By the time this column arrives in your hands, perhaps the mishap postponing yesterday’s election results will be corrected, and barring a catastrophic student uprising — which, viewed in a certain light, strikes me as oddly exciting — the wheels of democracy will have continued to turn. But to what end?

p. In a body whose name most often appears alongside the descriptors “out of touch” and “homogeneous,” it came as no surprise that both presidential campaigns championed the return of responsiveness and diversity to the Student Assembly. Now, the question emerges: will the winners make good on their promises?

p. The responsibility for affecting these changes, however, was (and will be) left largely on the shoulders of the student body. To this end, referenda (which you may have noticed are becoming more popular) are terrific for shifting accountability to the voters and away from their elected leaders. After all, if referendum policy goes awry, those in office aren’t the ones taking the heat because, hey, we were the ones who decided on it.

p. Referenda often determine nothing at all, as in this year’s question asking us if two women were adequate representation in the senate for a student population which is 55 percent female. I’m sure it will prove stiff competition for last year’s “Should the SA do more to increase opportunities for student nightlife?” in the battle to uncover the blatantly obvious. Perhaps next time around, we will be asked if we’d like to cancel Christmas.

p. But despite its irrelevant results, in terms of student responsibility, the referendum was successful in highlighting our opportunity to elect up to nine women to the senate. Certainly, the winning presidential ticket now has the chance to make its cabinet the quintessential example of diversity, but if we failed to elect these women, then we are at least partly to blame when we start complaining once again about our homogeneous student government.

p. More important even than diversity, however, were the promises to become more responsive to student needs. And, with more than 400 students bumped from the housing lottery this year, it appears advancing student concerns in the city will be paramount among these demands. If the winning camp wishes to have any hope of making good on their pledges to deal with the city, they’re going to need student backing — and a lot of it.

p. We’re all aware that students comprise about half the city’s population, but it’s disappointing to admit we’re only a tiny fraction of the registered voters. The problem, then, is that even if city officials are fond of us and want to work with the SA, there’s no reason to do so until we can vote; it would be political suicide. Just ask Billy Scruggs, the only true student advocate on city council. He wasn’t re-elected in 2006.

p. At present, the powerful actors in Williamsburg city politics are the concerned voters the ones who show up to council meetings in vehement protest of policy. These are the people who will not stand idly by as the new administration tackles the three-person rule. And why shouldn’t the city listen to these folks over our student government? Put simply, our legitimacy in the Williamsburg political arena rests not on our new president or vice president, senators or executive branch, but on the student body itself and its willingness to vote.

p. But to reach the point where voting is possible, we must look to the SA. If the new administration truly has responsiveness to student issues in mind, so that everyone may voice his opinion in the city with the backing of his vote, campus-wide voter registration must be the administration’s foremost responsibility. Even now, steps in that direction have been taken by both the senate and the executive, but to the president and vice president, whoever you may be, we’re expecting big things, and with our help, this is one promise you cannot afford to break.

__Andrew Peters, a sophomore at the College, is a Staff Columnist. His columns appear on Fridays.__

It seems that as time goes on, the United States’ public interest becomes more and more trivial. Feb. 8, most people remember hearing or seeing the news that Anna Nicole Smith died. The former playmate died of unknown causes, and this engrossing, enthralling news story captured the attention of the American public for days on end. However, many people don’t know that on that same day, Antonio Pierro, an Italian-born American World War I combat veteran died at the age of 110. He also happened to be the oldest verified man living in the United States and the oldest verified World War I combat veteran.

p. The puzzling irony of the situation is that Smith, who lived a life of vanity completely removed from almost every living person in the United States, occupied the air waves while a heroic WWI combat veteran died without so much as a simple ticker line at the bottom of CNN. The only references to his passing were in Massachusetts-based publications such as The Boston Globe and the local obituaries of Swampscott, Mass.

p. Considering there are only 40 surviving veterans of World War I, with even fewer who were actually involved in combat, I find it incredible that more people are concerned with the death of Anna Nicole Smith. Is this what our society truly cares about? Is the death of an adult entertainer more newsworthy than the death of a combat veteran of a war that cost the lives of 116,708 American soldiers and 21,228,813 people worldwide? The media is a reflection of what our society values in day-to-day events; in my opinion, this event reflected poorly on our society.

p. To offer a proper memorial for Pierro, the following is some information about this man’s heroic life. Born on Feb. 22, 1896 in Forenza, Italy, he immigrated to the United States in 1914 where he resided in both Marblehead and Swampscott, Mass. He enlisted in the Army in 1918, trained at Fort Dix and was sent to France where he saw combat in the Battle of Saint-Mihiel. Pierro also fought in the Meuse-Argonne Offensive in the 82nd American Expeditionary Force in the 320th Field Artillery, and he served as a member of the American Legion in Swampscott, Mass.
Pierro returned to the United States in 1919 and later married Marie Pierre in 1920. The couple did not have any children and Pierre died in 1967.

p. After his military service, Pierro worked in the General Electric jet engine plant in Lynn, Mass. Following the deaths of Thomas Nelson, Sr. and Emiliano Mercado del Toro, Jan. 9 and Jan. 24 respectively, Pierro became the oldest World War I combat veteran and the second oldest man in the world. Pierro lived out the rest of his life in Swampscott, Mass. with his younger, 98-year-old brother, where he died just a few weeks shy of his 111th birthday.

p. __Adam Farrar is a freshman at the College.__

Last Monday, Mar. 19, marked the fourth anniversary of the beginning of the war in Iraq. Obviously, opinions have changed toward the war since its beginning. When we first invaded, support ran high for the president, as most believed that we would be able to take over and withdraw in a matter of weeks. As the years have gone by, the president’s support has plummeted to a record low. We now know that Iraq never had weapons of mass destruction and the idea of a peaceful democratic government in Iraq seems nearly impossible.

p. President George W. Bush’s speech on the war’s anniversary displayed a clear change in tone and expectations toward the war. In past years, Bush has made declarations of success and military victory for the troops. No such declarations were made this year. There was no mention of democracy or great victory. There was simply a plea for patience. As Bush continues to ask for more funding and troops, it seems his only plan is to continue what we have been doing and hope it works this time. He has offered little apology for the failures of the past and has proposed no plan to withdraw in the future.

p. In response to Bush’s latest bill, which asks for $100 million more for the war, Democrats attached an amendment that creates a timetable for the withdrawal of the troops. With mass public support, the Democrats are clearly no longer afraid to criticize the war or the president. However, Bush has made it perfectly clear that he will veto such a bill if it is passed, calling the bill “unconscionable.”

p. The Bush administration has also made it clear that we can no longer win this war. Instead, it argues that if we leave now, all of the past efforts and sacrifices of our troops will be wasted. That argument has absolutely no merit. The idea that we have to lose more lives in order to honor the lives we have already lost is completely ridiculous. In fact, it is wrong and offensive. What gives Bush or anyone else the right to use the memory of soldiers who gave up their lives to manipulate those who are still alive to fight for a cause that doesn’t exist?

p. In his speech, Bush warned Americans that if troops were to withdraw now, Iraq could become the central planning ground for future terrorist attacks. But is the fear of what might happen enough reason to stay? Bush demands that we have faith that things will get better, but when everything shows that it won’t, why should we?

p. Throughout his administration, Bush has never earned the right to our respect or trust. He has only provided lies and false promises. I understand that in leaving now we may be leaving Iraq far more dangerous and vulnerable than when we invaded four years ago. The question we now have to ask is: where do we draw the line? At what point is it no longer worth it to “honor” the sacrifices we have already made? If the only results this war produces are more dead American soldiers and innocent Iraqis, it seems that withdrawing is our only option.

p. __Rachael Siemon-Carome, a freshman at the College, is a Staff Columnist. Her columns appear on Fridays.__

**Review of “300” causes controversy**

p. To the Editor:
It is my duty to address the grossly inaccurate and inflammatory statements made by Beth Sutherland’s review of “300” in the March 27 issue, as not only an Iranian American, but, more importantly, as an informed citizen.

p. My main objection is not the fact that the review of this film treats the plot as fact, stating that it contains “an impressive amount of historical integrity” and is “how it actually happened.” Nor is it the author’s inappropriate references to “liberal Hollywood,” “villains [resembling] the monstrosity of their actions” or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. I am simply disgusted that a hateful diatribe masked as a movie review was published in a student newspaper without a thought to its effect on a section of the student body. I will engage the author in a “quick history lesson” of my own.

p. Spartans were by all accounts ruthless (non-democratic) savages who murdered slaves for sport, endorsed thievery and rape, practiced infanticide and lived for war. They were Greek Jihadists who lived only to die fighting. Further, slavery was a cornerstone of Greek society (Aristotle’s manifesto even sanctions it). There is no evidence that the empire, which freed the Jews from Babylonian captivity, ever made use of unpaid labor. This same empire even created the first bill of rights. In fact, Herodotus is an exemplar of Persia’s freedom. He traveled freely throughout the empire, openly criticizing it. He lived in the Persian city of Halicarnassus because Persia afforded him the freedom to publish his scathing report of it.

p. Hostile words are exchanged regularly between Tehran and Washington. The United States is engaged in two wars with Iran’s neighbors. In a time when we are in need of cultural understanding, this film and this article drive the wedge between the people of the Middle East and of the West even deeper.

p. **__— Kayvan Farchadi ,’09__**