As a freshman I regularly read The Observer but never really thought about writing for it until the Editor-in-Chief, Michael Reer, a student I knew from Saint Thomas More Society and other groups, suggested I consider it.  I took him up on his offer, and began writing for The Observer, and (at the editors’ request) working on building a new website, the fall of my sophomore year.

Like many writers at campus newspapers, I began writing by covering events and speakers on campus.  Armed with a notebook and voice recorder, I took copious notes at lectures and mustered up the courage to cold-call faculty members, administrators, and students for quotations in each article.

As I became more serious as a journalist with The Observer I began to realize that there are certain people with whom you should speak at Boston College if you want to know the university’s position on a particular issue.  The most important of these is Jack Dunn, Director of the Boston College Office of News and Public Affairs.

I want to thank Jack Dunn for offering his valuable time to sit down with me and discuss the important issues facing the university.  He was never unwilling to talk about a particularly sensitive or controversial issue, and he was always available to offer a comment on a story.  I appreciated his candidness and honesty, and his true love for the Boston College community.

As a senior, I had the opportunity this year to write more controversial stories.  These included “BC Club Teaches Sex Ed in Boston Schools,” “Res Hall Features ‘Support Love’ Poster,” and “National Group Launches Protest Against BC Law.”  I know some students have disagreed with the perspectives offered in these stories, but please know that they have always been written with a great love for Boston College, its students, and its Jesuit Catholic mission.

Of course, in addition to writing for The Observer, I have greatly enjoyed my time as Online Editor building and managing our website.  The writers, editors, and section heads have really stepped up and joined in the effort to make our website the best news website on Boston College’s campus.  There is much more to do, and I am confident that Ethan Mack, who will be succeeding me in this position next year, will be able to continue to build up this invaluable part of our publication.

I am forever grateful to so many men and women who made my time at Boston College, and at The Observer, so amazing.  I want to thank Michael Reer, one of the best Editors The Observer has ever had and one of my best friends, for challenging me as a freshman to become involved with the paper and for providing inspiration and support during my time here.  Thank you also to Jesse Naiman, Megan Rauch, and Allie Gallagher, the Editors-in-Chief who I served under over the last three years.  And best of luck to Morgan Chalfant as she takes over this exciting position for the coming year.

Finally, I want to thank all of those people who I couldn’t fit in this article who have been inspirations to me while at The Observer.  Editors, writers, administrators, students, alumni, friends, and family: your continued support and readership is greatly appreciated.

To our friends and donors: your continued support is what makes The Observer possible on campus.  I know my “Senior Gift” will be going to The Observer this year and for many years to come, and I hope our readers, both in the BC community and beyond, will remember the important role we continue to hold here at Boston College.

The Observer is in a unique position to hold Boston College’s administration, faculty, and students accountable to transparency, honesty, and the Jesuit Catholic tradition.

In 1984 it was The Observer that challenged the faculty for self-identifying as more pro-abortion than pro-life.  In 1989 it was The Observer that exposed abortion referrals at BC’s Health Services.  In 2009 The Observer highlighted professors’ anger when the university dared to place crucifixes in the classroom.  In spring 2010, UGBC and the ALC and GLC released line-item budgets only after pressure from The Observer.  In the fall of 2010 when BC Law defended a link to an abortion clinic on its website, it was the article in The Observer that prompted them to remove that page.

To love Boston College means to take it seriously and hold it accountable to its values.  I hope that The Observer continues to be a catalyst for positive change at Boston College as the university strives to be the best Catholic institution possible.

To conclude, and to offer some advice to current and future writers, I wish to quote one of the early mottos of this paper:

Neminem Recte Faciendo Timeas.

Sincerely,
Andrew Rota
Boston College A&S 2012

The problem Harry Reid has with this olive branch? It eliminates federal funding for abortion in Washington DC, the Dornan Amendment. This is not an issue of funding for Planned Parenthood, which provided all manners of contraception and birth control, as the democrats insist. Harry Reid will not allow this bill to come to a vote in Congress simply because he wants the government to continue to directly fund abortion.

Is this really an issue that’s worth shutting down the government over? Should our government even be directly funding abortions in the first place? The answer is obviously “no”. Larger and more legitimate issues like funding for Planned Parenthood and EPA carbon emission caps can be pushed to another date, there is no reason why our government should be shut down because of taxpayer funded abortion.

A few readers commented on the article, taking issue with the term “pro-abortion” to describe Father Drinan, some going so far as to argue

There is no such thing as “pro-abortion”. This man is pro-choice; there’s a difference.

I would like to briefly consider this argument and examine whether or not one can be “pro-choice,” while considering themselves not “pro-abortion.”

Those in favor of the legalization of abortion in the United States generally consider themselves “pro-choice” because they say they are in favor of women being able to choose abortion based on their own personal decisions.  Many go on to argue that they are not, in fact, “pro-abortion” because they (obviously) do not think that all women should get an abortion.  Some also say they would never have one themselves, but they are still “pro-choice” because they think other women should be able to choose to get an abortion.

So, it seems, that nearly every American is “pro-choice” insofar as they support one’s right to choose to do things that are right and do not harm others.

Second, we need to examine whether “pro-abortion” is an appropriate term for someone who advocates for the legalization of abortion.  Let us look at other uses of the term “pro-” to describe political views.  For example, someone can be pro-capital punishment, which means they are in favor of the legalization of the death penalty.  It does not mean they are in favor of the death penalty for every person, or even for every criminal, but rather that they are in favor of its use in certain circumstances.

Let’s take another example.  Someone in 19th century America may have been pro-slavery.  The term was used to describe those who believed that slavery should be legal and that one ought to have the choice to own slaves if they wish.  However, someone who is pro-slavery would not advocate that all people be forced to hold slaves.

Therefore, one may be “pro-X” without believing that all people take part in X.  So let’s look at the label “pro-abortion.”  To describe one as “pro-abortion” would seem to mean, based on our previous examples, that one is in favor of abortion in certain circumstances but does necessarily believe that all people procure abortions.  Similar to the death penalty example, being “pro-abortion” would just mean that one supports the legalization of abortion in certain circumstances.

Let us briefly revisit the pro-slavery example.  If one was pro-slavery it might be a clever attempt for them to argue that they have the “choice” to hold slaves, and that anyone who thought that slavery was wrong was anti-choice.  However, most would agree that the “choice” to hold slaves is immoral and gravely wrong.  So the question is not whether one has that “choice” but whether that choice is wrong and whether there should be consequences to that choice.

Thus, Father Drinan appears to fit the “pro-abortion” label quite well.  After all, he was in favor of the legalization of abortion in certain circumstances.  He would likely have argued that the “choice” of abortion was not intrinsically wrong or evil, and thus should not be punished, just as the pro-capital-punishment or pro-slavery individual would argue that their respective issues were not necessarily evil and should not be punished.

To conclude, the term “pro-choice” is terribly undescriptive term because, indeed, most people are in favor of individual freedom of choice.  ”Pro-abortion,” like many other “pro-” labels, seems to be a fitting description of those who are in favor of the legalization of abortion.  If there is a fallacy in my logic, please point it out.  Otherwise, it seems that we are obligated to accept the terms as I have described.

First, a disclaimer: I used to be very anti-Greek myself.  In fact, I considered the fact that Boston College did not have Greek life to be a plus when I was doing college applications as a senior in high school.  I thought Greek life was nothing but a bunch of spoiled [insert synonym for “unpleasant folks”] who did nothing but get drunk off their parent’s money, while simultaneously bullying and humiliating newer members of the group, known as “pledges”.  “Where’s the brotherhood in that?” I thought.  It sounded miserable.  That is why, when my friend showed me a flyer he’d received advertising a meet and greet at Roggie’s back in January, I initially had serious reservations about even looking into the sole Greek community on campus. You may have heard of them.  They’re called Sigma Phi Epsilon, or SigEp for short.  I had heard minor details about this fraternity before, but had never taken it seriously.  How could it be a real fraternity? This is Boston College, we don’t have those! It turned out I was very wrong.

My reservations regarding the SigEp chapter here at BC were all wrong.  I was greeted by a group of guys who all seemed to be very diverse in their interests.  No label could be attached to the group.  This was not a bunch of jocks, academics, or business fanatics.  Each member of the fraternity that I met seemed to bring something to the group that gave it a dynamic.  Not only that, but every one of them gave off a vibe that they liked to have a good time, but could take care of business as well.  This intrigued me because that is both a quality and an image I have been striving to obtain my entire life.  As the evening wore on, I found myself realizing that this was not just something I wanted to do, but something that I needed.  A few weeks and several other recruiting events later (none of which featured a drop of alcohol), I received a bid to join SigEp.  I can honestly say that joining may be one of the best decisions I have ever made.

It is because of this that I find other students’ criticism of Greek life offensive. Criticizing something you do not fully understand is doing yourself a disservice.  Many people think being in a fraternity means nothing but drinking to excess and acting like a douchebag, even when not drinking to excess.  What SigEp actually does is hold you accountable many different things, including your GPA and how you carry yourself, not just as a member of a fraternity of brothers, but as your own well-rounded and balanced man.  Standards such as showing up on time to chapter meetings, dressing in proper attire, and socializing properly with people of other social communities (be it other sororities or just clubs) are not skills simply for making the most of your fraternity experience.  They are skills for life.  Being on time and dressing properly? Sounds appropriate for a job interview, not just chapter meetings.  Another big part of fraternity/sorority life is philanthropy.  For those of you who think all Greek members are nothing but spoiled and selfish brats, keep in mind that SigEp sends several members each week to help at a local soup kitchen.  Also keep in mind that this is completely voluntary.  We are currently figuring out how to start up a sponsorship for a military unit overseas in order to send them packages of small gifts, just to show that we care.  SigEp is also very involved in Relay for Life as well as several other fundraisers.  If you are the type of person that loves to give back to the community, then there is an entire facet of Greek life waiting for you to indulge.

And speaking of community, one of the biggest problems people have with the idea of Greek life at BC is that it will “segregate” our own community of students here.  I’d hate to burst your bubble, but from the perspective of a freshman guy here at BC it will not create any more segregation than what already exists.  If you are a freshman guy here at BC, it is a little bit different than being a freshman girl, who gets a free ticket into any party; any time, anywhere.  And if you are not on a sports team, be it varsity, club, or even intramural, your options for having a social scene are limited even further.  Sure, being in a club helps, but what if your club doesn’t do much besides have meetings and attend the occasional rally or something along those lines? And who honestly wants to spend every weekend either hanging out in their dorm or roaming the mods for a party you won’t get into.  Greek life gives people, especially freshmen, not just a place to go, but something to do and get excited about.  As a freshman guy, my first semester before joining SigEp (or at least the first 2 and a half months of school) seemed boring and unfulfilling.  I actually did not feel a part of the BC community at all, simply because I had no real affiliation to anything for a while.  But SigEp has shown me that there is something to be excited about on weekends.  Students in Greek communities on other campuses are generally happier because they belong to something.  They have a sense of identity.  And the best part about SigEp is that no one has to conform their identity to everyone else’s.  We just ask that you don’t be a jerk.  And everyone is happy to oblige.

My point is this: when it comes to Greek life here at BC, forget what you know.  Animal House, Greek, Glory Daze, yes they are all entertaining and amusing depictions of what is considered to be “typical” Greek life.  But they are also simplistic and do not fully represent what it means to be in a fraternity or sorority.  Fraternities and Sororities differ from school to school, and at BC they can be different. SigEp already is.  We do not “buy” our friends.  We do not have toga parties or chant “Toga! Toga! Toga!”  We don’t even “pledge”.  Yeah, okay, so I had to go shovel one of the other member’s car out of the snow.  That is a minor inconvenience, and in no way humiliating or belittling.  So the next time you read Totalfratmove.com, go ahead and laugh because it is funny, but leave the imagery associated with it to the website.  Instead, if you know one of us in SigEp or see someone in a SigEp shirt, ask us about what Greek life is like.  I can personally guarantee no one will look down on you, or call you a GDI. Just ask us. We’re more than willing to share.

Directed in 1983, this movie has perhaps become in the past three decades, dare I say, the quintessential Christmas movie. Following the narrative, introspective story of Ralphie and the Parker family Christmas in 1948, a Christmas Story is artfully written and undoubtedly entertaining, funny, and meaningful. When Ralphie asks for the highly coveted “Red Ryder BB Gun,” a symbol of undeniable masculinity and ultimate kid-power, he is answered bluntly by a slew of crushing answers, all ringing with the air of parental denial: “you’ll shoot your eye out, kid.” However, Raplphie is ruthless in his attempt to acquire this beautiful weapon as he skillfully unravels the personalities of his stubborn father, selfless mother, and hopelessly pathetic younger brother through a brilliant narrative of witty and artfully crafted prose. From his accounts of his father’s infamous battle with the radiator, the disastrous Bumpus Hound incident, and the Chinese restaurant’s rendition of “Deck the Harrs with Barrs of Horry,” Ralphie makes A Christmas Story one of the best screenplays and, subsequently, movies of all time. If you haven’t seen it, I triple-dog-dare you to watch it. You can’t miss it, there’s an entire CHANNEL devoted to playing this movie 24/7 throughout Christmas.

3. It’s a Wonderful Life

An extremely moving and intimate account of love, loyalty, and ultimate goodness, It’s A Wonderful Life is a, well, wonderful movie for all to enjoy. Directed by Frank Capra, this movie has often been criticized for its cheesy portrayal of good over evil, love over hate, and life over death, yet, it is important to remember that all of us could use a touch of heart-warming innocence during the Christmas season, a season defined by kindness, charity, and benevolence…(Okay, calm yourself Tiny Tim). But seriously, It’s a Wonderful Life is an extremely powerful account of George Bailey, his struggle to find a reason for living, and his ultimate realization of gratitude and thankfulness at a time when the Great Depression threatened all hope and jolliness, even during the Christmas season. A classic tale the “little guy” pitted against the overwhelming machine of “big business,” and the ensuing struggle, It’s A Wonderful Life perfectly captures the spirit of Christmas and its unifying power.

4-10:

4. How the Grinch Stole Christmas (animated version or Jim Carey’s acid trip rendition, either way there’s no way to make this movie less mind-blowing)
5. A Christmas Carol (George C. Scott, 1984 rendition).
6. Elf (Don’t jam 11 cookies into your VCR, just watch it on DVD)
7. Home Alone
8. Jingle All the Way
9. Miracle on 34th Street (1994)
10. A Charlie Brown Christmas

When I reminisce about freshmen year, my mind wanders to simpler times: entry level classes, new friends, covert drinking, and fresh apples. After freshmen year, many of us owed much of our good health to the relative ease and accessibility of delicious locally grown apples, and by local I mean 200 yards from upper. While more than a few of these baseball-sized fruits ended up as apple scented wallpaper on the outside of that nearby stone tool shed, I imagine the majority were consumed by hungry students interested not only in a quick bite but also in reducing any carbon footprint by supporting the most local agriculture.

When BC first cornered off the enormous amount of real estate, including the apple tree, many students were under the naïve assumption that the construction workers simply wanted to keep all the apples to themselves. After all, with the high price of an apple in Mac, apples are a highly valued commodity on campus. One can only imagine the mass confusion and horror that ensued when BC’s true intentions were revealed and the longtime dustbowl icon was stealthily removed, presumably in the darkest hour of a moonless night.

Our late apple tree was quite relatable to the tree of Shel Silverstein’s The Giving Tree, a short story that many of us can relate to, about a wise tree helping a young boy throughout his life. Only in BC’s case, instead of being able to selflessly offer its entire existence for the sake of our happiness, our apple tree was ripped out of the ground, hurled into an industrial sized wood chipper, and hauled off to a dump in millions of tiny pieces. I was not present for this travesty but I can only assume these actions occurred as BC administrators exchanged high-fives, content that they had effectively condemned the BC student population to overpriced McElroy apples.

The remedy for this unfortunate situation is very simple: if the new plans for our Dustbowl don’t already include the replanting of an apple tree of equal or greater value, they ought to be amended to include on. Those of us who are willing to climb to the top of a flimsy tree (in front of several strangers, and with the goal of frantically shaking down a fresh apple or two) should not be deprived of such gratification.

I’m going to say this outright: The Social Network is more than a disappointment. It’s a disservice not only to one of the brightest members of this generation, but to the entire generation itself. Before the film started, I thought it was funny to see so many people over the age of 40 in the audience (that hadn’t happened to me since that time I went to see Mr. & Mrs. Smith). When it was over, I was mortified. I would like to think that they all closed their eyes for the duration of the film but that is probably not the case. The film is blatantly untrue in the most horrifying ways. But that doesn’t matter. They saw what they saw. Aside from some very basic plot aspects that if omitted would literally make the movie qualify as a fairytale, the majority of the film is in fact a sham. Yes, Mark Zuckerburg did create “thefacebook” in his Harvard dorm room. Yes, he claims he got the initial ideas for it while he was drunk. Yes, he formed a business partnership with Sean Parker, co-creator of Napster, who actually had to leave Facebook because of drug charges. Yes, Eduardo Saverin was originally CFO of Facebook, and his 24% ownership was whittled down to 0.03%. Those things are true. What’s not true is not only alarming in how much license the filmmakers take, but how the story is shaped.

Screenwriter Aaron Sorkin gives us an almost entirely falsified version of what should have been 2 hours of Zuckerburg and roommates sitting at a computer writing code (and therefore not a film at all). Entire characters involved in the founding of Facebook are omitted, altered, combined, or entirely invented. I don’t care how hard he worked for the role, Justin Timberlake as Sean Parker was a complete casting flaw. Justin Timberlake is Justin Timberlake 24/7, and it certainly felt like it watching the film. Jesse Eisenberg’s portrayal of Zuckerburg is one that shows the brilliance and dedication Zuckerburg must have had to create such thing as Facebook. He also makes Zuckerburg seem like an insecure little punk who enjoys sarcastically heckling the Harvard Administrative Board, high-profile corporate lawyers, and his former girlfriend. Ok, that last one doesn’t seem as imposing as the first two. But the lasting effect her character has on Zuckerburg leads the viewer to believe that SHE is the reason he bothered to create the largest social networking site in the world, as evidenced by the final scene in the movie. Uh, no Aaron Sorkin. I’m pretty sure at that point in real life Mark Zuckerburg was (and is) living with the distinction of being the head of freaking Facebook, a company with a value estimated in the billions. He could’ve bought the apartment building she was most likely living in and evicted her if he freaking felt like it. Who cares if she would respond to his Friend Request?

Sorkin’s screenplay is adapted from a 2009 book titled The Accidental Billionaires: The Founding of Facebook, A Tale of Sex, Money, Genius, and Betrayal. The book might be taken seriously, that is, if it’s own publishing company hadn’t referred to it as “more big, juicy fun rather than actual reportage”. But the real kicker is that the author, Ben Mezerich’s, main consultant for the book is the very guy Sorkin’s screenplay plays victimizer to: Eduardo Saverin. There’s no denying that Saverin got a hard deal when Zuckerburg and the others diluted his stock in the company to almost nothing but the movie (and the book for that matter) set Saverin up to look like the sacrificial lamb, when in reality he was more like the cog in the clock that did not want to turn correctly.

For those of you who saw the film, you remember Andrew Garfield’s character being a complete buzzkill at the dinner meeting with Sean Parker. I’m almost positive the meeting in real life was not nearly as chic and sexy. But it’d be impossible to deny that Eduardo certainly did not have the same way of approaching “thefacebook” as Parker did. Facebook is what it is today because of Sean Parker, not Eduardo Saverin. Saverin’s algorithm made Facebook a website, but Parker’s visionary approach to the company’s potential is what made it a worldwide phenomenon, and Zuckerburg obviously valued Parker’s approach more than he valued Saverin’s.
Saverin thought he was untouchable the entire time, but that’s not how multimillion dollar companies work. Then again, Eduardo probably wasn’t envisioning “thefacebook” becoming a multimillion and later billion dollar company. He didn’t have the same immediate goals as the rest of the team. Guys like that get traded or benched. Saverin got buried in the depth chart of ownership, and becomes the fall victim of Sorkin’s script. It’s ok though. He goes on to sue Zuckerburg and winds up with a settlement that gave him 5% ownership of the company. As of October 7th, 2010, owning 5% of Facebook is the equivalent to being worth $1.3 billion dollars. Poor Eduardo.

If you are already baffled by that, wait until you realize the kind of movie you were actually watching. The team behind The Social Network is actually one of the most misplaced production teams of all time. You’ve got Sorkin, the man behind Jack Nicholson’s “You can’t handle the truth!” classic, 1992’s A Few Good Men (also loosely adapted), and The West Wing. Then you’ve got the director, David Fincher, who is known for films such as Se7en, the trendily-misinterpreted-but-still-makes-you-look-cool-to-quote Fight Club, and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button among others. Se7en is one of Fincher’s several serial killer movies. Fight Club is a nihilistic take on modern consumerism. Benjamin Button is Forrest Gump, but without the lovable aspects of Forrest Gump that make you want to watch it again. So get this: two guys who should be making the greatest psychological-serial-killer-courtroom thriller of the decade, instead decide to make a movie about….Facebook? Go back and watch The Social Network again (preferably once its on TV for free). Tell me how many times Jesse Eisenburg smiles, almost never. Mark Zuckerburg in real life is smiling in almost every picture I’ve seen of him. Everything from the dank pub in the beginning scene to the twilight-lit meeting room at the end convey an overall image of darkness and dreariness. It’s not Gone Baby, Gone. It’s a movie about a bunch of college students who become incredibly successful in a supposedly fun way.

In my humble opinion, the real villain in Fincher and Sorkin’s final product is not the megalomaniac Mark Zuckerburg, but what he accomplished. The Social Network is perhaps one of the most anti-capitalist films I have ever seen (ok, I haven’t seen Wall Street 2 yet). Even with all his highlighted flaws, Mark Zuckerburg becomes wealthy by founding a company, and many would argue that the world is a better place because of such a company. But thanks to Fincher and Sorkin, the birth of what came to be known as Facebook is a tale of darkness and betrayal. Relationships are destroyed, ideas are “stolen”, people get arrested for drugs (not kidding), but money is made and people get rich. Not only that, but one guy comes out on top. Seriously, I could almost hear the liberals in the background going “Ooooooooo!! Dark and scary capitalism!!”. The movie seems like an anti-initiative propaganda job, meant to warn today’s youth: “Don’t try to hard to be innovative and become successful, because you might lose your best friend in the process.” Come on, people. Facebook is not a political machine. It’s a company run by a 26 year-old guy that happens to be worth billions of dollars. Speaking of that 26 year-old kid, he just recently donated $100 million to Newark, New Jersey Public Schools. That’s right, a guy who founded his own company as a college kid did that. The Federal Government can’t even donate $100 million to a public school district these days. Capitalism wins. Just ask Zuckerburg (or Cecil Rhodes).

In actuality, The Social Network can be defined as none other than a cinematic whore. It sells itself through peoples’ basic of knowledge of what its product is. That product also happens to be something that almost everyone does. How many times a week do you go on Facebook? How many people do you know who also use Facebook? Who’s the one guy who happens to not be using Facebook? Facebook has become as much of a part of youth culture and fascination as rock and roll, casual drug use, and that other thing you have “the talk” about with your parents. When all these movie critics refer to Facebook as a “social and cultural revolution”, they mean it. The Social Network needed only to name drop “facebook” to get everyone’s attention.

Many students must resort to standing in the stairwell or next to the bus driver just to make it to class, both of which violate International Bus Laws, set many years ago by the Council of Bus Elders. BCPD have responded to this blatant disrespect of Bus Law by threatening to report the bus drivers to… someone. This only serves to make the bus problem worse, as drivers now have to force students out into the cold harsh morning or face consequences at the hands of what must be an extremely bored BCPD.

To address these problems, I propose a simple solution. Ever since the Jesuits decided to open the Newton asylum,  the freshmen who have been sentenced to a one year stint there have claimed that, not only is it desirable, but the distance between them and Main Campus fosters the especially strong bonds that Newton students claim make Newton superior to Upper.

Many a freshmen can be heard bragging about the relationships that form through their mutual hardship. If this is indeed true, one can only imagine the sturdy friendships that will surely form when we implement my plan to fix the off campus bus problem and reroute all the current Newton buses to the Commonwealth route, effectively killing two birds with one stone.

Just imagine all the rock solid friendships that will surely form while Newton freshmen make the mile long trek to morning classes in snowy November.  And as these freshmen revel in their stronger community bonds, all of us off campus students won’t have to make a sport out of finding a bus spot every morning. Clearly each party will emerge a little better off, even the unrelated masses who dwell on campus would be better off as then BCPD could spend less time harassing bus drivers and more time preventing actual crime.

A Thousand Suns is a very different Linkin Park album.  In fact, it is so different it might as well not be Linkin Park at all, or at least not the Linkin Park everyone came to idolize after their monster debut Hybrid Theory. Sometime in the year 2008, the members of Linkin Park decided they were done singing about their inner anguish and decided they wanted to focus on more “mature” issues. They also broadened their musical horizons, in addition to embracing a more, shall we say, “softer” side.  Playing off the formula that made “Shadow of the Day” so popular, they unintentionally decided to mix it with up until now was the token Linkin Park soft-tune, “My December”, giving us “Iridescent”. “Robot Boy” is like a softer version of Black Sabbath’s “Iron Man”, but rewritten lyrically for Taylor Swift fans.  This does not mean that all of the anger is completely gone. Songs like “Wretches and Kings” and “When They Come For Me” highlight the band’s newfound fascination with class-warfare and international injustices. “Wretches and Kings” even features a blatant shout-out to Public Enemy’s Chuck D in its second line: “to save face/how low can you go.” The problem with this new record is they forgot to include everything that made Rage Against the Machine and Public Enemy cool. That means there’s no beats that make you want to march and dance down the street, proclaiming the lyrics at the top of your lungs.  There’s no guitar riffs that make you want to bang your head or mosh until you’re exhausted.  In fact, there’s almost nothing about this album that makes you want to do anything, except the lyrics if you’re one of those Amnesty International types.

To describe the musical make-up of A Thousand Suns would be like trying to describe he ingredients of a tossed salad, except the ingredients of such a salad do not actually constitute a salad.  I’m talking about if you mixed Shiny Toy Guns, the Slumdog Millionaire Soundtrack, and a serious of sound boards together.  Ok, maybe to some people that would seem kind of cool.  But for us Linkin Park fans, it is not why we listen to Linkin Park.  To put it in perspective, it would have made more sense for them to take the demo tapes of Reanimation and release them as an album instead.  In fact, out of the 15 listed “tracks” on the album, 6 are not even real songs.  Instead, they are these oddly arranged ambiences and montages of sound.  Their purpose is not entirely apparent.  That one track one Hybrid Theory, “A Cure for the Itch” is cool.  These are not cool.

Is this new album painful to listen to if you’re a Linkin Park fan? Yes. Bands grow up and change musically.  It is a fact of life.  Despite the ever-lasting truth of such a statement, those of us who have listened to Linkin Park for the better part of the past decade thought they were done with that.  We all thought Minutes to Midnight was the band’s way of saying “we are now at/approaching 30 and want to fully explore our musicianship”, and took that album for what it was.  In hindsight, we wish it could have it again, even for a thousand suns.

Because Boston College events commemorating the day may be slim (or even nonexistent, by my knowledge), I encourage you to go to a mass on campus after the football game, and pray for the lives that were taken, and the loved ones who were devastated by the attacks. Nine years later, life still does not have to stop every September 11th, but something should be done, by each and every American, no matter how small.

Never forget.

First, relativism teaches and holds that theological truths, including what constitutes “good” and “evil,” is a function of who is viewing, or judging, a certain thought or action. This means that different people, or even cultures, can have fundamentally different “truths,” all of which are equally acceptable. More importantly, this definition of relativism removes the ability of any one person or school of thought from claiming that they hold an exclusive truth which can be upheld in all circumstances (with the ironic exception of the relativists themselves).

In Catholicism, relativism is very often manifested through both the debate over which is more important, orthodoxy or orthopraxy, a fact which Pope Benedict XVI astutely points out in his book “Truth and Tolerance.” At Boston College, the relativists generally accept the notion that the orthopraxy, or the rituals through which religion is expressed, take precedence over the orthodoxy, or the theology itself. The end result, at least on campus, is that we find many students conditioning their Catholic beliefs in order to fit both parts of Church doctrine they like while maintaining beliefs which may not reflect the teachings of the Church. A common example of this occurs which the issue of premarital sex. A  student may say “I am certainly Catholic, but I also believe in premarital sex…”

Because the Catholic relativists claim that the Mass, or the ultimate orthopraxy, is more important than the dogma itself, as long as students attend Mass, they are indeed Catholic and can so condition their orthodoxy in accordance with disagreements they may have over Church teachings in regards to personal ethics. In other words, it does not so much matter that I disagree with the Church, as long as I attend the Mass.

Immediately, this notion runs into practical and theoretical concerns, because the orthopraxy is dependent upon the orthodoxy. How the Mass is said, how often one should attend, and what exactly occurs at a Mass are all ultimately matters of orthodoxy. The question very well may (and indeed it has been) asked, “isn’t the Mass, and in fact all orthopraxy a matter of relativism too?” Pushed on the point, the relativist would be forced to concede that the answer is yes. The ultimate result of this, however, is that the Church loses the moral authority to teach in a manner which invites its followers to participate in the fullness of both the orthodoxy and orthopraxy.

What follows is a fraying, or crumbling, of Catholicism, at first around the edges, and then at the very center itself. We are left with a religion which has lost the moral authority to teach to its faithful and to proclaim the logos it has been studying for the past two thousand years. Broaden the scale and apply relativism to all religions, and it is easy to see why a certain type of polytheism has developed in American culture. Because monotheistic religion has lost part of its ability to teach with authority, we now have generations which are orphaned in faith. Lacking the parental structure of religion, they cling not to higher goods, in part because the worth of these goods has been determined to be relative, and they instead seek what Pope Benedict refers to as the gods of old, sex, money, power, drugs, and perhaps even obsessive careers.

When these aspects of society become the focus of life over religion, I truly believe that society has stepped backward, and not forward. If religion is to exist, then surely relativism is not the answer. This is not to say, in the age-old logical fallacy; if not A, then B. The human experience, even when spread across continents, nations, and cultures, is remarkably interconnected. The relativists, in using barriers between cultures to justify their theology, have forgotten how resilient the human spirit is, and how cultures separated by thousands of years and insurmountable geographical circumstances very often still hold the same basic virtues dear to their hearts.

Furthermore, I believe that the relativists have mistaken when they see religion as an aspect applied to culture, almost in the same way that power windows were once an “add-on” to a new car. Seeing religion through the “add-on” lens would seem to suggest that Catholicism cannot be applied to all cultures adequately. In keeping with the car example, one would never “add-on” a tow-hitch to a compact car. What the relativists fail to understand is that religion, in and of itself, especially Catholicism, is a culture, complete with its very own people, music, food, dress, and even philosophies. Modern political theorists have already begun to realize this when they find studies which support the fact that people who tend to describe themselves as “religious” are also considerably more likely to make friends with other “religious” people, even if those people follow different creeds. While at face value this may seem to be obvious, below the surface we know that they everyday life of an ardent Catholic is considerably different from the average everyday life in modern society. Items such as abstinence, daily prayer, and constant spiritual reading are lifestyle, or cultural, aspects which run counter to mainstream American culture.

If we understand Catholicism as a culture which can be applied to any other culture, than the relativists ultimately find themselves in a position in which their basic assumptions are undercut, a position from which they cannot win. Thus, as I understand relativism, it is not only a theology which is bad for Catholic culture, but one which rationally does not make sense in a world which places great value on reason and rationality.

FIRE’s Director of Speech Code Research Samantha Harris explains which aspects of Westfield’s code restrict free speech:

“Westfield’s Student Handbook prohibits ‘discrimination,’ which it defines to include ‘making disparaging remarks that insult or stigmatize a student’s cultural background or race’ as well as ‘making insensitive remarks that reflect a student’s disability.’”

She also notes that as a public university, Westfield is bound by the first amendment, a fact that the school openly acknowledges.

FIRE provides resources to aid schools interested in bringing their policies in line with the Bill of Rights with a new guide published on its website. Perhaps Westfield State College should check it out.

The Book of Illumination: A Novel from the Ghost Files (Photo: Amazon)

On the evening of February 10^th at 7:30, Maureen Foley, the author of the new novel The Book of Illumination: A Novel from the Ghost Files, was scheduled to visit the Boston College bookstore at McElroy Commons to converse about, read from, and sign her debut novel.

Written jointly with Mary Ann Winkowski, the novel explores the supernatural world as the main character, Anza, slinks through the streets of Boston in a dangerous, mysterious pursuit.

Maureen Foley is not only a writer, but also a director of feature, fiction, and documentary work, including “American Wake,” “Home Before Dark,” “For the Cure,” and “Commercial Work.”

Mary Ann Winkowski, a popular paranormal investigator, contributed her knowledge of ghoulish communication to the thrilling novel. Having made appearances on TV, been a guest on radio shows, and delivered several lectures on paranormal activity, Winkowski has become a well-known expert of her craft and has helped countless individuals to understand the immortality of the spirit. She is also a consultant to the popular television show “Ghost Whisperer” on CBS.

Creepy, exciting, and attention grabbing, The Book of Illumination boasts an intricate story line that will undoubtedly send shivers up the spines of its readers.

Unfortunately, due to the inclement weather on Wednesday night, the book signing was postponed. The event will be rescheduled for a later date so that Boston College students will have the opportunity to both listen to Foley’s commentary on the novel and hear a sneak peak of the exhilarating tale. Additionally, students will be able to purchase the work after Foley introduces and reads from it.

Visit www.bcbookstore.com for updates on the rescheduling of the event.

Scott Brown

In a stunning upset, Republican state senator Scott Brown has defeated Democrat Martha Coakley, the Massachusetts attorney general, by a 52-47 margin in the special election to replace the deceased Senator Ted Kennedy. Coakley, who was elected state attorney general in 2006 with over 75 percent of the vote, was the presumed favorite in this election due to her statewide recognition and fundraising advantage. However, after winning a decisive primary on December 8th, Coakley barely campaigned over the next several weeks while Brown campaigned daily.

As Brown closed the gap in the polls, Coakley finally began to campaign. However, her performance in the final eight days explains why she barely campaigned for this position. When asked about her foreign policy experience, she mentioned that she visited her sister overseas once. She also referred to Red Sox legend Curt Schilling as a “Yankee fan.” These statements and other gaffes alienated her from the electorate to the point where not even President Obama could bail her out.

It is unknown when Brown will be seated. Massachusetts election officials are leaving the decision up to the Senate, which may delay the swearing in until the results are certified. At this point, the White House has asked the Senate to confirm Brown without delay. Because interim-Senator Paul Kirk (D-MA) is an appointed official, Brown’s swearing-in should happen immediately.

What becomes of the healthcare bill remains to be seen. But now that the Democrats no longer have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, passing the bill without the GOP will be increasingly difficult.

Congratulations to Senator Brown and the people of Massachusetts!

“It’s definitely present and it manifests itself in different ways at different times to different people,” says Kelsey Gasseling, president of the GLBTQ Leadership Council (GLC).

Homophobia is defined as an irrational fear of homosexual men and women. Now, in no way am I arguing that those who have a negative view towards the GLBTQ community are irrational, I am sure they have reasons for having these particular views.

Homophobia becomes an issue when it is direct. Gasseling explains: “No one has been aggressive to me, for example, by calling me a dyke or by other derogatory names to my face.” However, the situation of ‘direct’ homophobia changes whether one is female or male. Gasseling explains that some of her male homosexual friends have been labeled by derogatory names, and that the insults came primarily from other non-homosexual males.

And homophobia is not just name-calling, it can also involve making someone feel uncomfortable or as if they don’t belong.

One must also consider the other type of human population on this campus: the professors and the Jesuits.

Although, Gasseling shares that it is a “mixed bag” in terms of the amount of support given by professors, homophobic views are still expressed occasionally. There have been cases when professors or advisors will counsel students on the assumption that they are non-GLBTQ students. One such example was a friend of Gasseling who asked his advisor for an opinion about a certain class dealing with HIV and AIDS in America. The advisor replied negatively and expressed that it was most likely a class taught in a ‘gay’ perspective. He further stated that the student (Gasseling’s friend) did not need to ‘clutter’ his mind with such things.

It must be considered that, though professors are generally supposed to treat students equally, homophobic tendencies do exist.

Some students, or professors, may argue that being a Jesuit school BC should not feel the need to make its GLBTQ students welcome; under the assumption that GLBTQ students chose to come to Boston College and were aware of its religious affiliations.

“No one has called me a sinner to my face. But I am sure there are catholic students who have that view considering some of the articles that have been published,” Gasseling expresses.

Although this is the view of some catholic students, many Jesuits on campus believe that the university should not discriminate against the GLBTQ community. There should not be a conflict between being GLTBQ and being a part of the Catholic religion, as these are two different components that make up part of one’s identity. Sadly, many students remain homophobic in terms of the GLBTQ community and the Catholic religion.

Gasseling reflects: “It’s a heavy weight in my chest, a deep sorrow that people feel this way.”

Nonetheless the majority of insensitive remarks are a result of ignorance and assumption. Many non-GLTBQ students express homophobic thoughts through their choice of words. Have you heard the expressions “That’s so gay” or “Stop being such a homo?”  Though one may not realize it at the time, these expressions are laden with controversy. How do you describe what is ‘gay?’ What is being a homo? Gasseling reacts by saying “What do you really mean?”

And although many would object to by saying they do not actually mean it in a discriminative way, one must compare it to a racial slur. You would not let someone use an expression that discriminated against a certain race, would you? It just comes down to ignorance and a lack of dignity to stand up to such expressions.

To another degree, assumptions can give off a homophobic environment. For instance, professors may be discussing issues of sexuality and ask a woman about an ideal husband or a man about an ideal wife. The assumption is that homosexuality is non-existent. Many of the foundations of this assumption are based on the way a homosexual person is ‘supposed’ to look, essentially the stereotype of a homosexual.

The matter of homophobia’s presence on the Boston College campus is more a result of ignorance and assumption. Homophobia seems to be caused by people not really thinking before they speak and stereotyping. Although the GLC has made a lot of effort to raise awareness and support through various events across the semester, their most recent effort Queer Peers, the BC campus remains generally unaware. Unaware of what the people around them may be facing and unaware of how they affect the people around them. BC is not a homophobic environment. It is simply an ‘unaware’ one, one that needs to take a few more steps in acceptance of the differences between individuals.

This “surge” strategy endorsed by President Obama was initially recommended by General Stanley A. McChrystal, in essence the head of foreign forces in Afghanistan. Obama, the constant critic of the previous administration, seems to be following in the footsteps of former President Bush in regards to wartime policies. Obama had criticized the surge strategy in Iraq, which has been at least partially attributed to the present stability in that country.

However, Obama has seen the success of the surge in Iraq and is, somewhat hypocritically, enacting a similar policy in an attempt to start his own, similar turn around in Afghanistan. But Obama has yet to realize that the thirty thousand American troops, plus whatever our very generous European allies can afford to spare (sarcasm), are just numbers at this point.

Obama is a highly intelligent man and I am disappointed that he appears to be taking such a shallow approach to finding a solution. His ideas on how to win the war resemble his approach to some of our current economic woes. To solve problems with the economy he has just thrown more and more money into circulation. Now, it appears Obama is throwing more and more troops at the problem in Afghanistan.

The solution for Afghanistan does not lie solely in numbers of troops deployed there, but the strategy that those troops are enacting. This is one of the longest conflicts that the United States has been involved in and despite our desire for a successful and stable Afghanistan, we also need to realize that at some point we will have to and we will need to leave Afghanistan.

So Obama should take some notes from President Bush’s surge, but he also must recognize the complex problems in Afghanistan and address them, using troops to help do just that. Political corruption is one of the main issues, if not the main issue, and it cannot wholly be solved by a larger troop presence.  These troops can, however, help to prevent Taliban forces from taking over more provinces, protect civilians, and start eliminating heroin production. Obama must recognize that the Iraq surge was more than just an influx of troops, it was a complex strategy that involved winning over former enemies and protecting civilians, not just eliminating al Qaeda and other insurgent groups.

I wish President Obama the best of luck seeing as the situation in Afghanistan is probably ten times more complex and difficult than the situation was in Iraq, due to terrain and a thorny cultural layout. And I hope that President Obama does the right thing and sets our country on a course for a departure and sets Afghanistan on a course for sustained success.

The Bill plans to fix the high cost of health care by making it more affordable, increase healthcare coverage to children, computerize patients’ health records, research better treatments for illnesses, and to invest in prevention. While this all sounds grand, at what cost does the President want Americans to pay? Already over eight trillion dollars in debt, we must reevaluate whether the reform is worth the cost. Moreover, the cost for this “fix-all” bill is unknown. Some say more than $630 billion while other say it won’t cost us a dime. Ultimately, if we don’t know what the cost of the reform is, we don’t know how much we’ll save.

The President claims that he, “will not sign health insurance reform that adds even one dime to our deficit,” yet analysts question how this is even remotely possible.  Obama plans to not add “even one dime to our deficit” by letting the wealthy and middle class pay for most of it. Obama’s Healthcare Reform Bill cannot possibly help the economy. In fact, all evidence proves just the opposite. We must keep in mind that the health care industry is part of the American economy. By dismantling it, faulty as it may be, we are dismantling, or possibly even destroying, an entire industry.

The bill also plans to mandate health insurance. By doing so, about 100 million Americans would have to switch to a more expensive government designed health plan.  Americans that don’t receive adequate insurance coverage will be required to purchase one or be fined (a tax equal to 2.5% of their income) until they do so. This is a clear violation of Obama’s promise to let people keep their current health insurance.

A study at MIT by Amy Finkelstein, suggests that the dominance of insurance itself has almost doubled the cost of healthcare. So by expanding coverage, we would also be increasing the cost of healthcare. Making health insurance compulsory would make it easier for anyone to get coverage, which is beneficial for Americans with chronic diseases but would, at the same time, increase the cost for young and healthy Americans.

There are only two ways, according to CATO, that the bill would help the economy.  One way would be not mandating health insurance; however this would defeat the purpose of the reform. Another way would be increasing funding to alleviate healthy individuals of high costs, which means that the government would have to provide the funding (increasing the deficit).

All in all, the President’s Healthcare Reform Bill is unrealistic. There is no way that Americans are willing to risk paying more in taxes and in healthcare when they are not guaranteed that the reform is worth it. The bill would not only have drastic repercussions on the American economy but also spark political disputes over what should be covered and what should not.

The United States is hard pressed to adopt such standards but is careful to consider all complications and implications of creating these laws. Due to the controversial nature of these laws, the Supreme Court has begun the process of judicial review and is deliberating whether or not the law violates the eighth amendment’s restriction on cruel and unusual punishment.

A handful of states have already established laws prohibiting life without parole for minors setting a precedent that the Supreme Court will hopefully adopt. The United State’s confused stance on this issue is surprising, as children, especially as young as thirteen, are at the pinnacle of their adolescence development. According to Erik Erikson, a well-known psychologist, children start questioning their identity and their role in the world as early as thirteen years old.

This continues until an individual begins to mature at nineteen years old. Individuals in this age range experiment with their identities often looking for elders as role models. During such a formidable time in a youth’s life, influences in adult jails will further corrupt these individuals when they could have been reformed.

In the cases, Sullivan vs. Florida and Graham vs. Florida, the Supreme Court ruling was especially important, as both defendants are the victims of the harsh youth sentencing laws. Joe Sullivan was sentenced when he was thirteen years old with a history of crime culminating in a questionable sexual assault charge. His judge concluded that he was beyond reform and should live the rest of his life beyond bars.

A New York Times Editorial passionately stated such sentences “should trouble Americans deeply, as should all of the barbaric sentencing policies for children that this country embraces but that most of the world has abandoned.” Despite the mounting psychological research and public outcry, Florida has sentenced 2,200 juveniles to life without parole.

Supporters of these harsh laws argue that criminals, regardless of age, should face the full penalty for their actions. That rationale is rash, and ignores the fragile, confused world that minors live in from day to day.

Clearly, we live in different times than those in the early 20^th century, but that does not mean that our veterans should mean less. There are no longer any parades or carnivals honoring our soldiers, but instead meager town ceremonies that commemorate the many years soldiers have committed to this country.

After almost a century of existence, many people would not even remember Veterans Day was still celebrated, if it were not for the reminder on the news or a small banner on the cover of the daily paper.

Although life does go on, Veterans Day is a national holiday, but for whom? The national government and its agencies shut down, but most other businesses do not. So much for a holiday for veterans since most veterans, if they’re not retired, are employed in the working world that does not shut down.

During the mid-twentieth century, our country was just ending a war in which most of our nation participated. Political views set aside, the country came together as one to build a strong base for those men fighting for us. Although current efforts are still made to help our soldiers, the question still remains if most of the country participates in these efforts.

We have become so enraptured with political ideology that we forget this national memory is not just for the Republicans or Democrats, but for everyone. All political parties should be disregarded, and we should come together as a solid nation to honor those who have risked their lives and made sacrifices for us so that we may sleep soundly at night. These people did so much for us, the least we can do is give them a celebration one day per year.

Evidently, not enough is being done to honor this national memory that has been around for almost a century. On Veteran’s Day, I saw an officer in uniform walk up to the elevators in Campanella when an entire throng of students exited and not one person greeted the officer with a “Happy Veterans Day!” Do we, as young adults, not know the significance of this national holiday? As the new majority of the population, will we carry on the tradition of Veterans Day as we grow older?

Surely, there will always be friends of ours in the military, but will you remember to give them a pat on the back and say thanks? Chances are, probably not. If it were not for the reminders, pre-written in planners, or broadcasted on the news, I doubt anyone would remember. It usually is not until the day after that we realize it has already passed because of the photographs taken and stories written about such ceremonies or events honoring our veterans from the day before.

I was pleased to find out that at St. Ignatius on Wednesday, November 11, it was a packed house to celebrate Veterans Day and the dedication of the new memorial built to honor the BC alumni who were killed participating in war. About 850 people gathered to celebrate this beautiful memorial and the people whose names are carved into the strong, black granite on the Burns Library lawn. Although this touching memory is a wonderful exhibition of our gratitude for those who have served, I hope that even if the memorial was not being dedicated, this many people would be at St. Ignatius anyway.

In order to preserve this national memory that has lasted for a century, we should set aside our political beliefs and say thank you to those who risk their lives to protect ours. Veterans Day should not only be once a year, but every day. All it takes is a “thank you” to show those in uniform our appreciation for everything they do.

The BCPD is unusual in that it is granted the rights of an actual police force and as well has the ability to exercise its authority outside of the Boston College area. Thank God for that I say. I think that Chestnut Hill and Newton need as many police as they can get. Please note my effective use of sarcasm.

The area that BC is located in is one of the safest I would venture to say in the country.  So do we, the Boston College community, really need a police force of 51 “sworn police officers” that serves no real purpose other than… well, I guess I cannot think of even one reason.

Most colleges and universities have police forces that are established to keep the community safe, not to intimidate students while on patrol. The University of Southern California police force is a perfect example of law enforcement on campus. USC is surrounded by a not so nice neighborhood. Crime actually does exist in that area and so there really is a need for a police force. But this one is used to protect the student body from threats from the outside, not to instill fear in those who they are supposed to protect.

This Halloween presented some examples of the types of tactics of fear that prevent such positive relationships from developing. The Mods are a safe place for students (of-age students of course) to enjoy themselves, and the police are occasionally inclined not to roam the narrow streets in their patrol cars. However, this Halloween, not only were there patrol cars working their way among the students, but ones patrolling the outskirts.

They are not, I assure the reader, looking to prevent any hoodlums from the surrounding ghettos (sarcasm again) from starting trouble. They are on the lookout for their primary targets: students who they can stop, perhaps for a reason, perhaps for none at all, and in their words get a chance to, one-on-one, “develop a positive relationship.” This could involve a fun little trip to the infirmary. That’s if you are lucky enough though.