News
Correction
October 31A picture last Monday for "Clean-up tries to raise awareness," was incorrectly captioned. The picture was taken by Alissa Jacob.
Archives
News
A modest proposal
October 31It's been a relief this semester to finally see a voice of reason on campus. Unfortunately, I do have one caveat with Evan Cochran's commentary, in that he seems afraid to touch delicate or controversial issues. Everyone knows coke is a "whole lot of fun," but Cochran nary says a word about cult suicide, another quality social activity of which some more timid students are wary, and one that won't break the bank nearly as much as doing lines. Those who have never tried ritualistic suicide are quick to bash it, and it creates quite a double standard to criticize something you have never tried.
News
Football: Defense holds off late Amherst drives in upset
October 31Going into Saturday's football matchup between Tufts and Amherst, there appeared to be little reason for optimism in Medford. While the Jumbos were reeling at 1-4 with three straight losses, Amherst was riding high with a 5-0 record and was looking ahead to a Trinity game that would mostly likely determine the NESCAC champion. But Tufts, and especially the Jumbo defense, made sure it grabbed Amherst's attention, holding the Lord Jeffs to just 221 yards in a 10-3 upset. Amherst, who had been averaging over 30 points a game, also fell 200 yards short of its average of 421 yards an outing. In the ground game alone, running backs Fletcher Ladd and Matt Monteith had combined to rush for nearly 200 yards per game. On Saturday, however, the two were held to just 116 yards, while the Jumbos forced three turnovers that led to all ten of their points. All of the game's scoring took place in the second quarter. Tufts scored first, taking a 3-0 lead on a 31-yard field goal by junior Phil Scialdoni. The Jumbos pushed their lead to 10-0 later in the quarter on a 23-yard touchdown pass from senior Casey D'Annolfo to sophomore Steve Menty. Those turned out to be all the points the team would need. Amherst pulled within seven with a 31-yard field goal of its own, but they were shut down the rest of the game by a Tufts defense that has allowed only 13 points in the last two games. Twice late in the fourth quarter Amherst had the ball, but both times the Jumbos stopped the Lord Jeffs on big fourth down plays to protect the lead. The defense played well enough to overcome three Jumbo turnovers (three interceptions, one fumble lost) and a blocked field goal. "The defense has been playing really well all year," sophomore defensive end Chris Decembrele said. "We just stuck more guys in the box [against Amherst]. We knew because of the weather that they were probably going to try to run the ball, so we wanted to take that away." Decembrele paced Tufts with 15 tackles, including nine solo. Also having a great game was sophomore defense back and punter Brian McDavitt, whose impact on the game was not limited to punting. He had six tackles, but two were for loss, including one sack. Senior defensive tackle and captain Chris Lawrence also had six tackles and a sack. "All our guys played great," Decembrele said. "Our defensive line blew up all the holes that their O-line was trying to make. [Tufts defensive coordinator John] Walsh prepared us very well all week." The game marked the best performance of the season by a young Tufts defense, which has been steadily improving with each game of the season. "The first game of the season was the first time seven of our starters had seen real action," Decembrele said. "Just getting that experience and understanding our defense and getting playing time has made those guys so much better." Senior running back Steve Cincotta led Tufts with 79 yards on 20 carries, while D'Annolfo threw for 109 yards on five of 16 passing. For Amherst, Ladd gained 90 yards on 23 carries, but quarterback Marsh Moseley was limited to just 12 of 29 passing for 90 yards, including an interception and two fumbles. "We've pretty much stopped everybody this year," Decembrele said. "We know we can beat all these guys. And now our focus is just to get these last two wins for our seniors, to get our record back to .500." Tufts will face the fourth-ranked Colby Mules at home this weekend with the hope that its defense can keep its recent dominance going.
News
Niels Mueller and Sean Penn get to the heart of the highly anticipated 'Assassination' plot
October 31Last Tuesday at Loews Boston Common, a jam-packed theater of college kids got a small inkling of what being in the movie biz must be like. In a snazzy event set up by Think! Films and Allied Advertising, students had the privilege of viewing a highly touted movie two months before its release date.
News
Seymour Hersh gives an inside view of Iraq and foreign policy
October 31Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh, who most recently broke the story of the abuses at the Iraqi prison Abu Ghraib with the CBS news program "60 Minutes," gave a scathing portrait of U.S. policy in Iraq in the Terrace Room on Friday.
News
Saj Pothiawala | The Saj of Tao
October 31If you've been reading my columns, you know that I like to tell stories about people. For the most part those stories are about people I know. Like my foreign friend Karim who tragically cannot vote for John Kerry this Tuesday. Or my baseball watching friend who was driven completely insane by his "Sex and the City" watching roommate.
News
Noah Trugman | Life is Elsewhere
October 31Tomorrow is the biggest day in American politics for our generation to date. In the election between George W. Bush and John Kerry, America is choosing both a president and one side of a great split in world opinion. This is because tomorrow is America's first conscious election after the Sept. 11 paradigm shift. Since the first three years of the war on terror were orchestrated top-down by the Bush administration, tomorrow is the first real opportunity for the American public to respond to the way that administration has chosen to wage this war. In the 2000 election fiasco, the American public did not foresee Sept. 11. We did not know we were voting for - actually the popular majority voted against - a president who would lead us first into Afghanistan and then into Iraq. Nobody was talking about Osama bin Laden. Heck, we didn't even know where Afghanistan was. And for our ignorance, the rest of the world surprisingly did not blame us. Instead they offered their condolences after Sept. 11 and directed their criticisms of the war in Iraq against Bush. Whether we should have gone into Iraq and, if so, how we should have conducted the war are both debatable. Whether it was in America's best interest and whether it will make America and the world a safer place in the long run are still unclear. Also somewhat unclear is whether Kerry can lead a stronger, more effective war on terror. Bush's judgment and leadership have been seriously questioned by the Vietnam-like Iraqi insurgency and human rights violations highlighted by the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. But - and this is very important - unfortunately Kerry has failed to meet the challenger's challenge to define himself. He has not articulated his positions strongly enough to convince a majority of the American public that he will protect and secure America better than Bush. Understandably Kerry is restricted to vague rhetoric because if he says how he really feels in too much detail, he will lose swing voters. This is a sad consequence of the American political system. Still the latest Gallup polls show Kerry at 46 percent and Bush at 51 percent. We are a nation deeply divided. Both sides of this civil war seem to feel very strongly one way or the other. And the few undecided voters in America who remain on the fence have all been interviewed for ridicule on the Daily Show by John Stewart. Everyone on campus - both left and right - seems to say this decision is a no-brainer. But this may well be the closest election in American history. The decision between Bush and Kerry, I believe, is anything but crystal clear. What is clear, however, is the opinion of the rest of the world. According to a survey of 35 countries conducted by the polling company Globescan Inc., if the rest of the world had a vote, John Kerry would win a landslide victory more handily than Oksana Baiul won the 1994 Olympic figure skating gold medal. In the polls, Kerry came up the big winner in Britain, Brazil, Canada, China, the Dominican Republic, France, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Norway, and Venezuela among others. In Germany and the Netherlands, 74 percent of the people polled strongly support Kerry over Bush. One question we should ask ourselves is why the rest of the world so unevenly favors Kerry. What do they see that we can't that makes this choice a no-brainer? I seriously doubt Canada thinks Kerry is the weaker candidate and hopes he wins so they can take over America. I also doubt they favor Kerry because he will make America stronger and safer. In fact, I doubt that the rest of the world really knows anything about John Kerry at all. What they do know is that they oppose the war in Iraq and blame President Bush for an unjust, preemptive, unilateral attack. While they may have an inkling that Kerry would be a better partner for negotiation and cooperation, basically they don't like Bush, so they vote for the other guy, who just so happens to be John Kerry. Voting for Kerry because he is Anybody-But-Bush is not necessarily the wisest choice, but sadly the choice in part I seem to have resorted to. Again, Kerry's need to cater to the middle keeps his tongue tied. It is unfortunate that we cannot know what a candidate really thinks until he is elected. If Kerry sours quickly like milk, so too will the opinion of the rest of the world. In a moment of indecision then, vote for Kerry because of peer pressure. Now, we were taught when we were young that peer pressure is something "you just say no to." But that's not how it really works on the playground at recess. All your friends are doing something, so you do it too to be accepted and well liked. We all want to have friends. There's no fun in sitting alone on one side of the see-saw. For the past three years, international critics of American foreign policy have distinguished their feelings toward the American people from their disapproval of the actions of the state. Nay-sayers of the war in Iraq have blamed Bush, not the American public. But if we re-elect Bush, we will lose all our cool international friends - or ruin any chance of making some in the near future. Everybody else will be playing a big fun game of capture the flag while we play hide-and-go-seek by ourselves with Osama. Kerry may be a wildcard, but I believe he can bring respect and dignity to America. Only a new face can shift world opinion in our favor. To be internationally well liked will be an important part of a strong American foreign policy. Kerry has a real chance to help us rebuild American credibility in a way George W. Bush clearly does not. It is almost anathema on a liberal college campus in Massachusetts to defend the Bush record or justify the war in Iraq. I feel a lot of peer pressure to vote for John Kerry. And so because I can't know whether Kerry will pull through or how history will judge Bush's wars, I voted to give Kerry the chance to rebuild America's reputation abroad. All my friends are voting for Kerry and everyone else in the world seemed to be telling me I should, so in the end I caved in to peer pressure.
News
Correction
October 31Last Wednesday's editorial ("LGBT issues demand thoughtful attention") failed to clarify that it is the Food and Drug Administration's policy which disallows men who have had sex with other men from giving blood, and dictates the Red Cross' policy.
News
Homosexuality, hatred, and society
October 31When I decided to attend a panel entitled "Homosexuality and Society" sponsored by the Tufts Republicans and the Article 8 Alliance, I was expecting to be offended. I was expecting to be shocked, disgusted, and frustrated. These expectations were not disappointed. The night opened with a talk by president of the Article 8 Alliance Brian Camenker, who presented an argument against what he called "the homosexual movement" that is almost not worth repeating here. He privileged the audience with a history I would guess none of us had heard before - the story of the peaceful 1960s and the surprising ease with which Civil Rights were granted. He asserted that when certain groups (meaning those who support gay rights) use any sort of force to get their message across and gain access to rights, something must be wrong. He contended that there is "no such thing as gay people," only people who have been so psychologically damaged in the past that they are driven to want to have sex with people of the same gender. Throughout the evening, homosexuality was compared to everything from alcoholism to smoking cigarettes to (my personal favorite) playing on a hockey team. The message was clear: Being gay is a disease that can be cured. It is a mental abnormality. It is something from which we must protect our children. And it is anything but okay! All three speakers needed us to know one thing: We as heterosexuals are normal; everyone else is messed up as hell. I support the concept of providing an alternative perspective on controversial issues, the concept under which this panel was assembled. I applaud the Tufts Republicans and the Article 8 Alliance for their intent to bring in representatives who hold opinions that are not popular here. It is essential to see both sides of these issues represented at Tufts, which is sometimes liberal enough to swallow up its few conservative voices. In this case, however, I believe that the speakers inspired more pain than thoughtful discourse on the matter. I was disappointed in the approach of the first two speakers, whose utterly disrespectful tones seemed intended to offend, rather than inform people. I could cite numerous examples, but perhaps the most telling came in Dr. John Diggs' response to the very first question posed in the question and answer period. Professor Jonathan Strong, in a moving and eloquent statement, asked Diggs what possible threat to public health his marriage to another man posed, declaring, "I haven't caused people to die." Diggs quickly and indignantly replied, "You have, sir," provoking a wave of shock through the audience. Earlier in the night, Diggs had presented the argument that gay sex (or more specifically sex between men, since the existence of gay women was all but ignored) poses a serious threat to public health. He lumped what should have been more broadly referred to as "sodomy" into a category he called "gay sex," and then proceeded to list diseases linked with it. This is all fine and dandy, but clearly his leaving men and women who participate in heterosexual anal sex out of his argument is quite a significant omission. Diggs also chose to cite statistics that were limited in scope and specific to small groups of people. He defended studies from the Netherlands involving issues surrounding homosexuality as being obviously unbiased, his reasoning being that because same-sex civil unions have been legal there for over ten years, there has been sufficient time for homophobia to have disappeared. (Note: This must mean that racism no longer exists in the United States, given the forty years that have passed in which Blacks and Whites have had the same legal rights.) In summary, Diggs had little plausible back-up for his work, and when challenged on any detail of it, he could only refer dissenters to his online article (www.corporateresourcecouncil.com). I walked out the doors of Pearson 104 with a heavy heart. This panel reaffirmed to me the existence of a group of people who hold hatred as the core of their system of beliefs. I am sure they would disagree with me on this. But I ask, how else are we to interpret their views? "Hatred" is defined as a feeling of dislike so intense that it demands action. This group of people insists, "There are only heterosexual people with homosexual problems." They maintain that their views, not mine, define my sexuality, and approach the possibility of defining oneself as other than heterosexual with a great amount of scorn and anger. They name those who choose to call themselves Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, or Transgender as the victims of a mental disorder rather than human beings with a healthy sense of who they are. Hatred was exactly the emotion expressed by the three gentlemen who spoke Wednesday night, and to say that this emotion is a dangerous inspiration is a gross understatement. I wanted to ask these three men what great threat the queer community poses to them. What threat is so frightening that it prompts them to spend their time working against people who simply want rights equal to those of every other American? Why does it matter to them who I fall in love with? Why do they care if I choose to have sex with a man or with a woman? Unfortunately the question and answer time was cut short by a half-hour, so many of these questions were left unanswered. I did not leave the night completely disheartened. I felt strong in the presence of so many members of the LGBT community and their allies, and proud when I looked around the room to see so many rainbow pins displayed on shirts and backpacks. The overwhelming sense in the room, which prevailed over the vicious tone set by the panelists, was one of hope and support for each other as human beings. And to me, that is a much stronger message than anything posed by the three speakers Wednesday night.Meghan Saunders is a junior majoring in English
News
Tufts students Do it in the Dark for a good cause
October 31For nearly three weeks now, Tufts students have been diligently Doing it in the Dark.
News
World Series: Red Sox vanquish demons and delight fans with sweep
October 28The Boston Red Sox are the 2004 World Champions of baseball. Roll it around on your tongue. Try it on for size. Like a pair of new shoes, it is a phrase that still does not seem to fit quite right. It is a proclamation many never had the chance to hear in their lifetimes, and one many thought they never would hear. Yet here we are at the close of another October postseason, and it is true. For the first time in 86 years, it is true. On Wednesday night in St. Louis, the Boston Red Sox finally kicked convention and histrionics in the gut. A team burdened with expectation heading into 2004 capped one of the most unexpected playoff runs ever, sweeping the St. Louis Cardinals in four games to win the 100th World Series in history and become the third straight wild card team to win the Series. This was not the greatest Fall Classic of all time, an anticlimactic finish after dramatic championship series in both leagues. But in a postseason filled with historic firsts and extraordinary journeys, the path the Red Sox walked to reach baseball's Holy Grail is marked by greatness. If you believe in fate, then perhaps the stars were aligned correctly with the lunar eclipse on Wednesday night. The World Series began in 1903 with the Red Sox (then known as the Boston Americans) triumphing over the Pittsburgh Pirates. Perhaps winning the 100th Fall Classic was how it was meant to be. But fate or not, the experience remains surreal. Two weeks ago, the Red Sox were, in many minds, all but finished. The 2004 season was quickly washing down the drain, another "almost" campaign for America's perennial bridesmaids. The club found itself on the short end of an embarrassing 19-8 defeat to the New York Yankees, and down three games to none in the American League Championship Series. But against the odds - as Fox kept reminding us, excluding the Sox, only two teams out of 238 had ever come back from three games down in a series in professional basketball, hockey and baseball - the Red Sox did the near impossible. Boston took four straight to stun the Yankees and reach its first World Series berth since 1986. It overcame its number one starter, Curt Schilling, pitching with a sutured ankle, Pedro Martinez answering to catcalls of parenthood, and Derek Lowe coming off a disastrous season in which his mental state was questioned. In a rematch of the 1946 and 1967 Fall Classics, the Red Sox met the Cardinals, the best offensive club in the National League and 105-game winners during the regular season. Against a club boasting three 30 homer, 110 RBI hitters in Albert Pujols, Jim Edmonds and Scott Rolen, Boston simply dominated. The Red Sox were the far more balanced team, combining timely hitting and outstanding pitching, even overcoming ugly defensive lapses in Games One and Two to play solidly in the field. With the exception of a wild 11-9 seesaw in Game One at Fenway Park, Boston pitchers controlled St. Louis. After explosive division and championship series, the Cardinals' 3-4-5 hitters were limited to just six hits in 45 at bats and one run batted in, severely hindering a St. Louis pitching staff that relied all season on staggering offensive production. Starters Schilling, Martinez and Lowe allowed just one run - unearned in Schilling's Game Two start due to four Red Sox errors - in 20 innings. Keith Foulke, signed after last season's closer-by-committee debacle, closed out all four games, the true MVP of the Series. The Boston lineup exposed St. Louis' lack of pitching depth, consistently producing from top to bottom. The team scored 13 of its 24 runs with two outs, and scored in the first inning of all four games, never allowing St. Louis to hold a lead. The Red Sox swung and missed at just 16 pitches out of 369 from the four Cardinals starters. St. Louis deserved its World Series berth. But it was simply beaten by a far more consistent team. But what does this World Championship mean for Boston? The title is not just about the 2004 Boston Red Sox, self-proclaimed "Idiots" who underachieved for much of the season, playing .500 ball for three months. It is about coming full circle for an organization that has, for the better part of its century-long history, been cursed. But with all due respect to Babe Ruth, this pittance has nothing to do with "The Curse of the Bambino," a catchy term coined by journalists looking for a story, and reinforced by a team looking for excuses. The real "curse" lay in decades of inept ownership and management that time and again refused to recognize the changing face of baseball. The team was consistently built around monstrous offensive machines such as Ted Williams, Carl Yastrzemski and Jim Rice, while often lacking enough pitching and fielding depth to regularly compete. Boston was the last team to integrate, doing so with Pumpsie Green in 1959, 12 years after Jackie Robinson broke baseball's color barrier. The club passed on opportunities to sign Robinson, Willie Mays and Hank Aaron, decisions that cost it greater success. This title embraces generations of Red Sox players and fans who never made it. It is for Williams, Yaz and Rice. Johnny Pesky, Carlton Fisk and Mo Vaughn. Even for Wade Boggs and Roger Clemens, who won championships with the Yankees. Even for Nomar Garciaparra, whose trade this season helped the team win. On the morning of July 31 this season the Red Sox were spiraling downward, second in the AL East and second in the AL Wild Card. The team expected to win, rather than played to win, despite the offseason acquisitions of Schilling and Foulke. But general manager Theo Epstein brought in defensive depth and speed in exchange for an injured, unhappy star, a move that kickstarted the team's run towards the playoffs. 2004 wipes clean 86 years of overhyped, historical rhetoric hammered into every new generation of baseball fandom. Pesky no longer holds the ball. Enos Slaughter no longer scores. Jim Lonborg no longer goes skiing in the off-season. Bob Gibson. Bucky Dent. John McNamara. Clemens and the blister. Bill Buckner. Mookie Wilson. Ray Knight. Bob Stanley. Grady Little. Aaron Boone. 1918. None of this matters anymore except as part of the historic lore of a winning franchise. No longer must Red Sox Nation say "Wait 'til next year." The Boston Red Sox. 2004 World Champions.
News
Energy politics expert speaks on oil and national security links
October 28Michael Klare, expert on energy politics, addressed a full Barnum Auditorium yesterday on the relationship between oil and national security. The lecture was sponsored by the Institute for Global Leadership for students in the Education for Public Inquiry and International Citizenship (EPIIC). Klare framed his discussion in the context of the upcoming presidential election, emphasizing the "geopolitical consequences" of the relationship between oil and national security. "The situation facing us Americans is much more threatening and dangerous than it was four years ago," he said. Klare blamed the severity of the situation on the increasingly disappointing prognosis for new oil discoveries, the growing energy demands of developing countries, and the mounting instability in the Middle East as reasons. Before Sept. 11 and the rise of terrorism as the prime issue on the national agenda, the "energy crisis" was the Bush administration's premier policy issue, Klare said, citing the electrical blackouts in California and trucker demonstrations over oil shortages. This moment represented a critical juncture, according to Klare. "It was very clear to everyone that the U.S. was at a fork in road - we could find ways to perpetuate existing energy paradigm by providing tax breaks and subsidies to energy companies, or begin to move away and begin the development of an entirely new 'post-petroleum' energy paradigms," he said. The energy commission led by Vice President Dick Cheney elected to continue using fossil fuels after soliciting advice mainly from energy companies, Klare said. "As you know, the energy commission met in secrecy behind closed doors - no members of the environmental community - only Enron, Chevron, and other large nuclear and natural gas companies were included," he said. The commission's completed report, issued in May 2001, called for substantially increased yields from existing Middle Eastern energy sources. The report said increasing U.S. oil demand would require 19 million barrels of oil-per-day coming from foreign sources. "This has enormous geopolitical consequences," Klare said. "I'm convinced that American foreign policy rests on these numbers." According to the report, "[The job of foreign] officials is to conduct an international campaign to get foreign countries to increase output and exports ... and eliminate any obstacle to increasing production," Klare said. "The energy paradigm rests on getting access to other countries' oil." After Sept. 11, however, the goal of the war on terror became interlaced with the voracious U.S. appetite for oil. "The U.S. war on terror has been subsumed on top of America's perceived need to protect access to unstable foreign suppliers of oil," he said. The "elephant in the living room" of this program, however, is that the projected yields were unrealistic and that a "massive shortfall" would inevitably arise, according to Klare. He cited increasing evidence in recent months that foreign sources could not produce the amount of oil stipulated by the report, and that oil companies themselves admit that the global peak in oil production may be approaching. "That oil peak is much closer than we thought, and it was laughed out of existence, until very recently big oil companies' projections began to be consistent with this kind of chart," he said. Another factor is the increasing energy demands of the developing world. "China's demand has grown much more than in 2001 - the developing world doubling its anticipated energy requirement," he said. As America and the rest of the world become increasingly energy-dependent, conflict over oil-rich regions will only become more violent and disputed, he said. "Our intervention is provoking higher degrees of instability." Klare said that he did not foresee an easy transition from America's high dependence on oil. "People don't make a move without a powerful emotional jolt," he said. "Americans will not be won over by logic; they will have to be won over by emotions." He said that no president has publicly come to grips with this issue. "Whatever president gets up there and tells us this is a serious and dangerous addiction, it's not going to go over well - they're afraid." Klare said that President George Bush had slated $1 billion for alternative energy, while Senator John Kerry called for an expenditure of $10 billion. Neither plan would be adequate to create real change in the energy paradigm, he said. "This expenditure needs to be in hundreds of billions [of dollars] - it will start at $1 trillion. It's not going to happen at [the levels the candidates propose]. It has to come from defense budget because that's the only place it can come from, and everybody knows it," he said.
News
Nothing new: still here, still mellow
October 28For most people of college age, it seems that R.E.M., who plays at the FleetCenter tonight, has been around forever. Not necessarily in any mind-blowing, legendary sort of way, but just that they've always been there. Their latest album, "Around The Sun," reminds us that yes, they're still here and yes, they're still too humble and thoughtful to fall into the category of mind-blowing. Just to be on the factual side, R.E.M. actually has been around forever. Their debut was 1982's "Chronic Town" EP and they were right there in the alternative explosion of the '90s with what is probably their best album to date, "Automatic For The People" (1992). They were brilliant at producing rock songs that were also soft melodies and shifting soundscapes, like "Nightswimming" and "Man on the Moon." While difficult to admit, "Everybody Hurts" must have helped a great number of us through many a lonesome, teen-angsty adolescent night. Thankfully, with "Around The Sun," they've gone back to the R.E.M. of the early '90s, with moody and mellow folk rock songs that are readily accessible, although they fail to be particularly remarkable, either lyrically or musically. Like any long-standing rock band worth their salt, R.E.M. went through their esoteric "experimental" phases (witness 1998's "Up"). It was as though they tried to distance themselves from the popular grunge-rock of the time by establishing their music as complicated art-rock. But in "Around the Sun," the band is taking the more direct route again. There is nothing to confuse or distance the listener here. "Make It All Okay" is quite openly a post-breakup song, as lead singer Michael Stipe sings: "If you offered me the heavens/I would have to turn away" over pleasant piano chords and peaceful strumming. "I Wanted To Be Wrong" is another feel-good song, complete with sighing "oohs" in the background. It's nothing to draw a tear - it's no "Everybody Hurts" - but, if played at a concert, it still might induce you to hold up a lighter while swaying back and forth. A number of the tracks fall into a rut of painful mediocrity, like "Aftermath" and "The Ascent of Man." (Stipe repeatedly singing "yeah" with much anguish in the background doesn't really help). These songs are too harmonious, too neat. Stipe has been quoted as saying that "even the most depressing R.E.M. song is going to have a glimmer of hope." Replace "depressing" with "dull" and it could be applicable to this album. There is too much pleasant banality and not enough hard-hitting emotion. Perhaps compromise has taken its toll on the three remaining members - guitarist Peter Buck, bassist Mike Mills and lead singer Stipe. R.E.M were forced to re-sign with Warner Bros. in 1996 as part of a corporate mega-deal that they openly disdained. After the subsequent departure of drummer Bill Berry in 1997, they vowed they would not continue without the original four members, but contract obligations forced them to anyway. They have not yet fully recovered, it seems, especially after the past few years of constant arena-touring. The album does have several moments of inspired instrumental creativity. "Final Straw" boasts some fine acoustic work by Buck, amounting to one of the more powerful tracks, despite the curious absence of a chorus. "The Outsiders" gives listeners some healthy variety with a cool drum beat that comes to a halt as it moves into almost trip-hop mode with some rapping by Q-tip, who righteously repeats the phrase "I am not afraid." "Boy on the Wall" refreshingly drops the feel-good theme for that of disenchantment, and to good effect. In this musically and lyrically more intense piece, Stipe sings: "You wanted me to be someone that I could never be / This town is going wrong." So yes, there are glimmers of hope for R.E.M. The album could stand to pull at our heartstrings a little more, or give us a little more to "rock out" to, but it is a meandering collection of songs that might satisfy on a ponderous, rainy afternoon.
News
Election 2004: Professors sound off in final days of election
October 28On Bill Clinton's appearance with John Kerry in Philadelphia:Dean Jim Glaser "I think it brings a little bit of attention to the campaign and maybe allows Kerry to point to some favorable Democratic administration [vs.] Republican administration comparison, like the deficit and state of the economy and things like that. Will it change the minds of undecided voters, the small number in whose hands this election lies? Maybe, but probably not."Professor Jeffrey Berry "There will be no significant effect. I think the Democrats are pretty well mobilized and it was a nice photo op, it got a big crowd in Philadelphia. Generally this election is about President Bush, less so about John Kerry, and even less so about former President Clinton."On the missing cache of high explosives recently discovered in Iraq:Dean Jim Glaser "I don't think it helps Bush at all, he's in a very defensive stance with regards to this issue. The Bush administration is trying to turn it into an offensive angle but when you say my opponent is relying on headlines and he doesn't know the facts, that is a very defensive response to a situation that is politically damaging to him. Whether or not the weapons were moved before the troops moved in can only be perceived as a problem for the Bush administration. Whatever the reality, the perception is that it happened, and it shouldn't have and that it's his fault."Professor Jeffrey Berry "It is probably not going to have any effect. I think people voting on the basis of the Iraq war made up their minds a long time ago. It's really an opportunity for Kerry to put some dents in the president's armor as a strong knowledgeable leader, as the Democrats all along have looked for opportunities to shrink Bush's lead as a stronger leader than Kerry. I wouldn't expect it to have any major impact though, it's not a big enough story and it's complicated as well as ambiguous."On the possibility of the Bush administration producing Osama bin Laden at the last minute:Dean Jim Glaser "In the past there have been October and November surprises -- does that possibility lurk out there? Sure. Do I expect it to happen? We're getting pretty close to the election, it better happen quick."Professor Jeffrey Berry "If [the Bush administration] had the opportunity to find Osama they wouldn't have waited that long, it's too risky ... I would think what I would be more concerned about is some kind of spectacular bombing in Iraq because some insurgents feel this might be able to influence our election the way insurgents in Spain affected elections there."Berry - Whatever the Bush administration had is out there already, but world events are also unpredictable, so________"I'm not sure [the media] will be more careful [about releasing a result projection] because the competitive pressures are such that one network's not going to want to be left too far behind. If something is really close they'll probably be a little bit more cautious but most of the states aren't going to be close, so as they call each state the momentum will build up to finish the evening off and declare the winner. These things are built on statistical models and once they come in they're going to announce it.""Yes, [the media] will be more careful this time. Will [a projection] take a long time, yes, probably it will take longer as a result [of the 2000 election]. But you know, to be honest with you I think that actually they projected correctly, Gore did win more votes in Florida than Bush won and I'm not even now talking about the recount of hanging chads. There were a large number of people who over voted (they voted once and then they voted for a write-in with Al Gore's name), and made errors and had their votes thrown out, and the exit polls didn't ask if people had over-voted. I just think it's kind of ironic that the projections of the networks were actually correct, and that's not a comment on the recount, it's a comment on the number of over-votes and problematic votes that would not have been counted even had Bush v. Gore come out differently."I left my questions at the top in case you can think of a better way to work them into the responses, they're more specific this time so it took more inserting.Effects of Clinton's campaigning with Kerry?Kerry labeled the missing cache of 380 tons of explosives "one of the great blunders of Iraq" - what will be the effect of this? Mr Bush yesterday said Kerry was "denigrating the actions of soilders" - who is this helping or hurting, how are they responding?Do you predict another extended election, do you think they'll be more careful before releasing names, and if so long do you think it will take for a result?Missing absentee ballots in Broward County, Florida - any link to Jeb Bush?Do you think there is any credibility to the rumors behind some kind of presidential team conspiracy to the affect of "finding Osama"?
News
Putting down new roots: part 2 in a 3-part series: For transfers, an emotional but smooth transition to Jumbodom
October 28@bodytext: When asked to describe the process of transferring to Tufts, junior Alex Lauritson-Lada summed up the experience with one simple phrase: "It's easier than you think." Lauritson-Lada is one of the many students at Tufts who began his matriculation at a different institution - in his case, Trinity College. Though the number varies from year to year depending on the size of the freshman class and the amount of students who choose to live on campus, Director of Admissions Leon Braswell estimates that the number of fall transfers has "typically hovered around 45 to 50, sometimes higher," while there are anywhere from 15 to 25 students who transfer into Tufts for the January semester. The transfer students are divided up and housed together on a floor of Carmichael or Lewis Hall in order to aid with emotional adjustment and to help them make friends. Dean of Students Jean Herbert admits that "it is an issue about where they live." Debating whether to house transfer students as a separate group or intermixed with other students, Tufts decided on a "medium solution - that is, housing them close together but in dorms with current students," Herbert said. Though this often produces the effect that transfer students only make friends with other transfers, many of them don't seem to mind. "I don't have a whole lot of friends who weren't transfer students," said Kenny Hickman, a second-semester junior who transferred from American University. Still, Hickman says, "It wasn't a problem at all." Lauritson-Lada had the same experience as Hickman: "Most of the people I do stuff with are transfer people," he said. Senior Dan Levine, a transfer student from Union College in Schenectady, NY echoed this sentiment: "Most of my friends are transfer students," he said. Being involved in outside activities, however, can often help transfer students make other friends. Junior Matt Kruger, who transferred from George Mason, made friends on the soccer team as well as in the Protestant Student Fellowship. Senior Chris Babayan, a student who came from Georgetown, said that he made friends with "a mix of everybody." Whether they make friends with old students or with other transfers, Herbert said that the students are happier "by far" at Tufts than at their previous institutions. "They're coming with an attitude of wanting to like it," she said. Lauritson-Lada agreed with this sentiment, saying that he is "much happier here than [he] was at Trinity." Babayan also said that the move was worth the trouble. "Oh, definitely - I really despised Georgetown," he said. For the occasional transfer student that has difficulty adjusting, there are many resources in place to help. Besides an advisor and access to the Counseling Center, there is a Senate-funded transfer student group and a transfer orientation for students to attend. When asked whether most students utilize these resources, however, Herbert said, "I would say not - but for those who do, I think it's valuable." Hickman "didn't even think about" going to the Counseling Center during the transfer process. Lauritson-Lada admits to going to a Red Sox game instead of orientation. Though the process for these students was not difficult enough to warrant counseling, it can still be daunting for them. "It's never easy," Babayan said. He describes the process as "kind of a pain in the ass ... it felt like freshman year all over again." Still, he admits to not even knowing what resources were available for help: "I'm sure they were there, but I didn't really take advantage of them," he said. Though most of the transfer students go through the same experiences making new friends and starting life here at Tufts, they come from very different backgrounds. Some, such as Kruger or Hickman, transfer for academic reasons, while others like Levine and Lauritson-Lada chose to switch more for social aspects. Levine said he transferred because of "people. They sucked. All of them." Hickman, on the other hand, chose to move to Tufts because American University "didn't have the major that [he] wanted, which was a classics major." The reasons why they transferred seem to have little effect on these students' happiness here at Tufts. All expressed a genuine preference for Tufts over their previous situations. "I'm much happier than I was at Trinity," Lauritson-Lada said. Kruger, too, is "very happy here" and feels like he fits in.
News
MBTA Green Line could be extended into city of Somerville
October 28Somerville's public transportation options may expand significantly in the future, especially if the town's residents get their way. Close to 400 people attended a meeting held by the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) Wednesday night at Somerville High School to hear about its plans for the so-called Northwest Corridor leading up from Lechmere through northern Somerville and Medford. The project is called "Beyond Lechmere" and may result in new bus lines and commuter rail stops and an expansion of the T's Green Line to Somerville. "The fact that so many people are here on a night when the Red Sox are going to win the World Series should be a statement about how much support there is for this project," Project Manager for the MBTA Joe Cosgrove said. Parsons Brinckerhoff and Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, the consulting firms hired by the MBTA, have developed four alternatives for the project. One involves the extension of the Green Line from Lechmere through Somerville along the Fitchburg Commuter Rail Line, and into Medford. Several of the stops would be in the area surrounding the Tufts campus. Other options would include a Bus Rapid Transit line along the same route, the addition of new stops in Somerville on the Commuter Rail, and the improvement of the existing bus system. But Somerville residents seem to want the Green Line more than anything else. An extension was discussed first in 1973, and then proposed in 1984. "Why don't you give us what's been promised to us for 30 years?" asked resident Bill Shelton. One resident even recited a poem he wrote for the occasion, urging the MBTA to "please build this thing, this line of green, to get us to the Town of Bean." Several residents expressed anxiety at the fact that Somerville is the home to a 46-acre facility that services the machinery used in the Commuter Rail. The facility not only has a negative environmental impact, it is also tax-free. Somerville Mayor Joseph Curtatone came down on the side of the residents. "Somerville was built around 17 rail stops," he said. "Now eight passenger trail lines come through Somerville and only one stops." Curtatone is also concerned about the traffic created by the current lack of public transit. "More than 50,000 cars come through the corridor daily," he said. He pointed out that the air quality in Somerville is one of the worst in the state. "I'm speaking as a native here," Curtatone said. "We deserve nothing less than rail service." State Senator Jarrett Barrios agreed the public transportation is substandard in Somerville, which is the most densely populated city in the northeast. "We don't want to have more cars in 10 years," he said. "What better place than the most dense community in the northeast to start the kind of positive development we need?" The Green Line extension would also provide economic benefits for Somerville, Cosgrove said. "[Governor Mitt Romney] has been advocating for smart-growth and transit-oriented development," he said. "If we don't have the transit, we can't do transit-oriented development." The state is already legally obligated to extend the Green Line into Somerville by Dec. 31, 2011 as part of a statewide plan to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. The plan is included in the Administrative Consent Order formulated to mitigate the effects of the Big Dig on traffic. "If the state doesn't honor these agreements, we'll see them in court," Barrios said. Funding remains an issue in the extension project, however. "Those commitments were made in 1990, and now there's a funding gap," Cosgrove said. "There's no money at the state, and the federal pot is very limited." Jan Okolowicz of Parsons Brinckerhoff said the MBTA would be more likely to receive federal funding for a project involving the bus line, a suggestion that was hissed at by the audience. There are other problems with the potentially less expensive option of adding commuter rail stops. Those waiting for a train would have to wait for at least 15 minutes for a train, Okolowicz said. "When I hear about problems and looking for alternatives," Curtatone said, "that tells me you're not looking at the best solution." But MBTA representatives emphasized that the project is in its early stages. "The goal right now is to look at all the feasible alternatives," said Mike McArdle of Vanasse Hangen Brustlin. City and state officials said the best way to reach a favorable outcome for the city is for its residents to continue displaying the enthusiasm they showed on Wednesday. "Keep pushing us and keep pushing the MBTA," Barrios said. "Your presence here tonight speaks much more loudly than any legislator can that this is a priority to residents in Somerville."
News
Television producer talks on red and blue advertising
October 28The colors red and blue have taken on an undeniably political character, at least as portrayed by the televised media, news show producer John Carroll said in lecture titled "Political Advertising in a Red and Blue Age," Wednesday night. Carroll, the executive producer of the WGBH nightly news show "Greater Boston," spoke about this election season's rampant use of political advertising and the effects this deluge will have next Tuesday. "Political advertising is sort of advertising on steroids," Carroll said. "Everything is pumped up." Carroll showed examples of political advertisements from both the Kerry and Bush campaigns, including the infamous one sponsored by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. The ad shows a series of Vietnam veterans who condemn Kerry's wartime service and his leadership ability. Carroll also showed political action committee MoveOn.org's rebuttal ad, which addressed Bush's dubious wartime record and called on the president to denounce the Sift Boat veterans' ad. Every soldier who went to Vietnam has "his own reality," Carroll said, but the veterans in the Swift Boat ad were not actually in the boat with Kerry. They were not in a position to share their perception of Kerry's service with the nation, he said. Nevertheless, the Kerry camp made a grave mistake in delaying its response to the Swift Boat ad, assuming that it would just fade away, Carroll said. The ad continues to haunt Kerry. According to Carroll, though the bombardment of audiences with political advertising is a waste of taxpayer dollars, the greatest problem it causes is apathy. "It turns people off and away from the polls - they don't think they can change things," he said. "It pushes you away from the process that you should control." Carroll also played some of the candidates' official ads on terrorism. Kerry's campaign focused on Bush's inadequate funding of chemical weapons and border protection, while Bush's ad was modeled after the famous "Bear in the Woods" Reagan commercial. "This campaign is the least-informative, most-emotional, most fear-focused campaign in history," he said. "It's all about frightening you away from the other guy and into the arms of the guy running the ad." Carroll said all this advertising is nothing but an arms race - an analogy familiar to his audience, the students of ExCollege course 51, "Horse Race: The Press and the Presidential Election." The arms-race comparison holds that both sides know that at some point, all the advertising they employ will cease to do any good, but no camp wants to be "out-advertised," and so the money poured into political advertising multiplies with every new campaign. Though he knows the American people would reject his suggestion, Carroll said he would like to see campaigning restricted to three weeks. Carroll displayed a bipartisan sense of humor, commenting that Kerry "looks like an elite, snobbish nancyboy from France" and that "Bush can't put two sentences together with a stapler." "A lot of [the presentation] was just reinforcing what we've learned in class, but it was very interesting to see some ads that we aren't exposed to in Massachusetts," junior Rebecca Plofker said She was discouraged, however, by the apathy that all the advertisements are generating. A former commentator for National Public Radio and The Boston Globe, Carroll said this campaign season has not only broken records with unprecedented levels of funding poured into advertising, but that it has been particularly vicious. "It's more important to tell people what's wrong with your opponent than what's right with you," he said. But, Carroll said, Kerry's advertising strategies are not yet working. While much of the country is at a stage where they are willing to replace Bush, they are not yet convinced that they would rather see Kerry in office.
News
Groucho's life in 'revue' too slow
October 28Maybe you have to be a Marx fanatic to understand. Perhaps if my side had been splitting, I wouldn't have noticed that it took three hours for the actors of "Groucho: A Life in Revue" to tell, in words and music, the simple and occasionally touching story of five Jewish brothers who grew up to be famous comedians. Julius, Leonard, Arthur, Milton, and Herbert Marx grew up in a poor Jewish area of New York at the turn of the twentieth century. Their mother originally got them into acting as a way of making money for the family, and their zany vaudeville act surprised everyone by attracting attention all over the country. Taking on the respective names Groucho, Chico, Harpo, Gummo, and Zeppo, the brothers began to perform full-time. They made several movies together, including "The Cocoanuts" and "Animal Crackers." Groucho later went on to host a quiz show called "You Bet Your Life," which featured the same quick wit and insults that the brothers had used to make their name. The Emerson show, which played this past weekend at the Cutler Majestic Theatre, pulled off the classic slapstick humor and quick quips that made the Marx brothers a hallmark of American entertainment in the twentieth century. The costumes were impeccable. Ferrante, who both directed the play and played Groucho himself, transformed his features before our eyes from ordinary Semitic (er, Italian) to the thick eyebrows and mustache that freed him and his brothers to be goofy. The dazzling beauty of Amanda Rogers (who played every female role) served as his prompt, her every line launching him into a clever jab at her or, alternately, attempt to get her into bed. Between these acts, Ferrante reminisced for the audience about Groucho's early days, the struggles he and his brothers endured to succeed in the entertainment industry. The play was tasteful in its balance of humor and fact; while relating true stories from the Marxes' impoverished New York childhood, it was never solicitous. The characters reacted to their plights with the best of humors, which is where the slapstick came in handy. Towards the middle of the first act, however, this balance wasn't enough to capture the audience. The cast knew it. Ferrante, soon joined by Richard Tatum (who played Harpo), began to direct quips at audience members. If a few seasoned Marx fans laughed prematurely at a routine they could see in the making, the actors interrupted themselves and chastised those members for not having more patience. This was cute the first time, but not the second or third. It was also not cute when they would let their own improvisational talent distract them beyond graceful reentry into the original script. Most irritating, and pathetic, was when they lost so much inhibition that they began chastising the audience for not laughing enough. "Come on!" Ferrante called more than a few times. "The Red Sox won last night...you should be in a better mood than this." Hey, man, a winning baseball team will only carry us so far in a boring musical. One woman, seated a few rows ahead of me, snored openly during the second act. The "life in revue" pun, though clever, was puzzling in the context of a play without much actual music. It was also rather strange to see the Marx brothers singing sentimental songs to each other; the juxtaposition was just too uncanny to be touching. Toward the end of his life, when his brother dies, Groucho begins to show emotion and fragility in every facet of his personality, and the entire mood of the play became somber and much more believable. Could this have been carried throughout the play by a more balanced character development or actors who weren't so self-conscious? Perhaps. I am of the persuasion, however, that over-ambition foiled this attempt to be reminiscent but humorous; true to life but not tragic; slapstick but sentimental. Ferrante frequently fell over the old-fashioned davenport at the front of the stage and batted his eyelashes at the audience, turning over and fluttering his feet as if he were in an old-fashioned film. A single drum beat at each of these intervals emphasized the reversion into old-fashioned humor, and the audience appreciated it. Those movements are, for anyone who's seen the Marx Brothers before, inextricably associated with memories of spotty, skipping film slides and silent movies. To see him bat his eyelashes in person and realize how powerful that association proved, in itself, to be a blast from the past. Eh, or at least a soft wind. Ba-dum bum PSH.
News
Gardner museum shows original art collection
October 28To say that the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum is one of the most romantic places in Boston would not be an overstatement - not by a long shot. This incredible museum, tucked away behind the Museum of Fine Arts in the Back Bay, houses the late Mrs. Isabella Stewart Gardner's life's work: her art collection. According to Gardner's will, nothing in the museum can be altered or moved from the way she originally positioned it. Though the curators occasionally manage to use loopholes to create special exhibits - a collection of three pieces culled from the museum's permanent collection is currently being featured as "Off the Wall: New Perspectives on Early Italian Art" - almost everything in the museum has been left exactly the way it was when Gardner died. Born in 1840 in New York to a wealthy family, Gardner often traveled to Europe as a child. It was there that she developed an appreciation for art and met her husband, Jack Gardner, whom she married in 1860. The two settled in Boston, Jack's hometown. Following the death of Jack Jr., their two year old son, Gardner fell into a deep depression. Since these were the days before Prozac, her husband took her on a long trip to Europe to revive her spirits and it was during this excursion that the two began to amass their vast collection of art. When visitors walk into the cloister-shaped building that houses the museum, a dismantled 15th century Venetian palace, they are welcomed by a flourishing courtyard, brimming with lush, verdant trees and plants, exotic flowers in unusual colors and tasteful stone statues. The courtyard is enclosed by a translucent glass ceiling which lets in enough sunlight to see but not too much so as to glare. The effect is warm, inviting, and peaceful. The walls of the building are painted with an Italian marbleized effect in a warm shade of pink which complements the exposed brick of the rest of the building. It is rumored that Gardner, then in her sixties, climbed on a ladder to help paint the walls alongside the contractors she brought from Italy. Upstairs one will find more treasures arranged just as Gardner left them. The museum prides itself on the sensual experience one can derive from visiting. The art is diverse, ranging from paintings to tapestries, to jewelry and everything in between and from all of over the world. The collection is arranged with care so as to evoke feelings and thoughts in the viewer, making him concentrate on the art and the experience of experiencing the art instead of focusing solely on who the artist is, how famous the piece has been deemed or if styles of various pieces displayed together match. John Singer Sargent's large painting, "El Jaleo" or "The Ruckus" (1882), is displayed on the first floor. The piece is loud in the sense that your eyes tell you to hear the music being played in the painting's dark Spanish tavern. One can hear the clapping of the people in the background and the mournful wailing of the man singing, and nearly feel the stamping of the dancer, clad in a thick white skirt, and the rhythm of the guitar music being played. Sargent even casually scribbled "ol?©" on the wall to emphasize the energy. Instead of simply hanging "El Jaleo" on a wall, Gardner decided to create a gallery for it. A Moorish arc opens up this unique space where, on the wall surrounding the painting are Mexican tiles adding a Latino flavor, a large mirror to the left works to open up the dark space, and there are handmade pots, pans, and vases on the ground. In another example of Gardner's curatorial skills, beneath the Titian masterpiece, "Europa" (1575-80), Gardner chose to hang a swatch of one of her dresses because she felt that the design on the material mimicked a portion of the painting. This tasteful touch displays the amount of care she put into the design of the museum. Other masterpieces to be found in the collection include an early self portrait by Rembrandt, a portrait by Manet, a landscape by Whistler and the first Matisse ever in the United States. Mrs. Gardner had a zest for life and a passion for the arts. Even following her husband's death, she continued to travel around the world to bring pieces of interest back to Boston for her museum, which was completed in 1903. The Gardner Museum still stands just as she planned it. Her will requires that nothing be changed - but it's for good reason. The Gardner Museum is a truly unique space and Boston is lucky to have it, whatever its perspective.The Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum is located at 280 The Fenway in Boston. Admission is $10 during the week, $11 on weekends.
News
Controversial panel questions homosexuality's health risks
October 28Over 100 highly-attentive students attended in a panel outlining the conservative position on the sociological impact of homosexuality on Wednesday, where three police officers showed up in anticipation of possible protests. Panelist Brian Camenker, who leads the conservative Waltham-based Parents' Rights Coalition (PRC), began by outlining his view on homosexuality. There is "no such thing as gay people," he said. "These various things [homosexual] people do are symptoms of their own past, some often very tragic." These statements elicited a visibly uncomfortable, often indignant response from the large group of Tufts students displaying their rainbow LGTB pins. Camenker also drew an analogy between the understanding of alcoholism before the advent of Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) and the current view of homosexuality. In its early days, people thought AA was ridiculous because drunks could not be reformed, according to Camenker. Similarly, the public will eventually learn that homosexuality is a treatable disorder similar to alcoholism, he said. The next presentation was by Dr. John Diggs, a prominent researcher on the health risks of homosexuality. Diggs discussed the physical, psychiatric, and public health concerns of homosexual sex, including the elevated incidences of drug abuse and depression in the gay community, and the disproportionate amount of STDs and other health problems among homosexuals. "Public health should discourage homosexual behavior," said Diggs, concluding that sodomy should be legally banned. "There are only heterosexual people, and homosexual problems," Diggs said, echoing Camenker's view. Diggs tried to lighten his discussion of alternate sexualities with a joke. "I was a man trapped in a woman's body - it was my mother's, I escaped," he said, eliciting uncomfortable laughter from parts of the audience. But the mood remained tense, especially after Diggs declared unequivocally, "there is no gay gene." This comment spurred an audience member working on a PhD in genetics to respond, questioning the validity of some of Diggs' data. "Where the hell do you come from?" the student angrily asked. Another audience member read from a 1998 statement by the American Psychological Association (APA) saying that treatments to change sexuality are not effective and the risks are great. Diggs had contested these ideas during his presentation. Diggs accounted for the discrepancy by claiming that various medical associations, including the APA, were pressured into making those types of statements by militant, gay activist groups. Another impassioned response from the audience came from Jonathan Strong, a senior lecturer in the Department of English at Tufts. "How is my existence so terrifying to you people?" Strong asked. Strong is openly gay and legally married to his partner in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Diggs responded by saying that there was "no terror on my part, [rather] extreme sadness over what political activities have done to public health." He said numerous public health precautions such as mandatory AIDS screening before marriage have not been undertaken because the issue is a so sensitive. The third panelist, James Lafferty, addressed the political effects of gay culture, saying he'd "never seen the sort of strong political behavior associated with [homosexuality]" over the course of his career as an analyst for politicians such as Ronald Reagan. The issue of gay rights is a "hostile bare-knuckle affair here in Massachusetts," said Lafferty, referring to the harassment he and his staff experienced while working toward a statewide ban on gay marriage and abortion. Lafferty contacted the U.S. Justice Department after he and a member of his staff were physically assaulted in public and the Boston and Beacon Hill Police Departments failed to respond. The speakers asserted that gay rights activists were belligerent and extremely polarizing, making it difficult for either side of the debate to make headway. Lafferty also cited the campaign of Tufts alum Carl Sciortino, the Democratic candidate for a Massachusetts state representative seat and openly gay, as "a real attempt to deceive and disguise" the public. Sciortino is attempting to "sneak" an "anti-Catholic" and "homosexual activist" past voters, he said. Camenker's conservative organization has recently undertaken a mailing campaign against Sciortino. Students were generally displeased with the panelists' points of view. "It's not right that they singled out the LGTB [population]," said Anne Stevenson, a communications director for the Tufts Democrats. Stressing that the Democrats were not "anti-Republican," Stevenson said they still "don't support the disenfranchisement of any minority on campus - we are fully supportive of the LGTB alliance." Nicholas Boyd, president of the Tufts Republicans, said that they did not try to single out a specific community, but in any issue "some groups will be affected more than others." He stressed that the goal of the panel had been to "to present a new perspective on gay marriage and other issues pertaining to sexuality." The event was co-sponsored by the Tufts Republicans. Citing the panelists as "an example of conservative views," Boyd said that "this is part of the new perspective we want to provide to the campus." Discussions are only made richer by bringing in all views - even those that might make certain groups unhappy, Boyd added. "Perhaps the truth does not make everybody as a group happy." Allie Bohm, co-coordinator of the Tufts Transgender Lesbian Gay Bisexual Collective (TTLGBC), said she and many other members went to "hear the other side of the debate - we're better debaters if we know what the other side's arguments are." Bohm said that while there may be logical reasons to oppose homosexuality, the panel's views did not, in her opinion, form a coherent argument. "From a religious standpoint, if people would have a problem with gay marriage, I would understand completely," she said. During the panel, "the vast majority of the comments were not based on science, but on personal opinion," she said, and the scientific argument "had a lot of holes" and was "very, very outdated." "I have a lot of understanding why people hate [homosexuality] so much," Bohm said. "It's the most normal thing in the world to me. What I saw [on the part of the panel] was a lack of education. What you don't know can be scary - and different is scary." Before the panel, Director of the LGBT Center Dona Yarbrough, sent an e-mail to LGBT students warning them to remain composed, and stating that Camenker "has been known" for videotaping gay rights activists with the intent of discrediting the LGBT community. The speech was also sponsored by the Waltham-based Article 8 Alliance, which describes itself as the sister organization of the PRC, and has the same P.O. Box as a mailing address.
Trending
SMFA courses canceled over low enrollment numbers
By
Evan Vezmar and Eli Brigham
| December 8
Jewish students, unfiltered
By
Sadie Roraback-Meagher
| December 4
The Print Edition
