Tufts sophomore and Tufts Community Union (TCU) Senator Brody Hale is working to reform the Democratic Party in his hometown of Tyringham in Western Massachusetts.
Grey Goose. Smirnoff. Jenkins. If you had your pick of these three vodkas at a party, which one would you pick? Now, throw in some Brita filtered Jenkins into the mix. I had long ago heard rumors that running cheap vodka through a Brita filter would make it taste better, but to give credit where it's due, it wasn't me who whipped out the filter. But, I was certainly eager to volunteer as a tester (in the name of science). So, after trekking downhill only to witness Def Jam's surprisingly early demise this past weekend, my friends and I did what any bright and inquisitive (and bored) Jumbo would do: we mounted an experiment.Aim To rank four vodkas (Grey Goose, Smirnoff, unfiltered Jenkins, and filtered Jenkins) from best to worst in a blind taste-test.Materials 1. Three bottles of vodka, roughly categorized as "Good," "OK," or "Bad." We used Grey Goose ("Good"), Smirnoff ("OK") and Jenkins ("Bad"). Note: we used "normal" Smirnoff, not the premium triple-distilled one. 2. Shot glasses, four per tester. In our case, we used Dixie cups as we didn't have enough shot glasses to go around. 3. One Brita filter (and accompanying pitcher). 4. Testers (we numbered three). 5. One sober person to run the experiment (Lily). 6. Slips of paper to write our votes. Procedure We started out by filtering half a pitcher's worth of Jenkins, using a Brita filter. For those of you who may want to try this yourselves (and yes, you can try this experiment at home, kiddies!), don't forget to prime your filter with water first if you decide to use a new cartridge. As recommended by fellow lushes on the Internet, we filtered the Jenkins three times. The filtering process takes a while, so make sure you've got something to do while waiting. If you're impatient, you can filter the vodka fewer times, but word on the street is that this is not as effective in cleaning out the taste. Following the filtration process, quality control officer Lily banished me and my fellow testers to the living room. She proceeded to fill our Dixie cups with the four libations. Lily then ushered us back into the kitchen, where four unlabeled Dixie cups of vodka greeted each of us. Bracing myself, I took a sip from Dixie cup No. 1. Not bad. Smirnoff, perhaps? Feeling a little braver after the first cup, I approached cup Number Two as a rookie wine connoisseur wannabe approaches a wine at a wine tasting; playing scientist apparently makes me a bit delusional (no, it wasn't that tiny a sip of vodka). I wanted to appreciate the body and feel of whatever lay within. Bad decision - it burned all the way down and continued to fester for several long minutes in my stomach. It was most definitely not something to savour. My vote: unfiltered Jenkins. Only rubbing alcohol (or 151?) could have been worse. With what I believed to be Smirnoff and unfiltered Jenkins out of the way, I looked at cups Three and Four with a little less trepidation: Grey Goose and filtered Jenkins. I knew Grey Goose would be OK (but then again, anything would be "OK" following cupNumber Two), and I had faith in the Jenkins filtering process. Indeed, the last two cups were the most mellow. My vote: Grey Goose was the smoother of the two (cup Number Four). We finished up what remained in our cups (I am embarrassed to admit I downed even cup Number Two) and our trusted Lily revealed to us the true nature of what was in the cups. Would Grey Goose live up to its claim to be the "World's Best Tasting Vodka?" Results Cup Number One: Smirnoff. Cup Number Two: unfiltered Jenkins. (No surprise there!) Then came the doozy: the smoother vodka in cup Number Four was in fact filtered Jenkins, not Grey Goose! So, in this blind taste test, I had placed filtered Jenkins in first place, Grey Goose in second, Smirnoff third and Jenkins rounded up the set in dead last. Why and how does this work? Vodka, as I understand it, is produced through a process of distillation and then, depending on the grade of vodka, is filtered through either charcoal or more complex means. The source water used in making vodka also makes a lot of difference in its quality. Harder water contains more impurities and causes more of a "bite" - this is where the filtration process comes in. Chemical filtration using a charcoal filter like Brita (as opposed to physical filtration through something like a coffee filter) removes congeners (organic impurities) within. But what about the alcohol? Good news: filtering will not remove the alcohol from your cheap vodka (or whatever else you choose to force down your Brita). Believe me, after only two heavy-handed glasses of cranberry juice and filtered Jenkins the day after the experiment, I fell into bed surprisingly tipsy. (I really could not tell that there was any vodka in the drink at all!) Filtration can remove much of the character of vodka, however. More expensive vodkas claim to choose their filtration processes (if they filter) very carefully in order to retain desirable characteristics such as fruity esthers. Grey Goose says that its water is naturally filtered through champagne limestone, almost as impressive as Rain vodka's boast of filtration via diamond dust. Some distillers are against filtration all together, to avoid removing the character of their vodka. Distiller Marko Karakasevik tells Wine Enthusiast magazine that filtration strips a vodka of its "body and mouthfeel." But let's face it - if that "body and mouthfeel" makes me jump around the kitchen in pain like straight unfiltered Jenkins did, I think I'll go for smooth, bland filtered to go with my cranberry juice any day. Next experiment: Who wants to try their hand at making absinthe?
Money, money, money, money. Monay! No longer just the catchy background music to one of television's hottest reality shows, the O'Jay's "For the Love of Money" has become the overriding mantra in season three of NBC's Thursday night classic, "The Apprentice." "Yeah, so, what else is new?" you may be wondering. Hasn't "The Apprentice" always been about the glorification of capitalist greed? Wasn't the competition always driven by the lure of financial success? Isn't it just stating the obvious to insinuate that there is a correlation between series co-creator Donald Trump and a tendency toward excess and overindulgence? The answer to all of these is yes, of course. After all, "The Apprentice" was never a show about subtlety, as Trump so humbly reminded us each and every time he landed on the set via personal helicopter. However, in this latest installment of Donald Trump's vainglorious brainchild, the Donald plumbs new depths of arrogance while simultaneously managing to alienate and insult his audience. See, the way television usually works is that advertisers pay networks big bucks to come up with entertaining shows with which to frame the advertisers' product endorsements. In exchange, you as the viewer are treated to an hour of small-screen diversion that should be worthwhile enough to make up for the constant commercial bombardment. It is a delicate balance, but one not impossible to achieve. In fact, Trump himself struck gold in past seasons by combining a fresh reality premise (at least "The Apprentice" isn't another dating show) with mildly intelligent plotlines. The result was overwhelming; audiences responded spectacularly to a show that didn't treat them like drooling Neanderthals. And then came the finale of season two. The three-hour (no, that's not a misprint) wrap-up, a tacky ratings stunt, came complete with celebrity guests, a reconstructed set at Lincoln Center, and a live rendition of "For the Love of Money." Overkill was the word of the day, and Trump capped off the evening's fanfare with a characteristically gluttonous announcement: instead of contenting himself with a half-season run like most other reality competitions, the Trumpster would be back in our living rooms barely one month later, with a whole new crew. Flash forward six weeks to the present time, where we find ourselves in the third week of Trump's newest competition. At first glance, it would appear that not much has changed. Two teams of entrepreneurs still compete for the ultimate prize of an executive position in the Trump organization. The tasks set before them each week are still business-oriented, even if they are devoid of any resemblance to real-world business situations. And the Trumpster's comb-over is still as unsettling as the icy glare of Carolyn's critical blue eyes. In these respects, at least, the show still retains some of its former dignity. Unfortunately, "The Apprentice" has followed most of its reality peers into the depths of Gimmick Hell, probably never to return again. Pitting "book smarts" (college grads) against "street smarts" (high school grads), Trump doesn't even let viewers get past the theme song without making them aware of the fact that he considers them too stupid to catch on to his shtick. And then the show starts. In the two episodes that have aired this year, there has already been more profanity, more catfights, and more boardroom melodrama than in the past two seasons combined. Selective editing reigns unchecked, portraying the two teams in the most exaggerated light possible: the book smarts team is depicted as a bunch of prissy neo-hippie snobs, while members of the street smarts group are made to look like bumbling morons. In a show that was once heavier on content than on cheap laughs, plot now takes a backseat to the unruly candidates' Springer-esque antics. The end result is that the premise is hokey, the action is blatantly scripted, and every aspect of the show is awkwardly forced into a pre-conceived mold strategically designed to garner the highest ratings possible. So much for striking that precious network-viewer balance. Even a bankrupt former billionaire should be able to give a little back to his audience, but Donald Trump has obviously chosen to trade benevolence for bankrolls. The choice has not paid off so far; "The Apprentice" has dropped four places in the Nielsen Media Research Ratings since last year. Even an ego the size of Trump's can't argue with numbers like that, and if enough advertisers begin to pull their funding, maybe Trump can be persuaded to repent. Yet some vestiges of the show's glory days still remain, and the series is young enough for a comeback. As the Donald told a discouraged contestant last week, "there's nothing better than a good comeback."
February is Black History Month, and the Africana Center has scheduled events accordingly, including a jazz lounge to be held from 4:30 - 6:00 pm tonight at the Remis Sculpture Court in Aidekman Arts Center. Pete Shungu, a Tufts alum, plays with Giraffe, the band he started and coordinated, to bring you an evening of music and refreshments. America has celebrated Black History Month annually from 1963, thanks to the efforts of Carter G. Woodson, Harvard scholar and founder of the widely respected Journal of Negro History. He decided to write black history into the American calendar as Negro History Week in 1926 in an attempt to increase recognition and understanding within society. Tufts celebrates Black History Month in their own way, with a series of events on campus. In addition to the jazz, another event to mark on your calendars is 'African Encounters', an annual event that focuses on students' travel experiences in Africa. Tufts students who spent time abroad in Africa will provide stories and viewpoints for attendees. Also presented will be 'A Long Walk Home,' a multi-media event featuring film, music, dance, and poetry that deals with black women and their relationships. For those interested in lighter fare, a "Family Feud"-like competition will be held in Hotung (date to be announced), giving students an opportunity to test their trivia knowledge in a mental war against other Tufts students. Also of interest is the Spike Lee Retrospective - a series of films to be shown at Barnum on Wednesday evenings that will run over the course of this month. Lee, the son of a jazz musician and a jazz fan himself, ranks as one of Hollywood's most original and innovative filmmakers. He has directed 21 films, produced or co-produced 19, has writing credits on 11 and is the author of numerous books on film and black culture. Likewise, a number of his films address issues of black history and culture. For anyone either interested in black history, or unfamiliar with his films, these screenings are a must. Never one to shy away from tough issues, Lee addresses facets of black culture in a way that often courts controversy, walking a fine line between insulting and inspiring - all the more reason to form your own opinions about the voice of Spike Lee. His films are crucial towards an understanding of the modern conception of black history. Highlighting the screenings is "Malcolm X" (1992), Lee's classic biography of the politician and activist, and a milestone in black history on film. Other films to be shown include "Jungle Fever" (1991), Lee's highly controversial exploration of interracial relationships and drug addiction, "4 Little Girls" (1997), the story of the infamous 1963 church bombing in Birmingham, Ala. and "Girl 6" (1996) about a phone-sex operator trying to break into the New York movie industry. So check out the jazz and the movies and keep yourself posted to Tuftslife.com for event details.
The same night George W. Bush trumpeted a series of sunny foreign policy successes in his State of the Union address, Tufts students heard a darker inside view of operations in Iraq from Kimberly Dougherty, a National Guardswoman who was deployed there for 10 months.
Last night President Bush gave the annual State of the Union speech, his fifth such speech and the first of his newly-inaugurated second term. In it, the President outlined a broad list of proposals, from reforming Social Security to instituting new programs for underserved urban youth to reiterating America's purpose in Iraq and in the Middle East as a whole. Bush has every reason for optimism going into his second term, after winning reelection and ushering in a new congress with even wider Republican majorities to advance his agenda. What Bush and the GOP must remember, however, is that they, as the government of the most powerful nation in the world, have a responsibility to people the world over. This responsibility begins at home with the Republican-led congress showing that it stands for all Americans, not just red-staters. The right's extensive banter about President Bush's "mandate" misses the fact that over 48 percent of those who went to the polls on election day voted for his opponent, Senator John Kerry. The true spirit of democracy is not for the ruling 51 percent to lord their majority over the slight minority who voted blue, but rather to work with all Americans to make this country safer, happier and more prosperous. Emboldened by their electoral gains, Republicans have set out to pursue an agenda that is healthy for neither the American people nor the idea of democracy itself. President Bush is preparing to push the idea of a Social Security "crisis" that is neither imminent (as he claims) nor dire (as he would have us believe). Social Security "ownership," as proposed by the President, is a great way to remove the safety net for older Americans established during the Great Depression and plunge this country into the depths of financial instability. Bush's victory is certainly not a mandate for throwing our oldest and most vulnerable to the sharks of privatization. If the idea of economic fairness is under fire, then our ideal of reasoned democratic debate is under full-scale attack by GOP leadership in the Senate. Majority leader Bill Frist has threatened to rewrite decades-old parliamentary rules to eliminate the Democrats' ability to filibuster. The Bush boys (and girls) argue that it is not democratic for 41 Senators to be able to block the wishes of 59. They miss the fact, however, that the filibuster has always served as a valuable guard against the tyranny of the majority where important decisions, such as Supreme Court nominations, are concerned. It is a tradition that flatters, not insults, our democracy. President Bush commented that "the only force powerful enough to stop the rise of tyranny and terror, and replace hatred with hope, is the force of human freedom." Perhaps we should start at home. So long as hundreds of detainees are held without trial or charges in Guantanamo and Americans utilize "coercive techniques" to attempt to extract intelligence, this great nation will not be living up to its ideals. We cannot expect the Iraqi people to respect the rights of minorities in their midst when the GOP pays sorry lip service to such an idea at home. Bush has said that he is proud to be spreading freedom throughout the world; let's see him start respecting freedom at home. President Bush, your move.
Michelle Loquine, a senior majoring in anthropology and environmental studies, took this photo of a young Nicaraguan girl while on a community service trip with Tufts University in January of 2003. While the group was painting a new women's center in the small town of Siuna, in northeastern Nicaragua, this young girl peered curiously from the porch next door.
For many Tufts students, preparations for last weekend's storm meant nothing more than buying some extra food from Hodgdon and making sure the DVD collection was well-stocked.
Now that the holiday season has passed, shoppers are noticing their wallets are a bit lighter and their checking accounts a bit emptier. A fair amount of that money was lost to a popular gift option: gift cards. A survey by the National Retail Federation showed that 75 percent of shoppers bought gift cards for the 2004 holiday season, spending $17 billion. They're convenient, safe and often more welcome than another one of Grandma's hand-knitted Christmas sweaters. But are gift cards really all they're stacked up to be, or are the hidden costs higher than the benefits? People often fail to notice that, unlike Grandma's hand-knit holiday sweaters, gift cards can have expiration dates, extra fees, and lose value over time. For that reason, gift card recipients should take care to use the cards before the expiration dates. According to the Motley Fool (fool.com), an online finance and investing advice site, "roughly 10 percent of all gift cards are never redeemed." Many Tufts students admit to forgetting to redeem gift cards, and the companies that issue these gift cards ultimately profit from this consumer trend. In fact, gift cards have become the central issue in recent lawsuits because of the policies that accompany them. According to the Detroit News, several lawsuits claim that "Simon Property Group Inc., the nation's largest shopping mall owner, sells cards that allegedly violate state laws in Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire and Georgia." "A Simon gift card with a $25 face value is worth only $12.50 after the 11th month," Massachusetts Attorney General Tom Reilly said in the same article. Rising legal matters concerning gift cards demonstrate the increased presence of the gift card industry, whose revenue is projected to reach $89 billion by 2007, as reported by TowerGroup, a research firm owned by MasterCard International. Consumer Reports Money Adviser magazine released a list of stores with the best gift card policies. These include Best Buy, Costco, Gap, Nordstrom, Starbucks and Target. Gift cards from these retailers never expire, are rechargeable, and come with no extra fees - in short, they're a shopper's dream. But even these "dream" cards can be nightmare gifts, as some students find them to be impersonal. "I do think that gift cards are too impersonal," freshman Lauren Kari said. "However, I also think that they are still a great gift. Plus, there's the bonus of buying whatever I want." For freshman Alana Ackerman, there is simply no substitute for a nicely wrapped gift. "I would rather get a real gift, because it makes me feel like the person knows me better and actually put some time and thought into it," she said. Some students' opinions on gift cards vary depending on who the gift-giver is. In the case of out-of-state relatives, a gift card is more than welcome as a holiday present. "I don't think it was too impersonal, considering that I got it from my aunt who lives in California," freshman Shannon Connelly said. "I would rather she give me a gift card than a real gift that I didn't like and possibly couldn't return." "If it's my grandma, who doesn't know me that well, I think it's personal enough," sophomore Katie Chun said. "But compared to my sister or a friend who might know me really well, I would consider it too impersonal. I'd prefer a real gift from those close to me." Freshman Kiki Samko prefers "a real gift," but said that "gift cards are nice too, especially if you know that the person doesn't really know your tastes, or your sizes." Gift cards also come with a few physical disadvantages: "Gift cards restrict where one can spend the money," freshman Julian Lopez said. There is now a solution for that problem. Online services such as CertificateSwap.com, CardAvenue.com and SwapAGift.com allow members to buy, sell and trade gift cards for countless major retailers. Think of it as virtual regifting; nobody has to know. Of course, there are also students who find gift cards to be the perfect size, style and color. "If you pick the right store, then it is a solid gift," freshman Adam Silverberg said. "It's better to receive a gift card than a baby-blue collared shirt from your aunt that you are never going to wear."
Businesses often emphasize the importance of first impressions, and recent psychological research has focused on determining whether or not first impressions are accurate representations of a person.
Upon winning the 2004 Presidential election, President Bush declared that he earned political capital and now intends "to spend it." It now appears that President Bush will spend his hard-earned political capital fighting for social security reform. If he succeeds, Bush will have passed one of the most monumental domestic policy bills in the past 50 years. Already, Democrats and special interests groups, most notably the AARP, are lining up to fight against the reforms. Fighting against Social Security, though, is just another example of the Democrats' refusal to think progressively outside the box. The Democrats are continuing their trend of spewing off a reactionary response to any change to the status quo. In fact, their biggest argument against Social Security reform so far has been to claim that social security really is not in that bad of shape after all. While that may or may not be true, that does not automatically mean that reforming social security is a bad idea. The Republicans have become the party of forward-thinking individuals, while the Democrats continue to simply criticize Republican proposals while offering no real proposals of their own. Even while there is no immediate crisis, steps should be taken now to reform social security for our future. According to the 2003 report of the Social Security system's Board of Trustees, in 2018, just 14 years from now, the Social Security system will begin to run a deficit. That of course means that soon benefits will have to be cut or taxes will have to be raised. We are already forced to pay in 12.4 percent of our income up to $87,900. From this, we get a dismal return of less than two percent. To make ends meet, the Social Security Administration reports that the payroll tax would have to increase to 18 percent by 2032. The alternative would be to cut benefits by more than 25 percent. Americans deserve better. It is low-wage workers, whom the Democrats claim to care about so much, who deserve and need Social Security reform the most. Low-wage workers often have little or no money left after taxes to invest for their own retirement. These workers depend upon Social Security for their future retirement. However, the current system simply does not provide enough for them. Even with this massive governmental program, one in 10 seniors lives in poverty. If private accounts are allowed, low-wage earners will be able to earn a much higher return than the inadequate amount Social Security currently provides. The President's proposal is another effort at promoting an ownership society. Reform will allow every American to realize that they can make their financial future better by investing today. Millions will realize that they are better off without the government holding their hand, learning in effect that government is really holding them back - perhaps the Democrats' biggest fear. We will have some direct control over our own retirement accounts. And some direct control is needed. According to the Cato Institute, since its program's inception, the average return on Social Security has been between one and two percent. However, since 1926, the average rate of return in the stock market has been 7.56 percent. Moreover, even during the worst 20-year period, which includes the stock market crash of 1929, the rate of return from the stock market was 3.36 percent. So, even during the worst phase, private accounts would far outpace traditional Social Security. Reforming Social Security would not benefit only the individual. The new Social Security system would also have a positive influence on the economy at large. Personalized accounts would lead to huge increases in national investment to the tune of 100s of billions of dollars annually. In fact, Harvard's Martin Feldstein estimates that modernizing Social Security has a value of $10-$20 trillion to the U.S. economy and would permanently increase our GDP by five percent. President Bush's proposal is a visionary look at how conservative ideology can make everyone better off. While his ambition may be a large one, the potential benefits of his vision are even greater. Social Security reform will bring compassionate conservatism to the masses.Mike Schrimpf is a senior majoring in Political Science.
The Atlantic Coast Conference was reshuffled this past week as teams at the bottom moved up and teams from the top moved down. The big ACC surprise was Maryland's upsets against ranked teams. On Jan. 26, the unranked Maryland Terrapins stunned No. 2 Duke at Cameron Indoor Stadium, knocking off the Blue Devils 75-66. Nik Caner-Medley continued his hot streak for Maryland, pacing the Terps with 25 points on eight of 13 shooting. On Sunday, Maryland went on to beat the No. 21 ranked Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets, 79-71. The Terps had a balanced attack, with four players scoring in double figures. But Georgia Tech had its own surprise. Last Thursday, they were able to knock off preseason No. 1 Wake Forest. Tech led throughout the entire game, but somehow Wake managed to tie it up and send the contest to overtime. In OT, Yellow Jacket PG Jarrett Jack knocked down a couple of key free throws in the closing seconds to seal the 102-101 victory for his team. All of this ACC madness resulted in the following national ranking shuffles: Duke dropped from second to sixth, North Carolina climbed from third to second, Wake fell from fifth to seventh, Georgia Tech fell from No. 21 to No. 23, and Maryland came from the abyss of the unranked to grab a top 25 spot at No. 24. The other big stories of the week are the two remaining unbeaten teams in Div. I-A college basketball. Since Duke fell to Maryland, only Illinois and Boston College have an unscathed record. B.C. has had many close calls recently. Last week, they squeaked by unranked conference foe Providence by a count of 78-75. On Jan. 19, they snuck by No. 25 ranked Villanova (who happened to pummel Kansas and knock them from the ranks of the unbeaten earlier in the season) by a final score of 67-66. But with solid wins over Georgetown (64-49) on Saturday and West Virginia (62-50) on Tuesday, the Eagles continue to soar above the competition and are currently ranked at No. 5 in both the ESPN and AP polls. Illinois continues to obliterate its opponents. On Jan. 25, the Illini went to Wisconsin and handed the Badgers their first home loss in 39 games with a 75-65 victory. Four days later, the Illini pounded conference foe Minnesota by a count of 89-66. With a convincing victory (81-68) over No. 10 ranked Michigan State on Tuesday, the Illini may very well go undefeated throughout the regular season. With only a few games remaining before the Big 10 conference tournament, the Illini have only to face one more ranked team in Wisconsin; and this game will be played on Illinois' home court, where the Illini will be heavily favored. Even though they have lost two games thus far, the North Carolina Tar Heels appear to be the strongest contender for a national title during March Madness. The Heels asserted their ACC dominance with a 110-76 pounding of Virginia on Jan. 29. North Carolina led 62-26 at halftime and by as much as 50 at one point. The Heels had four players in double figures and six players with eight or more points. "I've never lost like that in my life," Virginia forward Gary Forbes told ESPN.com. "Not even in a video game." And moving from the undefeated to the nearly undefeated, let's keep going to the completely defeated. The Savannah State Tigers are currently "attempting" to be the second Div. I school in the past 50 years to end the season without a win. The Tigers only put up 57 points per game, shoot under 35 percent from the field, under 28 percent from beyond the arc, and just under 58 percent from the free throw line. With only a few games remaining in their season, and considering their average margin of loss is 24 points per game, the rest of this season doesn't look too bright for Savannah State. May the "Winless Watch" continue.
A recent survey of American high school students contained some shocking results. The two-year project, titled "The Future of the First Amendment," was conducted by researchers from the University of Connecticut. The study's findings, obtained from more than 100,000 students, indicate a bleak future for the First Amendment. The survey found that 36 percent of students believe newspapers should get "government approval" of their stories before publishing, and 32 percent felt that the press enjoys "too much freedom." Only half of the students said newspapers should be able to act independently, without government restrictions. The survey was not simply restricted to questions on freedoms of the press. After all, our First Amendment rights also include our freedoms of religion, assembly and speech. Unfortunately, our nation's youth proved equally uneducated on these freedoms as well. Three in four students said flag-burning is illegal (it's not, thanks to a Supreme Court decision in 1989). Half the students believe that the government can restrict material put on the internet (it can't). Yet a large majority of students said that musicians and others should be unfettered in their expressions of unpopular opinions. Is this what our public education has come to? It is one thing to be guaranteed the right to free speech, but if three in four students believe that flag-burning is illegal, or that a blog post on the internet can be censored by the government, then these First Amendment rights are clearly in danger. Our nation's youth is about to graduate from 12 years of public education without a basic knowledge of their civil liberties - it's as if those rights were never there in the first place. As a college student at Tufts, I am surrounded by peers who, I think, would agree when I say that the First Amendment, and the civil liberties it guarantees, is basic knowledge for young adults. Obviously, I was shocked when I learned that this was far from the truth. It should be as mandatory for students to learn about their rights as it is for them to learn about Math and English. It is even more important to know your rights in a climate characterized by terrorism and a government's search for a proper response to it. With the passage of the USA PATRIOT Act in the weeks after Sept. 11, the administration wrought some fundamental changes to Americans' legal rights. The government may now monitor religious and political institutions without suspecting criminal activity. The government can also investigate your reading and research habits and monitor your internet traffic and email communications without furnishing probable cause that you are involved in criminal or terrorist activity. Furthermore, the government has placed gag orders on librarians and other school officials which prevent them from disclosing that they have been ordered to reveal your records. The Bill of Rights guarantees us a right to a speedy and public trial. However, the PATRIOT Act allows the government to jail Americans indefinitely without charging them with a crime or granting them a trial. In the weeks and months after Sept. 11, over 700 Arab immigrants were unjustly imprisoned and unable to contact a lawyer, or even their families; many of them were never charged. Most recently, in response to a legal challenge mounted on behalf of prison detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Judge Joyce Green wrote that "although this nation unquestionably must take strong action under the leadership of the commander in chief to protect itself against enormous and unprecedented threats, that necessity cannot negate the existence of the most basic fundamental rights for which the people of this country have fought and died for well over 200 years." After reading the Judge's decision, I felt even more appalled at the results of the recent survey. How great a dishonor to those men and women who fought the battles years ago, to have a whole generation of Americans, of kids our age, not even know of our "basic fundamental rights." Would the illegal actions of the Nixon administration have ever been exposed if not for freedom of the press? Would the Civil Rights movement have achieved so much if not for freedom of assembly? Someday, kids of our generation may find an equally important cause. It is the nation's responsibility to educate its youth on these rights, so that when the time comes, they too can bring about change peacefully and contribute to the ever-evolving future of this country.James Gerber is a freshman who has not yet declared a major.
In an effort to bring together the Tufts community and foster relations between students and their elected senators, Tufts University Television (TUTV) has created a special broadcast that will be airing the Tufts Community Union (TCU) Senate's weekly meetings. The meetings will be broadcasted live every Sunday at 7 p.m. to all three of Tufts' campuses on channel 23. The broadcast will initially be very simple, with only one camera and one microphone, but freshman Michael Eddy, the producer of TUTV's TCU Senate tapings, would eventually like to add additional equipment as the project progresses. The first broadcast was supposed to air Jan. 30, but was cancelled due to technical failures. TUTV is currently working to resolve the problem and hopes to be fully operational as soon as possible. The purpose of the live broadcast is to increase student interaction with the TCU Senate, as well as enable students to become better informed about various events on campus. TCU Historian and sophomore Andrew Caplan said that "watching the Senate's weekly meetings is a great chance for all the students to see what the senators actually do and realize that there is a lot to the job." "The Senators are not afraid to voice their opinions because they were elected to represent the students and their opinions," TCU Treaurer and junior Jeff Katzin said. "The live broadcast will give the students a chance to see why we ask them to elect us to the Senate," he added. Following TCU Senator and junior Shaun Glassman's resignation last semester, questions were raised regarding the efficiency of the lengthy Senate meetings, which often run for three hours. Nevertheless, Eddy is optimistic that students will embrace TUTV's newest program. "Hopefully they'll watch at least part of it; and see what [the TCU senators] do during the meeting, and see how the senate is run," Eddy said. "We're hoping that as we continue broadcasting the meetings, interest among the student body will increase," he added. Last year TUTV's estimated audience included 500 students, and their current goal is for viewership to reach into the thousands. TUTV President and senior George Rausch said that the main goal of TUTV is to being together the Tufts community and to showcase the best of Tufts. He added that through this project, he would like members of the Tufts community to embrace TUTV, as TUTV can assist other student organizations to expand their audiences. In the near future, TUTV will start offering services to other student organizations and departments, enabling them to broadcast their events as well.
On a team renowned for its great middle distance runners, the Tufts sprinters are often overlooked. That wasn't the case on Saturday for the women's track and field team when it took on Bowdoin, Gordon, and Springfield. Junior Rachel Bloom won the 400 meters (1:00.52) and sophomore Jill Warner took second in the 55 dash (7.59). But the 200 was where the Jumbos shined, taking first, second and third, led by Bloom (26.56), Warner (26.77), and freshman Kaleigh Fitzpatrick (27.22). Warner and Bloom finished neck and neck, well ahead of other competition, which is unusual for such a short race. "Most of the time coach usually puts Rachel and me in different races," Warner said. "So it was fun to be able to run against her during the week. It's always nice to have someone on the team who motivates me to try harder and push myself to be a better athlete." The performances turned in by the sprinters paced the Jumbos to a crushing 270 points to win an invitational for the second week in a row. The next closest team was Bowdoin with 173.5. In the middle distance events, however, Tufts was without sophomore Sarah Crispin, who did not run due to health issues and whose return date is unclear. The other Jumbos didn't miss a beat. Senior Claudia Clarke (1:41.50) gunned the final 100 meters in the 600, edging out teammate sophomore Kate Makai (2nd - 1:41.93) and taking first. Senior Katie Sheedy (1:42.54) took fourth. "The 600 is a tricky race because you are forced to pace what's otherwise a sprint event," Clarke said. "After a good first lap we all relaxed on that second one. It made the final lap more difficult to get through." Freshman Laura Walls continued a stellar season by taking second in the 800 (2:19.38) and qualifying for the All-New England Championships (All-NE's) at the end of February. Walls had already qualified for All-NE's in the 1,000. Sophomore Maggie Clary took also took fifth (2:28.20) in the 800. Freshman Katy O'Brien (3:04.72) and sophomore Sam Moland (3:13.45) took first and fourth, respectively, in the 1,000. Freshman Anna Shih (5:20.86) kicked hard in the final lap to finish first in the mile with senior Emily Pfiel (5:47.63) taking fifth for the Jumbos. "It was the first time I had run something longer than the 1000 this season," Shih said."[So] it was a bit of an experiment," Freshman Catherine Beck (10:21.94), sophomore Raquel Morgan (10:44.41), and sophomore Jenny Torpey (11:08.95) took first, second and fourth in the 3,000. The race was Morgan's first for Tufts since before winter break. Beck qualified for Div. III New England's with the performance and beat her best time in the event by 17 seconds. In the field, sophomore MacKenzie Rawcliffe took first in the 55 hurdles (9.04), good enough to qualify for the ECAC Championships, and fifth in the triple jump (9.86m). Sophomore Sade Campbell (1.52m) and junior Daniela Fairchild (1.47) led the Jumbos to first and third in the high jump. Tufts dominated the triple jump and long jump, taking six of the top seven spots, including the first five in the long jump and five of the top six in the triple jump. Fitzpatrick (5.04), freshman Ashley Lowe (4.78), Fairchild (4.68), freshman Jenna Weir (4.66), and freshman Catherine Greenlee (4.53) swept the first five spots in the long jump with freshman Katherine Barksdale (4.35) finishing seventh. In the triple jump, it was Fitzpatrick (10.82) in first, Weir in second (10.78), and then Greenlee (10.06), Rawcliffe (9.86), and Lowe (9.80) finishing fourth through sixth. Freshman Sarah Martin finished third in the weight throw (13.40) with senior Jessica Colby (13.24) in fourth. In the shotput, Colby took fourth (11.13) with fellow senior Katie Antle (10.46) in sixth. The 4x800 relay team of Pfeil, Shih, O'Brien, and Walls took first (9:51.20) as did the 4x400 relay team (4:08.04) of Clarke, Bloom, Makai and Warner. While the 4x200 relay team (senior Ayako Sawanobori, Makai, freshman Marisa Mann, Clarke - 1:53.76) only placed second in a comparatively small field, coach Kristen Morwick is not worried. "We raced the 600 crew in the 4x200 this week. The only 'true' sprinter was Sawanobori," Morwick said. "[It was] not a true sprint relay crew, but they did a nice job against Springfield's A team." The women will come back to Tufts next Saturday for the third Tufts Invitational this winter. Coach Morwick is very happy with what she has seen from her team up to this point. "We haven't posted our top performances yet this season, but we've been competitive," Morwick said. "We have plenty of time to run fast, jump high and far, and throw far. Right now, we're just hoping to end our regular season healthy, happy, and ready for championships."
It's a rare day when the Tufts squash team isn't traveling to a match, but the Jumbos took advantage of their sole home contest of the year, sweeping Fordham 9-0 on Saturday. The match marked the return of junior co-captain Spencer Maxwell from a semester abroad. Maxwell played at the No. 1 spot and emerged victorious in a tight match 6-9, 7-9, 9-7, 10-9, 9-4. "When I was abroad, I had been playing some," Maxwell said. "But right when I got back I hadn't been playing enough so my game got a bit lethargic. I was also under the weather a bit, but I'm confident I'll be playing better very soon." Maxwell started the match in a 0-2 hole, but he fought off his opponent's strong start to notch the victory. "When my opponent came out, he had a lot of energy," Maxwell said. "It was a matter of time before he faded a bit." Maxwell will most likely surrender the No. 1 spot for future matches to freshman phenom Jake Gross, who sat out of the Fordham match to prepare for next week. Still, Maxwell will certainly help the Jumbos somewhere near the top of the lineup. Freshman Nelson Schubart won in three straight games at the No. 2 spot and so did junior Tom Keidel at No. 3. Senior co-captain Fernando Kriete won easily at No. 4. Kriete felt the match gave Tufts an opportunity to put to use some of the things it had been trying in practice. "The match gave me a chance to work on shot placement and some other things I don't get to work on against some other teams," Kriete said. "Today was very good for our preparation and helping us to get our bodies into good shape." Sophomore Dave Linz won in three games at No. 5. Linz, a native of Avon, Connecticut, enjoyed the home match because his parents could attend. "The match went real well," Linz said. "It's certainly fun to have a home match so my parents could get a chance to watch." As much as the Jumbos enjoyed getting a chance to show off their skills, playing at Cousens means they must play on older, narrow courts. For most matches, the Jumbos play on the wider courts than most teams use. "It is sort of disappointing because at a great institution like Tufts the facilities aren't really up to par with a lot of other schools," Linz said. Yet the Jumbos used the narrow courts to their advantage as junior Pranav Tripathi won in three games and sophomore Dominic Wong won in four at the No. 7 spot. One of the highlights of the match occurred when freshman Cyrus Kharas notched his first career victory in a tight five game match 7-9, 8-10, 9-7, 9-1, 9-7 at the No. 8 spot. "I only started playing in September," Kharas said. "So it was great to come back from that two-game hole and win." Kharas was optimistic that his game would continue to improve in the future. "I need to work on my short game some," he said. "I had it working some today but I'm still a bit inconsistent." Gross looked on with satisfaction after his fellow freshman celebrated the first victory of his college career. "Cyrus is definitely the story of this match," Gross said. Another freshman, Jonah Peppiatt, won in three easy games at No. 9 to give Tufts the sweep. The Jumbos hope to carry the momentum from Saturday's win into a match on Friday against Brown. Gross has been anticipating the upcoming match because he will face Dan Peitri, one of the elite squash players in the country. "Playing against Dan will probably be my toughest match of the season," Gross said. "I've been going over some film and working really hard in practice to prepare." Assistant coach Gregory Clement, in his first year with the team after graduating from Bowdoin last year, was happy with what he saw. "The match went well, the team really showed up to play today," Clement said. "Since Spencer was abroad it can be a bit rough coming right back, but he's proven he will be back playing at a top level even if he's a bit shaky at first." Clement has enjoyed working with the Jumbos in his first coaching experience. "I see my job as basically doing whatever I can to make everyone play their best and also have fun," Clement said. "I'm so happy to be with the team because we have a lot of great players and great people." Maxwell also likes what he sees from the team so far since his return. "We've probably got the best team we've had in 10-15 years because of so many new talented freshmen and our depth," Maxwell said.
It's official, you're an asshole if:1. You like John Mayer.2. You pop your collar (bonus points if you're a guy and the shirt is pink).3. You take the Joey from Carmichael to the campus center even when it is warm out.4. You're a Yankees fan.5. At parties you pretend that you are more drunk than you really are to seem "cool."6. You're that guy/girl.7. You're majoring in a dead language.8. You buy pre-torn jeans or you bought a baseball hat and intentionally frayed the brim.9. You wear glasses and don't have a prescription.10. You wear sun glasses inside or at night (exceptions will be made only for 80s pop sensation Corey Hart).11. You wear a matching brown trench coat and fedora around campus.12. You wear pants with writing across the ass.13. You cannot think of anything to do with your free time that does not involve drinking.14. You take "The Lord of the Rings" a little too seriously.15. You get to class five minutes early just to chat up the teacher, then stay five minutes after to do the same. You do this in every single class that you take.16. You answer every question in class - including the rhetorical ones.17. You use the word 'summer' as a verb.18. You drive a Hummer.19. You think the Matrix actually exists.20. If you have a mullet, you are awesome.21. You refer to yourself in the third person (bonus points if you also use the royal we).22. You like Paris Hilton.23. You try to join a cappella groups to get chicks.24. In your interactions with people, you tend to rely solely (or at least mainly) on your knowledge of movie and television quotes.25. You use emoticons (bonus points if you use emoticons other than the defaults).26. You use The Facebook for more than one hour a day.27. You talk loudly on your cell phone in really obnoxious places.28. Every person on your cell phone has a different ring associated with them.29. You are a blonde girl from Connecticut.30. You base your popularity on how many friends you have on The Facebook.31. You express deep personal statements in your AIM profile.32. You wear Uggs in the summer.33. ...Or, if you wear Uggs at all.34. You use AIM expressions in normal conversations, i.e. lol or brb.35. You wear tiny skirts when the temperature is below zero.36. When you get drunk, you resort to slapping and hand signals for communication.37. You're the one in your group of friends that always ends up cross-dressing for parties.38. You've heard people refer to you with the word 'sketchy' as a prefix to your name.39. You change your away message more than three times in five minutes.40. You travel to parties in groups of fifteen.41. You wear jeans without butt pockets.42. You're an RA and you hit on your residents.43. You've puked in someone else's bed.44. You ran the naked quad run with your underwear on.45. You listen to emo or pop-punk and think you're hard.46. When you talk on AIM, you type out your actions, i.e. *shrug* (bonus points if you follow such a comment with something along the lines of ROTFL).47. You constantly bug your friends to write Viewpoints for the Daily.48. Your voice raises a few octaves when you greet people.49. You took this column seriously and got offended.50. You spent a week writing a column about how everyone around you is an asshole.Christopher O'Connor is a sophomore whose major is undeclared.
In just a few days, "The Vagina Monologues" will open on the Cohen stage, and several days after that, the Sex Fair will infiltrate the Campus Center. As two students deeply involved in these two events, we not only hope you get to experience these events with us, but we also encourage the dialogue that will most likely result from them. We wanted to share some personal words about our experiences.Louise's Story: This is my third and final year working on "The Vagina Monologues" at Tufts. I have worn many hats for this show - actress, assistant stage manager, assistant producer and, now, head organizer. In taking on all of these roles, I have seen the V-Day movement at Tufts from all different angles. V-Day, a non-profit movement built around "The Vagina Monologues," distributes funds to national and international organizations and programs that work to stop violence against women and girls. V-Day's mission is simple. It demands that violence against women must end. When all women live in safety, then V-Day will be known as Victory over Violence Day. Recently, a friend asked me why I still do the show after all of this time. The truth is, this show blew open the door for my voice, my feminism and my activism. Before partaking in this show, I didn't have the vocabulary or Voice to say what was pissing me off about the way being a woman dictated my life and my roles in it. Before acting in The Vagina Monologues, I could innately tell I had problems with the way I was treated as a woman, but I could not vocalize them - I felt isolated within them. The Vagina Monologues gave me all that and the guts to stand up for what I believe in. This has changed the way I live my life: I have a stronger sense of self, a more powerful view of myself, and less fear in my actions. Over the years, I have witnessed this growth in countless women involved in this show. I have no doubt about the effectiveness of this show; I need not look beyond the experiences of the women involved and the reactions of the audience to affirm my belief in it. Every woman deserves empowerment; every man deserves to support and embrace women of power. I do this show because its importance never diminishes and because we deserve to have it here. I love Vaginas and everyone else should too; we desperately need this show until the violence stops.Judy's story: This year, February 7th marks the second annual sex fair at Tufts, celebrating healthy sexual attitudes and safe sex at Tufts. It is coordinated with National Sexual Responsibility Week, celebrated at college campuses all over the country. I, like Louise, have been asked why I do what I do and why I'm so interested in sex education, especially on a college campus. I've found in the last few years here that many of our peers know very little about sex, especially given the dramatic increase in abstinence-only education in the country and lack of funding for comprehensive sex ed (even with all the research that has found abstinence-only education to be completely ineffective).
The men's and women's ski teams carved up the competition last weekend, taking second and third place respectively. The continued strong showing at Killington Mountain, Vt., will aid the team in solidifying its overall position in the league at the midpoint of the season. The finish helped the women's team hold onto second place in the Eastern Division's Thompson League with 19 points, trailing behind Boston University's 12 points and Vermont's Green Mountain College's seven points. The men's team is sitting in second place with 22 points, three points ahead of the University of Main and 15 points behind Worcester Polytechnic Institute. Freshman standout Andrew Benson garnered first overall in both slalom and giant slalom (GS) and has not finished below second overall in any of his six races this season. Sophomore Eric Johnson took second in both slalom and GS for Tufts, finishing 11th and fourth in overall competition, respectively. Rounding out the Tufts scoring, sophomore co-captain Joseph Shaw came in third in slalom and GS for Tufts (17th overall for slalom, 34th overall for GS). For the women's team, senior co-captain Erin Johnson finished second for Tufts in both events (17th overall for slalom, fifteenth overall for GS). Junior Lael Nelson finished first in slalom (eighth overall) and third in GS (sixteenth overall). Freshman Alex Nussbaum finished third in slalom (22nd overall) and first in GS for Tufts (eighth overall). Freshman Kate Butler was right behind with a 19th place finish overall. Only the top three skiers for each school contribute points to the team's final score. Coach Rob McCune said that the performance of both the men's and women's teams halfway through the season is more than he ever expected. "I'm pretty impressed with how they've been performing with all the injuries and few seniors we have," McCune said. Junior Eliza Appert's season is over due to a torn MCL and Eric Johnson is still recovering from a knee injury last year. In addition, the team roster currently has only three seniors. McCune was especially happy about Nelson's slalom run, in which she placed in the top 10 despite a poor first race. McCune said that the men's team is managing to succeed so far this season, despite relying on its top three racers to get points. "The depth of the [men's] team at the higher levels is really only three guys, so they continue to struggle to maintain their standings," McCune said. "If [those three] maintain, you end up with pretty good scoring." The men's team has finished weekend races as high as first place and as low as ninth. In contrast, Johnson said that the women's team is showing great depth through the first part of the season. Johnson raced a personal best in GS over the course of two runs, despite a near fall on what she described as a "tricky" second course layout, set up by the UMF team, new to the league. "I almost fell on the second run, but pulled it out," Johnson said. "The second GS run was really technical, not rhythmical. It was fun, though." Freshmen skiers Kate Butler and Sarah Heath are both stepping in to fill the shoes of the injured Appert. This is especially fitting, as both Butler and Appert hail from Minnesota. Johnson said that she has high hopes for the growth of both Butler and Heath through the rest of the season, and that the women's team had no shortage of depth. "We have a solid top five, and even skiers in addition to that," Johnson said. "If any of us fall, we've got others backing us up and there is a ton of potential for the future considering that I am one of only three seniors." Although Johnson did not concede anything, she does not see much chance of catching up to BU before the end of the season. "We have a solid third. We'll continue to ski strong, but it will be a tough chase unless BU completely flops one weekend," Johnson said. "At this point in the season, it is difficult to catch up." McCune agreed, and said since the women's team was losing one of their best skiers in Appert, it was going to have a tough time moving up a spot in the rankings. "Without Eliza [Appert], it's going to be very difficult to move into second spot," he said. "They have a chance at it, but it seems like they probably aren't going to make it." As for the men, McCune said that considering their issues with depth, a second place finish would be a remarkable achievement. The team races this weekend at Dartmouth Skiway in New Hampshire.
The Somerville Board of Aldermen recently found itself embroiled in a controversy with implications that extended far beyond city limits to the heart of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Somerville Divestment Project (SDP) goal, according to its Web site, is to "pressure [Somerville] to withdraw its money from companies that help Israel commit extensive and ongoing human rights violations," drafted a resolution to forbid Somerville investments in Israeli bonds and companies that supplied military and defense services to the country. The City of Somerville, according to the Boston Globe, has $250,000 invested in Israeli bonds, and "1.2 million dollars in U.S. companies that supply weapons to Israel's military." The text of the resolution is unequivocal: "The Board of Aldermen of the City of Somerville urges all investors in the city to divest from companies involved with Israel's human rights violations and from Israel Bonds." It proceeds to name several companies, including the construction equipment supplier, Caterpillar, General Electric and the aircraft company Boeing, which the SDP specifically wish excluded from Somerville investment. Although a preliminary hearing in October was not well publicized, by the time of the board meeting on Nov. 8 several citizens and organizations had learned of the efforts to pass the resolution, sparking intense debates. The meeting aroused "high passions," according to the Globe, and drew about 300 concerned citizens, according to Mark Horan, media relations officer for Somerville Mayor Joe Curtatone. University Jewish Chaplain Rabbi Jeffrey Summit said that both Tufts Hillel and Friends of Israel were opposed to the efforts in Somerville, as they found the approach to be one-sided. "It puts the total blame on the situation with Israel and the Palestinians on the Israelis, and it has no focus on a mutual way of bringing people together in peace," Summit said. "To say that a city pension fund should stop all its dealings with Israel is not looking at the crux of this issue." Summit attended the hearings in Somerville with a few students involved in Friends of Israel, to join "the voices of people who were speaking." After six weeks of discussions, testimony from Curtatone, and a Dec. 7 recommendation from the Legistlative Matters Committee, the Board of Aldermen voted 10 to 1 against the resolution on Dec. 9, which "effectively killed it," according to Horan. "Divestment is a thinly veiled attempt to de-legitimize Israel and its right to exist in safe borders," said a spokeswoman on behalf of the coalition that opposed the resolution. Due to the sensitivity of the issue, many of those involved wished to remain anonymous. Tom Wallace, the former Media Coordinator for the International Solidarity Movement (ISM), a group which labels itself as a "campaign against the Israeli occupation of Palestine," disagreed. "Like many other American cities...Somerville is directly, albeit unwittingly, contributing to the oppression, dispossession, humiliation and overall suffering of the Palestinian people," Wallace wrote in his article, entitled "Somerville Divestment Failure is Bittersweet." The article first appeared on Dec. 20, in The Electronic Intifada, an online publication dedicated to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The proposal to consider the resolution drew support from several members of the Board of Aldermen, according to Horan. Curtatone, however, immediately said that he voted against it. "I thought it was completely off base, and more divisive than anything," he said. "We were being too one sided and narrow on the issue." Curtatone added that he has "no doubt in his mind that [both sides] want peace," and that it is an issue for which all parties are concerned, but concludes that neither he nor the Board of Aldermen have the expertise to address the issue. After the October hearing in which, according to the Globe, 1,170 people signed a petition in favor of the resolution, several Somerville citizens against the resolution turned to organizations such as the Jewish Community Relations Council (JCRC) for support and aid. "We worked with people who work to promote peaceful coexistence," said a spokeswoman from the JCRC. "Our role was to get them connected so that they could most effectively do their job," she said, adding that the Somerville Board of Aldermen needed to hear that the SDP was "not reflective of their home constituency." According to the spokeswoman, the aldermen's role was supposed to be focused on such local issues as public education, safety, affordable housing, in Somerville - not international relations. In his article, Wallace contended that the opinion promoted by the JCRC "veiled" the issue and kept it from being thoroughly and honestly discussed. "As discussion moved away from the reality of the situation and from human rights violations to a discussion of whether 'Israel is being singled out' or 'the issue is too big and too complicated for the board,' support for the resolution declined," Wallace wrote. Wallace called the decision to kill the resolution "very sad and infuriating," and claimed that the aldermen ignored 1,500 residents. The spokeswoman from the JCRC disagreed. "I think the aldermen ... feel very used. And they were used," she said, claiming that the SDP and allies forced an issue upon the city government that was out of its sphere of influence. It is unclear where the issue will go from here, and whether or not groups in favor of divestment will attempt new plans to broach the issue. Curtatone, however, has promised to oppose and veto any action or resolution that encourages or demands divestment.
