My heart is very sick about what happened at my restaurant. Please let me say that I am so, so sorry. For seven years we have tried to make Paradise Of India a place where all people are happy to come. I know sometimes we have problems and a few weeks ago we had a big problem. As the owner of the restaurant, I wish to apologize to everyone, not just the people who were there but everyone. I am very sorry. Sometimes when people talk they do not understand each other. I hope we can learn to understand each other better. My restaurant workers work very hard. No one meant any harm to anyone. Please give us a new chance to do better so this will never happen again. Thank you very much.

Amrik Singh<br>Ashok Kumar<br>Owners of Paradise Of India

<b>Discrimination Not Intended</b><br>To the Editor:

On behalf of the Amherst College Social Council, we are writing in response to the complaints voiced against the Social Council and Computer Dating TAP. We did not intend, in any way, to discriminate against any group or individual. It has come to our attention, only after the event took place, that last year's chair (Sarah Teich '00) did attempt to include a same-sex matching option. Unfortunately, due to fact that only one person responded to this option last year, our former chair and advisor did not convey this possibility to our current members.

In addition, the Social Council officers this year were unaware of any conversations, complaints, or concerns that took place last year regarding Computer Dating TAP. With respect to Forest Shultz '01's comments ("Students File Complaint, Call SoCo Survey Discriminatory," Nov. 1): unfortunately, he had resigned from Social Council prior to the planning of Computer Dating TAP and therefore we were unaware of his knowledge of such conversations.

If we choose to continue this event, it will be on the condition that we find a company that allows for matches of all sexual preferences. We wish that this situation could have been avoided, and had these complaints or concerns been brought to our attention before the event, we definitely would have taken steps to address this condition. In the future, in order to avoid complaints of this nature, we encourage all individuals and/or groups to please contact us directly by calling us at extension 5770, e-mailing us at social@amherst.edu, or by sliding a note under our office door (Campus Center 107). We're open to any feedback whatsoever.

Phil Cameron '02<br>John Frechette '02<br>Erica Hewes '02<br>Meredith De Meules '02<br>The Social Council Executive Board

<b>It's Gore's, Not Nader's, Fault</b><br>To the Editor:

I'm writing in response to Matt Karp '03's criticism of the ASAP leaflet put in student mail boxes explaining why, in many states, a vote for Nader will not harm Gore's chances. The essence of his concern is that a few states were listed as probable Gore states when there was still a possibility that Bush could capture the state's electoral votes. I stand by the information listed as accurate according to MSNBC/Reuters on the date the leaflet was written. A few states which were then considered relative Gore lock-ups later become toss-up states, but for this I cannot accept any responsibility. I expect that most Amherst students are well aware of the closeness of this race and will vote according to the most recent polling data available.

Giving a detailed analysis of the race in each state is a noble idea; however it would have been unrealistic to do in one-third of a page (and it's unlikely students would have read it thoroughly). If some students felt that this analysis was really necessary, it was entirely within their power to put in the time to create and distribute such information.

Further, implicit in Karp's letter is the notion that Nader is somehow responsible for Gore losing votes. This is a matter of conflating causation and responsibility. It may be that voters will choose Nader where they might have otherwise (reluctantly) voted for Gore. But this does not make Nader responsible. He's a legitimate presidential candidate with substantial criticisms of Gore's proposed policies. If Gore were a better progressive candidate, he'd be able to appeal to Nader voters on the basis of his record rather than by inciting fear of a Bush presidency.

Gore is fully capable of being a better candidate just as he was capable of being a better vice president. Instead, he has consistently disappointed progressives by supporting a relatively conservative agenda including North American Free Trade Agreement, the Defense of Marriage Act, and the dismantling of the social safety net. If Gore is an unattractive candidate who can't amass enough voters to easily triumph over George W., that's his own doing.

Also, remember that a close election is no better for Nader than it is for Gore. If Gore had been able to capture a significant advantage, Nader would have been able to attract far more progressive voters. As it is, many likely Nader voters will feel obliged to bail Gore out.

If you really want to place blame for the effect of a strong third-party candidate on a close race, take a look at our country's voting system. Because it requires voters to select only one candidate, this problem is inevitable whenever there are more than two viable candidates. In other words, the very method by which we vote makes it unlikely that a third party candidate will ever make a strong showing, much less win. To support them, voters must risk helping elect the candidate they like least.

I propose as an alternative the system called instant run-off voting (IRV), in which voters rank the candidates in order of preference. When the votes are tabulated, if their first choice candidate does not have a chance of winning, the vote goes to their second choice candidate. In this way, voters can register preference for one candidate (and help that candidate's party gain federal campaign financing in the next election) while helping to elect the "lesser of two evils." To learn more about IRV, see www.fairvote.org. Rather than wasting your anger on Nader, I recommend getting involved in the rapidly mounting efforts to begin using this simple, more democratic voting method.

Noah T. Winer '01<br>Amherst Students Acting Politically

<b>Spirit Squad In Full Effect</b><br>To the Editor:

I'll never forget my confused disappointment when I was told, sitting in Johnson Chapel with the rest of the Class of '03 for our freshman orientation, that it would be the last time our class would gather as a whole until graduation. I also still remember my frustrated disappointment at '80s TAP that same fall, to which I showed up in full Bruce Springsteen regalia (ripped, sleeveless undershirt, bandanna, skintight jeans, funny white kicks, and tall striped socks) only to discover that I was one of two people, in a very crowded Seelye, sporting '80s gear. Part of what I had most enjoyed about my high school was the willingness of students to "let go" together and have fun with a sense of humor.

On nights like Halloween and the day of the Williams football game we do see this here, and everyone realizes how much fun it can be if we let ago of our individual sense of image and give ourselves to each other. But the question must be asked-where is this morale the rest of the time? In our culture we don't dance as groups, instead (as I am most often a perpetrator) we try (and in my case, usually fail) to find our own personal groove. Our most common understanding of "being social" is getting wasted with friends or sitting around hanging out (often by ourselves).

As we celebrate our homecoming this week, I urge you to think about the things you have to proud of about being at this place-especially what we have in each other. Saturday is "The Biggest Little Game in Football" and this year looks to be the year that we will beat Williams-on our home field! The Social Council will be putting together another Williams car bashing, as well as a chance to make posters for the game. But there is also AIIGHT! (Amherst Involved In Good Happy Times!), "finding ways to raise student morale on campus."

Though we have a lot planned for the whole year, you can see and take part in AIIGHT!'s plans this week; the Glee Club will sing the national anthem and DASAC (Dancing And Stepping at Amherst College) will perform at halftime. Two new AIIGHT! creations will make their debut at the game: the Pep Band (technically a jug band-made up of a banjo, washboards, kazoos, jugs, buckets as drums, etc., headed by Josh Levy '03) and the FU (Fun Union) Squad of 50 crazy fans dressed in FU t-shirts, colonial garb and whirling white GO JEFFS! towels. (You can join the squad by buying an FU uniform in Valentine today through Friday.)

So yes, I am plugging AIIGHT!, the Pep Band, and the FU Squad, but there is a greater message here. I urge that we rediscover how much fun it is to be a part of something greater than, but made up of, our individual selves. If we can carry this over I have a feeling that things around here will be a lot more fun. So let go of your individual sense of image and I'll see you at the game!

Andrew Doss '03