63 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(06/03/04 1:13am)
What constitutes a great movie?\nMy dad and I often rap about this very question, particularly after I have just spent the night with my buddies watching a classic like "Caddyshack" or "Die Hard." Yes, these are crap movies, but they are crap movies done with such perfection and unique detail that they transcend the crap movie genre. They are timeless pieces of entertainment that you could watch every weekend without ever getting bored. That makes them great.\nNow when I say that these are crap movies, I do not mean in any way that they are crappy movies, because crappy movies are bad movies. Crap movies are not bad. Quite the contrary. Crap movies are wonderful movies that embrace and revolve around one or more of the following instinctual pleasures: sex, violence, sophomoric humor, antics, car chases, things blowing up, sappy love, gunfights, high energy and an overall level of tomfoolery.\nAlong with "Caddyshack" and "Die Hard," the highest level of crap movies include the following classics: "Animal House," "Halloween," "Major League," "Reservoir Dogs" and "Terminator 2." If you've seen and enjoyed any of these movies -- and more specifically, if you've seen and enjoyed them multiple times over multiple decades -- I challenge you to look me in the eye and tell me these are not great films. If "Duck Soup" is a great film, and "The Magnificent Seven" is a great film, then why not these? \nThe next rung down on the crap movie hierarchy are crap movies that are terrific but just aren't as good as the above films. This list includes "Predator," "Cheech and Chong's Up in Smoke," "Police Academy," "Die Hard 2" and one of the all-time classic crap movies, "Top Gun." \nIn fact, one could make a pretty convincing argument that Tom Cruise is the world's all-time greatest crap actor. Crap actors specialize in all of the same stuff that fill crap movies, so the classic crap actor cannot be just an action star like Steven Seagal or just a comedian like Rick Moranis. Try picturing Seagal having sex with Rebecca DeMornay on the El in "Risky Business," or Moranis screaming "I want the truth!" at Jack Nicholson.\nIt just doesn't work, does it? Tom Cruise could pull off all those things, and although he always looked silly doing it, he charged through that silliness with a sense of purpose that made his scenes exhilarating. Laugh at Tom Cruise if you want -- and we all do -- but he always delivered the goods.\nDo crap movies ever receive critical acclaim? Yes, but only when they are mistaken as noncrap movies by critics. A perfect example is "Thelma & Louise," which has all the makings of a crap movie. It's a high-energy, fun-loving, chick-flick filled with car chases, things blowing up, sappy love and fantasy-like sex in which Geena Davis moves from an old, faux-macho, useless husband to a ripped, youthful cowboy version of Brad Pitt, who apparently doesn't own a shirt and whose primary desire in life is to pleasure middle-aged women on the lamb from responsibility. And yet it was nominated for six Oscars, including best director and two for best actress. Ridiculous, no?\n Great films are films with consistently high levels of entertainment, films that withstand the test of time, and films that can be enjoyed by many different people who have many different likes and dislikes. Sixty years later we're still watching "The Wizard of Oz," "Casablanca" and "Citizen Kane," and I would venture to say that 60 years from now, college kids will still be singing "Louie Louie" in perfect drunken harmony.\nAdvice from the John: See your future. Be your future. Ma-make-make it … make your future, Danny.
(05/20/04 1:22am)
I was watching "Top Gun" about a week ago, and everything was going along fine, when all of a sudden we got to the scene in the locker room right after Maverick does the "fly by." Iceman walks up to him, stares him down, and tells him that "the enemy is dangerous, but you're worse than the enemy. You're dangerous and foolish." \nAnd as I listened to his speech and prepared myself for my standard angry-reaction-to-something-Iceman-said face, I found to my surprise that I wasn't angry at all. In fact, I was in complete agreement. Maverick was worse than the enemy, and he was indeed both dangerous and foolish.\nEver since then, things haven't really seemed the same. I feel older, and somehow more experienced, as if I now have the distinct advantage of viewing the world through an "Iceman's right" lens. And yet all the while, I don't entirely approve of a world that could let me, a healthy American boy, evolve into a person who agrees with Iceman, nor of a world that would expect all good, responsible adults to do the same.\nHowever, despite this semi-new outlook on life, I still feel much younger than most people my age do, as far as I can tell. Nearly all of the conversations I've had with kids my age (adults my age?) over the past few months have concerned our plans for the future, and whether or not we had plans for the future and whether or not those plans were worthwhile plans for the future. So far my answers to the two whether-or-not's have been "kind of" and "not really."\nAt first I thought those answers would put me in some rather large company, as most people my age seem concerned with the future. But pry a little deeper and you find that their kind-of's and not-really's already involve a specific graduate school or job, while mine involve the non-descript living at home and traveling.\nThis kind of comparative preparedness has helped me retain my sense of youth, because the more I hear of people my age who have everything sorted out or are in the act of getting everything sorted out, the younger I feel.\nBut it's not the fun, full of life, spring-in-my-step-and-full-of-pep kind of youthful feeling. This is more like the feeling of showing up to class on time only to find that no one's there: you're excited for a moment when you think there's no class, but you can't help but wonder if in fact there is class and you just don't know where it's being held. \nAnd it is in this worrisome feeling that sometimes makes growing up scary. It doesn't really have anything to do with the age. Like the saying goes, it's just a number. The scary part comes from the expectations of aging. I'm not in any way worried about turning 23 in November; the worrying comes from being expected to accomplish whatever it is that 23-year-olds are expected to accomplish.\nAnd what is that?\nWell, maybe nothing. Maybe the world does not actually expect anything from 23-year-olds. Wouldn't that be something? Maybe the world just expects them to make an honest effort to figure things out so that by the time they are 24, they can start to make a difference.\nIceman would probably disapprove of this attitude, and yet I feel like there's something to it. I suppose the key is finding a middle ground. Like the saying goes, between Iceman and Maverick lies happiness.\nHealth Concern From the John: I get a sharp pain in my right ear whenever I eat really hot food, particularly pizza and chicken. Has this happened to anyone else?
(05/03/04 5:02am)
The first thing I learned at IU three and-a-half years ago was it's pronounced "Loo-vle," not "Louie-ville" as I had always assumed. The next thing I learned was it takes a while for them to figure out you're not actually in the Optometry building, which means you can park there for free for a couple of weeks.\nThat second lesson came sophomore year, and then for a long time, nothing happened -- now here I am, about to graduate, and all I can think is "Wait. Isn't that too much vodka?"\nYes, there are lots of lessons learned in college, and being that I was the rare person who did not start drinking until I was 22, I've found lots of those lessons revolve around alcohol. I'm sure many of you discovered this long before I did, so it's nice to finally be caught up.\nActually, one of my all-time favorite memories at IU involved alcohol use -- although not from me. It came during December or January of my junior year, when at around three in the morning my roommate and a friend of mine were watching a movie and having a pizza. A girl we didn't know knocked on the door and told us there was a car in the parking lot with a car on it, and she and her friends were pretty sure the car underneath the other car belonged to someone in our apartment. As it turns out, it was my roommate Ric's Toyota Prius underneath some drunk kid's Buick. Funny sight.\nThe lesson here is drunk people will park their cars wherever they damn well please. And who can blame them? After a confused and blurry drive, I'm sure it was comforting for this guy to finally be home, his car resting safely atop another car.\nAnd maybe that's the real lesson of college -- you're bound to see some crazy things. Have I made any growth academically? Probably not. Did I get incredible tips delivering at Dominoes the night we beat Duke? Absolutely. So there's a balance.\nThe very fact that I just referred to IU as "we" demonstrates perhaps my biggest IU-related growth. Coming to school here, I was -- and am -- a huge Northwestern fan. To me, NU was the team I'd grown up with, while IU was just a school I had chosen since the application was only one page. I'm still a huge NU fan, and I still pull for the Cats over the Hoosiers. But during my time here, I've grown to love IU and everything it encompasses -- a school, a town, and its many athletics teams. \nOf course my time here hasn't been all Final Fours and cars on cars. Coming from the greater Chicago-land area, I've had to make a huge food adjustment here in Bloomington due to the lack of legitimate hot dog stands. I mean, what's that about?\nBut I suppose one has to make sacrifices, and to that end I've struggled mightily with pizza upon pizza and a few burgers to boot. \nAnd so as I finish this four-year retrospective column in order to fulfill my contract with the IDS as an outgoing senior, I say to all of you young kids: Don't wait three years to go to an IU basketball game like I did. They're quite a good time, and more than make up for the money you spend going to football games. And finally to my buddy Pat, since I promised I would three years ago: What up bro? You're in the IDS!\nBOLD PREDICTION FROM THE JOHN: The Bears will go to the playoffs this year and win the Super Bowl in 2005.
(04/29/04 4:56am)
Lately, I've been bombarded with commercial after commercial concerning the extraordinary pros and cons of both major presidential candidates.\nOrdinarily, I wouldn't involve myself in these bi-partisan slappy fights, but to be honest I really, really don't like Bush, and as good as Ralph Nader is, I don't see him getting elected. Will John Kerry be the greatest president we've ever had? Probably not. But all surprises aside, I'm sure he will be a way-better president than Bush.\nNow before all you Young Republicans get all gung-ho and e-mail me about how Kerry has done such-and-such and plans to spend blah blah on whatever, let me tell you I don't much buy into statistics about candidates that come from people towing the party line. When it comes to political issues, I find many members of both sides somehow manage to find statistics to factually back up their yelling. \nFor most Americans, Bush's legacy will ultimately lie in his war, and it is that action which, for me, reflects his worst trait: lack of trustworthiness.\nWould Al Gore have gone to war? I don't know, though he probably would have taken some kind of military action. But the way Bush and Co. carried everything out -- misleading Congress and the public about Iraq, Saddam and Weapons of Mass Destruction -- was just shady. We're only two and a half years removed from Sept. 11, and it's already public opinion that Bush's initial reaction to go after Saddam Hussein was wrong.\nAs for the pro-Kerry side, I like most of his policies and ideas a lot more than Bush's, but mostly I like his legitimate shot at getting elected. I probably dig more of Ralph Nader's ideas, but Nader's nerve to run again bothers me. Yes, democracy would be better with three legit candidates instead of two, but our current system doesn't give much hope to that, and with the election less than seven months away, we have to work within that system.\nIf Nader really wants to give people a choice, he could spend his time working to develop a new election process. I am all for fighting for something you believe in, even if it has little chance of success, but this is not the year to "make a statement." Not for a candidate and not for voters. If you want to vote for Nader, I respect that, but I want Bush out of office as soon as possible, and I'd imagine you agree. After all, as a Nader supporter, you probably dislike him even more than I do.\nNader is going to make his own decision about whether or not he wants to run, and if you want Bush out of office then you will have to make your own decision about whether or not the social good of voting for Nader is worth it. I don't think it is, and with this in mind I will vote for Kerry because definitely getting a better president than Bush is more important to me than wasting my vote on Ralph Nader.\n Of course, I could be wrong. Perhaps Bush has been a terrific president. After all, he still has many supporters. But I don't see it. I see his opposition to gay marriage, his unwillingness to fully fund his own education program, his unwillingness to punish corporate criminals and his decision to quickly and thoughtlessly take us into a war.\nBush has had his chance to lead this country, and many people are unhappy with where he's taken us. It's time to give somebody else a chance.
(04/15/04 4:25am)
One of life's great truths is no matter what happens, life goes on. Like all great truths packaged into an aphorism, Life Goes On has become a cliché, but it is true, nonetheless. \nBut as true as it is, sometimes that concept feels like an impossibility. There are days when it feels like life shouldn't go on -- days when people die, relationships end, problems pile up and you can't understand how the rest of the world can just continue on with the daily grind.\nIn a very practical way, life goes on because responsibilities and circumstances that have nothing to do with your own problems do not go away. Most people do their best to accommodate you, but school won't be canceled because you have to attend a funeral. Anyone who's ever known someone who died knows the sudden guilt that comes with feeling the least bit inconvenienced by a death. As potentially insensitive as it might be, there's no way around crying in Synagogue, feeling absolutely sad and devastated and at the same time wondering how in the hell you're ever going to finish the research paper due Monday. As brief as that moment may be, it's impossible to ignore, and it only grows, compounding your already long list of concerns. You mourn over the death and then worry about the paper and then think of yourself as selfish for worrying about the paper while mourning the death.\nThese kinds of conflicting thoughts and feelings are natural, and to me, they are part of what makes being a human being so confusing, painful, exhilarating and wonderful all at once. Even while dealing with death, I can't ignore the outside circumstances that force me to think about other problems --I can only worry about that which I can control.\nAlong with the practical side, there are the more emotional and spiritual ways life goes on because learning how to live is all about learning how to embrace change while appreciating what you've had in the past. People die, relationships end, problems arise and life goes on, not just because it has to, but hopefully because you're able to find a reason to continue enjoying it.\nThat can be hard to do sometimes. It's hard to find a balance between handling your own problems and having the perspective to recognize the legit weight of those problems. I'm currently dealing with a situation with a girl I met about a month ago. I'll be going to camp for the summer and then home to Chicago while she'll be going somewhere for grad school next year. I'm sad to think a good relationship could be over in a few months due to outside circumstances, but then I consider the situation of a good buddy of mine whose four-year relationship with his girlfriend recently ended. There's no doubt he's having a rougher time with it than I am, and so I downplay my own feelings. But that's silly -- my friend could do the same by comparing his situation to that of a long-time married man who gets divorced, while that man could compare his situation to that of a long-time married man whose wife dies, and so on.\nSo what do I do? Ignore my emotions or overly dwell in them? I guess all I can do is take hold of whatever's in my control and honestly deal with my feelings while trying to keep a sense of the big picture and appreciating all that I have. Clichéd? I suppose. But then, so is life.
(04/08/04 4:21am)
As a college senior four months away from graduation, I'm finally starting to really consider my future. With grad school and job searches coming up, and marriage, family and other adult responsibilities somewhere in the distant horizon, it's amazing to think just how different my life will be in the next five or so years.\nAnd yet, my life is already substantially different than it was five years ago.\nFor those of you around my age, think about how far away high school is. Good lord, that was a long time ago. In case you've forgotten, we used to go to school every damn day at 8 a.m. Even Fridays. By the time we were 14, most of the kids in my school district already had anywhere between two and nine favorite types of coffee. Why do you think Starbucks has so many choices? They've got to keep it interesting. A survey conducted by the National Starbucks Association of Excessive Coffee Variety found the typical Starbucks customer has tasted approximately 68 different types of coffee by the time he or she can drive.\nBut massive coffee consumption isn't the biggest difference between 8 a.m. high school students and 8 a.m. college students. We drink our share of coffee too, but we often have the advantage of being able to go home and get some more sleep shortly after an early class. Back in high school, if you recall, classes went all the way from eight in the morning until about three in the afternoon. This does not take into account extra-curricular activities which invariably sucked up another 20 to 25 hours per day, so that during your average 24-hour day, a high-school student who was "involved" spent about 32 hours at school.\nWith everyone herded into one building rather than spread out on a giant campus, the people were different too -- gossipy pressure-packed caffeine addicts passing each other a zillion times an hour in the same classrooms and hallways and stairwells. And just in case that wasn't enough to drive you crazy, my high school had the added bonus of nearly every kid believing only the top 2 percent of students would get into a good college while everyone else would be left pumping gas only to die at the age of 26, usually from overdoses of foam.\nOf course, the ultra-competitive high schoolers were wrong. Basically everyone from my high school went to college, and some of my favorite retrospective moments over the past four years have involved going home and running into high school classmates at bars and foam funerals and realizing not one of us remembers an eighth of the stupid crap we argued about while growing up. We talk to each other about what we're doing now and what we plan on doing, and all of those immature social hierarchies seem farther away than the days we wore Velcro shoes.\nSo now here I am, preparing for life after graduation when I will more or less enter the proverbial "real world," and some days it seems as if my degree won't even qualify me to work at Starbucks, much less afford their coffee. But chances are graduation won't be the enormous milestone it's been cracked up to be, just as high school graduation wasn't and eighth grade graduation wasn't. \nIn fact, every major life development since kindergarten has been billed as entirely bizarre and frightening, until of course I spend hour one in the new situation and find it's not much different than the previous one. As is always the case, every change is not nearly as big as it seems because when you get there you are ready to be there.\nADVICE FROM THE JOHN: Vote.
(04/01/04 5:00am)
Perhaps better than any other filmmakers, the Coen Brothers are adept at creating unique comedic worlds which operate with their own brilliant yet skewered logic. Raising Arizona, Barton Fink, The Big Lebowski and O Brother, Where Art Thou? are all films with bizarre characters and situations -- which are believable within the worlds the Coens create. Even their more serious ventures like Blood Simple, Fargo and The Man Who Wasn't There are films which derive humor out of their peculiar but self-contained worlds. Unfortunately, the crazy characters of The Ladykillers -- a remake of the 1955 comedy -- are set in a more realistic movie. Rather than seeing their eccentricities as part of a hilariously odd world, they make these characters seem out of place.\nTake Tom Hanks' lead character, Professor Goldthwait Higginson Dorr. The previews show Dorr with an odd laugh, which seemed humorous, but within the context of the movie it's not nearly as funny as it is distracting. Hanks does a terrific job in the role, on par with Nicolas Cage in Arizona and John Turturro in Fink. But those movies embraced their characters, while this one wants to stand outside of them; the film detracts from the quality of Hanks' work, and I got more laughs from him in Catch Me If You Can than in this.\nThe story revolves around Dorr, a con man who moves into an old woman's house in order to tunnel from her cellar to a riverboat casino vault. He presents himself and his four partners in crime as a classical music group of the Lord who need a quiet place to practice, and the five men play a loud CD of classical music while tunneling. Like Hanks, the four actors playing the group are eccentric cartoon characters each defined by very specific character traits. They are funny but not real. In a movie about a robbery which depends on lying to an old woman and then possibly killing her, we never get a sense of what kind of people these are morally, particularly Dorr, because the last twenty minutes prohibit that.\nThis is not to say that The Ladykillers is a bad movie. I was rarely bored and the laughs were consistent, though they were never the kinds of gut-busting laughs which dominate Arizona and Lebowski. While the movie's conclusion seems like a cop-out, it was funny and fair. The movie has enough laughs to sustain its 104 minutes, and is certainly better than most comedies which come out these days. But it is not a great movie, and certainly not indicative of the kind of work the Coen Brothers usually put out. If you're looking for a comedy, it's fine. If you're looking for a good comedy, it'll do. But if you're looking for a good Coen Brother comedy, rent something listed above.
(04/01/04 4:49am)
Hey Hey! Holy Cow! It's Baseball Time!\nTo give you an idea of how incredibly pumped I am for this 2004 baseball season, let me say I hate exclamation points. I think they're overused. My previous 24 columns contained a total of four exclamation points, and two of those were in the one I wrote about the Cubs during last year's playoffs. For those of you scoring at home, that's seven Cub-related exclamation points out of nine.\nMonday is Opening Day, marking the end of an agonizing 182 day wait since Game seven of the National League Championship Series. For five and-a-half long months, my fellow Cub fans and I have waited for this season, tortured by thoughts of what-ifs and endless replays of the disaster that was Game six. But that will all be over soon. It's springtime, and it's a new season.\nI know what some of you "Cub fans" are thinking. "Wait a second? They play baseball in April? Are you sure? 'Cause, uh, I didn't buy my Cub hat until September." Yes, there's baseball in April. Amazing, but true. \nAll ribbing aside, this column represents a terrific opportunity for those of you who jumped on the bandwagon late last year, because I am inviting all you "Cub fans" to experience an entire season of Chicago Cubs baseball absolutely free. After just a few short months, you'll be so thrilled with the joy of following the Cubs I guarantee you'll want to stick around for the rest of this season and many seasons to come.\nBeing a Cub fan is not easy, though it may sometimes look like it is. A common misconception about Cub fans is that we don't care how the team does as long as we have fun. Certainly there are people who go to Wrigley just to have a good time. I will not deny that. But true Cub fans -- and there are many of us -- care deeply about the Cubbies. We are Chicago fans, and Chicago fans are among the most loyal and die-hard of all fans.\nTo see us having fun at Wrigley and assume we don't care about the game is absurd. We were all devastated by the ends of Games six and seven. Drinking couldn't even cheer me up after that series. I just went home and went to bed.\nRemember, we have not been to a World Series in 59 years. That's too much pain for any fan to bear. If we wore our feelings on our sleeves, there would be no real Cub fans left. We would've all died years ago from self-inflicted head bashings into walls.\nI have a great deal of respect for true fans of any club, because I know what true fandom is about. What makes the Cubs special is not that we embrace losing, but that we embrace life. We get through the painful years by enjoying what we do have -- a team we love, a team that loves us, a great ballpark and the knowledge that when the Cubs finally do win another World Series, it will be sweeter than anything we've ever imagined. Being a true Cub fan is about learning to appreciate what you have rather than dwelling on what you don't.\n So to my fellow Cub fans and all of you coming aboard today -- and it had better be today and not September, since you've been warned -- I say to you, go Cubbies, and I'll see you in the World Series. That's right I said it, because you know what? Curses are for losers.
(03/25/04 4:19am)
Yeah, you know me!\n(That was fun. OK, moving on.)\nMany years ago, I enjoyed reading. As a child, I would often go to the library with my parents, pick out a few books and quietly read while nestled in the little fort my brother Mike and I had in the back of our old house. The fort was a small Anne Frankish spot beneath a trap door and above a rarely-used concrete stairwell which led to the cellar. \nWhen Mike and I found it, we originally envisioned it as a place to hang out and watch TV with the guys, so we gathered some markers and paper and produced a handy "No Girls Allowed" sign. Like all young boys, we knew a day would come when girls were allowed - not just allowed, but in power - and we sensed our time together as guys was running out. Most guys sense this at some point, which is why we invented sports bars and basements.\nAnyhow, with the addition of some duct tape for the sign, our fort was nearly complete, but our dream of the all-male TV fort died when we discovered both my brother and I had poor wiring skills. Unable to unhook a TV from the house and rehook it in the fort, we decided the dream would have to wait. Television watching was relegated to the TV room in the house, and in an effort to maximize the fort's usefulness, it became a cozy reading nook.\nAnd a cozy reading nook it remained, until one day when I was about 11 and could no longer comfortably fit inside. I looked for many moons, but was never able to find a suitable replacement nook, and so my indoor idle time was filled exclusively by television and television-related activities.\nSince then, I've grown further and further away from reading books for fun. Is it unfair of me to blame my disinterest in reading on the world's surprising lack of nooks? Probably. That is a childish response. The truth of the matter is watching TV is a lot easier than reading. Plus, let's face it. I love TV. Why not watch it? \nSure, there's something appealing about spending my free time reading. I would love to start and finish a book in a few sittings, wake up before noon, not save homework till the night before, eat right, keep the living room clean, study a little bit every day so I don't have to cram, back up my computer files on a disk, exercise, take "initiative," eat all the bread before it goes bad, learn how to spell the word "convenient" without having to use spell check, enjoy L371, have abs, appreciate serious art … but these actions are not a reality.\nThe point is, you make choices and you live with them. I like sleeping in, so instead of being upset I've "wasted the day away," I am thrilled I got to sleep. I like procrastinating, so instead of being angry at 9 a.m. when I have a 15-page paper due at noon, I reflect on all of the good times I had while not writing the paper. Same goes with not reading for fun. I'm sure one day I'll come around and change some of my unproductive habits, but that change will come naturally, or when I find a new nook.\nADVICE FROM THE JOHN: A110 Intro to Computers is a useful and easy class. But beware: there is no attendance policy. Just show up, and you'll do fine. You don't want to take it twice. Trust me.
(03/11/04 4:18am)
Warning: the following contains broad generalizations\nWhen trying to discern the various mental and emotional differences between men and women, one needn't look much further than each gender's preferred avenue of relationship storytelling -- programming that whittles away any extraneous aspects of dating, leaving only what each gender finds absolutely vital. I am speaking, of course, about soap operas and soft porn.\nWhile soaps reduce relationships to gossipy, middle-schoolish dating and soft porn cuts relationships down to mindlessly-rabid sex, they are basically the same. Both genres feature very specific and unique styles of acting, music and lighting, and both can be quickly identified upon first glimpse by experienced viewers. Consider the following piece of dialogue that could easily be inserted into either medium:\nMan: "What's your name?" Woman: "Virginia." Man (looking unnaturally serious): "Who" *pause* "are you?" Woman (nervous) "I … I don't know." Man: "You must have amnesia." Woman (closeup, glossy eyes): "Maybe. What's amnesia?" Man (slowly approaching her): "Loss of memory. Did you lose your memory?" Woman: "I don't remember." (sad, but oddly hopeful) "I can't remember anything." Man: "Do you remember… this?" (man kisses woman).\nSoap? Porn? It's impossible to tell. The only difference between the two is, in the first, the above dialogue would lead to a complex relationship in which the man tries to help the woman piece together her pre-amnesiac life, while in the second, the dialogue would lead to lots and lots of dispassionate sex.\nSo why does one genre appeal to women while the other appeals to men? While men and women both dig sex equally, men think about it more obsessively than women do because it's harder for us to get. Men going out in cologne and collared shirts are proof that women hold all the cards.\nWomen are anatomically equipped to distract men with their sexuality. Of all the sexual body parts on either men or women, breasts are the only ones near eye level, strategically placed to confuse and debilitate men. I mean, why else would they be right there? It was a devilish and brilliant plan, and it worked.\nLadies, get mad at us for staring if you want, but imagine if penises grew on chests instead of in crotches, leaving our manhood plainly visible. You can see the predicament we're in.\nThat's why we sometimes panic after sex. We assume girls don't like it since we usually have to work so hard to get it, so when it finally happens, we think we've gotten away with something. That sudden guilt is enough to freak anyone out. We just have to remember that women like sex too, and that by gawking, we play right into their hands.\nWith all of the miscommunication and misunderstandings between men and women causing so many relationship problems, one has to wonder if these gender gaps exist in gay relationships. If not, that's awesome. I'm sure gay couples get into fights, but it must make dating so much easier when you have a basic understanding of the other person's psyche and perhaps a bigger overlap of mutual interests. After all, many men dream of being able to have great sex and then start talking baseball. Why else would we love sexy to moderately-good looking female sportscasters?\nAh, sexy female sportscasters … But that's for another day. I think there's porn on.\nAdvice from the john: For anyone willing to try, bring back the flat top. I would if I could. They were awesome.
(03/04/04 5:00am)
A year or so ago, my friends and I were in the video store trying to decide what to rent. Somebody suggested "Super Troopers," and since I wasn't paying, I agreed. The previews looked more dumb than funny, so I wasn't expecting much when we turned it on. Needless to say, it quickly became one of my favorite comedies, both to watch and quote.\nSo now here comes "Club Dread," Broken Lizard's follow-up to their 2002 cult hit. Is the movie funny? Well, like all comedies, it depends on who you ask. For me, everything I liked about "Super Troopers" seemed missing from "Club Dread" -- namely laughs. \nThe movie takes place at a resort called Pleasure Island, which is basically an overnight camp for college kids. The film begins with a guest and two employees having sex in the jungle only to be killed by a masked, machete-wielding maniac. The plot revolves around the killer wiping out the help one by one, as surviving staffers try to figure out who the killer is. All five members of Broken Lizard are on staff at the island, and like their state troopers in the first flick, responsibility is not their number one priority. There's Dave (Foster in "Super Troopers"), a dope-dealing DJ; Putman (Thorny), a dreadlocked-Brit who teaches tennis; Lars (Farva), a masseuse with an orgasmic touch; Juan (Mac), the resident cute Latin-lover; and then Sam (Rabbit), the most non-descript character of the five. (That I've remembered all their names is not to say they were at all memorable, but rather I was paying very close attention since I knew I would have to recall them for this review.)\nIt's not that screwball comedies require deep, complex characters, but one of the most underrated aspects of "Super Troopers" was the characters' likeability. Even Farva, the schmuck of the group, is likeable in an odd way much in the same way D'Annunzio of "Caddyshack" is likeable. The comedy in "Super Troopers" grows out of the characters whereas the characters in "Club Dread" are designed in an effort to produce comedy.\nConsider the way "Super Troopers" develops. For the most part, it is a slice-of-life movie about how state troopers in crime-depraved Vermont deal with their abundance of spare time. "Club Dread" is about its machete-killer plot, leaving its characters as an afterthought. \nThere are some inspired comedic moments -- such as a live action "Ms. Pac-Man game with guests acting as Ms. Pac-Man" and the ghosts, and staff members acting as the fruit -- but most of the movie is slow and unfunny. I doubt anyone will delight in quoting "Club Dread" a year from meow the way many people enjoy quoting "Super Troopers." I suppose it's worth a gander, as other people in the theater seemed to be laughing, but it's certainly not worth $7.50.
(03/04/04 4:55am)
I guess I should start by saying I am a non-practicing Jew with a limited theological background, though I am learning more every day. The following are my questions and thoughts concerning the film, "The Passion of the Christ," and other faith/religion-related topics. These questions and thoughts are not intended to disprove anything; they are simply reactions stemming from an honest curiosity and search for knowledge.\nFirst off, I did not feel this movie was anti-Semitic on its own, nor did it offend me as a Jew. I have not read the passages from scripture on which the movie is based, but the people I have talked to who have read it say the movie is faithful to the text. \nTherefore, one should not ask if the movie is anti-Semitic, but rather if the Bible is anti-Semitic. \nHaving watched it, I would imagine anyone who comes out of this film all keyed up against Jews probably had a beef with us to begin with. Likewise, the people protesting the film's anti-Semitism probably came in looking for anti-Semitism, as evidenced by the ridiculous number of people who protested the film without seeing it.\nThe concern over possible anti-Semitism in the film stems from people blaming Jews for Jesus' death. But if the Christian Bible is true, then isn't the question of "who killed Jesus" completely irrelevant, since Jesus was born to die? If that was his purpose, it doesn't matter who actually did it. Could Jesus have come to earth to die for man's sins and then not die? Wouldn't that negate his entire purpose? Furthermore, there were only two types of people around back then -- the Jews and the Romans -- so chances are people from one or both groups would be physically responsible for Jesus' death.\nAlong that same line of thought, I don't see how Satan and human temptations are relevant to Jesus' story. As the son of God, Jesus had no choice other than to live a perfect life. That was his exact purpose: live that life and die for man's sins. God does not fall to temptations, so why would Jesus? \nAnother question: Why doesn't God talk to man anymore like he does in the Torah and the Christian Bible? I understand people today have intimate relationships with God; I'm talking about when God spoke to man in the same way people speak to each other. Some possible answers:\n1. If God never spoke to man, he would be holding people to a standard they would have no way of meeting -- praying to a god they did not know existed. The only way people know to pray to God is because the idea has been passed down through generations via religion. \n2. There are still prophets today, but if any of them claimed to be talking to God, people would call them insane.\n3. He never actually spoke to people the way we speak to each other, but rather the prophets/writers personified God in order to make a holy book that was easy to follow and easy to tell.\nIf this last part is the case -- and it seems as reasonable and logical to me as any other explanation -- does that discredit the Torah/Christian Bible to some extent?\nFinally, if you use the Torah as proof Jesus was not the Messiah or use the Christian Bible as proof he was, isn't that circular logic? Both texts seem self-serving; the holy text of any particular religion is obviously going to "give proof" for the beliefs of that religion.\nAdvice from the john: Keep listening, keep thinking, keep asking.
(02/26/04 4:18am)
First off, let me just say I don't buy any of this hogwash about people opposing gay marriage because they want to "preserve the sanctity of marriage." That's like me saying I oppose the designated hitter because I want to preserve the sanctity of the National League. For those unfamiliar with baseball, the designated hitter is used only in the American League, so obviously the rule has no possible effect on the sanctity of National League baseball.\nPeople who "wish to preserve the sanctity of marriage" are really just saying they don't like the idea of two gay people marrying, or doing anything else together for that matter. Well, to all of you who feel that way, I've done some research and you'll be happy to know even if gay people are allowed to marry other gay people, straight people will not be required to do so. This will surely come as a relief to all of the straight people worried that gays have an abnormal desire to marry people who don't like them.\nOf course, not all people opposed to gay marriage are opposed to gay people having equal rights, nor do they have any kind of bias against gays at all. There are many who are in favor of civil unions and equal rights for gay couples but are opposed to gay marriage because "marriage" is defined as being between one man and one woman.\nFor a while, I thought this was OK. Homosexuals just want equal rights, like the right to a government-recognized legal union that provides benefits to the couple. Calling it "marriage" would just be icing on the cake. But civil unions are a "separate but equal" proposition, and those don't usually work, as illustrated by the end of segregation. While there's no obvious inequality in gay civil unions like there was with unequal funding for segregated schools, I do know much of the law is built on the manipulation of language -- and sooner or later somebody will try to take advantage of the simple difference in terms between "marriage" and "civil union." \nPlus, it's kind of silly to give gays legal unions and equal rights but deny them a name just based on semantics. The acceptance of a same-sex couple's civil union seems to be more of a change of the institution of marriage than the use of a word.\nI'm sure I've offended some people by equating gay rights to black rights and segregation, but step back and have some perspective. Let's say a national law is passed tomorrow granting gay couples the right to legally wed. Forty years go by, and it's now 2044, where the majority of Americans believe gay marriage is normal because they've grown up with it. Politicians also endorse it, because it's the status quo. Do you know how absurd it would sound for someone in 2044 to say gay marriage should be outlawed?\nIt would be as absurd as it would sound today if someone suggested blacks should be segregated from whites in 2004, 40 years after segregation was made illegal.\nThis nonsense about "promoting family values" also pisses me off. My parents are not great parents because there are two of them or because one is a man and one is a woman, although I've certainly benefited on both accounts. They are great because they care for, provide for and love my brother and me. A gay couple is just as capable of that as a straight couple. Besides, if you are somebody who knows gays are going to live in eternal damnation, the least you could do is throw 'em a bone.\nAdvice from the john: Confessions are good for the soul but bad for the case.
(02/19/04 4:25am)
Four years ago, my dad and I took a little collegiate road trip to help me decide where I wanted to go to school. As an eager, young journalism student who spent senior year as co-editor in chief of the high school newspaper, I was considered a "blue chip" journalism recruit. Even with the number of agents who called my parents urging them to let me go pro ("I can't give you any names, but there are several big time papers interested in your son right now"), we decided I should see what college had to offer.\nAs it turns out, all the stories were true.\nAt the University of Wisconsin, the J-school head handed me a UW duffle bag filled with customized UW newspapers featuring my own column and my head shot. The University of Illinois promised me an editor position and free faculty parking passes.\nThen I came to IU.\nThey started with the usual offers and temptations, similar to those at Madison, Wis., and Champaign, Ill. But later that night, I left my parents in their room at the Union and went to a house party with some journalism students I'd met that day. When we arrived, I was immediately given free beer and pot, but before I could get settled, they told me I had to meet some of their "friends." I was escorted into a back room where four or five older girls, were waiting for me. "I can't wait till you're going to school here. I'm going to read everything you write. Everything. I hear journalists have really big…"\nNo, I'm kidding.\nBut seriously, wouldn't it be money if the rest of us got recruited like athletes? The University of Colorado has taken some heat recently for supposed "recruitment orgy parties" for potential football players. Well, they should. Football players have no problems getting chicks. How about a little love for the chemists, psychologists and the kid who plays the cello? I mean, it must be a bitch lugging that thing around.\nSome may say I'm skirting the real issue -- making light of a serious problem. "It is wrong for coaches to use sex as a recruitment tool," they say. "Can't they just give away cars and money like they used to?" Well sure, but cars are so easy to spot. Also, with so many athletes leaving school early, a coach would be crazy to give a kid a car when he knows he's leaving in two years. With sex, it's a one-shot deal. Plus, there's less paper work.\nPersonally, I think using sex to recruit kids is a useful tool. It forces them to make the tough decisions. Who among us hasn't made a poor long-term decision when tempted by exciting short-term payoffs? It starts when we're young.\n"Mom, lemme stay up 'till midnight, and I swear I'll mow the whole lawn tomorrow. Honest. Pleeeeeese!"\n Sure, the extra time up is fun, but it's usually not much more than Nick at Nite and a lot of ice cream. \n Midway through that mow, you're wishing you'd gone to bed early.\n And so it may be for some of these Colorado players or any other athlete who goes to a certain school because his penis told him to. \n Sex can play crazy tricks on a man … crazy, wonderful, sexy tricks. And if you are a man with enough willpower to make decisions with your head instead of your other head, there is nothing you can't accomplish.\nADVICE FROM THE JOHN: Life's too short to pretend that you dislike the CDs you bought in middle school. They're still great, and you know it. Dust off that copy of "Cooleyhighharmony" and revel in youth.
(02/12/04 5:34am)
This is the third in a three-part series\now can we take the next step toward true equality?\nThe next step begins with honesty. People have to feel comfortable expressing their racial and social feelings, because without honesty it is nearly impossible to change either the prejudice or the power, be it for individuals or institutions. \nAs we saw during the civil rights movement in the 1960s, a mass shift in individuals' beliefs, backed up by an honest vocalization of those beliefs, can shift a country's popular collective belief. Thus, influencing the power of the major institutions. To take the next step, we, the individuals with little institutional power, have to push the individuals with lots of institutional power to believe what we believe. The upcoming presidential election is a good place to start. Find a candidate who reflects your views on racial and social equality, and vote for him.\nWhile individual and political honesty is a step toward racial and social equality, it will not do it alone. The person I met who was not afraid to say he dislikes gay people was being honest, and that is commendable. But even in his honesty, he is still a person who does not like gay people simply because they are gay.\nWell, one might ask, what's wrong with that? A lot of people are homophobic, and who am I to tell them they are wrong? After all, prejudices are beliefs, and it is ignorant for me to think my view of a belief as "wrong" is enough justification to change another man's view of that belief as "right." As someone who believes in racial, sexual and social equality, am I just as indoctrinated as those I disagree with? Despite my absolute conviction that no group is inherently evil, how could I prove it to those who whole-heartedly believe otherwise?\nLet's go back to the original equation: prejudice plus power equals racism. People say while anyone can be prejudiced, only people with power within the system can benefit from those prejudices. If people never used their power to oppress those whom they were prejudiced against, then we would not have a racism problem in America. We would have a disliking problem.\nThus, the key to solving racism is getting all Americans to uphold the American belief and ideal that all people are created equal and all people have the same basic human rights to happiness and opportunity.\nAsk yourself: "Do I really believe every human deserves the same basic human rights?" \nHopefully, the answer is "yes." Wanting to reverse social inequalities does not mean every white guy has to have a black friend or every heterosexual has to have a gay friend. Sure, it'd be nice if people were interested in each other, but this is America--you don't have to like anyone you don't want to like. Blatant disregard for people's human rights, though, is one thing that cannot be tolerated. \nAffirmative action, empowerment through education and the adjustment of media images are good solutions, but they will never be entirely effective until we've honestly answered the above question. It would be like arguing how to build a house without all agreeing on whether or not we want to build the house. That's where the trouble lies. \nOnce we decide on what we want to accomplish, the rest is all about making a plan and following it. Prioritizing the nation's budget with good education systems, eliminating poverty and strengthening the job market -- these are just a few of the ways we can attack racism once we decide to change it.\nAfter we make a decision, everything is easy. \nThe hard part is up to us.
(02/05/04 4:57am)
This is the second in a three part series.\nHow do you change a person's prejudices?\nAs we have seen, people's prejudices and beliefs are difficult to change. And yet, people's beliefs do change. How does this happen?\nIn order for a person's beliefs to change, they have to be challenged. If a person believes gay people are evil, his belief may be changed if it is challenged by a positive experience he has with a gay person, or by a new popular belief of society. In time, he may begin to change his beliefs. Beliefs and prejudices change over time as they are challenged by other beliefs.\nThe other part of the racism equation is power -- the systems and institutions that control large parts of society. These institutions include schools, government, media, laws, language and America's popular collective beliefs. They are less accessible than individuals, and so they are tougher to change.\nFor instance, many individuals change their beliefs about God and religion during their lifetime, but seldom does a popular collective religious belief change. \nYet in the 384 years since Europeans landed on Plymouth Rock, White America's popular collective racial belief has evolved from legal slavery to freed slaves with nearly no rights to free people living in segregation to free people living with "equal rights." This huge ideological shift over a relatively short period of time -- compared to the evolution of religious ideologies -- suggests there is not as much weight in racial beliefs as there is in religious beliefs.\nThat kind of rapid change does not surprise me when you consider two enormous racial movements in American history -- the freeing of the slaves and the civil rights movement. The latter was so powerful it reversed America's popular collective racial beliefs. Being a racist is now looked down upon. The institution of racism has changed because many people changed their minds about race and made demands on the government to change laws they did not like.\nThe beliefs of the individual influenced the institutions that control them, and in turn the institutions reciprocated those values back on society.\nHowever, like many good things in America, the new popular collective racial belief has gone too far. Political correctness has people scared to speak because they might be discovered as ignorant, racist or both.\nI met a kid the other day who said flat out he would prefer for gay people to stay away from him. But as much as I disagree with this person, you've got to appreciate that kind of honesty nowadays.\nDuring the Brown and Black Presidential Forum, Al Sharpton asked Howard Dean why he did not have a black or brown person in his cabinet. Dean squirmed, trying to figure out a way he could answer this question without offending anyone. Dean is a smart man. He knows what a cabinet is. He may even know what a black or brown person is. Yet until Sharpton made him answer, Dean danced around the question, saying first he had Blacks in state government, then saying they were a part of his staff and finally admitting there were none in his cabinet.\nSomething is wrong when a seemingly progressive presidential candidate does not feel comfortable honestly answering a racially-charged question.\nAmerica's racial and social situation is much better now than it was in 1620, 1865, and even 1968, but it is still not as good as it could be.\nHow can we take the next step towards true equality?
(01/29/04 5:00am)
Some people who have seen what Charlize Theron looks like in her new film Monster -- either from the film or in publicity photos -- have said that she looks "fat and ugly." There is a perfectly good reason for people to have this reaction: they are morons. Anyone who sees this film and complains about Theron's looks should probably stick to The Cider House Rules or 2 Days in the Valley or something, because to come away from a performance of this magnitude and complain that Theron isn't hot is like getting a free tour of heaven and complaining about the altitude. Theron's transformation into serial killer Aileen Wuornos is so complete and perfect that it will be impossible to discuss the all-time greatest acting jobs in the future without mentioning this one. She's that good.\nThe film is based on the true story of Wuornos, a lifelong hooker who killed seven of her patrons in the late '80s. Like any good story, Monster lives in its details. In less caring hands, this movie would have been nothing more than an exploitative shocker. The pieces are there: a lesbian relationship, a hooker, and serial killings. But the actors and filmmakers have made a truthful film about real people, and that is what most viewers will come away with. \nBasic Instinct was another movie about a lesbian murderer, and that film took a lot of hits for presenting lesbians as evil, manipulative killers. This film will not have that same kind of backlash because it is not a film about lesbians as killers; it is a film about a woman who is driven to kill, and happens to be a lesbian.\nWhile Theron has gotten all the press, Ricci is also very impressive as Wuornos' young lover. While I am not surprised to see Ricci in this kind of a movie -- she has always been an actress who takes chances -- I was surprised to see her performance. She is not her usual sardonic, cynical self; her Selby is more innocent and naïve than the character she played in Casper.\nMonster is a frightening movie, but it is also filled with intensely dark moments of comedy as Wuornos struggles to relate to people like a normal human being. She is so inept in social conventions that when a man tells her to "call him daddy," she asks him if it's because he likes to sleep with his children. Wuornos is not like any serial killer I've seen before; aside from killing them, she did not horribly violate or mutilate her victims like Bundy or Dahmer, and she was not an intellectual like Hannibal Lecter. Perhaps more interesting and more telling than the fact that she was the first female serial killer is that she was the first serial killer to simply use a gun.\nMonster does not excuse the actions of Wuornos, nor does it present her as some kind of super-villain. It simply presents her story honestly and unflinchingly. Theron took a chance by bulking up for this role, and it paid off. This is a terrifically powerful movie.
(01/29/04 4:13am)
This is the first of a three-part series.\nHow do we end racism?\nA popular definition of racism used among those who study it is prejudice plus power. This means only white people can be racist because their prejudices carry power within our white-dominated social structure. \nWhile this definition tends to upset a lot of white people, it is a useful tool as it is always easier to fix something that has parts than something that does not. \nThe first part of the equation, prejudice, presents some interesting problems. It is the more accessible of the two parts, because prejudices stem from individuals, whereas power stems from a system. Of course, people influence the system, and vice-versa, but individual people are easier to change than exclusive systems.\nSo how do you change a person's prejudices? Or more to the point, how can you teach people there is no inherent evil in any particular ethnic or racial group? After all, prejudices are rooted in a person's belief that an entire group of people is inferior in some way, whether due to skin color, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, dialect, political affiliation or any other characteristic. \nThis is where the difficulty comes into play. Prejudices are hard to get rid of because they are not fact-based. If they were, then we could make a counter-factual argument to a prejudiced person and sway them to think another way. A person who thinks George W. Bush is a good president could be persuaded to think otherwise if he were presented a list of factual arguments concerning the president's track record while in office. This argument would have to contradict the person's current opinion in a way that would make him no longer like Bush, so if the person is opposed to gay marriage and is told "Bush is a bad president because he is opposed to gay marriage," this would not be evidence enough. But if the person was anti-war and was then told how Bush feels about war, this may be enough to sway him.\nUnfortunately, prejudices are not that easy to dispose of. A prejudice is not an opinion; it is a belief. And we do not get our beliefs from facts, but rather from our world view. Beliefs cannot be logically challenged.\nTake God, for example.\nI was raised in a family that believes in God, and as a child, I also believed in God. I had no reason to believe any differently. As I grew older and had more life experience, I began to challenge the beliefs that had been given to me. I stopped practicing Judaism and reconsidered my own idea of God -- particularly the human characterization of "God" as a white-haired, bearded man who lives in heaven. While I have rejected some of my family's religious beliefs, I still believe in a higher power that connects everyone on Earth. This is my idea of God, and it is as real as any other belief because it is based on how I feel and how I have interpreted the world throughout my life.\nBut despite the strength of my conviction, nothing I could say about my own beliefs and experiences could ever convince a true atheist that God exists, because he has formed his belief about the lack of God in the same way I have formed my belief in God. Neither one of us is using facts to form opinions -- we are using feelings and personal experiences to form beliefs.\nAnd while I once thought education alone could eradicate racism, that's garbage, because it does not explain the existence of smart, educated racists -- of which there are many.\nSo, we're back near the starting line.\nHow do you change a person's prejudices?
(01/22/04 4:47am)
As a lifelong sports fan, I've absorbed mountains of useless information without ever really trying. Want to know how many points Michael Jordan averaged in the '93 Finals? 41. Wonder who led the Bears in rushing in 1998? Edgar Bennett. Can't quite recall the name of the outfielder who hit three opening-day home runs for the Cubs in 1994? Karl "Tuffy" Rhodes.\nUnfortunately, this vacuum memory only works when I'm interested in something, which is why I sometimes have trouble transferring it to school. \nBut I am becoming more and more interested in politics, and with a presidential election less than ten months away I've shifted the majority of my sports-following time to the election.\nAnd you know what? I'm having a blast.\nThe move from ESPN to CNN isn't too much of a leap. Both have multiple stations and a terrific Web site, and I'm finding Lou Dobbs to be just as entertaining as Chris Berman. Like checking stats and standings? I do. Instead of checking the bottom of the page for the Bulls, I now enjoy checking CNN.com/ELECTION/2004 to see the updated standings in the Democratic primaries. The race has momentum changes, underdogs and upsets, and it all leads up to the Super Bowl of politics: the November election.\nWhile I still don't have a complete grasp on everything I'm watching, the biggest question for me is not which candidate will receive the Democratic nomination, but rather which candidate has the best chance at knocking Bush out of office. The answer to that question probably lies within the three candidates who topped Iowa: Sen. John Kerry of D-Mass., Sen. John Edwards D-N.C. and Gov. Howard Dean of Vermont.\nUntil early this week, I did not know much about Kerry or Edwards, but after hearing them speak, both have jumped ahead of Dean for me. All three candidates are running on a platform of "taking back the country," and while they all seem sincere in their anti-Bush stances, I am drawn more to Kerry and Edwards because they seem a little more sincere about supporting the ordinary \nAmerican than Dean does. Edwards in particular seems legit; I had no problem believing him.\nSo far, my impression of Kerry is similar to that of Edwards, except that Kerry is older and less exuberant. I'm not necessarily deterred by this; I've liked what I've read about Kerry thus far, and he certainly has a passion for our country that cannot be faked. As the weeks move on and I learn more, I'm sure these two candidates will differentiate themselves.\nAs for Dean, he made headway early by denouncing Bush's decision to go to war and by capitalizing on online polling. When Al Gore endorsed him, Dean became the front-runner. But there is something about Dean that seems untruthful, despite his straight-forward approach. His abrasiveness bubbles underneath his every word, and his frightening smile reminds me of a sci-fi character who is posing as a human but is actually an alien or a robot. I'm not saying he'd make a bad president, but I'd certainly like to know more.\nThat's not to say I wouldn't vote for him. Even with Dean's shortcomings he is still an impressive candidate, despite his third place finish in Iowa. Any of the three aforementioned men are fine with me, and as I learn more, I am excited to find each one fresher and more intelligent than Gore.\nObviously, I'm no professional political analyst. I'm just a 22-year-old kid who is finally seeing politics affects my life a tad more than sports. I've drawn these conclusions after only a week of paying attention. Draw your own, take an interest and hopefully, we'll send Bush back to Texas.
(01/15/04 4:58am)
So here we are, back at school after dwindling away the final week and a half of break in the same old bars and basements. My excitement for returning to Bloomington is not simply because school is a change of pace from my end-of-break boredom -- rather, I'm curious to see if I can appease my motivated half and work hard in required classes like L104: The Wide World of Birds.\nOf course, I didn't know I was taking a birds class until I got the syllabus. My recent academic trend has me forgetting which classes I'm taking between registering for them and taking them. When I changed my major from journalism to English last year, I found I needed to take a science, and I suppose birds seemed more interesting at the time than any of the other choices.\nThe idea of taking classes that have no obvious connection with my major or possible future career bothered me for a long time. I took nine years of French from sixth grade to college, and the only time I benefited from that was when I successfully ordered a muffin in a French airport. But earlier this year, I had an interesting talk with my younger brother, Mike, who told me I will never enjoy required classes as much as I enjoy stuff I actually enjoy, like writing and watching the Bears. Only when I judge classes by their own merits will I ever enjoy them.\nThis viewpoint has really turned my attitude around, and lately, I've realized I do enjoy learning just for learning's sake. I'm beginning to round out my worldview. That tip from my brother seems to have saved my academic livelihood, though I still don't like dealing with excessive busy work or boring teachers.\nAnd as for all you boring teachers here at IU -- what gives? An attitude adjustment about teaching would do some professors good. There is nothing more obnoxious than a professor who teaches class as if he or she is a tape recorded tour guide. "And coming up on your left is the Spanish-American war. Please feel free to press the stop button and observe."\nTO BORING IU PROFESSORS: There is no excuse for being boring. You can make any subject interesting just by being interested in it yourself and by taking an interest in your students. I took a class two years ago on how language relates to thought, and while the subject itself was fairly interesting, it was one of my favorite classes because Professor Howard Keller was funny and showed a sincere interest in the subject matter and in the students. I even remember the A.I.'s name.\nI suppose some teachers are affected negatively because they are here for some reason other than teaching, such as research. This is an unfortunate byproduct of the collegiate system, but even if you are not the best teacher, you can still put forth some effort to show your students the fascinating side of whatever you are teaching.\nThere are plenty of wonderful professors and A.I.'s at IU, and I'm glad to have had a good lot of them. They make boring classes good, and good classes great, and many of them are willing to talk about collegiate and career questions years after you've shared class time. Of course, the bottom line is it is my responsibility as a student to do the work and pass the course, regardless of the subject matter or professor. Thanks to my brother, I can finally see how that's done.