail for possession of marijuana. The entire works of Bill Fay were also unknown to even the most well-versed listener until earlier this year when, at the insistence of producer/musician Jim O'Rourke, they were finally put out on CD. Fay's Time of the Last Persecution is a treasure, one that likely could not have been discovered without its reissuing. Repackaging is just as two-headed as reissuing-take Elvis Costello, for example. Rhino Records has been re-releasing all of his albums for the past four years, including second discs that sometimes include twice as much bonus material as the regular albums. The bonus material here is compelling, largely because Costello is such a prolific songwriter. The worst of these repackages have been released by Sony's Legacy Series, which, for example, charges 30 dollars for the Clash's London Calling with a poorly-recorded early version of the album called The Vanilla Tapes tacked on. Even a completist like myself finds this pointless. The most egregious example of Sony's repackaging is last December's reissue of Jeff Buckley's Grace, his only full studio album. Buckley was notorious for recording little during his short life, so the bonus materials included are awful. When the regular album costs eight to 10 dollars at discount price, why waste all this other money for an extra 40 minutes of crap? What we are left with is a double-edged sword. Revealing lost classics and improving sound quality will always be welcome in the music world. This is obfuscated, however, by the profiteering companies who wouldn't release these gems originally, and whose only interest in the albums is to sell people something they already own. I have bought Blood on the Tracks three times; how many more times will this circle be unbroken?
