President Barack Obama has started a website called Attack Watch! Attack Watch is a wonderful tool that allows ANYONE to report a criticism of Barack Obama.
The idea has become a laughing stock, just like many aspects of Obama’s presidency. As you know, we have offered no shortage of criticisms of Obama on this website. You should be a good citizen and REPORT US TO ATTACK WATCH HERE!
Ray LaHood is back in the news as the Obama administration announces $2 billion in high speed rail spending. This time, the northeast corridor will get some dough from the “stimulus.” Maybe this will help though, since people actually ride the trains in the northeast corridor.
The commencement speaker chosen to address this year’s seniors at BC is Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood. LaHood was a seven-term Republican congressman from Illinois before Obama appointed him to his current post.
I look forward to what LaHood will have to say. Maybe he will advocate building a high-speed rail in between Boston and Springfield; the other rail proposals were so well-received. Or he will tell Toyota drivers not to drive their cars home from graduation. Or he will tout his successful efforts to prevent air traffic controllers from falling asleep on the job…oh, wait.
I have no doubt that LaHood’s words and ideas will captivate the audience as his record of clairvoyance is unmatched.
As most of you are aware, if the republicans and democrats in congress don’t come up with a budget that Obama approves of, the United States government will partially shut down beginning at midnight tonight. In the past few days, these bickering politicians have come no closer to ironing out their differences, the republicans stressing the need for cuts in the budget, and the democrats arguing the opposite. With the public equally divided on who to blame for a government shutdown, it seems as if the politicians have focused more on fingerpointing and less on actual negotiations. In negotiations, the republicans have offered a semi-compromise: a bill that funds the entire government for one extra week (to allow for more negotiations) and the military for the entire year.
The problem Harry Reid has with this olive branch? It eliminates federal funding for abortion in Washington DC, the Dornan Amendment. This is not an issue of funding for Planned Parenthood, which provided all manners of contraception and birth control, as the democrats insist. Harry Reid will not allow this bill to come to a vote in Congress simply because he wants the government to continue to directly fund abortion.
Is this really an issue that’s worth shutting down the government over? Should our government even be directly funding abortions in the first place? The answer is obviously “no”. Larger and more legitimate issues like funding for Planned Parenthood and EPA carbon emission caps can be pushed to another date, there is no reason why our government should be shut down because of taxpayer funded abortion.
In this past issue, Megan Rauch’s article, “BC To Honor Pro-Abortion Jesuit,” referred to Father Drinan, S.J. as “pro-abortion,” referring to his well known public stance in support of the legality of abortion in America.
A few readers commented on the article, taking issue with the term “pro-abortion” to describe Father Drinan, some going so far as to argue
There is no such thing as “pro-abortion”. This man is pro-choice; there’s a difference.
I would like to briefly consider this argument and examine whether or not one can be “pro-choice,” while considering themselves not “pro-abortion.”
Those in favor of the legalization of abortion in the United States generally consider themselves “pro-choice” because they say they are in favor of women being able to choose abortion based on their own personal decisions. Many go on to argue that they are not, in fact, “pro-abortion” because they (obviously) do not think that all women should get an abortion. Some also say they would never have one themselves, but they are still “pro-choice” because they think other women should be able to choose to get an abortion.
So, it seems, that nearly every American is “pro-choice” insofar as they support one’s right to choose to do things that are right and do not harm others.
Second, we need to examine whether “pro-abortion” is an appropriate term for someone who advocates for the legalization of abortion. Let us look at other uses of the term “pro-” to describe political views. For example, someone can be pro-capital punishment, which means they are in favor of the legalization of the death penalty. It does not mean they are in favor of the death penalty for every person, or even for every criminal, but rather that they are in favor of its use in certain circumstances.
Let’s take another example. Someone in 19th century America may have been pro-slavery. The term was used to describe those who believed that slavery should be legal and that one ought to have the choice to own slaves if they wish. However, someone who is pro-slavery would not advocate that all people be forced to hold slaves.
Therefore, one may be “pro-X” without believing that all people take part in X. So let’s look at the label “pro-abortion.” To describe one as “pro-abortion” would seem to mean, based on our previous examples, that one is in favor of abortion in certain circumstances but does necessarily believe that all people procure abortions. Similar to the death penalty example, being “pro-abortion” would just mean that one supports the legalization of abortion in certain circumstances.
Let us briefly revisit the pro-slavery example. If one was pro-slavery it might be a clever attempt for them to argue that they have the “choice” to hold slaves, and that anyone who thought that slavery was wrong was anti-choice. However, most would agree that the “choice” to hold slaves is immoral and gravely wrong. So the question is not whether one has that “choice” but whether that choice is wrong and whether there should be consequences to that choice.
Thus, Father Drinan appears to fit the “pro-abortion” label quite well. After all, he was in favor of the legalization of abortion in certain circumstances. He would likely have argued that the “choice” of abortion was not intrinsically wrong or evil, and thus should not be punished, just as the pro-capital-punishment or pro-slavery individual would argue that their respective issues were not necessarily evil and should not be punished.
To conclude, the term “pro-choice” is terribly undescriptive term because, indeed, most people are in favor of individual freedom of choice. ”Pro-abortion,” like many other “pro-” labels, seems to be a fitting description of those who are in favor of the legalization of abortion. If there is a fallacy in my logic, please point it out. Otherwise, it seems that we are obligated to accept the terms as I have described.
As I began to write this piece, I could not help but notice the poll on the Observer website titled “Should BC Have Frats”. The “Yes” column had only 26.73% of the vote. The “No” column had an overwhelming 76.27%. This both saddened and confused me at the same time. I did not (and still do not) understand why students at Boston College are so prejudiced against the concept of having fraternities and sororities on campus. While there are many publications and websites such as Bro Bible and Frattinghard.com that present Greek life as boisterous, elitist, and negative toward those not inclined to participate in Greek activities, I can tell you from first-hand experience that such stereotypes are not the case, especially here at Boston College.
First, a disclaimer: I used to be very anti-Greek myself. In fact, I considered the fact that Boston College did not have Greek life to be a plus when I was doing college applications as a senior in high school. I thought Greek life was nothing but a bunch of spoiled [insert synonym for “unpleasant folks”] who did nothing but get drunk off their parent’s money, while simultaneously bullying and humiliating newer members of the group, known as “pledges”. “Where’s the brotherhood in that?” I thought. It sounded miserable. That is why, when my friend showed me a flyer he’d received advertising a meet and greet at Roggie’s back in January, I initially had serious reservations about even looking into the sole Greek community on campus. You may have heard of them. They’re called Sigma Phi Epsilon, or SigEp for short. I had heard minor details about this fraternity before, but had never taken it seriously. How could it be a real fraternity? This is Boston College, we don’t have those! It turned out I was very wrong.
My reservations regarding the SigEp chapter here at BC were all wrong. I was greeted by a group of guys who all seemed to be very diverse in their interests. No label could be attached to the group. This was not a bunch of jocks, academics, or business fanatics. Each member of the fraternity that I met seemed to bring something to the group that gave it a dynamic. Not only that, but every one of them gave off a vibe that they liked to have a good time, but could take care of business as well. This intrigued me because that is both a quality and an image I have been striving to obtain my entire life. As the evening wore on, I found myself realizing that this was not just something I wanted to do, but something that I needed. A few weeks and several other recruiting events later (none of which featured a drop of alcohol), I received a bid to join SigEp. I can honestly say that joining may be one of the best decisions I have ever made.
It is because of this that I find other students’ criticism of Greek life offensive. Criticizing something you do not fully understand is doing yourself a disservice. Many people think being in a fraternity means nothing but drinking to excess and acting like a douchebag, even when not drinking to excess. What SigEp actually does is hold you accountable many different things, including your GPA and how you carry yourself, not just as a member of a fraternity of brothers, but as your own well-rounded and balanced man. Standards such as showing up on time to chapter meetings, dressing in proper attire, and socializing properly with people of other social communities (be it other sororities or just clubs) are not skills simply for making the most of your fraternity experience. They are skills for life. Being on time and dressing properly? Sounds appropriate for a job interview, not just chapter meetings. Another big part of fraternity/sorority life is philanthropy. For those of you who think all Greek members are nothing but spoiled and selfish brats, keep in mind that SigEp sends several members each week to help at a local soup kitchen. Also keep in mind that this is completely voluntary. We are currently figuring out how to start up a sponsorship for a military unit overseas in order to send them packages of small gifts, just to show that we care. SigEp is also very involved in Relay for Life as well as several other fundraisers. If you are the type of person that loves to give back to the community, then there is an entire facet of Greek life waiting for you to indulge.
And speaking of community, one of the biggest problems people have with the idea of Greek life at BC is that it will “segregate” our own community of students here. I’d hate to burst your bubble, but from the perspective of a freshman guy here at BC it will not create any more segregation than what already exists. If you are a freshman guy here at BC, it is a little bit different than being a freshman girl, who gets a free ticket into any party; any time, anywhere. And if you are not on a sports team, be it varsity, club, or even intramural, your options for having a social scene are limited even further. Sure, being in a club helps, but what if your club doesn’t do much besides have meetings and attend the occasional rally or something along those lines? And who honestly wants to spend every weekend either hanging out in their dorm or roaming the mods for a party you won’t get into. Greek life gives people, especially freshmen, not just a place to go, but something to do and get excited about. As a freshman guy, my first semester before joining SigEp (or at least the first 2 and a half months of school) seemed boring and unfulfilling. I actually did not feel a part of the BC community at all, simply because I had no real affiliation to anything for a while. But SigEp has shown me that there is something to be excited about on weekends. Students in Greek communities on other campuses are generally happier because they belong to something. They have a sense of identity. And the best part about SigEp is that no one has to conform their identity to everyone else’s. We just ask that you don’t be a jerk. And everyone is happy to oblige.
My point is this: when it comes to Greek life here at BC, forget what you know. Animal House, Greek, Glory Daze, yes they are all entertaining and amusing depictions of what is considered to be “typical” Greek life. But they are also simplistic and do not fully represent what it means to be in a fraternity or sorority. Fraternities and Sororities differ from school to school, and at BC they can be different. SigEp already is. We do not “buy” our friends. We do not have toga parties or chant “Toga! Toga! Toga!” We don’t even “pledge”. Yeah, okay, so I had to go shovel one of the other member’s car out of the snow. That is a minor inconvenience, and in no way humiliating or belittling. So the next time you read Totalfratmove.com, go ahead and laugh because it is funny, but leave the imagery associated with it to the website. Instead, if you know one of us in SigEp or see someone in a SigEp shirt, ask us about what Greek life is like. I can personally guarantee no one will look down on you, or call you a GDI. Just ask us. We’re more than willing to share.
There’s nothing like a good stout glass of eggnog, a crackling fire, and a solid Christmas movie to get the Holiday season going. Some are funny, other sentimental, and occasionally a few are utterly ridiculous. No matter the message, every Christmas movie from Miracle on 34th Street to Santa Clause 9: Part 3 and ½, Tim Allen’s Demise has attempted to bring cheer and good tidings to all who view them, making the “Christmas Movie” a lovable genre all in itself. However, amongst the countless films that make up this genre, only 3 are good enough to make the premiere list:
1. Christmas Vacation
With more one-liners than an Arnold Swartzanager, plot-derived, mess of a masterpiece (sorry I digress), Christmas Vacation is one of the more funny movies ever directed. Chevy Chase as Clark Grisswold finds himself having to entertain the extended family over the holiday as he attempts to make it the “hap-hap-happiest Christmas since Bing Crosby tap-danced with Danny f—— Kaye.” When Clark’s deranged and questionably insane cousin Eddie decides to spontaneously grace the Grisswold household with his rather forthright presence, along with his steadily deteriorating Winnebago and well-endowed dog “Snotz,” the holiday season immediately becomes a nightmare of hilarity for all involved. A movie that perfectly captures the quintessential family Christmas chaos that inevitably occurs when an entire extended family is thrown together under one roof, Christmas Vacation is a timeless classic (since 15 years ago) that never fails to make one laugh. Whether it be Eddie finding a fine Christmas morning, and a well-groomed front lawn to be the perfect time and place to empty his Winnebago septic tank or Uncle Lewis catching his toupee on fire to the “Pledge of Allegiance,” this movie is absolutely a hilarious must-see.
2. A Christmas Story
Directed in 1983, this movie has perhaps become in the past three decades, dare I say, the quintessential Christmas movie. Following the narrative, introspective story of Ralphie and the Parker family Christmas in 1948, a Christmas Story is artfully written and undoubtedly entertaining, funny, and meaningful. When Ralphie asks for the highly coveted “Red Ryder BB Gun,” a symbol of undeniable masculinity and ultimate kid-power, he is answered bluntly by a slew of crushing answers, all ringing with the air of parental denial: “you’ll shoot your eye out, kid.” However, Raplphie is ruthless in his attempt to acquire this beautiful weapon as he skillfully unravels the personalities of his stubborn father, selfless mother, and hopelessly pathetic younger brother through a brilliant narrative of witty and artfully crafted prose. From his accounts of his father’s infamous battle with the radiator, the disastrous Bumpus Hound incident, and the Chinese restaurant’s rendition of “Deck the Harrs with Barrs of Horry,” Ralphie makes A Christmas Story one of the best screenplays and, subsequently, movies of all time. If you haven’t seen it, I triple-dog-dare you to watch it. You can’t miss it, there’s an entire CHANNEL devoted to playing this movie 24/7 throughout Christmas.
3. It’s a Wonderful Life
An extremely moving and intimate account of love, loyalty, and ultimate goodness, It’s A Wonderful Life is a, well, wonderful movie for all to enjoy. Directed by Frank Capra, this movie has often been criticized for its cheesy portrayal of good over evil, love over hate, and life over death, yet, it is important to remember that all of us could use a touch of heart-warming innocence during the Christmas season, a season defined by kindness, charity, and benevolence…(Okay, calm yourself Tiny Tim). But seriously, It’s a Wonderful Life is an extremely powerful account of George Bailey, his struggle to find a reason for living, and his ultimate realization of gratitude and thankfulness at a time when the Great Depression threatened all hope and jolliness, even during the Christmas season. A classic tale the “little guy” pitted against the overwhelming machine of “big business,” and the ensuing struggle, It’s A Wonderful Life perfectly captures the spirit of Christmas and its unifying power.
4-10:
4. How the Grinch Stole Christmas (animated version or Jim Carey’s acid trip rendition, either way there’s no way to make this movie less mind-blowing)
5. A Christmas Carol (George C. Scott, 1984 rendition).
6. Elf (Don’t jam 11 cookies into your VCR, just watch it on DVD)
7. Home Alone
8. Jingle All the Way
9. Miracle on 34th Street (1994)
10. A Charlie Brown Christmas
Many students have found the new construction in the dustbowl to be much more than a minor inconvenience. As one who has come to accept the reasoning behind BC’s new fascination with construction I can understand the need for the high green fencing and aggressive territorial expansion of the construction zone, what I cannot understand about BC’s approach to construction in the Dustbowl is the unceremonious removal of the dustbowl’s greatest attribute: its apple tree.
When I reminisce about freshmen year, my mind wanders to simpler times: entry level classes, new friends, covert drinking, and fresh apples. After freshmen year, many of us owed much of our good health to the relative ease and accessibility of delicious locally grown apples, and by local I mean 200 yards from upper. While more than a few of these baseball-sized fruits ended up as apple scented wallpaper on the outside of that nearby stone tool shed, I imagine the majority were consumed by hungry students interested not only in a quick bite but also in reducing any carbon footprint by supporting the most local agriculture.
When BC first cornered off the enormous amount of real estate, including the apple tree, many students were under the naïve assumption that the construction workers simply wanted to keep all the apples to themselves. After all, with the high price of an apple in Mac, apples are a highly valued commodity on campus. One can only imagine the mass confusion and horror that ensued when BC’s true intentions were revealed and the longtime dustbowl icon was stealthily removed, presumably in the darkest hour of a moonless night.
Our late apple tree was quite relatable to the tree of Shel Silverstein’s The Giving Tree, a short story that many of us can relate to, about a wise tree helping a young boy throughout his life. Only in BC’s case, instead of being able to selflessly offer its entire existence for the sake of our happiness, our apple tree was ripped out of the ground, hurled into an industrial sized wood chipper, and hauled off to a dump in millions of tiny pieces. I was not present for this travesty but I can only assume these actions occurred as BC administrators exchanged high-fives, content that they had effectively condemned the BC student population to overpriced McElroy apples.
The remedy for this unfortunate situation is very simple: if the new plans for our Dustbowl don’t already include the replanting of an apple tree of equal or greater value, they ought to be amended to include on. Those of us who are willing to climb to the top of a flimsy tree (in front of several strangers, and with the goal of frantically shaking down a fresh apple or two) should not be deprived of such gratification.
I’m going to say this outright: The Social Network is more than a disappointment. It’s a disservice not only to one of the brightest members of this generation, but to the entire generation itself. Before the film started, I thought it was funny to see so many people over the age of 40 in the audience (that hadn’t happened to me since that time I went to see Mr. & Mrs. Smith). When it was over, I was mortified. I would like to think that they all closed their eyes for the duration of the film but that is probably not the case. The film is blatantly untrue in the most horrifying ways. But that doesn’t matter. They saw what they saw. Aside from some very basic plot aspects that if omitted would literally make the movie qualify as a fairytale, the majority of the film is in fact a sham. Yes, Mark Zuckerburg did create “thefacebook” in his Harvard dorm room. Yes, he claims he got the initial ideas for it while he was drunk. Yes, he formed a business partnership with Sean Parker, co-creator of Napster, who actually had to leave Facebook because of drug charges. Yes, Eduardo Saverin was originally CFO of Facebook, and his 24% ownership was whittled down to 0.03%. Those things are true. What’s not true is not only alarming in how much license the filmmakers take, but how the story is shaped.
Screenwriter Aaron Sorkin gives us an almost entirely falsified version of what should have been 2 hours of Zuckerburg and roommates sitting at a computer writing code (and therefore not a film at all). Entire characters involved in the founding of Facebook are omitted, altered, combined, or entirely invented. I don’t care how hard he worked for the role, Justin Timberlake as Sean Parker was a complete casting flaw. Justin Timberlake is Justin Timberlake 24/7, and it certainly felt like it watching the film. Jesse Eisenberg’s portrayal of Zuckerburg is one that shows the brilliance and dedication Zuckerburg must have had to create such thing as Facebook. He also makes Zuckerburg seem like an insecure little punk who enjoys sarcastically heckling the Harvard Administrative Board, high-profile corporate lawyers, and his former girlfriend. Ok, that last one doesn’t seem as imposing as the first two. But the lasting effect her character has on Zuckerburg leads the viewer to believe that SHE is the reason he bothered to create the largest social networking site in the world, as evidenced by the final scene in the movie. Uh, no Aaron Sorkin. I’m pretty sure at that point in real life Mark Zuckerburg was (and is) living with the distinction of being the head of freaking Facebook, a company with a value estimated in the billions. He could’ve bought the apartment building she was most likely living in and evicted her if he freaking felt like it. Who cares if she would respond to his Friend Request?
Sorkin’s screenplay is adapted from a 2009 book titled The Accidental Billionaires: The Founding of Facebook, A Tale of Sex, Money, Genius, and Betrayal. The book might be taken seriously, that is, if it’s own publishing company hadn’t referred to it as “more big, juicy fun rather than actual reportage”. But the real kicker is that the author, Ben Mezerich’s, main consultant for the book is the very guy Sorkin’s screenplay plays victimizer to: Eduardo Saverin. There’s no denying that Saverin got a hard deal when Zuckerburg and the others diluted his stock in the company to almost nothing but the movie (and the book for that matter) set Saverin up to look like the sacrificial lamb, when in reality he was more like the cog in the clock that did not want to turn correctly.
For those of you who saw the film, you remember Andrew Garfield’s character being a complete buzzkill at the dinner meeting with Sean Parker. I’m almost positive the meeting in real life was not nearly as chic and sexy. But it’d be impossible to deny that Eduardo certainly did not have the same way of approaching “thefacebook” as Parker did. Facebook is what it is today because of Sean Parker, not Eduardo Saverin. Saverin’s algorithm made Facebook a website, but Parker’s visionary approach to the company’s potential is what made it a worldwide phenomenon, and Zuckerburg obviously valued Parker’s approach more than he valued Saverin’s.
Saverin thought he was untouchable the entire time, but that’s not how multimillion dollar companies work. Then again, Eduardo probably wasn’t envisioning “thefacebook” becoming a multimillion and later billion dollar company. He didn’t have the same immediate goals as the rest of the team. Guys like that get traded or benched. Saverin got buried in the depth chart of ownership, and becomes the fall victim of Sorkin’s script. It’s ok though. He goes on to sue Zuckerburg and winds up with a settlement that gave him 5% ownership of the company. As of October 7th, 2010, owning 5% of Facebook is the equivalent to being worth $1.3 billion dollars. Poor Eduardo.
If you are already baffled by that, wait until you realize the kind of movie you were actually watching. The team behind The Social Network is actually one of the most misplaced production teams of all time. You’ve got Sorkin, the man behind Jack Nicholson’s “You can’t handle the truth!” classic, 1992’s A Few Good Men (also loosely adapted), and The West Wing. Then you’ve got the director, David Fincher, who is known for films such as Se7en, the trendily-misinterpreted-but-still-makes-you-look-cool-to-quote Fight Club, and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button among others. Se7en is one of Fincher’s several serial killer movies. Fight Club is a nihilistic take on modern consumerism. Benjamin Button is Forrest Gump, but without the lovable aspects of Forrest Gump that make you want to watch it again. So get this: two guys who should be making the greatest psychological-serial-killer-courtroom thriller of the decade, instead decide to make a movie about….Facebook? Go back and watch The Social Network again (preferably once its on TV for free). Tell me how many times Jesse Eisenburg smiles, almost never. Mark Zuckerburg in real life is smiling in almost every picture I’ve seen of him. Everything from the dank pub in the beginning scene to the twilight-lit meeting room at the end convey an overall image of darkness and dreariness. It’s not Gone Baby, Gone. It’s a movie about a bunch of college students who become incredibly successful in a supposedly fun way.
In my humble opinion, the real villain in Fincher and Sorkin’s final product is not the megalomaniac Mark Zuckerburg, but what he accomplished. The Social Network is perhaps one of the most anti-capitalist films I have ever seen (ok, I haven’t seen Wall Street 2 yet). Even with all his highlighted flaws, Mark Zuckerburg becomes wealthy by founding a company, and many would argue that the world is a better place because of such a company. But thanks to Fincher and Sorkin, the birth of what came to be known as Facebook is a tale of darkness and betrayal. Relationships are destroyed, ideas are “stolen”, people get arrested for drugs (not kidding), but money is made and people get rich. Not only that, but one guy comes out on top. Seriously, I could almost hear the liberals in the background going “Ooooooooo!! Dark and scary capitalism!!”. The movie seems like an anti-initiative propaganda job, meant to warn today’s youth: “Don’t try to hard to be innovative and become successful, because you might lose your best friend in the process.” Come on, people. Facebook is not a political machine. It’s a company run by a 26 year-old guy that happens to be worth billions of dollars. Speaking of that 26 year-old kid, he just recently donated $100 million to Newark, New Jersey Public Schools. That’s right, a guy who founded his own company as a college kid did that. The Federal Government can’t even donate $100 million to a public school district these days. Capitalism wins. Just ask Zuckerburg (or Cecil Rhodes).
In actuality, The Social Network can be defined as none other than a cinematic whore. It sells itself through peoples’ basic of knowledge of what its product is. That product also happens to be something that almost everyone does. How many times a week do you go on Facebook? How many people do you know who also use Facebook? Who’s the one guy who happens to not be using Facebook? Facebook has become as much of a part of youth culture and fascination as rock and roll, casual drug use, and that other thing you have “the talk” about with your parents. When all these movie critics refer to Facebook as a “social and cultural revolution”, they mean it. The Social Network needed only to name drop “facebook” to get everyone’s attention.
Many students have struggled with BC’s new policy, which forbids students from standing in the stairwell of the buses. The first month of school has been somewhat of a free-for-all as each morning off campus students desperately claw past their neighbors in a last ditch effort for a spot on the Commonwealth Ave bus.
Many students must resort to standing in the stairwell or next to the bus driver just to make it to class, both of which violate International Bus Laws, set many years ago by the Council of Bus Elders. BCPD have responded to this blatant disrespect of Bus Law by threatening to report the bus drivers to… someone. This only serves to make the bus problem worse, as drivers now have to force students out into the cold harsh morning or face consequences at the hands of what must be an extremely bored BCPD.
To address these problems, I propose a simple solution. Ever since the Jesuits decided to open the Newton asylum, the freshmen who have been sentenced to a one year stint there have claimed that, not only is it desirable, but the distance between them and Main Campus fosters the especially strong bonds that Newton students claim make Newton superior to Upper.
Many a freshmen can be heard bragging about the relationships that form through their mutual hardship. If this is indeed true, one can only imagine the sturdy friendships that will surely form when we implement my plan to fix the off campus bus problem and reroute all the current Newton buses to the Commonwealth route, effectively killing two birds with one stone.
Just imagine all the rock solid friendships that will surely form while Newton freshmen make the mile long trek to morning classes in snowy November. And as these freshmen revel in their stronger community bonds, all of us off campus students won’t have to make a sport out of finding a bus spot every morning. Clearly each party will emerge a little better off, even the unrelated masses who dwell on campus would be better off as then BCPD could spend less time harassing bus drivers and more time preventing actual crime.
