Guided by Voices' milestone record, "Bee Thousand" (1994), might make you think that Pete Townshend had a crazy idea one day. It sounds like he put Sonic Youth, Dire Straits, The Modern Lovers and Neutral Milk Hotel in a room with one guitar amp, a bass amp and a drum set and told them all to plug in and start playing without much attention to planning songs or testing levels.
This weekend, supporters of President Barack Obama who believed that theirs was a vote for change experienced shock, disappointment and disillusionment when the administration announced that it would uphold a policy of denying constitutional rights to the 600-some detainees of Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan — a policy that prevailed under former President George W. Bush. This decision seems to go directly against Obama's anti-torture, pro-human rights rhetoric, the symbolic closing of Guantanamo Bay and his repeated insistence that his administration seeks peaceful relations with countries in the Middle East. This is a direct betrayal of the expectations and values of the many who supported him, and it is liable to create doubts among other nations about just how much change Obama is bringing to Washington. Several personnel at the Bagram Air Base were investigated in 2002 and later prosecuted after autopsies revealed the deaths of Mullah Habibullah and a 22-year-old farmer and part-time taxi driver known as Dilawar — both Afghani civilians suspected of terrorist activities — to be homicide induced by severe blunt force trauma. Dilawar, it was later revealed, was found innocent. Despite these past infractions of human rights, the administration argues that, because Bagram is located in an overseas war zone, its prisoners, who may be a threat to security, can be considered part of continuing military involvement (as opposed to Guantanamo, which is not located in a war zone). The administration also says that keeping the detention center open is a matter of security and that prisoners will be released when they no longer constitute a threat to that security (arguments that sound eerily similar to Bush's justifications for allowing Guantanamo Bay to remain open). This is not the legacy that President Obama promised to uphold in his campaign or in his inauguration speech —in which he even addressed the issue of torture — and it is certainly not something that bolsters the United States' image abroad or fulfills the promises that Obama made at home. It is, in effect, a violation of the promises he made, an insult to the hope and optimism he instilled in his supporters and a warning sign to tenuous allies and potential enemies with whom he had hoped to build bridges. It says to the world that the United States only supports human rights when it is convenient, that inspiring words about equality and humanity should not be trusted and that change will only ever be halfway. President Obama should remember that the United States is still fragile and bruised from recession and disappointed hopes, looking to define its future as a virtuous, prosperous nation, and that much of the outcome of that quest will depend on decisions such as this one.
Usually, you think that peace and justice studies majors would praise activism, not chastise it for being "aggressive" and "nervy." Yet, in his Feb. column, "Stuff Tufts People Like: Unnecessary activisim," Will Ehrenfeld believes otherwise, decrying the atrocious "excessive" activism found rampant on Tufts' campus. I tend to disagree.
As the federal government prepares to dole out $787 billion in stimulus money, $12 billion of which will go to Massachusetts, towns across the state are scrambling to put together project proposals in hopes of getting the biggest possible slice of the deal. While the influx of cash into local economies will certainly allow many towns to avoid massive layoffs — and in some cases, provide more jobs — and hopefully spur improvements in schools and infrastructure, local governments must ensure that the money is not used as a Band-Aid for persistent budget problems or for projects that will end up sucking more funds from the state once the stimulus money runs out. It appears that many Massachusetts towns plan to spend their piece of the stimulus money wisely, for which we at the Daily commend them. It must be emphasized, however, that using the money to invest in projects that will require more money to maintain than the state will be able to provide once the flood of stimulus money has ebbed, or to fill in discrepancies in the town budget, would have decidedly negative long-term consequences and would distract the state from other well-needed projects. Much of the stimulus money should be directed toward infrastructure improvement, a strategy that, as we learned in the Great Depression, does an effective job of creating many jobs relatively quickly and having a lasting positive impact on the community. Investment in improving roadways and schools, refurbishing the older areas of certain towns and encouraging the construction of new buildings are all viable and wise options for local governments to consider. While the jobs created by these avenues would not, unfortunately, be permanent, they would, however, provide at least temporary income for many people — hopefully enough to tide them over until the economy begins to move in a positive direction again. These investments would also encourage future businesses to open in local communities, whether now or in more conducive economic times. While it most certainly is true that any project, whether it be roads, schools or new buildings, will require money from the town and its residents, their overall benefit in terms of both jobs and future use make them worthwhile investments in both the long and the short term. Somerville would feel the benefits of newer roads (for those of us now accustomed to the bumpy Joey excursions down to Davis Square) and transportation systems that would make the town more navigable and all around easier to manage. The development of Assembly Square would provide numerous stores, which would provide jobs, and hopefully bring a newer and cleaner face to an area of the town is otherwise rather under-utilized. A sudden influx of stimulus money will create a unique opportunity for improvement and development across the state, but it must be used carefully and precisely in order to confer the greatest amount of benefits.
On his second day in office, President Barack Obama reaffirmed his commitment to protecting abortion rights by marking the 36th anniversary of the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. He said the ruling "stands for a broader principle: that government should not intrude on our most private family matters." The statement stood in stark contrast to the remarks made by former President George W. Bush exactly a year earlier when he told March for Life participants he was "proud to be standing with" them. But as the state of North Dakota proved yesterday, neither the new president nor Supreme Court decisions are going to hinder the progress of pro-lifers and their march toward entirely eliminating abortion rights in this country. In a 51-41 vote, the North Dakota House granted fertilized human eggs the same rights as human beings, ruling that "a human being includes any organism with the genome of Homo sapiens." State Rep. Dan Ruby (R-Minot), the bill's sponsor, argued that the legislation does not automatically ban abortion but merely defines the time at which life begins. Essentially, he asserted, the bill is completely compatible with Roe v. Wade and is "not as aggressive as the direct ban legislation that [he has] proposed in the past." But of course it's aggressive. Direct or indirect, the legislation challenges the very tenets of the 1973 ruling. Rep. Ruby is seriously fooling himself if he thinks pro-choice proponents — or really anyone — will buy this argument. The very fact that the North Dakota House defined life as beginning upon fertilization inherently bans abortion from occurring within state borders. If the Senate passes the bill, any abortion carried out within North Dakota will be considered murder. It could not be more simple. With one vote, the North Dakota House has put a bill in front of the state's Senate — which will likely vote in the next two to three weeks — that will effectively force the state government to "intrude on our most private family matters." But that certainly won't be the end of it. Ruby may claim the bill goes hand-in-hand with the Roe v. Wade ruling, but it is no secret that provided the Senate passes the bill, North Dakota will challenge the basic principles underlying the decision President Obama was celebrating just a month ago. It will likely cost the state millions of dollars to defend — a fact that concerned many critics of the measure. We at the Daily hope that it doesn't come to that. Let's hope the Senate has enough sense to see the bill for what it is: a direct threat to Roe v. Wade.
On Jan. 24, Shepard Fairey visited our campus. Invited by the Education for Public Inquiry and International Citizenship (EPIIC) program, he covered the wall by Jumbo Express with his signature street art. Talking with my peers, I gathered that there was a mixed reaction to his work. Some felt that it was out of place; the bold red and black color scheme seemed to signify something ominous. Others decided that it was cool to have a celebrity come to campus. Whether or not his mural pleases everyone's artistic tastes, Fairey gave us something more important than just a colored wall: He gave us dialogue, character and public art. On a campus that lacks public art of any kind, Tufts should be grateful for this bold addition. Since coming to Tufts, I have felt that the campus lacks a cohesive character in terms of art and architecture. The buildings on the academic quad harmoniously interact with one another, but the view of '70s-style Miller Hall strikes a discordant note. Yet, campus cohesion does not necessarily mean a single unifying style. Cohesion lies in buildings and space interacting together to create a welcoming atmosphere. Where we live, and the buildings and people we interact with, touch each person's life intimately. Whether we are in the slums of Mumbai or the polished apartments of the Upper East Side, our built and decorated environment has an impact on us. The idea of space is both an abstract and concrete one. By setting up walls and buildings, humans change and construct the space they occupy. Our perception of that wall or building, however, can define the space. The outcome of these barriers may hold cultural or political implications. Take Baghdad for example. The walls surrounding the Green Zone are heavily protected. They are almost impenetrable in order to protect the international agencies and government offices inside. Though the area may be secure on the inside, the immediate area surrounding the Green Zone, the Red Zone, is perceived to be the opposite. The security may be keeping out threats such as insurgents, but one must also consider that these intimidating walls also separate the Iraqi citizens from international help and their government. This separation of space may have a negative effect on the psyche of the Iraqis. Ultimately, this has contributed to the Balkanization of Iraq, creating a divided and not cohesive city. The definition of a wall is something that divides space, but it can also reconstruct space. The fortified walls around the Green Zone created an enclosed enclave which excludes the rest of the city. Fairey's mural on the campus center wall reconstructed the space surrounding it. One could hardly call the patio outside Jumbo Express anything besides a corridor or the place where the shuttle from Davis Square stops. It was stale. That wall's only function was to hide the dumpsters behind it. But now, public art has redefined the underused space as a marker for Tufts. Consider Union Square in Somerville. It can hardly be thought of as a square, as it is the intersection of several major roads. It is inaccessible by the T but reachable by the 80 bus line. Union Square would otherwise be a busy and impersonal intersection, but it is filled with little cafés. Even so, a collection of cafés does not define a place. Davis Square is a large brick patio. Harvard Square is characterized by the architecture of its namesake university. Newbury Street is known for its brownstones. What is Union Square known for? The vibrant collection of murals that decorate many walls. According to a friend, the murals are markers signalling that you are in Union Square. Once the murals disappear from sight, you know you've left the area. In other words, the wall art is the glue to an otherwise potentially disjointed space. The street art has involved the Somerville Boys & Girls Club and the residents of the area. The murals have not only given that space an identity but also have created a community. On the Tufts campus, the Shepard Fairey wall will give our school more definition and physical distinction. Although the mural is only projected to last for up to four years, it has already given our campus a refresher and a stimulator. Just as the mural is glued to the wall, the mural will serve as a type of glue for the campus, bringing our ideals and ideas together. "Obey Peace" is a simple and powerful message. The reworking of Communist propaganda reflects Tufts' constant goal to innovate and make better what already exists. We need more public art to spruce up this campus. When the trees have lost their leaves and the flowers have crawled underground during the winter, the bright points of this campus that remain will be the art. The statue of Jumbo outside Barnum is great, paying homage to our mascot. People interact with it, climbing on top of it in the middle of the night. The cannon is a beam of color and communication, drawing people in to connect with it and each other over its next coat of paint. And the little elephant statue outside of Tisch Library reminds me every day of my community. Tufts needs more bright points. The barren Res Quad and other empty, underused lots around campus are screaming to be included in the everyday life of this school. We need to start thinking about public art not as just a pretty sitting duck, but as a catalyst of dialogue and community. Public art can be dynamic and active. As a university that stresses active citizenship, our physical campus also needs to reflect our ideals. Fairey's mural is a poignant reminder of art and space.
On Feb. 10, Tufts Community Union (TCU) President Duncan Pickard wrote an open letter to the Tufts community, entitled "Let's talk about class," on the need for a dialogue on socioeconomic diversity at Tufts. While Pickard mentioned some of the elements of socioeconomic class that might be visible on campus, I would like to address one that goes beyond the superficial indicators of class we might be familiar with. Class goes deeper than cell phones, iPods and designer jeans. Class goes further than the decision to put Matriculation on a week day (though I fully agree with Pickard on the need to change this). Class goes beyond determining whether a student can take that unpaid internship in New York City or whether he or she has to work a minimum wage job during breaks. Class goes into the classroom itself. Our community health classes discuss health-care policy for low-income families in the United States and around the world. Our sociology classes address the consequences of urban poverty in America's cities. Our economics classes discuss the effects of the recession on manufacturing industries, and our political science classes look at different levels of income in determining issues important to constituents. I feel that Tufts does a decent job of addressing issues of class in the academic setting. In my opinion, it is not that Tufts needs to focus more on addressing issues of class from an intellectual angle. Rather, perhaps what Tufts needs is more perspective on issues of socioeconomic class. I am reminded of one specific course in which the professor proposed the question to students: "What do you think is the median household income in the United States?" One student answered with a fairly confident $100,000. $100,000 seems fairly middle class, right? Another student proposed that $100,000 was too high and guessed $80,000. How many of us are aware that the median household income, according to the US Census Bureau, was $50,233 in 2007? Half of American households, therefore, make less than the cost of tuition plus expenses for one year of Tufts. The fact of the matter is, we need more students to be aware of the realities of low-income America. If Tufts wants to continue to be one of the leading universities in the country, it needs to broaden its perspective. Fostering socioeconomic diversity at Tufts is one element of this perspective. To me, this is imperative. Tufts students are going to be the future leaders and policymakers of the country. We simply can't afford not to expand our knowledge and perspectives on these issues. The truth of the matter is that we can learn more about urban poverty by living in a low-income urban community than we can in a classroom. We can learn more about blue-collar America by working in a factory than we can by reading an article. Does this mean we all have to go out and live in an urban community or work in a factory? Of course not. However, we need to have more students with these types of experiences in our classrooms. Going need blind was a great way to start this process. Second, we need programs to address the issue of socioeconomic class at Tufts. Tufts has worked hard in recent years to encourage programming for a variety of other elements of diversity, and it is about time that socioeconomic diversity makes this list. We do have some programs that address socioeconomic class for non-students like the Jumbo Janitor Alliance and the Leonard Carmichael Soceity's project to provide English as a Second Language classes for interested OneSource staff. We need more of these. We also need to do more on-campus to encourage Tufts students with unique socioeconomic experiences to share their valuable perspectives with the rest of the Tufts community. We also need to foster an environment in which students feel comfortable discussing these issues in classrooms. Just hearing our peers' thoughts and experiences can make a huge difference in broadening our perspectives. Like Pickard mentioned, class is a difficult issue to talk about and there will certainly be challenges. I am very excited to see what The Class Project is capable of. As the future leaders and policymakers, we as Tufts students need to ask ourselves some important questions. How will we fully understand issues of urban or rural poverty without being aware of what it's like to live under these conditions? How will we make smart and balanced decisions on social programs like welfare if we've never met anyone who needs them? How will we allot funding to low-income schools if we aren't exposed to what it's like to be educated in one? If we are not exposed to the realities of socioeconomic class, how can we hold true to our "active citizen" values? I applaud the efforts of Pickard, the Tisch College of Citizenship and Public Service, the TCU Senate and others for bringing class to the forefront of our discussions on diversity at Tufts. I hope that The Class Project will open up avenues for dialogue on this complex but very pressing issue of diversity.
Yesterday's article "EPIIC to kick off annual symposium tonight" quoted Institute for Global Leadership Director Sherman Teichman saying that of the four class years represented in this year's Education for Public Inquiry and International Citizenship (EPIIC) colloquium, the senior class is the one with the lowest representation. Instead, the article should have reported that he said that this year's colloquium includes fewer seniors than in years past.
When Washington, D.C., was first established as the center of American government, the founding fathers envisioned it as a city of leadership, devoid of the presence of the masses. Ceded by Maryland and Virginia, it was to be a legislative sanctum in which lawmakers and executives would convene to do the people's business.
The quote, "I was just doing it for sh--s and giggles," which was printed in the Feb. 13 article "The Daily presents: speed dating at Tufts" was off the record and should not have been printed. The Feb. 6 article "EPC proposal to restrict AP credits sparks debate" included a quote from a report by the university's Educational Policy Committee implying that the committee endorsed the view that "the university's present policies on advanced placement contribute to an uneven playing field for students from less privileged backgrounds." This was in fact a belief held only by some professors, and the committee did not endorse this view. The Feb. 13 article "Freshman senators join together for weekly office hours in the campus center" incorrectly stated that the Tufts Community Union (TCU) Constitution requires each TCU senator to hold two hours of office hours per week. The actual requirement is one hour per week for each senator, with additional hours mandated for certain positions. Also, the Senate bylaws, not the TCU Constitution, set these requirements.
Conventional wisdom would lead me to place some of the blame for this whole steroids mess on Bud Selig.
In honor of "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" (2008) getting 13 Oscar nominations, I present to you some of the top overrated movies of all time.
Suburbanization rose from a nuclear defense strategy. In the 1950s, President Dwight Eisenhower began the construction of a national network of highways — not for the sake of transportation, but primarily to allow for the free transport of mobile nuclear missile launchers. While there never was any occasion to send missiles along I-40, this system had significant but unforeseen consequences. At the same time that Washington was enabling itself to drive missiles from North Carolina to Illinois, Americans were enjoying a post-war economic boom. With this increase in capital came increases in spending power, and for the first time, members of the middle and working classes were able to move out of industrial zones and central cities into suburban developments like Levittown, N.Y., near New York City.
Rights balancing is a tricky business, and sometimes it's just easier to look the other way. That's what happened when a Boston court sentenced Jeffrey Shields to civil detention last week as a sexually dangerous person. In this case, the court pulled a trick straight from "Minority Report" and locked up Shields, an ex-felon, to prevent him from committing future offenses.
Following last week's column about unnecessary activism, I want to focus more directly on activism and its role on campus and in a Tufts education. "Civic engagement" is one of the big buzzwords that admissions and public relations spout relentlessly; the university depicts itself as a socially active institution that is heavily involved in community issues and service. Tufts people especially like working with poor or disadvantaged people who "need our help," and this becomes more central to our time at Tufts than any other ideas about education that might follow a more traditional path. Those of us (I include myself here) who came to Tufts expecting to change the world immediately upon arrival in Medford have likely been disappointed in the progress so far. You (we) have almost certainly failed rather miserably in your (our) attempts to change the world and impact humanity in a positive way. And, sorry to burst your bubble, but your immediate prospects don't look too good, either. I'm not chastising you for your idealistic beliefs and outlandish ambition — I have those things, too — but I think you're confused. Matthew Arnold, a 19th century English writer, once suggested that "poetry can save us." In this time of relatively deep unrest and growing economic turmoil, every prescription for salvation must be reviewed, so let's examine Arnold's idea in a larger context. Everyone need not read copious amounts of poetry, although Robert Frost never hurt anyone. Instead, poetry here is a metaphor for the humanities in general and education in its purest form, which is sadly lacking at our potentially great institution. I believe that Tufts students are some of the smartest people I have ever met, and the potential here for deep engagement with education and learning is great, yet what many of us have been doing here is wasting our time. Stanley Fish, a professor and occasional blogger at the New York Times Web site, calls his column "The Last Professor" in a not-so-subtle jab at current academics that focus on changing the world instead of learning. One of his books on higher education, "Save the World on Your Own Time" (2008), pretty well describes his opinion on civic engagement and its role inside the classroom. In multiple columns, Fish has argued that higher education, understood properly, can be distinguished by the lack of a relationship between its activities and measurable effects in the world around us. I can only bemoan the absence of this type of learning and engagement here. Tufts people seem more interested in appearing compassionate and involved than focusing on their own education. We are missing out on schooling for schooling's sake — poetry, philosophy and literature for example — where the goal is specially focused on understanding, comprehension and enlarging the mind; it is individual rather than instrumental. You can spend hours, days or even weeks volunteering at a homeless shelter or a soup kitchen or, if you're lucky, traveling to Africa to help refugees. In fact, you ought to, if you have the opportunity — but that's not really an education. Don't delude yourself into thinking you are getting educated and learning how to create change as you do it. You might be helping a few people, but you are missing out on something wonderful if you avoid learning for your — and its — own sake.
Another semester, another controversy relating to something published in The Primary Source. This time, the editors of the publication billing itself as Tufts' Journal of Conservative Thought published a cover of Barack Obama photoshopped to resemble Jesus Christ in order to satirize the messianic quality our new president seems to take on in the eyes of some of his more ardent admirers.
This is the second in a two-part series of Michael Bendetson's interview with former Vice President Walter Mondale. The first installment, which appeared in Thursday's issue, focused on Mondale's career as a senator, his vice presidency under Jimmy Carter and his 1984 presidential campaign. Today's focuses on Mondale's views on key political issues such as energy usage and the economy. Michael Bendetson: As a man who personally held the Senate seat [from 1964-1976], unsuccessfully ran against the incumbent [in the 2002 Senate election] and also is a Minnesota resident, you are in perfect position to provide commentary on the 2008 Minnesota Senate election. At this juncture in time, the people of Minnesota are represented by only one senator. Although the Minnesota Canvassing Board has already certified [an Al] Franken victory, the battle for the Senate has moved into the courtroom. What do you think will be done to resolve this situation? In addition, what do you think should have been done to expedite this process? Walter Mondale: I do not know how this election will turn out. It is in the middle of what is referred to as "judicial contest" and in the process of looking at 4,000 absentee ballots. I have heard predictions that it will take months to resolve this situation … I do not think that anyone truly knows how long it will take. However, there are a few things we do know. The election was truly phenomenal. There were 3 million ballots cast, and the candidates came within 200 votes of each other. As a result, every ballot had to be recounted. Our mechanisms for counting ballots are very efficient and effective and may be the best system in the country. The reason for the disputes is based principally on absentee ballots. The outcome has to be just. I also hope the process can be expedited because there is a lot of serious business going on in our nation's capital. Minnesota deserves two senators and America deserves 100 senators. MB: One of the main focuses of the Carter Administration was that of conservation of energy. While various steps such as the creation of the Department of Energy were implemented by President Carter to reduce dependency on foreign oil, the current United States energy policy appears to be nearly unchanged. Why do you feel there has been little movement on this issue? Also, what in your opinion needs to be done to create an energy-independent America? WM: Energy is one of those tough issues. Almost everything that you can do that would make a significant impact requires you to frontload pain and backload pleasure. This is not always a popular thing to do. We did it. We set up [the Department of Energy], deregulated the price of gas and oil and began the search for all alternative forms of energy. We studied solar, wind, geothermal and many other forms. Most of what we are enjoying now was started under Carter. When we left office, [Americans] were using 2 million gallons of oil less than when we entered office. If they kept those programs in place and built on them, by now we would be in a far better position than we are in now. Reagan and a lot of others felt there was no problem. They were optimistic. [Former President Ronald] Reagan said "There is more oil in Alaska than in the rest of the world combined, including the Middle East." Of course, it was not true, but it made you feel good for a while. As a result of this mentality, we lost a lot of time. Now I am hopeful that under the leadership of President [Barack] Obama, and as Americans see the awful consequences of these energy shortages including terrorism, global warming and a damaged economy, that we will focus more of our attention on energy independence. MB: Throughout your years as senator, vice president and ambassador, you have done an extensive amount of traveling across the globe promoting American values and ideas. Based on your experiences abroad, why is America detested in so many areas around the globe? In addition, what can be done to improve the global reputation of the United States? WM: I think the worst thing that happened under our last president was the excess in hubris, displayed with the idea that America can push people around. There was also this extraordinary confidence [that] the military could force other governments and societies to respond to what we wanted. There was a belligerent and pushy way that the [Bush Administration] approached not only our enemies, but also our friends. If you look at the polls and the international surveys, they show that we [America] have really alienated a lot of the world. I think our reputation can improve quickly if we change our approach, as Obama is beginning to do so. MB: With a Democratic Congress and an enthusiastic public, President Obama has a great window of opportunity to accomplish his proposed legislation. What are the main issues that President Obama should be focusing on? WM: That is a tough question. I have never seen a new president confront more tough and diverse issues than those that President Obama is forced to deal with. All of these issues are controversial and extremely costly. Right now, we are trying to get a stimulus package that will help pull us out of this deep recession. We have to try to get a better health care system. We need to do a better job in education. We need to do better with alternative energy and global warming. We need to restore America's reputation across the globe. We must find a better solution to dealing with Iran and their nuclear capabilities. There are so many issues that this president and this Congress have to deal with. However, I am optimistic because the American people have spoken and given a mandate to the new president.
Op-ed submissions are an integral part of our connection with you, our readers. As such, we would like to clarify our guidelines for submitting op-eds and what you can expect from the process.
Read More
