In today’s issue, a feature story appears on the front page that addresses policy violations and the results of infractions by student athletes at the College. While some readers, particularly non-athletes, may be somewhat alarmed at certain restrictions imposed by coaches and the sanctions that can accompany violation of these rules, the policies are generally sensible and beneficial to all parties concerned.

p. Many athletes come to the College on partial scholarships because of their athletic abilities. Consequently, they have an extra responsibility to their programs to ensure that their behavior does not result in negative consequences for themselves or their teams. It should certainly be pointed out that these rules and regulations, often regarding drinking and other social scenarios, can be quite difficult for student athletes, most of whom live a life that consists of strenuous practice and workout schedules.

p. Despite of these rigorous schedules, scholar athletes must still use common sense in their choices. Players know what is expected of them in regard to alcohol consumption and other behaviors, particularly during their respective seasons. Women’s track and field Head Coach Kathy Newberry has stipulated for her team that no player can consume more than two drinks on a single occasion and may not drink within 12 hours of a team obligation. This is by no means an unreasonable request given the understood responsibilities of student athletes and alcohol’s effect on athletic performance.

p. One of the most interesting sides of this debate centers on the issue of athletes who post pictures and information on Facebook. Some believe that the coaching staff members of various teams track their players’ Facebook accounts to search for inappropriate behavior, an assertion that coaches deny. Whether or not this is the case, student athletes must realize, just as any student who applies for a job or anything else of significance to his or her future, that privacy cannot be expected on a public forum such as Facebook.

p. The thought of coaches intentionally tracking their players online is quite disturbing, one would not be completely justified in saying their privacy is being invaded, particularly since the main purpose of Facebook is online social interaction, and some athletes are Facebook friends with assistant coaches.

p. A more accurate critique of the College’s attitude toward its athletes would address the need for clearer explanations of consequences for student athletes found to be in violation of team policy. In the case of the men’s track and field team, players understand the policy but are unclear as to the potential ramifications if they break the rules. Particularly here at the College, where guidelines, policy and punishments are so well defined by the honor and judicial councils, specific rules and consequences should be implemented and passed on to student athletes in order to grant the same courtesy.

p. The College’s graduation rate of 89 percent for student athletes is tied for fifth in the nation among Division I schools — a truly remarkable accomplishment. Moving forward, our athletes must continue to serve the College and perform on the field, but they also must show maturity and, at times, restraint off the field.

p. Likewise, the administration, the athletic department and the coaches must understand that these athletes are also students. Like all students, they deserve the respect and basic right of just and well-defined policies. Improvements and more honest discourse on both sides will lead to healthier, more productive athletic programs that will continue to serve and represent the College.

I never listened to pop punk in high school. As a pseudo-intellectual elitist in my teens, I considered myself too good for songs with names like “I’m not okay (it’s all right)” or “Cute without the E.” But as I enter the twilight of my life — my twenties — I’ve embraced the music I hated then with open arms.

p. There’s a scene in the film Garden State that always makes me laugh. Zach Braff’s character, an emotional cipher, has just met Natalie Portman’s. “What are you listening to?” Zach Braff asks her. “The Shins,” she replies. Her slender lips pause, and then she says, “Listen to this song; it will change your life.”

p. Moments in movies that are meant to be taken seriously always make me want to laugh. But this scene in particular cracked me up because of what it asked Zach Braff, and the audience, to do. Take music seriously, Natalie Portman said, and define your life by the melodies that busy your iPod.

The person I was in high school thought that music defined him. In 11th grade, I listened strictly to jazz because I fancied myself a future writer. Joni Mitchell’s album, “Blue,” put a face on my many moments of heartbreak. And River Como’s voice lulled me to sleep on countless angst-filled nights. This was music I could openly tell people I listened to without fear of being ridiculed for my tastes.
No wonder I never touched a pop punk album all those years.

p. What would people have thought of me as a result? I preferred musician name dropping, bringing up obscure music in everyday conversations. I hoped that bringing up artists both hip and trendy would make me more popular. My plans normally backfired. “Hey I just started listening to this band; maybe you’ve heard of them? They’re called The Beatles.”

p. Evidently, by high school most people had heard of those four guys from Liverpool. The cold stares they gave me made this fact clear. Was it my fault that I was a late musical bloomer? I didn’t know how to define cool. I still don’t, but I knew that I wasn’t it. Music was my vain attempt to achieve it — to be recognized by the intellectuals at my school who read Kant for fun and talked about Greenwich Village. They did not listen to emotional pop punk.
College was a new chance, a place where I could redefine myself as a person with excellent tastes. I went to listening meetings for the radio station and took to blaring music I’d read about on the internet, hoping my hallmates would hear it and consider me complex.

p. Then, something happened. For the first weeks of freshman year I didn’t make many friends. By not many friends, I mean hardly any. What was the point of being trendy if I didn’t have anyone to appreciate my scene tastes? “College is going fine,” I’d say to my parents on a Friday night. “I mean I was going to go out tonight, but I decided I’d stay in, you know? Catch up on some sleep.” My father, a healthy drinker, would reprimand me saying, “Why don’t you go out tonight? Maybe drink a little bit?”

p. I didn’t have the courage to tell him that drinking usually requires friends, else the practice teeters on alcoholism. Instead of going out those first weeks I started listening to music for the first time. Whereas before I played music because I thought it reflected my persona, I now played music that I actually wanted to hear regardless of what others thought. Instead of putting on airs, I began taking them off. Coincidentally, I started making friends.

p. As much as I hate to admit it, I had my own Garden State moment last summer. I was driving up to Connecticut with my friend Virginia to visit our mutual friend Liz. Virginia made me a mix CD for the ride. She’d included songs for no reason other than that she liked them. When a pop punk tune came up, I was shocked. True, the lyrics were garbage, but there was something to it. It’s a genre of music that requires little thought, but man is it catchy.

p. “What are we listening to?” I asked her. “The Get Up Kids,” Virginia said. “Have you heard of them?” I hadn’t, but wished I had. As we continued driving, I desperately wanted to tell Virginia something, but I didn’t want to sound trite. Pop punk had changed my life.

p. __James Damon, a sophomore at the College, is a Staff Columnist. His columns appear every Tuesday.__

Over the past few months, I have closely followed the administration’s dialogue concerning Iran. More and more, the actions of the current administration model the U.S.’s actions during the months before the invasion of Iraq. So what’s next, a war with Iran?

p. U.S.-Iranian relations first grabbed my attention last year with the growing debate over Iran’s nuclear ambitions. The details of Iran’s nuclear program first emerged in 2002, when a group of Iranian exiles accused Tehran of secretly building a vast uranium enrichment plant in Natanz and a heavy water plant in Arak. After U.S. satellite images confirmed these allegations, Iran admitted to the program, which had been kept secret for 18 years. Since this discovery, Iran has continued their nuclear program despite three years of international pressure to cease enrichment. Iran claims that the country has the sovereign right to “civilian” nuclear technology under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Yet the U.S. and other western nations remain fundamentally distrustful of the intentions of the Islamic Republic.

p. The U.S. may have a point. Iran hid the program for 16 years, and the Iranian leaders have rarely cooperated with international calls for halting its enrichment. Despite sanctions, the Iranian regime remains defiant to any pullback from enrichment.

p. Paradoxically, the U.S.-led war in Iraq has allowed Iran to emerge as the regional superpower. Subsequently, with the Sunni/Shiite divide and the resurgence of Islamism transcending the region, the Iranian Islamic revolution may serve as the model for Islamic revolutionaries across the region. Simply put, the mere existence of a powerful Iranian regime threatens the internal stability of our regional allies, such as Saudi Arabia. To make matters worse, Iran has publicly threatened to wipe Israel, our closest regional ally, off the map. Consequenly, weakening Iranian power seems like the next policy on the administration’s agenda.

p. Tensions between the U.S. and Iran have recently heated up. The Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has explicitly promised harsh retaliation to any military attack against Iran on Iranian soil. Tehran has called for talks with the U.S. but has explicitly stated that such talks would not result in Iran halting enrichment, but a U.S. understanding of the Iranian position. Iran constantly rebukes international criticism, claiming that the “enemies of Iran” only seek to destabilize the progress of the Islamic republic. More importantly, as Saddam once did, the Iranian president believes that U.S. threats of military action are only a bluff. Ultimately, Ahmadinejad believes that the U.S. is too weak to attack Iran.

p. In December, the U.S. arrested Iranian diplomats in Baghdad, claiming that these officials were members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard who were providing military assistance to Shiite militants. Increasingly, the administration has directly implicated Iran in Iraq’s spiraling violence. In this week’s news, the Bush administration, along with some military officials, have claimed that Tehran knowingly provides Shiite militants with Iranian-made IFPs, one of the deadliest roadside bombs that have been used to attack Coalition forces. According to BBC news, President Bush has remarked that U.S. forces would “kill any Iranians agents” who attack Coalition forces inside Iraq. The likelihood of military action seems more and more imminent.

p. The chance for U.S. military action in Iran, however, seems much more unlikely than did the prospects for war with Iraq prior to the 2003 invasion. To begin, Tehran has not achieved the level of enrichment necessary for building a bomb. Thus, without proof of actual nuclear weapons, the U.S. could never build support for an invasion or even begin to justify unilateral action (as was done in Iraq). Therefore, domestic and international support remains limited. More importantly, the U.S. military remains tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan; therefore, any attack would have to be limited in nature and most likely carried out by air. But with little international or internal support, the administration may not act alone again.

p. Some suggest that an attack on Iranian nuclear sites could be initiated by Israel. Israel could unilaterally attack Iran’s nuclear sites in a similar manner to the ’81 Israeli bombings that destroyed the Iraqi nuclear site, Osirak. Unfortunately, this situation remains unlikely because, geographically speaking, an attack of this nature would need U.S. consent. Israeli bombers would need to use Iraqi airspace to enter Iran, implying U.S. consent to the military action. I do not believe Washington is ready to face this scenario, because of our mistakes with Iraq and their subsequent international condemnation, but as diplomacy continues to fail between Iran and the West, there is no telling what could happen.

p. __Teddy Wertheim is a junior at the College.__

Half-marathons attract amateurs and veterans alike, both for the same reason: the distance. To the seasoned marathoner, the race is a checkpoint of their training, giving them an honest assessment about where they stand and how hard they should push when it really matters. Half-marathons are a great speed workout for marathoners, adding speed to their established endurance. For the beginner, the intimidating distance serves as a barrier to overcome, demanding mental and physical endurance.

p. There are many benefits to running half-marathons. First, for a humble fee of about $50, you get a free shirt. The distance is just long enough to fix the runner’s inner-monkey (here I’m talking about the “runner’s high,” a high so potent it stands second only to heroin), leaving one feeling unnecessarily friendly, shamelessly unabashed and, despite potential tearing and lactic-acidification of muscle, without pain. Unlike the full marathon, you won’t be in a sea of soreness the next morning — if you’re used to the mileage, you’ll probably be able to run the next day.

p. This year’s weather at the Colonial Half was miserable, to say the least. The clouds held up until about five minutes before the race, at which point it drizzled all over us. Throughout the race this drizzle developed into various gradations, ranging from tiny pellets to plump droplets. In some instances it rained like a bastard, attenuating eventually into a light downpour. On the bright side, the weather wasn’t too cold, and unlike last year, the wind was not an active participant in the race (although it did pick up during the latter half). The truth is, if you’re crazy enough to run such distances, bad weather won’t stop you.

p. About 1,500 runners participated in this year’s event, including students, locals, non-locals and a couple of Kenyans who stole the show. I ran with Team Blitz, a training and racing club made up of ex-Tribe runners and competitive running junkies. As always, they brought their A-game, with senior Tommy Antennuci leading the pack at 1:10, placing ninth overall, followed closely by seniors George Ingham, Ben Beiter, and the rest of the team, all finishing at or under 1:20.

p. Although students and locals had the home-court advantage, the course ruled out any sort of favoritism. The route was designed by the most sadistic of geographers, choosing the absolute worst terrain the College has to offer.

p. Most of the race was run on South England Street and Country Road, which looped, covering Newport, Griffin and cutting through Jamestown into Landrum. The 13 wet miles ended with a final uphill stretch over Yates Drive, with a twisting descent curtailed by yet another twist, this time an ascending slope into the back entrance of William and Mary Hall, where runners were cheered on by friends and family alike. To the runner’s delight, there was hot coco to warm up, with free bananas, bagels and beer.

p. With marathon season just underway, the Colonial Half served as an appropriate checkpoint. My plan is to run Virginia Beach’s Shamrock Marathon in March, the Charlottesville Marathon in late April and, depending on finals, the Potomac River Run Marathon in early May.

p. __Sherif Abdelkarim, a sophomore at the College, is a Staff Columnist. His columns appear every Tuesday.__