April 2013

April 2013

Volume XX, Issue IV

The Fenwick Review

The Independent Journal of Opinion at the College of the Holy Cross http://college.holycross.edu/studentorgs/fenwickreview/index.html

@FenwickReview

SAVE HOLY CROSS AND WORCESTER FROM THE MENACE OF A SLOT-MACHINE CASINO! David Lewis Schaefer Professor of Political Science Some time this summer, possibly as early as June 25, or at the latest in September, Worcester voters will have their only chance to block the construction of an enormous slot-machine casino near Kelley Square (just off I-290), only a mile away from the Holy Cross campus. This casino will be directly ruinous to the well-being of a significant proportion of the population of Worcester and surrounding towns, since the newest, electronic machines are designed to turn as many people as possible into gambling addicts (as documented in an important new book by MIT professor Natasha Dow Schüll, Addiction

by Design [Princeton University Press, 2012]). And its broader effects on the community and, by extension, the College are likely to be disastrous as

well.

Unfortunately, the president of Rush Street Entertainment, the company that proposes to build the casino, Neal Bluhm, is politically very well-connected (and a heavy donor to the Democratic Party) – as is his would-be partner in moral crime, the hotelier Richard Friedman (who used to host Bill and Hillary Clinton at his summer place on Martha’s Vineyard).

And most of Worcester’s City Council, along with its city manager, are likely to support the casino proposal – whether as a result of political pressure (including from our Congressman and local Democratic political boss, Jim McGovern) or because they have been gulled by the argument that since some residents of Central Massachusetts are already gambling at the Foxwoods, Mohegan Sun, and Twin Rivers casinos in Connecticut and Rhode Island, Worcester should try to “keep the

Intellectuals and Society: The Rise of the Nanny State ..... page 7

money [and tax revenues] at home” by providing them with a more convenient venue at which to lose.

Other officials, businessmen, and voters actually think that constructing a casino on the large, vacant, and ugly downtown site of the former Wyman-Gordon Company will be a “development tool” – even as the far more promising CitySquare residential-commercial development is being put up nearby, and at a time when the Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences is expanding its operations and student population downtown; and the prosperity of both of these enterprises would be threatened by a slots casino.

The opponents of slots casinos, including the newly formed VoteNoSlots (of which I am a member), are not severe moralists. We have nothing against Friday night poker games, church bingo, or a day at

the race track. But such forms of recreation have as little to do with the newest slot machines as romantic love does with solitary masturbation – although the machines are, to put things mildly, infinitely more harmful.

These are not the one-armed bandits of old, in which a “player” actually had to insert a coin and pull a lever each time a bet was made – thus creating at least a momentary pause in the action.

Instead, the new electronic machines, as Schüll explains, are designed, with devilish cleverness, to lull the “player” into a trancelike state in which the psychologically vulnerable – and there are plenty of people like this – can’t bear to tear themselves away until they have lost far more than they can afford to.

Instead of pulling a lever, the player just pushes a button – enabling him or her to play as many as 1,200 “games” per hour (sic).

Continued on page 6

National Review’s Crusader An Interview with the Publisher of the Influential Magazine..... pages 8-11

The Fenwick Review

2

Mission Statement As the College of the Holy Cross’s independent journal of opinion, The Fenwick Review strives to promote intellectual freedom and progress on campus. The staff of The Fenwick Review takes pride in defending traditional Catholic principles and conservative ideas, and does its best to articulate thoughtful alternatives to the dominant campus ethos. Our staff values Holy Cross very much, and desires to help make it the best it can be by strengthening and renewing the College’s Catholic identity, as well as working with the College to encourage constructive dialogue and an open forum to foster new ideas.

April 2013

Contents April 2013

Volume XX, Issue IV

1 SAVE HOLY CROSS AND WORCESTER FROM THE MENACE OF A SLOT-MACHINE CASINO!

David Lewis Schaefer

3 The Editor’s Desk

Matthew P. Angiolillo ‘13 4 Student Loan Bubble: The Great Youth To The Benefactors Depression Conor R. Cummings ‘13 In this issue, as in every issue, we must reserve space to offer a heartfelt thank you to our benefactors, without 5 The Master Builder of Doll’s Houses whom The Fenwick Review would not Nikolas Churik ‘15 exist. We extend our profound grat- itude to The Collegiate Network and the generous individual and alumni 6 SAVE HOLY CROSS AND WORCESdonors to The Fenwick Review, for their ongoing enthusiasm and support of our mission. You are always in our prayers, and with each issue we publish, our first goal is to justify the incredible faith you have shown in us.

Mr. Guy C. Bosetti Dr. and Mrs. Paul Braunstein Mr. and Mrs. Michael Dailey Mr. J. O’Neill Duffy Mr. and Mrs. Richard Fisher Mr. and Mrs. Daniel Gorman Mr. Robert W. Graham III Dr. and Mrs. Thomas W. Greene Mr. Paul M. Guyet Mr. Robert R. Henzler Mr. William Horan Mr. Joseph Kilmartin Mr. Robert J. Leary ‘49 Mr. Francis Marshall ‘48 Mr. J. O’Neill Duffy Mr Kevin O’Scannlain Fr Paul Scalia Dr Ronald Safko Mr. Sean F. Sullivan Jr.

TER FROM THE MENACE OF A SLOT-MACHINE CASINO!

David Lewis Schaefer

Nikolas Churik ‘15

7 In Dialogue with the Monologues 7 Intellectuals and Society: The Rise of the Nanny State Conor R. Cummings ‘13 8-11 National Review’s Crusader:An Interview with the Publisher of the Influential Magazine Patrick J. Horan ‘14 11 The Non-bigotry of the Case for Marriage

Thomas Arralde ‘13

3

The Fenwick Review

Some Civilizations Are Superior to Others

As this will be the final Editor’s Desk that I write for the Fenwick Review, I want to thank the staff of the paper for their hard work this year and I wish the paper the best of luck in the future. Our writers and publication deserve a large amount of praise, as every issue makes an effort to discuss real campus issues (not the “Kimball Camel Toe” by Cassandra Pierre-Louis, or Alannah Heffernan’s feet fetish, which were both articles featured in the latest issue of The Crusader. That will be a great issue to send to alumni to show off the kind of students a liberal arts education produces.) The Fenwick Review takes relentless flak, every year, for insisting that that the decisions of the college administration actually matter and that due to history not being progressive, it is actually possible for the College to get worse and decline in achieving its mission in future years. Not everything the administration does is honorable.

In my final editors desk, I write about an issue that doesn’t make me angry, just very sad. The Holy Cross History Department, has decided next semester to abandon over 1500 years of history. There is no class at all covering any topic of Ancient or Medieval history, and indeed, no class above the survey level covering any European topic until the late 18th century. Holy Cross loves to talk about its identity but when it really matters, inside the classroom, (Holy Cross is foremost an institution of higher education) very little attention is paid to the actual intellectual foundations of Western Civilization, which had their birth in Europe. The History Department, as the courses stand now, is moving towards being more aptly called a department of minority history. Next semester out of twenty-two courses, nine of them focus on minority and non-western fringe topics. It is difficult to see how

classes such as “Asia's Women Warriors” or “Colonial Latin America” could have the same learning outcomes as studying the birth of civilizations in Mesopotamia and Egypt or the great advances made in Ancient and Imperial China, or the rise of Medieval Europe.

I’m not arguing for a strictly American or European course of study, but many of the course offerings simply cover areas that are not of great significance when compared to any number of other options.

Instead these courses pay lip service to seemingly enlightened notions of multiculturalism and diversity, while ignoring time periods and civilizations well worth intense study as a whole, not just focusing on women, homosexuals, or on the fixation of western “oppression” over other nations. Students are instead left with a narrow view of the historical periods in question, which is even more troubling when very little happened during those periods. Holy Cross is an undergraduate liberal arts college, but many of these courses, are far too specialized and specific for the level they should be aimed for, so much so, that they are constraining students in the range of knowledge they should be obtaining as an undergraduate. I hope the History Department, in the future not only makes a course catalogue that can cover meaningful areas effectively, but also hires new faculty members to encourage scholarship in areas that it currently neglects. History is long and covering every area at a school our size will never be possible but next semester’s offerings are a poor try at best.

Matthew Angiolillo Editor’s Desk

April 2013

The Fenwick Review 2012-2013 Staff Editor in Chief Matthew P. Angiolillo ‘13

Executive Editor Travis LaCouter ‘13

Managing Editor Patrick J. Horan ‘14

Website Editor

Andrew D. Emerson‘14

Layout Editors Claire Mahoney ‘15 Derek Grabhorn ‘15 Kim French ‘16

Copy Editors Kelsey Russell ‘13 Malik Neal ‘13

Advertisement Editor Brendan Sullivan ‘13

Staff Writers Thomas Arralde ‘13 Henry Callegary ‘14 John Castro ‘14 Nikolas Churik ‘15 Yvon Gachette ‘13 Kaylie Gage ‘14

Faculty Adviser Professor David Lewis Schaefer Political Science

Disclaimers This journal is published by students of the College of the Holy Cross and is produced two or three times per semester. The College of the Holy Cross is not responsible for its content.

Articles do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board.

Donation Policy The Fenwick Review is funded through a generous grant from the Collegiate Network as well as individual donations. The Fenwick Review is an organization incorporated under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. We welcome any donation you might be able to give to support our cause! To do so, please write a check to: The Fenwick Review and mail to: Matthew P. Angiolillo P.O. Box 4A 1 College Street Worcester, MA 01610

Letter Policy We at The Fenwick Review encourage feedback.

All comments, criticisms, compliments, and opinions are welcome. As we are striving to promote intellectual freedom and progress here at Holy Cross, opposing viewpoints to anything we print are especially appreciated.

Finally, we reserve the rights to print and edit any letters for clarity and length that we receive.

The Fenwick Review

April 2013

4

Student Loan Bubble: The Great Youth Depression Conor R. Cummings ‘13 Staff Writer

When applying to college many students are told to strive for the best possible schools, even if it means taking out thousands of dollars in loans. Well, it looks like my generation is listening: total student loan debt climbed to $966 billion in the 4th quarter of 2012, according to a recent report by the New York Federal Reserve. Sound familiar?

Student loan debt continues to balloon under the federal government’s student loan policy, just as the housing bubble expanded through a combination of consistently low interest rates set by the Federal Reserve and the implicit guarantee that the government-sponsored enterprises, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, were backed by the U.S. Treasury. As a result, home ownership spiked, particularly among subprime borrowers, sending housing prices through the roof. Institutionalized moral hazard played a starring role in the collapse in the housing market and the 2008 financial meltdown, yet the prospect of a similar student loan crisis continues to be largely ignored in Washington policymaking circles.

In his 2009 State of the Union, President Obama said, “every American will need to get more than a high school diploma.” His cheerleading for higher education continued in 2012 when he declared, “higher

College has become a riskier investment, yet the federal government pushes more money, and therefore, more students, into a system in which they might not even emerge with a college degree at all. education can’t be a luxury; it is an economic imperative that every family in America should be able to afford.”

Yet, the federal government pumps $200 billion per year into higher education through Pell Grants, subsidized loans, and research money with terrible results as college tuition costs

have skyrocketed. College has become a riskier investment, yet the federal government pushes more money, and therefore, more students, into a system in which they might not even emerge with a college degree at all.

The increasing number of marginal students (academically and financially) entering college has led to 46 percent of America’s college students failing to graduate in 6 years. Unless these

At the very least, if a greater number of students were aware that a college degree does not ensure happiness or employment, then perhaps fewer debt slaves would emerge from an increasingly untenable higher education system. students are following in the footsteps of the film character Van Wilder, who finally graduates after seven, boozesoaked years, presumably all of them have emerged from college without a degree and a great deal of student loan debt.

At the very least, if a greater number of students were aware that a college degree does not ensure happiness or employment, then perhaps fewer debt slaves would emerge from an increasingly untenable higher education system. The Federal Reserve found that overall student loan debt has tripled over the past eight years.

With the average debt load increasing to $27,000 in 2012, recent graduates are struggling to afford monthly payments on entry-level salaries – if they can even find work at all in a labor market where 53% of college graduates under 25 are underemployed or unemployed. Crippled by student loan debt and poor job prospects, a great number of young adults struggle to stay afloat. While the recent economic downturn alone would have contributed to a number of “boomerang” children living with their parents after graduation, the prospect of paying back thousands of dollars in debt makes living at home practically inevitable for many twentysomethings.

Despite student loan debt topping all other forms of private debt, a 2005 change to bankruptcy law made it virtually impossible to discharge private student loan debts, placing students loan defaulters in “a special circle of bankruptcy hell reserved for dads who avoid child support and tax evaders,” according to Rich Williams, higher education advocate for U.S. Public Interest Research Group. This change in the law occurred after Sallie Mae, a government-sponsored enterprise turned private corporation, donated the maximum allowable contribution of $250,000 to George W. Bush’s second inauguration. Cronyism at its finest. Likewise, the Obama administration has continued the gravy train to America’s colleges and universities, which is great for the construction companies building new science labs and dormitories and the ‘Student Life’ bureaucrats occupying offices in our own Hogan Campus Center, but the growth in higher education is unsustainable. Of course, students should be wary when entering into a contract and take responsibility for their own financial decisions; however, the underlying issue lies in the systematic subsidization of higher education, a bipartisan policy driving marginal students into classrooms at America’s colleges and universities where they likely will fail and pay a heavy price for it.

With a greater number of students pursuing higher education due to access to low-interest loans from the government, colleges and universities respond accordingly: they hike tuition in response to the greater demand for higher education and the fact that students enjoy artificially increased purchasing power for this educational good/service.

The soaring cost of tuition under this scam only serves to contribute to a political climate where it is seen as cold-hearted to reduce or remove subsidies to higher education, even though poor and middle-class students suffer the most. As Harry Browne, political writer and former presidential candidate for the Libertarian Party, once said, “Government is good at one thing: It knows how to break your legs, hand you a crutch, and say, ‘See, if it weren’t for the government, you wouldn’t be able to walk.’” Ultimately, taxpayers are on the hook for much of this debt as a greater number of students default on government loans.

Loan companies, like Sallie Mae, who provided federally guaranteed student loans originating under the Federal Family Education Loan Program, may lobby for a bailout similar to those received by financial institutions under T.A.R.P, increasing the financial pain of taxpaying Americans. Ironically, the Occupy Wall Street crowd has famously called for student loan forgiveness and further federal involvement in higher education, precisely the wrong approach to a problem brought on by Big Government.

The higher education system is broken, but the remedy does not require further state intervention. We need to look past the propaganda (e.g., College graduates earn over $1 million more than high school graduates over the course of their lifetimes!) and embrace reality. Mark Schneider, vice president of the American Institutes for Research, calls it, “the million-dollar misunderstanding.” A college degree signals you spent four years in class, but success requires much more

A college degree signals you spent four years in class, but success requires much more than attendance, especially given the price tag accompanying freshly framed diplomas today. than attendance, especially given the price tag accompanying freshly framed diplomas today. Students should demand Washington disentangle itself from the student loan industry and higher education, allowing the dynamism of the market to function free of the high costs and unintended consequences of heavy-handed government policy. The student loan bubble has not yet burst, but it is only a matter of time before the nation has a crisis on its hands. Washington should reverse course instead of making matters worse.

The Fenwick Review

5

April 2013

The Master Builder of Doll’s Houses Nikolas Churik ‘15 Staff Writer

en in Norway, but Ibsen, in his speech, goes further by stating he wrote about “a problem of humanity in general.”

Helmer: I would gladly work night and He continued by suggesting that “it day for you, Nora—bear sorrow and want is desirable to solve the problem of for your sake. But no man would sacrifice his women’s rights, along with all the othhonour for the one he loves. ers.” Rather than Balkanizing humanNora: It is a thing hundreds of thousands ity into special interest groups, often of women have done. with unnecessarily competing goals, problems might be better approached with the idea of solving the problem’s a human being, rather than of an individual subset.

In the final act of A Doll’s House, one of Nora’s chief contentions is that she has been a “doll-wife” all her life and has never been able to express her own opinions and act on her own will. The causes of this doll-existence are the misguided men in her life and, perhaps, even society as a whole. Even in the microcosm of A Doll’s House, a focus on single interests, first Torvald’s, then Nora’s, creates the problems driving the action of the play. By focusing on his name and reputation, Torvald neglects his duty to his wife and children. Nora leaves behind her children, maybe necessarily, because she can no longer The upcoming production of The tolerate her oppressive spouse. These Wild Duck provides a rare opportuone-sided views leave no one satisfied nity to write about the great Henrik and destroy the family. Just as Nora’s Ibsen. In an address at the Festival of and Torvald’s family is shattered by Women’s Rights in Christiana, Ibsen unilateral action that does not take a responded to claims that, through his holistic view, so too is society-at-large. writing, he had advocated for distinct- Nora’s expression was stifled, ly “women’s rights.” After reading A for, as she recounts, “I had the same Doll’s House, one could easily infer opinions [as her papa]; and if I difthat Torvald’s treatment of Nora and fered from him I concealed the fact, her response depicts opposition to because he would not have liked it.” state of women in Norway. The plays Perhaps Nora’s words may be interdoes shed light on the plight of wom- preted in different ways, but Ibsen

expected this, as he indicated at the Festival: “the reader will insert his own feelings and sentiments into the work of the poet. . . Every reader remolds it so beautifully and nicely, each according to his own personality.” Here, too, the universal need and right to free expression is presented as limited.

This limitation, however, cannot be changed until both groups of humans involved are brought to discussion. An internal issue for one and external for the other can only be solved insofar as they can both be presented on an equal plane. By approaching these problems as human beings, not as men/women, Croats/Serbs, us/them, and by being open to mutual sacrifice, the participants or belligerents in debates may find more palatable and transcendental solutions.

Photos courtesy of: http://kafkatokindergarten.blogspot. com/2011/06/play-day-dolls-house-by-henrik-ibsen.html http://jordanhalepvhs.blogspot. com/2011/05/1879-dolls-house-by-henrikibsen.html

The Fenwick Review

April 2013

6

SAVE HOLY CROSS AND WORCESTER FROM THE MENACE OF A SLOT-MACHINE CASINO! Continued from page 1 Among the machines’ tricks: after each “play,” the screen explodes with celebratory messages congratulating the player on his just having “won” – when what really happened is that he “won,” say, five games, while “losing” fifteen, for a substantial net loss. Yet these simple means of instant gratification are sufficient to keep many players glued to the machines for hours. And instead of the players having to interrupt their play to refill their supply of coins, the new casinos can automatically connect to the players’ bank accounts and credit cards – to drain them all the more quickly and efficiently.

Don’t think this can’t happen to you, or someone you love. The manner in which the current generation of slot machines can exercise a pathological grip on even highly intelligent and disciplined people is brought home by a recent Worcester Telegram and Gazette story on how Deborah L. Greenslit of Rutland, a psychotherapist with four graduate degrees and a nursing degree who is also a successful marathon runner, won what she came to call “pennies from hell” playing a slot machine at Connecticut’s Mohegan Sun Casino. In a forthcoming book titled Living with a Loving Heart: Lessons Learned on Suffering and Pain, Ms. Greenslit recounts how after winning a $752,000 jackpot playing penny slot machines at Mohegan Sun, she found herself “hooked,” soon lost back her winnings, but found herself “sitting for hours” at the machines, finding it “hard to pull away.” She finally realized that her addiction to the slots had undermined her “mindfulness,” “exacerbat[ing]” rather than healing her personal pain. But while Ms. Greenslit was finally able to overcome the addiction, how many others from the Worcester area, lacking her discipline and training, will become enslaved to it, once a slots casino is located within easy reach (a lot closer than Mohegan Sun is to Rutland)?

Contrary to the claims of casino proponents, a 2007 report by the nonpartisan Worcester Regional Research Bureau included the following findings: • It isn’t true that casinos facilitate economic development. The gambling or “gaming” industry has not been known to develop the local economy beyond itself. According to an international strategic adviser, “Casinos don’t grow skills. They don’t nurture talent.” (If you want visual proof, visit Atlantic City.)

• Casinos divert consumer spending from other, more productive local enterprises.

• Much of the money generated by casino revenues, unlike that gener-

ated by more conventional business activity, goes to regions outside the local community, rather than being recycled within it.

• As the number of casinos proliferates nationwide, casino profits inevitably decline, as their business increasingly depends on “cannibalizing” one another. As a result, actual revenues and hence tax receipts from a new casino are likely to fall far short of its advocates’ projections.

• Casinos, like other forms of gambling, disproportionately attract lower-income individuals, thus depriving the neediest families of assets that would enable them to maintain their financial independence and advance their life prospects. It is highly doubtful that any supposed gains to the poor from any increased spending on education and social services derived from casino tax revenues will outweigh these costs to them.

• Casinos lead to an increase in the number of pathological gamblers.

The National Impact Gambling Study Commission (1999) found that the rates of pathological gambling addictions doubled among populations that live within 50 miles of a casino.

• The proximity of casinos is also strongly correlated with an increase in personal bankruptcies, crime rates, and suicides. In Atlantic City, for instance, crime rates increased by 300 percent between 1977 and 1981, the years immediately following the legalization of casino gambling in 1976, and much of that town remains depressed and crime-ridden.

One study found that people who engage in crime to support compulsive gambling behavior typically have no prior record of criminal behavior, strongly suggesting that encouraging gambling has a corruptive effect. (All these pathologies will heighten the strain on local civic services and nonprofits – canceling out any likely “savings” from increased tax revenues.)

• Each of the foregoing negative personal effects are likely to be far greater when a casino is located in an urban locale like Worcester, within easy traveling or even walking distance of a large population, than when it is in a largely remote area like Connecticut’s two casinos, requiring a lengthy (and hence probably less frequent) trip on the part of most of its customers.

• Casinos convey to people, poorer ones in particular, the dishonest and demoralizing message that gambling, as distinguished from working, saving, and investing, is the road to financial success for oneself and one’s family. As social scientists William Galston and David Wasserman have observed, the recent rise in the popularity of gambling, especially when it is encouraged by government in order to enhance its own revenues (and thus carries the stamp of official

endorsement), promotes “a loss of confidence in hard work as a source of social advancement,” generating “cynicism about the work ethic” that is “particularly destructive for individuals with limited resources.” “At a time when so many forces are pushing in the direction of shortsightedness, irresponsibility, and passivity,” they remark, “public institutions have an affirmative obligation to defend the older, but by no means outdated, virtues of industry, thrift, self-command, and care for the future,” an obligation that is directly contradicted when government encourages people to gamble.

Aside from the economic and social havoc that a slots casino threatens to wreak on the Worcester area in general, it will be particularly harmful to Holy Cross to have such a casino nearby. How many parents of prospective students will be deterred from sending their children here when they see the casino just down the road, worried about the danger of their offspring being tempted to spend time there, or just repelled by the idea of paying enormous sums for room, board, and tuition to have them attend school in a town that resembles Atlantic City – when there are so many other competing colleges that don’t suffer from such a disadvantage?

But this isn’t just an issue of enlightened self-interest, for the College or the city of Worcester. It involves an issue with which Holy Cross, we are repeatedly reminded, is intensely concerned: that of social justice, or the well-being of the underprivileged. Economists’ studies have shown that in referenda on allowing casinos, middle- and upper-class individuals tend to vote for them in higher percentages than the poor do – even though it is poor people who are more likely to patronize them. The reason, apparently, is that many poor people know well enough that casinos will offer a temptation that will threaten them with great harm – while many richer people are happy to reduce their own tax burden (so they think), by having the poor “voluntarily” contribute more of their own money to the city’s and state’s coffers.

It is deeply regrettable that the Holy Cross administration has not yet made use of its moral influence in the Worcester community to take a clear stand against the proposed slots casino. It is to be hoped that it will do so soon. But whether or not it does, members of the Holy Cross faculty and staff, especially those who live in Worcester, along with students who are registered to vote here, can contribute substantially to this battle against the forces of organized greed.

To see how, first go to the website VoteNoSlots.com. Then, if you receive this issue of the Fenwick Review in time, go to the open

meeting on the casino proposal that is scheduled to be held at 7 p.m. on Wednesday, April 24, in the Levi Lincoln Room of Worcester City Hall, and make your voice heard. You don’t need to be a Worcester resident to do that: the casino’s deleterious effects will be felt throughout Central Massachusetts, including Holy Cross.

Even if you don’t get to speak, you will be able to express your support for casino opponents by showing up and indicating your feelings.

(The City Council will be holding a vote on whether to endorse the casino proposal at 7 p.m. on Tuesday, April 23, but only City residents who register with the City Clerk for this purpose by April 18 will be allowed to speak at that meeting – though anyone is free to attend and watch the Council “deliberate.” It is curious, to say the least, that the Council suddenly postponed the open meeting until a day after it takes its vote – apparently because Council members, all but one of whom are likely to support the proposal, were put off by the nearly unanimous opposition that citizens expressed at a previous open meeting on April 8, and they don’t want their own vote to be seen as going against popular opposition expressed only a week earlier.)

Whether or not you are able to attend the City Hall meetings on April 23 and 24, I urge you to inform yourself on the slots-casino issue by downloading and reading the Research Bureau’s 2013 report on the risks of such an establishment for Worcester, which (in conjunction with its 2007 report, also available on the Bureau’s website) provides documentation for the points made above: http://wrrb.org/files/downloads/reports/ pub_admin/2013/should-worcester-welcome-a-slot-machine-casino.pdf Then, email Fr. Boroughs and urge him to take a public stand on the College’s behalf against the construction of a slots casino – as the president of Assumption College has already done. If you are a Worcester voter, contact your city councilors and state legislators as well to urge them to oppose it. And when the referendum is held – if you are a Worcester voter, get to the polls, vote “No,” and urge your friends, co-workers, and family members to do so as well. (If you are a student registered to vote here but will be away for the summer, you can of course arrange to receive an absentee ballot in case the referendum is scheduled for prior to the resumption of classes.)

Continued on page 10

The Fenwick Review

7

April 2013

In Dialogue with the Monologues their problems to their anatomy. The Nikolas Churik ‘15 website for The Vagina Monologues Staff Writer defines “woman” as “The art of being all things to everyone at all times and Supposing that Truth is a woman—what still wearing makeup.” This definition then? Is there not ground for suspecting that is very nice and more or less realistic. all philosophers, in so far as they have been As the definition belies, there is much dogmatists, have failed to understand wom- more to each than her anatomy, and en—that the terrible seriousness and clumsy resultantly, the problems faced by the importunity with which they have usually women portrayed in the Monologues paid their addresses to Truth, have been have to do with much more than their unskilled and unseemly methods for winning physiology. While the problems may a woman? stem, in one way or another, from -Friedrich Nietzsche, Preface, Beyond Good some issue relating to their reproducand Evil tive organs, the problems do go much

The annual production of The deeper and are in some cases entirely Vagina Monologues has come and external. gone in its appropriately cyclical fash- It has been noted that the ion. The goal of the production – the word “vagina” is awkward because ending of violence against women – is it is rarely used. That is precisely the a noble one. Wisdom, as Nietzsche point: outside of an obstetrician or suggests, loves one who is “Couragynecologist’s office and in a few geous” and “mocking.” While the other circumstances, there are more ends of the Monologues are laudable, consequential things about which to the means are questionable. talk. That is not to say that a woman’s

As do most works, The Mono- vagina is not consequential (indeed, it logues has its good and bad parts. is for all of us, except for those, akin

The problem, though, is obto Macduff, who “as from his mothvious from the very title and becomes er’s womb/ Untimely ripped.”), but, further illuminated more throughout rather, that the underlying causes of the production. It reduces women and women’s issues are more consequen-

tial. In the first monologue, a woman contends with an unfaithful husband.

The problems are many: 1) the husband’s infidelity, 2) the husband’s unreasonable, degrading demand of his wife’s shaving her pubic hair (a request, which naturally speaks more of the husband than of the woman, physically or mentally), 3) the ineptitude of the marriage counselor, and 4) the disturbing pleasure the husband

Accepting and being comfortable in and with one’s own body are important parts of growing, but reducing one’s self or sex to physical parts does contribute anything to growth and maturation. receives from shaving his wife. Is the woman’s body involved? Yes, clearly.

Does the problem stem from the any part of the woman’s anatomy? Not really. As the woman in the monologue admits, her former husband continued to cheat. Even after the “problem”

was eliminated, his infidelity continued.

Accepting and being comfortable in and with one’s own body are important parts of growing, but reducing one’s self or sex to physical parts does contribute anything to growth and maturation. As the very writing of this article makes evident, the Vagina Monologues can and does create, or at least contribute to, a greater conversation on women and society, but it does seem lacking in important ways.

While I do not mean to be puritanical, the discussion and portrayal of sex and orgasms in the Monologues do little to promote discussion on violence against women. The causes for violence against women do not stem from sex or orgasms or physiognomy, but from the internal deprivations of the perpetrator. Discussion of the mindset of the perpetrator or of the psychological effects on the victim would do more than the vulgar representation of the sexual act. Some of the monologues do address those problems, often obliquely, but they do not address the most important issues.

Intellectuals and Society: The Rise of the Nanny State Conor R. Cummings ‘13 Staff Writer

From trans fat bans and soda taxes to anti-tobacco laws and onerous gun restrictions, the Nanny State, often derided but ultimately acquiesced to by the majority of the population, is taking a serious toll on individual liberty and responsibility in America. Possibly the most insidious and destructive form of Big Government, laws regulating the most common and benign activities have

The benevolent fascism corroding American culture of freedom requires intellectual backing, which, unfortunately, too many so-called experts and court intellectuals provide gleefully. sought to take all the risk and fun out of life. Mayor Bloomberg’s thuggish attempt to deny New Yorkers the right to drink soda in serving sizes not to his liking is only the latest, high profile example. The benevolent fascism corroding American culture

of freedom requires intellectual backing, which, unfortunately, too many so-called experts and court intellectuals provide gleefully.

Despite, or perhaps because of, the failure of alcohol prohibition engineered by the progressives and do-gooders of the 1920s, the Nanny State mentality evolved and shifted form, but never lost its desire to shape and control human behavior.

In 1958 John Kenneth Galbraith, a Harvard economics professor, published The Affluent Society, in which he boldly claimed corporations’ advertising was so compelling they can manufacture artificial demand for any good or service they can supply. Galbraith’s raw determinism fails to explain why any business would go through the expensive process of innovating and introducing new goods with which to hook consumers when the same old products would suffice thanks to slick advertising.

In response to Galbraith’s absurd notions, Nobel Prize-winning economist Friedrich Hayek conceded most wants outside of the basic needs for subsistence do not originate with the individual, but so what? Probably all our various wants and desires, like my taste for Tarantino films or Lynyrd Skynyrd tunes, are learned in social environments. Hayek devastatingly added, “to say that a desire

is not important because it is not innate is to say that the whole cultural achievement of man is not important.” Although Galbraith’s claims have been easily refuted, his ideas still live on as leftist, anti-capitalist dogma, particularly as justification for increased government intervention.

After all, if the consumer does not have his own wants and desires and remains subject to the whims of Madison Avenue advertising executives, then government, assisted by noble reformers like Galbraith or former Obama regulatory czar Cass Sunstein, must step in to protect consumers from artificial desires.

Government coercion plus government propaganda can cure any social ill according to the unconstrained progressive vision of Galbraith and his ilk. In New York City Mayor Bloomberg, continues to try, yet all his excessive cigarette taxes yield are poorer New Yorkers and a growing black market for illicit cigarettes imported from low tax states. In cities across America, regulatory zealots crack down on food trucks offering convenient ethnic food due to overblown safety concerns and pressure from brick-and-mortar restaurants to squeeze out lower-priced competition.

In Intellectuals and Society, the book which inspired this article, economist Thomas Sowell writes,

“Intellectuals have – on matters ranging across the spectrum from housing policies to laws governing organ transplants – sought to have decision-making taken from those directly involved, who have personal knowledge and a personal stake, and transferred to third parties who have neither, and who pay no price for being wrong.” The absurd fallacy that bureaucrats, whether in Washington or elsewhere, know better than you about your own healthcare decisions or grocery shopping underlies the increasing attacks on Americans’ individual liberty. Do people make mistakes? Of course, but this simple insight about human nature hardly justifies the progressive notion that a superior class of individuals, somehow not subject to the influence of advertising, the allure of power, or the limits of individual knowledge, exists and can manage society for us. When people are allowed to make decisions for themselves, they tend to produce good outcomes for themselves and society. Or in other words, freedom works. Let’s restore the promise of American liberty, opportunity, and prosperity by telling the state to back off. We’ll run our own lives, thank you.

8

The Fenwick Review

National Review’s Crusader

April 2013

An Interview with the Publisher of the Influential Magazine Patrick J. Horan ‘14 Managing Editor Jack Fowler graduated from the College of the Holy Cross in 1982. A Bronx native, Mr. Fowler attended Regis High School and briefly attended Fordham University before transferring to Holy Cross in 1980.

During his time atop Mt. Saint James, he was a philosophy major, the president of the Alternate College Theater, and a drum player in the Goodtime Marching Band.

After graduating from Holy Cross, Mr. Fowler wrote for the Human Life Review, a journal published by the pro-life Human Life Foundation. In 1990, National Review hired him as its congressional correspondent in Washington, D.C. Since then, he has moved back to New York where he now works as the publisher for America’s premier conservative magazine. This past spring break, I had the opportunity to interview Mr. Fowler on topics ranging from his time at Holy Cross, his tenure at National Review, Bill Buckley, and more. What follows is Jack Fowler in his own words.

Fenwick Review: Your first year of college was at Fordham University.

What made you decide to transfer to Holy Cross?

Jack Fowler: Well, I went to Regis High School, which is a Jesuit high school. Regis was a particularly intense high school – very grueling.

I have to say the first year of college was a bit of joke compared to high school. I went to Fordham, I’m from the Bronx. I had to pay my way through college. Fordham was commutable, so I went there. I’m not bragging there, but I did very well despite cutting about 65% of my classes. So I was a little down on Fordham for its ability to challenge me intellectually, but regardless whether it did or it didn’t, the money ran out.

I decided to take the next year off to work. While I was off, a buddy of mine – another Regis guy, Lou Usarzewicz, he went to Columbia – we decided to visit Holy Cross to see some of our classmates. When I was there, I fell in love with the school.

I really wanted to be in the school – maybe if I had visited my friends at another college, I would have tried to transfer there, but I visited Holy Cross – Joe Mauro and Greg Sullivan – good friends of mine – were there and I wanted to go.

I requested information. I wanted to apply for a transfer. I was interviewed. I was accepted for that spring semester, and I lived at the Howard Johnson’s, the old Ho Jo’s, which is no longer there. It was at the bottom of the Hill.

FR: You lived in the Howard

Johnson’s?

JF: Yeah. It was a great place. It was off campus housing where I was able to have my own bathroom.

Downstairs was a bar and the restaurant if you were ever hungry. It was a difference experience than living on campus.

FR: You were a philosophy major; what was your favorite class(es)?

Who was your favorite professor(s)?

JF: I had been a Communications Major at Fordham. I always wanted to be a writer, but you should be a good writer after four years of college regardless of your major. The most important thing for me was to be able to think clearly as opposed to majoring in journalism.

Favorite professors–in Philosophy: Hermann Cloeren. He is an emeritus professor, now. He taught an excellent course on linguistics.

There was Dave Schaefer in Political Science. He taught a tremen-

I always wanted to be a writer, but you should be a good writer after 4 years of college regardless of your major. dous course on Machiavelli.

There was a renowned professor from Duke who came to Holy Cross for a semester – Wallace Fowlie – who taught a superb course on Dante.

Prof. Zwiebel taught a course on Kafka – very profound.

Also, I liked Prof. Lamareux – he wrote the textbook on French. I took French for three years. I wasn’t good at writing it, but I could speak if fluently, thanks to him, Fr. DeSautels, and Ted Fraser—three French professors. I enjoyed that very much.

FR: In the past few years, the police have cracked down on much of the off-campus party scene on the nearby streets such as Caro and Clay Street.

This has largely been in response to extreme rowdiness and even vandalism on weekends. How does this compare to the social life when you were in school?

JF: I lived on Caro Street my last semester. We were considered older “grand-fatherly” types. We were a little more sedate, and we appreciated calm. We were tenants in a house, and the owners lived with us. So we couldn’t get away with it if we wanted, too. But we were very respectful

of them, so we did our best to not disrupt their way of life.

At the time though, there was a bar on campus. I was a bartender, and an I.D. checker. Half the school could drink legally. The other half tried to get in illegally. But the students generally stayed on campus.

Drinking seems to have a central role in so many things, but … I assume it’s different now because people can’t drink on campus.

FR: There is the pub.

JF: But you have to be 21. The drinking age was 19 when I first arrived. It was moved to 20, but you still had a large percentage of the students already able to drink legally.

Now, there still were parties off campus. There was a rugby house that was notorious. We had cast parties for the play. We had some parties, but we tried to be quiet. When you live within a community, you have to be respectful of neighbors.

I’ve also lived on the other end of it. When I was older, I lived in Virginia a block from Mary Washington College. There were students living around me. When you’re living with kids, you want to be able to go to bed at a reasonable hour without being woken up by drunken hooligans. I’ve always been a little sensitive to this. People also have a right to sleep normal hours. If you need the police to say “Let there be police,” then that’s legitimate.

College is a fun time. But college is supposed to be about learning, not picking up cirrhosis.

FR: Did you participate in any extracurricular activities during your time atop Mount Saint James? You were part of the band, correct?

JF: Yes, first, I was the president of the Alternative College Theater. I was the stage manager for Hair. I had

College is supposed to be about learning, not picking up cirrhosis. been very active in theater and stage crew in high school, and I enjoyed that, so I wanted to join the theater in college. After that, I was voted president of the stage theater. It was really a great thrill. Just everything about it – putting on a musical – the lights come on, the roar of the crowd, the grease paint, Ethel Murman stuff.

One year, we put on a production of The Two Gentlemen of Verona.

The musical director for the show

was Bob Principe. Bob was also the band director at Holy Cross. He

Father McFarland was a head scratcher to say the least. approached me in my last semester there. He said, “Hey Jack, would you be the drum major for the band?”

And I said, “Bob, I don’t know how to read music. What do you mean?”

And he said “No, I’ll give you the big hat, and we’ll give you a baton.

You just have to run around the field like a jerk.” And I said “I could do that.” That was a lot of fun. There is a dynamic to the band. The band kids couldn’t have been nicer. We had a number of great experiences – Saturday afternoons, roaring crowds, an exciting team… It was just a great experience.

FR: What was your single best experience at Holy Cross?

JF: Besides meeting Mrs. Fowler, my greatest experience would be the time my two friends, Dan Mahoney who is a professor at Assumption and Dan Kelly who is now a very respected lawyer in Boston, and I started our own alternate magazine, The Hogan Foreign Review. It lasted one issue as we realized it costs money to print publications [laughter]. It was about foreign policy. It caused a splash on campus, and it was fun. We made a thing that people read that stirred some debate. And there’s pleasure in that. I greatly enjoyed that.

FR: Single worst experience?

JF: Well, when I was an I.D. checker at the bar and it was family weekend.

The wife of a board member was very intoxicated and I insisted she move because she was blocking the hallway.

She tried to move, but she fell on a landing. Within a second, she was on her back with her feet in the air [laughter]. I was in a great panic. I did nothing wrong, but there was a little terror in that experience.

FR: What’s your view of Holy Cross today?

JF: I wish I had a grander affection for Holy Cross. I really do. But I don’t. It’s a Catholic institution that on some levels seems embarrassed of its Catholicism. The Vagina Monologues on Ash Wednesday was not a good thing. Having pro-abortion commencement speakers has not been a good thing – and there’s a sort of glory in it. Or at least that’s the impression I get from the Administration.

April 2013

The Fenwick Review

National Review’s Crusader

9

An Interview with the Publisher of the Influential Magazine The former president picked Chris Matthews to speak. Father McFarland was a head scratcher to say the least. You should read a piece I wrote a while back – “The Society of Drinan” [a 2003 article from National Review Online]. It’ about Charley Millard, a major Holy Cross benefactor and the former chairman of the board of trustees. He was treated like crap by the trustees and the administration when he protested having Matthews, an abortion rights advocate, as the commencement speaker.

Matthews doesn’t call pro-life people pro-life. He calls them anti-choice.

That’s the language NARAL would use. To see this person as someone the school should honor is crazy.

Abortion is a heinous sin – a heinous crime. You wouldn’t see a racist, nor should you, as commencement speaker, but you can expect to see people who think it’s OK to chop up babies.

There’s something very wrong with that.

FR: When did you know you wanted to go into journalism/publishing?

JF: In high school. A couple friends of mine – one of them, Michael Bérubé, who is now a professor at Penn State – and I created a sports magazine. We called it Sports Un-illustrated. Then, we called it the Illustrated Sports Un-Illustrated when we put pictures in it [laughter]. It was a great thing – it lasted years after we graduated … I also had worked for the Elias sports bureau in Manhattan.

I was a sports addict when I was younger. I had a dream of being a sports writer. I’m obviously not a sports writer [laughter]. In fact, I’m not even a writer anymore. I was the congressional reporter for National Review, but that was 20 years ago.

I’ve been on the business side of the magazine for 20 years. I haven’t written a full-fledged article in a long time.

FR: So did you start your career at National Review?

JF: No, a friend of mine, Maria McFadden, now Maria Maffucci, helped me get a job. Maria McFadden’s father was the founder of the Human Life Review. He had been the former assistant publisher of National Review.

He had all these sublets at National Review. And he needed a person. I applied, met him, and he hired me. I worked for him at National Review, not for National Review.

I worked with Jim for a few years. He then created a Catholic publication called the Catholic Eye. Then, I got married. My wife and I moved to Washington. I worked as a lobbyist and a writer for the newsletter.

I was still friendly with the people at

National Review, and they decided

If I had to speak for Bill Buckley, he would always say despair is a sin. they wanted to have a newsletter in Washington. They hired me, so I started working for NR in 1990 as their congressional reporter. But finances forced the closure of the Washington office a few years later.

Bill McGurn, the NR bureau chief in D.C., went on to work in Hong Kong for the Far East Economic Review, and I came up to work here as the Associate Publisher at NR. I moved from the writing side to the business side, but there still is a lot of writing on the business side between ad promotions, newsletters, and a number of other things.

FR: So you never foresaw becoming a publisher?

JF: Right, I get calls from the alumni network outreach program. People ask me how I became a publisher. I tell them, “I didn’t plan this.” Much of life depends on circumstances and getting to know people. No, I didn’t foresee this. I was a philosophy major after all, not a finance or a business major.

FR: Shifting gears slightly, you knew William Buckley. What would William Buckley say about America today?

JF: There is a little difficulty speaking for Bill Buckley. I try not to do it, but you asked me. It’s a game that liberals, in particular, love to play. They’ll say “If William Buckley were alive, he’d have this to say about Rush Limbaugh” and so on.

But if I had to speak for Bill, he would always say despair is a sin. He founded NR in 1955, which at the time, might have been seen as a woeful period [for conservatives].

We might look back on that and say those were the days when America was America, and we were conservative because of family values, etc. But from the perspective of Bill Buckley in 1955, America was being run by very liberal left-wing academics. The communist threat was still there. The Republican establishment was wishywashy. One could have despaired in 1955 if one was a conservative. But Bill didn’t despair. He said let’s have a voice and rally around it. He had seen things come and go.

What could have been worse politically than Barry Goldwater’s defeat in 1964? But 2 years later, Ronald Reagan was elected governor of California and the trajectory of conservatism was on the rise. Things are cycli-

cal in politics, just like other things in life. Relationships, marriage, business, politics. Bill would be a good cheer even if we suffered a blow. Stick to our principles. Articulate them better.

I think he would be defensive of NR’s position of last week that we need to hear more. We can’t be exclusive.

Some conservatives say, “We can’t have Chris Christie. We can’t listen to this one.” No, Bill’s view was a fusionist view of the movement – the fiscal conservatives, the anti-communists, the pro-family folks – get them all together as opposed to weeding people out.

they have any particular claim to it, but the indifference – the circling of the wagons, the lies, the molestations, the crimes committed mostly again young boys is a horrible, horrible thing. I know from my own experience a number of Jesuits who engaged in this. I also knew a few courageous students who tried to bring the issue to the attention of the superiors in the province. They were immediately rebuffed. This is the melody that lingers on. We are facing the music now.

FR: Has the Church done a decent job trying to clean up this mess?

JF: No. It’s done some things, but FR: So we need to be more of a “big things have moved slowly. This is the tent” movement? problem Benedict XVI had with the JF: Yeah, but remember not everybureaucracy in Rome. To give you an thing is politics. This is a problem. example, after the scandal happened, while my kids were in Catholic school, the United States Congress of Catholic Bishops concocted a program for anyone who engaged with children in school. It was a training seminar. We had all these dads who were coaches to here a three hour lecture on when not to touch a student and things like that. I was thinking to myself, “A If everything is about politics, then bishop attacked an altar boy and the we’re in trouble. This is where the cure is to have Jack Fowler go to some Left prevails. Conservatism should seminar on a Tuesday night. I think appeal to us on every level as students, they have their priorities wrong.” academics, businessmen – just because Like any sort of profession, there is the GOP had a bad day, that shouldn’t a sort of bond. I’m sure if another be seen as a substitute for what conpriest heard “Father so-and-son did servatism is. We believe our principles this,” his first thought would be OK are correct. Maybe they are not being let’s get him help. Send him out to articulated correctly or in a way that some place far away to take care of people want to listen. That’s a probhim. But these are terrible things. lem we have to focus on.

Horrible crimes. It’s not like some Let me say one other thing body stole ten bucks out of the poor about Bill. He was in England in 1938 box. We’re talking about sodomizwhen Chamberlain came off the plane ing young boys, who, by the way, are and said “we have peace in our time.” more likely to do the same thing when He was a student going to a Jesuit they get older. It’s just a despicable school in England at the time. That thing. About a year and half ago, Fr. was one of the worst events in the his- Groeschel, advocate of the faith and tory. Bill saw it all. But he still didn’t popular figure on EWTN, diminished despair. the seriousness of this. Some institutions and some orders haven’t made FR: Has Catholicism changed since clear reparation for what they did or you were a kid? for what they allowed to happen. And JF: Clearly, it has changed. The cenone of those institutions is the Society tral event of our faith is the sacrifice of Jesus. They have a lot to answer of the Mass. The churches aren’t for. empty on the same level the European When you put young peochurches are, but they’re getting there. ple in the care of adults, you expect This scandal – the scandal of the safety and protection. To think that abuse of children – has had a terrible a priest would do this repeatedly and toll and will continue to take a terrihis brother priest would just have him ble toll. That doesn’t mean people sent off to another place where he should ignore the teaching. God said would do it again is unbelievable. It’ll “Woe to you who lead the little ones take decades for the Church to get astray.” … The Church itself teaches through this. God will get the Church us that it is wrong to scandalize the through it. We shall prevail against the faithful. The faithful sure as hell have Gates of Hell, but I don’t think we’ve been scandalized, and they’re voting bottomed out yet. with their feet. They’re not going to church. It’s a terrible, terrible thing FR: What are the biggest challenges that’s happened. facing Catholics in the United States

The Jesuits, too, were up to today? their eyeballs in this scandal. Not that Continued on page 10

If you really want to be a journalist, you will be a journalist.

April 2013

The Fenwick Review

National Review’s Crusader

10

An Interview with the Publisher of the Influential Magazine Continued from page 9 go to church on Sunday – they’re the ones who get to send their kids to JF: Well, there’s one easy challenge Catholic high school and Catholic – that’s going to Church on Sunday. college. Something is wrong with this Another is people don’t go to Confes- picture. sion. It’s a lost Sacrament. Nobody

But I don’t think the Catholic goes to receive penance, but everyChurch in America has any fundabody goes to receive communion. mentally bigger issue than any other There’s something wrong with this Catholic Church in the world and picture. There’s another challenge, that is to be faithful – to love Jesus, and I don’t have an answer for this. It to love His Mother, to pray, and to go to church and to seek salvation. It But I don’t think the Cath- was more difficult to be a practicing in Germany in the 1940s, for olic Church in America has Catholic instance. The martyrs faced the same question that we who live in plenty any fundamentally bigger – How do I get into Heaven? issue than any other Catho- faced And Jesus told us the answer, and we lic Church in the world and have to follow that. Mother Teresa we [Americans], in particular, that is to be faithful – to love said have another issue. We have spiriJesus, to love His Mother, to tual poverty. We don’t have material poverty, but we have a lot of spiritual pray, and to go to church poverty. We’re so concerned with wealth – and I’m all for wealth, by the and to seek salvation. way (laughter) – let’s say you start with ten talents. God hopes you end up with twenty talents. He wants you to has to do with the cost of Catholic share. But if you’re Catholic, and you education. Take a school like Holy can’t find the strength to wake up on Cross, for example. Prices are going Sunday, while you’re living in your Mcupwards of $60,000. That’s tough on Mansion and driving your Suburban, families. It’s tough to send a kid to a there are issues there.

Catholic high school. For the families But we have the fundamental goal as with several kids, it’s very difficult to every other Catholic – in fact, same send kids to Catholic schools. The goal as everybody – Catholic or not – parents who have one kid and don’t we all have the goal to reach salvation.

FR: Who do you draw inspiration from in both your career and your

People ask “How did you get to where you are today?”

And the answer is, “People do each other favors.” personal life (if you don’t mind me asking about the latter)?

JF: In my career – my colleagues. It’s a joy to come here to work with these people. I come here to work with these warm, collegial, bright people who are trying to fulfill Bill Buckley’s mission. That’s Rich Lowry; Kevin Williamson; Jay Nordlinger; Bob Costa, the Washington head of National Review. I admire those men tremendously.

My predecessor , Ed Capano, the former publisher of NR, was very kind to me. And I hope to be kind to others in turn. People ask “How did you get to where you are today?” And the answer is, “People do each other favors.” I may have even done you a favor. You may think, “How do I pay you back?” Don’t worry about that.

Being kind is doing what we’re supposed to be doing.

I’m a little stunned – this is

sort of related – I can’t believe I knew Bill Buckley. I don’t know if I can call him my friend, even though I think he was. He’s left this institution partially in my hands. It’s just amazing to think I knew such an incredible figure.

Personally, well, I just have a wonderful wife. The greatest joy in my life is my loving children … They love each other tremendously, and that’s my wife’s doing. It doesn’t matter about my title – whether I’m publisher of NR or a cab driver – she’s a great lady.

I just live in a fog thinking “Why me, here? Why not me, there?” Why am I

I’m a little stunned – this is sort of related – I can’t believe I knew Bill Buckley. not some laborer in China? But that’s the way it is. I’m in more of a position to do good in the world. Anyway, my colleagues, my family – my mother – don’t leave out my mother – she had ten children, and she showed us all a tremendous amount of love.

Continued on page 11

SAVE HOLY CROSS AND WORCESTER FROM THE MENACE OF A SLOT-MACHINE CASINO! traffic problems, making donations

Continued from page 6 to local social service agencies, and so on. With the prospect of raking

This is not a partisan issue. in millions of dollars from bettors to Opponents of the casino proposal whom it will be providing no goods or range from members of Worcester’s services at all, it can easily afford to do Catholic Worker movement, on the so.

Left, who care most about issues of

But in fact, as documented social justice, to civic-minded Worces- in recent local news stories, Rush ter-area businessmen, clergy, academStreet also has a long record of legal ics, nonprofit executives, and profesviolations in states where it is already sionals, as well as some members of operating casinos, including allowing the City’s state legislative delegation, minors, and persons who had chosen all of whom want to avoid turning to place themselves on “do not bet” Worcester into a New England version lists for self-protective reasons, to of Atlantic City. gamble. Additionally, while it is cur Despite the manifest harm rently dazzling Worcester officials with that a slots casino will do to Worcespromises of enhanced tax revenues, ter, defeating the proposal will be Rush Street frequently employs highan uphill battle. Rush Street Enpriced law firms to successfully chaltertainment is not only politically lenge and knock down property-tax well-connected, as noted above; it assessments on its operations; cities is enormously wealthy, and thus will like Worcester typically cannot afford be in a position to conduct a highly the kind of legal talent necessary to professional public relations campaign win such cases. In sum, Rush Street’s on behalf of its proposal, as well as customary practices have just about to offer all sorts of legal “bribes” the ethical character one would expect to neighborhood residents and orin such a business. ganizations – promising to spend

Yet the battle is not hopeless. thousands of dollars on “mitigating” Foxboro residents recently succeeded

in defeating Patriots owner/ business tycoon Bob Kraft’s campaign to construct a casino in their town, and hundreds of citizens of Milford are currently engaged in a determined struggle to defeat a similar proposal in their community. Apparently fearful of the tide of public opinion in Worcester, the Massachusetts Gaming Commission has just proposed an “emergency” regulation calling on local voters to decide on whether to approve a slots-casino proposal even before the MGC has assessed

the qualifications and record of the would-be operator. The “emergency,” apparently, is the danger that the proposal will be defeated if residents have enough time to learn enough about its ramifications and likely effects!

If you care about Worcester, about Holy Cross, about the poor, about combating the kind of moral decay that weakens the very sinews of republican government – get involved in the struggle to save our community from the slots-casino menace!

11

The Fenwick Review

April 2013

The Non-bigotry of the Case for Marriage

Thomas Arralde ‘13 Staff Writer

Whenever I see students on campus wearing their “support love” shirts, I unequivocally agree with the sentiment. However, I can’t help

feeling somewhat excluded by them, as they accuse me of supporting hate, and banning love. I refer, of course, to the fact that I recognize marriage only as the union between a man and a woman. I object to this implicit accusation on the grounds that I love homosexuals as much as I love anyone else, and am abhorred by homophobia. Some will level the charge of hypocrisy against me, since there are those who claim that opposing gay marriage is in fact homophobia. The tragedy of this is manifest, I think, and a result of our highly politicized culture in which ideas cannot be

separated from those who hold them, so that disagreeing with someone is tantamount to bigotry. I would go so far as to say that I, in fact, support love even more than such people, considering my opposition to hatred not only of the oppressed and persecuted, but even of oppressors and persecu-

tors, though I nonetheless strongly oppose their actions. I hope to show that supporting marriage as the union between a woman and a man need not be hateful, but can be respectfully, intellectually, and, above all, lovingly proposed.

First, I would like to combat the claim that preserving marriage as it has been known for the duration of human history results in a law that applies differently to different citizens.

The position has been put forward that refusing to allow people of the same sex to marry forbids them from marrying, whereas heterosexuals are

legally allowed to marry. This notion is absurd because the law does not forbid any homosexual from marrying another of the opposite sex, and so applies equally to those of all sexualities. “But they cannot marry whom they love” is the quick response to this assertion. The case then turns from being forbidden to marry to not being guaranteed the right to marry whomever one loves. This isn’t restricted to gays, however, since straight people aren’t guaranteed the right to marry anyone, let alone whomever they love. A spouse isn’t like an attorney; the government won’t appoint one if you cannot procure one yourself. The argument may then be made that the case of a homosexual and an unappealing heterosexual is quite different, which it clearly is, but the legal principle behind it remains the same.

It is interesting to note also that the issue at stake is not “supporting love” per se, but supporting homosexual love (love in the narrow sense of only applying to marriage).

What gay rights advocates consider a civil rights issue ends with people of the same gender being able to marry one another and does not include,

for example, incestuous or pedophilic marriage. If two people from the same family or of very different ages are in love, would it not be an infringement upon their civil rights not to allow them to marry as well? If this is denied, then the label of bigot could be leveled equally against those who oppose gay marriage as against those who oppose either of the aforementioned unions. To have a society completely supportive of love in this sense, there must be no restrictions on marriage at all, a position I dare say none would support, considering what foulness would then be permissible.

If you, the reader, find this article offensive then it has missed its mark. My purpose here is not to argue whether or not gays should be allowed to marry, but simply to assert that a negative position can be held while respecting the inherent and immense dignity present in every person, gay or straight. I conclude by saying that I do in fact support love in the most absolute way possible, love given completely and unconditionally to all, and not restricted merely to the issue of who can marry whom.

National Review’s Crusader

An Interview with the Publisher of the Influential Magazine Continued from page 10 Bu there are other alternatives. There are a number of websites – like Patch FR: Any words for students trying to – or weekly newspapers that will send get into journalism? you to cover a zoning meeting and see JF: Yeah, the competition is fierce. what you can do. I think people have The pay is low. Any business – any to be determined. They can’t be dismagazine/website will expect is you to couraged. They have to knock on the say not “I want to be a journalist,” but door because someone will answer. It “I am a journalist. I’ve written for the may not be the first person. It may school paper.” These opportunities not be the fourth person. Determinastart in high school. If someone, age tion is the key.

20, wants to come here as an intern

One thing that can be tough with a portfolio, you’re head and is there are varying levels of talent. shoulders above many others. Get in- Some students don’t have talent in volved as early as you can in whatever writing, but they may have talent in writing opportunity you have. It was making videos and other kinds of an easier years ago to get an internship graphics. A lot of people get there at a newspaper. Now, for a number news now from “memes” or whatever of reasons, a daily paper will give you they’re called. Pinterest now drives an internship, if it’s linked in with your more news than Facebook and Pintercollege. That can be tough to pull off. est is a graphic website. Graphics are

important to journalism.

One other thing – students, if

You just have to be able to face rejection and move on.

If you really want to be a journalist, you will be a journalist. You may even be the publisher of National Review some day.

they haven’t done it already – should take a class on how to write and use

good grammar – English Composition 101 or Writing 101. Something that can really strike against a student is sloppiness. You really have to check your work. For all you know, the person you hand your work to could be saying, “Look at this lazy kid. He didn’t even take the time to check his own work.” This sends a bad message.

To sum up: Check your work.

Be diligent. Not every first job will be at The New York Times or National Review. It’s like anything else. You just have to be able to face rejection and move on. If you really want to be a journalist, you will be a journalist. You may even be the publisher of National Review some day.

April 2013

The Fenwick Review

12

In Gratitude to Our Sponsors and Partners Want to advertise in the Fenwick Review? email Brendan Sullivan bgsull13@g.holycross. edu