We need to prohibit same-sex marriage! We need tougher gun control laws! We need litigation against the public presence of the Ten Commandments! For those of you who advocate such ideas over others, you need better political education.
People today, particularly social conservatives and Evangelicals, overemphasize social issues such as abortion, same-sex marriage, and the creationism vs. evolution debate. However, this is a very wrongheaded approach to solving political problems. While I personally believe that government is immoral, tyrannical, and an unnecessary evil, I understand that certain issues in the policy process have more importance than others. Despite hearing Evangelical concerns regarding moral relativism, one issue is always on the minds of voters, pundits, and politicians: the economy.
Of course, James Carville had it right when he said during the Bill Clinton 1992 presidential campaign, “It’s the economy, stupid!” During that election, Bill Clinton won despite George H.W. Bush’s handling over foreign affairs. The economy, which was in recession, is really what mattered in the minds of the voters that year.
So why does economics matters? Economics, properly defined, means to apply action to achieve goals. All action is rational and action means to apply means to ends according to ideas. Because individuals have unlimited desires, it is important that people make choices according to cost-benefit analysis. Economic does not have anything to do with money, with graphs, or with mathematics. Economics has to do with the individual actions of people to achieve goals after weighing costs and benefits to themselves. Everything following this idea flows logically from the science of human action.
Taking a step back, economics matters because all individuals want to achieve more than what they have. This leads to people caring more about economics than other issues. This means that government much keep economies strong and stable in order to keep people happy. Economics is the key to human civilization and flourishing.
Social issues, meanwhile, do not follow a set law (many people think economics is all theory; I resent that assertion, but I digress). Why is abortion right? Wrong? What about same-sex marriage? What are the justifications? To be honest, this is not an argument for moral relativism. However, it is important to realize that people do in fact have different morals and social schedules of values. Social issues are not value-free; different issues may have a different moral weight assigned by individual or collective value. Economics is value-free. You can oppose the concept of supply and demand, but that does not mean it does not exist.
Economics affects everyone; social issues affect those people who what the issues to affect them. The next time you see someone advocating for a social issue, tell them it doesn’t really matter. You will be doing everyone else a great disservice if you do not.

In this globalized and interconnected world, information and people can get from one end of the world to the other in relatively short periods of time. It took Ferdinand Magellan roughly 2 years to travel from Spain to the Philippines by boat (granted he stopped in various locations along the way), while the average fight from Washington DC to Tokyo takes about 14 to 15 hours. Communication over the airwaves occurs even quicker – a person tweeting in India can reach out to a follower in Topeka, Kansas in literally seconds. This is unbelievable and quite frankly unimaginable. Our technology is only getting more advanced, and the limits of human endeavors are seemingly non-existent.
As a result of this emerging globalization, the United States has had to create and alter its foreign policy to better suit the needs of our nation. With the fall of the communist Soviet Union, the world saw very different nations materialize in Eastern Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. New alliances formed, and many nations felt the need to build a larger amount of autonomy and independence from regional forces. The simple rivalry between the Democracy and Communism was an easy one to take sides and it was not uncommon for our government to become allies with nations that were run by dictators only because these dictators also disliked communism (and in some cases liked the weapons and arms we supplied them to be out “ally”). Today, all of that has changed.
Immediately following the collapse of the Soviet Union, American foreign policy was presented with a difficult situation. America no longer needs massive stockpiles of nuclear weapons or massive troop deployments around the world. Even though China has roughly 3 million active service members in their army (to about America’s 1 million active service members), the training level of these Chinese service members pales in comparison to that of an American service member.
President Obama’s budget cuts to the Defense Department are not aimed to reduce the effectiveness of America’s military, but rather to create a more efficient fighting unit. Over the past year, the world has experienced the emerging “Obama Doctrine” in work (also referred as ‘leading from behind’ by some pundits) and in many cases there have been great successes. The Libyan dictator Gaddafi was removed from power without a single US military troop being deployed onto the ground, Osama Bin Laden was eliminated by the Special Ops team Seal Team 6, and brutal drone strikes have left Al-Qaeda leaders in fear.
Considering the economic turmoil and uncertainty the United States faces today, it comes to no surprise that agency budgets got cut across the board. Yet, even if the economy was stronger I believe President Obama would still have altered the Defense Departments budget. Wars, battles, and conflicts are fought differently today than they were even ten years ago. This particular change might be tough to accept, but without this shift in America’s military narrative the success of the military is risked in this new post-communist era.

Let me start this off by saying that I am firmly in support of the diversity and inclusion initiatives on campus. I think they’re great, and much needed. Being staunchly liberal, I’m also in support of such movements on a wider level. I think it’s important that the rights of everyone in the country are protected; I’m for legalizing gay marriage, allowing gay adoption, and opening up more opportunities for immigrants. Their ideals I believe strongly in, and I enjoy showing my position on campus.
It is with this sentiment that I proudly wore my “I am not a bystander” shirt this past Monday. Truth be told, I thought the whole thing was a little blown out proportion, but I wore it to be part of the larger statement that the Stonehill community was making. When I walked into one of the academic buildings on campus, one of my professors said, “Why are you wearing that shirt today?” When I explained the graffiti on the rock he said, “That’s why they quoted Elie Wiesel? Graffiti? Really? Does that seem right?”
I have to admit, he had a point. He went on to explain that there were some who criticized some of the recent attitudes on campus. “Is graffiti on a rock the same as someone getting raped?” I was quick to interject that the point of the initiative was that no act of prejudice, no matter how small, would be tolerated at Stonehill. “But where does it stop?” he asked. “What if I were to run a program that brought a researcher in who had found links between obesity and a certain race or ethnicity, would that be offending to some?” More importantly; how do we decide whom to protect? My professor mentioned several colleagues on campus who our Pro-Life, but have felt pressure to keep it to themselves. “[Pro-Life views] are fine in Campus Ministry, but elsewhere most feel uncomfortable expressing the views. The overly-politically correct atmosphere on camps has silenced many of us who disagree, no matter to what degree, from saying anything for fear of negative reactions and being labeled as racists or masochists.”
This conversation shook me for a minute. Does he have a point? Many on campus (myself included) joke about the lack of Republicans on campus; is this because we’ve created an environment where those who are more conservative are uncomfortable voicing their opinions? That doesn’t make us much better than those who are committing acts of bias. Has our outrage become so widespread and all encompassing that we’ll miss out when we have something major to deal with? To go back to the question initially posed; does it seem right to put acts of genocide (witnessed by Wiesel during the Holocaust) on the same level as something ignorant written on a rock? Honestly, I’d have to say no.
In the four years I’ve been at Stonehill, we’ve made huge strides in becoming more inclusive. The atmosphere is almost completely different when I was a freshman; there is a true dialogue happening about how to improve diversity on campus. As we move forward though, I do think we need to be aware of how far we take our quest to be politically correct. We need to make sure we don’t become so sure of what’s right and wrong that we discourage dissenting opinions. I would hate if our efforts ended up marginalizing another, if somewhat less vocal, group of students, for then we’re no better off then when we started.

The horse race Republican Primary continues to baffle political pundits and analysts. The race has seen more changes in frontrunner than an Olympic marathon making it all but impossible to predict an eventual nominee at this point. Despite the fact that only four candidates remain, the gay community is highly anxious about who the Republican Party will put against President Obama in November.
The potential outcomes from a Republican defeating President Obama in November vary greatly. Each candidate espouses a different take on gay marriage and LGBT rights.
Coming off a victory in South Carolina and campaigning with renewed vigor in Florida, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich recently compared gay marriage as a practice of paganism . Gingrich’s credentials on marriage as an institution came under fire around the time of the South Carolina debate, but his multiple diatribes against the “liberal media” pushing the gay-agenda has only garnered him more support from conservatives. Gingrich went on to claim that the media ignores the “other side of the issue” when Catholic charities are forced to close because of their views on homosexuals and adoption rights. While his criticism of the media is not out of character, one cannot fathom how Gingrich could think that the gay community has more power than the Catholic Church to sway politics and the media in America.
Gingrich has also stated his support for a constitutional ban on gay-marriage and his fierce support of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) (which allows states to create there definition of marriage and protects them from law suits based on upholding a strictly heterosexual definition of marriage).
Gingrich’s biggest rival and on-again-off-again front runner Mitt Romney is not an ideal candidate for any member of the LGBT community either. Recently, with the publication of the former Governor’s tax returns, members of the Human Rights Campaign point out that Romney donated almost $60,000 to anti-gay organizations like the Massachusetts Family Institute and the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty . Romney also signed the National Organization for Marriage pledge opposing same-sex marriage and endorsing a federal constitutional amendment to ban it. To ease the harshness of his point, Romney has advocated in past debates to allow for existing same-sex marriages to maintain their legal integrity .
Arguably the most outspoken critic of gay marriage is former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum. Santorum’s religious rhetoric against gay marriage inspired boos from college students at a rally in New Hampshire in early January . Santorum continues to attempt to prove his case that he is not homophobic, but comments made in 2003 show that Santorum may approve of parents telling their gay children that their sexual or gender expression is wrong. Similarly, Santorum stated that having an absentee father in prison would provide a healthier home environment than having two parents of the same sex in the home . His likening of same-sex relationships to bestiality shows this author that Santorum is incredibly out of touch with the real world, but to social conservatives these campaign statements are gold (Santorum recently received endorsements for his anti-gay stance from a group of influential social conservatives – a fact that he’s been working into every stump speech since the recognition) .
Finally, Congressman Ron Paul, the only candidate yet to capture a state in the primary, may have the most moderate stance of them all. An avowed libertarian, Paul is on record for saying that marriage rights should be wholly state issues. His own personal opinions about homosexuals have surfaced because of leaks from campaign and Congressional staffers, but policy-wise Paul is the only candidate to oppose a federal amendment to the constitution banning gay-marriage. The leader of the National Organization for Marriage – the same organization that had Gingrich, Romney, and Santorum sign a pledge defending the existing definition of marriage under DOMA – criticized Paul for his unwillingness to strike a definitive stance on upholding marriage only between a man and a woman .
In theory, Paul’s stance on states deciding the definition of gay marriage may make him the best option for any pro-gay marriage citizen looking to vote Republican. With active marriage equality initiatives gaining strength in Washington, Maine, New Jersey, and many cities across the U.S., 2012 is poised to be another very gay-friendly year. However, before the rainbow flags can be draped over banisters, it is critical to remember how many states quickly overturned same-sex marriage laws through popular referendum.
Prominent political leaders in New Jersey, like Newark mayor Cory Booker, have challenged the fairness of sending civil rights issues to referendum. He likens the case of gay marriage to civil rights in the 1960s. In a story published in The New Jersey Star-Ledger, Booker said “I shudder to think what would have happened if the civil rights gains, heroically established by courageous lawmakers in the 1960s, were instead conveniently left up to popular votes in our 50 states.”
This is precisely why the Republican primaries can affect the outcome of these state issues: the discourse at the national level can quickly dictate the mood around social issues like gay marriage. Not only do state laws, initiatives, and referendums provide stump speech material for the candidates, but the candidates’ recitation of those antediluvian sound bites actually gives strength to those pushing the anti-gay agenda.
What is crucial for gay community members and supporters to do is find their allies and question their opponents. President Obama only briefly mentioned anything pertaining to the gay community in his State of the Union Address, so there needs to be pressure on him to develop a more comprehensive understanding and policy stance on gay rights if he is to compete with the eventual Republican nominee.
Looking forward though, any of these Republican nominees would be much more detrimental to the gay rights movement than President Obama and his “still developing” stance on gay marriage. The subject matter of a presidential debate between President Obama and his rival will probably focus more on jobs and the economy rather than social issues like gay marriage and abortion. It would be highly unlikely for President Obama to use his more gay-friendly policy stance to attack the character of his opponents, but he will probably rely on the repeal of the armed forces “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy to attract the gay community’s vote. The discussion of fiscal matters may take the wind out of the sails of Republicans hoping for a federal amendment (bare in mind that its extremely difficult to push through amendments), but ballot initiatives at the state level will still keep the discussion going for months into 2013.

The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), signed into law by George W. Bush on January 8th 2002, has a lofty goal: it aims to make just about 100 percent of American students proficient in math and reading by 2014. As this deadline draws nearer, and as Bush’s brainchild turns ten, it is important to look at what the act has achieved, what it has not achieved, and what the Obama administration is doing to make the act more effective.

Since 2002, there has been a significant jump in average scores of young students in reading and math. In this regard, NCLB has been successful. In other arenas, though, it seems to have fallen short. Another important goal of NCLB is to narrow the “achievement gap,” or the gap between white students’ progress and that of minority students. In a rare interview with TIME Magazine, Bush offered his own evaluation of how NCLB has handled this issue. Recognizing that it has become a convenient “punching bag” for many critics, the former President noted that since its passage there has been a noticeable change in student achievement among minority groups and that the achievement gap has therefore been narrowed. However, the National Assessment for Educational Progress, one of the best measures of student achievement, sees things differently. In a 2008 assessment of NCLB, they found that the achievement gap has actually increased. To comply with NCLB, states must ensure that students of different demographics reach a threshold of success, but the distribution of the scores once they are above the threshold is not addressed in any way. In other words, a state could comply with NCLB while also widening the achievement gap, and many have. In this regard, the act has not been successful.

Another criticism that comes from mainly those on the left is that the rigid accountability structure has robbed teachers of creativity, a phenomenon that President Obama has referred to as “teaching to the test” instead of using more creative methods. Moreover, schools are continuing to “fail” under the NCLB’s strict formula for funding. Despite the act’s good intentions, it has labeled an excess number of schools as “in need of improvement,” creating a race to the bottom as states dumb down their standards to ensure that more schools meet the act’s rigid benchmark. In Secretary of Education Arne Duncan’s eyes, it has imposed a structure that is analogous to “taking a hammer to kill an ant.” To solve this dilemma, Obama has proposed increased flexibility to states whose schools feel as though they cannot feasibly meet the strict requirements of NCLB.

His proposal has been catching on. Eleven states, including Massachusetts, have hopped on board with Obama’s proposal and have asked for more flexibility. In essence, if the flexibility measures were adopted, states will be able to set performance targets for high school students ready for college or a career rather than meet NCLB 2014 deadlines based on arbitrary measures of proficiency. States will also be able to design locally-tailored interventions for schools instead of one-size-fits-all remedies prescribed at the federal level, be free to measure school progress using multiple measures rather than just test scores, and have more flexibility in how they spend dollars allocated toward local educational agencies.

Proposed at the end of 2011, Obama continues to use the bully pulpit to gain support for his proposed flexibility measures. During the recent State of the Union Address, for example, Obama said that it is necessary to “grant schools flexibility: allow teachers to teach with creativity and passion; to stop teaching to the test… That’s a bargain worth making.” The statement received much applause.

With the 2014 deadline approaching, as schools continue to “fail” under the rigid accountability structure of NCLB, Obama, through the waivers program, is, in a way, attempting to help Bush pass the test he started ten years ago by making NCLB more effective. While it is unlikely that Congress will approve his entire blueprint for reform due to the ongoing gridlock and election year politics, analysts have called the flexibility measures the best solution to NCLB’s flaws. With critics on the left unhappy with the strict accountability structure of NCLB and those on the right unhappy about increased funding for education, the proposal would theoretically fall someone in the center, and it therefore seems to be the most feasible option for reforming education in this crucial time.

Seriously, I don’t even know where to begin this article. I suppose this all started when the MIPR met on Tuesday, and we got talking about much of the recent feminism that has characterized both society and Stonehill’s campus. We exchanged some opinions and had a constructive conversation about our varied perspectives. Then I noticed something: I was the only female in the room. I was the minority. Interesting… the only other time I have ever felt as though I was an anomaly was while I, a young American, was living in Paris. (more…)

Herman Cain announced Friday outside his campaign headquarters in Atlanta that he will be suspending his presidential campaign following a tumultuous couple of weeks that saw him plummet in the polls.  While Cain only announced in advance that he would be making a “big announcement” regarding his campaign, many were not surprised with his choice to suspend (which just means his bid is over but will still be able to raise donations in order to pay off debts) which was seen as necessary and unavoidable.  The recent accusations of infidelity and sexual assault were merely the final straws—his decision to withdraw was influenced by a series of embarrassing events long before these accusations.  For example, Cain’s grasp of foreign policy was quite shockingly cast into serious doubt when he was unable to answer a simple question regarding Libya and seemed to be unfamiliar with the country altogether.   (more…)

Beginning with Herman Cain’s plummet in national polls for the Republican presidential primaries, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich has consistently risen in the polls. A recent Rasmussen poll has put him in first place with 38% of Republican primary support. Former frontrunner Mitt Romney received 17%. Of course, conservatives are not happy with Mitt Romney’s inconsistent record, Rick Perry’s debate gaffes, and Herman Cain’s troubled personal life. (more…)

With final approval of the casino gambling bill in Massachusetts within sight, it is no wonder that lawmakers and casino gambling companies are looking to make last minute changes. As of November 15^th, the Boston Globe reported that the latest version of the bill passed by the Senate and House rechanneled $10 million in annual revenue to the horse racing industry. (more…)

As some of you may already know by the time of this publication, the court system in New York gave permission to the police department to finally start sweeping through Zuccotti Park, demanding that the protestors take down their tents, close up shop, and go home. At least for now. The operation began on Tuesday (November 15) and continued into the rest of the week. The protesters are still allowed to return to protest so long as they trudge back to their parent’s basements at night. I say it’s about time. It’s all well and good to protest and there are few who support the First Amendment as much as I do, but we do not have the right to occupy public squares for weeks on end. Not only does it hurt small businesses, not only does it cost the cities millions of dollars, not only is it an extreme health hazard to everyone involved, but it also breeds excessive violence. (more…)