Just for the record, the Lush is downright obsessed with the Olympics. So the only traveling I did last week was (in spirit) to Torino; I didn't make it to a bar, because I was glued to my television set.
It's near midnight and black storm clouds mottle the full moon as our young protagonist rushes to find shelter from the wind and torrent. There, across the street, a small shop's light glows dimly. Our unsuspecting hero hastily enters to find himself amid shelf after shelf of used books. This is one store he has certainly never noticed before. His calls of "Anyone here?" bring no reply.
To the citizens of our country who have managed to graduate from the American public educational system, taking a standardized test is a familiar routine. Indeed, the act of sitting in a quiet room, filling in bubbles with a number-two pencil and raising your hand to go the bathroom is as American a tradition as apple pie on the Fourth of July.
The post-Vietnam setting, complete with wounded soldier and disillusionment, harkens back to "A Piece of My Heart." The set reversal between the first and second acts, relocating the audience from living room to porch, seems to be the poor man's "Noises Off!" The cast resembles a "School for Scandal" reunion, as six of the eight actors were involved in the play only a few months ago.
Oil prices are elevated, economists and politicians are in a frenzy, and it's just another day in the market cycles.
So Johnny Damon is a Yankee, you say? And the Patriots' reign has been usurped this year? What's that? The Bruins are back!?! And the Celtics suck? Well, at least some things stay the same.
What do you think of when you hear the words "pink panther"?
Perhaps the word most commonly applied to hardcore punk bands by both critics and casual fans is "scary." It's true that with their blistering tempos, larynx-shredding vocals and vulgar lyrics, these bands can be scary, but in a neutral sort of way. It doesn't necessarily mean that they are good or bad, just...scary.
As I compose this Viewpoint, U.S. Army recruiters are staking out Tufts; they want you - your students and friends - for Bush's "war against terrorism and Islamo-fascism." Better that you enlist in the anti-war movement instead. To date, nearly 2300 U.S. soldiers have been killed in Iraq, and 260 more in Afghanistan, bringing the number of Americans killed in Bush's "war on terror" to nearly the total lost on Sept. 11, 2001. Over 16,000 more have been physically wounded, with at least 7,000 "injured too badly to return to duty," and tens of thousands reportedly suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. For what? As we all ought to know by now, the war in Iraq was not about finding WMDs, or preventing terrorism, which it has only encouraged and provoked. No, now the war is being waged in the name of "combating Islamo-fascism." It is thus in the name of "spreading freedom and democracy" that tens of thousands of Iraqis have been pulled out of their homes in the dead of night and illegally detained by their 'liberators.' As you read this, 3,200 of them remain locked in tombs of infamous Abu Ghraib prison, which continues to operate at "surge capacity." Do you, reader, feel safer knowing that every day U.S. and U.K. personnel in Iraq are detaining, abusing, and torturing Iraqis in your name? But to be fair, detaining and torturing is merely one integral part of the U.S. drive to "persuade" the population of Iraq to "peacefully" accept its military presence, its ermanent military bases, its puppet-leaders and its policy platforms. Aerial bombardment, of course, is also an integral part of this "mission of peace." Consider the most serious study of Iraqi war deaths to date, which comes from a widely-respected epidemiologist from the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health who spent months in Iraq scientifically sampling civilian deaths across the country. Published last year in the prestigious British medical journal the Lancet, the study concludes that even based on "conservative assumptions," the total excess deaths in Iraq caused by the war through Dec. 2004 was "around 100,000." Even more significant than the sheer numbers, however, the Johns Hopkins study found the vast majority of Iraqi deaths to have been caused by the U.S., principally by U.S. aerial bombardment. Wretchedly, such bombing has been on the dramatic rise over the past year since the Lancet study ended. Meanwhile, a New York Times article from Feb. 9 declares that after three years of costly U.S.-led "reconstruction," "Iraq utilities are [still] falling short of prewar performance." That is to say, today, in "liberated Iraq," more people lack regular access to clean drinking water, working sewage systems and adequate oil to heat their homes - as well as adequate education and medical care - than at any time in a generation. In many areas, unemployment hovers over 40 percent, while a quarter of Baghdad children under age five suffer from malnutrition. Not surprisingly in this context of mass murder and mismanagement, resistance continues to grow. U.S. military officials reported at the end of 2005 that they encounter typically around 100 attacks a day in Iraq. Notably, they also admit that around 80 percent of all insurgent attacks directly target them, not Iraqi collaborators or civilians; this is to say that the vast majority of attacks are aimed squarely at repelling the occupation. Only a small fraction of attacks are of the viciously sectarian sort focused upon by the American establishment media. Furthermore, it must be emphasized that even this most extreme violence - sensational and horrifying as it often is - does not constitute a justification for continued U.S. military presence in the Iraq any more than say, the widespread tarring and feathering of Tories by American patriots in the 1770s justified the continued presence of British red coats in Massachusetts. After all, it is foreign occupation that provokes and provides a cover for much of this terrorist extremism, which otherwise has no credible place in civil society, Iraqi or American. Thus, while most Iraqis decry mosque-bombings, kidnappings and beheadings, the mainstream of the armed Iraqi resistance enjoys wide popular support. According to recent intelligence gathering by "coalition-partner" Great Britain, 82 percent of Iraqis "strongly oppose" the presence of foreign military troops in their country, while only one percent feel "more secure" because of the presence of the "coalition." Moreover, 45 percent of all Iraqis, including large majorities in many areas, openly endorse insurgent attacks on the U.S. and U.K. (When we consider the risks of Iraqis admitting pro-insurgency sympathies to interviewers, it seems likely the actual figure here is even higher.) Clearly, "staying the course" such as it is is bloody insanity. We in TCOWI say, end the military occupation, now. An immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces - today - from all Iraqi cities, along with an immediate cessation of U.S. bombing, and a pledge -today - by the U.S. government to withdraw all troops forthwith - within a few weeks - would be the best way to: minimize violence in Iraq, improve security, isolate al-Qaeda extremists from the Iraqi masses, stop the killing of U.S. soldiers, save hundreds of billions of dollars and prove to the world that Americans still retain some sense of reason and humanity. But the political reality is that without the reemergence of a significant and committed anti-war opposition here in the U.S., Bush and company will not be forced to withdraw the troops or to stop the bombing any time soon, no matter what the polls say, and no matter that the war costs American tax-payers about $100,000 per minute, at the expense of all kinds of other domestic needs. Unless we actively agitate, educate, and organize pressure on the government to end the occupation and bring the troops home, the slaughter in Iraq will continue. To boot, the Bush administration will continue to feel "liberated" to pursue further military aggression against Iran and elsewhere in the service of its imperial agenda. Mar. 18-19 will mark the third anniversary of the illegal, unjust and devastating U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. As that date approaches, let us go beyond both academic discussions that treat the Middle East like our personal chessboard and cynical gestures that admit and dismiss the U.S. crimes without seriously seeking to end them. It is time to debate the "war on terror" seriously on this campus - both inside and outside of the classroom. TCOWI welcomes all pro-war and "stay-the-course" takers, Democrat, Republican, or neo-con fascist. Moreover, we urge you to get informed and get active against the imperial madness. What is an educational institution for if not to allow us confront uncomfortable truths and to challenge unjust crusades? Where, I ask you, do you stand on the blood being shed - and the terror being spread - in your name and with your U.S. tax-dollars?
There is no doubt that the political climate right now is especially tense. Iran is trying to acquire nuclear weapons, the White House is desperately trying to defend a seemingly illegal domestic spying program, Jack Abramoff and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby are in trouble for political improprieties, and the situation in the Middle East has been quite troubling to put it mildly.
Tonight, AppleJam brings Boston-area electro-rockers Matters & Dunaway and John Igaz to Tufts University. This duumvirate of electronic music groups will be playing at Hotung Caf?© at 9:30 p.m. Having spoken with both parties as well as AppleJam officials, this writer can safely say that it'd be a shame to miss this show.
Why is it that many of the young, white undergraduates at Tufts seem to think its okay for them to use the n word, whether in my presence or not? I get it: You're a liberal, slightly-bisexual beatnik from San Francisco. That doesn't change the main aspect of my incredulity. Granted, I'm well aware these crazy kids have grown up in this post-Dave Chappelle world where the word "nigger," "nigga," "niggah" or any of its other hilarious forms can be nonchalantly thrown around humorously and never considered hurtful, disrespectful or inappropriate. But, guess what? I find Dave Chappelle offensive, too. And he's black! Generally, I don't care for it when black people or people of color use the n-word. Honestly, I hate the word itself. I hate the time, the meaning and the aspects of African American life that it represents. But if you feel empowered by referring to your best friend using a word used to degredate my mother and grandmother and great-grandmother, etc. for hundreds of years, who am I to protest? After all, you've embraced this word of bondage and made it a part of the Negro vernacular. Well, excuse me, but aren't black people well aware of what happens when "we" assimilate something as a part of our culture? Somehow, it becomes inexplicably popular among young teeny boppers. I love my friends - the white one, the Mexican one and that international guy we all think is gay. But if they disrespect me ONE MORE TIME by using this word in my presence, I'm going to... cry. It's true; I've never said anything out loud. I have never asked my friends to sit in a circle in our common room and discuss the negative aspects of stereotypes, racism and "hate speech." But should I have to? I have had less black friends in 18 years than I can count on my hands, but the hundreds of white people I knew in high school would never have used this word in my presence - or, hopefully, at all. I just don't get it. Don't people understand that I am black? I represent myself as a Nigerian, sure, but an entire half of me has lived on this country for innumerable decades. I would sit at the dining room with my great-grandmother and listen to her horror stories of oppression and threats of violence against her and her family in the South in the 1930s. I quietly wept as she told me about the fear that forced her to move away from her many siblings and last surviving relatives for fear that her husband and innocent daughter would be murdered. I do not wear her tales on my chest, sure, but by looking at me you should be well aware of the possibility that this is a part of my past. I have no intention of allowing it to be in my future. I understand how fun it is to be politically incorrect. We all make fun of the Jewish guy, the tall one, that fat girl and our gay sidekick. And we all have the right to. I un-grit my teeth and answer ever-so-slightly offensive questions about my hair or the Bronx without injury. Taking life and its injustices too seriously is no way to spend our youth. Yet the words kike, dyke or chink never enter my vocabulary. I make the effort of not referring to gay or straight people as "faggots," nor do I allow those around me to use the word in my presence because I'm aware of the hurt it may cause in one person. I'm not gay, but I don't have to be: I'm a human being, and I have feelings, and I at least make the effort to take those of others in account as well. Why the hell don't I deserve the same respect? Let's all be honest here. When you look at me, you see color. When I look at other people, I see color as well. However, this is fine, because we are all different. What is important is that we do not judge people based on what we see. In the back of my head, I am thinking, "Is this chick Chinese or what?" But despite whatever goes on inside my mind, I try as hard as I can not to allow my personal ignorance to offend anyone else. What is the moral of this story? I don't know. Will this change anything? I doubt it. But, please, do me a favor: Stop singing that goddamn Kanye West song around me. If you want to go home and scream "broke niggas" at the top of your lungs, feel free, but refrain from doing so when in my presence. Just don't say anything for the last two seconds of the verse. It is awkward, yeah, but you'll get over it. Stop quoting NWA, DMX, or any other rap artist you happen to come across when cruising your roommate's iTunes. Finally, stop discussing the appropriate enunciation or spelling of this word, because it's not appropriate at all, in any form, ever. I am not a bitch. I am not weird or sensitive. I am not the only one who feels this way. Whether it is purposely meant to be hurtful or not, hearing some words trigger pain in people, and it is not fair that they should suffer in silence. I highly doubt that the quality of your life is going to decline significantly because I'm asking you to refrain from using this word in my presence. And although I also doubt it will improve my quality of life, it will certainly make things a lot less uncomfortable the next time someone suggests a sing-along of "F-k the Police."
In the Feb. 10 News article "Strong words from JFK scribe," former Kennedy speechwriter Ted Sorensen's name was misspelled as Ted Sorenson. The Daily regrets the error.
The photo accompanying yesterday's News story "Relay for Life kicks off its return to Tufts" (Feb. 16, 2006) was incorrectly attributed to Jo Duara. The photo should have been attributed to Alex Schmieder.
Although Tufts continues to send a steady stream of graduates to the Peace Corps, the university has slipped in national rankings of Peace Corps volunteers. In 2005, the school dropped from fifth to 16th place on the list comparing the numbers of volunteers from small colleges and universities (less than 5000 students). Also in 2005, Dartmouth College, The University of Chicago, Wesleyan University, Gonzaga University and The University of Puget Sound ranked in the top five among small schools. In 2003, Tufts ranked first on the list. Director of Career Services Jean Papalia said that the slip from fifth to 16th does not represent a significant decrease in Tufts volunteers, but rather an increase in Peace Corps recruits from other universities. "I think there are just a lot of other schools joining the bandwagon," Papalia said. "Last year we had 22 people from Tufts [join the Peace Corps]; this year it was 19." The 19 prospective Peace Corps volunteers from this year's senior class will, if accepted, begin their work following graduation in May, joining the ranks of 446 Tufts alumni who have participated in the program since its creation in 1961. Senior Laura Nolan looks forward to living and traveling in a foreign country. "I am most interested in interacting with other people," she said. She decided to apply for Peace Corps over other domestic volunteer programs because she wants to see how different cultures manage health and education, two of her main interests. Nolan is interested in pursuing an advanced degree in clinical psychology in the future, but is still unsure about her exact field of study. "[The] Peace Corps would help me focus my interests," she said. Amarilys Rojas, who graduated in 2005 with a bachelor's degree in Child Development, is also waiting on the final decision from the Peace Corps. "I love traveling and doing health work," she said. "It just seemed like a win-win situation." "When you are really taken out of [your] safety zone you learn more about yourself," Rojas said. "When you are going somewhere, you have to get things done. Peace Corps is definitely go and do. You can't sit and wait." Both Nolan and Rojas have yet to find out if they have been accepted as Peace Corps volunteers. The Peace Corps presently has 7,810 volunteers serving in 77 different countries, with work varying from the education to the health sector. Recent university graduates enjoy financial incentives if they volunteer: The government reduces the volunteers' federal student loans by 15 percent each year and defers the rest of the loan payment for the program's duration.Laura Herman and Kelly McAnerney contributed reporting to this article.
For most students, eating in a dining hall rarely requires more thought than deciding between pizza and a panini. But for some Tufts undergraduates, finding food can be a continuous battle: These students keep kosher, a set of Jewish dietary laws that restrict what foods one can and can't eat, and how that food can be prepared.
Students who keep kosher have the option of going to the Chabad House,
One of the biggest stories in the conference this week came at the Middlebury Invitational for men's and women's swimming, but it had nothing to do with the competition in the pool.
Just like clockwork, a new year has brought with it a new British pop sensation, one that will supposedly save rock and roll from its current, sorry state and lead it into a golden age. The 2006 installment of this phenomenon is Sheffield, England's Arctic Monkeys, a fiery teenage four-piece led by nineteen-year-old singer/guitarist Alex Turner.
