Recent Posts:

Archive for December, 2011

Thoughts on Vaclav Havel’s Passing; and His Possible Thoughts on Kim Jong-Il’s

Wednesday, December 21st, 2011

by Rob S.

I grew up in a house previously owned by George Voskovec, the Czech actor, comic, and dissident. Voskovec fled Czechoslovakia twice, in 1939 and 1948, having sufficiently angered both the Nazis and Communists with his political satire. (Fordham Film Festival fans will recognize Voskovec as the mustachioed Juror #11, in Sidney Lumet’s Twelve Angry Men.) As a child, it was routine to answer the doorbell on weekends to find a group of nervous Czech tourists, wondering if they could see Voskovec’s house (they could), the tree under which he wrote his memoir (it was an overgrown privet), or where he might have met with Vaclav Havel (right in front of my Nintendo). I listened in a few times while my parents spoke with a group, enough to know that Havel was the Czech President and governed the country’s transition from Communist rule. It wasn’t until college that I read about his role in the Velvet Revolution – a dissident author and intellectual leader turned head of state.

Following his presidency, Havel became a global leader in the struggle for human rights, focusing his attention in recent years on the humanitarian crisis in North Korea. In 2006 and 2008, Havel, Kjell Magne Bondevik, and Elie Wiesel co-authored reports alleging the North Korean government’s failure to protect its people and demanding international action – if necessary through the United Nations Security Council – on behalf of the North Korean people. The authors reject past reluctance to raise human rights issues with North Korea for fear of alienating them from a fragile diplomacy. Instead, they argue that engagement with North Korea must address the humanitarian crisis directly, and the crisis must be part of all international involvement with the country. As the authors write, “The people of North Korea deserve nothing less.” This Sunday, Havel passed away, just one day after the death of North Korean leader, Kim Jong-Il. As power transfers in North Korea with all possibility of a change, I imagine Havel arguing there can be no change in our insistence that the human suffering there be our frame for engagement.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Culture Forum Blog, Film Festival, Law and Cultural Policy, News | No Comments »

May It Please the Court, No Matter Whom It May Displease

Tuesday, December 20th, 2011

On Monday, the United States Supreme Court announced that oral arguments on the constitutional challenges to the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will fill the Court’s calendar from March 26 through March 28.  ”The case is a once-in-a-generation blockbuster,” noted Adam Liptak in the New York Times.  Not only will the court’s decision have a direct effect on the 30 million currently uninsured Americans, which the statute ultimately aims to protect, but the outcome of the case might also substantially impact the 2012 presidential election.  Although “the court underscored its importance by scheduling five and a half hours of oral arguments, the most in any case since 1966,” no part of these lengthy proceedings will be televised for American public.

In recognition of the legal, cultural, economic, and electoral implications of the case, C-SPAN Chairman Brian P. Lamb wrote a letter to Chief Justice John Roberts, requesting that the Supreme Court drop its ban on cameras in the courtroom:

We believe the public interest is best served by live television coverage of this particular oral argument. It is a case which will affect every American’s life [and] the economy, and will certainly be an issue in the upcoming presidential campaign. Additionally, a five-and-a-half-hour begs for camera coverage—interested citizens would be understandably challenged to adequately follow audio-only coverage of an event of this length with all the justices and various counsel participating.

With so much potentially at stake in this case, allowing television coverage of oral arguments would seem an obvious decision.  Yet, as Adam Liptak notes, Chief Justice Roberts will likely deny Lamb’s request in adherence with Supreme Court tradition–both the no camera tradition as well as the court’s tradition of shrouding itself in mystery as the least transparent branch of our federal government:

The arguments against cameras are mostly rooted in paternalism or self-interest. Some justices say the public cannot be trusted to understand what goes on at oral arguments and how the arguments figure in the work of the court. Others worry that additional public scrutiny would alter the behavior of lawyers and justices for the worse. Still others say they fear harm to their personal privacy or to the court’s prestige.

So it seems that while a recent USA TODAY/Gallup Poll found 72% of Americans surveyed favor televising the health care oral arguments, those Americans hoping to view the proceedings live, Liptak predicts, will have to “wait in line in the cold for two nights or longer” for one of the 50 seats inside the courtroom which are available to the public.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Culture Forum Blog, Law and Cultural Policy, News | No Comments »

In Memoriam: Christopher Hitchens

Friday, December 16th, 2011

By Justin Krane

Christopher Hitchens–the contrarian essayist, formidable debater, self-described “anti-theist,” and steadfast provocateur–died early this morning, at the age of 62.  Hitchens was diagnosed, in the spring of 2010, with esophageal cancer.  Yet, despite a bleak prognosis and the intensive courses of chemotherapy which ensued, Hitchens maintained the same indefatigable and prolific journalistic output that had earned him both praise and scorn over the last four decades.

For more–both on and by–Christopher Hitchens:

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Culture Forum Blog, News | No Comments »

Occupy Wall Street: Have They Overstayed Their Welcome?

Wednesday, December 7th, 2011

By Dina Tornheim

Occupy wall street has been an ongoing mess plaguing Lower Manhattan as well as other prime financial locations around the country. Most recently Mayor Bloomberg, as well as civilians are growing tired of the inconvenience it has brought not only to business owners but residents of the areas as well. It seems even its supporters think its time for this to end; The NY Times has stated that “ several people who live nearby said they supported Occupy’s overall message but they nevertheless believed the group overstayed its welcome.”

While it is true that there is freedom of speech, and the law should allow everyone to express themselves it seems that there is other significant factors involved here. Business owners are suffering great loses, one business owner of a small food establishment has stated that his business is facing closing down if this continues. So whose interest is superior? Is there a limit to the extent a person can voice their opinion, if these protestors don’t feel better if they haven’t been relieved of the wrong they feel was done to them, is forcing them out morally just? Is it morally just to allow it to continue if it is victimizing other innocent people?

Ultimately, no one should be silenced, everyone should be able to express themselves. And there really is no correct answer, there is no way that moral justness will be served to everyone involved. But being that the goal of occupy wall street is to achieve some sort of progress and recognition in regards to the great wealth inequality. Their actions, are causing people just like them, who are trying to survive in a bad economic time, to lose business, and if it continues possibly end up unemployed. Thus, it seems counteractive to their goal. They’ve made their point, and so it is now time to leave, and not cause harm to small business owners.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Culture Forum Blog, Law and Cultural Policy | 7 Comments »

Occupy the Internet: the Grassroots Movement Against SOPA

Sunday, December 4th, 2011

By Kara Wallis

The intent behind the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) is evident by its name – it seeks  to stop ‘theft’ of material on the internet. Indeed, most of us believe that one should have ownership of the fruits of one’s labor and this is reflected in our legal system’s endorsement and enforcement of copyrights, trademarks, and intellectual property rights. However well-intended, SOPA has caused a major uproar among various internet companies, users, and artists recently because of the dangerous and ambiguous language contained in the Act. Basically, critics believe that if passed, SOPA opens the door for internet policing by giving government officials and major media corporations the authority to arbitrarily shutdown and blacklist a variety of websites and services for illicitly linking to or hosting copyrighted material. Moreover, SOPA would force internet search engines to filter out material and block users from accessing a variety of resources on the internet. I won’t bore you with a full list of problems with SOPA here, but if you’re interested, this is an interesting video that lays out the problems in SOPA pretty clearly.

The SOPA debate brings up many themes about law and our culture, but what I have found to be most interesting is the seemingly grass roots online opposition that has spread anti-SOPA messages and continues to inform the broader public about the dangers of censoring the internet. This online reaction to a piece of legislation is unprecedented. Facebook and twitter have been flooded with status updates and hashtags protesting and spreading the word about the potential censorship of the internet. YouTube is filled with a plethora of user-made videos about the dangers of SOPA. Most impressive though was the campaign that the blog-site Tumblr launched against SOPA, which produced almost 88,000 phone calls from users to their representative to voice their opposition to the proposed legislation. Moreover, the people who oppose SOPA go across the political spectrum. How often do we find something that the ACLU, American Library Association, and the Tea Party Patriots are all firmly against?

With such a public protest against SOPA, it is unlikely that it will survive the political process. However, the question still remains, if we can all agree with SOPA’s intent in that private property rights exist and should be protected, how do we stop piracy on the internet? This has been a question that media companies have been struggling with since the appearance of bit-torrents, user-to-user sharing sites, and even the creation of the CD burner. To date, major media corporations have solved this problem through expensive lawsuits and litigation, but this doesn’t seem to be enough for the media industry – it is quite likely that bills similar to SOPA will continue to be presented and backed by these corporations. However, given the limited tools at the legislator’s disposal, it seems that the law will not be able to catch up to the ever-growing complexities of internet and any attempts to stop piracy will either be ineffective or put forth unwarranted consequences like those found in SOPA. Media corporations don’t care about the ramifications that legislation to protect their material will have on the internet and its users. So, it is my hope that when bills like SOPA come along, we will continue to see the strong resistant and outcry that we have seen recently in response to SOPA.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Culture Forum Blog, Law and Cultural Policy, News | 1 Comment »

Justin Beiber and Occupy Wall Street

Friday, December 2nd, 2011

By Marc Switzer

I happen to read the following article, it recounts how Justin Bebier was stopped in Los Angeles while driving a 2012 Cadillac Coupe that had been customized to resemble the Batmobile.  For anyone who doesn’t know, the Batmobile is the mythical car driven by the crime fighter Batman made famous in the comics and movies.   Although the article itself is surprisingly entertaining for the sheer absurdity of a seventeen year old boy driving around in a Batmoible that costs well over six figures, I believed the article also indirectly stood for something much more meaningful—how this society is organized.

The ongoing Occupy Wall Street movement should have come as no shock to anyone, how could it after all, when millions of Americans are out of work and struggling just to make ends meet, then turn on their TV’s or computers and read/watch a seventeen year old boy, with no discernible talent, driving around in customized Batmobile worth hundreds of thousands of dollars.  It rightly causes people to lose their mind!  It also causes, perhaps dangerously, people to question fundamentally how this society is run (Occupy Wall Street).   Whether you agree with Occupy Wall Street or not it seems hard to argue that there is something just plain wrong about a seventeen year old boy’s ability to amass such wealth to himself that he can afford to drive a super car worth hundreds of thousands of dollars whilst simultaneously millions of Americans suffer such devastating economic hardship—many with university degrees and/or years of working experience.
Of course Justin Beiber did not cause himself the Occupy Wall Street movement, yet the article I think captures, in many ways, albeit indirectly what the movement is about, or should be anyways—the incredible disparity of wealth in this society, and the opportunities and/or the disadvantages that flow from it rightly or wrongly

Tags: , ,
Posted in Culture Forum Blog, Law and Cultural Policy, News | 11 Comments »

Something’s Fishy in the City of Syracuse

Friday, December 2nd, 2011

By Douglas Giombarrese

Weeks after the Penn State scandal involving coach Jerry Sandusky broke, another deeply troubling collegiate athletic child-abuse scandal was reported, involving (now former) Syracuse basketball assistant Bernie Fine. For those unfamiliar with the situation, two former ball boys alleged on ESPN that they were sexually abused by Fine during a period between the 1970s and 1990s. Later, a third person came forward claiming he was molested in 2002 while traveling with the Syracuse basketball team.

Both Fine and head coach Jim Boeheim immediately vehemently denied the allegations. Fine’s veracity in denial was understandable; it was Boeheim’s that caught the public eye, as he specifically claimed the accusers were lying in hopes of making money. The most damning evidence against Fine came when ESPN later revealed they had obtained in 2002 a recorded conversation between Fine’s wife Laurie and Bobby Davis, the first accuser, who set up the recording as a way of proving his case. During the conversation, it becomes apparent that Laurie Fine knew of the abuse, specifically acknowledging that her husband acted on sexual desires for Davis when he was a minor. Further, she made absolutely no effort to stop it.  Based off this information alone (and more is sure to come out), the initial moral crimes of both husband and wife are clear and undisputed.

Boeheim, for his part, made unnecessary and spiteful remarks about the accusers without any way of backing them up. However, unlike Joe Paterno and other Penn State administrators, no one has stated that Boeheim was made aware of the accusations. In this light, his defense of Fine can be seen as a reaction to incredibly serious accusations against a long time friend whom he knew to do no wrong.

Because of this, the media has limited the comparisons to the Penn State scandal. However, the key aspect of this whole story has been shockingly overlooked is ESPN’s role in all of this. After all, they obtained the tape of Laurie Fine and Davis in 2002 and failed to do anything. They may argue that Davis’s story was not corroborated by anyone. They may argue that Fine’s voice was only recently verified by a third party voice recognition expert. This still does not explain why they did not give the tape to either the police or Syracuse University, both of whom were capable of doing such things.

Instead, they held on to the tape for over eight years, allowing an alleged child molester to continue his work in the same capacity as before. Even worse, Syracuse had conducted their own investigation of Fine in 2005, but were unable to corroborate Davis’s story, perhaps because they were not aware of the tape. Journalistic integrity should not be placed above moral integrity, especially when involving allegations of this nature. In this way, perhaps comparisons to the Penn State scandal are more appropriate than is let on, with ESPN replacing Joe Paterno as the morally culpable ones.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Culture Forum Blog, Law and Cultural Policy, News | 6 Comments »

Viewer Discretion is Advised – Reality TV takes a look at Medical Marijuana and Moonshiners

Friday, December 2nd, 2011

By Maya Z.

Just when we thought reality TV had exhausted the range of odd workplace reality shows with the likes of the “Deadliest Catch,” “Ice Road Truckers,” “Miami Ink,” “Lady Hoggers,” “Ax Men,” and the most recent “Tanked,” the Discovery Channel adds two to the list and ratchets the entire category up a notch–following businesses who are engaged in illicit activity.

“Weed Wars,” which premiers December 1st, offers a look into the day-to-day lives of the people working at the largest medical marijuana dispensary in the nation. Also on the Discovery Channel, “Moonshiners,” debuting December 6th, documents the business of brewing bootleg spirits in the wilds of Appalachia. The subjects of each show are certainly “riding on the edge of the law,” something Nancy Daniels, Discovery’s EVP of Production and Development, says provides for “what any good show should have, which is drama and stakes.”

“Moonshiners” features individuals who distill alcohol illegally in the backwoods of Appalachia, using camouflaged equipment, and local authorities trying to thwart their operations. The premiere episode follows a Virginia man who creates a secret still, and a state-police officer hunting down distillers who supply illegal “nip joints.” An opening disclaimer warns viewers, “Moonshining is illegal. Do not attempt any of this at home.”

Moonshining is a tradition that has been passed down for hundreds of years and is still alive and well today, despite being forbidden by federal, state and local laws. The lead character, Tim (last name omitted), agreed to appear on camera in order to celebrate his family tradition. The show captures Tim educating his son on shining, showing him how to avert surveillance plans and how to find a clear stream to feed a still.

“Weed Wars” focuses on Oakland California’s Harborside Health Center, a medical marijuana dispensary run under the leadership of founder Steve DeAngelo.  DeAngelo agreed to take on the serious risk of doing the show in order to educate the public and show that “we are decent people who are providing medicine for patients in a responsible way.”  Indeed, the series illustrates the benefits of Harborside’s existence: helping individuals with serious medical conditions alleviate their symptoms with marijuana in a safe and dignified manner. Yet, the show also captures patients who have “have less clear medical issues” – something that might rub viewers, not to mention government officials, the wrong way.

Since the passing of California’s Compassionate Use Act of 1996, medical marijuana dispensaries have been legal under state law. Yet, selling marijuana has always remained a criminal offense under federal law with no exceptions for medical use. Despite classifying the sale of marijuana as a serious crime, in 2009 the Justice Department said it would not pursue groups providing medical marijuana in accordance with state laws.

Recently, however, federal prosecutors have begun to take a harsher stance against medical marijuana use, asserting the precedence of federal law over state law. On October 7th, four United States Attorneys announced the launch of a tough campaign against marijuana dispensaries in California.  Numerous stores all over the state have received warning letters threatening criminal charges and confiscation if they did not shut down within 45 days.

As Harborside battles this serious federal crackdown, and moonshiners continue to be hunted by local authorities, one wonders whether opening their doors (and backyards) to cameras will lead to more acceptance  – or their own demise?

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Culture Forum Blog, Law and Cultural Policy, Series Review | 2 Comments »