Search Results
Below are your search results. You can also try a Basic Search.
(02/28/00 10:00am)
From Andrew Exum's, "Perlious Orthodoxy," Fall '00 From Andrew Exum's, "Perlious Orthodoxy," Fall '00The Secret Service agent glided down the aisle, his loose-fitting suit cut a size too large in order to conceal the bulge from a pistol strapped to his side. And the protesters outside waited in silent apprehension with their placards and picket signs. Yes, the president was in town. And by the hundreds we sat there -- students, faculty, administrators, congressmen and media -- waiting for our man of the moment to step out onto the stage. When he did, an hour late and looking tired, we jumped from our seats to greet our hero with applause and ovations. Bill Clinton's speech last Thursday inaugurated the new Granoff Forum on global economics, a venture financed by College alumnus Michael Granoff. And yet while most people were there to hear Clinton's thoughts on globalization, the stock market and the new dot.com economy, the thing that most caught my ear was the way in which Clinton's talk echoed former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's remarks in the same building last semester. In both instances, the two heads of state used their given time at the podium to more or less defend their terms in office. For Netanyahu, that meant justifying his foreign policy and reminding the audience of his domestic policy successes. For Clinton, that meant once again telling the audience -- in the words of trusted advisor James Carville -- that, "it's the economy, stupid." It also meant harping on the successes of his tenure rather than the many scandals and nadirs. Clearly, Clinton is a man whose life after he leaves office will be dominated -- and, indeed, perhaps tormented -- by his thoughts on how he will be judged in the history books. He is a man in every way obsessed with his legacy. But if Bill Clinton is searching for what his legacy will be, here it is: Bill Clinton does -- and always will -- represent great promise unfulfilled. Nothing less, but nothing more. I volunteered for Clinton's campaign in 1992. I voted for him in 1996. And yes, despite all that has happened -- despite the interns, the bimbo eruptions and the countless scandals ending in the word "gate" -- I would vote for him again. Why? Well, perhaps in the hope -- just the hope -- that he would for once live up to the enormous potential that excited the country and propelled him to two terms in office. For the past eight years, we as a populace have been simultaneously blessed and cursed with one of the most remarkable -- and one of the most disappointing -- men to have ever held the office of the president. Those who know swear that a so-called "photographic" memory is an impossibility. But Clinton has been known to flip through a stack of donor cards two inches thick the evening before a fundraiser and remember every single fact about the men and women in the file. Uncanny. But he is also an adulterer. Certainly, the man is a genius, a Rhodes scholar able to process a hundred different problems at once and retain a greater vision in his goals. But he is also a liar. As a public speaker, Clinton is without peer. A few years ago, media magnate Ted Turner spoke at my high school. He was by all accounts an awful speaker -- we counted he used the word "uh" 173 times in a 10-minute speech. But Clinton's vision has too often been confused and clouded in his tenure by his very public short-comings. Of course, our country has been blessed before with leaders so immaculate in public yet so tragically flawed in their personal lives. But Bill Clinton was a new experience for America. Unlike with other presidents who may have strayed in their marriages, we the public paid for Clinton's sins perhaps as much as he and his family did. While Watergate destroyed the Office of the President, the Clinton tenure destroyed the president as a man -- both this one and perhaps all to come. Our hero for whom we held such great hopes fell flat on his face. And even as we stood cheering on Thursday, we all knew that the economy isn't the only thing that's changed dramatically over the past eight years. In our presidents, this country has always demanded a little more than the average man. We've always demanded the exceptional, the example for us all to follow. I'm not sure we will ever be so naive again.
(11/10/99 10:00am)
From Mark Fiore's, "The Right Stuff," Fall '99 From Mark Fiore's, "The Right Stuff," Fall '99A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.From Mark Fiore's, "The Right Stuff," Fall '99A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.· But today, gun-rights advocates have willfully manipulated those words. The Second Amendment, they claim, guarantees an expansive, individual privilege that allows each and every citizen to own guns of all descriptions. And any attempt to infringe on that right, they say, is a violation of the Constitution. That position, taken most prominently by the National Rifle Association, falls short in every respect. It is riddled with myths and flaws, displays a shameful indifference toward horrendous gun-related crimes and relies on political rhetoric to frame the issue in terms of rights rather than responsibilities. What the Second Amendment actually says is that Americans have the right to bear arms in order to maintain a militia. At the time of the nation's founding, such a right was crucial. The Constitution's framers, fearful of outside attacks and internal rebellions, sought to ensure the nation's survival. They did so by allowing states to maintain forces of citizens who served as part-time soldiers with their own firearms. In the first case to interpret the amendment -- the 1875 case of United States v. Cruikshank -- the Supreme Court held that while Americans may indeed have an individual right to bear arms, the Second Amendment is not the source of that right. A far more recent case applies similar reasoning. In the dispute, Quillici v. Village of Morton Grove, an Illinois town was sued after it passed an ordinance banning the possession of handguns except under limited circumstances. Lower courts upheld the ordinance, ruling that the Second Amendment provides no individual right to keep and bear arms. In 1983, the Supreme Court declined to hear the case, allowing the ruling to stand. Such decisions put bullet holes through the constitutional arguments of the NRA and other gun-rights advocates. But even if there is a constitutional basis for the right to possess guns -- and a few courts have found that such a right exists -- there is certainly ample precedent for adapting the Constitution to reflect modern realities. After the Civil War, for example, the Fourteenth Amendment disposed of the archaic stipulation that black Americans were only to be counted as three-fifths of a citizen in determining the apportionment of seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. And though the First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech, a theater-goer would be held criminally liable if he shouted "Fire!" in the theater. The premise, of course, is that individual liberty must be circumscribed when the public good is at stake. Certainly, gun-induced massacres have become sufficiently frequent to warrant a similar argument for gun control. In April, 12 students and a teacher were mowed down at Columbine High School. Nine more people were killed in July by an Atlanta day trader. And in the past week, two more shootings -- in Seattle and Honolulu -- claimed nine additional lives. Hundreds more gun-related deaths have gone without headlines. Indeed, according to Handgun Control Inc. -- the nation's largest anti-gun lobby -- 9,390 people were murdered with firearms in the U.S. in 1996. Back in America, with its reluctance to limit gun possession, there are nearly 200 million privately owned firearms -- more than two for every three citizens. The presence of those guns in a home triples the risk of homicide occurring in that home. The NRA's president, Charlton Heston, wants the government to only prosecute criminals -- not restrict gun sales. "This administration, as a policy, is putting gun-toting felons on the streets in record numbers," Heston testified before a House panel last week. "Why does the president ask for more federal gun laws if he's not going to enforce the ones we have?" Heston is off base. What is needed is greater prosecution and greater prevention. Though Heston apparently thinks that those two objectives are mutually exclusive, the only true way to reduce gun crimes it to simultaneously and aggressively pursue both goals. Gun-control proponents are pushing for mandatory child safety locks, tougher background checks, waiting periods and more. That should be only the first step toward ridding America of guns. Indeed, as Attorney General Janet Reno said last week, "We've got to get past the point of rhetoric and concepts and come to the reality -- guns kill."
(09/16/98 9:00am)
When determining how to approach binge drinking, officials must realize their limitations. The recent recognition of this problem by the University-wide task force charged with targeting campus binge drinking is a positive step. University administrators are in a difficult position: They are often held responsible when serious consequences result from alcohol abuse, but because of the way alcohol is ingrained in American culture, there is only so much they can do to prevent that abuse. Penn officials must recognize their limitations when implementing new anti-alcohol policies. That is not to say they should throw up their hands in defeat. There are definitely measures among the task force's recommendations that could be effective in deterring alcohol abuse. And, alternatively, some of the recommended measures are misdirected. Penn has already begun to take some steps in the right direction. Encouraging late-night retail, organizing alcohol-free events and providing space for student-generated evening activities is by far the best way to combat binge drinking. The "Penn p.m." program begun last week, which included sports competitions and coffee houses, has already seen high attendance. And student response was favorable toward the possibility that the former Phi Sigma Kappa house on Locust Walk might become a student center. And, because the problem of alcohol abuse is so widespread, focusing on minutiae such as increasing Friday courses and restricting the number of evening College of General Studies courses undergraduates may take won't get us anywhere. It is true that campus culture is currently too permissive about excessive drinking. But promoting an atmosphere of prohibition is not the way to go. Students who choose to drink should take responsibility for their actions. And if a situation becomes serious, they should know how best to help their friends.
(04/23/98 9:00am)
The Latino Coalition's complaints don't recognize ongoing efforts to increase minority presence. Members of the Latino Coalition have made a lot of noise this week about the University's "failure" to address Latino issues. But their concerns, ranging from low representation to high tuition costs, seem to have been made in a vacuum, without reference to the administration's current efforts -- or reality. We are all for increased minority presence and retention. Since the announcement of the Minority Permanence Plan in the fall of 1996, however, the University seems to have been taking steps toward those goals, particularly in the area of Latino representation. The number of incoming Latino students increased by 10 percent between 1996 and 1997. And the University brought in three new Latino professors last fall. Of course, these improvements are just a beginning. The University could always benefit from greater diversity. Additionally, Penn must work to hold on to minority students and ensure that quality minority professors are promoted through the ranks. It is a beginning though -- and an especially gratifying one since the numbers are plummeting elsewhere. The University of California at Berkeley, for instance, admitted only 434 Latino students into the class of 2002, in comparison to 1,045 admitted last year. The drop is due to a state-wide ban on racial preference. The Latino Coalition must recognize that dramatic positive change at Penn will not occur overnight. There is intense competition for bright minority students. And bringing in well-regarded minority professors is not as easy as sending an e-mail and having them show up the next morning. When the two Latino groups walked out of the United Minorities Council meeting last week, they said they thought they would be more successful communicating concerns on their own rather than as part of the umbrella organization. But since their departure from the UMC, the members of the Latino Coalition haven't been able to articulate a game plan for approaching the administration. The group doesn't even have a spokesperson. The UMC may not be the best possible mouthpiece. At least, though, the channels for communication are established. Administrators know how to contact UMC representatives, and they take them seriously. If you'd like to help the University's effort, go back to your high school and encourage minority students to apply. Or join the Admissions Office staff and let prospective students know about the receptive community at Penn.
(03/19/98 10:00am)
Hiring both senior and junior faculty members is necessary to keep pace with peer institutions. The upcoming departures of Marissa Golden, the core of the department's American politics sector, and international relations specialist Dan Deudney make a bleak situation look even more desperate. At the end of the semester, Political Science will be down to approximately 20 faculty members -- ironically fewer than a year ago when plans were announced to hire three to four full-time senior faculty members in an effort to make the department more visible. The department has had difficulty holding its own for some time. Fifteen years ago, it had a poor reputation among peer institutions, and internally it was marked by turmoil and conflict. But in the late '80s, Poli Sci began to rebuild. Most recently, efforts have been focused on boosting the department's notably weak American politics component. The loss of Golden, however, will be a substantial setback to that goal. For the past few years, she has been the only professor to teach the department's introductory course in American politics. And she has been a major player in the development of new courses. The recent announcement of her departure has left the department struggling to fill the void. In its revitalization efforts, recruiting senior faculty members is key, as high-profile professors should strengthen the department and make it more attractive to prospective faculty members and students. But, especially in light of the recent blows, senior faculty recruitment is not going to be enough to lift the department out of its crippled state. Poli Sci needs to rebuild from the ground up. This means also looking to hire more junior faculty members, who will enable the department to offer the myriad courses that have been abandoned for lack of staff. There are no quick fixes that will revitalize the Political Science department. Even if four new faculty members are hired within the next year, the department will have succeeded only in making up for recent losses. The University cannot claim to offer a well-rounded education without Political Science. Courses on American political thought, Congress and the judiciary branch -- none of which have been taught in years -- should be mainstays of the School of Arts and Sciences curriculum.
(03/04/98 10:00am)
Too many good professors do not fit into the current system's rigid guidelines. Political Science Professor Dan Deudney's upcoming departure as a result of a denied tenure bid will be just one in a series of regrettable losses in recent years. Deudney, a well-known authority on international relations, is revered by students and colleagues alike. His classes are full each semester, with his international relations theory and global environmental politics courses attracting more than 400 students. Additionally, he received the University's Lindback Award for excellence in teaching in 1996 and the American Political Science Association's Best Article in History and Politics award in 1995. But despite full support from his department and the School of Arts and Sciences, the Provost's Staff Committee concluded last May that his failure to publish while at Penn outweighed his teaching success at the University. Ironically, his departure coincides with an effort to recruit prominent faculty for the Political Science Department -- admittedly one of the University's weakest. While the department is specifically looking to boost its American Politics concentration, the International Relations sector is considered its strongest area, partly due to Deudney. Beyond doubt, teaching skills, research projects and publication endeavors all must weigh into a decision to grant tenure. But the rigidity built into the current system does not allow for even the most valid exceptions. When students apply to college or graduate programs, they are evaluated on the basis of a variety of factors -- including grades, standardized test scores and non-academic pursuits -- on a relatively fixed scale. That scale, however, can be tipped. For example, a school may admit a student with a low GPA because he or she is backed by outstanding recommendations or demonstrates unique qualities. Obviously, tenure decisions imply an entirely different level of commitment on behalf of an institution than those about potential students. But the finality of these decisions serves to underscore why the University shouldn't so lightly give up its most valued teachers. The University must reform its tenure system so those making the ultimate decision about whether to grant someone tenure can look at the big picture. They must be able to consider how an individual would contribute to the University in the long run, rather than having to rely on fixed guidelines for what makes a good faculty member.
(02/27/98 10:00am)
Groups must put an end to their complaints abount plans for the food plaza locations. It is hypocritical for students, faculty and staff to claim to want cheap, convenient vending options, while objecting to nearly every proposed food plaza site. Already, complaints have prompted administrators to pursue replacements for two sites: one adjacent to Bennett Hall at 34th and Chancellor streets and another behind Van Pelt Library on the 3400 block of Walnut street. We grant that concerns about the Chancellor site were well-founded, as noise from vending trucks would have made teaching in nearby Bennett classrooms difficult. Thus far, administrators have been willing to accommodate concerns. But now Hill House dormitory residents have come out against a proposed site at 34th and Walnut streets, citing problems ranging from noise and odors to rats and delivery disruption. To the residents of Hill and all others who support University City vending -- as long as it's not next to their building -- we say, "Enough is enough." This process has gone on too long already. And the complaints over the last couple weeks have delayed indefinitely any finalization of the plaza plans. There is, possibly, no spot for a vending plaza that would satisfy everyone. But, as members of the University community have asserted the importance of preserving vending in the area, they must now be willing to settle with the least problematic plan.
(02/13/98 10:00am)
The revitalization project is the latest joint Penn-community effort to improve the area. As the successful UC Brite initiative continues to light up neighborhood streets and with the University City District well in place, the University's latest announcement focuses on rehabilitating run-down properties. Penn, in conjunction with local community groups, is funding a project to purchase abandoned buildings and renovate them into single-family homes, which will then be sold -- largely to University affiliates like faculty and staff. New Managing Director for Community Housing Diane-Louise Wormley estimated that only 12 percent of University City properties are privately-owned -- the rest are rented to students. This results in increased rent prices and an extremely high turnover rate in neighborhood population. We eagerly anticipate the announcement of more initiatives under Wormley's direction. The neighborhood could also benefit from improvement to local schools. And revisions to the University's mortgage program, which currently guarantees 105 percent on a West Philadelphia house and allows employees to secure a mortgage without making a down payment, could lure even more faculty and staff to the area. With each subsequent initiative, the University should continue to expand its partnership with the local groups. And hopefully we can finally end the paradigm of "Penn versus the community."
(11/18/96 10:00am)
To the Editor: In recent years, several other student newspapers have adopted similar strategies. When I was an editor of The Chronicle, the daily student paper at Duke University, we developed a monthly "In this corner? In that corner" section that served the same function. Implicit in these types of editorial presentations, however, is a responsibility on the part of the editorial staff not normally present for regular columns. Regular columns merely represent the opinions of their authors, who are typically given the freedom to write on any topic they choose -- and, of course, to argue any side of a story. While Stephen Thompson's piece, "Always spare the chair," represented a thoughtful discussion of one side of the issue, the community was done little service by College sophomore John Mamoun's truly sophomoric judgements as to who is and is not a "high-quality human being." Hopefully future editions of "Both Sides" will be better paired in terms of the quality of insight. Scott Halpern Medicine '00 To the Editor: In his guest column "Execute Sled's murderers," John Mamoun claimed execution is the best punishment for those who kill someone of significantly more societal worth ("Execute Sled's murderers," DP, 11/14/96). Mamoun attached "worth to society" to "quality as a human being." In judging quality as a human being, he appears to disregard someone's willingness to kill another person, while considering level of education as definitively good. This view not only makes acceptable an educated person's murder of an uneducated person of high moral fiber, but seems to encourage it. Mamoun then asks "What if a high-quality human being destroys another high-quality human being?" A high-quality human being does not destroy another human being. Doesn't Mamoun know his commandments? Paul Smith College '99
(07/23/92 9:00am)
Ed Rendell seems to be one of the most popular men in Philadelphia. Why? Here was a guy who was the epitomie of a "pol," the very species all Americans supposedly detest. Fast Eddie he was nicknamed, yet he still won an enormous victory, both in the primary and in November. Granted he set forth some very good ideas about how to start solving the city's problems and that his opponets were less than inspiring, but I think there was more to "Fast Eddie's" win than that. To put it bluntly, I think Ed Rendell won a huge victory in large part due to the fact that many people in this city could picture themselves sitting down with the guy, kicking back and downing a few brews while watching the Eagles blow yet another playoff game. In contrast our beloved and most exalted leader, King George, and his Vice-Jester are obviously completely out of touch with all forms of reality. Clearly Bush and Quayle have no concept about what it means to be layed off, or to collect unemployment, or to suffer the humiliation of living on the street. These facts are certrainly not news to most of you, as has been pointed out in poll after poll. What goes overlooked however is how deeply unconnected our chief executive and his sidekick are in spirit to the American people. A few weeks ago, feeling the peer pressure from his opponets, George Bush made his first appearence on a talk show. When George made his decision to appear he was quoted as referring to it as one of those "weird morning shows." "Weird morning shows"? Perhaps strictly speaking George was right, but I have a feeling that wasn't what he was referring to. No, I think that our man of the people has probably never seen the Today show or Good Morning America or anything else the majority of his "constituients" watches. I don't think that this lack of knowledge concerning pop culture is a product of a generation gap either. Danny boy is the same age as my father. He could be George's son. J. Danforth grew up in the sixties and even though when every one else in his generation was going off to Vietnam he was at home making tea for mummy, he is still a baby boomer in technical terms. This fact hasn't helped him though. For example, one of the most incredible things I have read in a long time was an interview last spring with Marilyn Quayle in T.V. Guide. Asked what kinds of television programming the Quayle's watched, Danny's wife reported that they generally saw all three network news shows, the McNeil/Lehrer Report, Face the Nation, and CNN. She added that sometimes on Friday nights she and her four children (Oops, I mean she, Dan and their three children) will rent a movie. That was about it. No, she said, they never watch the Tonight Show. Geeks. I wondered if she were joking. Do you know a single person who has never seen a sitcom? Do you know anyone who doesn't, at least occasionally, watch the Simpsons, or Cheers, or Cosby, or at least Full House? How about Hawaii 5-0 or Hogan Heroes for god sakes? A baseball game? Maybe an old episode of Mash? When Danny boy attacked that evil perverter of American values, Murphy Brown, even he admitted that he has never seen the show. Hell, I read Newsweek, The New Republic, The Washington Monthly, two daily newspapers. I would call myself a political junkie but hey; there is more to life. I still find plenty of time to watch old Police Squad episodes and go to the movies. I don't consider myself too different from the average American (whoever that is). In other words, I have a life. (If you disagree on that point you can call me at home.) While I take a take a strong interest in government, poltics and international affairs, I don't spend every waking moment worrying about the trade deficit or how to manipulate the press, nor do I think it is healthy to do so. Unfortunately, some people obviously do, and we have a word for them: geeks. Let's face it, Bush and Quayle are geeks, and the reason that the media does not pick up on this fact is because they are all geeks too. What does Dan Rather do on his time off? Do you think he reads the latest book by Jackie Collins? I bet if you collected all the big name media types and every member of Congress and the Bush Administration and gave them a cultural literacy test nearly all of them would fail miserably. The problem is that we often only have a choice between geeks. Take Michael Dukakis. Remember when on national TV he responded to that asinine question of whether he would support the death penalty if his wife were raped by reciting textbook bullshit about being sworn to do his duty? Even my father, an honest to God 60's liberal went bonkers and still blaims that one stupid answer for costing the Democrats the '88 election. Come on Mike. Any real American would have first said they would rip the guy's lungs out and then proceeded to tell the reporter what an absolutley stupid question he had just asked. Unfortunately, the Duke was even more out of touch with reality than Bush. His personality must have been surgically removed at birth and stored in a deep freezer. Ronald Reagan was so popular simply because he was not a geek. People could relate to him and he to them. The anguish in Bush's face every time he makes a political appearence away from party fund raisers compared to Ronnie's jolly smile says it all. Bill Clinton seems to realize all of this. I don't know if he's a geek too, but every time he takes out his saxaphone and plays some jazz for the crowd he shows that he recognizes the importance of being in touch with the people. Of course many media types sneer at his showmanship, accusing him of lacking substance and ignoring the "tough questions." They only prove how isolated they are themselves. There is no greater bastion of unjustified snobbery in America than the media. Look, every time someone points out how shallow George Bush is when it comes to taking a stand on anything they are 100% on the money, but that's only half of the coin. People seem to ignore how important it is to understand and connect with those one is trying to lead. Pop culture - T.V., movies, music etc. helps bring this country together, and I don't think anyone, Democrat or Republican, who cannot relate to that culture in at least a minimal way should have the audacity to call himself our leader. We do not need a philosopher king. Brian Newberry is a senior Urban Studies and American History major from Wallingford, Connecticut and a former senior photographer for The Daily Pennsylvanian.
