626 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(11/14/01 12:00am)
Author: Katie MacDonald Staff Writer Seeking to assist the helpless animals, the Addison County Humane Society (ACHS) continues the enormous task of improving the lives of homeless animals. Established in 1975, the mission of this local humane society strives "to promote ethical and humane treatment of, and the prevention of cruelty to, all domestic animals and forms of wildlife inhabiting Addison County." ACHS has experienced much success in its endeavors. It has found homes for over 4,700 cats and more than 4,780 dogs in its 26 year history. It has expanded its network to become a valued member of the Vermont Humane Federation, the Humane Society of the United States and the United Way of Addison County, among other organizations. The success of the ACHS is based largely on financial contributions and volunteers. Since the Sept. 11 disaster and the anthrax-by-mail scare that followed, not-for-profit organizations such as ACHS have been struggling for funding. The financial support of animal lovers has been split, if not diverted entirely, to relief and terrorism fundraisers. Ric Kadour, executive director of ACHS, explained, "We have experienced the shift in priorities of this community since Sept. 11." Just like "many other non-profit organizations [ACHS] had … difficulties." ACHS has a variety of giving programs. Donors can become directly involved with ACHS, and dependent upon individual financial contributions, are given such rankings as a Lion-hearted Crusader and a Guardian Angel. For contributors who do not have the $1,000 plus required to be hailed as a Crusader, the Guardian Angel program allows for a more modest financial investment. Especially popular during the holiday season, givers under this program sponsor a single kennel or dog placed in foster care for a fixed period of time. Four Vermont women, Ruth Bunker, Rose Gale, Lisa Hamilton and Mary Ann Martin, launched the ACHS 26 years ago. Today, the Ruth Bunker Endowment fund is acknowledged as the "corner stone" of the Society's funding. In pursuit of continued shelter, animal protection and educational programs, the goal of the Ruth Bunker Endowment Campaign is to raise $600,000 by the year 2002. Also beneficial to ACHS and the animals protected by it, is the gift of time. Volunteers are always needed to walk and play with the dogs and cats. The bare-bones facilities of this animal shelter are located at 236 Boardman Street in Middlebury. Because they are confined to cages for a large part of the day, the animals are always eager to entertain volunteers with a game of fetch on the lawn or a brisk walk up the road. Kadour said that roughly 10 Middlebury College students currently volunteer at ACHS. Middlebury College student and ACHS volunteer Liz Logue '03 commented, "I am one of those people who would take every dog home if I could." She continued, "It is certainly one of the most valuable uses of my time. Each animal is so affectionate and in need of attention. I can't think of a more rewarding experience—I always find leaving a little difficult." Recent changes in the policies of ACHS have made foster care a viable option for college students. Kadour said, "Two years ago we became a no-kill institution. This has changed how we manage the flow of animals — rather than destroy an animal, we work with foster homes." The current foster program allows students living in off-campus housing to provide foster care for an animal over at time period that may be as little as a week. Kadour explained further, "In the past foster care has been difficult for college students because they cannot make a long term commitment. This program allows us to place high-need animals, or animals that have been with us for a while, in a less stressful environment."
(11/14/01 12:00am)
Author: Padma Govidan Staff Writer "Monsters Inc.," a film from Pixar, is a candy-colored, fast-paced and inventive homage to lost days when children were easily scared—and thus, truly innocent (at least according to the film industry). Although it doesn't quite have the heart of "Toy Story" or "Toy Story 2," what it lacks in emotional sincerity, "Monsters Inc." makes up for in wit and visual razzle-dazzle.Monsters Inc. is a company that specializes in frightening children, and employs creatures and "things that go bump in the night" to lurk in kids' rooms and scare them. The point of entry into our universe is through a closet, but these monsters don't operate out of any really evil intention. In true Pixar fashion, the usual, fairy-tale impetus for a character's (or group's) action is turned on its ear. These monsters scare kids purely out of self-interest, for the city of their parallel universe, Monstropolis, is powered by children's screams. However, Monstropolis is facing an energy crisis, as children don't seem to scare as easily as they used to. This is as impersonal a business for the monsters as a corporate merger would be for any human company. Only one monster continues to exceed his scare quota: Sullivan (the voice of John Goodman), a furry blue giant who is perpetually accompanied by his best friend Mike (voice of Billy Crystal), a manic midget of a green monster with one huge eye. (Ironically, the physical contrast between Sully and Mike is paralleled by the real-life proportions of Goodman and Crystal. One can easily see Crystal fluttering around Goodman's feet as Mike does around Sully.) Sully is held up as the ideal employee. In one devastatingly funny scene, his boss, Mr. Waternoose (James Coburn), uses Sullivan's scare technique as a model for a group of auditioning monsters. "It's all about presence," he says, "about how you enter the room." His pontifications are weirdly reminiscent of Alec Baldwin's "always be closing" speech from "Glengarry Glen Ross." As the plot progresses, Sully's status as a successful monster employee is threatened when a three-year-old human girl named Boo (Mary Gibbs) enters Monstropolis. Any artifact from the human world acts as a contaminant when it enters Monstropolis and must be eradicated by a special decontamination team (a hysterical band of monsters covered in sterile latex.) Thus, it is up to Sully and Mike to return boo to the human world without being caught, blamed and exiled. I will say in this film's favor that it is maniacally, hysterically and unrelentingly funny. There is not a single joke or sight gag wasted here, from the fear of banishment with the Loch Ness Monster, to the vision of Mike trying slip in a giant dome of a contact lens. No opportunity is wasted to spoof corporate politics, including motivation sessions and there are even a few digs at "Toy Story." What's more, with "Monsters Inc.," Pixar has achieved total animation perfection. The colors and depth of dimension scream "this was really expensive" to the audience. Yet, there is none of the sweetness or honesty of other animation flicks of this kind, particularly "Toy Story" and "Shrek." The film gets a little clichéd at the end, considering the syrupy way it conveys its message on the importance of celebrating innocence and childhood for as long as it lasts. (Does every feature-length cartoon have to espouse this? You would think so, given how many films seem to hold onto this as the ultimate moral of every story containing children.) I honestly don't know how "Monsters Inc." will hold up against "Harry Potter" next week. Yes, I do—it will get wasted at the box office. Not having seen "Harry Potter," I can't say whether this is a fate that "Monsters Inc." will deserve, but I will say that it is not the best film that Pixar has ever released. But it is certainly diverting and good enough for an afternoon with your little brother or friends.
(11/14/01 12:00am)
Author: Sam Rodriguez The following article expresses pretty controversial ideas with respect to Christianity, and religion in general, today. I ask that those Christians that are especially sensitive to criticism of their religion keep an open mind during the course of this article. For those curious, I am a Roman Catholic. Recently, however, I have had somewhat of an epiphany that, in my opinion, speaks volumes about the current state of Christianity. First, I will discuss my epiphany. This week, I gave a great deal of consideration to the "Nada" concept. This idea, commonly associated with Hemingway, states that there is no afterlife. Absolutely no afterlife. According to this concept, like animals, when we die, we simply cease to exist. No perception at all. No identity. No life. The world around us goes on, but our spirit, our soul, does not. In fact, to my knowledge, there is no soul in the "Nada" concept. This idea is nearly impossible to fully comprehend. We cannot very well use our rational faculties or senses of perception to understand a world without our rational faculties or senses of perception. It is quite difficult. When I first considered this idea, I shuddered. In fact, the contemplation of a life that ends entirely at death threw me into two days of utter depression. It consumed my every thought. It made its way into almost every conversation. At first, I resisted contemplating such an idea. As a Catholic, I felt that thinking about such a concept was just unnecessary. How wrong could I be. As I continued to consider the idea, I was somehow able to find peace with it. I felt a sudden harmony with the order of the universe and all living things. The "Nada" concept requires a simple recognition of our fragility as human beings. How necessarily humbling. Trust me. If you take a couple of hours to come to terms with this idea, I think you too will find a similar peace. Now for the shocker: I truly feel that, after finding deep affection for the "Nada" concept, I became a better Christian overall. How? All too often, people enter into relationships with God (or gods) to compensate for basic insecurities or inadequacies. No one wants to imagine that life has no meaning beyond our final breath. Thus, many find religion out of fear rather than love. Many ask, "If I live this virtuous life, if I follow the ten commandments, if I accept baptism, what do I get out of it? What does God give me?" Accepting religion for the sake of salvation is wrong. A relationship with God created out of a fear of the unknown rather than a love of Eternal Truth should not be the basis of any faith whatsoever. Please keep in mind that many ancient Hebrew prophets, like Abraham, had no concept of heaven revealed to them. Nevertheless, these people were able to make God the center of their lives. They were also able to bring God to other people without a promise of a glorified afterlife. How does it benefit Christianity, or any other religion, to operate differently? If you are a Christian, or someone that believes in some sort of an afterlife, I ask that you ponder, accept and learn to sincerely love the "Nada" concept. I ask that you re-evaluate your relationship with God thus far and the reasons for making this relationship a part of your life. If you believe evangelism is central to your religion, be careful not to preach words of hell or heaven, but only words of love. A basic human love for one's Creator. Nietzche believes that God is a mere human construct that no longer has a place in the human race. I sincerely believe that, without the re-evaluation I proposed, we are simply proving Nietzche right.
(11/14/01 12:00am)
Author: Marissa Anschutz There are those moments in your life when you witness something truly beautiful and you know, for that space in time, you are a part of something magical. These are the times when you look around the room and you see imagination and creativity exploding from every corner; when you watch people doing both what they love and what they do best. The directors of the Middle Ground Theater Program are masters in their own art and their deep devotion to theater and the community children allowed me to share one of these moments with them. Before I even entered the auditorium, I could hear the high-pitched laughter of the children. The first door I attempted to open was locked, but I stood outside for a while listening to the directors instruct the children for their scenes. After finally finding the open door, I walked into the rehearsal. Six groups of children, spread throughout the auditorium, were practicing lines and dancing around on chairs. The children, ages ranging five to 12 years, have been rehearsing these plays since mid-September for three hours a week. Each of the six groups is studying a different play. These plays, "The Silent Duckboat Captain," "A Monkey's Tail," "The Door in Our Bedroom," "Animal Crackers," "Stan's Spies" and "Just Add Monkey" are all written by the student directors for the Middle Ground Theater. Most children's plays, as explained to me by one of the directors, have one main character with the majority of the lines, and then a massive group of small roles. Thus, by writing their own children's plays, each child has an equal role in the production which fosters their theater experience.Tim Brownell '02 began the Middle Ground Theater Group two years ago, and, since then, his volunteer organization has put on several children's productions. Imagine the perfect pre-school teacher: he maintains a level of control over the group, yet still allows for each child to express her ideas freely. He encourages creativity and imagination, and hopes to inspire all those children around him. And he does. I was only there for an hour and already hope to become involved in Middle Ground in the future. "Animal Crackers," is, according to Anicka (seven years old), about a girl who wants to get out of her house and explore the world. Morgan Beck, who is "five and three-quarters years old," explained her role in the same play: "My name is Scoops, and I am a fairy-in-training." Chelsea Prescott, eight years old, is also a fairy, her official title she described as "her-beautiful-princess-step-godmother." Bowen Abby, also eight-years-old, plays the role of Mr. Lobby, and he helps ease the worries of the "beautiful-princess-step-godmother." Other cast members include eight-year-old Bronwyn Worrick, who plays the part of the evil empress ice queen. Bronwyn describes her character as "mean and evil." "The only thing that will make me die is laughter, so when Hope [another actor] dances around me and acts like a silly monkey, I laugh and I die. But that is okay because I am mean and evil." Hope Romagnoli, who is eight years old, plays the llama who, according to her, is "usually happy and very curious." Finally, when I asked Julian, seven-years old, who plays the part of Guenoco, a curious penguin, what he wants Campus readers to know about the play, he said, "I like it." Coming from a curious penguin, that seems like the best compliment a play could receive.This Thursday was the last rehearsal in the auditorium and next week, the children will rehearse on the state at the Salisbury School in Salisbury, Vt., in the preparation for their opening night. At the end of the rehearsal, Brownell gathered all the kids together and reminded them that this was their last night in the building. "Get really close to the floor," he said, and as he bent down and lay on the floor, all the children in the room scrambled to lie on the wooden basketball court in the gym. "Knock on the floor, knock, knock, knock." I looked around the room in amazement. About 30 children, ages four to nine, were lying down with their ears pressed against the floor. "Can you hear something back?" "Yes, yes!" the kids exclaimed. "Well," said Tim, "I think that thing that you hear is the floor saying goodbye." Three of the six plays from "More Fun Than" — "The Silent Duck Boat Captain," "A Monkey's Tail" and "The Door In Our Bedroom" debut on the Salisbury stage Thursday, Nov. 15 at 7 p.m. and Saturday, Nov. 17 at 1 p.m. The other three plays, "Animal Crackers," "Stan's Spies" and "Just Add Monkey," open Friday Nov. 16 at 7 p.m. and Sunday Nov. 18 at 1 p.m. Tickets are free .For reservations, call 443-6478. Anyone who dares to dream the dreams of children shouldn't miss this opportunity for the world.
(11/07/01 12:00am)
Author: Laura Rockefeller Staff Writer Four couples stood in the spotlight this weekend in the Hepburn Zoo at the opening of "Getting To Know You," the sixth annual First- Year Production. Through movement, the words of the ensemble, the works of Mary Gallagher, Andy Mitton '01, Harold Pinter and others, Director Sam Elmore '00.5 created a collage piece about the many faces of relationships. As he wrote in the director's notes, the piece explores the stages of a relationship, from flirtation through to the break-up, while asking the question, "Who are we when we do these things?" What lengths will we go to in order to appear attractive to that particular member of the opposite sex?The whole gamut of intrigues and machinations that humans go through to draw each other into a relationship was put into perspective by an explanation early on in the production of the mating habits of other types of animals, from ostrich to alligator. Individual actors demonstrated the various cries and dances that animals perform to attract a mate. Then, the ensemble came to a realization: "And I have trouble just saying 'hi'."The set was very simple — eight stools sat facing each other — but complicated antics soon began as the people occupying the stools, in true-to-life fashion, began over-analyzing their relationships from every perspective possible. One of the most memorable pieces in the first half of the show was a monologue by Liam Aiello '05 where he talked through all of the agonizing deliberations leading up to speaking to the object of his affections. His simplicity and sincerity completely drew the audience in to his all too familiar dilemma while the girl causing all the problems was alternately hidden by the crowd of her friends and displayed to him from across the room, at what seemed like an immeasurable distance.The following series of individual scenes was interspersed with brief ensemble pieces that used movement and choral speaking to display many of the points one hits on the emotional roller coaster. One montage displayed, through a clearly structured dance, the tight connection between two people in a relationship, but then dissolved into chaotic movements as actors explained how lost they were before they fell in love. The segments like this, where all the actors worked through realizations as an ensemble, were interesting in that they reinforced how universal all of these struggles are. Each actor came to the realization in a different way and from a different experience, but they were all moving together.The second half of the piece moved on from the joy of coming together to the pain of breaking apart. Scenes dealt with many forms of separation, from simply deciding that the time had come, to murder. One scene dealing with issues of trust was played with particular sympathy by John Stokvis '05 and Shelia Seles '05. Their ability to find humor in the scene, even while trying to deal with the fact that each believed the other to have slept with another person, made it very real.All the different segments of the show came together to emphasize one thing. Through the course of a relationship people are constantly changing and adapting, intentionally or unintentionally. Each actor had a very individual and unique journey over the course of the play, but they all had to make similar choices to make their relationships work. The show began with the actors demonstrating that they all begin relationships by flirting, but each with their own style. By demonstrating their various flirting tactics to members of the audience, the ensemble drew the audience members into a special relationship with the actors they were watching.Throughout the piece, the audience continued to be involved in an unusual relationship with the scenes before them. The direct interactions that the actors had with the audience combined with the universality of the issues dealt to pull the audience into a close connection to the actors before them. Because of the alley seating, members of the audience also had an unusual relationship with each other. Behind each scene, members of the audience on one side of the theatre could see their counterparts on the other. In some instances it was the case that reactions to a piece came almost as much from the reactions of opposite audience members as from the piece itself.This connection between members of the audience emphasized one of the issues presented in the piece: that in relationships people tend to wait for cues from their partner before they take any decisive action. One does not simply react to a situation. People often wait for the reaction of their significant other before hazarding any comment themselves. Audience members may have found themselves doing this as they mimicked the laughter or silence of the other audience members. People were not only members of the audience, but were somewhat on display themselves as they were watched just as they watched other people.Although some inexperience was evident in a few performances, the honesty and commitment with which the company presented this piece was delightful. It was clear that each actor brought his or her own individual understanding to bear on their presentation of how we get to know each other. The scenes explored as many personalities and variations of relationships as were probably possible in one hour, and in many different ways. Through poetry, prose, movement and, in some cases, music, the production allowed the audience a look at all of the crazy things we will do in pursuit of love.
(11/07/01 12:00am)
Author: Brian Ashley So, Vice President Dick Cheney is off hunting in North Dakota. Oh, that's super; we are "at war" and our second-in-command is off killing helpless animals. No wonder everyone hates us. I know I am probably the last person likely to say this, but there has got to be a reason that so many people hate the United States of America. Sure, there are the obvious answers: we push people around on a false moral high ground; we breed concepts of immorality and portray them in every facet of our modern media; and we think we are the greatest people to ever walk the Earth. Just because Arab extremists call the United States "Satan" doesn't mean their only justification is that their religion says our country is bad. Within my short lifetime we have gotten ourselves into so many proverbial honey-pots that I have begun to wonder what, if anything, we have changed. Excluding certain obvious exceptions (World War I and World War II), I feel like we cause more problems than we solve, and I worry that I have been blind to the true effects of American international "conflict resolution.""But wait," you say, "what about the Gulf War? We freed Kuwait from the Iraqis and saved millions of people from Saddam." Sure, we freed Kuwait, we put out the oil fires and we saved our asses and kept the black gold pumping. We told the Iraqis to rise up against Saddam and that we, the great army in the desert, would help them. Well, they rose up, they spoke out and they were slaughtered. They starved to death, and no one in the United States gave a crap. As far as we were concerned, every Iraqi was an enemy and still is.The Middle Eastern peace conflict is even worse. I have yet to understand our support for the Jews. Was it World War II guilt? Do we as a country just hate people not of our color so much that we just picked the whitest side? Not only are we guilty of arming the Israelis and continuing the conflict, but we are so hesitant to scold them for infractions against their peace treaties that we let them get away with murder, literally. A few Arab kids throw stones at an Israeli officer from an apartment block and the Israelis send in the helicopter gunships (care of the USA) to blow up the entire housing complex under the justification that it is facilitating terrorism. Every time I hear about one of these events, I cannot believe that no one says, "What the hell is going on? Why don't we stop this?" Furthermore, we continue to turn a blind eye to illegal settlements in disputed lands. Colin Powell, the man who once said, "Get in it, win it or get out," should realize that we have no place in these conflicts. We sit around patting ourselves on the backs for spreading peace, but all we do is arm our favorites and hold their hand while they commit genocide.It may sound a little crazy, but would the world really fall apart if we just called everyone home? How much are our armed forces really doing to keep the oil cheap and plentiful? I propose that the United States make a full tail-between-the-legs retreat from the Middle East and all other trouble spots for that matter. Our air strikes over Afghanistan are doing very little to keep the number of Anthrax cases down or the number of home-based terrorist cells low. In my last column, I said that we are making up for law enforcement failures with the revoking of civil liberties, and now I am saying that we are doing the same but in Afghanistan with bombs with catchy names like the "Bunker Buster."Osama bin Laden is a pretty messed up guy. He is by no measure a balanced individual. However, he has a point. We have screwed over a lot of people and caused a lot of problems in the Middle East. We act like we know everything that we do is good and right and moral, but we are wrong. We can either keep fighting this war with impaired intelligence and a hidden enemy, or we can cut our losses and get back to worrying about pointless stuff like political scandals and movie stars and their lovers. I for one have had enough of everyone hating the United States, and I feel that if we just took a step back and assessed our place in this world we could realize our blunders and start over. I know one thing for sure; our choice of the Northern Alliance as our Afghani allies is going to lead to nothing good (they are just a bunch of warlord robbers too). We need to stay out of conflicts that have nothing to do with us and focus on our own problems, of which we have many. Go America, woohoo!
