Rolling On Out

Patrick Lawlor ’13,  Editor in Chief

Not many people have the opportunity to thank people in such a venue as this. Last issue I gave you my swan song, my favorite stories from four years on the Beacon staff. In this final editorial, I’d like to take this space to thank those who have helped me along the way during my time at Merrimack.

I would like to thank anyone who has ever written a word for The Beacon. You have made my job easier; you have done the Merrimack community a lot of good. I’d like to thank my friends, my roommates and my parents for putting up with my strange hours, and listening to my complaints and allowing me to vent.

I have always appreciated your thoughts and criticism. I also have appreciated your article ideas: many times, our drunken conversations have turned into major Beacon articles.

Whether you complimented me on an article, or pointed out an error I made, both were important to me. A special thanks to my parents for thinking everything I ever wrote was like spun gold.

Admittedly, many times my writing was meant just for my small audience of friends and family.

Jim Chiavelli, the advisor to The Beacon, has had an enormous impact on the Merrimack College community, which many do not even realize. He taught me to hunt for the story and have the audacity to publish it. I have made a great friend in Jim, and I am forever grateful to him for coming to Merrimack and sharing his passion for journalism for mere pennies. He taught me that it’s all war, just different tactics; that you don’t stir a cocktail with soda in it; and most of all, that you always have to listen to your conscience.

I’d like to thank the Physical Plant staff for their constant and tireless dedication to making this campus safe and beautiful. These talented men are Merrimack’s best salesmen. Their kindness to me and support for the paper have been tremendous. They are the most sincere and honest people on this campus. Some of the facilities team have taught me as much as my professors have in a classroom. The life experience and lessons gained while working in the ice rink made my college experience truly well rounded.

I’d like to thank Brian Heafey, who has been a great friend and an excellent teacher. Brian taught me that honor comes before money, and how to survive a zombie apocalypse.

Professor Deb Burns, thank you for putting your neck out for The Beacon. We were young, we were dumber than we are now, and you invested in us. I value your relationship with The Beacon and appreciate what you’ve done for us.

To all my professors, I have valued my education and enjoyed the interesting lectures and conversations that I will remember as I leave Merrimack. The Sociology/Criminology Department, the English Department and the Communications Arts and Sciences Department have the best faculty on campus.

I’d like to thank this year’s editors for putting up with my running stream of consciousness and psychotic tendencies. I am often a fool, sometimes a jerk, but I have always appreciated you. Thank you.

My biggest thanks of all goes to our readers. Thank you for sticking with us through good times and bad. The best is yet to come. Next year’s editorial staff is a fresh and dedicated bunch. Best of luck, and Godspeed.

My Time With The Beacon

Patrick J. Lawlor, Editor in Chief

When it’s 4 a.m., and the last cup of coffee is wearing off, you begin to wonder what you are doing and where you are headed. I had that feeling more than once over the last four years in the newsroom. The Beacon has been, for better or for worse, an enormous part of my life for that period. It started in September of my freshman year.

I had picked up an edition of The Beacon that had a feature on a new staff member; it was full of errors, even spelling “Merrimack” incorrectly. Because I’m cynical and critical and everything in between, I gave flack to Ashley Sarris, ’12, who at the time was a Beacon writer and cross-country teammate of mine. She suggested I join the paper if I was so unhappy with it.

Two issues later, with a bizarre column about dogs’ control of their masters, I was a staff writer. It was on page seven of the Oct. 9, 2009 issue, just below the column “Inside College Sex, Love and Dating,” which used to run on a regular basis. When I handed my mother a copy of the rag and told her to turn to page seven, she nearly froze — until she found my column at the bottom.

A few issues later, Sarris would be elected editor in chief, and I would be elected associate editor in chief, a new position focused on management of the paper. I mean, what did I know about running a college paper — a media business? Under the leadership of Mike Salvucci ’10, who in my eyes is the patriarch of The Beacon operation, I picked up some knowledge of what The Beacon was about. Salvucci gave us the confidence to chase a story, to develop some journalistic integrity.

I made some pretty big mistakes that year. Letting major errors get sent to the printer, writing articles way above my pay grade — in my defense, we were just learning. Later in the spring, news came that The Beacon would be somehow incorporated into a class, giving us a faculty advisor.

This is when I first met Professor Deborah Burns, who led the interview process that eventually gave us Jim Chiavelli, who would
literally be the savior of student journalism at Merrimack.

I had absolutely no idea what being a journalist was like until Jim’s direction, and boy, did Jim not know what he was getting into.
Someone supposed to be here three hours a week turned into the newsroom’s therapist, guidance counselor, life coach, and
tale-teller. Rising up the ranks, I quickly realized that taking heat is part of the job as an editor. Ultimately the editors are
responsible for everything that gets printed, and sometimes that’s an unsettling feeling. I always promised to defend my writers, no matter what they did, but also asked the same of them.

From student activities staffers, to student government officers, to the dean of campus life, to the chief of staff and the president of the college, all brought their share of complaints to my desk, and in nearly every situation, justifiably so. But what I take away from every time I get a tongue-lashing, is this: “People care what we are writing about.”

I have been cornered in the Den, and criticized on Facebook for story coverage, still I told myself: “They wouldn’t complain if they didn’t think we mattered.”

It hasn’t all been complaints. We helped re-shape dining on campus with our articles on lackluster food service, we helped make physical plant workers feel as if their jobs were safe, we wrote about our beloved food service workers, administrators who were pushed out of office, and students who shone on and off the field, We revitalized the importance of the campus newspaper, something that wasn’t done since the ’70s.

Walking into the Sakowich Center and seeing someone reading The Beacon is an honor, to this day. To know you helped people become informed, to know they’re actually reading what you wrote is a great feeling.

I always think to myself “wow, I put that in their hands.” And I suppose that makes up for all the times throughout the years I have heard, “Nobody reads The Beacon.”

This is my 39th edition as a staff member of The Beacon. When we wrap things up I will have been on staff for 40 issues. All very different, but the level of pride in each of them was the same.

Rights Stopped, Minorities Frisked in NYC

Roger McCormack, ’14, Columnist

New York City Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly, in a 2010 meeting on the NYPD’s controversial “stop, question and frisk” program in which police may stop individuals in they have “reasonable” suspicion of criminality, catalyzed the arguments of critics alleging the policy disparately targeted minorities.

State Sen. Eric Adams alleged that the commissioner said “he wanted to instill fear in them, every time they leave their home they could be stopped by the police,” in relation to black and minority residents of New York City. The NYPD’s policy sheds light on the difficult demarcation between individuals civil liberties and the safety of society at large. Coupled with the often brutal tactics exhibited by the powerful, Roman poet Juvenal’s aphorism, “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” (who watches the watchmen?) suggests the danger that institutions wielding significant power can easily lapse into corruptibility.

The New York Civil Liberties Union’s summary of stop and frisk statistics from 2011 documents the following:

• “Young black and Latino men were the targets of a hugely disproportionate number of stops. Though they account for only 4.7 percent of the city’s population, black and Latino males between the ages of 14 and 24 accounted for 41.6 percent of stops in 2011. The number of stops of young black men exceeded the entire city population of young black men (168,126 as compared to 158,406). Ninety percent of young black and Latino men stopped were innocent.”

• “Black and Latino New Yorkers were more likely to be frisked than whites and, among those frisked, were less likely to be found with a weapon.”

• “In 2011 as compared to 2003 (the earliest year a gun recovery figure is available), the NYPD conducted 524,873 more stops but recovered only 176 more guns. This amounts to an additional recovery rate of three one-hundredths of one percent.” Unsurprisingly, citizens in heavily policed precincts report unwillingness to report crimes, fear of police, and the anxiety produced by provoking officer’s animus.

In tandem with this is a gruff police force, habitually using fierce arrest tactics. Similar with the stop and frisk statistics, roughness is often meted out on minorities, seldom on white criminals. New York has seen a vast drop in crime since the program’s birth in 2002, but the returns from stop and frisk have fallen into near obsolescence.

A study by Center for Constitutional Rights, taken from January 2010 through June 2012 records scants gains, with a mere 6 percent of stops resulting in arrest, 1.8 percent in appropriation of contraband , and .12 percent in firearms confiscation. Despite this, prejudice remains a large part of the neo-tribalism on display in the NYPD’s policies.

The NYPD’s policy is especially scarring to the communities it is intended to protect, sowing mistrust with heavy-handed tactics. A Bronx resident, Christopher Graham, was frisked while leaving a friend’s apartment and smashed into the wall of the apartment for verbally protesting and “flinching.”

A report from 2010 said police used force in six out of 10 stops in certain precincts in the Bronx, rates analogous in the 32nd in Harlem, though arrest rates for stops utilizing force were less than 13 percent. This means that the violent stops are rarely purposive — exuding more Mafia-like menace than the behavior of police who respect the rule of law.

A federal court recently declared elements of stop and frisk unconstitutional, citing evidence that “strengthens the conclusion that the NYPD’s inaccurate training has taught officers the following lesson: Stop and question first, develop reasonable suspicion later,” according to U.S. Judge Shira A. Scheindlen.

The case Ligon v. City of New York focused on police hired to patrol private residences for trespassers, a ruling that may be a harbinger for the broader policy throughout the city. Noting special hostility shown to young black men by police, the judge ruled the necessity for reasonable suspicion prior to police examination was being flouted.

Alarming is the lack of checks on police power prior to the court’s intervention, lending credence to critics of the city’s stop and frisk program, noting the racial disparity in stops as well as Fourth Amendment violations. The duty to defend the populace against “unreasonable search and seizure” bluntly collides with a policy by which, according to Salon magazine, in 5 million searches under the governance of Mayor Michael Bloomberg, more than 86 percent targeted black and Latino persons. Elucidating what constitutes “reasonable search and seizure” among members of the NYPD, The New York Daily News notes reliance on indications as flimsy as “furtive movements,” a perverse criterion for abrogating civil liberties.

The statistics belie the purported judiciousness of the program, garnering rave encomium from both Bloomberg and Kelly, with The New York Times reporting that among 700,000 stops, a vast majority of citizens were innocent of criminality. Leaving aside unconstitutionality, it is significant that procedures of police officers across the country are far less benign.

A recent atrocity In Frederick County, Maryland affirms this abominable behavior is not always limited to New York. At a showing of “Zero Dark Thirty,” Robert Ethan Saylor, a man with Down syndrome, died after being roughly handcuffed and thrown to the ground by police.

The gross sin committed was disobeying theater employees who asked him to leave. Disgust and loathing is further roused at the police response: finding no criminal fault with officers’ actions.

A lawyer said the officers “did what was necessary under the circumstances, and they did what their training dictated that they do.” Inexplicable is what this training could be, or the obviousness that disabled persons require a differing level of treatment by police.

Police departments across the country have responses to abuse analogous to certain policies of the Catholic Church, in which policemen rarely face justice for abuses of power. In many cases allowed to lie, police have enabled the burden of maintaining innocence to vastly increase among citizens targeted in heavily policed areas.

In New York City in 2011 alone, hundreds of narcotics cases were thrown out of court after various police officers were alleged to be involved in the corruption of evidence, often in the form of planting drugs on a target. The war on drugs is partly responsible for the venality; funds are often awarded to police departments based on volume of arrests, as opposed to good police work. Poor policy and laws often breed the nefarious corruption that is easily wielded once money gains ingress among departments, providing odious motivations for officers.

Police utilization of confiscated property from drug cases likewise provides seedy motivations in choosing which cases to investigate and prosecute. Fear of running afoul of superiors stimulates a situation in which punishment is meted out in greater measure among those who fail to conform to a department’s standards than those who rough up a young black man for “furtive movements.”

While these policies appear suggestive of quotas officers must meet, police commissioners vigorously deny their existence. Illegal under New York State law and repudiated by Kelly, quotes are nevertheless revealed by some rank and file officers. In 2010, The New York Times reports, an NYPD officer, Adil Polanco, said that “our primary job is not to help anybody, our primary job is not to assist anybody, our primary job is to get those numbers and come back with them.”

“At the end of the night you have to come back with something. You have to write somebody, you have to arrest somebody — even if the crime is not committed, the number’s there. So our choice is to come up with the number,” he said.

The scourge of the policy is best represented in the overflow of nonviolent drug offenders in U.S. prisons, with 2011 statistics showing 300,000 drug offenders are currently serving sentences, many for nonviolent offenses. The difficulty of an equitable defense against the word of a police officer exacerbates these trends, particularly among minorities who are unlikely to be fully aware of their rights.

Michelle Alexander, author of “The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness,” observes that “The criminal justice system was strategically employed to force African-Americans back into a system of extreme repression and control, a tactic that would continue to prove successful for generations to come.” Floyd v. City of New York, a suit raised by 11 black and biracial men and a Hispanic woman, is currently being heard in U.S. District Court in Manhattan.

The lead plaintiff, David Floyd, a Bronx medical student who was stopped twice by police — once while helping a neighbor into her home — depicts the plight of innumerable individuals guilty only of race and circumstance.

Hopefully, the federal court unequivocally strikes down the policy, enabling justice to surpass the machinations of degenerate institutions and the relentless penetration of the state.

Job Hunt: Salary Only Part of the Deal

FINANCIAL INSIDER
BY, COLIN MCCARTHY, ’13

Many Merrimack graduates will be entering the workforce this upcoming summer. As you look for that perfect job to start your career and get that coveted offer letter, it is important to understand what the company is offering in its entirety.

Oftentimes students compare only the base salaries of different opportunities in their job search. However it is also prudent to consider the benefits packages that companies offer their employees – the cost savings and long-term investment advantages these packages provide may well make up for the difference in salaries between the various positions.

One benefit that is often overlooked is a company’s 401(k), an investment vehicle that allows employees to save for retirement by making contributions directly from their paychecks.

Many companies will match a percentage of the money that you contribute to your 401(k), which gives you an immediate return on your investment and amplifies future gains. A 401(k) also gives you the ability to lower your taxable income because the money is contributed to the account before taxes are applied to your paycheck, which gives more money to individuals in the present.

Additionally, employees who hold their contributions past age 60 can withdraw the money without being taxed. One thing to keep in mind, however, is that contribution limits exist to ensure that Uncle Sam get his fair share of tax revenue from each citizen. Another unique feature is that you have the opportunity to allocate specific percentages of contributions to different investment vehicles.

Companies have traditionally offered mutual funds as the primary investment choices. Mutual funds offer investors immediate diversification by allocating investor money between numerous holdings, and often provide exposure to different asset classes such as stocks and bonds. Now, as young individuals with many years until retirement, soon-to-be-grads should consider the mantra of “take risks when you’re young” when choosing how to allocate their investments.

The risk-tolerant investor can look for aggressive growth or high yielding mutual funds as they tend to offer higher return (with more risk). Even if the market heads south, graduates just entering the workforce will generally have between 30 to 40 years to make that money back.

If you are more risk-averse, on the other hand, conservative strategies can help protect your investment from a sharp market correction downward. And there are several “conservative” strategies that still offer attractive returns with lower risk by implementing sophisticated diversification techniques such as international exposure and hedging through derivatives (financial instruments which derive their value from the changes in value of other financial instruments such as stocks and bonds). 401(k) plans are of great value to employees as they offer an attractive way to save for retirement without the hassle of handling it themselves.

It is important to understand all the benefits that a company is offering before you decide on a position, as the benefits a company offers can more than make up the lower base salary.

For more information, see: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/moneymag/money101/lesson23/index.htm

New Snowboard a Boon to Newbies

James Callens’14, Staff Writer

Do you see all the snow outside your dorm room window? Doesn’t looking at the overwhelming piles just make you want to shred some powder? But there’s a problem … you haven’t snowboarded before.

Well, have no fear, because Boarder Kontrol will save the day.The Australian company Streetboardz has designed the Boarder Kontrol snowboard for all the novice boarders out there.

The new design takes the intimidation out of learning with instant braking. Naturally, the first time snowboarding is difficult for everyone. Novice boarders meet the hills with terror and pain. One wrong move and you’re eating an unpleasant mix of ice, snow and pride.

Braking and carving can be troubling at first, since it takes a bit of athleticism and technique that beginners might lack. The Boarder Kontrol board consists of a rear-mounted brake blade that digs into the snow. The leash at the end of the brake is activated by the rider and works via an engage and release system.

The brake allows riders to stop and maintain a consistent speed. The leash is detachable so that the board may be used like any other. The brake blade is curved which assists in leaning over your front foot to turn and carve. While descending, the rider can pull up on the leash at any time to activate the rear-mounted brake.

However, the slit across the width (when the brake is removed) would prevent the board from functioning as smoothly as a standard snowboard.

Thomas Roby, a Merrimack College student and avid snowboarder, said the board seemed “innovative and easy to use. But it should only be used for the first day to get beginners comfortable riding.” The Boarder Kontrol board comes in sizes ranging from 110cm to 155cm. The board is set to launch this winter at ski resorts, as opposed to the commercial markets.

Financial Insider: The Value of Higher Ed

Vince Bellino, ’15 and Rafael Cabral ’13,  Staff Writers

A college diploma — once a sign of some financial privilege and a means of distinguishing oneself in the job market — has become, in many fields, a requirement, without which job applicants stand at serious disadvantage.

With more and more colleges and universities opening their doors to more and more young people, most middle-class American children now grow up expecting that someday they will attend college.

But, as is true for most any good or service, as the demand for college education has gone up, so has the price.

Over the past several decades the cost of tuition in the United States has significantly outpaced the national rate of inflation, while wages have failed to keep pace. As a result, a large gap has been created between the cost of a post-secondary education and a family’s ability to pay for it.

Student loans were meant to fill that gap. And while these loans have given many students opportunities they would not have otherwise had, they are saddling others with debt they do not understand and do not have the means to pay off. Recent statistics show just how serious the issue is.

According to data published by Fair Isaac Corp. (FICO), delinquency rates on student loans made in the past two years stand at a record high of 15 percent, compared with 12.4 percent for loans made from 2005 to 2007. In addition, managers of major banks report they expect delinquencies to worsen in six months, and do not expect that threat to bottom out any time soon. Compare those numbers to subprime mortgage delinquencies, a major catalyst for the credit crunch that sent the global economy spiraling.

These reached 15 percent in 2007, right as the financial crisis started gaining ground. Soon-to-be college grads must also grapple with a weak job market, calling into question whether the debt they took on for professional gain will ever pay off. Unlike mortgage debt, student loans cannot be absolved through bankruptcy.

Furthermore, where homeowners can sell their houses to pay down their debt, students can never sell back their education. Recent legislation passed by the Obama administration will ease the burden on recent and soon-to-be graduates who otherwise would have been crippled by hefty monthly payments.

Members of Congress are now trying to pass a bill that would mandate colleges to provide data showing the average income graduates can expect to earn based on their institution and their major.

The idea behind this is to provide more transparency and make sure students set realistic goals, which hopefully will help them make sound decisions about which college to attend, what major to pursue, and how to finance their education. For the time being, though, students will continue to take on debt they simply will not be able to pay back.

And until this issue is properly dealt with, graduates will increasingly question whether their degree was worth the risk – and the money.

Olympics Err on Wrestling

Patrick Lawlor, Editor in Chief

EDITORIAL

PATRICK J. LAWLOR

EDITOR IN CHIEF

On Feb. 12 the International Olympic Committee decided to cut wrestling from the Olympic Games beginning in 2020. I come from a family of wrestlers (I being the only one of my siblings not to wrestle), so this has obviously been a widely discussed topic in my household. My family members were infuriated that newer, more “ratings-based” sports were shoving out one of the most common sports in the history of man.

As early as 708 B.C., wrestling was an Olympic sport, and in 1896 when the Olympics were restarted, wrestling was there. In an op-ed in The New York Times on Feb. 16, bestselling author and former wrestler John Irving criticized the opinion, noting that the pentathlon, in which only 26 countries participated last summer in London, would remain in the Olympics, while wrestling, in which presented medals to wrestlers from more than 29 countries in the last Olympics, would be cut.

The pentathlon is a combination of shooting, horseback riding, running, swimming and fencing. Despite its “sexiness,” the pentathlon averaged only 12.5 million television viewers, compared to the 23 million viewers of wrestling. According to Irving, “poor leadership allowed the sport’s enemies to take it down.”

Is this a sign that the Olympics leadership is moving away from traditional and historical sports to appeal to what they believe is their new audience?

Wrestling is the ultimate Olympic sport. It is non-discriminatory; virtually anyone can wrestle. Much like running, it requires little equipment, allowing for a greater field of athletes, rich and poor alike.

The Olympics is possibly the most globally inclusive event next to a war, and now the International Olympic Committee is effectively limiting what countries can participate.

Do we really expect developing countries to be able to fund the resources to practice the pentathlon? When a governing body such as the International Olympic Committee fails to recognize and appreciate the sports that are universal and the sports that have a deep and rich history among mankind, they are doing their constituency — the entire world — an injustice.

Theology With Tim: The Abdication of Pope Benedict

Tim Iannacone ’12, Alumni Correspondent

Feb. 11 began no differently than most days at St. John Fisher Seminary in Stamford, Conn. But as I sat eating breakfast, another seminarian rushed into the dining hall to reveal the stunning news: Pope Benedict XVI had announced his abdication of the Chair of Peter.

In the ensuing hours, news pundits and secular media flashed the headline of this papal “retirement.” Predictably, this has led to a secondary argument among Catholics and non-Catholics as to whether a pope can “retire,” almost always using this word in the same manner as one would when referring to a secular occupation.

But the office of the papacy is unlike all others. One must be carefully tuned to understand what really occurred. Canon law, which “regulates its external organization and government to direct the activities of Catholics toward the mission of the whole Church,” states: “If it happens that the Roman pontiff resigns his office, it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely and properly manifested but not that it is accepted by anyone.”

Benedict’s decision was clearly made within the laws of the Church. Multiple news sources, and the pope himself, have confirmed the decision regarding his abdication was made with clarity, intelligence and freedom. Therefore, to refer to Benedict’s recent decision as a “retirement” is entirely incorrect.

One must also understand the nature of the papal office before rashly describing Benedict’s resignation in entirely secular terms. Remember that it was Christ who chose Peter to be “hanc petram” (“this rock”) and not the other way around. The Petrine office is not Bill Gates’ office, nor the Oval Office. The pope, while human, holds an office that is “absolute and not validated by human approval.”

With a normal resignation, one usually submits a letter of resignation to the boss. To whom should Pope Benedict submit one, for his only boss is Christ? Therefore, using the most appropriate terminology, Benedict’s decision of abdication must be looked upon with the utmost respect from both Catholics and non-Catholics alike.

The democratic world is entirely foreign, and indeed scoffs at things such as divine right and ordination (in the loosest sense). It is unfortunate how both the media and the modern democratic mind cannot look at this particular situation any differently than a president resigning from office Many have discussed previous popes who abdicated the throne of St. Peter, such as Pope Celestine V in 1294. However, those who do this forget that cultural and historical situations play a major role in the life of the pope. Celestine, a monk and hermit prior to his election, was pope for only 161 days.

This man, although extremely spiritual and close to God, was not suited to be in a position that required administration. Celestine’s life was indeed radically different from Benedict’s, yet they both humbly understood themselves unfit for the position. There is a saying in Rome: “Morto un papa se fa un altro” (when the pope dies, we make a new one).

Though Benedict has not yet gone to his eternal reward, the sentiment is relevant. While sadness and grief should overcome a Catholic concerning the loss of a pope, the Church continues on her march through history, with the obligatory aid of faith and prayers. Commonly forgotten in the political hubbub of electing a new pope, the value of prayer for the pope and for the cardinal-electors cannot be understated. Some have worried that the abdication of the pope could cause schism — a breaking away of Catholics who will believe that Benedict is still the true successor of St. Peter and the new pope is a sort of “anti-pope.”

Benedict said he has no fear that Catholics will break into factions. We are fortunate enough to live in a time that will see a smooth transition from an abdicating pope to his successor without the fear of revolt from both the governing body of the Church and the laity.

The pope believes that unity will be preserved, even amid the absurd fears that that he will meddle in the affairs of the new pope. Those who have read Benedict’s writings know that this would be completely out of character for the 85-year-old pontiff.

We should look to the example of Celestine’s abdication; he was so terrified of the thought of meddling in the new pope’s reign that he tried to flee to Greece. Benedict has a similar approach, even though he is only moving to the other side of Vatican City.

There is a stark contrast between Benedict’s abdication and his predecessor’s choice to suffer in office until his death. But the Petrine office always remains the same. While there are characteristic differences between popes, the fact still remains that, as the San Francisco Examiner wrote, a “pope, whether he dies in office (as is the norm) or whether he abdicates, does not govern based on human approval, but based on the Gospel and the good of the Church.

As Benedict has done this, so will his successor.” Pope John Paul II showed the Church and the world that suffering with and for Christ is one of the greatest things a human can do in order to manifest his or her love for Christ in the light of the cross. Benedict has also shown us humility in action.

This humility mirrors that of Christ, who put His power aside in order for humanity to be reconciled with His Father. Both popes led by example and not self-interest.

Both decisions also offer the faithful, and indeed the unbelieving world, a pedagogical example of virtue. Benedict has declined immeasurably in health since his election to the papacy. This man, who has stated that he had never wanted to be pope, has had to listen to many malicious comments from those who think they know everything about this man’s life and the situation he is going through.

We will never know the difficulties of being a holy pope and we can only trust that his decision was made in unison with the will of Christ, to Whom the pope prayed for guidance. The fact is that we know nothing about this situation and the only thing we can do is pray for the Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, and his successor, that he may govern the Church with fidelity and strength.

On Hagel, GOP Shows True Colors

Roger McCormack, Columnist 

Mitt Romney’s handy defeat in the 2012 presidential election has prompted some soul-searching for the GOP, lest they be relegated, in former President Reagan’s parlance, to the “ash heap of history.”

Immigration, gay marriage and other social issues have been mentioned as issues which, if their positions are revised, could propel the Republicans back to prominence.

Nevertheless, the extreme ideology fueling the party’s foreign policy remains incredibly dominant, and is apparent in the contemptible tactics during the Senate hearings for President Obama’s nominee for secretary of defense, Chuck Hagel. Hagel, a former Republican senator from Nebraska, was nominated as the Pentagon seeks closure in Afghanistan and contends with a potentially smaller budget amidst Washington’s wrangling to avoid massive reductions in spending, otherwise known as the sequester.

It seems obvious that naming a secretary of defense quickly and efficiently would be essential given the increasingly volatile situation in the Middle East, not to mention around the world. However, Senate Republicans remained unmoved, preferring to lick old wounds. Sen. John McCain’s grilling of Hagel over his “nay” vote on the Iraq troop surge is telling, given that the war has ended and other foreign policy exigencies (China, North Korea) are preponderant.

The 2007 surge was described by Hagel as “the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam,” though his view has since softened (now he says. “Well, I would wait for the judgment of history to sort that out,” in regards to the surge’s achievements). The present situation on the ground in Iraq comprises rampant political instability, vulnerable minority groups, and rancorous sectarian violence.

This emphatically supports Mr. Hagel’s assertion: “We lost almost 1,200 dead Americans during that surge, and thousands of wounded … Now, was it required? Was it necessary”? Despite his sagacity, Hagel displayed a reticence in the Senate hearings unbecoming of a man asked to make life-and-death decisions for American troops, rejoining, “I’m not prepared to give you a yes or no answer” to McCain’s desire for a sharply defined position concerning the Iraq surge. Still, Hagel’s public career stands as a comfort to anyone desirous of a prudent foreign policy.

A veteran of the Vietnam War, from which he still carries shrapnel, Hagel is a vestige of an age in which conservatism was not wedded to foreign crusades.

A principled dissident, Hagel voted against President Bush’s government-expanding Medicare Part D and No Child Left Behind. Declaring “Nothing in my oath of office says that I pledge allegiance to the Republican Party and George Bush,” Hagel has made enemies across vast swaths of his party. Originally voting for the war in Iraq, he later became an outspoken critic, with The New York Times reporting that he called the reconstruction of Iraq “beyond pitiful” and likened U.S. involvement in Iraq to our role in Vietnam.

Today, Hagel may rue the consequences of those decisions, with the Senate hearings offering Republicans a chance for reprisal, given that the neoconservative foreign policy of exporting democracy to the Middle East remains fettered to the GOP. Ted Cruz, Republican senator from Texas, repeatedly called for closer examinations of Hagel’s finances, bleating: “It is at a minimum relevant to know if that $200,000 that he deposited in his bank account came directly from Saudi Arabia, came directly from North Korea.”

Hagel had already complied with the necessary financial records he was required to disclose, showing Cruz’s accusation to be both outrageous and specious. Sen. Claire McCaskill, the Democrat from Missouri, opined that Cruz “basically came out and made the accusation about money from North Korea or money from our enemies … without a shred of evidence … In this country we had a terrible experience with innuendo and inference when Joe McCarthy hung out in the United States Senate, and I just think we have to be more careful.” This attack was connected to Hagel’s past comments indicating less than zealous support for Israel; he once said there is a “Jewish lobby that intimidates a lot of people up here” (meaning Washington), adding, “I’m a United States senator, not an Israeli senator.” Hagel simply underscored the influence pro-Israeli groups have in the United States, with the Christian right contributing heavily alongside Jewish benefactors. While “Jewish lobby” is seen as politically incorrect in contrast with the term “Israeli lobby,” it appears to be more an issue of semantics than what an unnamed Senate aide called “the worst kind of anti-Semitism there is.”

Hagel’s additional criticism of Israel offered a précis of the hell visited daily on Palestinians living under occupation in the West Bank and Gaza Strip: “There is no justification for Palestinian suicide bombers, but neither is there justification for Israel to keep them locked up like animals.” He has since modified his position, somberly pronouncing regret for his choice of words. This is a shame. A video posted on Mondoweiss, a website devoted to news in the Middle East, documents numerous Israeli soldiers bullying Palestinians at a checkpoint along the West Bank and saying things like, “Animals. Like the Discovery Channel. All of Ramallah is a jungle. The problem is the animals are locked in, they can’t come out. They aren’t humans, we are.”

These checkpoints, which pepper occupied territory on the West Bank and Gaza Strip, are seen as a necessity to prevent terrorists from entering Israel. While obviously valid, it does not excuse the behavior of Israeli soldiers to Palestinian civilians, a smattering of racist discourse and gross human rights abuses. Of course, Hamas, the Palestinian organization which engages Israeli militarily, perpetrates egregious attacks on Israel, while ruling the Gaza Strip with fascistic tactics.

These tactics are rightly condemned. It does not follow, however, that criticizing Israeli occupation is a position undertaken only by anti-Semites, given the deleterious tactics employed by many Israeli soldiers on Palestinian civilians. That the right wing is enraged over Hagel’s statements accentuates the fact that criticism of Israel and Palestine are not mutually acceptable positions in the American “mainstream,” though it is a “mainstream” that Hagel’s interrogators have decided upon. Of course, Palestine engenders a microscopic amount of backing across the American political sphere, not just among Republicans.

For example, 96 Senators signed a 2000 resolution in support of Israel; Hagel and three others did not. The accelerated expansion of Israeli settlements (a consequence of Palestine’s request for U.N. recognized statehood), has resulted in the deterioration of an already miasmic situation. The Israeli government’s policy of settlement creates pervasive exploitation, including the demolishment of Palestinian homes, the destruction of Muslim edifices dating to the Ottoman Empire, the confiscation of land used by Palestinians for agriculture, and the virulent employment of physical violence on neighborhoods that are viewed as too “disruptive.” Seven hundred children have been killed since 2005 on occupied territory.

This evidence suggests that Hagel’s shirking from a condemnation of Israeli occupation during the Senate hearings was a capitulation to the dogmatism and arrogance of prevailing U.S. foreign policy. At long last, McCain and Sen. Lindsey Graham have announced that they will discontinue their blocking of Hagel’s nomination.

This follows a filibuster initiated by Senate Republicans to further delay the confirmation, linking their obstructionism with events in Benghazi, Libya, completely unrelated to Hagel. While this does little to bolster the Republicans’ standing, the lacuna between now and Monday will be the end of the confirmation squabbling, though the proceedings further indicate the dangerousness of entrusting foreign policy-making to a party that is capable of the uncritical, dogmatic loyalty seen in Hagel’s hearings. If nothing else, Chuck Hagel as secretary of defense may embrace the ability to chip away at this polarized foreign policy ethos, so easily assumed and relinquished just as arduously.

The introduction of greater nuance into the debate over the Middle East peace process, not to mention holistic American foreign policy, is a vital and indispensable task. The caricature of an inveterately fascistic Palestinian populace is severely undermined by the harsh reality in occupied territory.

Unfortunately, President Obama has failed to denounce Israeli occupation, hedging his bets politically. Hopefully the confirmation of Hagel will lead to a re-evaluation of U.S. foreign policy objectives, perhaps including an ethical requirement countries must fulfill before foreign aid is granted.

Transparency? Show Me the Money

EDITORIAL 

PATRICK J. LAWLOR

EDITOR IN CHIEF

Patrick Lawlor, Editor in Chief

The latest trend in government, corporate organizations and administrations is transparency. Those who are in charge want their stakeholders and constituencies to have faith in their leadership, to know they are working in their best interest. In the government, transparency is part of the job. Transparency is how we know our elected and appointed officials are working in our best interest; it is how we hold leaders accountable. The government by law must provide reports on spending, salaries and government processes. That’s why we have the Freedom of Information Act, and public meeting laws. All of this is part of the checks and balances of our government.

Transparency has become more important as a value in America; we hear about it in the media almost every day. In the wake of the financial meltdown, there was some regulation and even greater social and media pressure for private financial institutions to be transparent.

As society and government begin to turn their attention to the costs of higher education, we believe there will soon be similar cries for transparency in higher education.

Merrimack has its own ugly past of financial mismanagement, making our community more sensitive to the issue of transparency. President Richard Santagati was paid over $700,000 in compensation, placing him among the highest in the nation, a salary that caught national scrutiny as well as scrutiny on campus. Merrimack also faced a federal investigation that probes the management of millions of dollars of Perkins loan funds. Under President Santagati, many financial and personnel decisions were made that still have effects on us today.

The early days of President Christopher Hopey’s administration were spent cleaning up a mess left behind by the secret maneuvering of previous administrations. We don’t have any reason to believe those bad decisions are being repeated, but we base our faith in current leadership, not in our full knowledge of what is actually going on.

Therefore, I suggest that President Hopey, and our esteemed trustees institute rules for greater financial transparency for this, and future administrations. Making public senior level personnel salaries, amount invested in expansion projects and spending in athletics will surely garner faith in the future of the college and the value of accountability the administration has.

In his inauguration speech President Hopey told the audience “we must be bold,” I see no better opportunity to be bold than, financial transparency.

In an effort to be bold and transparent, I have attached The Beacon’s budget allocation, which is funded by the Comprehensive Fee, part of every student’s bill from the college. I have also supplied our readers with our advertisement revenue and all of our expenses and donation figures.

Beacon budget

What Needs to Be Fixed in America

EDITORIAL 

Patrick J. Lawlor, Editor in Chief

Patrick Lawlor, Editor in Chief

The most important moral problem facing our country is the reform of our welfare program. Today, many Americans receive tax-dollar funded welfare checks and housing subsidies. I think that it is an important American ideal to help those in times of need, but as Americans we are exaggerating that time of need and enabling a broken system to spiral out of control. While helping veterans, the disabled and mentally ill should be a priority; helping the indolent should not be.

We have created a system in which Americans can receive superfluous benefits without any accountability or hard work. Many have taken advantage of this system and have made little or no effort in advancing their lives beyond the welfare system. At this point, a harsh cut of our human service programs would not be the answer.

I am not proposing we evict single mothers or rip the checks out of the hands of those who have been laid off — that would cripple our already troubled economy. What we need, however, is a serious assessment of the term of the benefits being provided and to whom the benefits are being provided.

We need to invest in serious case managers who can give attention to those in need. By incorporating community colleges in trade skill instruction, and providing professional interview coaching or resume writing, there can be no more excuses.

If all of this doesn’t work and there are still no private sector jobs available, that’s when the government can step in. There is no reason that those receiving government aid could not work entry-level jobs for the city, state or federal government.

This initiative will hold those receiving welfare accountable to a certain amount of work, as well as providing a civil service—contribute to speeding up government processes. We need to invest in our future by reminding Americans that nothing worth having will come easy.

The American Dream must come back. That passion and yearning to succeed that we once had. Once that is fulfilled, our country will be the success it once was. Before our country can understand what success is, our citizens need to.

Perhaps we need to take step back and find out what is the reason people have become so comfortable receiving welfare. If we need to spend some money before we can save some money, so be it. Investing in the greater good is the best money we can spend.

Making sure young kids have the direction they need at home, and investing in programs for our future generations so that they have something to look forward to, is how we can get this country back on the right track.

Cutting human services spending is not the answer; re-allocating it is. Let’s get that pep back into our step, let’s bring back the American Dream, let’s show people what it means to be an American. Our newly elected senator, Elizabeth Warren, has experience in consumer protection. We are all consumers of the American product. I hope she protects our investment and echoes her battle cry all over the Capitol.

China’s Leaders on Wrong Side of History

Roger McCormick ’14, Columnist

A changing of the guard is occurring in China for the first time in 10 years, operating concurrently with the state’s vicious recriminations and crackdown on dissidents. Chinese statesmen operate on an increasingly Orwellian form of governance, with dissidents across the country being “vanished” into the state’s ubiquitous penal system.

The politburo’s leadership transition was significantly marred by the controversy surrounding disgraced politician Bo Xilai, after his wife’s killing of a British businessman, a case shrouded in secrecy with the government profferring little information in response to contradictory views on the case, given the Chinese court system’s overwhelming high issuance of guilty convictions. Bo Xilai’s misfortunes are just one face of a political party that displays increasing dissolution.

Heir apparent to the presidency is Xi Jinping, who mysterious failed to appear at significant meeting before a military commission, and missed meetings with U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, spawning a slew of rumors ranging from a supposed heart attack to a politically engineered ploy in lieu of the state’s desire to deal effectively with the Bo Xilai situation. Xi has subsequently made public appearances, but the information regarding his absence is fanatically guarded by the state.

If Xi’s poor health is confirmed, a nebulous party, with various factions vying for control, could be seriously upset, lending uncertainty to the state’s vision of governance. This has led to a crackdown on information pertaining to the party and, perhaps more intensely, on brave dissidents, vocal in their criticisms of the party’s stultifying and immoral edicts.

Heavily controversial in China is the country’s law regarding childbirth, in which a woman may have only one child, or deal with the callous consequence of forced abortion. Activist Chen Guagcheng spent four years in prison, and after his release Chen and his family were placed under house arrest without any official charges or any arrest taking place (reminiscent of certain U.S. policies) for his role in magnifying the morality of the challenges to the forced abortion system.

The system came under scrutiny this summer when photos circulated of a woman lying in a hospital bed with her child’s body. Feng Jianmeni, in her seventh month of pregnancy, was forced to have an abortion because she could not afford the fine imposed on those who violate the state’s one-child policy.

Interestingly enough, an abuse of this magnitude would previously have been surreptitiously concealed, with Western media lacking the means to inquire into the Kafkaesque bureaucracy of China. This change is due to the pervasiveness of social media and its success in circulating the photos.

As the party knows, one man is easy to stifle, but a collective force is increasingly difficult to combat. The burden for the Chinese people lies in the intransigence of the state’s control, operating at every level of the state, and the difficulty involved in throwing off this yoke. China has responded meekly, with reparations for the murder, though is a telling indicator of a development of change in a three-decade-long policy, revealing a bureaucracy no longer able to operate completely independently from its people.

No one exemplifies the brutality of the contemporary Chinese regime more than artist Ai Wei-Wei, a vociferous critic of the country’s policies. Due to his calls for democracy, coupled with his harsh criticisms of the state, such as its role in the 2008 Sichuan Earthquake (the state’s shoddy building regulations causing the death of children), Ai’s studio was destroyed and he was beaten, suffering severe cranial hemorrhaging, an occurrence the state denies involvement in.

This degenerate bureaucracy treats any form of dissidence with similar strokes, reliant on an oppressive tenacity that supposedly protects the state’s interests, while displaying the seedy underbelly lying directly beneath the postured mechanisms of the state. While Ai is a high-profile example, other dissidents and average citizens continually incur the brunt of the state’s punishments.

The Guardian reports that China has recently detained 23 dissidents and 12 have gone “missing,” with no information being given to their families in regards to their whereabouts or whether formal charges are being leveled against them. Pang Jinhua, mother-in-law of lawyer Teng Biao, who has been missing since mid-February, is quoted in the Guardian: “We are worried and can’t eat well or sleep properly each night. They are doing good deeds for people; why should they be taken away?”

Many more critics of Chinese power are worried that the state is rapidly rolling back human rights gains that have been hard won over the last 10 years. Joshua Rosenzweig of the Dui Hua foundation said, “One of the things disturbing about this latest crackdown is how apparently routine it has become for security agents to essentially ignore the legal procedures in their treatment of activists.” Evocative of the U.S. suspension of habeas corpus for terror suspects, the state’s dominion is seeping further into the lives of average Chinese citizens, not just outspoken government critics.

Cab drivers on major thoroughfares in China are being forced by the government to lock their windows, lest passengers toss incendiary pamphlets or other materials out the windows. Perhaps this is merely feverish paranoia over the shifting leadership, but it also suggests a state nervous about its grasp, one that cannot be assumed to remain in the same incarnation of control, if a reading of “The Wealth of Nations” or “The Road to Serfdom” produces such anxiety. Then again, maybe this fear has a tangible basis.

Time reports that 18,000 protests occurred throughout China in 2010 over the people’s perceived notion of corrupt alliances between corporations and the state, combined with multitudinous abuses of political power. This is expected to increase.

The key to the state’s dominance, defying the common analogue to the Arab Spring, is the ascendancy of the Chinese economy. However, this does not suggest that brazen power hierarchy will remain in its current form, perhaps unpalatable when history, exploitation, and deprivation are viewed.

Mao Zedong’s apotheosis in the 1940s and ’50s was fueled by rapid, destructive industrialization, eliding with malignant policies in which millions were killed in Mao’s Five Year Plans and infamous Great Leap Forward, which rapidly mobilized industry in the region, but stripped farmers and innumerable other individuals of their land.

These plans lead to mass starvations, with the state predatorily exploiting its citizenry for self-advancement. Mao released “quotas”specifying how many persons should be arrested in each region, to squelch political protest, the slightest perceived affront to The Five Year Plans viewed as reason for imprisonment, a sentence highly probable to be death inducing. The quotas attained a hellish fame, with police in China’s Anhui province given a quota of 45,000 people.

The Chinese government continues to deny the existence of these sins, in which 45 million people were eradicated in Mao’s swath. George Orwell, author of “Animal Farm,” castigated totalitarian measures, undeniably similar to the current Chinese state, in the following: “The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.” The situation today is a shade of the aforementioned bleakness, but with the continued abrogation of individual freedoms in exchange for an aggressive state, the buck must stop eventually.

The present is not the 1950s, and the state may find that sadism will continue to be an untenable position to assume. Borders are growing more and more permeable with a global flow of information generating solidarity among those who have begun to realize the treatment that China and other nations mete out is not a sustainable position if stability, health, and longevity of society are viewed as laudable goals.

Sportsmanship for Field, Not Bleachers

Patrick Lawlor, Editor in Chief

EDITORIAL 

PATRICK J. LAWLOR

EDITOR IN CHIEF

Patrick Lawlor ’13 Editor in Chief On a recent walk by the Martone-Mejail turf field, I noticed some signs that list rules for those attending athletic events at Merrimack. They seemed pretty standard — no alcohol or tobacco at games was one of the rules — but one that stuck out, to me, was the prohibition of personal remarks to athletes or coaches on either team.

I know there has been a history in sports competitions of harassment or excessive swearing or yelling that have caused some problems. But really, no personal remarks of any kind? So if I am at a game cheering on one of the many Warrior sports teams, I am prohibited from yelling “nice catch, Jake” or “great save, Mary”? I highly doubt that was the intention of the Athletic Department, but it nonetheless provides confusing signage all around the athletic facilities.

The extension of sportsmanship expectations to the crowd or audience of spectators is a bit appalling to me. The worry should be the sportsmanship on the field, court or ice, not in the bleachers — that’s why fans are in the bleachers and not in the competition. But honestly, we all know these sportsmanship signs are a farce, an empty gesture. How many students get kicked out for drinking or being drunk at a game? How many students get kicked out because they are packing a lip full of tobacco?

Perhaps ejection is not a consequence on infringement of these rules … but then what are the consequences? The ban on personal remarks is silly and vague. I understand a level of civility and decorum needs to be present on a college campus, but sporting events are a place for passionate fans to express excitement, anger or any other emotions towards either team.

Whether these rules are codified by the college, Northeast-10, Hockey East or even the NCAA, I think we can all agree that at this level of competition, sportsmanship should start on the field, and civility in the bleachers, while a great idea, can’t be created by signs

Drone Program a Human Rights Nightmare

Roger McCormack

An untold number of Pakistani citizens currently cower in abject fear, worried habitually that their daily routine may be belligerently interrupted by barbaric violence. Ironically, these fears are not caused by the Taliban. Instead, the appallingly brutal and immoral drone warfare that the United States currently implements, with shocking disregard for the country’s civilians, is rapidly emboldening a new generation of terrorists and allowing moral principles to be superseded by a deceptive expediency, displaying policy that is helplessly inept at curing ills the nation faces abroad.

An estimated 474 to 884 civilians have been killed in the drone strikes, 176 of them children. A drone refers to an unmanned aerial vehicle, controlled by computer, with the capacity to fire missiles at targets, furthering the disparity between the United States and those who suffer the cost of its rabid bellicosity. Drones were an incipient program under the Bush administration, used sparingly against a few Taliban targets in 2001, and subsequently gained a heightened role under the Obama administration.

The administration’s “kill list,” in which Mr. Nobel Peace Prize himself personally selects targets in Middle Eastern hotspots, has come under criticism for its undiscerning eye in killing “terrorists.” The most egregious policy dictating who will be terminated in the strikes is the following malicious diktat, counting all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence proving them innocent after they have been killed.

This is a gross reversal of the standard of innocent until proven guilty — employing its polar opposite, an already heinous war crime, exacerbated by the countless innocent lives that have been lost due to the administration’s callous concern for innocents. Little thought is given to what the strikes do to the region’s environs, in areas where prudence and diplomacy should be germane principles. Furthermore, the number of innocents condemned to death may be exponentially higher than the statistics the Obama administration disseminates.

This is due to the aforementioned policy of counting all military-age males as combatants, allowing for another case of an immoral vagueness in the administration’s policies, and allowing truth to be invidiously concealed.

The cost of such a morally bankrupt policy has catalyzed recruitment for terrorism in the region, highlighting the shocking cost of expeditious policies. Militant Faisal Shazhad, who attempted to set off a car bomb in Times Square, was quoted telling the judge in his court case: “When the drones hit, they don’t see children.” This raises fundamental questions about the strikes’ efficacy and probity. Many U.S. statesmen often view the drone strikes as necessary to repress terrorism, equating eliminated leaders with progress.

However, when the apocalyptic situation is viewed in Pakistan, revealing Shazhad’s reaction to be far from atypical, it is obvious that the strikes foment mordant hate, oftentimes among previously reasonable citizens. Ibrahim Mothram, co-founder of the Yemen Enlightenment Debate, weighed in on the effectiveness of the strikes: “There could be short-term military gains from killing militant leaders in these strikes, but they are minuscule compared with the long-term damage caused by drones.

The notion of targeting Al Qaeda’s leaders to demolish its organizational structure has been proven ineffective; new leaders spontaneously emerge in furious retaliation to the attacks.” The situation is further exacerbated by living conditions in Pakistan — utterly barbaric, with citizens living in perpetual fear, disputing the United States’ passionate claims of alleviating the terrorism so inherent to the region. And a recent strike in Yemen has allegedly killed four U.S. citizens, at the price of eradicating a single terrorist.

One of the four was a 16-year-old boy. Mainstream Western media have largely given the administration a pass on events like this — not isolated events, but legion in the region. It is incredibly easy to feel disgust when hearing of a Taliban member brutally torturing and killing children.

However, the drone war and its 176 dead children is often treated as a statistic, and not as vile as the acts of our enemies. It would be very interesting to view the nation’s reaction if reporters pointed their cameras at the innocent departed, bringing a piercing light to a situation that has wallowed for too long in relative obscurity.

Friedrich Nietzsche’s old adage, “Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one,” rings appallingly true. In the North Waziristan region of Pakistan, drones hover overhead at all hours of the day, striking on a whim, without the communities being informed or having a say in the terms of the administration’s physical and psychological warfare.

Imagine the reaction if an industrialized, Western nation were faced with this policy. Unimaginable terror wrought by the fear that a bomb might explode at any moment, paralyzes the will, destroys whatever hope that country has for a future, or a thinkable, livable present. This unimaginable horror is masked by rhetoric increasingly tribal, with the U.S. government fear-mongering, allowing phrases like “the constant fear of terror at home and abroad” to seep into the zeitgeist, leading to public consent for malignant policies.

An easy analog is the Patriot Act and its curtailment of civil liberties. It is not as if either of these policies produces tangible, fruitful gains, either for domestic or foreign policy. Further, humanitarian workers and citizens often are afraid to help one another, due to the fear that they might be eviscerated by a subsequent strike.

It seems that innocent Pakistanis no longer have a chance of a meaningful existence; only a life that overflows with blood, entrails, and primeval deprivation. If this sounds lawless, you may be more right then you know. The war powers clause of the Constitution allows war to be waged on foreign soil, and delineates the stipulations necessary for a legitimate cause for war.

A president cannot order killings, with or without provocation, if he lacks the approval of Congress. As with his predecessor’s invasion of Iraq, President Obama has waged warfare by drastically expanding the clout of his office, notably in Libya, and with the current strikes. Rather than explicitly providing room for policies of this, Congress prohibits a president form waging war solely on his own, Congress’ approval being absolutely essential to the violence wrought on foreign soil.

The Guardian reports that the administration has circumvented this, ironically enough, by appealing to an edict passed by Congress in 2001, the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), to allow attacks on Afghanistan. It has been interpreted to confer unlimited attacks against any location where Al Qaeda may be located. Along with this, the administration has offered some lame platitudes about the nation’s right to defend itself against Al Qaeda under international law, (ironically coupled with the administration’s claims that Al Qaeda has been deracinated).

Compelling rhetoric (without a doubt President Obama’s greatest éclat), but the situation in the Middle East paints a stunningly different picture. Al Qaeda and affiliated groups are growing in Yemen, Libya, Somalia, and sundry other Middle Eastern nations. The Wall Street Journal reports that Al Qaeda in Iraq has doubled in size since the U.S. withdrawal. Despite the administration’s deception, it was quickly brought to light that the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi was committed by a faction of Al Qaeda. This is not progress,s nor is it an indicator that the drone strikes should be heightened, acceleration the administration zealously seeks. The late journalist Hunter S. Thompson, writing immediately after the attacks of 9/11, offered this chilling harbinger: “We are going to punish somebody for this attack, but just who or what will be blown to smithereens for it is hard to say. Maybe Afghanistan, maybe Pakistan or Iraq, or possibly all three at once.

Who knows? Not even the generals in what remains of the Pentagon or the New York papers calling for war seem to know who did it or where to look for them.” As I write this, Mitt Romney and Barack Obama are engaged in their final verbal sparring, degrading each other into caricature, in service of displaying their “radically” different views to the American body politic. However, for the continued death of children, your vote really doesn’t count. Both candidates support the continuation of the drone strikes.

With Romney calling for policies as banal as “cracking down” on pornographers (as if the Republican Party’s moral worth wasn’t deluded enough), it is obvious that the genuine reformation of certain policies will take a much wiser candidate than either of those proffered, especially for the protection of the inviolate sanctity of human life.

What You’re Reading: The Beacon

Patrick Lawlor, The Beacon’s Editor in Chief

Patrick J. Lawlor ’13,  Editor

EDITORIAL 

In just a few short years The Beacon has gone from the leaky basement of the Monican Centre to the third floor of O’Brien Hall with a spectacular view of our campus — overlooking one of the new construction projects at Merrimack.

Our rise on campus has been physical, as well as metaphorical. Like Merrimack, we have momentum. This year, we have the largest editorial board in the paper’s history, eight upperclassman at the helm of news production on campus.

We have over 20 staff writers, many enrolled in our Communications course, and a handful engaged in the student organization. All these numbers are exciting, the college has grown, we have grown, and with that growth, our responsibility to our readers grows. We’re going to give you the things we know you like to read: the Police Log and Questions on the Quad. But we are not an entertainment magazine; we are not an arm of the administration.

When we see something, we say something. We investigate, we uncover truths, and we make editorial decisions. We do all this because we think it is important. The Merrimack community has placed the first amendment in our hands, so we are not going to take that lightly.

In July, The Beacon reported that Glenn Hofmann, Merrimack’s athletic director was placed on leave. There were numerous reports by newspapers all across the northeast. On blogs, comment pages, and online forums, journalists and readers speculated on what might have prompted the leave.

Hofmann’s wife, also a college administrator was placed on leave at the same time. The college hired a prestigious Boston law firm to investigate Hofmann. After months of an exhaustive investigation, the college released a statement to employees on Aug. 28 that the college would accept the resignation of Hofmann.

The email also stated that the investigation of Hofmann involved allegations of misconduct. The Beacon had been investigating similar allegations of misconduct involving Hofmann since spring 2012. The issues confirmed by the investigation were “personnel based,” and as a policy, the college does not discuss such matters.

This investigation may seem mysterious and full of grey areas, but The Beacon responded in every way possible, utilizing every resource possible, as we would do if any senior administrator were placed on leave.

With all this behind us, we must forge ahead. Leadership in the athletic department has been placed in the capable hands of Dean O’Keefe, and construction projects are in process. The Beacon will move forward, as we always do. We will provide you dedicated, passionate reporting when we can. Breaking news can be accessed online at http://www.merrimacknewspaper.com, our Twitter feeds, and Facebook pages. We’re glad to have you with us.

The Assault on Freedom of Speech

Roger McCormack ’14

The potent outcry of hate exploding throughout the Middle East is engendering discussion regarding the limits of free speech that the First Amendment delineates. The crux of the debate revolves around the film “Innocence of Muslims” and its parody of Islam.

The film has been virulently denounced by the Obama administration and sundry political figures. Ostensibly, these denunciations seem to heighten the need for increased peace between the United States and the Middle East. However, the denunciations effacingly champion the social stigma against polemic and free speech in contemporary American dialogue. These condemnations evoke Calvin’s Geneva and innumerable polities, in which reason fails to be the supreme arbiter, succumbing to entreaties founded on irrational, as well as risible, claims.

Libya’s incipient outcry (resulting in the deaths of four U.S. citizens) against a video depicting the prophet Muhammad, among other things, as a pederast and philanderer, spread throughout the Middle East, providing a didactic rationale for the perils of the immutable cult of personality, be it secular or religious, and the violence it propagates.

Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice, responding to the attacks, stated, “There’s no question that as we’ve seen in the past with things like (Salman Rushdie’s novel) Satanic Verses, with the (Danish) cartoons of the prophet Mohammed, there have been such things that have sparked outrage and anger, and this has been the proximate cause of what we’ve seen.” “We are of the view that this is not an expression of hostility in the broader sense toward the United States or U.S. policy.It’s proximately a reaction to this video.”

This is an interesting take, especially given that the investigation into the causes for the protest is inchoate, with U.S. intelligence working to corroborate evidence that suggests the attacks were premeditated by a sect of Al-Qaeda. Furthermore, protests in Malaysia displayed zealots holding signs decrying “Destroy America.” How erudite. The ambassador’s jejune comments, especially with forthcoming evidence, deeming it reasonable that a film (however blasphemous), be placed as an equivalent to religious terrorism, is egregious at best.

However, banning and condemning attacks on religious figures also represses various forms of polemic that have arisen against Islam in the past. For instance, Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Theo Van Gogh’s film “Submission”, which displayed the iniquitous results of capitulating to the demands of Islamic fundamentalism, particularly for women, lead to Van Gogh’s brutal murder, stabbed and shot innumerable times in the streets of Amsterdam. Ali, author of the autobiography Infidel, is quoted in the Huffington Post: “When it comes to the Koran and the prophet, Muslims are equally offended by any work they perceive as disrespectful of those two icons: from the current Koran project in Germany, which is a serious academic work, to the notorious film on YouTube. For the average Muslim it is all an attack on the faith.”

Following this analysis, it seems many U.S. statesmen would hold the same view of religious polemic, be it crass and scrofulous, or researched and erudite (However, I would amend Ali’s view to state fundamentalist, rather than “average”, given the harsh condemnations by moderate Muslims of the recent violence and the beneficence they display towards differing religious faiths). Obsequiousness in the face of dogmatism can only invite an abject scorn towards the United States and its policies regarding religiously motivated violence.

This produces a divineness and deference that will erode the mutually beneficent forces of debate and argument among rational human beings. In any serious dialogue, a position, however sacrosanct and tacit, must be open to re-evaluation and ambiguity. Of course, this dialogue stymies (often fatally) fundamentalist religiosity.

The compendia displaying the global and domestic status of free speech offer a compelling insight into the current polarization of free dialogue. In Russia, three members of the punk band “Pussy Riot” were slapped with a two year sentence in a penal colony (Russia has come so far since the gulag) for religious “hooliganism” in a scene reminiscent of a cabaret. This spawned vitriol and condemnation from such disparate figures as Madonna and Aung San Suu Kyi (champion of Burmese democracy).

The Russian state’s collusive relationship with the Russian Orthodox Church displays the inherent danger of allowing avid religious belief (as well as secular corruption) to be wrought at the behest of an individual’s natural rights. Strangely enough, the calls to ban the anti-Islamic clip have not fomented this intense sense of solidarity. Granted, the film is puerile, even mordant. However, is it really the proper role of government to censor public dissemination? I have the right to read Mein Kampf and declare it racist, jingoistic, and evil.

However, for a government to ban this book places immeasurable credence on paternalism as an effective means of governance. Draconian measures everywhere, displayed in the Catholic Church of yore and its Index Librorum Prohibitoroum, demean the role of the individual and permit the state to gain totalitarian control in the minutest details of our lives. The results often have an abject similitude. Mothers being torn from children (Pussy Riot), the death of innocent individuals, and the creation of states analogous to Stalin’s Russia or Ceaucescu’s Romania are just a few examples of the evil wielded by despotic states.

However, this is not just a global issue, but a fervent domestic one. The recent attempt by the University of Cincinnati to abrogate free speech on its general campus, instead relegating it to a minuscule portion of the school’s campus, displays the decrepitude of intellectual inquiry present among college campuses. Thankfully, the school’s attempt at delineating a “free speech zone” met with derision and was subsequently declared unconstitutional.

The very proposal of a diminutive area where one can debate Marxism, existentialism, Christian ethics, and countless other issues so pertinent to the ethos of global life raises the specter of the seed that gives birth to the dictator, the despot, the autocrat, the oligarchy, and the subsequent blight they wreak on free societies everywhere. Frighteningly enough, the case in Cincinnati has shed light on the gamut of free speech abuses occurring throughout the United States.

The hallowed halls of Yale, world-renowned for rigorous intellectual inquiry, gained attention for the closing of the Yale Initiative for the Study of Anti-Semitism, in the face of criticism about a conference discussing anti-Semitism. This is akin to banning dialogue related to Al-Qaeda, fascism, or any other system promoting despotism and evil, because individuals may be hurt by the exegetical analysis of the subject matter. Granted, these are abjectly evil systems.

However, holding to blissful ignorance about the causes of racism and bigotry, in the hope of somehow effacing a more loving polity, is fallacious. Examining the precepts an organization holds, being able to forcefully debate these issues, postulating solutions for dealing with iniquity, endeavoring to educate, never providing deferential treatment to controversial subjects, and a constant striving for heightened knowledge of the vagaries of life, are just a few prerequisites for a better world.

Ralph Waldo Emerson, romantic poet and founder of Transcendentalism, penned this sage bit of wisdom: “I am ashamed to think how easily we capitulate to badges and names, to large societies and dead institutions. Every decent and well-spoken individual affects and sways me more than is right. I ought to go upright and vital, and speak the rude truth in all ways.” I’ll leave you with another quote, from the passionate pen of Thomas Paine, firebrand of our own revolution and author of Common Sense: “It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry.” Take heed.

Modern Day Warrior to Commence in Less than a Week

Patrick J. Lawlor, Editor in Chief

Next Saturday I will start my four month writing project which I have dubbed ” The Modern Day Warrior.” I know–it’s a cheesy name, but I had to call it something, and if I can make it through this; I’ll consider myself a warrior.

So beginning on Saturday, September 15, I will become a vegetarian. I will consume no meat until October 15. Every week, I’ll post something on how my week has gone on this site, and all of my entries can be found on the top of the home page under the tab “Modern Day Warrior Project.” It can also be found in each edition of The Beacon.

I am thrilled at the support I have received from friends and members of the Merrimack Community. Jay Degioia, the general manager of Merrimack Dining has vowed to join me in my month without meat. Degioia and his Sodexo team will also highlight their vegetarian options at our dining hall, Sparky’s Place.

I will not only be writing about my journey through another lifestyle, but also what it means to be a vegetarian. World Vegetarian Day is October 1, right in the middle of my month long deprivation. I will attempt to understand why people choose a lifestyle without meat, and I will hopefully gain a new perspective. I am looking forward to this as both a writing project and an experiential learning project.

Thank for reading, I am looking forward to getting started!

Theology with Tim: A Review of Holy Week Amidst the Youth of the Catholic Church

Tim Iannacone, ’12, Staff Writer

As we progress further into the year, it is safe to say that Catholics are still witnessing many attacks against their church, most especially from the U.S. government. Secularism has shaken the very foundation on which we stand, which in turn has given rise to people who no longer care about the Catholic Church, seeing it as both tasteless and boring.

What’s worse is that many people, including Catholics, see the Catholic Church as “archaic,” struggling to keep up with modern times. General statistics show that there are close to 90 percent of Catholics in the West who have no contact with the Catholic Church anymore, withholding themselves from receiving any of the sacraments and refusing to attend Mass on Sundays. Prior to 1960, these statistics would have been quite different, showing 400 million out of 500 million Catholics in the West “plugged” into their faith.

There is a conflict between a variety of Catholic crowds when it comes to Catholic identity and the church’s mission. However, it appears to me that the lukewarm Catholic crowds are currently taking the hardest blows. The lukewarm crowds are those Catholics who sit back and hate to get involved. These crowds produce a scarce number of vocations to the priesthood and know little or close to nothing about their faith, seeing Catholicism not as a living faith, part of the greater body of Christ. The mystical and the sublime aspects of the faith are replaced by these crowds with a pedestrian and very (ironically) narrow version. The average parish in the United States is a mishmosh of non-zealous and relaxed attitudes with no real fire in the belly, unfortunately giving the added support to the number of parishes that are being suppressed and closed down faster than imagined. These lukewarm Catholic crowds are beginning to suffer because of the up and coming Catholic generation who are defenders of the faith, bringing back that oh so sweet term, the Church militant.

This is what gives me hope; the future of our generation within the Catholic Church. This hope is fostered by my experiences over Holy Week, which brought tears to my eyes as I participated as the master of ceremonies for a priest as he celebrated Masses both in English and in Latin. The Masses said in English were not only beautiful but very well attended, which brought many young adults. However, the Latin Mass brought a substantial amount of young men and women, traditional in nature and knowledgeable about their faith. I am ecstatic to report that of all these young men and women, 23 were initiated into the Roman Catholic Church.

The Latin Masses at the Church I served showed the opposite of the lukewarm Catholic crowds today. Not only did I discover several vocations to the priesthood over this recent Holy Week, but young Catholics who were massively informed about their faith ready to evangelize and take no prisoners, with a willingness to swim in the currents of the mystery of the divine. Reverence and devotion were most prominent within the Latin Masses at this parish, along with a deep respect for our Lord in the Most Holy Eucharist.

The Latin Mass is masculine through and through, which is why these lukewarm Catholic crowds are turned off by it. The majority of Catholics who have been nursed on the weaker, feminine, don’t-be-offensive type of liturgy have a hard time knowing where to go with the Latin Mass. I can assure you, at the parish I served at over Holy Week, there was no weakness of the Catholic faith present, unlike the lukewarm Catholic crowds who would rather dialogue and have donuts after Mass instead of engaging into hand-to-hand combat for their faith.

As the lukewarm politically correct parishes begin to close down, against all that failure for that is the success of the Church militant which I experienced in the youth during Holy Week.

I truly felt as if I were walking in the footsteps of the saints, who were quick to rebuke all form of heresies against their Catholic faith. The world has turned militant against the Church, but the only proper response is a more ferocious militancy just as the bishops practiced when they protected their flock hundreds of years ago, as similar to a father who protects his children from serious harm.

The youth are truly the future of the Church and after a review of Holy Week; it looks like a good future to me. I hope that many of you reading this also experienced the excess of youth who were in attendance at the Masses over Holy Week. And like me, if you noticed how the youth behaved or acted, you can expect what the Mass will look like in the Catholic Church in years to come.

Here’s a hint: it is going to be pretty hard to hear the piano and the drums over the Gregorian chant during Masses in the future.

Learn College’s Parking Rules: That’s The Ticket for Avoiding the Tow

Patrick Coskren ’13, Staff Writer

Before this week I was among the students on campus who felt that police ticket excessively and in some cases unreasonably. After speaking with Ron Guilmette, chief of Police Services, I can say my opinion has completely changed.

It is not a ticketing problem, but the ignorance of students that is to blame.

Guilmette referred to the parking/ticketing situation a several times as “a numbers game.” To elaborate on this, allow me to discuss the number of spots available for student parking.

The Sakowich campus lot has 258 spots available for commuter, faculty and staff parking. In addition to the campus lot, commuters, faculty, and staff, are also permitted to park in the Rogers lot and Deegan West lot, which have fewer than 50 spaces between the two of them. Students who are residents are permitted to park in the back lots of the campus near the apartments; this lot has 670 parking spaces.

We see people being ticketed in the Sakowich, Deegan, and Rogers lots when residents who do not feel like walking to class on cold or rainy days take up the spots reserved for commuters, faculty, and staff.

In addition to residents parking illegally, there are also many people parking in these lots who do not have a sticker at all.

The decal process is quite simple: If you are a commuter you can go to Police Services and receive a decal for free. If you are a resident student at the beginning of the year, the price of a decal is $150 for the year. As the year goes on Police Services will discount the cost.  If you buy a decal after the winter break (for the second semester) you will be charged $75. If you were to request a decal for the remaining four weeks of school you could obtain one by paying about $35.

As we all know the Sakowich lot is not the only parking lot where students get ticketed. There are many other places around the campus with 15-minute parking. Just this past week two students had their cars towed because they were in 15-minute parking overnight.

It must be made clear that the tow policy Guilmette has implemented since he has arrived is more than reasonable. You are allowed to have three parking violation before you hear from him; on your fourth violation you will receive an email, in addition to your vehicle having been “stickered” with a “Notice of Tow,” which means that for any and all future violations your vehicle will be towed from the campus at your expense.

This means that before your car is towed you will have accumulated four violations, and received an email from the chief. This seems more than reasonable.

After speaking with Guilmette I personally walked up and down the first 80 cars in the Sakowich lot. Suffice it to say I was quite surprised. There were 20 cars with no stickers at all, five residents, 22 commuters, and 28 faculty members parked in the lot. That means that over 31 percent of the cars I looked at were parked illegally, and 25 percent did not even have decals at all.

The reason this topic seems to arise every spring is because all the tickets that were accumulated over the fall semester carry over to the spring. This means that if you received three tickets in the fall and you receive one in the spring, your car will be “stickered” along with receiving an email from the chief. Over the summer the tickets accumulated during the year are “forgotten,” and everyone enters the following fall with a clean slate.

However, this doesn’t mean that after your fifth ticket and your car being towed, you start over. If you get a sixth ticket, your call will be towed. If you get a seventh ticket, your car will be towed, and so on.

At the end of the day many students who complain to Police Services saying “Are you serious? You don’t have anything better to do than ticket me?” are the ones to blame, not police. Had you parked where you were supposed to in the first place, you would not have been ticketed in the first place.