Skip to Content, Navigation, or Footer.

Archives

The Setonian
News

Great Show, Guilty Album

Fans of the Get Up Kids were treated to a blistering nineteen song alternative rock set Friday night at Axis. The band members, who were in Boston promoting their new album, "Guilt Show," presented the crowd with some of the best songs from their eight year career. Unfortunately, "Guilt Show" features neither the quality nor the intensity of Friday's show or on previous albums. The new album fails to live up to the high standard set by the group's past works. While the music lays down musically proficient beats and riffs, it lacks the depth and heart that has fostered a loyal fan base. The band kicked-off their introduction of "Guilt Show" with "Man of Conviction" While "Man of Conviction" works well live; on "Guilt Show" it misleads the listener. After this vigorous one minute and thirty-three second opener, the album never approaches the energy of its first song. "Man of Conviction" comes across as a contemporary The Get Up Kids song on speed, almost as if they played a three minute song in double time. This great, fast-paced opener unfortunately promises more than the rest of the album has to offer. It almost seems as though the Get Up Kids are using the song to say, "We can still rock. We can still write a punk song," to counteract any criticisms that they are aging or going soft. "On a Wire," the band's previous album, was the obligatory slow and introspective album. While it is excellent, it left most fans eager for the band to put down the acoustic guitars and throw in a few more screams. "Guilt Show" return's to the band's harder style, but there is a decided lack of emotion and urgency to the album. On songs like "Wouldn't Believe It" the band provides a bouncy tune complete with keyboard, but doesn't go anywhere until the end. Lead singer Matt Pryor does finally let go of the reins a little and release his snarl, but unfortunately these instances only appear at the end of songs or not all. Similarly, "In Your Sea," one of the album's best tracks, still comes off as a little too happy and whimsical. The song even has what sounds to be a xylophone, and features a series of "doodoodoos," which only makes the listener wonder why they cut out the birds chirping. Another disappointing part of the album is the relatively shallow lyrics. One of the hallmarks of the band has been their poignant, affecting words, but on "Guilt Show", the lyrics appear to be missing a degree of sincerity. The group's seemingly uplifted attitude is unfortunately reflected on the album as complacency. Often the lyrics feel artificial, and too often clich‚ lines like "will you save us?" are repeated over and over again. Highlights of the album include the piano heavy "Holy Roman," which includes a playful elevator music-like intro, and the moody, "Is There a Way Out?" The slow, whispering "Dark Night of the Soul," is also one of the album's best, along with "Martyr Me," an energetic pick me up after the desperate "Holy Roman." Despite the fact that "Guilt Show" doesn't meet the band's potential, there is still much of value in this album. On "Four Minute Mile", the listener can feel that the band members just tore through the songs until their fingers bled. This time around, it's easier to visualize the band sitting around discussing which keyboard to use. That kind of method is perfectly fine for some bands, but for the Get Up Kids, they are at their best when they give into raw emotion. This raw emotion is, however, still displayed on the stage. With their hour and a half set, complete with a three song encore, The Get Up Kids showed that while "Guilt Show" may not have proven that they can still lose themselves in the music, their live show certainly does.


The Setonian
News

Faults in Bush's constitutional amendment idea

I am relieved and happy to hear that the Massachusetts Supreme Court determined that consenting adults have the right to marry, regardless of gender. Though we, as a nation, have reached many milestones in the road to equality in the eyes of the law, it is unfortunate that road is still long and hard, since there are those who seek to take away our progress and hope. President Bush declared that he would support a U.S. Constitutional amendment to limit marriage between a man and a woman. He mentioned that centuries of history prove that the exclusiveness of marriage is necessary for social and familial stability. I equate this to an "If-it-isn't-broken-don't-fix-it" way of thinking, rather than a logical argument based on the ideal that all citizens should be blessed with fair and equitable treatment. I agree with the Massachusetts Supreme Court that the current definition of marriage is discriminatory, in the sense that the government has interest in civil marriage for the sake of encouraging procreation and family security. However, no government checks their reproductive potential or the intent of raising children before they are married. Therefore, it implies the reason for supporting civil marriage must not be essential to the definition of marriage and it leaves the validity of denying marriage to couples based on gender questionable. Despite the truth of this argument, I do not believe it hits the root of the issue. Whether or not gay marriage should be allowed should not be based on a technicality or by consensus of the general population. It should be determined by what is fundamentally right and true. If we believe that marriage is guaranteed for all, that love is essential for marriage, and if love is indeed exclusive, how can we deny anyone that loves each other the right to marry? If you are lucky enough to find someone to spend the rest of your life with, by all means marry that person. I try to read as many arguments as I can from pro-family supporters. The general ideas I see are similar to what President Bush uses to rationalize his position. In addition, they speak of gays and lesbians seeking to undermine the foundation of the family and that the sanctity of marriage must be protected at all cost. I find that accusation very offensive. First of all, it is crazy to think that gays and lesbians fight so hard for marriage for malicious reasons, when their motivation is the opposite. It is about protecting the person you love. The statement also may be interpreted as gay and lesbian couples are inherently not as nurturing to a family as heterosexual couples, and may distort the idea of family. I believe that family is so deeply rooted in our society, that no union of sound minded and loving individuals can hurt this ideal. In addition, gays and lesbians have not been given the chance to prove themselves nor should they have to. Lastly, I believe the sanctity of marriage does not lie in who you marry, but in promise to love and cherish each other, in sickness and in health, for rich or poor, until death do they part. If that promise is empty, then there is no sanctity in the marriage. For these reasons, I respectfully urge anyone who believes everyone should have the right to marry to fight the motion to amend the U.S. Constitution to ban gay marriage. It is not in the interest of family; it is not in the interest of protecting marriage. It will only perpetuate and rationalize injustice and inequality, polluting the very document that protects our liberty and inalienable rights. Andrew Kang is a senior majoring in mathematics.


The Setonian
News

ELBO appointments to proceed this week

Appointments to the Elections Board (ELBO) of the Tufts Community Union (TCU) will take place this coming week instead of earlier this semester, due to several logistical reasons. Departing ELBO Chair Abby Lillianfeld said that the elections in January disturbed the normal schedule. "We have to train a new ELBO, they can't run an election until they know what their doing." Lillianfeld said the delay was because lack of organization among those responsible. "It took a long time for group that appoints ELBO to get together." According to Lillianfeld, ELBO functions differently from other student groups, in that the members are appointed, not elected. All five current members will step down as soon as new members are nominated. The current members' year-long terms ended in January. Though they are allowed to stand for nomination again, none chose to do so, ELBO Public Relations officer Vinda Rao said. Tufts Community Union Judiciary (TCUJ) Chair Abby Moffat is organizing the students interested in running. "We'll get together next Wednesday night and talk to the kids who want to be on ELBO," she said. "If there are more than five then we'll actually have to make a decision." There are five seats on the board open to nomination, and though she did not disclose an actual number, Moffat said "some" students have contacted her. Rao explained that if there is not enough interest, the vacant seats will remain open until someone wishes to fill them. According to the TCU Constitution, "Two representatives from the CSL [Committee on Student Life], TCUJ, and the TCU Senate shall organize and administer the application process for appointing five officials to the Elections Board." It clarifies that, "if a vacancy should occur, the position shall be filled through a similar application process agreed upon by the TCU Senate, TCUJ and CSL." Appointments typically take place "at the beginning of the second academic semester," according to the TCU Constitution. However, since no new members have been appointed, Rao said that current ELBO members decided it would be in the best interest of the community for them to stay on until new members are appointed in order to help them. "Last year, [former ELBO Chair] Joe Coletti had just left to go abroad, but he had taken time to train Abby [Lillianfeld]," Rao said. "Because of this we were able to function more effectively. If it hadn't been for that, we would have been fish out of water." According to Rao, current ELBO members decided individually not to run again. "It was not necessarily a group decision, we were all questioning it at the end of last semester," she said. "When we all discussed doubts, we decided that the time was over." Rao described ELBO's work as relatively thankless and said that most members decided to leave because of this. "There were problems with students not understanding what we do, treating us badly, and blaming everything wrong on us. We were placed in a difficult position," she said. ELBO Vice Chair Jennifer Salluzzo said she quit out of disgust for TCU politics. 'Tufts student government is a bit too intense. Also, ELBO doesn't really get any respect," she said. "It's not just because of past problems -- there is a definite hierarchy associated with TCU politics." In the past there have been a number of problems with ELBO ranging from issues such as ballot stuffing to the group violating its own by-laws during elections. After TCU President Melissa Carson resigned last year, ELBO did not allow enough time before the second election.


The Setonian
News

Mock One Up

Hello again, baseball fans ... I hope you've had some time to pull yourself away from college hoops to get back to real sports -- by which I mean, of course, fantasy baseball. That's right, your whole team is down south right now at spring training camps, and you better be ready to pick 'em. Soon it will be draft time, the season will be ripe and you'll be thanking the heavens that you were able to steal Austin Kearns in the 17th round. To get those drafting juices flowing, I decided to get some buddies together and have a mock fantasy draft. I figured that this would be the best way to provide you readers out there with a guide for your teams. So let's get down to my draft review. The mock draft we did was based on a 12-team league with the traditional 5 x 5 fantasy categories. Due to space limitations, I am unable to display the complete draft results for you, but I'll do my best to highlight the surprises and key picks. The big shock of the first round was when Mark Prior went second overall after A-Rod. There's no doubt that Prior is going to be a superstar, but in truth, every starting pitcher, especially one who throws as many pitches as he does, is an injury risk, more so than a typical batter. Actually, Prior has already begun complaining about his achilles, which is a bad sign. Don't get me wrong, Prior will be sweet, but I would say that this pick was pre-mature with sure things Soriano (picked 3rd), Pujols (4), and Vlad (5) waiting in the wings. The early Prior pick began a race to nab up the handful of top pitchers, and they were all off the table by the end of the second round, which I think is usually too early. I would guess that the Pedro Martinez (10th pick), Curt Schilling (13), and Randy Johnson (24) owners are all feeling slightly uneasy right now that they spent such an early pick on major liabilities. But you never know. I was pleased to see Roy Halladay (9) go before any of them, and I think his owner can expect big things. Kerry Wood (17) also went surprisingly early, but in light of all the other pitchers being already snatched up, and the fact that he may be the only 250+ strikeout guy left out there, plus his ever-lowering ERA, I think that this was a wise pick-up. Aside from the pitcher craze, the next trend in the second and third rounds was getting those position players. Boone (18), Tejada (19), Rolen (21), Renteria (26), Chavez (27), Jeter (29), Kent (30), and Mike Lowell (33) all went right away, in pretty much the expected order. Jeter, though, went way too early, considering his stats could be easily replicated by Rafael Furcal (76), Orlando Cabrera (65), or even the young Angel Berroa (83), who went much later. The rush to fill positions left powerful outfielders Magglio Ordonez (20), Preston Wilson (22), and Sammy Sosa (25) all up for grabs later than their numbers should forecast. Furcal's owner took Lance Berkman (33) with his third round pick instead, and should be feeling very happy about those picks. The next big trend that took shape involved catchers, of which there are actually a few solid players available. This is always difficult to gauge, because the guys who get in early can get a huge edge at that position over almost all other competitors. Of course, the Mets fan in this draft took Piazza absurdly high (37) before the much better Posada (39), and I-Rod (47), both of whom also went in the fourth round. Question mark Javy Lopez, with a fluke season behind him, was the last good catcher to go, picked first in the fifth round. Another pattern to be aware of will revolve around closers. Yahoo! pre-ranks Eric Gagne as the number four overall pick, but this is stupid. There's no reason to jump the gun on closers (unless you really want Gagne) until someone else in your league does. Then hop on the train, and get one before they're gone. In this draft, they went in a pack, with Gagne (37), Foulke (44), Wagner (49), Smoltz (57), and Rivera (58) all snagged before anyone got a second chance. Some other picks of note: Garrett Anderson finally got the respect he deserves and went at the very end of the third round (35); Josh Beckett went late (50) for his potential; Esteban Loaiza (66) was unfairly avoided until the sixth round, with past-injured Mulder (67) and Matt Morris (76) as the next pitchers to follow; one drafter did a particularly good job of using the later rounds to take upside potentials Adam Dunn (15th round), Pat Burrell (18th), and Jody Gerut (23rd). Dmitri Young (13th round) went low as some decent trade bait, with third base eligibility; Carlos Lee also went very late (seventh round); one team ended up with some of last year's too-highly drafted, getting Glaus (fifth round), Shawn Green (eighth round), and Torii Hunter (tenth round) who will all be looking to have turnaround seasons (doubtful); the guy who suffered the curse of the first pick managed to get Randy Johnson as his second pick (24), which is probably the best he could have hoped for; other late pick sleepers were Aramiz Ramirez (ninth), David Ortiz (11th), Matt Lecroy (12th), Jose Guillen (16th) and Milton Bradley (17th). My concluding advice: get the best players available in the first two rounds, and hope that one of them can be your SS, 2B or at least a 1B. By the third and fourth rounds, you should look to get an early jump on starting pitchers, and then afterwards try to focus on filling your positions. Look to get some sweet later position picks in Marcus Giles (2B), Luis Castillo (2B), Morgan Ensberg (3B), Hank Blalock (3B), and Orlando Cabrera (SS). The outfielders will come later, there are plenty. As for closers and catchers, unless you use a fifth or sixth round pick on a star, it's no use worrying about them until the last rounds. Playing the waiver wire will keep you competitive at these spots. For the final rounds, go with your gut, risk it on potential sleepers, and you'll probably end up dropping them anyhow, but you never know who could turn into valuable trade bait. That's all for now, good luck!


The Setonian
News

Divisions surface on second day of Sudan conference

A rally to protest the invitation of one of the panelists defined the mood of the second day of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy's Sudan conference. The two-day event was titled "Sudan at the Crossroads: Transforming Generations of Civil War into Peace and Development" and featured a number of high-level U.S. and foreign officials involved in Sudan's peace negotiations. Friday morning's second panel, "Promoting Democratic Governance," included Dr. David Hoile, the director of the European-Sudanese Public Affairs Council. Prior to the panel, the American Anti-Slavery Group (AASG) and the student international relations activism group Why Me? led a rally in front of Barnum Hall to raise awareness of slavery and protest Hoile's inclusion. "We are here today to rally for peace, for truth in Sudan," AASG Chief of External Operations Tommy Calvert, Jr. (LA '02) said. According to Calvert, Hoile is a paid lobbyist for the Sudanese government, and worked for the Nicaraguan contras, the Afghan mujahedeen, and the governments of Angola and Mozambique. "Wherever they need to repress a people, David Hoile is there," Calvert said. Freshman Carolina Fowler questioned why the voices of Sudanese slaves were not included in either the conference or the ongoing peace talks between the Sudanese government and the Sudan People's Liberation Movement (SPLM) in Kenya. "They have been excluded from the peace talks and they're the ones who should have the most representation," she said. The government of Sudan and the SPLM are currently negotiating a comprehensive peace deal to settle the civil war between the predominantly Muslim North and the predominantly non-Muslim South that has plagued Sudan on and off for the past 50 years. Former Sudanese slave Abuk Bak also spoke at the rally, which approximately 30 students attended. After the rally, most participants proceeded to the conference to hear Hoile's panel. During the panel, Hoile identified several challenges to democratic governance in a post-peace Sudan, including the ongoing violence in the Western region of Darfur, Islamist attempts to overthrow the government in the North, and the questionable willingness of the SPLM to tolerate other political parties in the South. Another panelist, Dr. Peter Kok, a Southern Sudanese and the director of the Sudan-African Organization for Human Rights and the Rule of Law, spoke on issues that have not yet been decided at the current peace talks. These include issues of democratic governance, criteria for monitoring the implementation of interim steps, security arrangements, and wealth-sharing provisions. "The wealth-sharing agreement is not a fair agreement for people who want a united Sudan based on justice," Kok said. According to the peace negotiations, the South, which has the majority of Sudan's oil, is scheduled to hold a referendum in six years to decide whether to remain united with the North. Dr. David Chand, a professor at the University of Nebraska at Omaha and a former Southern Sudanese diplomat, redefined the civil war as an "Arab colonial war," and said the South has been neglected in wealth-sharing discussions. He said if the Sudanese government does not live up to its promises, the South would vote to be independent. "If the North wants one Sudan, there must be a secular, democratic constitution," he said. Suzanne Jambo, the coordinator of the New Sudanese Indigenous NGOs Network, addressed the role of civil society in transforming a warring populace into "normal people." She said cultural taboos, extreme poverty, militarization, and physical and food security will be challenges for the reemergence of civil society. "Peace is owned by the people, and the people are the ones who are going to multiply it," she said. During the question and answer session, junior Jonathan Teper asked Hoile, "Are you a lobbyist for the government of Sudan?" Hoile replied, "No, I'm not a lobbyist. I'm a consultant for several governments." After several questions by audience members about Hoile's role on the panel, Chand addressed Hoile directly. "Whenever you speak, you speak the mouth of the government," he said. "You are an employee of the Sudan government." Hoile did not respond to Chand, and when Sudanese Ambassador to the U.S. Khiddir Ahmed lined up to address the panel, possibly to address Hoile's employment by the Sudanese government, he was turned away by the moderator due to time constraints. In response to a question by a member of Why Me?, Jambo said "the conference really fell short by not inviting a slave" to sit on one of the panels. "Conferences tend to be too theoretical," she said, rather than addressing issues facing people on the ground. The fierce debate surrounding Hoile and comments made during the conference's final panel, "Promoting Strategic Coordination and Leadership," were a marked difference from the relative civility of the previous day's program. In the closing minutes of the question and answer session of the day's last panel, Ahmed said the largely Southern Sudanese audience should feel lucky to be in the United States. Irate audience members jumped to their feet, shouting, "Why do you think we're here?" and "You threw us out of our homes." At that point, panel moderator and Fletcher Professor Diana Chigas ended the panel so the conference's organizers could give their closing remarks. The morning's keynote speech, by Acting U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Charles Snyder, drew the smallest amount of reaction of the day. Snyder addressed the United States' role as a partner to the peace talks sponsored by the Inter-Governmental Authority on Development (IGAD). "We wanted Sudan to become an island of stability as opposed to an island of instability," he said. Snyder said the Bush Administration was focused on Sudan before Sept. 11, 2001, and that U.S. involvement in the peace process was not motivated by the war on terrorism. "We think the [Sudanese] South is more aggrieved," Snyder said of the U.S. position in negotiations. He said the United States is fair in its dealings, but "we've never pretended we were neutral." Snyder said the State Department would request from Congress an amount of money in the hundreds of millions of dollars to help Sudan implement a peace deal. He also said the United States would work to restructure Sudan's massive international debt, seen by many as the primary stumbling block to reconstruction. He also said the United States would probably establish a consulate in Juba to run humanitarian aid programs in the South. According to Snyder, the U.S. Agency for International Development, the European Union, the other IGAD partners, and the Arab League are all equally willing to commit money to implement a peace deal. "The money is there," he said. Snyder closed his speech by saying "I just said publicly we'd do all these things -- hold us to it."


The Setonian
News

Coalition faces time of change, re-organization

Six years ago, the Coalition for Social Justice and Nonviolence formed with the intent of centralizing communication between progressive groups on campus. The outcome has been somewhat disappointing, with the Coalition seeming to have essentially ceased to be a physical entity on campus. Officially, the coalition aims to provide "administrative, organizational, and financial" support to groups, but what this means has constantly evolved. Based on interviews with past and current members, the group has been both hindered and helped by its changing identity and decentralized nature. At a Feb. 26 meeting -- at which only three people attended -- the members agreed it was time for a change. A message sent out to the Coalition's e-mail list that day said the group will continue to be active only through the e-mail list and as a "slush fund for other organizations." There will be no more physical gatherings, although members are continuing to correspond online and work for individual issues. Meetings can occur if members of the organization request them. This could present a problem for the future of the organization. In order to maintain status as a recognized group by the TCU Judiciary (TCUJ), the Coalition needs to uphold certain requirements for re-recognition, which include membership and proof of recent activities. "A group cannot exist under the TCU if it does not hold meetings or plan events," TCUJ new-group recognition chair Jordana Starr said. The Coalition, along with half of all TCU student organizations, will be considered by the TCUJ for re-recognition this year. Starr said that, "if the Coalition is serving as an executive board for a number of subgroups, that's one thing, but if the Coalition intends to have no purpose other than handing out money to other groups, then it's completely different." The group's new signatory for funding requests, freshman Nicolas Ojeda, did not return calls for comment. As the Coalition's problems have evolved over the years, there have been new initiatives to try and transform the group. Recently the organization has served as an incubator for new groups, including the Tufts Coalition to Oppose the War in Iraq (TCOWi), which operates out of the Coalition. Senior Emily Good said it was "important for the [Coalition] to serve as an umbrella for a lot of smaller groups." Good was heavily involved with the Coalition for the last two years, but has had limited involvement this academic year. Sophomore Phil Martin, who is on the Coalition's e-mail list, said TCOWi is an example of a group that "sprang up" when a new issue arose. TCOWi is not recognized by the TCU as a student organization. Martin said this was because the group included students and professors, and was therefore ineligible to receive student activity fee monies. The Student Labor Action Movement (SLAM) is another group without University recognition that communicates with the Coalition. "Having to go through the actual process, through the J, would take away from the central objective which is to fight for the custodian's rights," SLAM Coordinator Ariana Flores said. The group relies on the Coalition to reserve room space and provide some co-sponsorship. SLAM also pays some expenses out of pocket. The experience of TCOWi and SLAM are what some students said has been the typical cycle of campus progressive groups. "I would say the driving force has been from the bottom-up," for new progressive organizations graduate student Joe Ramsey said. Ramsey has been involved with Coalition for several years, and is still active in TCOWi. He pointed to the reemergence of SLAM and the revival of the Tufts chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) as signs of the continuing health of left-leaning organizations on campus. On a similar note, Martin said even though the campus is currently without a general group to address liberal issues, it does not mean the campus would not benefit from the creation of one. "I think a generic, more all-purpose group would be a great addition to student activities at Tufts," Martin said, "but I don't think that's what the Coalition is." The Coalition's new identity maintains the group's focus as an organization that encourages communication between other progressive organizations. This new focus, however, departs from the Coalition's current constitution. Former Coalition member Calvin Metcalf said the document was "lost" for some time last semester until he was able to locate it. The constitution states that the Coalition will "create a database for both the issues and the organizations addressing these issues." The group is also supposed "to increase awareness around issues of violence, both structural and physical, especially during 1998, the Year of Nonviolence." There are supposed to be monthly meetings with representatives from the seven original organizations, which have not occurred. The organizations included in the constitution are the Environmental Consciousness Outreach (ECO), Hillel Social Action Committee, Oxfam Collective, Pan-African Alliance, Students for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (SETA), and the Tufts Transgendered, Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Community (TTLGBC), The group's web site lists 15 organizations in contact with the Coalition, but it has not been updated since 2001. Metcalf said that part of the group's problems may be the non-hierarchical nature of the organization. Metcalf has worked with several groups that maintain relations with the Coalition, including the Secular Students Association (SSA) and the left-wing magazine Radix. When Metcalf tried to screen a social-justice related film for the Coalition last semester he was confounded by the Coalition's poor organization. Metcalf eventually decided to leave the Coalition and not hold the screening, concentrating on other organizations, including the SSA. The Coalition's inactivity was not always a problem. In the fall of 2002, the group organized a trip to Washington, D.C. to participate in protests against the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank meetings. In 2001, the group also traveled to a Georgia military training facility for Latin American soldiers where 15 of the 32 students, some of whom were from other schools, were arrested for trespassing. During its inaugural year, the Coalition attempted to bring prominent race-relations activist and Princeton professor Cornell West to speak at the University, an action that was blocked by the Tufts Community Union (TCU) Senate. Sasha Baltins (LA '99), Coalition founder and former co-chair, said in a 1998 interview with the Daily that the group should concentrate on "specific issues," while dealing with the interests of different groups. "The newsletter and monthly meetings between groups in the activist network would promote the longevity of activism and non-violence," she said.



The Setonian
News

Jumbos open season with rout of MIT

If the men's lacrosse team's convincing 16-4 victory over the MIT Engineers on Saturday is any indication of what is to come for the 2004 season, the 20th nationally ranked Jumbos have an exciting two months ahead. Junior attackman Bryan Griffin, the reigning New England player of the year, led the way for Tufts with four goals and six assists adding up to ten points. "I was really impressed with the way Bryan played," senior tri-captain Tom Mulcahy said. "He really let the game come to him; he didn't press it or push it at all. [MIT] was playing him pretty hard because they know who he is, but he was dishing it off and letting other people score. He had a great game." Griffin helped start the Jumbo barrage when the team came blazing out of the gate in the first half. Tufts knocked MIT on its heels and pushed the score to 2-0 after just one minute and 19 seconds. Griffin initiated the assault with his first goal of game, which was promptly followed by sophomore Mike O'Brien's tally about a minute later. After this quick beginning, the scoring abated until MIT cut Tufts' lead in half with a man-up goal by Jonathan Stolmeier off an assist by Scott Purchase with 1:03 left in the first quarter. However, this 2-1 score was as close as the Engineers would come to the surging Jumbos. "We got a little flat [in the middle of the first half]," Mulcahy said. "Once we got the first game kinks out, we starting scoring more." Tufts posted five unanswered goals in the second period. MIT eeked one out with 44 seconds remaining in the first half, but never managed to claw its way back into the contest. The Jumbos continued to build their lead with a dominant third quarter. Freshman Mark Warner broke into his collegiate career with back-to-back goals contributing to the six the Jumbos scored in the quarter. "The third quarter was when we really got comfortable," Mulcahy said. "We were getting a lot of looks in the first half, but we didn't finish a lot of shots. They just started falling for us in the third." Junior goalie Luke Chicco helped keep the Engineer offense at bay, making ten saves in the cage and picking up his first win of the season. MIT goalie Christopher Ng was not as successful despite making 22 stops as the Jumbos fired in from all sides. "We scored goals in a lot of different ways," Mulcahy said. "It wasn't just our attack or our offensive middies; our defensive middies got some and we scored both settled and unsettled goals." Warner, along with Mulcahy and classman David Taylor all scored twice for Tufts. Six other players managed to put the ball in the back of the cage as well making the win a total team effort. "It's good to know we don't have to rely on just one or two people to put the ball in the net for us," Mulcahy said. "We were pretty calm and confident." The team will suit up again on Wednesday to take on Eastern Connecticut College at Endicott College in Beverley, MA. Until then, the Jumbos will continue to work on fine tuning fundamental skills and getting back into the swing of the season. "Eastern Connecticut State will be better than MIT was," Mulcahy said. "We were having a little trouble matching up and figuring out what [MIT] was doing, so we'll work on that. We're picking up right where we left off last season."


The Setonian
News

Monday's author strikes back

As someone who writes some pretty opinionated stuff, I am fully aware and accepting of the idea that people may disagree with me, and may respond to my columns in the format of a viewpoint. As a result, I have never used a response to one of my columns as the basis for another column. Simply put, there's no point to an endless back-and-forth on the Viewpoints page. However, this week I will make an exception. For in her viewpoint ("Students for Kerry Respond" March 10 ), Elizabeth Richardson went beyond disagreeing with my ideas about the campaign of her candidate of choice John Kerry, and actually challenged my motivation and right to write about those ideas. I think her piece of press release-prose can teach us a lot about how we handle controversy on campus. I would love to see John Kerry in the White House instead of George W. Bush. However, I find the attitude of many of his supporters so offensive that I cannot work on his campaign. That's a bad thing, and maybe something Kerry supporters should think about that. Perhaps instead of rushing to judgment, and labeling me as "misdirected," actually think about why I, a committed Democrat, cannot get excited about my party's likely Presidential nominee. Because there are other people who may actually vote for someone else because they're bored to tears by your candidate and are revolted by the swarm and political polish that even his student volunteers emanate. Most people don't write viewpoints just to piss people off. They have something to say, often something that has not been said before in a public space. So maybe we should actually consider the arguments people make on this page, because they're writing because they want to see change. But people on this campus have a knee-jerk reaction to criticism and opposing views. If someone says something you don't agree with, the first thing to do is write a viewpoint back, tearing that person apart. Yes, I say tearing the person, and not their ideas. Too often, the debates on this page and on this campus quickly become personal. Strangely, in response to my own columns, more students on the left (particularly the middle "New Democrat" left) have attacked me via e-mail and verbal criticism, even though I clearly am no conservative. Conservative students on this campus, though, have disagreed with me with respect, recognizing the validity of my writing to express my views. I have actually been told by some of my self-identified 'liberal' friends that I should stop writing, because I'm "pissing people off." Perhaps my style as a columnist has not been abundantly clear this year. As a columnist with the Daily, I feel it is my obligation to share my feelings on topics of current interest. They can be liberal, conservative, political, humorous, whatever. I have never written in this column about a personal issue, and I never will. I will never discuss someone who has not chosen to be in the public limelight. But, if you do something in public, and I disagree with you, and no one else seems to be calling you on it, you should bet on the fact that I will be talking about you come Monday. I would not be a responsible journalist if I didn't. There are some people in life that will talk about what they are really feeling about an issue. In fact, there are some people who think it is their responsibility to share their true thoughts. Then, there are people who think that you should only speak out if no one will be offended and if no potential votes are lost. I am in the former. The people I've met in the Kerry campaign are in the latter. To call the hostility expressed in last week's column 'misdirected' is simply wrong, because it is the supporters of Kerry that I dislike. I don't know John Kerry personally. I do know many of his supporters on this campus. And I don't agree with their political philosophies. I just don't like them. So November for me will be a choice of the lesser of two evils. The question that I grapple with, though, is whether it is fair to judge a presidential candidate by the people he surrounds himself with. This was the reasoning behind my inclusion of Jeanne Shaheen in last week's piece. Presidents appoint a lot of people who have direct control of government projects and agencies. When we vote for a presidential candidate, we do not vote for one man. We vote for a regime. And let's face it: many student supporters of Kerry would love to be part of that regime. In my life, I have seen that the only way to affect change is usually by making a stink about the situation. It is my hope that in commenting on what I see as problems on this campus, I will affect some change. Students for Kerry shouldn't feel singled out (not just because I never mentioned their organization). I've criticized numerous people and organizations on this page. That doesn't mean I want to see them fail. If I did, I wouldn't waste my time and yours by writing about them. Think about it: if a pundit talked about Kerry's moderate-ness and lack of dynamism, you wouldn't write a letter to the network berating the pundit. People would listen, including those in the Kerry campaign. Bottom line: nobody's perfect, we could all benefit from listening to criticism now and then. Adam Pulver is a junior majoring in political science and community health. He can be reached at Pulver@tuftsdaily.com.


The Setonian
News

Students search for answers on student government's political makeup

Despite the rumors, student leaders say that there is no vast, right-wing conspiracy at Tufts. Members of the Tufts Community Union Judiciary (TCUJ), Committee on Student Life (CSL) and TCU Senate say fears of ideological tilts in the student government are exaggerated and unwarranted. Most of the uproar has been confined to the TCUJ, where two campus conservatives, sophomores Jordana Starr and Nicholas Boyd, are both serving their first terms. Starr and Boyd are both on the masthead of the conservative publication The Primary Source and members of the Tufts Republicans. The two conservatives serve on the judicial court of a school that identifies itself as overwhelming liberal. According to a March 3 Daily poll, 67 percent of students plan to vote for the Democratic presidential candidate, while only ten percent plan to vote for Republican President George W. Bush. Rather than interpreting Starr and Boyd's positions on the TCUJ as signs of a larger conservative campus takeover, the consensus among those involved in student government is that the situation is the result of student interest in campus politics. "The inaction on the left points to a general problem of student government apathy," TCU Senate President Chike Aguh said. Last spring, the TCUJ was unable to find enough candidates to fill the open spots -- two had to be filled through special elections in the fall. Michael Douglas (LA '03) ran for re-election even though he was going to graduate in December because he would not be "depriving anyone" by serving, he said at the time. Both the Judiciary and CSL serve one-year terms, with elections in April. Source Editor in Chief Brandon Balkind saw the lack of any opposing candidates as signs of apathy on behalf of only the left. "I think that liberal groups haven't even shown effort to put up a candidate," he said. But liberals feel that there is more to it than just apathy. Laurel Powers, a member of Radix, Tufts' publication of "radical thought" felt that if liberals are not involved it sometimes has to do with the nature of the student government bodies. "Some people chose not to participate in the TCUJ because of its hierarchical power structure and some did not because they devote their energy towards student groups that align with their interests and ideals better," she said. According to Powers, examples of such groups include Student Labor Action Group (SLAM), Radix, Coalition for Social Justice and Nonviolence, Tufts Transgendered Lesbian Gay and Bisexual Collective (TTLGBC), and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Founder of the Secular Students Association (SSA) Calvin Metcalf said that the lack of representation may have to do with liberals' disorganization. "Prominent liberal groups do not have any hierarchy," he said, "though this sounds nice, [they] never get anything done." Radix and the Coalition for Social Justice and Non-Violence, two progressive groups, are bound by their constitutions not to appoint a president or editor-in-chief. Powers added that the "generalized left consists of everything from Democrats to socialists to anarchists, I'm sure everyone has a different reason for nonparticipation in student government." Metcalf also said Radix is seen as having a more extremist impression on campus than the Primary Source. If the publication were to support a candidate, he would be seen as 'radical'," Metcalf said. Source members and other conservatives identified other reasons why they have joined the student government. "The right faces a big challenge," Boyd said, "we are in the minority, the only way we perceive to achieve our goals is to work through the system." He added that "part of conservatism is orderliness and following law." Boyd founded the Tufts Right to Bear Arms Club (TRA) last semester which was recognized by the TCUJ -- a vote which he recused himself from. Regardless of its influence on his joining the board, he said ideology does not reflect on the decision making process. "It is rare that politics becomes an issue," Boyd said. Other members of judiciary felt similarly. "The current members seem to confront each case on a case-by-case basis, determining their judgments solely based on the information that has been presented," said CSL member Tyler Duckworth, who identifies himself politically as a liberal. CSL co-chair Barbara Grossman agreed with Duckworth. "We don't necessarily go into meetings or hearings, with an agenda. We do our best to be open-minded, fair, listen, carefully consider the information given, review the information, and to make the best decision possible," she said. Two years ago, the CSL had four Primary Source members for its five student positions. Because of the singular nature of that year's board and disputes between campus liberals and conservatives, the race for the 2002-2003 CSL drew 11 candidates. The resulting body had a student chair, Sam Dangremond, who was a former editor-in-chief of the Source, but overall very mixed representation. Other members included Stacy Ulrich, who was co-coordinator of the TTLGBC, and ACLU member Will Wittels. Duckworth said the board is much different this year. "There are two openly gay members, which obviously contrasts from the make-up of the organization a few years ago," he said. Grossman said any political slant of the body is purely coincidental. "People gravitate to the CSL because they care about University community and care about students," she said. If people are not satisfied with these explanations, Aguh offered one solution. "If people who feel that bodies are slanted a way that they don't agree with, they should run," he said.


The Setonian
News

Conserving energy by restricting immigration?

Is restricting immigration an effective way to confront environmental problems? The Sierra Club is currently divided in opinion and their upcoming election has brought the issue to a head. In 1998, the Sierra Club membership voted to take no position on US immigration policy. Some members not in accordance with the majority vote, however, organized themselves in a loose coalition called Sierrans for US Population Stabilization (SUSPS). Last year, the Sierra Club membership elected two SUSPS-endorsed candidates to the national board of directors, Wisconsin Secretary of State Doug LaFollette (D) and Paul Watson, founder and president of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. What does immigration have to do with the environment? According to the SUSPS, because the United States uses more energy than other nations, allowing more people into the country would simply exacerbate our problem of over-consumption, increasing the rate by which we exhaust resources. On the 2004 Sierra Club ballot for the board of directors, there are new candidates that support stricter immigration regulation in accordance with the SUSPS. These candidates include Richard Lamm, former Democratic governor of Colorado, David Pimentel, a Cornell University ecologist, and Frank Morris, former executive director of the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation. Biology Professor George Ellmore feels that restricting immigration for the sake of environmental concerns runs the risk of "developing a practice of environmental racism." "The Sierra Club appears to be using environmental rationale to justify a conservative agenda," Ellmore said. "It's as if they're picking on immigrants instead of putting pressure on corporate America to behave more responsibly." "How would the Sierra Club feel about exchanging immigrants for CEO's of large polluting companies?" Ellmore asked in response to members of Sierra Club's stance on immigration. On its website, SUSPS states that it supports "US population stabilization purely for ecological reasons." The group stresses the importance of overpopulation, not only on a worldwide level, but also on a national level. "Only by confronting birth rates and mass migration as the root causes of US population growth will we be able to ensure sustainability for future generations -- of all species," according to SUSPS website. In a forum by the Sierra Club, candidates responded to questions on several issues, including immigration. Candidate Dick Lamm supports limiting immigration into the US for environmental reasons. "Current Club policy calls for stabilization of the population, first of the United States and then the world, since population growth exacerbates all the environmental problems," he wrote. "I support this viewpoint and support the Club policy added in 1999, a call for reduction in the population of the United States. The only way to reduce population is for the combination of birth and immigration rates to be less than death and emigration rates. No other way is possible, and anyone who says otherwise does not understand fundamental demography." SUSPS believes that the Sierra Club is too concerned with political issues instead of environmental issues. As it states on its website, "SUSPS demands that the Sierra Club stop placing political sensitivities ahead of the environment and begin addressing migration levels and birthrates in the US." Sophomore Daniela Mauro disagrees with the SUSPS argument for immigration restriction. "It's a bogus platform," she said. Sophomore and Environmental Studies major Chelsea Bardot feels that the bigger issue is not immigration, but how countries of different economic levels consume. "Developing countries have less efficient methods of extracting energy," she said. "People will consume no matter where they live. At least in the United States there is room for change -- we can move toward more efficient practices. In poorer countries survival is the primary concern." Other students feel that immigration restrictions involve issues other than the environment. "I don't necessarily think that immigration should be restricted, but immigrants should be aware that the US does not have the economic capacity to take care of them; chances are they will have a difficult time," sophomore Elizabeth Halperin said. Sophomore Kristen Cassazza is for limiting immigration in the US, but not for the same reasons as the SUSPS. "I'm not sure how much immigration relates to [our use of natural] resources," she said. "I have more problems with immigrations policies for economic reasons and national security reasons than the environment." In a recent issue of Grist magazine, writer Bill McKibben expressed an ethical consideration regarding the restriction of immigration on the basis of environmental caution. "In some sense it's our moral duty to let lots of people in, since we've so carefully rigged the rules of world trade to keep most of the rest of the planet incredibly poor," McKibben said. Anti-immigrant and white supremacist groups have taken an interest in the upcoming Sierra Club election, though Sierra Club board candidates have denied any involvement with these groups. SUSPS denies any support from people who have racial motives for reducing immigration, and says that as an organization it espouses both biodiversity and cultural diversity. In response to concern regarding this issue, the board recently approved an "Urgent Election Notice" to be attached to the 2004 ballot, which will be mailed this week. The notice provides a list of organizations, including white supremacist groups, that have expressed interest in the impending election. Included is a qualifying statement made by the Sierra Club: "It appears that non-environmental groups are trying to take advantage of the Sierra Club's open and democratic nature to influence the composition of our board of directors and our policies... Please cast your vote in this year's election as a means of demonstrating to outside groups that they cannot influence our organization." The current Sierra Club board has agreed to another membership vote on US immigration policy in 2005.


The Setonian
News

All grown up: Special Friends return to program

When she was in first grade, freshman Elizabeth Brown was given the opportunity to be the flower girl and ring-bearer at her "special friend's" wedding. Little did she know that 11 years later, she herself would become a volunteer in the Tufts Educational Day Care Center's Special Friends program. The Special Friends program matches one Tufts student with each child at the Center. The goal is to give every child the opportunity to spend time alone with an adult without having to share his or her attention. "I just enjoyed it so much when I was little that I wanted to experience it from the other side and give another child that experience" Brown said. She is not alone. There are three other Tufts students -- all of whom are former Center students -- who volunteer along with Brown. "They aren't the first by any means," Center coordinator Janet Zellar said. "We have many students over the years who have returned after being here in our pre-school and kindergarten to be special friends." Corianne Babonis, a teacher at the Center, thinks the returning students bring something very special to the program. "It's a complete role reversal. They are giving back to the children something that really touched their lives and made a difference in their lives," she said. Volunteers from Tufts -- 95 percent of who are undergraduates and five percent graduate students according Zeller -- visit the Center for a minimum of two hours a week. That time is spent in whatever manner the child desires. "It's the child that gets to be in charge, which is unique in terms of relationships kids have with adults," Zellar said. "It's a shared power relationship -- the child and the special friend are equal." "To have a relationship with an adult who is just there for them is really special," Babonis said. As a child, former center student and current sophomore Stower Beals says he was full of energy. "I was the kid who would never nap at naptime," he said. So, his special friend would bring him to the Tufts tennis courts and play with him while all the other kids were fast asleep. "It was really meaningful," Beals said. Upon arriving at Tufts, Beals recalled the impact the program had on his childhood. "I believe the goals of the program really worked for me as a child so I wanted to give that back to another child," he explained. He became a special friend last semester and finds it to be beneficial himself now as a college student. "I get to kind of forget about everything for a couple hours, interact with kids and be a kid again," he said. Brown also finds benefits of the program as a volunteer. "When you enter the classroom the look on the kids' faces is priceless. They are so excited to see you," she said. The connections made between the Tufts students and the children are substantial. Brown is still in contact with her special friend. "When I got into Tufts I wrote to my special friend and told her I was going to be a special friend," she said. After being paired with a child, Brown sent a picture of them to her former special friend. In return, Brown received a similar picture from her own time at the Center. Senior Lily Ladewig decided to volunteer at the request of her cousin, whose son attends the Center. "My cousin contacted me to see if I wanted to be Jake's special friend," Ladewig said. "I agreed because I thought it would be really fun to play with my cousin every week. It has given me time to get to know [him] better." "There are very unique aspects to the program that each individual gets," Brown said. "You are more than a babysitter. You are a friend; you're sharing time with this person." Beals echoes her sentiment. "I encourage other people to join," he said. "It just gives you something special."


The Setonian
News

One student's reactions to March 11 living in Spain

After a tear-filled morning full of nauseating images flashing across my TV screen here in Spain, I can't take the suffering anymore. It's March 11, 2004, exactly two and a half years after a similar day in a similar country somewhere on the other side of this world, and I've escaped momentarily into a small bedroom offered up to me for the year by my host family here in Madrid. I turn on my computer and pop on a CD to drown out the sirens echoing in my head. What is happening to us, I wonder, and R.E.M. responds. "It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine." -- Such timing they have. Another terrorist bloodbath. Simultaneous explosions. Various coordinated points of attack. Carnage. Devastation. Disbelief. Another breakfast served with a side of tragedy. More murder to digest. The TV flashes images of dazed victims on the sidewalks. Bloodied bodies lying face down under sheets. Debris blown yards away by the blasts. Scattered limbs. Neighbors run with water, bandages. They throw blankets from their balconies. There is hugging, weeping. Confusion reigns. The phone lines are down. Ambulances can't get through the streets. We only have the TV. At 8:30 a.m. the first estimates are for 20 or 30 "muertos," but the numbers are rising like the sun in the sky. By 11 a.m. the news is broadcasting 60, 75? With many more seriously wounded. By 13:00 they're saying over 100 dead. But that's soon 134, 138, and climbing. We hear that ETA terrorists have planted multiple bombs on trains at the Atocha, Santa Eugenia, and El Pozo stations. They_ve targeted cars on the line going south out of the center of Madrid towards Alcala de Henares. The first explosion occurs at 7:35 a.m., rush hour. There are others. The police find more explosives in abandoned backpacks at the scene and immediately explode these at a safe distance. All of the news stations are broadcasting the same witness testimonies. Explosions. Screaming. People throwing themselves to the floor. Train parts flying into the air. The doors are blown off their hinges. Shouting. Running. Bodies are pulled from the rubble. A pregnant woman is rescued but in critical condition. A surviving seven month old baby is found alone in a train wagon. Nearby, a father is still waiting to hear from his daughter. He fears the worst. People rush to donate blood. The hospitals are inundated with victims, donors, family members hoping for news. People are asked to go back to their houses, to stay off their cell phones. Transportation is strained. Victims should walk to hospitals or take cabs if they are able. Cars are lined up to get out of the city. More people are gathering in the city center. They are demonstrating for peace in Puerta del Sol. "Basta Ya," they shout, "Enough already!" The 11 of March has been declared the Day for Victims of Terrorism in Europe. Party leaders are giving political speeches. "We will never negotiate with terrorists." ETA members in prison are said to be cheering at the news of all this destruction. Now we hear 186 dead. Over 1,000 wounded. But I feel fine. I'm thinking... at least my family doesn't live in this city... at least it wasn't the hour when Tufts-in-Madrid students would normally be taking the trains to school... at least friends living nearby weren't injured in the blasts, even if their houses did shake... at least anyone I know wouldn't have been going south out of those stations... at least it wasn't another airplane... at least the numbers aren't in the thousands... At least, at least...At least it wasn't like Sept. 11. At least it wasn't one of us. I feel fine. I feel fine. Really... Only I don't. Because it was. It was one of us. It was all of us. And it's all of us again. I'm tired of excuses and "at leasts". There is no justifying the acts of monsters. And there's no ignoring, no escaping, or forgetting. Two and a half years later, I've crossed an ocean and moved my world to another continent, but it's really not that different. It's still the same scary, chaotic world. It's old news now that single murders no longer make the front page. But now, we've started thinking in triple digits. 186 in Madrid is at least not 3,000 in New York -- and at least that's not the originally estimated 10,000. We're growing harder and harder to impress. Today, amidst all the chaos and terror dominating my television, the most disturbing image was the calmness out my bedroom window. In my neighborhood, people are out taking their dogs for strolls, delivery trucks are pulling up with barrels of beer for the upcoming weekend, restaurants are readying for the mid-day meal. We say we have to go on living our normal lives. But normal is different these days. The world has changed. Or, at least... we've changed within it. And that's just not the kind of fine I want to feel. Erika Langer is a junior majoring in international relations.


The Setonian
News

The search for perfect pants

On a recent shopping excursion, I made an unsettling discovery. I was searching for a pair of basic chinos that I could dress up or down, but I could not find that perfect blend of style, comfort, and quality that I longed for. Apparently, good pants no longer exist. Or if they do, they are few and far between. How does one judge a pair of pants? Everyone has an idea of their perfect fit and style. I imagined a pair of trousers that sat just below the waist -- neither too high, nor too low. The legs would be tailored, but not fitted -- neither too wide nor too narrow. They had to be both classic and modern without tapered legs or a pleated front. Given these rather picky specifications, I anticipated that it would take some effort to find just what I was looking for. However, I did not anticipate that, after visiting dozens of stores in the Copley/Prudential/Newbury area, I would return home empty handed. My journey began at J. Crew, thinking this was a good place to look for classic clothing. I recalled that once upon a time, I had a pair of J. Crew boot fit chinos that I wore all the time. A boot fit means that the legs flare out slightly at the bottom, instead of going straight down or tapering. This look is flattering on almost everyone and is a bit more fashion-forward than a pair of straight leg pants. After conversing with the salesperson, who was remarkably clueless about clothing for someone who worked in a clothing store, I learned that these pants were no longer available in the store. "I guess you could look in the catalogue or something," she suggested. Well, I wasn't about to order something without trying it on, so I looked for something in the store that caught my fancy. Unfortunately, the only other pants that might have worked looked awful when I tried them on. It is important that you find the right size for the fit of the pant. With these pants, I could make them sit where I wanted on the waist if I went a size up. That, however, made everything else nasty and baggy. Yet, if I wore them as they were intended, I felt like a frumpy grandpa. They actually made me look like I had big hips, which defies logic if you have ever seen me. ... Moving on to United Colors of Benetton, I hoped to find something a bit sassier. As it turns out, the pants at Benetton are entirely too sassy for the likes of me. Unless you can pull of that sleek Euro look, I suggest you steer clear of Benetton this season. Here I was reminded that one must always know his or her limitations. Not everyone should wear tight pants. Things didn't go much better at Gap or Banana Republic. The sizing at these stores is so standardized that if you don't have a very average body type, everything fits strangely. I continued to look throughout the mall, even venturing into the frighteningly up-scale world of Neiman Marcus. After finally getting the attention of a salesperson that was apparently too stylish and suave to be working at a department store, I was shown a pair of promising-looking trousers in a nice grey. There was only one problem -- they were Armani. I had to make up some excuse about how I didn't like the zipper and sped out of the store before they could scoff at my poor college student status. I don't care who you are -- nobody my age should be paying so much for a single article of clothing (it just isn't right!). After this scenario, I officially felt disillusioned with the fashion industry. I guess it's too much to ask to find a pair of affordable, good-looking pants right now. One thing is certain, though: don't compromise your standards just because there doesn't seem to be anything better. Sooner or later, when you least expect it, that perfect pair of trousers will come along. Until then, we'll always have jeans. ...


The Setonian
News

Sumiyoshi, Wecksell compete with Div. III's best

In the final meet of their collegiate swimming and diving careers, senior tri-captain Mika Sumiyoshi and classmate Beth Wecksell headed to Principia College in Missouri with one goal in mind: to leave the collegiate swimming scene with a bang. The two did just that, as Sumiyoshi finished fourth and sixth in her two strongest events, the 200IM (2:08.33) and 400IM (4:32.67), respectively, and Wecksell garnered a 12th place finish in both the 1-meter and 3-meter springboard diving events. Sumiyoshi also competed in the 200 breaststroke for just the second time this season; however she failed to make the finals. The duo's efforts earned the Jumbos a 27th place finish out of 60 in the team competition. Sumiyoshi's fourth and sixth place finishes in the 200 and 400IM earned her all-American status in two different events for the first time in her four trips to Nationals. She finished first in the 200IM among NESCAC competitors, once again beating out Bowdoin freshman Kate Chapman by just over a second. She finished behind Williams sophomore Tricia Chambers in the 400IM, however, missing out on fifth place by .26 seconds. Her finish in the 200IM was an improvement from last season, when she missed the top eight, finishing ninth with a time of 2:07.99, which was faster than this season's time. Her finish in the 400IM was two spots worse this season than it was last season, however, when she finished fourth with a time of 4:30.58. Sumiyoshi was convinced she could have done better. "I didn't swim as well as I wanted to," she said. "It was exciting to watch everyone at nationals, because everyone is so fast and the competition is so fierce. It's the top swimmers from every conference, and they're all there to win." Wecksell, competing in her second national meet, finished 12th in the highly subjective diving competition. She finished fifth among NESCAC competitors in the 1-meter event with 303.95 points, sixteen points from the top eight overall. She took sixth place among NESCAC competitors in the 3-meter competition with 336.50 points, under 20 points out of the top eight. The meet marked the end of the careers of the two seniors, who have left their mark as two of the most successful women Tufts Swimming and Diving has ever seen. "It was a strange feeling to be completely done with my swimming career," Sumiyoshi said. "I was disappointed that my last swims were not what I was hoping for, but I did have a good season that I can look back on and be happy about."


The Setonian
News

Administration's war justifications hollow

Cabinet members took to the airwaves yesterday to defend the decision to go to war with Iraq. Secretary of State Colin Powell and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld tried to deflect the fire the administration is coming under since no weapons of mass destruction (WMD) have been found in Iraq. Despite the lack of weapons or any WMD programs, the sectaries said this in no way weakened the merits of the invasion. Instead, the administration is now emphasizing the humanitarian nature of the mission. Powell acknowledged that the U.S. might not find any WMD stockpiles, and that they might not have even existed. Despite nearly a year of searching, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said the weapons might still turn up. But both said no intelligence had been altered, and that the administration had no idea that its information was false. For those who opposed the decision to invade Iraq, that's the point. The argument that Hussein had WMDs seemed weak even when the U.S. was lobbying the U.N to go to war, and some officials are saying the Bush administration cherry-picked the intelligence. Similar claims are being lobbed against British Prime Minister Tony Blair by officials in that country's intelligence community. The fact that Powell now admits "we didn't know" underscores the fact that the case for WMD in Iraq was tenuous even then. Many liberals, far from being the pacifists the right makes them out to be, opposed the war because the exigency of the situation simply was not there. If there was not a clear and present danger, than there seems little reason to have angered so many around the world by shrugging off the U.N. and the opinion of our allies. If nothing else, America's decision to go it almost alone means it has shouldered most of the extraordinary human and financial cost. Rumsfeld, who refers often to the "broad based coalition," said that with over 60 nations participating, the U.S. was hardly alone. He neglected to mention that many of America's closest allies were completely opposed to the invasion. The participation of almost all the other nations, save Britian, was more symbolic than anything. And while the Bush administration paints a rosy picture about democracy in Iraq, its version of the situation does not square with reality. The country is dangerously unstable, and some have said civil war could break out. In any case, we did not go to war to liberate Iraq. If the Iraqi invasion was about democracy, President Bush would not have sold the war on WMD fears. The apparent underestimation of how volatile Iraq is suggests that democratizing the country was at best an afterthought. Certainly the Iraqi people are better off today than a year ago, but they are paying the price for the post-war instability. If the Iraqi invasion was about nation-building, one would think the administration would have thought out the post-war rebuilding of the country more thoroughly. Had that occurred, it is possible the situation would not be quite so grim. Saddam Hussein's regime was brutally tyrannical and in all likelihood military action would have been necessary at some point. He defied the U.N. at every opportunity. He had used chemical and biological weapons against innocent people in the past. He publicly supported terrorism. But all these justifications, cited often by Bush administration officials, cannot cover up the truth about WMD in Iraq. The entire world was saying that our WMD evidence was thin, and their viewpoint was completely vindicated. Though troubling, the evidence was never solid enough to justify the immediate invasion of Iraq. The U.S. had time to wait, gather more support and information, and do a better job of liberating the Iraqi people.


The Setonian
News

Sixers would be foolish to part ways with Iverson

It doesn't matter what the question is -- Philadelphia definitely wants and needs the answer. Whether the Philadelphia 76ers understand this is another story all together. Philly has seemed more like the Windy City lately with all the trade rumors swirling around the Wachovia Center, most of them centering on Allen Iverson. And although there are many reasons management would be tempted to move its mercurial guard, such a move would still be a mistake. Without doubt, Iverson does bring his share of negatives to the table. He does have a rap sheet, although his only conviction -- a 1993 mob fight in a Virginia bowling alley -- was overturned by the governor. He has released a rap album with homophobic lyrics. He sometimes feuds with coaches. He has made numerous eyebrow-raising statements, among them his famed "practice" interview. He has also expressed fear about living in Philly. "I want to be in Philadelphia but I'm scared to be here," Iverson told the Philadelphia Inquirer and the Philadelphia Daily News in the fall of 2002. "I've heard about police officers toasting to Allen Iverson's next felony conviction." Another problem is that no one can be a productive No. 2 scorer alongside Iverson. The Glenn-Robinson trade was a disaster, but then, what did you expect? Jerry Stackhouse couldn't play second banana to AI. Neither could Larry Hughes or Keith Van Horn. Did you really think Robinson, a known whiner, was going to sacrifice his offense for defense and rebounding? Of course not. So the dilemma is that no one can play wingman to Iverson (and Iverson is surely not deferring to anyone else) so the team is filled out by role players who play great defense but sometimes have problems providing offensive support. Additionally, you have to wonder how much longer Iverson is going to be able to perform at his current level. He is only 28, but at the same time, he's also only 165 pounds. He probably takes more abuse than anyone else in the league, and the injuries are wearing down on him (he missed 11 games in 2001, 22 in 2002, and has only played in 45 this year). What should make the 76ers wary is that what sets Iverson apart from everyone else who plays -- his blazing first step -- is the first thing he will likely lose. And once that's gone, well, let's just saying no one's paying all that money for Iverson to become a jump shooter; his shot is not that pretty anyway. But, even with all this is mind, the Sixers still shouldn't trade Iverson. He wants to win as much as anyone in the league and plays as hard as anyone. He is a great teammate and leader. He is a dynamic offensive force (although his defense is overrated mostly due to his high steal totals). And his occasional statements aside, Iverson really loves Philadelphia and wants to be there, and the city loves him. Next to Ben Franklin or Will Smith, he is the city's premier icon. He single-handedly fills seats, which in a business like the NBA is just as important, and often related to, winning (see the Atlanta Hawks). Right now, the 76ers are just 28-39. But in the sad-sack east, that's only one game out of the playoffs. And this team can still be dangerous. People forget that because they lost in the second round last year. But remember, this team was this close to making the conference finals last year. If Iverson didn't miss two free throws at the end of a game, and Tayshaun Prince didn't turn into Larry Bird all of a sudden, and Chucky Atkins, of all people, didn't make that ridiculous game winning goaltended layup, Philadelphia would have won that series, and the Sixers would have played the New Jersey Nets in the conference finals. And you had better believe they would have put up a lot more fight than the Pistons, who were swept by the Nets. Of course, since then, other teams have gotten better, and the Sixers have not. But the key word with Iverson is heart. He, along with Eric Snow, Aaron McKie, and Kenny Thomas are the heart of the team (so was George Lynch, and things started going downhill when they traded him). The crucial component to Iverson's game is his heart, and that won't diminish or slow down. If any thing, he will have more of it, and more of a desire to prove his detractors wrong when they start questioning if he has in fact lost a step. If the Sixers choose not to renew Iverson's contract when it runs out, so be it. But there is absolutely no good reason to trade him now. It doesn't make basketball sense, it doesn't make emotional sense, and it doesn't make financial sense.


The Setonian
News

Love and Improv

"Significant Others", a new improvisational comedy series premiering this month on Bravo Cable Network, places the viewer in a therapist's chair as it asks four couples, "What do you hope to get out of couples' counseling?" Their bitingly sarcastic responses set the tone for a series that promises a happy medium between overcooked reality television and blandly scripted sitcoms. "What bugs me is the total lack of consideration here," confesses Connie (Jane Edith Wilson), who has been married to Bill (Fred Goss) for fifteen years. He quickly replies, "That's funny because what bugs me is that you've pretty much crushed my will." The glory of the show is that its funniest interactions could never have been scripted because they wouldn't be amusing on paper. The improvisation, however, is genius. Their candid, laugh-out-loud quality is a major improvement over most of the current major network sitcoms. Instead of warm, fuzzy exchanges of love, there is brisk, witty banter that delights in its own dysfunction. The show quickly cuts back and forth as it listens in on couples' confessional-style therapy sessions and then trails the couples as they go about their days. However, as so often happens with improv, "Significant Others" fluctuates between the absolutely hilarious to the incredibly annoying. The humor of the characters' interactions is entirely dependent upon their given situation. Bill and Connie, who are experiencing a dull spell after many years of marriage, communicate through yellow post it notes placed on their refrigerator. Their relationship is summed up in the awkward kisses that Bill repeatedly plants on Connie's right eye, accompanied by her deadpan response: "That feels deeply intimate to me." Ethan (Herschel Bleefeld) and Eleanor (Faith Salie), who have been married for eighteen months and are expecting a baby, are usually annoying when not interacting with other characters. Ethan, an immature rock-star-wannabe is experiencing pre-baby anxiety and must be dragged along to the first gynecologist appointment. Ethan's perpetual childishness invokes constant outbursts from Eleanor such as, "'Pull my finger' is not the correct answer to 'Do you love me?'" As the actors develop these individual character quirks, their partners' reactions become much more amusing, translating into an even better range of improvisation. Although some of the couples on the show have great chemistry, both with the audience and one another, others are more irritating. Chelsea (Andrea Savage) and James (Brian Palermo), who have been married for three months after a short courtship, are incredibly grating in the first episode. Their plotline centers on Chelsea's confession that she has slept with about 200 men and has had "around ten soul mates." James' subsequent obsession with Chelsea's many partners gets old very quickly. Watching a couple scream at each other and make a scene in a public place is not funny, it's uncomfortable. Their second interaction is much more natural and humorous, as Chelsea and James focus on the realistic arguments that come with a new marriage. These arguments range from Chelsea's complaint that James always parks too close to another car on her side while leaving himself "four feet" every time, to his choice of male wording while talking to his friends. "That's how guys talk," James says, and Chelsea reminds him, "First of all, you're not a guy anymore, you're married." These interactions are the perfect example of why in improvisation, less is more. Marital caricatures are much funnier when they focus on the smaller shifts in getting used to one another than enormous and unbelievable plot lines. "Significant Others" shines when the actors allow themselves subtle episode themes. As the actors become more comfortable and knowledgeable in the characters they are scripting, the show can only get better. Let's hope that "Significant Others" sixth-month engagement decides to make a longer commitment for a match made in comedic heaven.


The Setonian
News

Saying 'I do' before college is through

This past Valentine's Day, many students went on romantic dates or stayed in and cuddled with their partner. Unlike 20-year-old sophomore Alex Moreno, however, most did not receive a diamond ring. Though Moreno and her boyfriend, a 28-year-old from her hometown of Miami, had previously talked about getting married, Moreno was shocked by the proposal. So were her friends. Since getting engaged, Moreno has received many comments of the "What is she doing? She's so young!" variety. Their reactions are not surprising. According to Tufts Counseling Center supervising psychologist Julie Jampel, college engagements like Moreno's are not the norm. Today, most people get married after they graduate from college. According to the U.S. Bureau of the Census, the estimated median age of first marriages in 2002 for males is 26.9 years and for females 25.3 years. Moreno knows that she is young to be engaged. "If someone told me they were turning 20 and getting married, I would be in shock," Moreno said. So why did she say yes? "I feel like I've met the man of my life," Moreno said of her fianc‚. "Whether it's now, two years, or five years from now, I'm going to marry him." Junior Jessica Heaton, 21, also believes she has met her soul mate. This past December, Heaton's 22-year-old boyfriend of three years proposed. "I'm definitely in love with him," Heaton said. "I know there's no one else for me." Unlike Moreno, however, Heaton has the luxury of her fianc‚ also attending Tufts -- a factor that Jampel believes to have a large impact on a serious college relationship's future success. "If both parties are here on campus, I wouldn't anticipate many difficulties other than maintaining a close relationship while struggling with school," Jampel said. "If they're not together on campus, there's just a lot of temptation in college. You're surrounded by many people your own age" To avoid any temptation, Moreno plans on transferring out of Tufts after this year to be with her fianc‚. While at Tufts, she tries to see him as much as she can, sometimes taking weekend trips down to Miami. Moreno's parents support her marriage plans. "When I first told them, they didn't believe me," Moreno said. "They were like 'Ya, nice joke.'" After the initial shock, Moreno's parents were accepting: they are pleased that Moreno still plans to finish school and attend law school at Columbia. "They know I'm not going to become a housewife right now so they're ok with it," Moreno said. Like Moreno, Heaton has not let her engagement derail her future schooling. She still plans on attending veterinary school but she wants her fianc‚ to be along for the process. "I know [veterinary school] is going to be even more stressful than here [at Tufts]," Heaton said. "I want to live with him, be close with him, and if I end up going to a veterinary school that's not in Massachusetts, he would come with me and it would be a support." According to Jampel, the biggest stress associated with an engagement is the planning. "I remember from my own engagement that there's a lot of craziness," Jampel said. "It's not the being engaged while in college that's distracting -- it's the planning." Heaton agrees that planning a wedding is stresessful. "Sometimes I still think being engaged is kinda weird," Heaton said. "[I'm] going to classes and doing all this stuff, then my mom will call me and be like, 'Oh! I saw this really pretty dress' or 'We should check out this place for the reception.' It's hard to think about getting married then studying for an exam." To avoid hectic preparations, Heaton and her boyfriend have decided to wait until the summer after they graduate from Tufts to get married. "There's too much to do right now," Heaton said. "[My wedding] would be really hard to plan in school." All parties attempt to balance their social life with time spent with their fianc‚s -- which is very important, according to Jampel. Heaton still hangs out with her friends just as much as she did prior to her engagement. Her best friend at Tufts even recently started going out with her fianc‚'s roommate. Moreno is using these last months to spend time with her friends as well. Before she became engaged, she felt depressed when her friends went out because she missed her boyfriend. Now, though, she's enjoying her social life: "I only have two more months left here, and I want to enjoy it to the max," Moreno said.


The Setonian
News

Two Jumbos qualify for NCAA's in Wisconsin

Usually, the Ramada Inn in Janesville, Wisconsin might not be the most thrilling place to stay. But junior Nate Brigham and freshman Fred Jones are plenty excited to be there this weekend after qualifying to compete in the NCAA Division III National Championship meet at the University of Wisconsin at Whitewater. Jones and Brigham were the only Jumbos to proceed to nationals. Jones advanced in the triple jump based on his jump of 48 feet and half an inch at the All-New England's on Feb. 28. Meanwhile, Brigham just snuck into the 5000 meter race as the twelfth and final seed with his time of 14:35.84 (converted from 14:33.34 on a bank track), also achieved at All-New England's. Jones was virtually assured of making it, but Brigham had to sweat it out a little until Monday night, when the NCAA released its lists of cuts. Usually twelve runners make the cut in the 5000; Brigham was eleventh on the times list heading into last weekend. "We were definitely watching all the results from everywhere last weekend," Brigham said. "Luckily, only one guy ran a better time than me." Provisional qualifiers from Tufts who failed to advance were sophomore Kyle Doran in the 1500, junior Dan March in the weight throw, Jones in the long jump, and the 4 x 400 and distance medley relay teams. The two athletes that Tufts sent to Wisconsin could not be more different in terms of experience: Jones, the rookie, has never experienced the chaos and pressure of a national event, while Brigham is a certifiable veteran, having competed in three national competitions in his Jumbo career. Coach Connie Putnam doesn't think either one will have any problems dealing with the pressure that such a meet brings. "Nate's matured a lot," Putnam said. "Your first time out you're a little nervous. By your fourth time, you know what to expect and how to handle things." "By this point, I'm not worried about the pressure and the scale of the meet," Brigham said. "I'm just confident and looking forward to racing." Brigham has raced in nationals twice for cross country and once in outdoor track. In his first appearance, he earned All-American status by finishing 11th in the nation last fall in long distance, but he has not performed nearly as well in his other two national appearances. As for Jones, Putnam might be worried if Jones was your typical freshman, but he is anything but. His All-New England title in the triple jump two weeks ago, the Jumbos' first title in that meet since 1996, confirmed this, and he has been calm and cool in just about every meet this season. "Fred will be fine," Putnam said. "He's always just so relaxed and confident and he always has his wits about him. Plus, jumping's a little easier than running in that regard. He's just going to get out there on the runway by himself and jump" Brigham won't have it so easy, as he will be challenged in what is shaping up to be an ultra-competitive 5k competition. Several years ago, a 14:46 would probably have sent a runner to nationals; this year, Brigham was the last seed with a time 11 seconds faster than that. In addition to pure fast times, many of Brigham's adversaries are from Wisconsin and have raced on this track before; six of them qualified for the race on it. "The race will materialize one of two ways; guys will either come out and be very strategic, or else they will come out and just run nasty from the beginning. I'm not exactly sure how it's going to turn out," Putnam admitted. "Either way, the first person to the finish line wins, so he has to just get out there and keep his wits about him. He doesn't want to get out strategized, but he doesn't want to be behind down the stretch in a field this fast." "When you change things up, that's when you start running bad," Brigham said. "I'm just going to go out there and do my thing, and if I do that, I should have a happy flight home." While Brigham wants to run fast on Saturday afternoon, the Jumbos are trying to relax for now. Brigham, Jones, Putnam, and assistant coach Ethan Barron flew out to Wisconsin on Wednesday afternoon and checked out the track. Yesterday Brigham and Jones got a more extended workout at the facilities, followed by the athletes' banquet at night. Today they will watch the first-day events and get in a little practice. Tomorrow, Jones will tackle the triple jump at 10:30 in the morning, and Brigham will run at 5:45 p.m. "We took our time getting here, so now we have plenty of time to get used to things out here and get our legs back under us [after the flight]," Brigham said. Last year, the Jumbos finished 36th at nationals, as seniors Greg Divine and Bryan Pitko finished fifth and eighth, respectively, in the 55 meter hurdles.


The Setonian
News

A day of infamy for Spain

Yesterday's bombings in the heart of Madrid are a tragic reminder of terrorism's global reach. While it appears no students or personnel in Tufts' Madrid program were injured, over 1,200 were wounded and about 200 killed in the worst terrorist attack Spain has ever suffered. One of the first firefighters to arrive at the Atocha station -- a hub of Madrid's rail and subway networks -- called the blast site a "scene from hell." The successful deactivation of three more bombs, intended to detonate as emergency workers arrived, prevented even more carnage. We should be grateful for a previously scheduled teacher's strike that kept most students home due to canceled classes. This might well have spared Tufts from a terrible loss. Students on the program, like most Madrid residents, use the commuter trains almost every day, often via the Atocha station. Spaniards are already labeling the day "March 11th," a clear reference to America's terrorist attacks. Though the characteristics of the bombs suggest they are the work of a Basque terrorist group known as ETA, many characteristics of the attack point strongly to an al-Qaeda connection. Specifically, the timing, the high death toll, and the simultaneous detonation of the devices are all signatures of the terrorist organization. In the face of almost unanimous popular opposition, Spain's government stood with America just months ago. It is now time for the U.S. to offer more than just moral support for the country in its fight against terrorism. Ironically, many students received their acceptance letters to next year's Tufts in Madrid program yesterday. These attacks should serve as a sobering reminder of the turbulent world in which we live but not dissuade those students from studying abroad. Terrorism relies on our succumbing to fear in order to succeed, and the best way we can combat it is go about our lives, undeterred and unafraid.