Archives

News

Working in journalism, bringing it to Tufts

October 25

Susan Eisenhauer (LA '71) has traveled through distinct industries and ended up back at the place she started: Tufts University. Now the associate director of the Communication and Media Studies minor in the ExCollege, Eisenhauer began her academic career in 1967 as a biology major. That start was doomed, however. "I survived two years," Eisenhauer said. She realized that writing could be in her future, though, after seeing her work in the Tufts Daily and interning in Rhode Island during a summer. Thus her love for journalism was born. Every summer between academic years, Eisenhauer had her own weekly column and wrote for the obituary, features, police blotter and news sections. "Can't beat that experience, starting out," said Eisenhauer, who reflected wistfully on her past. Since Tufts had a severe lack of journalism courses offered to students at the time, Eisenhauer pursued a B.A. in English. After graduating from Tufts, Eisenhauer explored her options; she applied to graduate schools, and was accepted to an intense nine-month Master's program at Columbia University. Eisenhauer deferred this acceptance twice, choosing to work in Legal Services in Roxbury for two years. She hadn't yet decided what she wanted to do, but after two years of working at legal services, she did decide to enroll in the program at Columbia. After graduating from Columbia, Eisenhauer worked as a news writer in a CBS-owned news radio station in Boston for $2 an hour. She describes it as being "a great way to start" and "fresh and fast-paced." Eisenhauer worked during Nixon's resignation and Boston's desegregation, and said working in the news field during this time was "exciting." She eventually became the Director of Editorials and Public Affairs. After this job, Eisenhauer worked at the Statehouse. "I really wanted to learn how policy was made," said Eisenhauer, who was in charge of the public relations and advertising. She was always on the cutting-edge of policies, and said "decisions were literally made in the middle of the night." When the senator she was working for went to Congress, Eisenhauer became a freelance writer for an investment-banking firm and had two children. Eisenhauer returned to Tufts in 1992, where she became extensively involved in the University. Since then, Eisenhauer has seen the CMS "cluster of courses" change into a full-blown program, offering internships and a minor. According to Eisenhauer, Tufts, in creating the communications minor, "is not trying to compete with a communications school. Instead, we are taking a Liberal Arts approach to communication," Eisenhauer said. She is proud that Tufts offers students the chance to mix "practical skills with a firm basis in the liberal arts." In addition to her work in the ExCollege, Eisenhauer is also a regional chair for the Tufts Alumni Admissions Program. The program offers applying students the chance to have an interview with an alumnus. Eisenhauer was drawn back to Tufts because of her fond memories of the University. Eisenhauer remembers her days as a tour guide, showing off the real Jumbo that used to reside in Ballou Hall before a fire claimed him. Eisenhauer was also a volunteer with the Leonard Carmichael Society and spent a year abroad through the Tufts-in-London program, studying drama. It was also at Tufts that Eisenhauer made her major motion picture debut, as an extra in the film "Charley," which was shot at the university. She appears in the scene where the main star walks from Ballou to Bendetson. Eisenhauer reflects that much has changed since she first arrived at Tufts. She remembers a time when men and women were not allowed in each other's dorm rooms and when women were required to wear skirts whenever they went uphill. Eisenhauer subsequently recalls the upheaval when all of theses rules were changed before her sophomore year and the shock of living in the first coed dorm on campus, Lewis Hall. Although certain social aspects of the University have changed, Eisenhauer's pride for her alma mater has not. Eisenhauer says that she hasn't forgotten her experiences at Tufts, "and I never will."

---

News

An appeal for REPEAL

October 25

Imagine sitting in Davis Square with a group of friends waiting for the Joey to take you back to campus. Students and Somerville residents are walking around, enjoying the beautiful fall evening, when some people come and sit next to you, seemingly waiting for the Joey too. Suddenly, without warning, a policeman pulls up and shouts from his car that you all have to leave immediately. You ask him what you were doing wrong, and he simply replies that you need to leave or everyone in your group could be arrested. You are shocked. Since when did waiting for the Joey become a crime? In fact, ever since Somerville passed the Anti-Gang ordinance, something as innocent as waiting for the Joey could be an arrestable offense. The Somerville Anti-Gang Ordinance was most recently enacted this past August and is based on an old Chicago city ordinance passed in 1992, suspended in 1995 and found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1999. Its purpose is to disrupt gang activity in Somerville and it was passed in response to several recent rapes in Foss Park. While its intentions are good, this act allows too much discretion in enforcement and invites the law to be administered in a discriminatory fashion. Thus, the law is overtly unconstitutional and only serves to perpetuate prejudicial law enforcement. In essence, the law allows police to ask any group to disperse if one member is recognized as belonging to a known street gang. The police must make this determination on the spot by seeing if the individual in question satisfies 13 separate criteria listed in the ordinance. The first problem with the act is that the Somerville Anti-Gang ordinance is deliberately vague. Terms such as "intimidation" are left undefined, leading to confusion in the interpretation of the law. Furthermore, police cannot correctly assess whether or not the individual in question meets all 13 of the act's requirements in the short period of time they have to make the call, and thus must make assumptions based on social identity. This will lead to numerous wrongful accusations and will increase tension between the police and community instead of lower it. Since the one recognized gang in Somerville is Salvadorian, in order to try to uphold this complicated and vague law, police will disproportionately target people of color, even if they have no affiliation with the gang. Besides violating the vagueness clause of the 14th Amendment, the Anti-Gang Ordinance also violates many other Constitutional rights. For example, the law can be used to prevent the free movement and expression of those in protest. Also, one of the 13 requirements is that the suspect has committed a crime in the past. This raises many questions about Double Jeopardy, as the Constitution states that it is illegal to be arrested and prosecuted for the same offense twice. From a law enforcement standpoint, the Anti-Gang Ordinance is also completely unnecessary. In fact, there is already a law in the Somerville Code that explicitly targets the criminal behavior of street gangs and allows police to take action against it. This existing law states that "street gangs cannot use property to ... solicit or commission a crime." In this law, the terms "street gang" and "criminal activity" are explicitly defined based on previous code. As a result, the law focuses on criminal behavior instead of social identity. In a previous viewpoint, Anne Stevenson commented on an incident where "one of the neighborhood gangs was hanging out" in its car on a basketball court, "blaring hard core rap music." In her story, the police came and asked the men to leave and they did. She mistakenly attributes this to the new Anti-Gang Ordinance when, in fact, this "gang" was violating numerous existing Somerville laws such as disturbing the peace and misusing public property. The police had every legal right to ask them to leave without the new unconstitutional law. Our argument is not that measures should not be taken to reduce crime in Somerville. We just feel that the Anti-Gang Ordinance is not the answer and in fact invites prejudice into the law while simultaneously placing added stress on the police force. It takes time and money, and in the process, prevents officers from enforcing the laws already on the books and from taking proactive measures such as educational anti-crime programs to reduce crime. Stevenson is concerned about her rights as a Somerville resident and accuses Tufts Project REPEAL of "tearing up [her] neighborhood." In reality, members of Project REPEAL are extremely active within the Somerville community in programs such as Big Brothers, CORES, and programs through the University College. In fact, at least one member has family in Somerville, further connecting the group to the community. Project REPEAL members are concerned about their community and are working with numerous community groups, such as Community Action Agency of Somerville, who are also concerned about this new ordinance. Tufts Project REPEAL is concerned with the rights of all Somerville residents, both Tufts Students and non-Tufts students alike. Of course, we are not "pro-gang," but we realize that only a small percentage of crime in Somerville is the result of "gang" activity. There are many proactive measures that can be taken to better protect the safety of Somerville residents that will do a better job than the ordinance in question. While Tufts Project REPEAL is concerned about the safety of Somerville residents, we also understand what Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. once said: "An injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."Dan Grant and Mickey Leibner are both sophomores majoring in Political Science. They are also members of Tufts Project REPEAL.

---

News

Men's Crew | Men finish middle of the pack

October 25

The Head of the Charles was the biggest race of the fall season for men's crew. As well as being the most anticipated race, it was the last race for the Jumbos this fall. Braving the bad weather and a course change, Tufts finished in the middle of the pack this year in the men's college eights, but was the fourth NESCAC team to cross the finish line coming in behind Trinity, Wesleyan and Colby. The Jumbos raced on a shortened course over the weekend. The starting line was moved from the Boston University boathouse to the Riverside boathouse, cutting the course down by three-quarters of a mile due to the weather. On Saturday, Tufts raced in the men's open eights, finishing 24th out of 53 teams with a time of 16:32:477. Racing for the Jumbos from stroke to bow were senior Andrew Pelkey, sophomore Jordon Chiu, senior Robbie Goldstein, senior Alex Moerlein, sophomore Tim Pineau, junior Jeff Burke, sophomore Benjy Tarshis and sophomore Mike Abare. "The race went okay, the conditions were not great and the course was shortened because of the wind, but those conditions affected everybody," Tarshis said. "We finished in the middle of pack so its nothing you can get excited about, but at the same time you can't be disappointed either." Sunday's race did not deviate much from Saturday's performance as the Jumbos finished 29th of 45 teams with a time of 12:18:022. "We were hoping for a higher finish," coach Jay Britt said. "Both boats had decent rows and came off the water knowing that. They are just now getting an understanding of what it is to race." Racing for Tufts from stroke to bow on Sunday was junior Mark Roberts, senior Jeff Mueller, sophomore Jeff Vanderkruik, sophomore Nick Walker, sophomore Anthony Dennis, sophomore Danny McGee, junior captain Ben Harburg and sophomore Nick Haslett. "The race was good in terms of us finishing a clean race with no accidents," Harburg said. "We didn't go after it as much as I had hoped though." After finishing its fall season, men's crew will train all winter. It will still row on the water until the cold weather forces the practices indoors. "We all tried hard but something was missing," Dennis said. "The coaches implemented lots of changes and in the winter we will train as hard as possible to apply those changes." The Tufts crew is looking forward to a strong spring season , using its fall season as a building block. This fall offered an opportunity for the Jumbos to gain a better understanding of their new coach and to create a general idea of what they hope to accomplish in the spring. "We are just starting to come together as a team," Tarshis said. "I am looking forward to the spring and I think that we are going to turn some heads in the rowing community." As a whole, the Jumbos had a successful fall season with consistent rowing. Tufts will now look to the winter to improve its technique and become stronger. "Our goal is to be on the podium at NESCAC's in the spring," Harburg said.

---

News

Tune in to 'Desperate Housewives' for superb fluff

October 25

A Yankee fan in Boston has only one place to look for comfort when it's Sunday night and the Red Sox lead (again) in the bottom of the fourth: the endearingly crap-tastic world of Sunday night TV programming. "America's Funniest Home Videos," "The Surreal Life" ... it doesn't get any better than this. So you throw on your pajama pants and fuzzy slippers, break open a bag of the greasiest, most unhealthy snack food you can find and settle in for a night of pure, unadulterated fluff. But what is this? Where have all the Bob Saget bloopers and Vanilla Ice comeback attempts gone? Where are all the Hallmark made-for-TV movies and the televangelist testimonials? Is Sunday night television - dare I say it - looking up? At the beginning of the fall season, the critics were certainly ready to dub 2004-05 a banner year for primetime TV. And at the heart of all the promising predictions was the newest addition to ABC's fall lineup, the quirky, dark comedy-drama from executive producer Marc Cherry, "Desperate Housewives." (Yes, that's right, folks, the same blessed man who brought us "The Golden Girls" in 1985.) So if you happen to have been amongst the unlucky souls sporting oily fingers and a worn-in bathrobe this past Sunday, you may have also been amongst the millions of Americans who tuned into "Desperate Housewives" to see what all the fuss was about. And if you did, you were most assuredly reaffirmed in your faith that no matter how highly touted this show becomes, Sunday night fluff is still as much a part of American culture as mom's apple pie and George Bush's speech impediment. "Desperate Housewives," is, appropriately enough, a show that mercilessly airs the skeletons in the closets of four picture-perfect "modern" homemakers who reside on idyllic Wisteria Lane. True to night-time soap form, "Desperate Housewives" mixes the drama of "Dallas," the romance of "Melrose Place" and the estrogen level of "Designing Women" into a thoroughly palatable - if not completely unrealistic - portrayal of life in suburban America. This show, like all good fluff, has a can't-miss premise: Mary Alice Young (Brenda Strong, known to many as "The Braless Wonder" of "Seinfeld" fame) is the poster child of suburban perfection, but mysteriously commits suicide in the series' first episode. She leaves behind an eerily distraught husband, a foursome of horrorstruck girlfriends and a flawlessly manicured lawn. Friends and neighbors chalk it up as another casualty of the domestic doldrums until a menacing note from an anonymous enemy hints that Mary Alice was going to the extreme to cover up a dirty little secret. Now the infamous Mary Alice narrates from the great beyond, and as the mystery of her own death becomes more and more puzzling, she takes the audience on a behind-the-scenes tour of her friends' private lives - all of whom have plenty of dirty little secrets of their own. So move over, June Cleaver. Step back, Martha Stewart. The ladies from Wisteria Lane are about to blow the cover off your crock pots! And what ladies they are! In the first three episodes alone, Cherry has his girls juggling with two crumbling marriages, one affair with a minor, three unruly children, one suspected arsonist, two meddling neighbors and a plethora of love interests. With such a demanding script, casting directors Junie Lowry-Johnson and Scott Genkinger knew only the cr??me de la cr??me of small-screen actresses could possibly fit the bill. So naturally they turned to such accredited performers as Teri Hatcher, Marcia Cross, Felicity Huffman and Eva Longoria to carry the show. So after sitting through an hour of such utter rubbish, you might be wondering what could possibly compel someone to recommend this show. Well, let's just say that "Desperate Housewives" is the sort of rare drivel that one can't help but love. It's the sort of show that's so bad, it's actually been proven in clinical studies to raise the dopamine levels of its viewers. It has fought bitterly and won the right to call itself authentic Sunday night fluff, and the world is that much better for it. So get those fuzzy slippers ready, because an all-new episode of "Desperate Housewives" is coming your way this Sunday at 9 p.m. on ABC. ?Vive la fluff!

---

News

Brian Wolly | Wolly and the TeeV

October 25

The Internet is a crazy thing. Last year, when tuftsdaily.com switched to a new host, the company's software came with an option for online readers to post feedback. So it was through this technology that I happened to fall ass-backward into an interview with television producer David Broome. In last week's column, I made an idiotic omission when I discussed the NBC reality program "The Biggest Loser." I wrote about my overwhelmingly negative thoughts about the show, without mentioning that they were all based on the advertisement campaign promoting the show. Mr. Broome, in a surprising display of protectiveness, posted a passionate defense of his show. He even invited me to interview him after I had viewed the first episode of "The Biggest Loser." You can still see the feedback online, if you missed it. For the record, I would also like to publicly apologize here for making those assumptions. To say the least, I was both intimidated by and proud of Mr. Broome's feedback. On one hand, I had really ticked off a producer in Hollywood and, on the other, I was noticed by a producer in Hollywood. Naturally, I had to pursue the interview. This was an opportunity I couldn't pass up. Now, after the interview and watching the episode, have I changed my thoughts on "The Biggest Loser?" Not really. It reflected my feelings toward reality programming. Mr. Broome was correct on one thing, however: His show is not manipulative. It didn't poke fun at its overweight contestants and was not even close to the repulsiveness of "The Littlest Groom." That was an exceptionally low blow. As I explained to Mr. Broome, I still felt like a voyeur watching "Loser," with the guilty baggage that comes with it. The heated exchange followed: Broome: Anytime you watch a reality show, there will be that aspect. Do you watch any other reality shows? Me: I enjoy "The Amazing Race" and the "Apprentice," but I think they are different in the sense that the contestants don't suffer from a physical disability. Broome: If you call a weight issue a physical disability, I take issue with that, regardless of their weight. We are changing these people's lives. Are you aware of some of the health issues with obesity? Some of the contestants came in with asthma or diabetes. In many cases, it is like we've cured them. When referring to weight issues as a "physical disability," I was referring to some of the contestants who were severely obese. According to the American Obesity Association, a lobbying group on behalf of obese persons, obesity is a "chronic disease with a strong familial component." In addition, the organization states on their Website that obesity "can inflict bodily pain and affect normal daily activities" I have a genuine respect for Mr. Broome. The man was clearly passionate about his profession and for his show. Anyone who shows that kind of relentless enthusiasm in the entertainment business is like a Tufts freshman who doesn't compare SAT scores: noteworthy and impressive. Over the course of the interview, I came to realize that Mr. Broome's fervor came at a cost; he seemed unable to empathize with his critics. For instance, the one question which I felt I had to ask Mr. Broome was, "How can you defend calling the show 'The Biggest Loser?' Yes, I understand the pun. But still ... they couldn't find anything better?" Mr. Broome responded, "You have to realize: we're trying to cut through [to our viewers]. If I called the show 'The Diet,' how many people would turn in? You're essentially judging a book by its cover." That last jab would be repeated by Mr. Broome continuously throughout the interview, along with accusing his critics of "jumping to conclusions," which gave me visual images of "Office Space." And he's right. The title "The Biggest Loser" and its ad campaign elicited strongly negative reactions in myself and other social commentators who heard about the show. Mr. Broome countered, "A title is just a title." I disagree. In today's world of hundreds of cable channels with countless options for nightly viewing, a title matters. NBC is a business - which I'm sure Mr. Broome knows because he receives a paycheck from them. Any network has an obligation to its bosses and shareholders to bring in viewers, but NBC is especially in dire straits considering "Friends" and "Frasier" are gone and "ER" and "West Wing" are in the ICU. The title, "The Biggest Loser," is memorable because of its negative connotation,and is bound to generate controversy. Controversy brings viewers, viewers bring advertisers, advertisers bring money to NBC and NBC cuts a check to its employees. Reality television thrives on promising spectacular drama, and the ad campaign hyped up a show with overweight people crying and grimacing from pain. After seeing those ads, in the context of finding the "Biggest Loser," I'm not supposed to recoil in disgust? There I go again. Jumping to conclusions. Can you blame me? As I said last week, reality TV is predicated on the "belief in the worst." Mr. Broome says, "I guess anyone who wanted to see the bad part of reality television saw the [negativity]. That's their fault for coming to that conclusion." Does he mean that he expects television watchers to forget the past four years of programming? If he were to create and produce a teen soap opera, would I be "jumping to conclusions" if I thought that sexual matters would dominate the show? One last thought: In part because the show was not manipulative, "The Biggest Loser" was a boring and contrived Dr. Phil episode disguised as a reality program. Mr. Broome made it clear in his comments that his show was, "about changing people's lives." If this were truly the case, there would be no elimination of contestants and home viewers would be given a clear explanation of the health advantages and risks of the diets shown on the screen. In response to my criticism of the elimination component, Mr. Broome said, "At the end of the day, it is a game." I have enormous respect for Mr. Broome and his passion, but to hope the American public, college columnists included, won't judge a television show by its "cover," is a disappointing display of idealism.

---

News

Noah Trugman | Life is Elsewhere

October 24

Being orphaned for Tufts parents' weekend made me miss home. Then I thought: Wait a minute, where the heck is my home? During my happy childhood of saxophone lessons, basketball practices, and carpooling to Wednesday night Hebrew school, home was Charlottesville, a small town nestled in the rolling hills of Central Virginia. This is where I learned how to play "Hot cross buns" on the recorder, how to ride a bike and tie a fly, and where I finally flushed thirteen chronically depressed goldfish down the toilet one by one, effectively ruining my younger sister's chances of ever getting a puppy. One time my friends and I tried to dig a hole to China in my backyard. That ended quickly, around dinner time. For me now though, Charlottesville is just where my parents live. There is a new generation of kids digging holes in the neighborhood. The town has changed. I no longer fit into its rhythm, flow and ebb. But I still have close friends there. I know the sweet, crisp smell of the air when the Blue Ridge Mountains turn yellow, orange, and red with autumn. And when planning for Thanksgiving, I still talk about "coming home." Three years ago, I moved to Boston. The transition to college was not quick and easy, but after two years at Tufts, I had finally built a strong social support network. I was familiar with the extended campus to Davis Square. I had good friends. I had discovered comfortable spaces where I could think clearly and be myself. Boston was becoming my home. Then I voluntarily chose to abandon what I knew best and everything I had just built, all the friends and familiar places, to study abroad in Oxford for my junior year. The transition from New England to Old England was not quick or easy, either. But it was almost because Tufts was so comfortable and familiar that I wanted the challenge of rebuilding life abroad. The summer before Oxford was an uprooted time of travel and transition. I was no longer living in Boston, but I wasn't quite yet in Oxford. My family was in Charlottesville, my friends dispersed. Bouncing around lightly from place to place, I felt homeless. I identified this feeling of homelessness on a flight from Geneva to London that summer. Lost in the clouds both literally and figuratively, at the same abstract level as my big picture philosophical questions, I felt weightless, independent, and finally at ease. Oddly, there was something familiar and unchanging in change itself, something constant and reassuring about sporadic transition. I felt light and wonderfully liberated, but also homeless and insecure. When I arrived in Oxford, I immediately started to explore the cultural, physical, and social environment, trying to fit in. I could not get to know the whole city, but I carved out my own personal niche, a path that connected my college, Lady Margaret Hall, with a few other particular points around the city. Everyday I would ride my bicycle down Parks Road to the library reading room near the central square, read for the morning, pick up a Brother's chicken curry baguette, and meet a friend for lunch. I enjoyed long runs along the Thames River Path as dusk settled over Port Meadow and walking along the small, quiet path behind college leading back to the river Cherwell. Routine inspires familiarity. Familiarity instills comfort. By the end of the year, I was finally feeling at home in the place sadly I was about to abandon. This year I live in a Latin Way apartment on campus with three friends. Our common room is a little sparse, and there's no Welcome Home mat outside the door. We don't share milk but we do share music, cleaning responsibilities, and a love of hummus. Sometimes we gather to watch Family Guy if the Red Sox aren't playing. There can be a lot of transition and change in college. Our lives are in constant flux - changing friends, classes, dorms, outlooks, maybe even values. We may be spiritually, intellectually, socially, or even physically homeless. That is not to say that we are without any place to go, just that we may be without a place to call our own. We can go everywhere and anywhere. One day we're in Medford, the next in Madrid. The great challenge is to build new friends, families and, wherever you go, a place where you can feel comfortable, a place you can call home. Next year, I could move to San Francisco, New York, or Sydney - anywhere really. During the transition, I would expect once again to feel homeless, weightless, ungrounded, uprooted. But for now, this place in Boston is my home. Tufts is where I live, work, study, and play. It takes a long time to feel really comfortable somewhere. Home is right here. This is where I belong.

---

---

News

Danger in embracing my identity

October 24

College campuses have been described as dangerous places, but it wasn't until recently that I realized how scary they really are. I had heard that anti-Israel sentiment runs rampant on certain campuses. In preparation for battle, I attended lectures, conferences, and programs that train high school students for 'combat' when they arrive at college. I came to Tufts University in Medford, Massachusetts ready for the worst. But while I discovered that Tufts is a very positive environment for pro-Israel and Jewish students, it is not such an accepting environment for Yankee-supporting New Yorkers. I was not fortunate enough to be part of a Yankees activist training program as a high school senior, so I arrived on campus fearful and uninformed. I had asked my parents to send me a hat when the Yankees played the Twins, but my package did not arrive until four hours before the Yankee-Red Sox showdown. I wore the hat while watching the game in the safety of a fellow New Yorker's room. I wore the hat as I peeked into the "Red Sox rooms," pretty much every room on campus. I wore the hat while door after door was shut in my face. I wore the hat as I encountered insults from students who were my friends the day before. I wore the hat during our victory laps through the dorm. The real test came the morning after Game 1. I put on my blue and white Israeli Air Force tee-shirt, and then remembered that I had my hat, and that the shirt and hat happen to match perfectly. But did I have the guts to wear the hat around campus? Did I have the guts to wear the hat to my political science class, which just the day before had come to the consensus that people on campus care more about the Yankees/Red Sox rivalry than the Kerry/Bush one? Could I sit in the same room as the intimidating senior who wore a Red Sox jersey every day and despises the Yankees with every fiber in his body? Why wasn't I prepared for this? Standing in the middle of my dorm room pondering my predicament, I began to laugh. I felt completely confident wearing a shirt supporting Israel, but quivered at the thought of being ridiculed or abused as a Yankee supporter. I thought it would be easier to show my support as time went on and I built up confidence, but I was wrong - the more the Red Sox lost, the more violent their fans became. And the more intimidated I was. But the worst was yet to come. It was Saturday evening and I was all set to watch the game with some guys in my dorm. They were all Sox fans, but not the die-hard kind, so I thought everything would be cool. I showed up as the game was starting, this time wearing my "I heart NY" shirt in addition to the hat. The owner of the largest television in the dorm came to the door and said, "Sorry Sam, you can't wear that hat in here." "Excuse me?" I replied. "No sorry, it's my TV, and you can't wear the hat in here, just take it off ... you're lucky I'm letting you wear the shirt." I was speechless. I sulked back to my room, wishing the Anti Defamation League tackled discrimination cases on account of baseball team affiliation. While as a Jew I don't face the traditional scapegoating that my ancestors faced, I and all other Yankees supporters are scapegoats in another way. It is my theory that a large portion of Sox fans have no other outlet for their anger at their team for failing them year after year, so they take it out on Yankees fans. Of course, there are those that aren't the "hatin' kind," but that's not what this article's about. It was especially after the massacre in Game 3, and the ensuing possibility of a Yankee sweep, that I really understood why they hated us so much. If only there really were a sweep. If you're superstitious, which I think most of Boston is, then I take full responsibility for the lack of a sweep, because I literally typed "the Yankees swept the Red Sox" before Game 4 was over. I must have counteracted that other curse. The final three games, however, allowed me to witness the most brutal acts of anti-Yankeeism that I have ever seen. Even as the "cursed team" began to win, the Sox lovers were still hostile towards Yankee lovers. After each win, they rallied (or rioted) on the residential quad, lit trash cans on fire, and cried out chants of "Yankees suck" and other blasphemous comments towards my beloved Jeter and A-Rod. By the end of Game 7, there were easily 1,000 celebrators storming the president's house. It was true insanity. Sign me up for a Yankees advocacy training program because I don't know if I can do this again next year.Samantha Goldman is a freshman whose has not declared a major.

---

News

The Sinclair scare

October 24

Friday night the Sinclair Broadcast Group pre-empted local programming on 40 of its local television stations to show "A POW Story: Politics, Pressure and the Media." Sinclair's "Story" was not part of the original plan: the conservative-leaning media conglomerate had originally planned to air a documentary that described presidential candidate John Kerry's Vietnam-era service in a very unflattering manner. If it had chosen to do so it would have abdicated its journalistic responsibility and picked up a set of pro-Bush pom-poms. The name Sinclair gained national attention earlier this year when it banned its ABC affiliates from showing a special "Nightline" segment in which Ted Koppel read the names of American soldiers killed in Iraq. Earlier this month Sinclair again stepped into the national spotlight when it announced it was planning on airing "Stolen Honor: Wounds that Never Heal," a virulently anti-Kerry film by Carlton Sherwood. Of course the decision to air such a blatantly political program on broadcast television anytime would have been controversial, but given the close and contentious presidential race, people took especially keen notice this time. The point at issue here is not whether Sinclair is entitled to the same degree of political free speech as everyone else: they are. As a broadcaster, however, they use limited resources (bands of the broadcast TV spectrum) and thus must be regulated to ensure that the public good is served. This means that when Sinclair decides to bill a blatantly political program as news it is running afoul of not only media ethics standards but also the law. Sinclair is entitled to its thoughts, but it is not entitled to mislead the American public, especially in swing states very close to the election. In the same vein, CBS News would be just as worthy of contempt if it broadcast Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" as news. Americans are fortunate enough that they were able to discover Sinclair's intentions early and counter in an unusually strong showing. The planned broadcast was opposed by not only Democrats and media watchdogs but also moderate Republicans, investors, and industry watchdogs. This diverse group agreed that Sinclair's plan was bad for American democracy and the doctrine of local control and worked to apply pressure on the station to change their plan. The result was Friday night's programming, which was deemed journalistically responsible by a consortium of media watchdogs. Americans are lucky that Sinclair decided to do the right thing and back down from its original position. It should not be confident that broadcast corporations like Sinclair will always act with the public in mind. More than applauding Sinclair for its choice on Friday we should scold it and others like it for proposing the broadcast of political commentary under the guise of news.

---

News

Alum travels to Uzbekistan with the Peace Corps

October 24

Uzbekistan, a predominantly Muslim Central Asian country the size of California, is a long way from suburban Detroit. But for Tufts graduate Liz Rodgers (LA '00), living in the outskirts of the motor city helped her to develop the cultural curiosity that would one day lead her to Uzbekistan with the U.S. Peace Corps. "At my high school, there were kids of many different ethnicities and cultural backgrounds -- Arab Americans, African Americans, Chinese Americans, Mexican Americans, people of Christian, Jewish or Muslim faiths," said Rodgers, who majored in philosophy and minored in English at Tufts in addition to playing the flute in the University symphony orchestra and band. Interacting with individuals from different cultures may have always been a part of her life, but it wasn't until the spring semester her junior year that Rodgers says her "wanderlust was ignited." "My semester in Seville, Spain, was my first trip to a non-English-speaking country, and opened my eyes to what it was like to live as foreigner within a different culture," Rodgers said. "I discovered that I love learning to express myself in another language and learning to live in a different culture." When she returned to Tufts her senior year, Rodgers "dreamed of living overseas again after graduation," but also "felt [she] needed to do something focused outside of [herself]." That's where the Peace Corps came into play. "I started thinking about joining the Peace Corps during my senior year," Rodgers said. "After four intense, expensive years of college, I wanted to give some of all that had been invested in my personal development back to the world. The idea of spending two years dedicating myself to service in a developing country was exactly what I needed at that point in my life." For Rodgers, who is interested in biology and health sciences in addition to English and philosophy, this career path was one in a long line of ambitions. "I went through periods where I wanted to be a biologist, finding cures for diseases, and other periods where I wanted to be a famous novelist or a college professor," she said. As a health extension volunteer in Uzbekistan with the Peace Corps, Rodgers had the chance to work within the health science realm. She lived in a small rural town and worked with a gynecologist at a local hospital to create educational programs for pregnant women on topics including proper nutrition, anemia prevention, breastfeeding and baby care. "I also went to kindergartens in my town to do interactive health lessons for kids that included games, songs and puppet shows, and I started a youth group in my town for 14-to 16-year-olds and led sessions for them that focused on developing decision-making skills, goal-setting, and reproductive health," said Rodgers, who edited and translated sections of an American adolescent health manual into Uzbek for the sessions. "I also collaborated with another Peace Corps volunteer on a doctor re-training project," Rodgers said. "We wrote a grant proposal to get funding for six doctors from our communities to be trained for a week by the American doctor in the capital city. The doctors then returned to their hospitals and lead seminars for other medical workers to teach them what they had learned about topics like proper sanitation, HIV prevention, and appropriate drug prescriptions." Rodgers also had work of another sort to do upon her arrival in Uzbekistan: adapting and adjusting to Uzbek culture and traditions (see box). The best way to do so, Rodgers said, "was to observe others before acting, find a local ally I could ask questions about cultural appropriateness of, and to always err on the side of caution and conservativeness." Rodgers had been in Uzbekistan for nine months when the Sept. 11 attacks took place. On Sept. 22, at the dictate of the Peace Corps, she returned to the United States. "My work as a Peace Corps Volunteer was just getting off the ground, and I was beginning to feel the start of deeply special friendships with my host sister and others in my community," Rodgers said. "The thought that I wouldn't get to see where the two years would take me -- what work I could accomplish and the friendships that would develop -- was heartbreaking." Determined to finish what she had started, Rodgers returned to Uzbekistan in 2002 and noticed a shift in the Uzbeks' attitude towards Americans. "Instead of just commenting on the riches of America they'd seen on TV, when I met a local person for the first time they often asked me if my friends and family were safe after the attacks in America," Rodgers said. "Since people in Uzbekistan tended to have an idealized view of Americans as rich people with everything they could want at their fingertips, hearing about our national tragedy may have made us more three-dimensional to some." Rodgers' experience in Uzbekistan also made the country's inhabitants more three-dimensional to her. "I often look back with wonder at the aspects of Uzbek culture that made me feel at home in such a far-away and foreign place," Rodgers said. "I miss the sense of community I always had in my small town, stopping by neighbors' houses at any time and being asked to stay for tea and chat, and regularly going to social events like traditional Uzbek weddings, eating and dancing along with neighbors of all ages." In the last several months since of her time in Uzbekistan, Rodgers passed her appreciation for Uzbek culture on to the Peace Corps volunteers that followed her. "In the final three months of my service, I had the opportunity to act as a training assistant for the newest group of health volunteers," Rodgers said. "It was very gratifying to end my Peace Corps service that way -- passing on the knowledge and skills I had gained in two years' time to the next generation of volunteers." Rodgers said her experience in Uzbekistan "gave [her] the genuine self-confidence that [she] can do absolutely anything." "As a Peace Corps volunteer, I learned a lot about the public health field, education and working with non-profits," she added. "The future is wide open to me as I decide which path is the right one." Though she's been back in the United States for more than a year, Rodgers is still "coming to terms with the differences between my American lifestyle and the life of my friends in Uzbekistan." "As I catch myself getting caught up in the fast pace of success-driven American culture, I try to make sure to take a deep breath and remember the feeling that surrounded me in my Uzbek community -- the feeling of a slower way of life, where people value hard work but appreciate family and community above all else," Rodgers said.

---

News

The Daily sits down with Death Cab bassist Harmer

October 24

When Death Cab for Cutie breezed into town last Tuesday to play a sold out show at the Avalon, the Daily was able to score some time with bassist Nick Harmer. Escorted to the private hang out nook above the Avalon, we talked politics, how to avoid sucking corporate America's teats, and how "Death Cab" is really just another name for love-zombies.Tufts Daily: So, are you a baseball fan?Nick Harmer: I'm a casual baseball fan. TD: Would you consider praying for the Red Sox?NH: Well, now here's the thing, we were thinking and agreed that if they were to lose last night, then that would be done, but if they won we'd pray for them to win the whole thing. Now that they won, we're going to hopefully help you guys lift the curse and see what happens. But, I feel partly responsible because I think my grandfather is actually the one responsible for the curse.TD: Really?NH: (Pondering) When they, uh ... came over on the boat ... a pair of red socks were stolen from him, so he cursed everyone in Boston and ... yeah, that's the long wind of it.TD: So, you guys have kind of made politics a premiere focus this year. What place do you think artists and musicians have in the world?NH: They have a very historical place in politics. Politics and activism have been tied together for year and years and years. So it makes a lot of sense that different bands including ourselves are using our shows as places for gathering citizens. We're not turning our shows into political diatribes and soapboxes; we're just trying to get people excited about the process. Occasionally, we throw a cheer out, "Go Kerry," but that's just how we're feeling this year. That's the line. It makes the most sense because we've got to get George Bush out of office. That's the most important thing.TD: Do you see your lyrics having a more political bent in the future? NH: Um ... well, no. No, I don't see us turning into Rage against the Machine. We are political people. The thing that we're trying to press on people we talk to, at least the way I feel about it, is that everything about your life is a thing of passion. Where you spend your dollar, what shoes you wear, what clothes you wear, the people you hang around with, what groups you like. They all make political statements whether you like it or not - it's just the way that it goes. And I mean that's with a lower "p." A capital "P" would be like Republicans and Democrats and Capitol Hill and "I'm a bill that becomes a law" and all that kind of stuff.TD: Grammar Rock!NH: Yeah, exactly. You know, smaller "p's" are just like your politics on how you feel about social issues. You know, you have a choice of selling yourself to Budweiser and doing a Budweiser sponsored tour or not making very much money but not having to suck all that corporate teat, so to speak.TD: By being so active in Moveon.org combined with the success of "Transatlanticsm," is all the sudden name recognition becoming creepy?NH: No, it's great. We've been a band for seven years. We've been slowly just going at it. It's been years of touring and obscurity pretty much. Putting out little records and going out. So this is just one more graduated step for us. If "Transatlanticsm" was the first record we ever made as a band, and we'd never toured before, and all of sudden, whoa, we're playing a sold out show at the Avalon! All these people buying our CD! I'd like probably have a drug problem and a host of all the other crazy things that happens because of the sheer shock of it.TD: So, is it normal the day after your first concert with Pearl Jam just to wake up and just be like "yeah, that happened."NH: That was a little surreal, I'll give you that. Those were some weird shows. Those guys first of all are fantastic - some of the nicest guys you'll have ever meet, and really just extended every comfort and courtesy you could imagine, which made it even more surreal. I think we kind of expected they'd do their own thing and we'd do our own thing but they were like, "Yeah, let's play dice! Let's hang!TD: Speaking of touring, there was an article in the New Times Magazine last week about Kerry and Bush on the campaign trail, and how they both felt pressured to eat hearty American food like Wendy's to be patriotic. Do you feel under the same pressure?NH: Uhhh no. In fact, we eat almost exclusively at Whole Foods on the tour. We eat a lot of Tofu Burgers - to the point that today, well, I'll be honest. I walked by a McDonald's and just was like "I gotta have greasy fries." It's terrible to say, but I broke down. I had a moment of weakness.TD: You got fries?NH: I got fries and chicken McNuggets, which I'm actually going to live to regret, the nuggets. I'm powered up on McDonald's tonight.TD: I was telling my grandma that I was interviewing Death Cab for Cutie tonight and she asked if you guys were zombies because of your name. NH: Yes, you can tell her we are love-zombies.TD: Is there a story behind your name?ND: I'll give you the college newspaper answer. There will be some college readers who might find it fantastic. There was a band in the '60s called the Bonzo Dog Band and they were responsible for writing a song called, "Death Cab for Cutie." We came across it in the Magical Mystery Tour, there's a part where John and Paul can't sing. Ben picked the name because it's kind of a nod to the Beatles and it made a lot of sense. The college newspaper part of it is one of the members of the Bonzo Dog band was this guy Neal Innes, and he was part of "Monty Python and the Search for the Holy Grail." Sir Robin, the chicken-shit knight, the minstrel who makes up songs about how he's such a wimp, with that dog following him around - that's Neal Innes. And he helped co-write "Death Cab for Cutie."TD: Would you say that the Beatles were among your influences? Who else?NH: Beatles definitely. Simon and Garfunkel, Beach Boys, Slayer, Pavement. We're just big music dorks. We had a day off yesterday and just went to the record store and loaded up. Got the new Brian Wilson "Smile," the new Mos Def, the new Pinback. It's a fun hobby to have.

---

News

Pilfering a peninsula

October 24

Believe what you want about the 2000 election in Florida. What is hard to deny is that regardless of the outcome, the election was a disaster. Unfortunately, things are not looking much better this time around. As a Floridian, I have endured countless jokes about how we can't read a ballot, don't know how to vote, and need Fisher-Price to design our voting machines. But it is no laughing matter. While the average voter may make the innocent mistake of punching a chad for Bush instead of Gore in 2000, I find it hard to believe that the Jewish population of Palm Beach County would cast numerous votes for Pat Buchanan, a man who has openly admired Adolf Hitler. That ballot was clearly problematic beyond the failing hand-eye coordination of a few elderly individuals. This time, much will be made of the difficulty facing Florida after suffering four consecutive hurricanes in one year and the impact of those storms on the state's power grid. But this year's problems predate even Charley. In attempting to address the problems of the 2000 election, Gov. Jeb Bush has taken a series of steps ostensibly to improve the system. His first step was to ask Accenture, one of the world's largest technology consulting firms, to help with various election-related tasks, including the production of the list of Florida felons. Florida law prohibits felons from voting. However, in 2000, a small but significant number of felons were wrongly disenfranchised after having received clemency. Given the narrow margin of the vote, the profundity of the mistake was magnified. Over the summer, the Miami Herald chronicled what may as well have been an indictment of the Florida electoral system. First, the Herald discovered that 2,100 citizens, who had been granted clemency restoring their voting rights, were nonetheless on the banned-voter list. Then the Sarasota Herald-Tribune discovered that only 61 of more than 47,000 supposed felons were Hispanic, a demographic group that typically votes Republican in Florida, while the vast majority of the disenfranchised were African-American, a traditional part of the Democratic base. Unbelievably, though the felon list was among the largest sources of criticism in 2000, Gov. Bush tried to slip it through the cracks again. Prior to the revelation, Gov. Bush and his administration denied public access to the list. It took the ruling of a federal judge to make its contents public. Following this scandal, many Florida citizens, including Florida Senator Bill Nelson, called for an independent audit of the entire election process, including the role of Accenture. Former President Jimmy Carter also chimed in to express deep concerns about the election in Florida, fearing that the results may again be tainted in 2004. This from a man who monitors elections in places like Mozambique and Venezuela! Naturally, Gov. Bush blocked any independent audit, saying that it would slow the process and reduce voter confidence in the system. Attention then turned to the touch screen voting systems, another new addition meant to improve the efficiency of Florida vote counting and eliminate the risk of difficult to read ballots. Critics of the new system pointed to the frequent problems with touch-screen voting, such as the system's inability to leave a paper trail should a recount again be necessary. Secretary of State Glenda Hood, a staunch Republican, issued a mandate in April preventing manual recounts in touch-screen counties. It took judicial intervention to insist that there be some paper trail of the election. One wonders whether Secretary Hood has a federal position waiting for her if Bush wins Florida and is reelected as a result, as Katherine Harris did after her role in pushing through the results in 2000. The most egregious event in the ongoing election scandal was the Florida Republican Party putting out an advertisement in the Tampa Bay area for registered Republicans to vote absentee to avoid the touch screen voting system. Gov. Bush wisely discredited the ad, saying that he had every confidence that registered voters from both parties ought to use the system. Then again, the system is only in place in 15 of Florida's most populous counties. Logistically this makes sense, but Florida's urban areas, particularly in South Florida, are the most strongly Democratic, whereas rural regions are strongly Republican. Early voting is already underway in Florida, and there have been a few glitches. But the big glitch seems waiting for the state of Florida on Nov. 2. It is especially hard to believe, given the events of 2000 and the consequential increased attention on the state's election, that Gov. Bush would again try to give his brother an unfair advantage in case of another close election. Florida's Republican leaders would do well to remember that the perception of impartiality and fairness is one of the most important factors in maintaining the faith of the people in their government. This is the United States, not a banana republic.Justin Carlson is a junior majoring in biotechnology and International Relations.

---

News

Allison Roeser | My Woman From Tokyo

October 24

I'll admit it. When I was on the 14-hour flight to Tokyo, I had absolutely no qualms about the sort of cultural shocks and challenges that I would be facing for the next four months. I was cocky. I was calm. I was going to have the greatest Japan experience, ever. I was even seated next to a girl from Carnegie Mellon who was going to Tokyo for the same study abroad program as me. She spent the majority of the flight cramming for our Japanese placement exam, watching the Japanese television programming, and practicing reading elementary Japanese children's books. Me? I watched "Mean Girls" two and a half times, read three issues of The New Yorker, and slept. Upon arrival and meeting all 60 of the other American students on my program, I realized that I was pretty much alone in that I wasn't homesick, scared, or panicked. My peers were all outwardly excited, but underneath their nervous laughs and friendly introductions, you could smell their uneasiness. It was not until I met my friend Hana that I began to understand why these other students were absolutely terrified. Hana and I happened to have grown up in similar homes. We both have a parent who has Japanese blood, grew up in Japan, and speaks fluent, native Japanese. In my case, it's my mother. In Hana's case, it's her father. We grew up with and have been constantly exposed to some degree of Japan and Japanese culture and, unlike the vast majority of our peers, this was not our first time visiting the country. Even though neither of us is fluent in Japanese, we know enough to get around and communicate efficiently. We were simply comfortable. Many of the American students on my program came to Japan without ever learning the language aside from a "konnichiwa" or a "sayonara," which is absolutely mind-blowing to me. I could understand going to a European or Latin American country without knowing the language, but to an Asian country? The Japanese language is the most challenging thing I have ever studied. There are two 46-character alphabets and a third alphabet where you're doing OK if you know 2,000 of its tens of thousands of characters. These students have not really experienced Japan aside from the occasional movie, anime television show, news broadcast, and college Japanese language class. I couldn't decide if these were some of the bravest people I had ever met, or some of the most deluded. Japanese culture isn't something that's easy for American college students to relate to or quickly assimilate into. By the end of living in Tokyo for two weeks, the tables soon turned. It suddenly hit me that no matter how many Japanese things we have lying around our house or how many Japanese relatives I may have or how well I speak the language; I will never be entirely welcomed into Japanese society. I will forever be seen as a "gaijin" (foreigner) and therefore will be continually treated in an entirely different manner. I have come to the conclusion that visiting Japan, regardless if you have Japanese relatives to accompany you or not, is a completely different experience from living there with other Americans. You're not always hopping from friendly hotels and restaurants in the popular tourist areas that treat foreigners extremely well. You're not always meeting up with family friends that want to show you around. It's just you: a big old American. As uncomfortable as I am talking about racism and discrimination here, it's becoming such an omnipresent factor in our daily lives that it would be ignorant of me not to. Nothing sticks out more than a group of Americans standing a head above everyone else on the subways or cracking up over a good joke in a restaurant. We get nasty looks from Japanese men and women on a daily basis. They'll think that some of us girls wear skirts that are too short or that we shouldn't be dancing on the sidewalks while listening to our iPods on the way to school. It is true that, on the whole, Japanese women don't wear very revealing clothing or do anything but walk on the sidewalks here, but is that reason enough to glare at us? Some friends and I were in a restaurant recently -- a place we had been going to at least once a week after school -- when one day, the restaurant owner decided to ban us forever, simply because we were "loud." It was painfully clear that by "loud," he meant "foreigners," because aside from the fact that we were a quiet group of four girls, we were seated next to a table of 10 rowdy, drunken businessmen that produced much more noise than we could. Since then, other American friends of mine have tried to go into that same restaurant, only to be turned away, without an explanation. There are most certainly incidents of my fellow American peers acting rudely toward Japanese people. A couple weeks ago, I witnessed a member of the U.S. Navy yell English obscenities and snide comments to some Japanese men and women in on the subway, assuming that they had no idea what he was saying to them. A lot of the students within my program are die-hard Red Sox fans and after the Sox' win, they haven't stopped making racist comments about the Japanese Yankee player, Hideki Matsui. Hana and I have discussed this many times between the two of us because I think our situation is a unique one. We feel like we're constantly being tested about our loyalty to our different heritages. When we hear Americans making racist comments about the Japanese, our Japanese blood boils and we'll feel upset and insulted. Being Americans, we hate the way we're sometimes looked at and treated by the people here. And although there are small behavioral changes we, as Americans, should work on, the dancing to the iPods definitely won't be stopping soon.

---

News

Clean-up tries to raise awareness

October 24

A chainsaw, two bicycles, a TV, and a shopping cart - these are the spoils dragged from the shores of the Mystic River on Saturday by volunteers for the Make a Difference Day River Clean-Up. Braving cold, windy, rainy weather, volunteers at the Tufts Water Watch event covered about a mile and a half of shoreline along the river, where pollution levels currently prohibit recreational swimming and fishing. Though only 11 students came to the clean-up on the shuttles provided by Water Watch, other students arrived straight from Parents Weekend with their parents, who rolled up their sleeves to clean the Mystic's shores. Tufts volunteers were also joined by passersby and by high school students from Lexington high schools, one of whom found the chainsaw. "That made me a little nervous," Tufts Water Watch Organizer Zack Harlow-Nash said. What makes the Mystic River so dirty? "Being an urban river definitely makes it difficult," Harlow-Nash said, adding that industrial waste is no longer the biggest problem since it is regulated by the Clean Water Act. Instead, the river is most vulnerable to so-called "non-point source pollution" - the runoff derived from cars leaking oil, homeowners' use of fertilizers and pesticides, and the sewage overflow that happens when human waste leaks over into the rainwater pipes. Part of the problem is the population density along the Mystic River watershed, which is home to about eight percent of Massachusetts' population in less than one percent of the state's land area, according to the Web site of the Mystic River Watershed Association. Since the Mystic River's biggest problem is its water quality, not the visible trash along its shores, Harlow-Nash said river clean-ups were mostly designed to raise awareness among local residents and people in positions in power, who can raise money for cleansing efforts or help pass legislation. "One of the benefits [of river clean-ups] is that it takes a really tough problem and makes more tangible and solvable," he said. Recent studies conducted of the Mystic River show its water quality to be quite poor. Of the 10 river sites monitored by the Mystic Monitoring Network (MMN) from June 2002 to March 2003, for example, eight had an average E. coli count that violated the Massachusetts Minimum Standards for Bathing Beaches. High E. coli levels are not dangerous in themselves but they often indicate contamination from human or animal wastes, which make swimming and fishing in the river unsafe. One of the most polluted sites with the highest levels of fecal coliform bacteria was at Alewife Brook, just down the river from the Tufts campus. The MMN report said "all of the [10] sampling locations, except for Upper Mystic Lake and Mystic River at High Street, easily qualify as 'hot spots,' places with high levels of pollution, due to E. coli levels, total phosphorus, nitrate and nitrite and dissolved oxygen are of concern at several sites as well." Indeed, Harlow-Nash said swimming in the Mystic was "a long way off." The Mystic River Collaborative, a partnership between Tufts and the Mystic River Watershed Association, has set a goal to make the river swimmable in 2010, but Harlow-Nash said the group is currently reevaluating that goal. Despite recommendations against doing so, Harlow-Nash said "there are children that swim in the river, and there are families that fish there and eat the fish for dinner." Events like Saturday's are designed to get the word out to residents. "The cleaning we did wasn't always visible" due to the steeply-sloped shores of the Mystic River, sophomore participant Audrey Sherer said. "But it got the community involved in taking care of the river, which is huge," she said. Organizers also hope to plan a concert on the river. In addition to the Tufts chapter, Water Watch exists at 15 other colleges and universities in Massachusetts.

---

News

Alex Bloom | Philly Phodder

October 24

Let me first go on record to say that I called the Red Sox' improbable comeback over the New York Choke Artists ... I mean Yankees. You don't believe me? Go back and read last week's column. And now the Sox are in the World Series against a historically familiar foe. Both meetings between these two teams (1946, 1967) were seven-game affairs and both ended in St. Louis victories. So St. Louis has been the bearer of heartbreakingly bad news for this city twice. This year, the Cardinals steamrolled their way to a division title that was supposed to go to the lovable yet luckless Chicago Cubs. They are now the lone obstacle between the Red Sox and 86 years of redemption. And yet I still don't see how anyone outside of Wrigley Field can hate the St. Louis Cardinals. They are the team of the Wizard, Ozzie Smith. They're the lovable Redbirds. They are just too nice. Let's start with their manager. Tony La Russa is the Larry Brown of Major League Baseball. He's the professor, he's successful, and he's a smart baseball man. His managing career started before any undergraduate at this school was even born and he has over 2,000 wins and a World Series ring (1989 with the A's). He's a quiet guy who does his job well. Then there's the starting lineup. At first base: Albert Pujols. This is a guy who constantly produces and works hard. Sure he can't field that well (he's moved between left field, right field, third base, and first base) but he sure can hit. In four seasons, he has never hit worse than .314 and never less than 123 RBI and 34 HR. He keeps his mouth shut and plays. At second and shortstop: Tony Womack and Edgar Renteria. Renteria, whose claim to fame is winning Game 7 of the World Series in 1997 for the Marlins with a hit off of Jose Mesa, has gotten better with age in his six seasons with the Cardinals (.330 and 100 RBI last season, Gold Gloves the past two seasons). Womack helped the Diamondbacks beat the Choke Artists in 2001 and hit .307 this season, his first with the Cardinals. If you're a Boston fan, you can't hate anybody who's handed the Yankees a World Series loss. Some people forget that Womack was a Red Sox, until Boston traded him this Spring to St. Louis for a pair of scissors for Johnny Damon. At third: Scott Rolen. He's perhaps the best defensive third baseman since Hall of Famers Mike Schmidt and Brooks Robinson. He would have had more than five Gold Gloves if the Veterans Stadium turf didn't sideline him in 1999. He's a human highlight film at third, and he's not a bad hitter either with at least 100 RBI and 25 HR every season since 2001. In the outfield: Reggie Sanders, Jim Edmonds, and Larry Walker. Sanders has played for seven teams in seven years, but remains a dangerous bat. Edmonds, hitting behind Pujols, has become a very potent bat in recent years. Although most of Walker's career power numbers can be attributed to the Colorado climate, he still has 11 HR in 44 games with the Cardinals, as well as the Game 1 dinger. Besides causing convulsions for most pitchers, Walker and Edmonds each have six gold gloves and a ridiculous number of Web Gems. Catcher Mike Matheny does just that. He catches. He can't hit well or put up power numbers. But he has two Gold Gloves, and for those of you not keeping count, that's 16 Gold Gloves for the St. Louis defense. St. Louis doesn't have great pitching. Matt Morris and Woody Williams have been solid starters over the past few seasons. Jeff Suppan, the former Red Sox, was a steal this season, leading the pitching staff with 16 wins and guiding the Cardinals to the Series with a Game 7 victory. The bullpen, with guys like closer Jason Isringhausen, big Ray King, and the emotional Julian Tavarez (he and Kevin Brown have dugout tantrum therapy sessions together) tow the line. Nobody on that staff is perfect, but they do the job. After all, the team won 105 games this year. Then there are the fans and the ballpark. St. Louis arguably has the best fans in Major League Baseball. They are faithful and they worship their players. I found that out the hard way when my brother and I began booing during a 3-0 loss last season to the lowly Pirates. The Cards were terrible, yet we were the only ones in the entire stadium booing. They're a far cry from the Atlanta Braves, who win so much that fans don't even watch their postseason games anymore. They aren't the Houston Astros, who have the familiar foes of the Rocket and Petite, as well as the Killer B's, who by their name provoke anger. And they aren't the Dodgers, with their "smile for the camera" fans, who arrive in the 4th and leave by the 6th. Busch Stadium has gone from '60s cookie cutter to beautiful ballpark since its renovation. And with a location in walking distance from the Arch in the center of St. Louis, it's a fantastic place for a ballgame. I can understand hatred for the biased (and poor) broadcasting we'll be seeing from Fox's Joe Buck (the Cardinals flagship broadcaster) and Tim McCarver (former Cardinals player and member of the 1967 Champions). The Cards also win. A lot (winning records in the past five years, seven out of nine). Historically, they have eight World Series titles in 13 chances. But that still doesn't create much disdain for the organization, even here in Boston. If you ask me, this is a tough series to take sides on. I'm taking the centennial losers, but for that reason only. The Cardinals are a great organization with great players and I hate to see them disappointed. But this is the season for idiots. It's just not in the Cards this year.

---

News

Saj Pothiawala | The Saj of Tao

October 24

Tufts University, I have a friend to tell you about. No, it's not Evan Cochran. He doesn't snort cocaine in a bar in Boston, drive back to campus drunk, and then (presumably) have sex on the football field. And it's not Ben Hoffman. He isn't left-handed, he doesn't steal my references to the movie "Entrapment," and he doesn't take cues for his column from Fox. Seriously Ben, they've been using The Evil Empire analogy for two years now. Instead, the friend that I have to tell you about is a young man by the name of Karim bin-Humam. Karim is a tremendous human being. He is a kind, generous, intelligent person. He spends his weekends working with sick kids, volunteering at soup kitchens, and doing other things that I would never do. Karim is really the model of how an American should live his or her life. However, come Nov. 2, 2004, Karim will not be voting in the Presidential election. But why not? He is a legal resident of New York, proficient enough in English or Spanish to read the ballot, and maintains the requisite intelligence and sense of social responsibility to vote for John Kerry. So, why is Karim not voting in the upcoming United States Presidential election? It affects his life just as much as it affects the lives of anyone else in this country. Why, oh why? Because Karim is not an American citizen. Shocking isn't it? It's hard to believe a non-citizen could infiltrate our ranks and reap the benefits of the great American society. It's hard to believe that the decision made by our elected President (READ: not really elected) to send troops into Iraq to secure large reserves of oil to drive the price of gasoline down benefits Karim just as much as it benefits us. But it's even harder to believe that this courageous young man with intelligent, well thought-out opinions can have these same opinions tragically muted when it comes to making decisions on issues that often directly concern him. Our friend Karim has no political voice in the country in which he claims residence. But thank goodness I am here to tip the scales of injustice. I am, here and now, giving a voice to good old Karim and the many others in the same situation, and although the unfortunate voiceless have a slew of different views and beliefs, they share a simple message for the American citizens out there: VOTE. The privilege of being able to select one's leader is one many do not even have within our own borders, never mind in other parts of the world. Do not ignore the gift of such a seemingly fundamental right. However, there is an obstacle to this basic American responsibility. This obstacle is in the form of a disease much of America suffers from: Fat-lazy-take-everything-that-they-have-for-granted-itis. As with most medical terminology, the name does not seem to make sense to the layman, however it is basically an illness of the mind wherein the affected parties are fat, lazy, and take everything that they have for granted. In the last Presidential election, around 51 percent of the eligible voting populace cast their ballot. 51 percent. By contrast, 77 percent of viewers voted during the last American Idol. Is that what it takes America? Do you need to be able to vote from your couch with one hand on the remote and the other alternating between being in your pants and in a bowl of potato chips? Hell, for 2008 why not let the country vote for the President by text messaging Ryan Seacrest. Even a developing nation like India performed better than the United States when it came to electoral turnout. With 40 percent of its eligible voting populace living under the international poverty line, a much shabbier political infrastructure, and only 50-some-odd years of democracy under its belt, India had a voter turnout of 57 percent in their parliamentary elections earlier in 2004. But why vote, right? Surely one vote won't count. There are 200 to 250 million eligible voters in America. If half of them show up, that's 100 to 125 million ballots cast. One vote won't mean a thing, right? WRONG. To illustrate my point I will allude to what I like to call the Martin Prince Scenario. For those of you un-learned in the science of Simpsonsology, Martin Prince is a character on the show, and a classmate of Bart's. One episode focused on the Springfield Elementary fourth grade Presidential race. Our protagonist Bart was running against the aforementioned Martin. The polls closed at the end of recess, and in a shocking turn of events, Martin came out the victor. But why? Bart seemed like a shoo-in. He had the support of most of the class, had continuously strong showings in both the Gallup and CNN polls, and masterfully handled Martin in every debate. All these factors should obviously lead to a Simpson victory, correct? The answer, of course, was voter turnout. In the end, by a count of 2-0, Martin won the election as most of the class simply neglected to vote. After all, what good was Milhouse's or Nelson's vote if Bart was going to win anyway? So, ladies and gentlemen I implore you all to mail out those absentee ballots or head home for the day on that Tuesday to cast your vote. Vote for Bart Simpson, the candidate who suffered a grave injustice. Vote to undermine the success of American Idol. Vote to prevent India from being a more efficient democracy than us. But most importantly, vote for those who desperately want to, but cannot. Vote for Yemeni citizen Karim bin-Humam. Vote for Israeli citizen Oleg Svet. And vote for Brazilian supermodel Giselle who actually has been naturalized as a U.S. citizen, but cannot read the ballot. Oh yeah, and vote for John Kerry. Go Sox.

---

News

Jonathan Graham | Voice of the Daily

October 24

The Boston Herald's headline last week after the Red Sox's ALCS win was "Triumph and Tragedy," the Red Sox entry into the World Series contrasted with the death of an Emerson journalism student who had not yet turned 22 years old. Have things really gone this far? Complaints are normal that major city newspapers and even national ones ignore major issues in favor of fanning the flames of sports enthusiasts. The Tufts Daily ran such a thought just last week as a Viewpoint, a student who was upset that the New York Times had nothing better to report on its front page than the outcome of a baseball game. What kind of society do we live in when the triumph of winning a game can even compare to the needless death of a student, an innocent bystander? However, the Red Sox are an important part of many New Englanders lives, and I can understand the desire for a tabloid-style newspaper like the Herald to celebrate an event that has not happened since 1986. The Herald is dependant on newsstand sales, unlike papers like the Boston Globe or New York Times, which have higher subscription lists. How many people would have bought the Herald if its front page had no mention of the Sox? Of course, there was also the tasteless and horrible picture in the interior of the paper which had a vivid shot of the woman's disfigured face. It was this picture which offered no journalistic virtue, since the bloodiness of the event was already well documented in the article and in the front-page photo. The Boston Globe reported that it was this inside photo which resulted in the Herald issuing an editorial apology, and in Northeastern University's Student Government Association disallowing free issues of the Herald from being distributed on campus, as they are currently at Tufts. News organizations are based upon thousands of editorial decisions which have to balance a combination of business acumen, journalistic integrity, and good taste, many of which are rarely the same. Despite all the issues I have with the Herald's method of reporting the aftermath of the Red Sox ALCS "riots," I have even more issues with Northeastern University's decision to prevent a publication from distributing its content. If a newspaper does something you do not approve of, you have a right and often-times a duty to criticize its decision. You have a right to no longer read the publication because you do not trust what it says, or do not think that the newspaper has the same moral values as you do. But what you absolutely do not have a right to do is to prevent it from disseminating its ideas among the public. I chastise the Herald for its poorly thought through editorial decision which ignored ethics in the interest of sensationalism. The outcry from that decision and the loss of faith by Boston's public in the Herald's editors will serve them as a reminder in the future. To the student council at Northeastern University, I can only shake my head in amazement. God help Northeastern students if you ever decided that the Boston Phoenix is not respectful enough of George W. Bush. And I hope that none of you are ever elected into a real political position which allows you to censor something on a larger scale.

---

News

Football | Williams victory as Jumbos come up just one point short

October 24

It is often said that good football teams find a way to win. Unfortunately for the Tufts Jumbos, right now they seem to be finding ways to lose. Despite dominating most of the second half, the team lost by a single point, 10-9, to Williams on Saturday. The past 19 times the two team have met, Williams has won 17 and tied twice. The loss, Tufts' third straight, drops the Jumbos to 1-4. Williams moves to 4-1. In front of a large Parent's Weekend crowd, the two teams played to a scoreless first quarter. Late in the second, Williams took a 3-0 lead on a 32-yard field goal by Matt Gustafson. The score would stay that way until half time. Williams struck again on the first possession of the third quarter, driving 80 yards for a touchdown on a one-yard run by Timothy Crawley to extend the lead to 10-0. It was the last time Williams would score during the day, as Tufts put forth a strong defensive effort, led by senior Chris Lawrence and sophomore Chris Decembrele. Each recorded 12 tackles on the day. "Defensively, we played pretty well," sophomore safety Brett Holm said. "We obviously had a couple of letdowns, but that happens against good teams and we're just going to have to come back and play harder." Tufts answered the Williams score less than four minutes later, when senior quarterback Casey D'Annolfo found the end zone for his own one-yard score. D'Annolfo, making his first start of the season, had two big completions on the drive, which covered 56 yards on seven plays. He found sophomore Steve Menty over the middle for 32 yards to take the Jumbos to the Williams 19-yard line. Later he hit senior Kevin Holland for 12 yards to the 2-yard line. Two plays later D'Annolfo leapt over the line for the touchdown. Junior kicker Phil Scialdoni missed the extra point, however, leaving the score at 10-6. The miss would prove costly for the Jumbos. Late in the third quarter Tufts got the ball on the Williams 25-yard line after a weak punt and a penalty but was unable to score. After losing six yards on a sack, the Jumbos were forced to punt. In the fourth quarter, Tufts again received great field position when senior defensive end Josh Harris picked off a tipped pass by Williams quarterback Scott Gleeson. The Jumbos capitalized on the turnover, scoring on a 39-yard field goal by Scialdoni to make the score 10-9. The kick was Scialdoni's longest of the year. Tufts had another chance with less than seven minutes to go in the fourth, but penalties eventually put the Jumbos in a 3rd and 30 situation and they were forced to punt. Williams was able to run out the clock, converting on a fourth and inches with 3:19 to go. D'Annolfo finished 11 of 17 for 80 yards, and added 23 rushing yards. Sophomore Brian Cammuso gained 63 yards on 16 carries and Holland caught 4 passes for 36 yards. Crawley gained 143 yards on 38 carries for Williams. "We showed improvement from last week," sophomore defensive tackle John Chappell said. "But we made a lot of mistakes and it's tough to come so close and not pull out the win." The loss keeps the Jumbos in the basement of the NESCAC standings, and their season only gets more difficult this weekend when the team takes on 5-0 Amherst away on Saturday. "We're looking forward to getting out there and playing again," Holm said. "We just have to get back out there and give ourselves a better chance to win."

---

News

Graduate students continue push toward unionization

October 24

A controversial decision by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has called into question the status of Tufts teaching assistants (TAs), who are pushing for the third consecutive year to be recognized as University employees. The unionization process was stalled for about two years before the NLRB, a federal board of five judges that deals with labor union matters in the U.S., reversed itself this summer by ruling that TAs at Brown University could not unionize. In 2000, the NLRB had ruled that TAs at New York University (NYU) had the right to form unions. The issue is complicated by allegations of partisan voting in the recent Brown decision. In late September, Sen. Arlen Specter held a hearing on the issue in the subcommittee on labor and education for the Appropriations Committee. Based on this turnabout, the Tufts case, as well as similar cases at Columbia University and the University of Pennsylvania (U-Penn), was sent back to regional NLRB directors to be considered under the changed standards, according to The Chronicle of Higher Education. Little headway has been made by grad students at Tufts since April 2002, when the NLRB held an election in which Tufts 500 graduate students, recognized by the NLRB as "employees," voted yes or no for unionization. According to Joe Ramsey, a Ph.D. student and organizer for the Association of Student Employees at Tufts (ASET), he and other ASET members were "confident that, of the 70 percent of [graduate] students that voted, the majority voted yes." Yet the votes remain uncounted because Tufts filed an appeal immediately after the election that challenged the classification of graduate students as employees. The NLRB impounded the votes to prevent them from influencing the appeal. Tufts filed the appeal on the grounds that TAs should not be considered employees, but rather apprentices, who can be adequately paid with financial aid. But Ramsey says this argument is specious and that the "key evidence" against it is that Tufts would "have to hire outside help" if it were not for the TAs. He said TA positions are not apprenticeships because many TA's are required to work outside their areas of specialty. "My specialty is 20th century literature, but I am a teaching assistant in an 'Intro to Expository Writing' course," Ramsey said. Ramsey is among those concerned that the NLRB had changed its decision based on partisan reasoning as opposed to legal issues. At the Brown hearing, Wilma Liebman, a Democrat and the only current member of the NLRB who took part in the 2000 decision, argued against the outlawing unions. Liebman said the only thing that had changed between the NYU and Brown decisions was the composition of the board. The recent decision was three votes to two. In 2000, the decision was unanimous. Since then, the NLRB has lost four of its five members. Liebman said the unionization of TAs is fair and is in no way harmful to academics. "To return to precedents set 30 years ago will not change the current reality of universities," Liebman said. But supporters of the recent decision say that TAs are entitled to financial aid packages, rather than salaries. John Langel, a lawyer for U-Penn who testified at Specter's hearing, argued that TAs are not merely used as cheap labor by universities. "If university officials were looking for cheaper labor, they would find it in their adjunct instructors," he said. ASET members say they should be recognized as employees by the University, however, permitting them to unionize and secure healthcare coverage, salary increases, and improved housing benefits. "The salary increases [that a union could achieve] would help prevent the growing debts that many graduate students will face once they graduate," Ramsey said. Ramsey said as long as universities can avoid a contractual agreement with graduate students, there will not be a principle set for how much TAs earn. But other graduate students contend that unionization would hinder more than help them. The anti-unionization student group Why Have a Union at Tufts? (WHUT?) argues the benefits of unionization are outweighed by the disadvantages, including paying dues, conducting lengthy contract negotiations with the University, and possibly holding strikes. In the coming semester, ASET hopes to expand to every academic department on campus, and acquire a majority of "working" graduate students as members. In the last year and a half, ASET has collected over 150 signatures on a petition demanding the administration to recognize TAs as employees. The petition is still circulating. Organized in the fall of 2001, ASET started off as an informal group of graduate students who had heard about the 2000 NLRB decision allowing TAs to unionize at NYU and decided to act at Tufts.

---

News

Pickin' in Boston

October 24

The sleek, hip interior of the Roxy was transformed into a down-to-earth, rip-rollicking, overalls and grits hootenanny last Thursday night as Yonder Mountain String Band took the stage to play their brand of funky bluegrass for a bunch of gleeful hippies. Every synonym for happy can be used to describe the bluegrass of Yonder Mountain String Band. It's merry, festive, cheerful and joyful, without any pretense. There were no egos on the stage Thursday, just musicians that loved to play their instruments and were pleased that we all enjoyed listening. The band is composed of four zestful young men, all string players, without a drum in sight. Jeff Austin plays mandolin, Ben Kaufmann plucks bass, Dave Johnston is on banjo and Adam Aijala rounds things out with guitar. When they play together the result is frantic, energized, and rhythmic. Miraculously, without the use of any percussion whatsoever, they get the crowd to dance, albeit spastically. The band made everyone feel right at home, as if we were all invited to their barn on a sunny afternoon with barbeque served after the show. Kaufmann, raised in Massachusetts, sported a Schilling jersey and made sure to give props to the Red Sox Nation before daring to pluck a single string of his bass. Later, Austin would reveal that the band's next tour stop was New York, where he wasn't sure if he would be able to keep the band's promise not to rub the reversed-curse in any of those damn Yankees' faces. The night, however, was all about the music, which came in two rather long sets. The music started at 9:30 p.m. and the encore wasn't over until after midnight. While those not familiar with the bluegrass genre might find two and half hours of rhythmic plucking a bit monotonous, any similarity in songs will be quickly wiped out by the sheer intensity of the sounds the band generated. Every musician was extremely skilled at their instrument, picking complex melodies that weave together to form that distinctive bluegrass layered complexity. They would take turns playing solos cluttered with notes gliding up and down octaves with ease. Aijala's guitar was particularly memorable. Notes seemed to twang out it like it wasn't no thang. He would close his eyes and pick out complex melodic patterns that ricocheted joyously off of Kaufmann's syncopated bass lines and became interwoven in Johnston's plunking arpeggios, all while Austin kept a strict beat with the shrill strumming of his mandolin. For some songs, the band was joined by various friends: another guitar player traded solos with Aijala, trying to keep with his precision; another mandolin player who plunked out spiky harmonious solos that counterbalanced Austin's more rhythmic style; and a dobro player that looked like Alfred Molina, who provided a nice counter to the choppy style of the other players with legato musical lines that soared over the staccato picking of the ensemble. The crowd gathered onto the dance floor towards the stage, bobbing their heads and shuffling their feet to the music. The audience was mostly young, sporting comfortable clothes, the occasional dreadlock and lots of tie-dye. On the outskirts of the dance floor area people had room to dance about freely doing steps that ranged from what looked like a jig to what I like to call "the stoner stomp." It was clear that this was music that moved.

---

News

Sox fans try to survive without Nation

October 24

O, the agony and the ecstasy of the die-hard baseball fan who is studying abroad this season! From London to Tokyo, Red Sox devotees have managed to follow the unlikely success of their favorite team. "The games don't start until 1 a.m. and for the last games we have been up until 6 a.m.," said Nathan Papazian, who is studying with the Tufts in London Program at the University College London. "I took a nap all day, got up at 8 p.m., did some homework, then watched the game from 1 a.m. to 6 a.m., then got two hours of sleep and then had 9 a.m. lecture," he said. Papazian, who "cannot remember not loving the Red Sox," lamented the fact that he was out of the country during this momentous time in baseball. "It's awful," he said. "This was my one fear about studying abroad - that this would be the year the Red Sox won. And here they are in the World Series." Papazian said the British don't understand his enthusiasm for America's national pastime. "I have two flatmates ... and they just didn't get why we found it so interesting," he said. "I tried to explain that it was like a soccer match - Arsenal versus Manchester United - but they still didn't understand," Papazian said. American baseball is more important as a fashion statement than as a sports interest in London, according to junior Arun Brahmbhatt, who is also abroad with the Tufts in London program at the School of Oriental and African Studies. "Something else that is interesting is the huge number of people that wear Yankees apparel," Brahmbhatt said. "At first, you'd think that they are actual Yankees fans but if you ever stop to talk to them, you'll realize they know nothing about baseball." Brahmbhatt said the H&M stores in London sell Yankees hats. "It's the trendy thing to do." Sox fans are also disturbing their neighbors in Tuebingen, Germany, where Emily Kenney said her small cell of fellow fans watches the games over a sporadic Internet connection. "When the other Tufts kids come over and watch, we aren't exactly quiet at 4 a.m.," she said. "My neighbors don't always appreciate that," Kenney said. The recent success of the Sox gave Kenney important perspective on her real feelings about Boston, she said. "I miss it so much! I really wish I were home to experience all of it," she said. But American baseball does have a broad following in Japan, according to Hana Sato, a junior from Skidmore College who is abroad at the University of Tokyo. She said Yankee fans outnumber Red Sox fans in Japan, where Hideki Matsui, left fielder for the New York Yankees, is a national hero. "I see an awful lot of Yankees shirts, more than any other American sports team," she said. According to Sato, the Japanese also love the Seattle Mariners. "Seriously - every day I see men on the train reading newspapers and about the only Japanese I can understand is Ichiro [Suzuki, a player on the Mariners]." But Red Sox fans are doubtless the happiest - and the most pained - to be abroad this season. "The Red Sox nation has no boundaries - there are fans everywhere," Papazian said.

---