P

u

sh

ing fo

r diversity

Early exit

Women’s basketball falls

in HAAC quarterfinals

SPORTS, p. 8

www.thehilltopmonitor.com

Nathan Weinert

Editor-in-Chief

College

prepares

to honor

achievers

Achievement Day

festivities next week

continued on page 5

Corey Husak

Assignment Editor

continued on page 4

M

ove to N

C

A

A

m

ay

be decade aw

ay

T

h

e

H

ILLTO

P

M

O

N

ITO

R

Volume 22, Issue 19

Friday, February 29, 2008

The Student Voice of William Jewell College

PERSPECTIVES:

Voices of KC reflections, p. 3

CAMPUS:

Seniors pick Pryor legacy project, p. 4

TALK TO THE AND(Y):

Andy is a big deal, p. 7

“It may be 10 years before we

make the move.”

—Dr. David Sallee

President of the College

A wide range of passions and

expertise will be represented when

William Je well College honors

four alumni during the 64th annual

Achievement Day next week.

Chosen to receive the Citation for

Achievement are astrophysicist Dr.

William Sharp III, ’74; Walt Disney

costume designer Douglas Enderle,

’78; bank executive James Rucker, ’77;

and nurse practitioner Dr. Carolyn

Edison, ’74.

Presidential historian and author

Michael Beschloss will be the

featured speaker at the Achievement

Day dinner Thursday night and

will also speak on campus Thursday

afternoon.

Se veral events are planned as

part of the College’s celebration of

achievement. According to Dr. Chad

Jolly, vice president for Advancement,

Achievement Day has three purposes:

to honor alumni who have achieved

distinction, to provide an opportunity

for current students to receive

inspiration and advice from achievers

and to showcase the excellence of

William Jewell College to the K ansas

City community. “Different events

do different parts of this,” he said.

The first event scheduled as part

of the Achievement Day festivities

is a dinner and forum Wednesday

night, where student leaders will have

the opportunity to meet with the

honorees.

Thursday night, the festivities will

move to the Westin Crown Center

Hotel downtown, where Beschloss

will be the featured speaker at the

Achievement Day dinner at 7:30

p.m. Beschloss is the author of nine

books (including current best-seller

Presidential Courage: Brave Leaders

and How they Changed America,

1789-1989) and currently serves as

the presidential historian for NBC

News. “In an election year, it made

One desired “outcome” named in

William Jewell College’s Strategic

Plan is to move the school’s athletic

affiliation to the National Collegiate

Athletic Association from its

current place in the National

Association of Intercollegiate

Athletics. There is a great deal

of discussion in the highest

levels of the College about the

form the move will take, but it

is anything but a “done deal.” In

fact, Dr. David Sallee, president

of the College said that “it

may be 10 years before we make the

move.”

There are two divisional choices in

the NCAA the College is considering

at this moment, and a possible third

choice may be further down the

road for William Jewell. NCAA

Division II is a division in which

schools are able to give out a limited

number of athletic scholarships to

their student athletes. The division is

comprised of a mixture of mid-size

state-funded public institutions and

a slightly smaller number of private

colleges. NCAA Division III consists

largely of private institutions and

a significant proportion of public

universities in the mix as well. Schools

in Division III are not allowed to

dispense athletic scholarships to their

prospective athletic recruits, but some

Division III conferences do allow

certain “leadership” scholarships to be

given to athletes.

According to Sallee, “there doesn’t

seem to be a D-II conference we can

affiliate with… and D-III

currently has a moratorium

on new membership.” The

nearest D-II conference is the

Mid-America Intercollegiate

Athletic Association, a

conference which is made up

of schools like the University

of Central Missouri,

Northwest Missouri State

University and Truman State, which

all have much greater enrollments and

lower tuition than William Jewell.

College

sees

numerous

opportunities during

Multicultural Week

All in the fam

ily

In an effort to increase diversity awareness,

several William Jewell College student organizations

arranged campus-wide programs this week as a part

of Multicultural Week. On Tuesday night CUA and

UNITY brought Matt Glowacki (above), to speak to

the College about ableism, a form of discrimination

not often discussed. Glowacki, who was born without

legs, used clips f rom the popular television shows

South Park and Family Guy to explain to students the

importance of diversity.

Glowacki isn’t the only one taking the stage

during Multicultural Week as tonight The Vagina

Monologues returns for the second consecutive year.

Katherine Myers (right), rehearses for The Vagina

Monologues. Multicultural Week will wrap up with

the performances of The Vagina Monologues tonight

and tomorrow night at 7:30, as well as A Memory, A

Monologue, A Rant and A Prayer tomorrow at 2 p.m. All

performances will be held in Yates-Gill 221. Tickets

are $5 each, or $8 for a ticket to both The Vagina

Monologues and A Memory, A Monologue, A Rant and

A Prayer. T-shirts are also for sale for $10, with all

the proceeds from ticket and t-shirt sales going to

MOCSA, the Metropolitan Organization to Counter

Sexual Assault. The money will remain in the Kansas

City area to help victims of sexual violence through

intervention, treatment, advocacy and community

educational programming.

Kyle Rivas/Hilltop Monitor

Most families dream of having one professional athlete. For

the Nekuda family, this dream has come true twice over. On

page eight, learn how these two former Cardinal soccer play-

ers have taken their game to the next level.

Kyle Rivas / Hilltop Monitor

The Hilltop Monitor

Friday, February 29, 2008 • Volume 22 • Issue 19

Copyright © 2008. All Rights Reserved

The Hilltop Monitor is published by the students of William Jewell College, Liberty, Mo.

Subscriptions are available for $30.00 per year. Entered as First Class matter Sept. 27, 1911, in the post

office of Liberty, MO 64068, under the act of March 3, 1880. Editorial comment does not necessarily

reflect the views and policies of the College.

Editorial staff:

Nathan Weinert, Editor-in-Chief • Danielle Mills, Managing Editor

Rebekah Bouas, Assistant Editor • Kyle Rivas, Photo Editor • Jonathan Entzminger, Sports Editor

Corey Husak, Assignment Editor • Ashley Billinger, Copy Editor • Caitlin Tejeda, Copy Editor

Mark Davis, Cartoonist

Staff writers and photographers:

Ashton Botts, Kristina Brase, Chris Carr, Brie Clemens, Andy Kirk, Jesus Lopez,

Maura Metcalf-Kelly, Ajanta Raman, Courtney Roberts, Trisha Stan, Sarah Valledares, Alison Ward

Contact The Hilltop Monitor

Letters to the editor, story suggestions, ad inquiries, subscription re-

quests, or other correspondence can be sent to the following addresses:

e-mail: monitor@william.jewell.edu

phone: (816) 781-7700, ext. 5426

mail: WJC Box 1016, 500 College Hill, Liberty, MO 64068

website: http://www.thehilltopmonitor.com

www.thehilltopmonitor.com

February 29, 2008

. . . from the staff

Let us know

what you think

Letters to the Editor

monitor@william.

jewell.edu

Nathan Weinert

Editor-in-Chief

G

reat T

houghts

Famous Last W

ords

2

O

PINION

Danielle Mills

Managing Editor

The Hilltop Monitor

The Monitor is a member of the

Associated Collegiate Press and the

Missouri Collegiate Media Association

Ashley Billinger

Copy Editor

New policy’s scarlet letter

On Feb. 18, I was finally checking

my e-mail after a busy day when

I saw a message from Dr. Rick

Winslow, vice president for Student

Affairs and Enrollment. Enticed by

the subject of the e-mail, “Residential

Life Policy Changes for Fall of 2008,”

I immediately opened it under the

impression that the College had

perhaps decided to revise or do away

with visitation in the residence halls.

It was, after all, something that had

been discussed widely on campus.

I gave the e-mail a quick once-

over and confirmed my suspicion.

However, as I read more closely, I was

surprised and disturbed to learn that

the College had also decided that

students would be required to live on

campus during their first three years,

with very limited exceptions, effective

next fall.

Throughout my entire William

Jewell career I have lived off

campus with my parents. It was an

intentional choice on my part. Each

semester, my parents have signed

the affidavit swearing that I do

indeed live with them, and I have

done so happily. Although I was

commuting, my college experience

has generally been what I hoped

for. Thanks to my professors, I have

received an outstanding education.

I have made numerous friends and

become involved in a plethora of

organizations. Doing so may have

required additional effort because of

my commuter status, yet there is little

on this campus that has prevented

me, a commuter, from taking part in

the community.

In Winslow’s e-mail, he stated

that “research has found that students

who live on-campus within a college’s

residential community are healthier,

happier and more academically

successful.” Maybe it’s the accountant

in me, but I’d really like to see this

research. Was it William Jewell

students or students from another

institution? The vast majority of

the commuter students I know are

happy, productive members of the

community.

I’m not saying that being a

commuter is the best choice for

everyone. I’m not even saying that

it ’s better than living on campus.

However, I do think that, for some

people, it is the right decision. It is one

that should not be taken away from

them. If college is about preparing

people for the real world, then part

of that involves making one’s own

decisions, including those about how

and where to live.

One of the key arguments in favor

of changing the commuter policy

was that the percentage of students

living off campus increases as they

progress through their college career.

Why is this so? Did the College ask

this question when evaluating the

Residence Life policy? Why was the

solution to the problem to effectively

eliminate commuter students from

the campus? Wouldn’t it have been

better to have found a way to include

students who commute in the campus

community?

Under the new policy, first-years,

sophomores and juniors may be able

to commute if they follow an appeals

process. According to Winslow’s

e-mail, “Students can appeal the

policy if it is determined that living

on campus constitutes a ‘significant

financial burden’ to the student and/

or their family.” The significance of

the financial burden will be calculated

using a special formula. Though I

have many concerns with this part of

the new policy, my greatest concern

lies with how those students will be

identified on campus. Beginning in

the fall, it will be common knowledge

that if a traditional first-year,

sophomore or junior commutes, he or

she must not have the funds to pay

for campus housing. In other words,

everyone will know that they are the

poor kids. It’s like attaching a scarlet

letter to them, except instead of being

an A for adultery, it’s a P for poor.

For a campus already struggling with

socioeconomic divides, this is clearly

the wrong message to send.

I know of numerous commuter

students who are concerned about

the new policy. The general consensus

among them is that this should have

been grandfathered in. I agree with

them. It seems only fair to me that

the College should honor the old

policy for those who were admitted

under it.

Many commuters have expressed

apprehension about the financial

implications that this policy will

cause for them. This is a significant

and unanticipated expense for which

they have not budgeted. For those

individuals, the College should

provide financial aid in the form

of scholarships or grants, so that

all students may live on campus,

regardless of socioeconomic status.

I have been a commuter during my

time at William Jewell, and no one

besides my parents and me knows

why. That’s the way it should be.

Ashley Billinger can be reached at

billingera@william.jewell.edu

Over the course of her life, one

in four women and girls will be

sexually abused. Of those, one in

eight will have been raped. Only 16

percent of these incidents will ever

be reported. Tonight and tomorrow

night, the William Jewell College

community will have an opportunity

to fight back by attending a play.

Seems too easy to be true? It’s

not.

By attending The Vagina Monologues

tonight or tomorrow night or A

Memor y, A Monologue, A Rant and

a Prayer tomorrow afternoon, the

William Jewell community can help

stop the violence against women

and girls in Kansas City. All of the

money raised by ticket and t-shirt

sales will be going to MOCSA of

Kansas City. The Metropolitan

Organization to Counter Sexual

Assault seeks to alle viate the effects

of sexual assault and abuse through

prevention, education, intervention,

treatment and advocacy.

According to the World Health

Organization, sexual violence has

devastating effects on women’s

physical and mental health, both

immediately and long-term. These

consequences include: sexually

transmitted infections, unintended

pregnancies and subsequent unsafe

abortions, and other injuries. Women

often experience post-traumatic

stress disorders, depression and

often attempt suicide. Women who

have been victims of sexual violence

are frequently rejected by their

partners, families and communities.

Sadly, these facts alone and the

possibility of reversing these realities is

not enough to convince many people

to support the Vagina Monologues at

William Jewell.

As I sat in the Union over the last

two weeks selling tickets and t-shirts,

I heard a number of excuses as to why

people were not attending The Vagina

Monologues.

“ Isn’t it just a bunch of male-

bashing?”

“ Too offensive.”

“ It’ll be too uncomfortable to sit

and listen to women talk about their

va-jay-jays.”

Obviously, there are a lot of

misconceptions about the content

in this play. Only one of the three

excuses holds some truth. First, The

Vagina Monologues are not just a

bunch of women standing around

blaming men for everything. They

are, however, exploring issues faced

by women every day in a manner

designed to make the audience think.

Second, there is offensive language in

the play. I would know, I get to say

some words that will surely make my

parents blush. But, this language is

the language used by real women and

the goal of The Vagina Monologues is

to represent the lives of real women.

The last excuse is true. These plays

will be uncomfortable, and for good

reason. These issues are not easy to

talk about and they are not easy to

listen to. If we think we are ever going

to solve these problems, we first have

to talk about them.

As a member of The Vagina

Monologues cast and a volunteer at

MOCSA, I’ve seen the devastating

effects of sexual violence and the

passion this group of women and

men has to ensure that no one is

forced to endure this violence again.

I think everyone should attend a

performance because the purpose of

the play is to illustrate the atrocities

women and girls face every day.

“Sweep under the rug” is too kind

of a phrase to what we do to these

incidents. All too often we ostracize

women, don’t believe women and we

blame the women themselves for the

unspeakable crimes they were forced

to suffer. This is unacceptable.

We as a College have the

opportunity to be a part of the

solution. Don’t miss it.

Danielle Mills can be reached at

millse@william.jewell.edu.

If there’s one thing on campus that

students have found more excuses to

avoid than the Vagina Monologues, it’s

the senior giving campaign. Perhaps

the only thing harder to sell than a

performance with the audacity to

use the proper anatomical name for

female genitalia in its title (oh, the

horror!) is the idea that students who

already feel impoverished by their

William Jewell education should dig

deeper into their pockets to give even

after their time at the College is over.

It’s understandable that most

students feel that they’ve already

given enough to the College. It’s

not hard to see why students are so

adamant about not handing over

another check the day they graduate

when they’ve already given thousands

of dollars at William Jewell.

If it’s not how much they’ve

already spent, other complaints are

heard. Whether it’s dorms that can

scarcely be described as cutting edge,

administrative decisions resulting

in baldness-inducing levels of head

scratching, or anger about that one

time the Monitor ran a story that took

a critical view of your favorite campus

organization, it’s easy to find a reason

not to give—particularly for seniors

who are unsure of the next step after

graduation and facing an uncertain

financial future.

Excuses not to give are numerous,

yet are flawed.

First, the sticker price of a William

Jewell education only tells part of the

story. Almost all students are the

recipients of financial aid, with most

receiving significant scholarships and

grants. Even those paying full price

are paying the College far less than

the actual cost of their William Jewell

education. The gap between the

College’s income from tuition and

fees and the actual cost of running

the College is millions of dollars each

and e ver y year. A William Jewell

education isn’t cheap by any means,

but its continued affordability is

dependent on the support of alumni

and others to close this gap.

Second, every donation makes a

difference, and not just in the touchy-

feely, if-ever yone-does-just-a-little-

bit-we’ll-change-the-world sort of

way (although if ever y senior gave

just $10 it would mean thousands of

dollars in support for the College).

Magazines ranking colleges and

foundations that provide grants

look at alumni giving to determine

whether or not those who have

gone before view the College as a

worthy investment. High alumni

giving demonstrates a high level of

satisfaction with the William Jewell

experience. In turn, this leads to the

College being more highly ranked

and being more competitive for

grants and other funding to improve

the College.

If you need a self-interested reason

to give, here it is: As the College’s

ranking and reputation improves,

the value of your degree increases.

Think of it your donation as a small

insurance policy on the considerable

investment you’ve already made in

your William Jewell education.

Finally, while this alone makes

the decision to give easy enough, my

decision to give isn’t about how my

gift will benefit me. I give because

I’m grateful for everything the

College has done for me, and want

future students to have even greater

opportunities.

Why do I give? I give because of

all of the experiences that my time at

the College has made possible. I give

because of the people at Jewell who

have shaped my life and made the

Jewell journey so rewarding. I give

because I want to see the institution

continue to thrive and succeed. I give

because it ’s my vote of confidence

in the direction that the College is

going.

The Senior Giving Campaign

provides all seniors with the

opportunity to give back to the

College which has given them so

much. It’s time for seniors who

haven’t given to stop making excuses

and start making a difference.

Nathan Weinert can be reached at

weinertn@william.jewell.edu.

www.thehilltopmonitor.com

Tea Time with Trisha

by Trisha Stan

Maura Metcalf-Kelly

Staff Wr iter

February 29, 2008

3

P

ERSPECTIVES &

N

EWS

The Hilltop Monitor

College declines to replace guitars damaged by heat

E

ntErtain

M

E

As an Episcopalian, I listened with special interest

Wednesday morning to Mother Susan McCann, who

worked logically and lyrically through four ideas that

undergird the mission and ministry of all Episcopalians:

(1) the prospect of Death, with St. Paul’s assurance

that nothing, not even it, “shall separate us from the

love of God”; (2) this hope for a future state when we

will “dwell in God’s glorious kingdom” made present,

immediate, as when we pray, “Thy kingdom come, thy

will be done, on earth as it is in heaven”; (3) our being called upon, then, to

recreate, with Jesus Christ as our teacher and model, “God’s peaceable kingdom

in the present moment”; and (4) Jesus’s revealing the nature of that kingdom

as “God-centered, just, radically welcoming, radically reconciling, and radically

inclusive.”

Mother Susan went on to suggest certain characteristics of Episcopalians,

characteristics, always astonishing to me in their honesty and reasonableness,

that derive directly from those foundational beliefs. She noted that it wouldn’t

occur to us to ask whether someone’s been “saved,” since we were, are being, and

shall be saved, “not by our own actions, but through Christ’s redeeming love and

the power and love of God.” In other words, it seems to me, while some perceive

their “being saved” as located in a particular moment in time and as contingent

upon their own choice and actions—and use, then, the question as a means of

drawing lines between insiders and outsiders—Episcopalians recognize God’s

love as unmerited and outside time and therefore instrumental in the collapsing

of such divisions. Similarly, because Episcopalians “would never claim to fully

know the mind of God”—a startlingly candid admission, one that necessarily

leads to humility—God can continue to reveal himself to us: “there is always

more to know, more to love about God.” And following this logic, this openness

and honesty and humility, comes the belief, as Mother Susan articulated, and I

share, that “Jesus Christ is not the only path to God. But he is the path I know;

the one whom I love; the one I seek to follow.” And so, of course, “our mission

and ministry is not to seek to convert to Christianity those who follow other

paths to God, but instead to be agents of God’s reconciling love,” all of which

makes perfect sense if, as Oxford biblical scholar Paul Fiddes once remarked,

our starting point is that God created life: we, inevitably, seek return to him in

a range of ways. I’d add, a bit testily, and ironic because of that, that coercion

and colonization are perhaps less reflective of the kingdom of God than this

inclusion and reconciliation.

So what is an Episcopalian to do? The work God has given us to do. Mother

Susan paraphrased Micah--to do justice, love kindness, and walk humbly with

God. And to “help usher in God’s kingdom on earth, where the hungr y are fed,

the stranger is welcomed, the sick are cared for.” We ourselves are fortified and

sustained for that work when we approach God’s holy altar—“a table radically

welcome to all”—to receive the sacred meal we call Holy Eucharist.

That Mother Susan spoke of radical welcome, radical inclusivity, and radical

reconciliation is significant, given the etymology of that word, its denotative

sense of rootedness and its connotative sense of revolution. Welcome, inclusivity,

and reconciliation are indeed qualities of an essential and ultimate reality—that

of God’s kingdom—that can be established here and now in our broken world.

Dr. Mark Walters is Oxbridge professor of English language and literature.

Staff Reflection

Student Reflection

Any seniors who were in Chapel this week might have

been particularly struck by Mother Susan McCann’s

emphasis on the need “to do the work God has given

us to do,” a refrain from the Episcopal liturgy. Most of

the seniors I know, myself included, are developing a

panicked sense that we don’t know what the work is that

we should do after we graduate, and even if we did know, it isn’t likely that we

could find an opportunity to do it in the middle of an economic recession. From

a religious standpoint, however, Mother McCann made it clear that doing God’s

work in the world—working to create the kingdom of heaven on earth—is the

single most important concern of the Episcopal faith community. As she said,

we can never fully know the mind of God, although he is continually revealing

himself to us. As all college students know, what one believes to be the truth

can change in startling ways through growth and experience, and it is therefore

dangerous to insist too strongly on points of doctrine while ignoring God’s

purpose for our faith. We should not concern ourselves with the end times but

with the here and now, the “in-between time,” since this is the time we are given

in which to carry out God’s work. I was moved by Mother McCann’s description

of this work as “filling the hunger of the world,” as trite as that might sound,

because she did not simply draw a parallel between physical and spiritual hunger

but specifically detailed the myriad types of “ hunger” suffered by people around

the world: hunger for food, hunger for peace, hunger for racial/sexual/economic

equality, hunger for companionship. When you look at it that way, there really is

a lot of work to be done and a lot of way s in which to do it.

Equally important, however, is the inspiration for doing this work. The

Episcopal Church’s emphasis on social change might sound like a lot of

humanistic do-good, feel-good rhetoric if one forgets or ignores that it stems

from the transforming love of Jesus Christ, which makes it possible to work

for change in a world that seems hopelessly bent toward destruction. Mother

McCann also underlined this point very well, stating that it was Jesus who

showed us what the kingdom of God would look like and Jesus who first allowed

it to “break in” to this world. Her description of God’s kingdom as “radically

welcoming, radically reconciling, radically inclusive” reminds us that God’s love

is radical, and it never works in the way we expect it to. Instead of worry ing about

whether other people are living up to what we perceive to be God’s expectations,

all we need to do is accept God’s unifying love and act on it in whatever way is

available to us. As Mother McCann said, “If you can envision the kingdom of

God on earth, you can work toward it.”

Lisa Laney is a senior Oxbridge English language and literature major.

Next week’s Religious Voice:

Fatimeh El-Sherif

Student, School of Law, University of Missouri-Kansas City

Chapel is Wednesday at 10:15 in Gano.

Listening to Religious

Voices of Kansas City

“Listening to Religious Voices of Kansas City” is a Chapel series

examining religious plurality from the point of view of several faith

traditions. Each week during the series, the Monitor will run a brief

review of the speaker’s remarks, and a reflection from a

William Jewell College student and faculty member.

The Very Rev. Susan McCann

Grace Episcopal Church, Liberty, Mo.

The Very Rev. Susan McCann spoke Wednesday of

how Episcopalians view the charge of Christians to

be “co-creators” with Christ and to feed the hungry,

including those with non-physical hungers. “When

God’s kingdom is on earth as it is in heaven, no one will hunger,” McCann said.

“Jesus said ‘feed my sheep.’ What hunger will you feed today?”

This Week’s Speaker

Dr. Mark

Walters

Lisa Laney

The 2008 Academy Awards

featured a number of European accents

on the stage receiving statues of little

gold men. In fact, all of this year’s

most prestigious acting awards went

to Europeans, a fact that the BBC

was proud to announce. Of course, all

actors were acting in films produced in

the United States and won an award

from a U.S. awards show.

It is easy to forget that other

countries are capable of producing

their own entertainment. Ever y once

in a while, a musical genius like the

Beatles, Coldplay or Amy Winehouse

or cinematic masterpieces such as Love

Actually will leap across the pond into

the American consciousness, but these

events are rare, and we Americans, as

the center of the world, forget that

they existed before they crossed the

ocean.

This side of the Atlantic, however,

does not have the same sort of

foreign filter. Everything that is (or

was) popular in the United States

is inescapable here. In fact, I am

currently listening to LeAnn Rimes

on Q103, “Cambridge’s best mix.” My

first few weeks here, the culture shock

was almost non-existent because

American culture was here long before

I arrived. While travelling around

Europe, if I got a little homesick I

could find comfort in the fact that I

knew all of the lyrics to the N*SYNC

songs played at the stores in the Czech

Republic and could recognize the

Mariah Carey song the accordionist

on the Paris Metro was playing. One

of the most entertaining nights of

winter break involved drunk German

guy s on a train singing Lenny Kravitz’s

“Fly Away” and the Bloodhound

Gang’s “The Roof is on Fire” in highly

amusing attempts at English.

The prevalence of U.S. pop culture,

however, does not impair England’s

ability to maintain its own. I had to

search for it a bit, but it is here, alive

and rocking, and justifiably more

concerned with its own quality and

keeping the inhabitants of this little

island entertained than with world

domination.

England, I have realiz ed, gets the

best of both (old and new) worlds

of culture. It develops its own

entertainment while importing the

best (and the very worst) of the United

States’. Since discovering them, I have

developed opinions on Britain’s music

and television, which I will now share

with you.

Music: There is a very good reason

that the United States has had

periodic British musical invasions

since the Beatles. British music rocks.

Well, it mostly “pops.” Britain excels

at Britpop, which is possibly why it is

named after them. Although Britpop

refers specifically to the independent,

quasi-anti-grunge movement in the

1990s, bands like Oasis and Blur, I feel

that the phrase adequately expresses

today’s British music. Britpop:

Britons, singing pop music. The

popular music here consists mostly of

independent(esque) bands who write

infectious tunes with catchy melodies

and sometimes thoughtful lyrics.

While the UK Top 40 is cluttered with

hits from the U.S., catchy UK gems

are scattered throughout. This week,

the number one spot belongs to Welsh

singer-songwriter Duffy. I consulted

Ryan Seacrest and American Top 40

to find that her catchy “Mercy” does

not even appear on the chart, although

it has been overplayed here for weeks

now. My new favorite Brit boy band is

probably Scouting for Girls, with hits

such as “Elvis Ain’t Dead” and “She’s

so Lovely (and she’s 30!)” that can stay

superglued in your head for days. You

should YouTube them. If you dare.

The Brits can also produce soulful

songstresses such as Amy Winehouse

and Adele, who is a beautiful big

girl worthy of Brit-Award-Winning

Mika’s appreciation.

Television: While in the United

States, I had always noticed (for

their sexy accents) and appreciated

the few British musical artists who

managed to invade the states, but I

never noticed an entire TV show with

British Accents, except for W hose Line

is it Anyway?, which played late at

night on Comedy Central. There is a

reason for this.

British TV=the BBC. The British

Broadcasting Company is possibly the

Best Broadcasting Company, ready to

produce innovative new takes on game

shows, documentaries and mini-series.

There seems to be something missing

in the drama department, however. I

decided to view a random sampling

of Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday

night shows and found mostly prime-

time soap operas.

While the United States does its

prime-time soaps (Grey’s Anatomy,

Desperate Housewives) in style, Britain

does them as soaps, except with

unattractive actors, many of whom

cannot speak understandable English.

I had no idea what was going on, not

because I had not been watching the

drama of the hopelessly complicated

story unfold over the last twelve

years, but because the actors were

speaking some form of English that

was completely incomprehensible to

my American ears. Emily Mauldin,

Garner Brinkmeyer and I could play

the fun “foreign language translation

game” on a show that was supposedly

in English.

The non-dramas on the BBC are