One night three years ago, after J.P. Rogers realized he didn't have the money to pay his tab at the University Pub, he asked if he could fill in for a bartender who hadn't shown up for work. He's been a bartender there ever since. "I've met some of my best friends at the Pub," he said. He also mastered the art of understatement. One of those friends is his fiancee, Kelly Allen, a 1999 TCU graduate. "It drives her crazy that I go there to relax," Rogers said. "It's my home away from home. All of my friends are there." Cameron Ressetar, a junior marketing and finance major, said he goes to the Pub for the same reasons. "I have a lot of friends who come here; it's a more laid-back atmosphere than other places around here," he said. "It's just your typical TCU neighborhood bar." Dave Mitchell, who has owned and operated the Pub for the last two years, said after he ran two Fort Worth restaurants for several years, he wanted to run a business of his own. The Pub was for sale, and it seemed like a perfect fit. "This is a TCU bar," Mitchell said. "It's so TCU it makes your teeth hurt. It is TCU, and that's all it needs to be. My clientele is 50 yards away across the street." And he knows many of those clients by name. "It's nice that people have some place to come where everyone knows your name," Mitchell said. "Our customers are our guests, and they show us respect. The least we can do is show some back."
"He knew the Pub, and he knew the tradition," he said. "All I have to do is not mess it up. It's pretty blasé, just business." Just business sort of. "A bar can be so volatile," Mitchell said. "Too many things can go wrong. If (the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission) is outside, and a customer walks out with a drink in his hand, that's fines for him and me." Add onto that the added trouble caused by drunk customers and underage drinkers. Mitchell said knowing the customers' names and hiring TCU students as bartenders pays off in a number of ways, especially when dealing with underage drinkers. "It keeps it easy to know who's underage and who's not," he said. "Their job is to get in, my job is to kick them out. Sometimes I win, sometimes they win." Rogers said keeping underage drinkers out of the Pub means keeping a good atmosphere inside. "It keeps some of the troublemakers out of there," he said. "Everyone who's in there, no matter who they are, are having a good time. "We just don't put up with people who are going to get out of hand. It's not one of those bars." Rowdy customers, however, are usually the least of their problems. Mitchell said customers driving home drunk is an ever-present concern. "I'm always worried about people drinking and driving; I'm scared to death," he said. "I don't want to see anyone get hurt. We cut people off, give them water, tell them how to deal with hangovers. "We don't want to throw drinks at them and say 'see you later.'" Rather, sometimes they hire them. Kim Hinkle, a senior advertising/public relations major, is another Pub customer turned bartender. "I spent so much time there anyway I thought I might as well get paid for it," she said. "Some of the biggest lessons I've learned in college have been sitting on a barstool at the Pub, not sitting in class or in a meeting." She said the transition to bartender has been exciting, though not without its drawbacks. "It's a whole different perspective when you're behind the bar and not the one drinking," Hinkle said. "It's fun, but sometimes it gets frustrating when there are so many people yelling at you for a drink. But if you have to be working at 11 o'clock on a Saturday night, at least you're where your friends are."
Jason Crane
"I am only 18. I have never seen The Clash, but I would sell my grandmother to have seen them." The author of this quote in the liner notes of The Clash's newest live album released in October is simply named Daniel. Well, Danny Boy, I couldn't have said it better myself. Listening to "From Here to Eternity," the live album that chronicles the career of the premier punk act to come out of the late '70s British Invasion, is the next best thing to actually seeing The Clash in person. From the first track on the album, "Complete Control," I'm swept away to New York City in the summer of 1981. I can feel the raw enthusiasm, the impetuous youth and the sheer adoration of the crowd. The band's defiantly cheerful grab for life translates well into these recordings, making it possible for even those who were too young to see The Clash in concert understand why the Clash is often called one of the best live acts of rock 'n' roll history. Punk fans will be able to appreciate this album for what it is: punk as it was always meant to be. The Clash blended a raw anger with a political and aesthetic agenda, singing about everything from prime ministers and staying alive in a political wasteland to racial unity. It's obvious from this album that The Clash wasn't just playing its music; it was fighting for it. The ninth track on the album, "I Fought the Law," The Clash's cover of Sonny Curtis' classic anthem, admits defeat in its lyrics but explodes in triumphant pride. Topper Headon's drums build like distant thunderheads, the guitars wheel and crash, and vocalist Joe Strummer delves into the conquered words, "I fought the law/And the law won," with such zeal that he lets all know that he wouldn't have it any other way. The 16th track begins with the crowd's unrelenting cheer at the recognition of the familiar opening from the radio hit, "Should I Stay or Should I Go" from the 1982 platinum record "Combat Rock." The entire audience sings along and becomes a part of the energy of this song. The Clash builds off of the energy pumped out by the crowd and reaches a new height. Strummer and vocalist Mick Jones hold nothing back as they sing, playing off of each other and the crowd. I plead them not to go, but go they do, closing the album with "Straight to Hell," a moving ballad about the insignificance the world's leaders try to push on their children. "From Here to Eternity" will make a great addition to any rock 'n' roll lover's music collection. The Clash pushed the limits of punk - infusing it with funk, reggae and rap - while maintaining a pop sensibility. This album captures the astonishing intensity of rock 'n' roll teen-agers battling for good times while compelling you to do the same. So sell your grandmother if you have to, but waste no time in buying this album, and become a "Clash City Rocker!"
RANKING:**** Vanessa Calkin
By Reagan Duplisea staff reporter Those expecting to see characters in robes and sandals in TCU Theatre's production of "Jesus Christ Superstar" are in for a surprise. Modern dress is one of many contemporary aspects of the biblically themed show. The production begins with the company of prostitutes, pimps, drug dealers and homeless people assembling on the stage. Jesus appears on a scene that seems like it could take place on any New York City street corner and chooses his disciples. Although startling to watch at first, this reminds the audience that Jesus did not always associate with la crème de la crème of ancient Israel. If he came today, he might choose a white supremacy advocate or a homeless person as his disciple rather than someone who sits in a pew every Sunday. He might even choose someone who uses profanity. Seeing Mary Magdalene in a miniskirt and fishnet stockings gives the audience an idea of how she was perceived during her time. There were a few eyebrows raised as Herod - played by Yvonne Campbell - took the stage. Herod as a woman - not any woman, but imagine Oprah on speed - is a twist on the story. She drew the most laughs during the show as she questioned Jesus in talk-show-like format.
The show focuses on Judas almost as much as Jesus. One of the best things about TCU's production is that it shows the various sides of characters' personalities. Even though the word "Judas" has negative connotations today, he probably had some good qualities, as shown by his remorse for his betrayal. John Patrick, who plays Jesus, adds humanity to the role as he loses his temper in the temple and does not understand why he has been destined to die. A range of emotions crosses his face; he doesn't have to utter a word, and the audience can tell what he is feeling. The sparse set is balanced with the many colorful costumes and characters. The stage is very busy, so much that it occasionally becomes distracting (and claustrophobic for those in the front row). Not only does the action happen feet (and sometimes inches) away from audience members, but the crowd's senses are also reached, like with the pungent smell of Caiaphas' cigar. The stage seems almost too crowded at times, but it helps the audience understand how Jesus was mobbed. In one moving scene, Jesus is practically suffocated by people who want to be healed. With the constant flow of people, it's difficult to tell who all the disciples are, except for Peter and Judas. However, the group dance sequences are lively, dynamic and well-synchronized. Most of the cast's voices are (Judas), Erin Williams (Mary Magdalene) and Campbell (Herod) being especially noteworthy. However, the acoustics of the awful Hays Theatre did nothing to complement the strong voices. It was hard to understand what the actors were saying. But it could be due to their enunciation or the sound system. The only thing that redeemed the sound at all was that chorus members hid in the audience at times to provide "stereo" sound. From the time Jesus is brought before Pilate to the final moments of the show, the audience is transfixed. Powerful scenes send chills up the spine, and the images stay with you long after the cast has taken its final bow. The talented cast and crew have successfully put together a modern take on a story most of us find familiar, which invites us to question what would happen if Jesus appeared today.
Reagan Duplisea
"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our policemen more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future." That quote is reminiscent of something President Bill Clinton might have said after the Brady Law went into effect. Unfortunately, that quote is from a 1935 speech by Adolf Hitler. Gun control, no matter how "reasonable" it is presented, is an infringement upon the Bill of Rights. Supporters of gun control fail to realize that if the right to keep and bear arms is made void, other rights will surely follow. The Second Amendment was added to the Constitution to prevent a tyrannical government from controlling the people. Long ago, Thomas Jefferson said, "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, at last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." The framers of the Constitution who had been under British rule saw that the disarmament of the public was key to the continued despotic rule of the people. Patrick Henry once wrote, "Three million people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, are invincible by any force which our enemy (England) can send against us." American lexicographer and author Noah Webster also said, "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." Theoretically speaking, and to reiterate both Henry's and Webster's point, if the common people have no weapons with which to fight, who are they to oppose a government gone awry? By now, most of the public has heard gun control supporters speak of those "evil assault rifles" (that hyperbolic term, of course, is being used so as to confuse the reader because in all actuality, today's so-called assault rifles are functionally identical to the semiautomatic rifles of a century ago) and how law-abiding citizens should not possess them. Tench Coxe retorts best by saying, "Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American." Assault weapons, contrary to popular belief, are not machine guns and cannot spray bullets; instead, they discharge one projectile with each trigger pull. The assault weapons controversy was initiated back in 1989 when a paroled psychopath in Stockton, Calif., used a semiautomatic AK-47 to murder children at a school playground. The media ignored the fact that this insane man was paroled but, instead, selected a new villain, the "assault weapon." The media showed footage of a watermelon supposedly exploding from AK-47 fire, when, in fact, it was a 9 mm pistol with hollow ammunition that did the damage. Suddenly, the media reported that the weapon of choice for criminals was the assault rifle. The real truth about the matter is that most criminals do not use assault weapons. FBI data suggests that they are used in about one percent of all violent crime. One cannot single out a certain type of firearm and say it is too fearsome a weapon to be owned by civilians. An antiquated Flintlock rifle is just as dangerous as a modern day AR-15 rifle. A firearm is a firearm, regardless of its name; they all have the same purpose. Recently, gun control advocates have repeatedly called for the nationwide implementation of trigger locks in order to prevent tragedies involving youths and firearms. They cite the belief that children are unlikely to use a firearm if there is a "child-proof" lock on the device. However, although it went widely unreported in the mass media, the sixth-grader in Lisbon, Ohio, who held his class hostage with a pistol, effectively defeated the trigger lock on his father's gun by rummaging around his father's house to find the key. It should be reasonably obvious to the casual observer that trigger locks are not the solution to preventing children from misusing firearms. Instead, a more realistic approach to the issue would be to educate children about the dangers of misusing firearms and to teach them to immediately report anyone they see in school with a gun. It is amusing that the National Rifle Association receives so much flak for vigorously supporting gun rights, yet it is virtually the only group in the country sponsoring - with its Eddie Eagle Program - firearms education in public schools. Bluntly put, gun control is people control. In the foreseeable future, there will continue to be individuals who wish to suppress the right to keep and bear arms. It is fundamental that we, the future of the United States, protect our Second Amendment right. We must write our members in Congress and stress to them that we want them to represent us by voting down all laws that would restrain the Second Amendment. If we sit back and allow others to quell our rights, we will have nothing; we will be lambs for the slaughter.
Robert Davis is a senior computer science
major from Garland.
Gun control is a complicated issue. And while proponents and opponents can toss statistics and arguments around forever, to me the solution is pretty simple. When a first-grader kills a 6-year-old classmate in Mount Morris Township, Mich., we ask why. When a 15-year-old wounds six classmates in Conyers, Ga., we ask why. When two young men kill 15 people including themselves and wound 28 in Littleton, Colo., we ask why. When a 15-year-old kills two students and wounds 19 in Springfield, Ore., we ask why. When a 13-year-old and 11-year-old kill four students and a teacher in Jonesboro, Ark., we ask why. This is just a sampling of school shootings in the past three years that are chronicled on The Washington Post Web site. There are all sorts of theories about why these tragedies occurred - violence on TV, accessibility of guns, declining morals of youth, isolation and alienation, etc. The "why" of these shootings seems hard to understand, and there may be many different reasons for the violence. A slightly easier question to answer is how these crimes were committed. Because they were school shootings, a lot of the focus has been on guns. So people are asking, "Do we need trigger locks? More waiting periods? More background checks?" No. We don't need guns. Gun control opponents often argue that gun control infringes on our Second Amendment rights. Others argue that the Second Amendment just applies to militias. As a nation, we have talked about the right to own a gun. Now could we talk about the right to live? The right to send our brothers and sisters to school without worrying some kid with a gun will shoot them? Guns are used in many different ways, and certainly school shootings aren't their primary usage. But the fact is that guns are being used in school shootings in the United States. Not knives. Not poison. Guns. Would gun control infringe our rights? Maybe so. But as a nation, we should be ready to sacrifice our right to own guns in order to protect people. Some people are concerned about the government taking away rights through legislation. And they are partially right - we should always be wary of government legislation. But are we really more scared of the government taking away our rights than hearing that someone we know has been shot? Not me. When I read reports about the school shooters, I thought about my high school and knew the same thing could have happened there. The threat of gun violence is more real than a rights-stealing government. Is total gun control really necessary or are existing laws enough? There are just too many loopholes in the existing laws for them to be effective. For instance, the Brady Law wouldn't have affected the guns used in the Columbine shootings, according to the Handgun Control Web site. Sure, trigger locks may deter very young children from using guns, but will they stop 15-year-olds? Some gun control legislation is deterring gun crime, but it is not enough. How many more people have to die because of gun violence before we realize that the situation requires more serious measures? The Handgun Control Web site stated that in 1996, handguns were used to murder two people in New Zealand, 15 in Japan, 30 in Great Britain, 106 in Canada, 213 in Germany and 9,390 in the United States. According to the Centers for Disease Control, the rate of firearm death of children 0-14 years old is nearly 12 times higher in the United States than in 25 other industrialized nations combined. When are we going to realize we have a huge problem requiring a daring solution? Maybe when we realize we are part of a larger community, we will be willing to make sacrifices. There have already been several school shootings, and there is a potential for many more because 43 percent of households with children have a gun, according to the Handgun Control Web site. Because there is so much violence in society, many people own guns to feel safe. But according to a New England Journal of Medicine study in 1998, guns kept in the home for protection are 22 more times likely to kill somebody you know than to kill in self-defense. Children are into everything, and it is extremely difficult to keep anything from them. Let's just remove the temptation. A total ban on guns is too idealistic, right? Other countries have done it. After a school shooting in Scotland, guns were banned. Yes, it would be harder in the United States, but it can be done. The point is that gun violence will never be under control until we admit that it is a problem. Gun control isn't the only answer, but in conjunction with monitoring violence on television and teaching children respect, we can reduce gun deaths. Most gun owners aren't going to go on shooting sprees. And many practice gun safety already. And yes, they would have to give up their guns if guns were outlawed. But can we really say that sacrifice is too great when we remember the victims of Columbine, the victims of Jonesboro, the victims of West Paducah, Ky?
Copy Desk Chief Tara Pope is a senior religion
major from Longview. |
Perhaps that attitude is why the Pub is
now a 19-year-old tradition and still going. Mitchell bought the Pub in
1998 from previous owner Bob Harshman, with money borrowed from a banker
who is a TCU graduate.
What made me the most squeamish was when Jesus almost succumbed
to Mary Magdalene's sexual advances. Her rendition of "I Don't Know
How to Love Him," however, was beautiful. This has been one of the
most controversial songs of the musical since it opened in the 1970s, because
of its overt sexuality. The people around Jesus have never had a savior
before, and they didn't know how to feel about him or treat him.| The TCU Daily Skiff © 1998, 1999 Credits |