By Frank Loiacono

More than 4,000 freshmen and transfer students received First-On-Us ticket vouchers during the past summer and winter orientations in an effort by the Staller Center to expose students to the Staller experience and to lessen the proportion of gray hair in the audience. But as of April 5, only 141 vouchers had been used.

Campus officials attribute the lack of success of First-On-Us, a promotional and educational tool in its inaugural year at Stony Brook University, to how it was marketed during the orientations.  While the First-On-Us voucher came bundled with the Staller schedule in its own bag, “students still have too much to absorb in orientation,” said Director of Student Orientation Heather Robertson.  “It’s an information overload.”

 Freshman Eric Luu is a prime example of getting overwhelmed at orientation.  When asked about First-On-Us, Luu was clueless.  However, when shown a voucher, he remembered he still had his.  “Oh, yeah!”  he said, adding, “I didn’t throw it out.”  Luu admitted he did not use his voucher because he thought it would cost him money.

The 141 vouchers that have been used were worth a combined $2,207.  “We are losing money, but we are investing money,” said Staller Center Director Alan Inkles.  A Stony Brook alum, Inkles knows that, while he may currently be able to fill up his theater with an older audience, if he does not plant the seeds now, there will be no older audience ten to twenty years from now.

The marketing of First-On-Us consisted of a five-minute presentation during the “This Community Belongs to All of Us” segment on the third day of summer orientation - by which time most students realize how “mandatory” the orientation events really are.  “It’s heartbreaking to me…upsetting,”  Robertson said.  “We’ll have to go back to the drawing board.”

As the numbers show, drawing students to the Staller Center with free tickets is not as easy as it would seem.  “The thing is, you still have to go, even if it’s free,” said Staller Center Financial Director Barbara Wien, in whose name the Barbara N. Wien Endowment for Arts and Education was founded.  The endowment, started in 2007 with $10,000 on Wien’s twenty-fifth anniversary of working at Staller, supports the First-On-Us program through the interest it collects.  The endowment, currently at $79,000, earned $2,700 in interest last year, which was allocated to the debut season of First-On-Us.

While the Staller staff expected a slow start, they were disappointed at how slow it actually was.  “I’m not going to have students knocking down the doors,” Inkles said, “but First-On-Us does get rid of the money roadblock.”  From $5 movies to $15 operas to $37 main attractions, First-On-Us vouchers can be used at any show.

Inkles and Robertson want to come out of the gate stronger next year.  They plan on sending out reminder emails to students who have not used their vouchers and including First-On-Us in the freshman seminar textbook along with established Stony Brook traditions such as the Roth Pond Regatta.  “We need to just get them in and expose them,” said Inkles.

Located behind the Melville Library in the northeast corner of campus, the Staller Center is disconnected from many students.  Inkles is proud of, and passionate about, scheduling a diversity of programs to bring in new faces.  Performances this year ranged from Dutch hip-hop and extreme sport group 4-ISH to the 2008 Gala with Bernadette Peters to Stony Brook’s Emerson String Quartet.  However, the Staller Center’s reputation for diverse programs has not reached everyone on campus.

Freshman Jessica Marmol, who did not receive a First-On-Us bag or Staller schedule, was asked if she would use a voucher if she had one.  “To be honest, I wouldn’t,” she said.  “I don’t think anything would interest me.”  But, when told about the variety of programs and that the first would be free, she relented.

Finding out how to attract students to the arts is a learning process, Inkles acknowledged.  “We’ve got to meet students somewhere in the middle,” he said. 

“Maybe one shot won’t do it,” Wien agreed, “but they know it exists now.” 

Sitting in two unmarked crates in the corner of the Student Orientation Office are hundreds of undistributed First-On-Us bags with vouchers and information packets – hundreds of missed opportunities and experiences.  Next year will be the encore performance of the First-On-Us program.  If the marketing goes well, it will be up to the students to give it a standing ovation.

By Raina Bedford and Najib Aminy

In this age of globalization, it is not unusual for companies to exploit cheap labor in poor countries for maximum economic gain. What is unusual is that Stony Brook University supports this practice by selling clothing manufactured by companies who employ children as young as fourteen-years old at rates as low as $0.80 per day. From sweatshirts and jackets to pants, the clothes hanging in the University Bookstore, the Seawolves Marketplace and even the newly opened Wang Center are made in countries with questionable regulations.   

Companies such as Clairborne, MV Sport, and Van Heusen are all carried by Stony Brook, have their clothing made in countries such as Indonesia, Honduras, and Bangladesh respectively. With the exception of MV Sport, these companies did not provide much information regarding their labor policies. Of the ones that did, including MV Sport and Jones and Mitchell, it was validated that they only allow employees at least fourteen years of age to work. For example, in Jones and Mitchell’s labor code of conduct, it is stated, “Vendors shall not employ any person at an age younger than fifteen (or fourteen, where consistent with International Labor Organization practices for developing countries, the law of the country of manufacture allows such exception).”

Even companies who did adhere to Fair Labor Association guidelines failed to face the reality that the US State Department found these rules to be poorly enforced in many countries. The FLA guidelines sets limits on age, sets standard wages for workers, protects their right to organize and protects them from bonded labor and abuse. 

With a sleek business appeal, Van Heusen is one of many questionable companies present at Stony Brook. They manufacture clothes in Bangladesh where the minimum wage for employees in the garment industry is just $0.80 per day according to the US State Department.  The US State Department has also reported that child labor remains a significant problem in Bangladesh, with the International Labor Organization reporting an estimated 532,000 children, ages five to seventeen, working in hazardous conditions.  An even larger number of children, ages five and up, are forced to work to survive. Based in Honduras and Pakistan, MV Sport products can be seen from jackets to sweatshirts all branded with the Stony Brook University logo.  In Honduras, the US State Department found that 350,000 children between the ages of five and seventeen were forced to work in order to survive in 2007.  Although the government in Honduras requires that children younger than fourteen have a working permit in order to work, the US State Department found that often children would purchase forged documents to circumvent government oversight.

 In Pakistan, the national monthly wage is $41 per month, which comes out to roughly $1.70 per day.  Children at the age of fourteen are permitted to work, although the US State Department found that there were few child labor inspectors in most cities and the inspectors often had little training, insufficient resources, and were susceptible to corruption.  Inspections were also not mandatory for factories that can be managed with an employment of less than ten people, causing a large number of small fragmented sweatshops to exist in Pakistan. This all culminates in poor enforcement of existing child labor laws and the persistence of child labor in these countries.

Blue Generation is another one of the clothing companies that Stony Brook has entered into business contracts with.  Blue Generation has their factories set up in Egypt, where the US State Department found that 2.7 million children work with no minimum wage set for the private sector. The minimum wage for both the private and public sector stands at $33 per month, which equates to about $1.10 a day.

Out of the eleven companies Stony Brook has entered into contracts with, Andrew Rohan is the only company that manufactures their clothes in the United States and has a minimum wage that provides an acceptable standard of living for employees. 

Andrew Rohan produces their clothing in the United States where the minimum wage is set at roughly $5.85 per hour, which is far more than what other companies are paying for their labor.  This wage produces a better standard of living for employees working at this company relative to companies who export their labor internationally.  The United States has strict labor laws with the minimum age for working in the private sector being sixteen years.  Enforcement of existing labor laws in the United States is strict with frequent inspections of working places and strict health and safety guidelines.    

The second highest wage was found to be in Thailand, where workers are paid $5.73 per day, which is a couple cents more than a worker would make in an hour in the United States for doing the same job.  Van Heusen paid its workers the lowest wage out of these companies, operating a factory in Bangladesh where the minimum wage is set at $0.80 per day.

Lauren Sheprow, a media relations officer of Stony Brook University, said that of the clothing companies brandished here on campus, all of them were in agreement with a licensing group that followed the FLA rules and that the university is very concerned with sweatshop conditions. Sheprow added that all royalties from any purchase go directly to the University, such as scholarships.   

Students were generally aware of the tendency of businesses to export their labor because it’s cheaper, but were surprised to find out that Stony Brook supported this practice. Amanda Cohen, a freshman from Oceanside, NY, was angry that Stony Brook didn’t support socially responsible companies, “I didn’t know that child laborers were making our clothing and I think it’s horrible. I feel that Stony Brook should invest in companies that are more environmentally and socially responsible.” Students were also upset that prices for merchandise remained so high, even though the clothing was manufactured for such a low cost.  “It’s 40 bucks for a hoodie that was probably made for five cents.  It’s ridiculous.  I can’t believe a university would exploit people like that,” said Glenn Werneburg, a sophomore from Hicksville, New York.

A representative from Co-op America, a group that promotes environmentally and socially friendly businesses, was surprised to find that none of the socially responsible businesses on their list were sold by Stony Brook University. Although Lauren Sheprow says that the clothing companies sold on campus are in accordance with FLA regulations, evidence has proven that it is difficult to regulate the factories in many of the countries where Stony Brook merchandise is manufactured.

Behind each Stony Brook logo, shirt or sweater lies a tag, a reminder of the effects of unchecked economic manipulation on the impoverished workers of the world.

By Najib Aminy

As the Olympic torch is being relayed around the globe, there has been a rise of activism and protests targeting China’s domestic and foreign policies. With the 2008 Summer Olympic Games approaching, China has been under scrutiny for its oppressive rule over Tibet as well as for indirectly funding the genocide in Darfur. In weeks, many of the world’s leaders, including German Chancellor Angela Merkel and England’s Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced plans to boycott the opening ceremony of the Olympic games. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has called upon President George Bush to join the boycott and French President Nicolas Sarkozy is considering not attending the ceremony. The significance of the opening ceremony is to honor and glorify the host country, China, recognizing its past and current cultural and societal achievements. However many are at odds with honoring a country with questionable policies towards human rights.

For Stony Brook senior Emanuel Neto, the 2008 Beijing games will make his dream of playing in the Olympics a reality. At the same time, Neto is protesting against the human rights violations committed by China. As an athlete and a protestor, Neto’s situation is both ironic and bold at the same time. Neto recalled growing up in his home country of Angola and being mystified by the beauty of the opening ceremony of the Olympics. “I am protesting the Chinese approach to human rights. Period,” said Neto. The 6’9”, 230-lb Stony Brook center made it clear that he has worked too hard to just give up his dream in attending the Olympics.

Regardless, Neto traveled to San Francisco to join thousands of protestors in awareness of the Tibetan plight and the genocide in Darfur. “I saw people who rushed the bus, people who laid out in right in front of the bus. Others had spread the Tibetan flag on the bus while people were spray painting it with Free Tibet,” recalled Neto. When asked if politics should be mentioned with the Olympics, Neto was quick to say that with the current situation in Darfur and Tibet, “it is not a should have, could have, it is a situation where it is.”

Growing up in Angola, Neto experienced a childhood where he witnessed the effects of war. He mentioned the many times where he hid under a table eating lunch to avoid being hit by flying bullets. Being back home, Neto also witnessed the coverage of what was going on in Darfur, something Neto said the US media has failed miserably to do as he pointed that American Idol receives more coverage than what is going on in Sudan. For the chance to see the torch, “I have dreamed of looking at the torch. But this year it doesn’t feel right.”   

China has had a history of abusing human rights. Minky Worden, media director of Human Rights Watch (HWR), said that China has been on the HWR watch list for the past twenty years for its stringent policies regarding civil liberties and rights. “We have looked further into China in 2004 to examine the abuses being done in preparation to the Olympics.” Worden explained how HWR receives many reports about Chinese oppression, from jailing dissidents to preventing any media contact with Tibet. “The Olympics are casting a light onto China’s domestic and foreign policy,” said Worden. However, according to Worden, the HWR does not call for a boycott of the Olympic games or of the opening ceremony. Rather, HWR is calling on China to correct its human rights violations. “HWR does not support a boycott of the Olympics nor the ceremony, rather we are calling on China to improve its policies. If these policies still stand uncorrected, then we are asking figureheads to step down from attending,” said Worden.

Tibet is an area heavily concentrated with attention in terms of China’s “domestic” policy. Since 1951, China has ruled over Tibet and suppressed countless revolts with brutal opposition. China is now being heavily criticized for its technique in suppressing certain protests as well as ruling Tibet with an iron fist. Ben Carrdus from the International Campaign for Tibet (ICT) says that with the recent spotlight on China, “there have been very profound concerns between good versus evil,” regarding evil as the so-called “liberation” of Tibet by China back in 1951. When asked about whether or not politics should be involved with the Olympics, Carrdus said, “the question is not whether it [politics] should be or shouldn’t, the fact is that it is involved. The Olympics don’t occur in a vacuum.” Carrdus briefly explained the hypocrisy behind China and how it wishes to remove the issue of politics from the Olympics. China boycotted the 1976 Olympics in Montreal due Taiwan’s entry into the games. China did not re-enter the Olympic arena until the 1984 Olympics in Los Angeles. According to Carrdus, the ICT is calling for the boycott of the opening ceremony unless China agrees to allow media access to Tibet, independent monitor organizations such as the Red Cross or UN to assess the progress, to agree not to let the torch pass through Tibet, and undertake substantial discussions with the Dalai Lama.          

Nicole Judd, from the Island For Action organization, says that although politics and the Olympics should be kept separated in normal circumstances, she says that with the given situation in Darfur, “it is the perfect opportunity to show the world what is really going on.” Judd explained China’s self-conscious role and how the current spotlight China has can be used as leverage to take action. China receives a substantial amount of oil from the Sudan, which in return provides them with large monetary funds, funds that go to arms and weaponry. The Sudanese government is involved in no war but its own.

Many organizations from around the world have called for pressure on China due to its indirect funding of the genocide. It is widely believed that Chinese government funds the Janjaweed, the militia hired by the Sudanese government to wipe out opposition and rebel groups in the south west part of Sudan known as Darfur. Since 2003, it is reported that 400,000 people of Darfur have been killed as well as 2.5 million refugees left stranded without a home. Judd says it is very hypocritical to attend an opening ceremony of the Olympics where there is injustice going on everywhere. “The Olympics allow everyone to come together and stand up for spirit, freedom, and democracy, and it is important to live up to that standard,” said Judd.

 Former Ambassador of India Harsh Bhasin, who served his ambassadorship to Denmark, South Africa, Botswana, and China during the Cultural Revolution, says that China is out of line in both Tibet and Darfur. “China makes no distinction between sovereignty and suzerainty. The world has to tell them, and they have to realize, that Tibet is not China,” said Bhasin. The former Ambassador went to say how there is much sympathy for the Dalai Lama as he is “a ruler with no country.” In terms of Darfur, the ambassador said, “China gets oil so they supply arms. “The only country that can exercise influence in Sudan is China, and they are not doing enough.

With the Tibetan suppression and the genocide occurring in Darfur, the 2008 Beijing Olympics may join the list of other Olympics that were heavily boycotted, such as the 1980 Olympics and 1984 Olympics, which were at the height of the Cold War. Regardless of the situation, Bhasin says, “You’ve seen what has happened in London. You’ve seen what has happened in Paris and San Francisco. It is an outpouring of support from the people of the world who feel strongly for the Tibetan cause. And the Chinese, I am afraid, are not handling it in the way they should.”        

In terms of being active, Neto calls upon all college students to wake up and realize what is going on. “College students have the power to change the world. They can send e-mails and become more active. It is college students who can bring about change but that is not going to happen if students are doing nothing but sitting on their assess and smoking weed.” Neto said it is a shame that people are unaware of what is going on and to the people who say they have to focus on their own problems, Neto said, “these people have lost the human in them.”

As the torch continues to travel the world sparking protest from region to region, Neto is preparing for the day where he can fulfill his dream and make the voices of the oppressed people of Darfur and Tibet heard, whether it’s by responding to journalists and voicing his opinion or sporting “Save Darfur” apparel. The torch that once brought humanity together for peace is now bringing people together for justice. As the flames burn, tension is brewing.    

By Najib Aminy

Stony Brook University is 5955 miles away from the heart of a highly-criticized war that began on March 20, 2003. Five years later, support for the war has exponentially declined as death tolls have increased along side the budget deficit. As journalists failed horribly to diligently perform their jobs, much of the American populace fell into the belief that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. The fact is that after five years, not a single weapon of mass destruction has been discovered.

As the initial cause became questionable, the idea of liberating Iraq from the oppressive rule of former president Saddam Hussein filtered through the channels of broadcast television, including CNN and Fox News, and through the prints of The New York Times, The Washington Post and even Long Island’s “coveted” Newsday. The historic image of Saddam’s statues collapsing symbolized the victory of winning the land, however the current battle is ruling over that land.

With failed parliamentary systems, a number of proposed constitutions, and an Iraqi Army that appears heavily reliant on the US military, it remains unclear whether a true victory is realistic. Five years later, over four thousand soldiers have given their lives in this war. Three trillion dollars later, nearly 9,000 men and women have been severely wounded. 3.9 million Iraqi refugees later, there is an ongoing struggle between the US military and insurgents over securing areas of Iraq. Behind the statistics, the numbers, and the facts are individual people endangering their lives for the protection of America and its beliefs. The people sacrificing their lives that wind up becoming another number to a morbid and ever growing statistic, that are often forgotten about, are the people who are and will be fighting this war. They are the soldiers, specifically the student soldiers here at Stony Brook.

For Stony Brook Junior Lieutenant Ricardo Jean, Iraq was neither a headline nor a two-minute broadcast, rather it was a two-month experience that he said, changed his life. “I remember before I went to Kuwait [before heading to Iraq], I said to myself, I might die. This might be the last time I see myself in the mirror,” said Jean. Serving in the Marine Corps, Jean enlisted for numerous reasons. It provided him an escape from his family, an opportunity to know his limits, and an excuse to not attend college. As Jean said, “Education should be something you want, not something you have to do. It should be something you want, cherish, and respect. I didn’t have that desire at the time.” Enlisting in 1999 right out of high school, Jean went through extensive training that lasted a year and a half. Normally, marine training lasts six months. Jean deployed in Japan in early of 2001. While there, he was constantly training, ready if war to was to strike. After the attacks of September 11th, Jean knew the situation was serious as the Camp Guard went from threat level alpha, a time of peace, to threat level delta, where an attack appears imminent. “I am not totally a pacifist, but I am not the first one to say ‘let’s go.’ Let’s think about it,” as Jean, commented on the scenario of jumping into Afghanistan.

Though Jean did not serve time in Afghanistan, he was well aware that he would be going into Iraq well before the actual invasion took place. Jean said the military was “planning to go to Iraq a year or a year and a half before it even started. As a marine you just hear the rumors through the grapevine.” These rumors appeared true to Jean as he and his fellow soldiers conducted a thorough gear inspection, ensuring that x amount of clothing was available, and to ensure the quality of the equipment was new. Jean said “we knew it wasn’t for Afghanistan, especially for the amount of people that were needed. We knew it was something bigger and the thing was is that was happening in bases all over.”

Jean took part in the very beginning of the Iraqi war as he described as a blitzkrieg style of attacks. “We were more like a shock troop where we hit hard and we hit fast not allowing the enemy with anytime to recoup,” said Jean. During these two months, Jean experienced his heart jumping, a reserve of internal fear that he kept hidden, and a level of alertness that would essentially protect his life as well as his fellow soldiers. Jean explained that it is the mental aspect of war that is worse then the physical side. “I was very deep in thought at times, that’s when situations like family and girlfriends eat at them. The ones that had girlfriends either went crazy or were really depressed because they kept thinking about them,” said Jean.

As Jean served his two months in Iraq, essentially doing the “dirty work,” he said that marines win battles but cannot win the war. It is the army that shuts down the enemy lines, whereas Marines simply penetrate through the enemy’s wall of defense. During these two months as well as the years prior, Jean explained the deep camaraderie he shared with his fellow soldiers. He proposed the scenario of a grenade being dropped, saying that the bond between himself and his fellow soldiers was so strong that he would be willing to sacrifice his life by jumping on the grenade for the lives of his fellow soldiers. The one thing that Jean got most out of his experience is the Marine motto, Semper Fidelis, which is Latin for “always faithful.” Jean said that at first he was unfazed by the term, but afterwards, “It really touched me deeply. Being loyal to your friends is the best thing I got out of it.” Jean went on to say that at the end of the day that he is fighting for himself and his fellow soldiers. “As long as the guy to the right or left of me comes home, that’s good stuff.”

For junior George Escobar HN E3, receiving no combat training left him very nervous as he stepped off the plane landing into Baghdad Airport. Escobar was in the Navy but was a medic for the marines, as marines are a smaller group of the Navy who are less funded. Escobar who enlisted in 2005 was later deployed in April of 2006 providing medical assistance to his fellow troops, Iraqi civilians, and even Iraqi insurgents. When asked how he felt on assisting the insurgents, Escobar said, “It pissed me off. Here they are shooting my guys and now I have to go and attend to them.” Escobar had developed a system where he would tend to his soldiers first, followed by civilians, and then the insurgents. Escobar, who carried the responsibility of saving the lives of his group said, “It becomes less of a responsibility and more like I want to help my friend, my companion.” Escobar explained how after the first mission, one becomes close with their troops and it was then that the responsibility became less of a burden and more of a desire.

Escobar enlisted in the Navy for different reasons such as the ability to travel, personal gains, and a means of education. Yet, according to Escobar, it was the experience that he cherished the most. Escobar’s first realization that he was in a war was as soon as he got off the plane. “Everything was going so fast. I was told to get my Kevlar armor on and to suit up. And from the start you are careful and you are on the lookout for what is going on,” said Escobar. When it came to witnessing the drama of war, it was when a new soldier fell into fetal position out of fear that Escobar witnessed a fellow soldier hold the new soldier at gunpoint. “It was crazy and I understand where the guy [holding the gun to the new soldier] was coming from.” Escobar explained that a deep trust is formed in terms of protecting each other’s lives, and if that trust is threatened, then tension arises.

“Hot.” According to Escobar, hot was how he described Iraq. “It’s kind of a guessing game. You don’t know what is going to happen and it kills your nerves. Because you don’t know what is going to happen you are always going to be on alert,” said Escobar. Due to intense level of alertness many war veterans experience post-traumatic stress syndrome. “After I got back I had a little issue, I couldn’t sleep. I still can’t sleep normally. If I hear a loud noise [when sleeping] it becomes uneasy.” Escobar received an experience of a lifetime and he is reminded of it every night as he goes to bed.

Both Escobar and Jean agreed on many of the same topics, both insisting that politicians should experience war before voting on anything, that President Bush is an unworthy president, and that despite it all, they would go back if asked to. For Jean, the biggest thing he got out of being in the military was understanding his limits, being able to rely on himself mentally, and to build a strong relationship between his fellow troops. For Ricardo, war provided an opportunity to have a first-hand experience to the similarities between people from around the world. “Almost everybody is the same. You can put people in a certain position but in the end they aren’t so different. It depends on little things that make people unique,” said Escobar.

In terms of acclamation, Jean explained in full detail why it might be difficult for soldiers to adjust to civilian life. Being in the military, specifically on a base, many commodities are taken care of, such as a place to sleep, food to eat, and health services, in addition to utilities. If anything, car payments and cable are the only things one may have to pay for, as Jean put it. But when soldiers leave the military, they also leave the paid commodities and often find it hard to find a job that can make ends meet. Escobar adds that many soldiers fail to plan ahead. “I had a plan,” as Escobar said, “Most people don’t. People don’t adjust because they don’t plan it out right.”

When asked about whether they support the war, Jean felt it was a Catch 22 scenario. “You can’t just leave and you can’t just stay there,” said Jean who went on to say, “I remember I went to Iraq, and I was parking my vehicle in some ones backyard. Just occupying space and I asked myself how are people grasping this?” Jean continued by saying they either saw it as Americans doing their job or as destroying the country. Escobar felt that the war was a lose-lose situation. “I don’t think it’s a smart move at all. We lose more than we gain. We may get an insurgent, but for that one insurgent we lose so many more people.” When it comes to the youth joining, both Jean and Escobar feel that one should only join if they fully want to, with no pressure, and with no regret.

A student who is currently enrolled in the Reserved Officer Training Corps (ROTC) is junior Mark Serevino. Graduating in 2005, Serevino joined the ROTC program to fulfill his desire of both receiving an education and enlisting in the Army. Serevino will first have to complete his four years of training in the ROTC program before being deployed as a lieutenant. “I chose ROTC because I wanted to become an officer. To be someone in charge rather then merely someone taking orders. I am 21 years old, and I’ve already done things that nobody is going to do in their entire lives, like jump out of planes, use weapons, and eventually rappel from a helicopter,” said Serevino. Truly believing that soldiers are protecting America, Serevino’s biggest fear is not dying, rather the fear of failure. Serevino says, “one day I am going to be responsible for the lives of other people, and the one thing I fear I am going to make a decision or not make a decision that’s going to harm them.” When asked about whether or not he was too young to go and enlist, Serevino said that it is merely up to the individual. He said that it is hard to say that people are to young to do anything.

The number four thousand brought an expression of somberness to Jean, Serevino, and Escobar, as for them, four thousand was not a number, but a huge chunk of a family gone for a cause they believed in. As Serevino said, “I think it’s sad. It’s tough to look at it. I’ve been tracking it ever since I joined knowing the numbers have increased and part of you feels like you don’t want to be there but then the other part of you says its your duty to be there.”  When asked whether they are proud to be an American, Serevino, Escobar, and Jean responded with a firm yes. Patriotism, freedom, democracy were all mentioned. But Jean described it best as he said, “although we have messed up things that happen, with Indians, slaves, and immigrant groups, behind all the negativity, there are still people fighting.”

There are still people fighting. To some it may be a war of unjust cause or a war of providing freedom. Regardless of where one stands, there are still people fighting. Not numbers. Not statistics. People.