The women's cross country team will travel to Colby College in Maine this Saturday for the much anticipated start to its postseason with the NESCAC Championship.
An undetermined number of students who registered to vote through the student-run organization Tufts Votes this semester will find that they are ineligible to cast a ballot on Election Day next week.
Students were introduced to A Watershed Semester: Engagement Across the Mystic (AWSEAM), a new program co-sponsored by Tufts organizations and the Mystic Watershed Collaborative, in an information session held yesterday in Eaton.
If the puck never dropped, would anyone notice? And if they noticed, would anyone care?
Over the course of its 15-year run, "The Simpsons" has left its viewers rolling in the aisles. Ever since the first "Treehouse of Horror" (TH) episode aired all the way back in 1990, the cartoon family's take on scary stories around the dying flashlight has been a highlight of every season. To gear up for "Treehouse of Horror XV," which airs next Sunday, Nov. 7, The Tufts Daily revisits the best entries from Simpsons' Halloween specials past.10. "The Genesis Tub" - TH VII In every science fair student's worst nightmare, Lisa's tooth-dissolved-in-soda science experiment develops into a higher form of life after Bart gives it an electric shock. When Lisa accidentally gets shrunken down to the size of a microbe, she comes face-to-face with an evolving society that sees her as their God and her brother as the accursed Dark One. "Shouldn't you people be groveling? ... And bring me some shoes. Nice ones."9. "King Homer" - TH IIIKing Kong's got nothing on the Simpsons. When maniacal millionaire Montgomery Burns travels to Ape Island to catch "King Homer," a mythical gorilla that lives on the island, he gets more than he's bargained for in this exxxxcellent takeoff of the classic horror film.8. "Hungry Are the Damned" - TH IThis episode introduces classic "Treehouse" characters Kang and Kodos, two tentacled aliens whose plans for world domination succeed (or just barely fail) every Halloween. When the family is abducted by seemingly benevolent aliens, their adventure goes awry when Bart and Lisa stumble upon a human cookbook in the spaceship's kitchen. Based on the Twilight Zone classic "To Serve Man." 7. "Nightmare on Evergreen Terrace" - TH VILittle does America's favorite yellow family know, but Elm Street isn't far from Evergreen Terrace. After a freakish boiler room accident quite literally shocks his tenure as Springfield Elementary's janitor to a sudden end, Groundskeeper Willy vows revenge against the children of Springfield with his dying breath and comes back to plague them in their dreams. As Bart says, whatever you do, don't fall asleep.6. "Nightmare Cafeteria" - TH VWith the school's budget shot, Prin-cipal Skinner finds a solution to his overcrowding problem and the quality of meat in the cafeteria. Lisa and Bart get suspicious when students start disappearing and teachers act a little too enthusiastic about the new secret ingredient in the meatloaf. "In fact," Skinnercackles, "you might even say we just ate Uter and he's in our stomachs right now! Wait ... scratch that one."5. "The Devil and Homer Simpson" - TH IVFaust may have gotten complete and total knowledge, ultimate cosmic powers, and Helen of Troy, but Homer Simpson clearly gets the better deal when he sells his soul to the Devil for a donut. When Satan comes to claim his prize, Marge steps up to defend her husband in a trial for the ages. "Mmm ... forbidden donut."4. "Homer3" - TH VIWhen this short first aired in 1995, it created a stir for its groundbreaking animation that brought Homer Simpson into the 3-D world. Trying to hide from his sisters-in-law Patty and Selma, he stumbles onto a portal to the third dimension behind the bookcase, eventually ending up scared and lonely on a Los Angeles street. Two words: erotic cakes. 3. "Citizen Kang" - TH VIIWith the 2004 election looming on the horizon, this classic Treehouse sketch may scare even the most diehard Democrat or Republican into voting for a third-party candidate. Aliens Kang and Kodos take Washington by storm when they replace Clinton and Dole in the 1996 election. Their platform? Enslaving the human race. As Homer says to Marge at the end, "Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos." 2. "The Shinning" - TH VWhen Homer gets a job working as the winter caretaker of Mr. Burns' estate in the mountains, he brings his family along. Bart discovers that he shares Groundskeeper Willie's gift of "the shinning" ("Don't you mean 'shining?'" "Shh! You wanna get sued?!"), which comes in handy after no beer and no TV make Homer go crazy. 1. "Time & Punishment" - TH VDuring a failed attempt to fix his toaster, Homer inadvertently creates a time machine and alters the course of history by stepping on a butterfly. This episode wins top honors not for its chills, but for the laughs it gets as Homer zooms back and forth between the ancient past and alternate versions of his present. "Stupid bug, you go squish now!"
Tufts Telefund has recently relocated to a newly renovated space where supervisors hope to break last year's record-setting fundraising campaign. Telefund is the organization that runs the "phonathon," a fundraising campaign that calls alumni and other friends of the University, to raise money for the Tufts Annual Fund. Last year, the phonathon raised $2.3 million for Tufts. The goal this year is to raise $2.5 million. Telefund moved from the second floor of Packard Hall, described by Program Manager D.J. Stevens as "cramped and stuffy," to the recently-renovated basement. The new office space is larger and more spacious, according to sophomore Telefund employee Jordan Chiu. "The basement is a much nicer space," he said. One drawback of the new space is poor acoustics, a major issue for an office whose business is talking, Chiu said. "When there is a full session, it can be quite hard to hear the person to whom you are talking," Chiu said. "[But] it is a definite improvement." According to employees, the office switch will make Telefund more effective in addition to being more comfortable for employees. "Because the new space is so much more open, it allows much more interaction between the management staff," Stevens said. "This increase in interaction allows us to work more closely with new callers to help them develop their persuasive skills." Employees are confident that under these new circumstances, Telefund will be able to surpass last year's record-breaking phonathon and reach the goal of $2.5 million. Stevens said any improvement in Telefund's performance is ultimately good for the University as a whole, including the student body. The money raised by Telefund not only "helps boost the school's rankings by increasing alumni participation ... [it also] raises money for financial aid, scholarships and student resources," Stevens said. Positions at Telefund are some of the highest paying on campus. "During the peak hiring time [Telefund is] deluged with applicants," Stevens said. "We have students of all backgrounds and interests working here. Not only do we have undergraduates, but we have grad students that work with us as well," Stevens said. "It always is a positive thing when a veteran caller can include on a resume that they personally raised thousands of dollars for their alma mater."
Wrongful accusations, death sentences and lynch mobs are not your typical musical fodder. Yet in "Parade," which opens tomorrow night at the Balch Arena Theater, the rhapsodic tap-dancing townspeople of yore are indeed very much absent. "Parade," written by Alfred Uhry with music and lyrics by Jason Robert Brown, was a Tony award-winner when it opened in 1998. It now makes its Boston debut as the Department of Drama and Dance's fall production. The musical is based on the true story of Leo Frank, a Jewish, college-educated "Yankee" who finds himself gainfully employed but quite unhappy in 1913 Atlanta. Frank, the superintendent of a pencil factory in Atlanta, is mistakenly arrested for the brutal killing of one of his young employees, 13-year-old Mary Phagan, after police get word that he is the last person to see her alive. In the wake of the arrest, Frank becomes the victim of media sensationalism and of anti-Semitism that is brewing just beneath the surface in the Jim Crow South. After a trial awash with false testimony and without a definitive burden of proof, Frank is sentenced to hang. Such a bleak tale hardly seems typical of a theater genre inundated with such exclamatory entries like "Oklahoma!" and "Hello, Dolly!" However, "Parade" director and Drama Department chair Barbara Grossman said that "Musicals have moved to stories with more tragic subjects." In the tradition of opera, Grossman said modern musicals such as this one use song to evoke emotion. Tufts Junior Julia Arazi, who plays Frank's wife Lucille in the production, cited "Rent" as a classic example of the more didactic and somber subject matter modern musicals are tackling. Arazi said that newer musicals like "Parade" go "against the stereotype of happy, cheesy musicals" and instead employ music to "heighten extreme emotions." "Parade" also differs from many musicals of the past with its protagonist's relationship to his surroundings. George Rausch, a senior playing the role of Governor John Slayton, explained that typically the main character of a musical is an outsider who wants to be integrated into another community. Upon hearing Frank's first song, in which he laments "I want to be back where people look like I do and act like I do," the audience is privy to the fact that Frank is not an archetypal musical protagonist. Usually the outsider wants in, but in "Parade" the outsider wants out and stays only for the financial and marital obligations he has in the South. Musicals as a genre often deal with transformations, and "Parade" does obey this tenet in its exploration of the relationship between Frank and his wife. While native Georgian Lucille and self-proclaimed Yankee Leo are at first distant and dissimilar, the unfair trial and subsequent events bring the couple closer and teach them how to love and appreciate each other. The story is striking because the blatant bigotry and jarring events depicted are real. The cast was able to read about their character's actual biographies in preparing for their parts and the script is based on actual recountings and the trial transcript. Grossman and the designers found "Parade" to be a particularly compelling story in today's political context because it magnifies the close connection between patriotism and bigotry. The tale explores the rapidity with which a group of citizens can devolve into a mob. Further, it warns, as Grossman says, against the "pageantry" referenced in the musical's title that can mar truth and justice. The production's music, set design, and costumes create an impressively complete feeling of the South during 1913. Ubiquitous violins, real screen doors and detail-oriented period costuming contribute to a cohesive presentation of Atlanta during this era. The tap shoes of older musicals have been traded in for lace-up boots and a happy ending is distinctly absent. "Parade," however, employs a full pit orchestra and 25 voices to tell an important and poignant tale with a disquieting emotion that only music can convey.
If the beginning of this year's NFL season made some fans question the league's oft-praised parity, Week Seven quickly reminded them why the league is characterized by the phrase, "any given Sunday ..." Going into Sunday, each division around the league looked more like baseball's AL East than the typical close standings we've come to expect from the NFL. Two teams - if that - battled for the top spot while two or three teams hopelessly played for the distinction of not being last. Case in point, the AFC East: Through six weeks, the New England Patriots and the New York Jets were each 5-0, while the Buffalo Bills and Miami Dolphins had combined for a whopping one win. It was Buffalo's. It came over Miami. In the NFC South, the Atlanta Falcons made everyone forget that Michael Vick is having serious problems running the West Coast offense as they cruised to a 5-1 record. The rest of the division, comprised of the New Orleans Saints, Tampa Bay Buccaneers and Carolina Panthers, had tallied four wins between them. The NFL looked like it was being dominated by a handful of teams. Fewer teams had a higher proportion of the wins around the league than in any year in recent memory. Then, like Terry Tate when the office aid forgets to refill the coffee maker, Week 7 came slamming into our worlds. As evidenced by the sheer and utter misery of this paper's editors' picks, (the winners of the week went just 8-6) this week's games took everyone by surprise. Parity's back. Some teams that had been thought of as playoff locks mere days ago took costly and often embarrassing steps backward, while teams that experts had counted out are now right back in the playoff hunt. The Dolphins pulled off the biggest upset of the week, finally getting their first win of the season as they dominated the St. Louis Rams 31-17. "Inside the NFL" has referred to the Fins as "hapless," "helpless," "woeful" and "pathetic." Unfortunately for Miami, this game told us a lot more about the Rams then it did about the Dolphins. Commissioner Paul Tagliabue is already practicing his "With the number one pick of the 2005 draft, the Miami Dolphins select ..." speech. The Rams, on the other hand, looked great heading into the Miami game. They had won three in a row, including an incredible late game comeback against the Seattle Seahawks two weeks ago. So what happened? Well, the Rams may have showed their true colors in South Florida. Mike Martz coaches the team as if he is playing Madden against the computer on rookie. He only throws (although they've been effective with this at times), choosing to ignore a Hall of Fame running back in Marshall Faulk and a great up-and-comer in Stephen Jackson. Defense seems to be an afterthought. This is where one would expect to read about why the Rams would fall apart and the Seahawks would run away with the NFC West. Except the Seahawks lost the other big upset of the week, getting dominated by Dennis Green's upstart Arizona Cardinals and the ageless Emmitt Smith, who rushed for over 100 yards for the 78th time in his career. Its not even out of the question that the Cardinals become more than a third party in the NFC West. They are 2-4 with upcoming games against Buffalo and Miami, and the Seahawks and Rams sure aren't impressing anyone. In Atlanta, Week 7 was a reality check of the worst kind. What had been the best rushing defense in the NFL let up an astounding eight rushing touchdowns to the Kansas City Chiefs, who still won't be able to pull off any sort of playoff run without stepping up their defense. The Chiefs were certainly helped out by how lost Vick continues to be in the new Atlanta offense. In the Monday night game, the Cincinnati Bengals brought the cruising Denver Broncos down to earth in their first appearance on Monday Night Football in 12 years. In an effort to avoid headaches, try thinking of the game as an anomaly. Also in the "even good teams have hiccups against miserable teams from Ohio" category, the still undefeated Philadelphia Eagles needed overtime to beat the Cleveland Browns. The Eagles should be fine, although they are going to have to play better run defense to keep winning. The undefeated Patriots handed the Jets their first loss, 13-7, extending their winning streak to 21 and their regular season streak to an NFL record 18. The Pats and Eagles remain atop their respective conferences, but below them things got a lot more interesting as the status quo of the NFL took some twists and turns. Expect the "any given Sunday" parity to continue to shake things up as playoff races begin to take more form.
Reid Palmer was originally attracted to Tufts for the rare opportunity to combine art, a liberal arts education, and football. Palmer (LA '04) began his career as a Jumbo as a student of the five-year combined degree program, which allows students to graduate in five years with a B.A. from Tufts and a B.F.A from the Museum of Fine Arts. In addition to handling five-course semesters, Palmer played football all four years as an undergraduate student at Tufts. Though his performance on the field as defense end was impressive, Palmer downplays his individual success as a football player at Tufts. "I've played on some really great teams," said Palmer, who was elected team captain his senior year. "[That's] much better than any individual success you can have because you're part of something larger than yourself, which is ultimately more rewarding." Palmer eventually left the five-year MFA program during the spring of his junior year, after realizing his desire to continue with art wasn't as strong as it had been during high school. The decision gave Palmer more time to pursue football, and he has few regrets. "I think it's a really important thing to be able to explore all your interests," Palmer said. Last year, Palmer graduated with a Bachelor's degree in American Studies. Now a graduate student at Tufts, Palmer still manages to balance academics with athletics. For Palmer, working in Tufts football department as a graduate assistant is the result of a natural progression. "I thought about what I wanted to be doing with my time, and the thing I enjoyed most here was playing football and being a part of that team, so it's a way to stay connected to it," Palmer said. Currently, Palmer is "pretty focused on working with the football team and trying to make it a positive experience for the guys, because it was such a positive experience for me." Through his position as a graduate assistant, Palmer is exploring whether he might be interested in pursuing football coaching as a potential career path. Palmer would like to see Tufts students being more supportive of the athletic department. "I think the kids who are involved [with athletics] spend a hell of a lot of time trying to be successful at something, and it makes it easier for them when they know they have support from the student body," Palmer said. Palmer suggests attending fall sports on Saturdays, or spending a couple of hours at a basketball game during the week. "I think that would also help foster a better sense of community on campus," Palmer said. One of Palmer's older brothers made it a priority to attend all Palmer's home football games. "It doesn't seem like much, but it means a lot when you're putting in all that time and effort to try and do well at something and there are people there who care and are supporting you," Palmer said. "It makes it that much easier." Palmer is thankful for the support of his family. "My parents were the ones who encouraged me to look at a school like Tufts, to be in tune with what my own interests are so that I would pick a place that was right for me and not necessarily what they wanted," Palmer said. Now, Palmer's days are usually "tied up doing football stuff and then classes." Still, he keeps it all in perspective. "I like to have a good time - there are things that are sometimes more important than getting straight A's and studying all the time," Palmer said. "There are good times with friends that are going to mean more than [that]." Last winter, Palmer spent some time skiing with friends. "We would wake up early and go skiing, blow off school." He paused. "I don't promote blowing off school, but stuff like that meant more to me than being in a classroom, taking notes, doing well on a test." Palmer attributes his "[appreciation] that life isn't all about work," in part, to the host family he stayed with during Tufts' seven-week study-abroad summer program in Talloires, France. "You eat French meals with French families the way they eat their meals - you don't just sit there, rush through the dinner, and run off to do something else," Palmer said. "If ever I was home for lunch, the father of my house would come home for lunch - he's a doctor, a surgeon - but he'd come home for an hour and a half, two hours, and sit down, eat a meal, talk." Palmer noticed that the people he met in France were "a little more relaxed and just enjoy being here, as opposed to always looking for something better." In the future, Palmer is considering moving to the West Coast, which he thinks might contrast the fast-paced life of the Northeast that he is so used to, having grown up in upstate New York. He also plans to travel. "It's a big world," he said. "Being 22, I feel so young, like there's so much to see. It's pretty crazy to think you can see it all, but you've got to at least want to." Palmer has enjoyed his time at Tufts. "Tufts is one of the best schools in the country - if not in the world," Palmer said. "Overall, the amount of opportunities to explore your interests at Tufts is awesome. There are just so many different things students can do here, both in and out of the classroom." Palmer has advice for students with years left at Tufts: "Meet some of the great people that are here and enjoy spending time with them," he said. "That's what you're going to take out of here more than anything." Palmer strives continuously to be proactive in his life. "[Taking charge of your own life] is really important," he said. "You have to deal with yourself every day. If you can't deal with [yourself], I don't know how you can deal with other people."
As I read the Letter to the Editor, "Stem Cell Research" in yesterday's Tufts Daily (Oct. 26), I could not help but feel that yet another simplification of a complicated issue had occurred. The Letter stated that "non-embryonic stem cells" which were "ethically derived" had already treated several human illnesses, while embryonic stem cells (ESCs) have not been used to treat any "human patients." This presents an error in logic to me: if you ban experimentation with human ESCs, how can you possibly proceed to deride ESCs for not producing any experimental treatments in humans? This is a self-fulfilling prophecy. ESCs have proven very successful in vertebrate research, such as regenerating the spinal cords of lab rats that had been severed (the South Park episode "Kenny Dies" explained this process). Other animal research is also promising, but has been severely curtailed because of the ban. The Letter also posits that "If an embryo is a human life ... then destroying it is murder." I would agree with this claim if an embryo indeed was a human life. However, it is my opinion that an embryo is merely the potential for human life - not alive as a human being at this early blastocyst stage of development (a uniform mass of cells that has not gastrulated yet). This accusation against ESCs seems to be trying to equate it with the abortion debate, which it is distinct from. I believe that the creation of the ban on federally funded ESC research was meant to court the anti-abortion vote. This leads into the larger issue: President Bush's ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. I call it a "ban," although Bush technically "was the first President ever to allow funding." In the 1990s, no federally funded institution was allowed to utilized ESCs for research. Only private funding could be used and this drastically reduced the amount of funding available. It also led to fears that the technology would be dominated by private corporations if the federal government had no hand in it. Bush did not want to alienate his conservative base, so he agreed to give federal funding only to the "cell lines created from 70 embryos already destroyed" (Sen. Kerry correctly pointed out in the debates that in reality only less than 20 have been used, and 70 is gross exaggeration). However, Bush's funding was a pittance, and has led to a de facto ban on ESC federal funding. Research even in as many as 70 ESC lines is simply not enough; medical research requires far more genetic diversity than this. Would anyone think it sensible to use only 70 people infected with HIV in research towards developing an HIV vaccine? No. It would take at least a hundred times that many and probably more. Bush sidestepped the issue, and using the power-of-the-purse, he has been trying to heavily curtail ESC research by allowing what is essentially no federal funding. In the end, a de facto ban on ESC research was made: by funding less research than would in any way be useful, Bush has in a strict legal sense lifted the old total ban, but in fact has only reinforced it. In the meantime, Bush now uses every opportunity to publicly pat himself on the back for "funding" the research. President Bush's administration is decidedly in favor of continuing the ban, while simultaneously claiming that they would be more than happy to stop it. On Oct. 4, I attended the lecture by Dr. Leon Kass at the inaugural meeting of the Presidential Lecture Series. Dr. Leon Kass is chairman of the President's Council on Bioethics. During the Q&A section, I asked Dr. Kass whether he felt that Senator Kerry's support of ESC research or Bush's ban on it, was the most ethical choice. He sidestepped the issue by reiterating the administration's rhetoric that it was not, indeed, a "ban." He went on to say that it was really an issue for Congress and that the President had no control over it. This assertion is a bold-faced lie. Just four months ago, a majority of the senate sent a letter to President Bush asking that the restrictions he has imposed on ESC research be lifted. Fifty-eight senators signed on to the letter, including 14 Republicans. Furthermore, just month previously in May of this year, the House of Representatives also sent a letter to Bush signed by 206 congressmen. So there is really broad support in both houses of Congress for ESC research and the major barrier to the ban being lifted is President Bush himself. As for the judicial branch, we can only hope that with the failing health of Chief Justice Rehnquist, President Bush will attempt to attempt to appoint an impartial replacement who will deal even-handedly with the ESC debate. But as Bush has not only admited but boasted, he doesn't believe in a "litmus test." President Bush also opposes the therapeutic cloning of embryonic stem cells for use in research. Bush equates it with reproductive cloning that would produce clone babies (missing the point on why names to distinguish the two forms were devised in the first place). Debate on a global ban on cloning began on Oct. 21 in the United Nations, but there are sharp divisions over whether it should include therapeutic cloning; Bush is adamantly for a total ban. Furthermore, reports that stem cells from adults are just as useful as ESCs are meant to play on the lack of knowledge by everyday people about ESCs. ESCs can divide indefinitely, which means they could rapidly grow, say, a whole new organ. However, adults' stem cells cannot divide indefinitely, and if forced to rapidly create an entire new organ, the organ would suffer extreme genetic damage from the strain. Most cells, including adults' stem cells, can only divide a set number of times before the telemeres (essentially repeat-sequence padding) on the ends of their chromosomes wear down and they have to stop dividing. ESCs are special in that they have an enzyme known as telomerase which can restore the damage that telomeres receive, allowing them to divide indefinitely. Because they can divide indefinately thanks to telomerase, embronic stem cells can be used to engineer new organs and tissues in a way that adult stem cells cannot.
This article is the first in a four-part weekly series looking at sex on campus. The articles will be based in large part on anecdotal evidence, asking the question "How do we behave sexually at Tufts, and how aware are we of the risks?" This first article will look at student behavior, while the next three will focus on the ramifications of that behavior. Everyone has read the obligatory sex pamphlets that list ways to protect oneself and others, and what to do if one ever slips up. STD tests, symptoms, treatments, the morning after pill, adoption, abortion, pre-natal care. How relevant is that to life on campus? Do we use that knowledge? Is our community so insular that we reject most safety precautions out of the belief that "it could never happen to us?" The college students surveyed appear to rate pregnancy as their greatest sexual fear, above sexual diseases. Many females who the Daily spoke with, all of whom requested to remain anonymous, relied on birth control pills to stay "safe" during sexual intercourse, without a second form of protection against STDs. "I have been on birth control since the day I graduated from high school," one senior said. "I didn't, however, enforce that he always wore a condom, because it feels better when he doesn't and I was always protected." "This didn't present a problem until I was recently made startlingly aware of how difficult it is to detect some STDs in men, and have since decided you can never be too careful," she added. Since then, in all but one case, she has made her partner wear a condom. She shows more foresight than many of her counterparts, though, since each of the three partners she has had were all tested for diseases before becoming involved with her. One male senior who has had seven partners followed this trend, only using condoms with non-girlfriends, until a scare and a talk with his mom forced him to think more seriously about disease. "I fear STDs - you never know who your partner is and what they carry," he said. "Knowing there's no cure for AIDS and just how common something like herpes is is a real worry. I hope that I'll be smart enough not to make the drunken mistake of not wearing protection with a random girl again. I got lucky with that one." He also worries about the emotional side effects of sex. "Emotionally, I hate the baggage some girls bring after sex," he said. "Some just don't see it the same way you do and sometimes will try and make something more out of a one-night stand than there really was." Of course, in college, there is no "norm." For every woman who believes she is safe without condoms, there is another who sticks adamantly to their use. "The reality is that this isn't like high school," said one female junior, who has had one sexual partner for a year and a half and uses condoms every time they have sex. "You don't necessarily know everything you think you know about a person. They could have had one partner or 10. Protection is a must even if you think you really know the person." One male junior tries to be careful, but finds it difficult sometimes. "I try to always use protection, but unfortunately, alcohol sometimes skews my judgment," he said. "I think the biggest fear is getting a girl pregnant, even before an STD, because many STDs are tough to get even if you have unprotected sex, especially HIV." When asked for further explanation on this theory, he said "apparently from what I have heard, a heterosexual male who has unprotected sex is more unlikely to get an STD than either a female or a homosexual male." After two months of nagging thoughts, he was tested and came up clean. "I was very mad at myself and I didn't get myself tested for a couple of months because I wanted to monitor the situation," he said. "I got really paranoid so I decided to get tested." There is more to fear from sex than STDs and pregnancy. One female senior who has had three sexual partners believes that love, more than condoms, is necessary for protection during sex. "Sex is a personal act that can be dangerous unless you are choosy about your partner," she said. "Being in love makes sex better." "I'm too scared to have sex without being in love because I don't want to get hurt," she added. "Condoms protect from diseases, but they cannot protect from emotional hurt and attachment that may come from sex." Another female senior female reiterated those same feelings in describing her choice to lose her virginity. "Pregnancy and disease weren't a worry; it was more how the situation would change after," she said. "How he'd act toward me. Was I giving up some kind of power or something? It's definitely a double standard because I don't think guys worry about that kind of stuff." One male student cites the lessons from his high school health classes as pervasive when considering sex, although he notes that they have rarely changed his behavior. "Everyone thinks about pregnancy and STDs because of all the classes we have had to take," he said. "They scare ... you and make you never want to have sex." Although he said he is not into random sex, he attributes this to the social scene at Tufts as much as his health classes. "The Tufts environment is not conducive to sex," he said. "There's no place where everyone can come together and have fun, save for a few events like Spring Fling, tailgating at Homecoming, and maybe even Fall Fest and Naked Quad Run. Even house parties are always small and get broken up, and it's always the same people." One senior who has had seven sexual partners has no regrets regarding her sexual history, though its evolution has taught her a lot. "I do think once you find someone you like being with both sexually and emotionally, it takes sex to a higher level and shows you the importance of that bond between two people that you may not have experienced in your prior sexual history," she said. "I also think it's scary these days with the amount of STD's out there, [including] the ones that protection sometimes doesn't even prevent [such as herpes]," she added. "The only thing you can do is be as careful as possible in terms of protection but realize that in this day and age the percentages are against you."
Anyone who has worked in retail or in the restaurant business would agree that service-oriented jobs provide a veritable case-study in human behavior. Even the most seemingly polite individual can become demanding and ungrateful the moment she encounters someone employed to serve her. It is not until we are on the other side of the consumer world - the side where we are the service providers rather than the ones served - that we can truly begin to identify the ugly and often unintentional ways in which we mistreat our salespeople, waiters, etc. But since not everyone has had (or is going to have) the eye-opening work experience I speak of, take advice from someone who has. Based on my first job working in a clothing store, here are some keys to in-store etiquette that will make your spending spree a more pleasant experience for everyone involved. First, don't be afraid to ask for help. If you are on a mission to buy (and not just browse), allow the salesperson to help you, even if you think you know what you want. While there are the occasional salespeople who offer to help but don't mean it or simply don't offer to help at all, the majority really do want to assist you. (Even if they don't, too bad. That is what they are there for.) They are knowledgeable about sizes and styles and will save you a lot of time and frustration sorting through piles and racks that don't have what you need. Second, while it is completely reasonable to expect assistance, don't forget your manners. "Please," "Thank you" and some good old fashioned patience will keep you on the sales staff's good side and greatly increase your chances of getting what you want. Remember, you do not have the key to the stock room - they do! Of course every now and then, we will find ourselves in a clothing store with no intention to buy whatsoever. In these cases, we are usually either browsing or killing time. Allow me to distinguish for a moment between The Browser and The Time Killer. These two shoppers actually differ considerably in behavior. The Browser tends to be a gentle creature who is actively observing the clothing, while The Time Killer (although also "only looking," as it were) is apathetic toward the clothing itself and simply seeks entertainment in the store. Because she is not on a schedule, The Time Killer will try on any item that looks appealing (often regardless of size) and leave the clothes on the floor of the dressing room when she is finished. She assumes that because she has plenty of time to kill, so must the salesperson who will have to clean up after her. Needless to say, this kind of behavior is generally not well-received by the sales staff. The Browser, on the other hand, shops with her eyes, not with her hands (and obviously, not with her wallet). But because she is kind and often passive, her behavior is welcomed by salespeople. She doesn't tend to try anything on and if she unfolds a garment for inspection, she makes an honest effort to neatly replace it. This brings me to my next point. There is a popular assumption among shoppers that all sales associates work on commission. That is to say, they only make money if you spend money. Although that is the policy in some stores, many employees, like me, get paid either on salary or by the hour. Whether you make a purchase or not, their pay check is the same - they are strictly there to help you. So don't feel guilty if you don't find something you like. The employee's financial arrangement should not affect your decisions. The most important thing to remember when shopping is just to be considerate. Good service is a source of pride for most employees. Just remember that "service" is not synonymous with "slavery." Salespeople are people too and the clothes don't hang themselves.
The subject I address this week is not one that will ever garner a question. "Well, why ever not?" your inquisitive mind asks. It's because the subject is neglect, and, by definition, you will never think to ask about it. So anyway, here goes my rant ... Bear with me as I wax philosophic for a moment. We, as human beings, are constantly being bombarded with one side of things. Skinny is good, fat free anything is good, Kerry is good, Bush is good (this column is non-partisan), working out is good. Well, yes; many of those things are good. However they are only good if you know the entire story, or if you exercise moderation and balance. What I'm getting at is that all too often people do something they think is good for them, when in reality they aren't covering all the bases or they are going to an extreme - which can actually lead to something bad. Example: The so-called "meathead syndrome" is one in which a male works out religiously only the muscles he can see when he stands in front of a mirror wearing Adidas warm ups and no shirt. This translates into endless sets of flat bench, standing barbell curls, and crunches. Sometimes, the enlightened ones will do some shrugs to get the "monster traps" that look so appealing in wife-beaters, but other than that, they are enormously imbalanced. This neglect of certain muscles groups is rampant in the gym, and is more dangerous than many think. Muscle imbalances can affect posture, leading to back pain, joint pain, and muscle pain. They can cause progress on the focus groups to stagnate. For example, your body may actually resist chest development due to an underdeveloped back. The upper back is a commonly neglected body part, along with the rear delts and lower back. These muscle groups all contribute to good posture and athletic performance. All pulling activities involve these groups, so if you think you are going to be able to lift that keg all by yourself without properly working out your back, you've got another thing coming pal. Sadly, there is a body part that suffers from even more neglect than the back. You guessed it: It's your legs. If I had a dollar for every guy I saw in the gym with a lower body that was disproportionately smaller than his upper body... well, I'd have a lot of dollars. So work your legs. And your back. The best way to make sure you aren't a victim of muscular neglect is to sit down and think (don't stop reading, I just want you to think for a minute or two, I promise) about your workout. Every muscle in your body moves you in a certain way. Well, it's also true that there is a muscle in your body to move you the opposite way. biceps/triceps, back/chest, quads/hamstrings, lower back/abs ... there are a ton of opposing muscle groups to work. Plan workouts accordingly, making sure you hit each muscle group at least once a week. You can train opposing muscle groups on the same day (have an "arm day"), or you can train coordinating muscle groups on the same day (think a "push" day and a "pull" day). You can toss biceps in with chest, you can train calves with back, you can throw quads in when you train shoulders. Just make sure that you hit everything in some way, shape, or form. So next time you decide "it's bench day, baby!" stop and think (last time I'll ask you to think) about whether or not you are training the muscles you can't see. Muscles that, though invisible to you, the shirtless Greek god standing in front of the mirror in track pants, are no less important to your health, your aesthetic value, and your performance.
It's gotta be tough to be a Cardinals fan right now. The way these things go, unless there is a coast involved, all media coverage will not be created equal. St. Lunatics everywhere are like "We won 105 games. What are we, chopped liver?" Yes, in fact, you are. Like getting into college, if you don't have a hook you don't have much to sell. Maybe if you had been a little more, I don't know, tragic, since 1926, instead of being the National League's Yankees, swallowing up 16 NL titles and nine world titles. Oh, you haven't won it all since 1982? An ump missed a call in '85 to lose you the title to the intrastate Royals? You had lost the NLCS in '96, '00 and '02? Sorry, you're going to have to buy your sympathy elsewhere. I'm fresh out. I do not want this to become a "whose fans deserve it more?" diatribe. But there are those who have gone before me who really think they do deserve it more, so bring it on. I hate to say it because of its "corporate America trying to tug at your heart in order to tug at your wallet" implications , but that new Nike ad sort of grabbed me. You know it as the one tracing the path of two brothers as Sox fans as they watch games together, era to era. And while some questions still linger (How did they keep those front-row seats for all those years? No company bought them out?) I couldn't help but be affected by it. I guess the evolution of a fan is always an easy avenue to go, but I think they nailed it. You can tell where an organization has been just by looking at its elderly fans. The picture I have of a Cardinals fan is of a little old lady with a toothy grin and maybe plastic cardinals on each of her shoulders that she claims chirp to her during the games. She can reminisce about her heroes; Ozzie Smith, Bob Gibson, Lou Brock, Stan Musial, all recalled with fond memories. All were men who finished the job, per se. I think our old ladies are of a little different cloth than that. Did you see the woman interviewed by Fox's Chris Myers during Game 2? She almost interviewed him, with all the wisdom and baggage it appeared she possessed. No smile, at least not one that I could decipher. She mentioned that the Sox were one strike away in '86, as if it hasn't stopped gnawing at her no matter how many 3-0 deficits her team comes back from. Were she to reminisce about her heroes, my money would be on her mentioning Yaz's season ending popup in the '78 playoff or Teddy Ballgame's .200 average and one RBI performance in 1946. The Sox are going to earn every smile if they finish this thing off, though. But not until then. So Cardinals fans, wherever you are (sure as hell not on this campus) take solace in that. I have heard Peter Gammons, a Maine down-easter and Boston Globe-bred Red Sox Nation member, refer to St. Louis as the "Best Baseball Town in America" (BBTIA) on multiple occasions. While that statement could be chalked up to a man in the public eye intentionally trying to steer away from his biases (Sox), I am guessing there is some truth to it. I think there is most definitely a Cardinal Nation out there. Folks from Oklahoma, Missouri, Arkansas, Tennessee, without a major league team to call their own geographically, root on their Redbirds. I mean, only in the BBTIA could they turn the cookie cutter classic Busch Stadium into something that resembles eye candy. Alas, the same could not be said for, may they rest in peace, Three Rivers, Veterans, and Riverfront Stadiums. Maybe it's because those places didn't bring in grass as soon as the Cardinals did, which brought an "old time baseball" kind of character to the place that was nowhere to be found in the other three spots. I heard Boston referred to as "a drinking town with a baseball problem." Hardy har, I know. But shouldn't that be St. Louis, the birthplace of Budweiser? Sure, Sam Adams dominates this region, but you go on Yawkey Way and they ask you to remove your arm and leg for 16 ounces of the stuff. Well, six bucks, but still, hardly a hometown discount. Is not Budweiser born and bred in the Lou? Is not the stadium named after a brewer? Shouldn't these people start living up to the "St. Lunatics" label when they go to ballgames? I would imagine it to be cheaper closer to its home (With Guinness in Ireland, they almost pay you to drink it), so why aren't the fans more nuts at games? Polite, respectful and supportive doesn't make for passionate fans where I come from. Of course, that does not make us right as obnoxious, look-at-me types. Sox fans may be the Terrell Owens of rooters, announcing our presence with authority any chance we get, while St. Louis is the Marvin Harrison, going about their business and letting their play (or players) do the talking. I just hope fans from the BBTIA learned a thing or two from watching the last two games in Boston. Chanting is good. It promotes a little bit of ill-will towards the other team, which can never be a bad thing. If the St. Louis faithful pulled out a "NO MORE DH!" chant every time a Sox hurler stepped to the plate, major kudos would be given out. But they need to find another chant now, because that one is mine. Maybe last night they dusted off their version of the "Who's Your Daddy?" chant that they last used on Frank Viola in 1987. But I can't picture it. Who knows? Maybe they rip into their teams just as much on their sports radio stations. Maybe there is some sort of underground curse there that the national media has failed to get a hold of yet (The Curse of Willie McGee?). But for whatever reason, the Cardinals fan base is not one we can relate to. Unless the Cards were to come back from a deficit to win this series. I think we might know something about that.
Discussions of media responsibility have reached a high in the past several weeks, starting with the CBS News fake document scandal in September, but exploding since "The Daily Show" host Jon Stewart appeared on CNN's show "Crossfire" on Oct. 15. On the show, Stewart criticized hosts Tucker Carlson and Paul Begala for "hurting America" by participating in political theater and failing to act in the interest of the public. Begala and Carlson countered with the claim that Stewart is "too soft" on politicians and wasn't being funny enough. And now, an article in The New York Times ("If You Interview Kissinger, Are You Still a Comedian?" Oct. 24) has appeared discussing the need for Jon Stewart to take his "responsibility" more seriously, seeing how his program attracts more 18- to 34-year old viewers than network news shows do. Finally, the Northeastern University Student Government Association has voted to ban the free distribution of the Boston Herald on campus in light of a poor editorial decision to show a photograph of the face of a mutilated young woman, killed in the aftermath of the American League Championship Series. Not all of these discussions are equal though. Most would agree that "news" programming like CBS's "Evening News" with Dan Rather have a responsibility to provide accurate, objective coverage of events. But while the definition of objective coverage is open to debate, this responsibility is still much clearer than the responsibility an editor has to "protect" members of the public and clearer still than the responsibility that pundits, like Stewart, Carlson and Begala have. As "news analysis" programming proliferates cable news channels, the line between news and punditry becomes hazier, and the public suffers. The idea that pundits have any responsibility at all to society is not a foregone conclusion. Punditry is a form of entertainment. While in an ideal world people read columns like this and watch programs like "Hardball" and "Crossfire" to gain new perspective and opinions on important issues to help form their own position, we know that a lot of times people read and watch for the drama: the controversy (ahem), the partisan fighting, the utter ridiculousness. The majority of people read and watch because they want to and enjoy doing so, not because of a desire to be informed and educated. This does not absolve members of the media from their societal responsibilities. Yes, there is a practical need to entertain in order to keep one's column space or time slot. But the traditional responsibilities of journalists to advocate and investigate on the public's behalf are just as, if not more, important. As someone who considers himself a pundit of sorts, I take what I see as the responsibilities of that position fairly seriously. Contrary to the claims of my critics, I believe opinion writing serves a greater purpose than venting one's anger at a particular system, community or policy. Writing in a public setting is not about promoting one's own self-interest, but about advancing one's view of the public's interest. While this can bring a writer praise or notoriety (or, when done correctly, both), that should not be the desired end. In this country, media is acknowledged as a key part of the "policy triangle" (the other two legs being the public and politics). Mass media influences the public, and it influences political action, and the responsibility of a pundit is to keep this mind in every word he says or writes. To some degree, I agree with those that argue that journalists, like doctors, should operate under the primary law of nonmalfeasance, or "First do no harm." However, an important caveat must be added to that statement: While I agree that net societal harm should be avoided, sometimes to advance the interests of society, one must consciously harm an individual. While this may sound controversial, an example may reduce concerns. Consider a scandal where a corrupt politician is misappropriating public funds for personal use, or even the case of an inept politician who has the power to imprison or free individuals, but exercises that right irresponsibly. Criticizing the actions or the character of either of these politicians could bring harm to their careers, or even their personal lives. However, to not reveal this information could bring far greater harm to the public, and would be violating a far greater journalistic responsibility than niceness. So what does all of this have to do with anything? Well, over the past several weeks, many readers have approached me asking when I would write a scathing condemnation of my colleague Evan Cochran and his weekly column, "Down with the FCC." Well, I think this as close you are going to get. I am not quite sure what the point of Mr. Cochran's columns are beyond being the talk of the campus for their inane nature and utter absurdity. But controversial ideas in and of themselves are no reason to condemn opinion writing. If, in fact, Mr. Cochran's columns were truly in response to the Federal Communications Comm-ission's censorship of "offensive" media content, I would applaud his writing. But sadly, they are not. Mr. Cochran's columns do not contain offensive content in the sense of the FCC. Rather, they are offensive to sensible, responsible individuals. While some of them have been benign, like his dissection of the best places on campus for fornication, others have been downright irresponsible. His promotion of drunk driving, cocaine use and binge drinking cannot be seen as productive to any important dialogue, yet may actually encourage unhealthy, dangerous behaviors. Tufts is not the ideal setting for an "Animal House"-style college experience. But most of us knew that coming in here. So hopefully, these columns will not encourage anyone to regress to such immature, idiotic behavior. And hopefully, these columns are not meant to serve any value but an entertainment one, for I question the success of the Tufts admissions and academic processes if one can go through three years here and still truly believe their right to party is paramount. To be fair, the responsibility for Mr. Cochran's columns does not wholly lie with Mr. Cochran himself. Columnists are chosen by The Daily editorial board. I can only hope they saw some promise of responsible journalism in Mr. Cochran that he has yet to demonstrate to the campus.
A key message of the current administration is that America is winning the war on terror. Since the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, United States forces have conducted offensive operations in Afghanistan and Iraq while intelligence agents and Special Forces units are active in over a dozen countries fighting a shadow war. In recent debates, the President has claimed that over 75 percent of al Qaeda's strength has been depleted. This, along with Saddam Hussein's removal, is a strong sign that America is winning the war on terror and that 'freedom is on the march.' These claims, which form such a fundamental plank of the administration's claim on a second term, could bear a closer look. In the first instance, it is spurious to make the claim that "75 percent" of al Qaeda has been eliminated. Such a proposition requires the conditions of a static universe and the application of that notorious economic principle - ceteris paribus - or all other things being equal. However, the world is manifestly neither static nor are all other things ever equal. While the operations against al Qaeda in Afghanistan and elsewhere certainly have disrupted its organization circa 2001, the rising number of terror attacks since are surely indications that it has reorganized and raised new recruits. One should also consider that prior to the attacks on Sept. 11, al Qaeda was not a very well-known organization in the West or even among the militant Islamists, being merely one of many groups geographically dispersed. However, the American response to those attacks and the demonizing of its leader Osama bin Laden, while understandable, have lifted al Qaeda into a prima inter pares relationship with other, even the more established, militant organizations. After all, the world's greatest superpower has declared war on it on bilateral terms. Arguably, the American response to Sept. 11 has raised al Qaeda in the guise of a vanguard organization, which despite its small size and non-State identity, now rests on an equal plane with a superpower in the guise of an antagonist. Nevertheless, it would be defensible to say that this is an unavoidable side effect of the necessary response to the attacks on Sept. 11. It is quite another thing to blithely claim progress in that war. The unintended consequences are more than just an inconvenience, they are a cost-benefit inflection where in the main the costs are being born by America and the benefits are being accrued by al Qaeda and its fellow travelers. The sanction of the international community in the form of support for the operations in Afghanistan and international counter-terror initiatives clearly rested on the case that this was, and continues to be, a just war. Treating the war in Afghanistan as synonymous with the war in Iraq is, however, insupportable. It has become clear from findings of the 9/11 Commission that there was never any link between Saddam Hussein and the perpetrators of the attacks on Sept. 11. Therefore, while the removal of the Taliban, who harbored and supported al Qaeda, has a direct causal relationship with the attacks of Sept. 11, the subsequent operations in Iraq do not. It is worth pointing out that Saddam Hussein ran what was essentially a secular regime which used the trappings of religion where it was convenient. Saddam's power base was tribal and sub-religious and not fundamentalist. Such a leader was practically an apostate in the minds of the religious zealots. Thus the removal of Saddam Hussein has done nothing to advance the war on terror. What it has done is cost the United States lives, treasure and international goodwill. It has become a commitment at a time when flexibility is the required weapon in the war against non-State actors. It has also made the coming Presidential election a referendum on the war on terror, as it has been hitherto conducted. American society has become politically polarized and conflicted about what its next leader means in terms of its way of life and the country's posture of engagement in the international community. While regime change in Iraq and organizational disruption of al Qaeda may be debated as legitimate measures of success in the War on Terror, what cannot be dissembled is the centrality of the direction and conduct of that war to contemporary American presidential politics. That fact is indicative of how much the war on terror is not only something manifested in the combat zones of Central Asia, but also in the suburbs and cities of America. Perhaps, as a proxy, progress in the war should be measured by how much influence each side has on the other. Using this metric, some credence must be given to the administration's claims of success, but the sad truth is that three years after declaring war on Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, both are still extant. This fact and its implications have become fundamental to the choice of national leadership and all that it means. Ironically, that this gives al Qaeda a place of influence in deciding America's future. Is it not then legitimate to ask, "Who is winning the war on terror?"
With Nov. 2 quickly approaching and election fever gripping the campus, over 100 students filled Cabot Auditorium last night to watch Tufts' first live mock presidential debate. The debate, which was designed to mirror the structure of the actual presidential debates, was mediated by WCVB-TV and ABC News anchorman and reporter Anthony Everett, a Tufts alumnus. Kristen Casazza represented Tufts Republicans, Daniel DiMaggio represented Tufts Socialist Alternative, and Jonathan Parnes represented Tufts Democrats in the debate. The debaters covered topics ranging from healthcare to gay marriage, but focused mostly on terrorism and the war in Iraq. "On Sept. 11 we were attacked by terrorists who declared this war against the United States and against freedom and free nations," Casazza said, echoing recent Republican oratory. "This is not a war of choice. This war is nothing less than one of good against evil and America has to stand strong against the terrorists," Casazza said. Taking the Democratic position, Parnes said, "We want to put NATO in charge of border control and that would free up about 20,000 American soldiers to deal with some of the hotspots in Baghdad right now. We need to go back to the U.N. Security Council and have them oversee the reconstruction of Iraq." "It's a war that was based on lies," said DiMaggio, injecting the third party perspective. "It's the wrong war, it's a bloody war and I think it's time to bring the troops home now from Iraq and let the Iraqis rule Iraq for themselves." The parties were equally separated in their views about gay marriages. "I think that a really important part of the Republican platform is that marriage needs to be designed between a man and a woman and the overwhelming majority of Ameri-cans have spoken that they agree with this," Casazza said. "I think it's our job to make sure that the sanctity of the institution of marriage is protected." Parnes took a different tack. "What is clear is that we need to make sure that [gay couples] have the same legal rights as all other citizens, and that includes tax benefits, visitation rights to hospitals and social security benefits." "Democrats also support gays being able to serve openly in the army," Parnes said. "I was shocked to see that the GOP platform affirms that homosexuality is incompatible with military service." After the debaters' closing statements, the floor was opened to questions from the audience. DiMaggio was pleased with the outcome of the debate. "I think it's great that all three candidates were allowed to participate and get their views out there. In the nationally televised debates, it's very restricted and for me, very boring." In the real presidential debates, the most significant third-party candidate in the presidential election, Ralph Nader, was not allowed to participate. As mediator, Everett stressed the importance of getting out to vote. "I don't think there's any greater responsibility than participating in a democracy," he said. "A lot of people have fought and died for that right and I think it's incumbent on everyone that is able to vote, to not only vote, but to be an informed voter." Roberta Oster Sachs, whose Ex College class "Understand-ing and Creating TV News" produced and directed the event, was also pleased. "I've taught at Princeton and Columbia and I think the students here are incredible." "I think at Tufts they really raise the level of discussion," Sachs said. "The debaters had an incredible command of the issues. I wish one of them would run for office one day."
Political mailings to neighborhoods surrounding Tufts by a Massachusetts-based conservative group are calling Democratic candidate Carl Sciortino a "homosexual, anti-Catholic extremist." Medford and Somerville doorsteps have been flooded with dueling flyers from supporters of independent candidate and former Democrat Representative Vincent Ciampa and Sciortino in the race for the 34th Middlesex District Massachusetts state representative seat. The president of the Parents' Rights Coalition (PRC), a conservative group that sponsored the flyer, will speak at Tufts tonight. Ciampa - who is running as an independent after losing in the Democratic primaries to Sciortino - said he is neither affiliated with the PRC nor had he received any money from them. "I'm trying to run a sticker campaign, and they've got an issue with Mr. Sciortino," he said. "I'm not familiar with what they support ... other than the fact that they brought out an issue of grave importance." The PRC opposes gay marriage, homosexual civil unions, and abortion rights. Ciampa, the 16-year incumbent of the district that includes parts of Medford and Somerville surrounding Tufts, has been waging a write-in campaign to encourage supporters to vote for him Nov. 2. Ciampa lost to Sciortino by only 93 votes in the Democratic primary campaign. Yesterday, area residents received a flyer supporting Ciampa that came in an envelope saying, "Last year he and his partner disrupted a Catholic Mass. Now he's about to be YOUR state representative!" Inside, voters found a flyer entitled "A Special Report on the Homosexual Lobby's Secret Campaign to Install a Homosexual, Anti-Catholic Extremist in the State Legislature." The pamphlet listed a number of allegations against Sciortino and what it called his "long record as a militant homosexual activist." Sciortino called the flyer "despicable hate mail," and said it was an "unfortunate distraction" from other campaign issues. PRC President Brian Camenker said he foresees his message being well-received in Medford and Somerville. "What we found in other races is that - this is a big problem - how the elected officials voted most of the time does not correspond to how the people in the district feel," Camenker said. "We see that in district after district after district." But Somerville and Medford voters have historically elected and re-elected politicians such as State Senator Charles Shannon, who supports gay marriage, and Congressmen Ed Markey and Marty Meehan - both supporters of gay adoption rights and abortion rights. Ciampa has a voting record in favor of both civil unions and abortion rights, but opposes gay marriage. Camenker said he did not know whether Ciampa supported civil unions. "We don't support civil unions. You're never going to have 100 percent agreement with any political candidate at all," he said. "We basically are pro-life, and he is not pro-life." The PRC's flyer recounts a June 2003 incident in which Sciortino stood up with his back to the altar during a Catholic Mass in June of 2003 and reportedly kissed his partner. Sciortino defended his "peaceful protest" of the Catholic Church's stance on gay marriage but said the kiss never took place and was a distortion by the PRC. "I am a Catholic, and it is important to me as a Catholic to tell the church when it is stepping over the line," Sciortino said. "I did not disrupt, I did not defame, I did not defile my church." Ciampa called the incident involving Sciortino as described by the flyer "pretty despicable." The PRC also took issue with Sciortino's activities as chair of what it called the "radical Tufts Transgender, Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Collective (TTLGBC)," including sponsoring coming-out days, founding the Rainbow House, and "advertising a how-to seminar on anal sex." Camenker said the PRC produced the mailings to counter the pro-Sciortino mailings from non-local gay political action committees and to inform voters of issues that were not discussed in the primary campaign. "It's not how much Sciortino himself spends, it's the enormous amount of money coming from out-of-state and certainly from out of the district [from gay rights groups]," Camenker said. He said he has no problem with his message potentially being unpopular. "Every time you do something like this, these guys run around and call us bigots and haters and say we're spreading bigotry and hatred," Camenker said. "That's their stock answer to anyone who ever questions their activities or comments or does anything - it's that same song," he said. Camenker is speaking tonight at 8 p.m. in Pearson 104 as one of three panelists in an event titled "Homosexuality and Society." "There's a lot of questions. Is there such a thing as gay people?" Camenker said when asked about the topics of the event. The PRC's sister organization, Article 8 - which has the same P.O. Box address as the PRC - is co-sponsoring the event with the Tufts Republicans. Tufts Republicans President Nicholas Boyd said that Camenker was one of three panelists who are "coming to provide an alternative perspective on gay marriage and gay health issues."
With virtually every magazine cover showing a picture of George W. Bush or John Kerry and maps of Electoral College votes posted on walls like a kind of political wallpaper, it's hard to forget about the upcoming election. Walking around campus, the air is thick with excitement as students gear up for battle as well. In perfect compliment to this charged atmosphere, the Tufts Wind Ensemble is presenting a concert framed by the theme "Music for Protest and Change," an homage to the often overlooked transformative power of music. The pieces selected were composed at times of social unrest, often leading to revolutions and inspiring men and women to change their world. "There is a constantly evolving scene in politics," said Wind Ensemble conductor John McCann, who chose the theme for this year's concert. "So, this music is certainly relevant today." The selections come from a variety of periods of revolution throughout history, ranging from three revolutionary marches written in 1848 Prague to a reworking of a Pink Floyd song called, "The Turning." "A Movement for Rosa," composed by Mark Camphouse, was written in honor of Rosa Parks, the well-known civil rights icon who refused to sit in the back of an Alabama bus. The civil rights anthem, "We Shall Overcome" is embedded in the piece, but, "They don't hear it right away," said McCann. "At first, you sense the frustration, defiance, and then a moment of epiphany. The song makes itself heard subconsciously." That "Rosa" ends in a sad, noncommittal way, suggests that the progress hoped for by the civil rights movement is not yet complete. Another piece, "Epinicion," mimics ancient Greek pieces of the same name that were sung on the battlefield as the living were separated from the slain. The modern piece, composed by Jon Paulson in 1974 at the end of the Vietnam War, is somewhat unusual. The music is written in a manner that allows the performers and the conductor to have a lot of control over the way the piece is performed. The Tufts Wind Ensemble aren't always such rabble-rousers. Just last spring they performed a Disney-themed concert for a group of elementary school students who joined in the music-making with their voices as well as with their maracas. Once a year, they make an international trip, spreading Tufts music across the world to such locales as Dublin, Prague and Iceland. The group is both a class and a TCU student-recognized organization. There are about 40-45 members. Wind Ensemble president and trombone player Lewis Reilley said, "The ensemble is an extremely diverse group. I would say there is no 'typical' member." The Tufts Wind Ensemble encourages you to remember the great movements of times gone by - free of charge.
Let's go Mets!" cheered my 78-year-old grandma as we walked through the torrent of rowdy Sox fans at Fenway, lucky to be at game one of the World Series. My eyes shot at her like lightning - we were there to watch the game, not to get mobbed for being inhabitants of NYC. "NAWT in this stadium, lady!" retorted a huge, bearded, beer-guzzling fan, clothed entirely in Sox apparel. The abnormally large hotdog in his hand was also fully dressed - with toppings, that is. I scanned the crowd, realizing that he wasn't the only one with a big wad of typical baseball grub. "Your next column should be about what to eat at Fenway!" shouted Grandma, reading my mind. I guess not everything is absurd that comes out of her mouth. During such a rare and substantial moment in history, I think it's fitting to mention hot dogs, cheeseburgers, sausages, nachos, fried dough, French fries, pizza, and ice cream. Believe me, my mind really was on the game - especially when St. Louis tied it up in the seventh inning. It's just that I am always astounded by the quantity and quality of unhealthy food at games. Each choice seemed worse than the next. They don't even have something as basic as fruit. I never understood why I couldn't buy a simple apple or orange at a baseball game. It's just as "juicy" as nachos, hot dogs, or candy bars, but without the high saturated fat, cholesterol, and sodium. A single "Fenway Frank," has 170 calories, 140 of which are from fat, not including the bread. And as for daily needs, the Fenway Frank provides 24 percent of the fat, 36 percent of the saturated fat, 10 percent of the cholesterol, and 24 percent of the sodium. With the knowledge about the risk of obesity, heart disease, and even colon cancer, meatless dogs are now offered at a handful of the nation's baseball parks and arenas, but not at Fenway, where the four dollar Frank still holds the lead. I don't expect to find grilled Chilean sea bass or tofu stir fry at a baseball game, (though there is a sushi stand at Yankee stadium). But the choices at events like this always seem to be limited to the same junk because Americans were conditioned since the time they're kids to eat hotdogs at a game, or lollipops at amusement parks. People don't want grilled chicken over a Mediterranean salad with fresh fruit or yogurt when Yawkey Way food vendors are selling Italian sausage, "Monster Dogs" and Philly cheese steaks! If it comes down to it, and you're at Fenway feeling a little hungry, what should you eat without reeking havoc upon your health? Sad to say, but peanuts are probably the only real good thing to eat there - and part of a healthy diet for the heart. But out of all the actual meal choices, pizza would most likely be the best because even though it is high in sodium, the cheese is high in calcium and protein, and the tomato sauce is high in lycopene (a phytochemical thought to help ward off heart disease by preventing oxidation of low density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol). Behind home plate, Legal Seafood offers clam chowder, but the fans say that, "all the clams jumped out!" So much for all of the protein and minerals you would have received in the clams. Big choices to make - Polish sausage or a seven dollar cup of imported Irish beer? If you are drinking alcohol and haven't eaten anything, eating even a Fenway Frank is better than not putting anything into your stomach. You want to be able to watch the game, not puke all over the fans in front of you. Personally, I would stick with the pizza and then ... "buy me some peanuts and crackerjacks!" Well, maybe not the crackerjacks. But you can buy me some peanuts because they are not only fun to crack, but also more satisfying for longer periods of time due to the high protein content. Peanuts are good sources of vitamin E, niacin, folate and magnesium and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) affirmed a health claim that peanuts and other nuts may reduce the risk of heart disease when consumed daily in small amounts. I'll pass on the crackerjacks, a caramel coated popcorn and peanut snack that is full of sugar, corn syrup and soybean oil - all contributors to heart disease. How ironic that peanuts and cracker jacks are paired up in the song! Next time I hear another Tufts student complain about the food here, I might lock him up in Fenway for five hours and see how his stomach likes it. It's outrageously expensive to eat, and don't try to sneak food and drinks into the ballpark like we do into the library because they really catch you! Security snagged my poor grandma's little ZipLoc bag of carrots (as if she didn't have enough to complain about already!). My suggestion is to eat something healthy beforehand, especially with protein to hold you over. This way, you can put your four dollars toward a bottle of water!
