April 2015

April 2015

Volume XXII, 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

Je Ne Suis Pas Charlie Eric Kuhn ’16 Staff Writer

With the gun smoke only just dissipating from the various arrondissements of Paris, the city’s denizens, and indeed much of the world, are asking what went wrong. The public in other countries as well has said, “Je suis Charlie” or “I am Charlie”. The attack was certainly tragic and barbaric, but one can condemn the violence without allying oneself with a vulgar publication that is hardly a good standard bearer for the freedom of speech. Countless people are jumping on the bandwagon of a magazine whose greatest works on behalf of free speech include masturbating nuns and popes wearing condoms. The raison d’etre of Charlie Hebdo is to provoke and offend.

Credit must, however, be given to the paper because unlike other Western satiric publications, which often focus attacks on Christians, the majority religious group, it was indiscriminate in its criticisms. In essence, these three days of terror were the clashing of two great destructive forces in the world: radical Islam and progressive secularism. The weekly has, in a way, effectively been a force of its own destruction. It is a supreme irony that a common subject of their criticism, besides general western culture and tradition, was the

Front Nationale, which has tirelessly opposed the wanton immigration policy that allowed for the attack to occur. Thus despite my sadness for the loss of life in Paris, I cannot say that “I am Charlie.”

Further, an unfortunate byproduct of these events is an escalation of xenophobia and a backlash against Jews and Muslims all over Europe. This, however, is due in part to the activities of the paper and in part to the intransigence of the European elite and their pursuit of a multicultural European salad bowl. Evidence of this is seen in the rise of the far right in France and Germany. Parties such as the National Front appeal to the people because they attack Muslims for not conforming to general secularism, among other things. German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, recently stated that “immigration is a gift to us all.” With that, however, is an expectation that devout Muslims and other migrants will change their culture and conform to the western ideal of social progressivism, gay rights, and such things. It is all part of the dream of one Europe, with no borders and the perennial utopian goal- absolute equality. Thus the conflict seems almost inevitable. The leaders of the West must come to realize that one side or the other will have to compromise,

Pipeline Politics: Why Obama Should Approve the Keystone XL Pipeline

..........Page 6

and in light of recent events, it does not look like it will be the Islamists.

Demonstrations, such as those seen in Chartres and Paris, were not really seen in America, even after 9/11.

This discrepancy likely results from the fact that the American people are comfortable with religion in the public sphere. The French and Germans have had religion banished from the public square, so it is no surprise that they are not comfortable with the Islamic presence. Thus, the extreme secularists have only themselves to blame for the rise of the anti-immigration right.

With regard to Charlie Hebdo, if it were a serious publication they might have more of my sympathy.

However, Charlie is just another mouthpiece of the failed secularism that is ruining Europe. As it is, Charlie will have had a personal hand in inciting the anger and racism of the Europeans. Charlie Hebdo has set back freedom of speech by the abuse of that freedom. Journalistic and artistic freedom must be accompanied by artistic responsibility. Charlie Hebdo has contributed to sectarian strife in France because its attacks are not based in reason and do not seek to understand. The cartoons are blanket mockery of an entire faith. The satire magazine ignored the fact that radical Muslims represent a miniscule part

@FenwickReview

telegraph.co.uk

of Islam and stereotyped the entire faith without realizing that little part has a great amount of zeal. The paper must ask itself, if being crude, even in the name of freedom of speech, was worth the death of its editor, other members of the staff, and even people with no association with the paper beyond their proximity. Even as the nation recoils from the terrorism, the cover that the magazine published just after the attack once again is trying to arouse the anger of Muslims by publishing a picture of the prophet.

The cover depicts the prophet with a phallic-shaped head saying “Je suis Charlie.” Above it, the words- “All is forgiven.” What compassion! The attacks on the magazine are doubly unfortunate because just before the murders, Charlie Hebdo was teetering on the verge of bankruptcy. Now with help from the French government and donors, the magazine will easily recover and continue with their anti-religious campaign. This sort of churlish offensiveness perpetuates a terrible cycle. An approach to the question of immigration that does not emphasize dialogue and understanding will only alienate young Muslims and drive them into the arms of extremists. It is time for mutual respect.

Setting the Captive Free? A Catholic Consideration of Incarceration ...... Page 4

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.

To The Benefactors In this issue, as in every issue, we must reserve space to offer a heartfelt thank you to our benefactors, without whom The Fenwick Review would not exist. We extend our profound gratitude to The Collegiate Network and the generous individual and alumni donors 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 Mr. 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.

April 2015

Contents April 2015

Volume XXII, Issue IV

Je Ne Suis Pas Charlie (1)

Eric Kuhn ’16

Selma’s Snubs: Why they Matter and why they Don’t (4)

Diarmaid King ’15

Have the Oscars Lost Their Significance? (5)

Joseph Murphy ’16

Setting the Captive Free? A Catholic Consideration of Incarceration (4,5)

Nikolas Churik ’15

Pipeline Politics: Why Obama Should Approve the Keystone XL Pipeline (6)

Austin Barselau ’18

Understanding ISIS (7)

Chase Padusniak ’15

April 2015

3

The Fenwick Review

Letter from the Editors Dear Reader,

We hope everyone had a lovely and blessed Easter.

As always, we hope you find what you read in The

Thank you for picking up the Fenwick Review. Fenwick Review enjoyable, interesting, or, at least, At this point, the home stretch, as it were, has begun. thought-provoking.

Articles by Messrs. King and Murphy offer perspectives on the noted lack of diversity among nomiSincerely, nees and winners. The cognitive dissonance represented by interest in the Oscars is striking. On the one hand, Chase and Nik we bemoan the over-exposure and lionization of celebrities, yet on the other, we hang on their words, spoken at these events, and place great credence in the decisions of the academy. Mr. Barselau looks into the problem of Keystone Pipeline and considers the issues with the vocal opposition. Mr Padusniak offers insight into misunderstandings about the Islamic State and offers ways of understanding them. On a side note, it is worth noting that the myth spread about ISIS, that is, tricking a mother into teknophagia, is of course one of the oldest modes of slander and exaggeration in the books. The historian Josephus records the story of woman driven to desperate hunger who ate half her child and offered the rest to the Roman aggressors. Some lies never die.

Interested in Layout Development and Ditigal activation?

We have a position for you!

APPLY for the following LEADERSHIP positions:

- Assistant Layout Editor - Social Media Co-ordinator - Webmaster APPLY via email (resume and desired position) to Claire Mahoney at csmaho15@g.holycross.edu

The Fenwick Review 2014-2015 Staff Co-Editors-in-Chief Nikolas Churik ’15 Chase J. Padusniak ’15

Executive Layout Editor Claire Mahoney ’15

Staff Writers

Amber Alley ’16 Anthony John ’16 Austin Barselau ’18 Kilian Bede White ’18 Brooke Tranten ’17 Diarmaid King ’15 Eric Kuhn ’16 J. Alex Cicchitti ’15 Joseph Murphy ’16 Marian Blawie ’16 Micala Smith ’16 Nicholas Jalbert ’16 Steven Merola ’16

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: Chase Padusniak and Nikolas Churik 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

4

April 2015

Selma’s Snubs:Why they Matter and why they Don’t Diarmaid King ’15 Staff Writer

Headlines have been abuzz over the Oscars, berating the lack of diversity in the nominations made by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. No people of color were chosen by the nearly 6,000 strong voting body of the Academy for the major acting and directing awards (Best Actress, Best Supporting Actress, Best Actor, Best Supporting Actor, Best Director). According to some industry insiders, several films with minority actors and directors were slated to be nominated for the “Big Five” but were snubbed. Most prominent of these movies was Selma, a film about the Selma to Montgomery voting rights marches and the 1965 Civil Rights Act. The film presents some of the most jarring images of the Civil Rights Movement that has critics raving and writing very positive reviews. What does Selma’s lack of nominations mean? Is it a case of racial fatigue as some have suggested?

Do the Academy’s choices represent a meritocracy or is there a type of corruption at play? It is my belief that many of the outraged and many of the critics, who have argued about this issue, demonstrate the real problem.

Their debates about how little institutions care about or want diversity are addressing a symptom of a larger problem.

The lack of diversity in nominations has been seen predominantly as a failure of the Academy to promote diversity. Scott Meslow’s article in The Week lists the snubs of David Oyelowo for best actor and Ava DuVernay for best director as the biggest this year. It is believed that the majority of the Academy’s voters, who are white and male, voted in a way that was exclusive of actors and directors of color. The Academy has never had the best track record when

it comes to fair and honest voting. A producer of Kathryn Bigelow’s The Hurt Locker was disqualified from the ballot after ‘urging’ voters he knew to vote for the movie in the Best Picture Category. Likewise, the Original Song Category has been rife with corruption in the noughties.These episodes are quite recent and small-scale compared to the blacklisting, mafia-bribing, and union busting that the Academy was famous for in the past. However, the Academy is not rotten through and through, and corruption of its bureaucratic voting does not mean the quality of those nominated should be in doubt. This does mean, however, that the Academy operates both on the basis of “who you know” and “how you do it,” and is prejudiced when it comes to actors and directors of various races. The Academy’s voting practice is a meritocracy of convenience, a selection of the best pieces and actors that meet the minimum requirement of excellence.

What is striking to me about this entire situation is that beyond Selma, no other movie that featured a female director was ‘good enough’ to be mentioned for multiple awards, save Angelina Jolie’s Unbroken. There were not a whole lot of critically acclaimed movies outside of Selma that could claim a person of color was playing a significant role. Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs could explain this problem. In 1943, psychologist Abraham Maslow created a pyramidal hierarchy to explain differentiation in human needs. The system has five tiers (physiological needs, safety, love/ belonging. esteem, self-actualization), starting with the basic necessities of sustaining human life and ending with what Maslow describes as “the desire to accomplish everything that one can, to become the most that one can be.”

Is everyone able to become the most that they can be? Is equality a reality in the United States of America?

Unfortunately the answer is no, and the inequality is based on racial and gendered lines. In America, 27.2% of the black population lives in poverty compared to just 9.7% of whites. Income is also incredibly skewed with white American households raking in almost $25,000 more than black households. In the United States on average, it is harder for black Americans to get a job or go to a top-level university, but easier to go to jail. These statistics point out two realities: that the opportunity disparity between white and black Americans is real, and that these disparities are tied into income inequality and capitalism. There can be no doubt that there are poor whites in this country (in fact they make up the majority of poor people), but there is a higher percentage of black Americans living in poverty. Applying Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, those who are more generally impoverished will be relegated to a lower position on the pyramid.. The less disposable income someone has, the more they will need to worry about security and about basic necessities of life, rather than reaching their full potential in an area of their choice.

This difficulty in moving beyond one’s place in a capitalist system does not just affect black people in the United States. The economic strains of marriage and the free hours of labor toiled away in the home have long sinced diminished a woman’s ability to be financially independent from a man.

The representation of white people, especially white men is therefore not the creation of a racist, supremacist propaganda, but the logical conclusion of exclusionary economic security in the United States.

Is the Academy mainly made of white males? Yes, in fact it is 94% white and 77% male. Does that mean that they are solely motivated by racist and sexist narrative of who should be successful? Individually that is certainly possi-

ble, but as a voting block, the answer would have to be a general “no.” The problem that many have tried to put on the Academy is that it is intentionally leaving out black actors, actresses, and directors from consideration for major awards this year. The real problem is much deeper, and finds its roots in what many have called “white male privilege.” On average white men are going to have access to more disposable funds than black men, black women, or white women. These funds can purchase education, healthcare, and luxury items, while also providing the same necessities that humans need to live. Being economically safer, means that fields such as acting, art, and music become more accessible.

It seems that the critics of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences have made one crucial error in their analysis of what has transpired: they have assumed that Americans are all equal and free and that all of our voices matter uniformly. It is assumed by these critics that, all things considered, we are fundamentally endowed with the same rights, abilities, and freedoms. The skewed representation in the institutions in this country, from banks, to Congress to the Academy prove that to be inherently wrong.

What is ailing the people of this country is not simply white men ‘holding on to power’ and denigrating the status of people deserving of jobs, election, and awards. Inequalities are created because of a hierarchy of earning disposable income, dominated at the top by white men. In the spirit of solidarity, we must all concede this rampant inequality as a reality and examine how it affects our own lives and the institutions of which we are a part. By changing or modifying the capitalist system, we have reason to believe that we can fix some of the problems of representation and self-actualization.

Setting the Captive Free? A Catholic Consideration of Incarceration

Nikolas Churik ’15 Co-Editor-in-Chief

The choice of Bryan Stevenson as this year’s commencement speaker brings forward the opportunity to consider the prison system and policy in the United States. Many of the points that Mr. Stevenson makes concur with Catholic teaching, so a look at Catholic teaching in some respects might offer another lens through which to view his proposals.

Although notions of “law and order” and “toughness on crime” are admirable goals for politicians, they continue to promote suspicion more

than real solutions. Too often politicians aim to be tough on crime to gain political capital. By taking action, they try to show themselves as effective public servants. A classic example is of course Nelson Rockefeller, former governor of New York, who pushed through “draconian” drug laws to tone down his liberal appearance before the 1976 election. Up to that point, he had actually been a proponent of rehabilitation and housing programs.

His switch, as is well-known, had dramatic consequences. According a study re-printed by the American Conservative, Louisiana and Texas individually have a higher rate of incar-

ceration than the former Soviet Union and the United States as a whole and New York have a greater rate than East Germany. I mention that the study can be found in the American Conservative because it has seemed recently that too often any criticism of legal and prison policy on the right has been considered selling out to the left.

Since one of the corporal works of mercy is visiting the prisoner and more broadly, as a result, care for the imprisoned, it is worth looking at Catholic teaching on the matter of imprisonment. A key principle cited by the USCCB report from 2000 entitled “Responsibility, Rehabilitation, and

Restoration: A Catholic Perspective on Crime and Criminal Justice” presents the view that while punishment is justified, it is never so “for its own sake,” but instead it must have a “constructive and redemptive purpose.”

Punishments, such as mandatory minimums, especially for non-violent drug possession, have proven to be destructive to individuals and families.

The relationship among society, the community, the family, and individual sets the basis for the teachings of the Church on this matter. In their report, they note that drug offenders comprise 24% (the statistics remains about the same today) of those in pris....

The Fenwick Review

April 2015

5

Have the Oscars Lost Their Significance?

Joseph Murphy ’16 Staff Writer

Every year, the Hollywood movie industry gathers together for the most prestigious prize in their business - the Academy Awards. However, the significance of the Academy Awards is again being called into question after the announcement of this year’s nominees. All twenty acting nominees this year are white (meaning they are of European descent). Critics will point to the membership of the Academy to explain the lack of diversity in the nominees. The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS) is 94 percent white, 2 percent African American and less than 2 percent Latino American as of 2012. Furthermore, 77 percent of members were men with an average age of 62. So, when critics call AMPAS a gathering of old white men, it is a fairly accurate statement.

But pointing to the ethnic makeup of AMPAS oversimplifies the problems facing Hollywood and belittles the true significance of recognition by AMPAs. There are larger problems facing Hollywood that must be addressed if Americans hope to see a change in the ethnic composition of Oscar nominees in the future. Ultimately, the Oscars is an important institution that represents some of the best movies Hollywood has to offer each year…but it can do better.

The Academy of old white men did not nominate a single woman for director, cinematographer, or screenwriter. There were fifteen opportunities for a woman to be represented, yet these categories were still dominated by men. It is easy simply to point to the makeup of the Academy and say that an organization dominated by men will prefer work by men. However, this is, again, an over-simplified explanation. The question I do not hear anyone asking about the nominees is

“Setting the Captive Free” Continued from page 4 ....on, and they represent poor minority populations disproportionately. Recent updates to the report have urged more attention be given to the fact that poverty and loss of family structure as a result of imprisonment continue to play a part in returns to prison.

In this text, the bishops discussed the problems facing the American prison system from a close on eye on the effects on the poor.

One point the bishops made was the need for preventive action. Addressing crime only after the fact does little for more than a cosmetic effect: ultimately harm was still done. Since crime often has socio-economic indicators, they

“Which women did people expect the Academy to nominate for director, cinematographer, and screenwriter?”

The eight films that received best picture nominations- Selma, Whiplash, The Grand Budapest Hotel, Boyhood, Birdman, American Sniper, The Theory of Everything, and The Imitation Game- are generally recognized as the best films of the year, and it is helpful to examine these eight movies to explain a larger problem. If a movie receives a best picture nomination, it usually receives a screenplay nomination as well.

None of these eight movies were written by women. None of these movies had female cinematographers, and only Selma had a female director. AMPAS is blamed for sexist nominations, yet few critics are discussing who should have been nominated instead.

Critics of AMPAS are failing to see the forest through the trees. Unequal representation of race and sex is not primarily the fault of AMPAS but of Hollywood in general. Without opportunities to participate in the creative process of filmmaking, women and non-whites will never achieve the same recognition at the Oscars as their white male peers. The Academy is, nevertheless, beginning to become a more inclusive institution. In 2013, the AMPAS elected its first African American president, Cheryl Boone Isaacs, and more minorities are being accepted as voters in AMPAS. Of course, AMPAS members keep their voting power for life, so it could take decades for AMPAS to reflect the general American population properly. These are small but important steps.

Also, to say AMPAS does not represent the truly daring minds in film is an insult to its history. The Academy has certainly recognized movies that have not stood the test of time, but it has more often recognized the work of truly visionary artists. For example, the Academy decided to recognize the film

Leviathan this year. It is a foreign language film from Russia with a chance at the Academy Award for best foreign film. In Russia, the nomination has caused widespread controversy with the government and Orthodox Church.

Leviathan depicts a Russia plagued by corruption by its church and government. Some religious leaders are calling for the film to be banned in Russia, but the Academy was willing to recognize a controversial movie and give it wider exposure to the world.

The Academy could be more diverse in its membership, but it still recognizes the work of hard working artists who may not otherwise be gaining the exposure they deserve. A movie is typically not considered a blockbuster unless it can gross over $100 million domestically, but some of the best movies of each year fail to reach this target. Whiplash has received widespread critical acclaim but has barely made over $10 million dollars. Neither Boyhood nor Birdman has managed to gross more than $40 million domestically. The sad reality of the movie-making business is movie studios are hesitant to make a movie unless they are certain it can make money. Studios are willing to take a chance on movies like Birdman or Boyhood because studios know that Oscars lead to exposure, and exposure often leads to money. The Academy actually acts as a driving force to compel movie studios to make daring, complex films.

Fame gained from Oscar nominations boosts the total gross of movies and gives them wider exposure. For better or worse, American audiences look to the Oscars to point them in the right direction for movies to watch.

It may take decades for AMPAS to reflect the American landscape, but it still recognizes greatness and challenges movie studios to produce the best movies possible. Even if the old, white majority harms the credibil-

observe that more be to reduced. In hand with this is the insistence that punishment have some rehabilitative result. Rather than immediate jail time for minor or non-violent offenders, it suggests extra-carceral punishments that maintain the individual in society and the community, so that they punishment serves as a way of repairing the trouble, rather than extracting the person and widening the rift. A 2010 study out of MIT suggests what is probably obvious: the more time a person spends in prison, especially without educational services, the greater the likelihood that the person becomes estranged from his (I say “his” because the study focused largely on men, who make up 90% of prison inmates) family and become markedly less employable. And again the Church urges the

importance of considering effects on proposing for decades: prisons should the family structure when sentencing make an effort to fund greater re-inoccurs. tegration and rehabilitation programs.

But, even further than this, these pro“The punishment serves grams are essential for maintaining the dignity of the human person. The as a way of repairing the possibility of work is an important part trouble, rather than extract- of actualizing that dignity. Without such opportunities, the rate recidivism ing the person and widening increases, and the incarceration was even more for naught. the rift.”

The Church is, of course, not

A study released in 2014 by the only institution voicing these conthe Department of Justice finds that cerns, but it is a strong one that is worth three-quarters of former inmates will considering in an otherwise clamorous be arrested again within the next five field. This article barely scratches the years. This rate is dramatically reduced surface of the issue, but it has tried if prisoners are given educational or to make clear the importance of convocational training. The compilers of sidering the Church’s social teaching this study are finally suggesting what when looking at calls for and actions the Church (and others) has been concerning prison reform.

ity of AMPAS, it is still the most important institution in American films.

The fastest way to achieve a slate of more diverse nominees is a combination of a changing Academy and more opportunities in film for minorities and women. AMPAS may take a long time to change, but, at the very least, it will continue to nominate movies worthy of recognition.

6

The Fenwick Review

April 2015

Pipeline Politics: Why Obama Should Approve the Keystone XL Pipeline Austin Barselau ’18 Staff Writer

It was fewer than three years ago when President Barack Obama vowed to make the Keystone XL pipeline a signature piece of his energy policy. Now he wants to destroy it. While speaking on his cross-country energy tour in March 2012, Mr. Obama pledged a thorough review of the project, which would ferry over 800,000 barrels of oil a day from Alberta, Canada down through the Midwest to be processed in refineries on the Gulf Coast. “[T]oday, I’m directing my administration to cut through the red tape, break through the bureaucratic hurdles, and make this project a priority, to go ahead and get it done,” he said in a speech near Cushing, Oklahoma. Fast-forward to 2015, and Mr. Obama now somehow thinks the entire pipeline would bring more harm than good, and that it would counteract national interest, exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution, and misdirect our attention away from loftier and more urgent infrastructure projects.

His evaluation is not entirely right.

Building the Keystone pipeline would safely lead America on a greater course of continental energy independence without diminishing the importance of clean-energy alternatives.

One of the most frequent crit-

icisms of building the pipeline is that it signals support for tar sand oil, which is heavier than regular crude oil and emits more greenhouse gases.

Yet such critics overlook a much more debilitating energy source in its contribution to carbon emission: coal.

According to a report published in Nature Climate Change, coal is 41 times worse for the environment than oil sands. Burning the entire reserve of oil sands would add 0.36°C to world temperatures, compared to the 14.8°C increase associated with using all of coal’s reserves. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the U.S. produced 996.7 million tons of coal last year, adding about 1.9 billion tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere (coal releases about two tons of CO2 per metric ton). If approved, Keystone would send about 303 million barrels of oil through the U.S. annually. This would contribute over 157 million tons of CO2 (a barrel of tar sand oil releases around 0.5 metric tons of CO2), which would be only eight percent of coal’s annual emission. Since the U.S. is one of the world’s leaders in coal production, it would be more efficient for Keystone opponents to shift their energies to a more voluminous source of carbon emissions.

Another protest is that the pipeline itself would cause environ-

mental harm. At Mr. Obama’s request, the State Department has reviewed the project (more than any other infrastructure project in recent history, I should add) and concluded that the pipeline is unlikely to cause extensive harm to local environments.

According to the executive summary of the “final supplemental impact statement,” Keystone “is unlikely to extensively affect” the water quality of the Ogallala aquifer, which is one of the world’s largest aquifers located in the Midwest, or any other nearby aquifers. In fact, transporting oil by pipeline is safer and more cost-effective than any other transportation alternative. The Congressional Research Service estimates that pipelines allow oil to be transported $5 to $10 cheaper per barrel than rail. Seventy percent of U.S. oil and petroleum is already moved by pipeline and the country has enough of it to stretch from the moon and back five times. A ProPublica study has confirmed that pipelines are much safer and a “far better alternative to tanker trucks or freight trains” to transport fuel across long distances.

Believe it or not, Keystone XL is widely supported among the public and key interest groups. According to the Pew Research Center, nearly twice as many surveyed approved the construction of the pipeline than opposed it (59-31%). Democrats are just as likely to support it than oppose it, with 43% having a favorable opinion and 45% having a negative opinion. Both the National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB) and the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) support the project, seeing the benefit of an excess of $3 billion in construction and manufacturing contracts. The jobs numbers, while periodically inflated, indicate 4,000 tem-

porary construction jobs and a few permanent ones that would be created mostly in Montana, Kansas, Nebraska, and the Dakotas as a result of the project.

It is important to note that the Keystone pipeline is not a substitute for a balanced and diverse energy portfolio that includes a growing percentage of clean and renewable energy. However, I believe that the Canadian oil serviced by the pipeline can be appropriated

“Building the Keystone pipeline would safely lead America on a greater course of continental energy independence without diminishing the importance of clean-energy alternatives.” here in the U.S. rather than being sent elsewhere. Harnessing a new oil source could contribute to greater continental energy independence while further dampening domestic oil prices to the benefit of consumers. While the current Keystone bill has already passed both houses of Congress, it is certain to die by executive veto. I would urge Mr. Obama to look at the evidence and reaffirm what he said back in 2012 and sign the entire Keystone pipeline into law.

April 2015

The Fenwick Review

7

Understanding ISIS Chase Padusniak ’15 Co-Editor-in-Chief

Recently, an article started making the rounds on social media.

In its New York Post incarnation, it is entitled “ISIS militants trick mother into ‘eating her kidnapped son.’” The gist of the story in its multiple versions is that ISIS lured a woman to her kidnapped son and then tricked her into consuming her own child. A lot of people shared the piece because they felt ISIS was capable of such gratuitous violence and savagery. If they will murder religious minorities, behead captives, and burn foreign-service personnel alive, why expect any better from them?

Well, we should expect better from them because believing this story

“If we really want to defeat ISIS, we need to recognize what ISIS really wants.”

at face value betrays a fundamental misunderstanding about how ISIS works. They are not just opportunists and fortune seekers united under a common banner, nor are they just a Western creation, the fault of failed Middle Eastern policy. In reality, ISIS is a religiously-motivated organization with very particular goals. While their

ranks contain adventurers, soldiers of fortune, and those who have turned on the West as a result of failures in our culture and policy, at bottom they are a political-religious group whose creed does not allow for cannibalism.

ISIS-affiliated cannibals would be in as much trouble from their superiors as they would be from us.

ISIS’s acts of violence are, in their understanding, sanctioned by their particular view of Islam. Their exegesis of the Quran and Hadith dictates what they are and are not allowed to do (much how the Westboro Baptist Church and other groups claim their motivations to be Biblical). Their laws say crucifixion and beheading are sanctioned; cannibalism is not. While certain soldiers exist within their ranks who are not actually religiously motivated, their leadership is. Just as many of those who served with the Nazis during World War II were not necessarily racist ideologues, but served a racist cause, many foot soldiers may merely be opportunists. But what matters is not what individual soldiers believe but what the aggregate of them do, what the organization does.

Such a misunderstanding of ISIS could have serious strategic consequences. For example, we know from their propaganda, their affiliates, and their known sources of inspiration that they view themselves as a political-religious entity. Their view of Islam requires the establishment of a Caliphate with defined territorial boundaries, which provides social services while purifying the ummah, the community of Muslim believers. This view sets them apart from al-Qaeda, which is more decentralized and believes in a Caliphate only as a long-term goal to be accomplished after the removal of Western influence

Islamic State fighters in 2014, seen here in Anbar province, with Abu Waheeb in the foreground.

from the Muslim world. One need only note how during Taliban rule in Afghanistan, al-Qaeda stayed out of the politics of the regime, merely using their fellow fundamentalists for funding and safe training grounds.

Similarly, the sheer brutality of ISIS is rooted in their particular view of Islamic faith, culture, and jurisprudence. For example, Ayman al-Zawahiri, often held to be the current head of al-Qaeda, has condemned ISIS for its radical violence. Specifically, its willingness to purify the ummah before removing the actual, Western infidels. Killing Shiites and Yazidis is counterproductive in the short term.

On the other hand, ISIS views such steps as necessary preludes to a remaking of the Muslim community. We ought to exploit these conflicts within Jihadism.

A recent article by Graeme Wood featured in The Atlantic enti-

tled “What ISIS Really Wants” makes this point forcefully and effectively.

ISIS wants to create a very particular state with very particular eschatological goals. Broadly-speaking, its actions are intended to create a Caliphate with territorial integrity because that is what their reading of the Quran calls for.

Their creed might even lead them to attack seemingly non-strategic sites and locales (and may have already done so). We could use this information against them. As the aforementioned article puts it:

The reality is that the Islamic State is Islamic. Very Islamic. Yes, it has attracted psychopaths and adventure seekers, drawn largely from the disaffected populations of the Middle East and Europe. But the religion preached by its most ardent followers derives from coherent and even learned interpretations of Islam.

If we really want to defeat ISIS, we need to recognize what ISIS really wants. Only with this information in mind can we actually do what we want to do. When we reduce a foreign threat to adventure-seeking, anti-imperialism, or some other ideology, we rob ourselves of valuable information. ISIS is a lot of things, including a haven for opportunists and the generally disaffected, but it is not reducible to these subgroups. At bottom, it represents itself as a religious entity, and to understand it in any other terms is to prolong an already overlong battle with the most evil organization currently active on the planet Earth.

8

The Fenwick Review

April 2015

In Gratitude to Our Sponsors and Partners Want to advertise in the Fenwick Review? email Chase Padusniak cjpadu15@g.holycross. edu