Featuring a highlight of a local Worcester man spreading awareness on addiction, a defense of Holy Cross’s ROTC program, commentaries on recent political events, and much more!
As the College of the Holy Cross’ independent journal of opinion, TheFenwickReviewstrives to promote intellectual freedom and progress on campus.The staff ofTheFenwickReviewtakes pride in defending traditional Catholic principles and conservative ideas, and endeavors to articulate thoughtful alternatives to the dominant campus ethos. Our staff values Holy Cross very much, and desires to make it the best it can be by strenghtening and renewing the College’s Catholic identity, as well as by working with the College to encourage constructive dialogue and an open forum to foster new ideas.
We’d love to hear from you! Visit our website at www.thefenwickreview.com or send us an email at fenwickrev@g.holycross.edu.
Follow us on social media:
@FenwickReview
TheFenwickReviewhas started a monthly newsletter called TheCrusader’sBrief . This publication, more lighthearted and casual in tone than our print publication, seeks to cover those day-to-day happenings at Holy Cross which those of our readers who don’t spend their lives on Mt. Saint James would otherwise miss. Within the Briefyou will find a quick list of some more comical campus sightings, followed by a couple shorter articles covering topics of slightly greater note. We hope to develop this format and include other content, be it political cartoons, brief satires, poetry, you name it! Email us or fill out the form on our website if you’re interested in signing up!
From the
News: Holy Cross &
Pill Man Is Trying to Save Lives
the Defenders: ROTC & Holy Cross
Schuler Access Initiative Insanity
Anthony Cash ‘23 & Evan Poellinger ‘23
Cash ‘23 & Brendan Robinson ‘26
Nepomuceno ‘25
Kessler ‘23
The Left Believes No Human Is Illegal, Aiden Konold ‘26 Until They’re Standing on Their Doorsteps
Another Pawn for the MAGA King Joe Barbieri ‘23
Institutions: The FBI and the Evan Poellinger ‘23 Government’s War against Its Citizens
Is Putin’s Peril Tucker Scott ‘26
Moran ‘24
Benjamin Kelly ‘23
This journal is published by students of the College of the Holy Cross several times per semester. The College of the Holy Cross is not responsible for its content. Articles do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the Editorial Staff..
Anthony Cash ‘23
Evan Poellinger ‘23
Teresa Esquivel ‘23
Kevin Akalski ‘23
Teresa Esquivel ‘23 Stacey Kaliabakos ‘23
Will Kessler ‘23 Anna Moran ‘24 Will Sampson ‘24 Andrew Shipley ‘24
Sam Silvestro ‘24 Joseph Nepomuceno ‘25 Briana Oser ‘25
Professor David Schaefer, PoliticalScience
Thank you for picking up this issue of Life on campus has been somewhat slow lately; as school work piles up and daylight falls away, Holy Cross becomes somewhat less exciting. Is this for better or for worse? Well, we’ll leave that up to you.
In this edition however, we’ve done something we rarely do: respond directly to TheSpire , the official student newspaper on campus. Why have we elected to do so, you ask? The topic seems to gravitate to in each of our issues came up: abortion. We see the problem of abortion as a unique — indeed, the preeminent — evil of our contemporary world. This is why one of the few articles we would never publish is one supporting abortion. Because of this issue’s importance,wesawitnecessarytoprovidetwoseperateperspectivesin response.We must be especially mindful of abortion during this season of Advent, as we await the coming of our yet unborn Lord. Otherwise, we offer you a bevy of other articles, spanning from campus events to geopolitics.
As this will be our last issue of the semester, we want to take the opportunity now to wish you all a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! May this be a time of peace, joy, and love, centered around the birth of our Lord, Jesus Christ. We will keep you and your families in our prayers, and we ask that you keep all of our staff in yours.
Sincerely, Andrew Buck & John Pietro, Co-Editors-in-Chief
If you’ve eaten at Miss Worcester’s Diner, you may have seen Frank Huntley’s original sculptures, which he displays regularly outside the Cash-4Clothes store where he works. His piece “Blackout” is a sculpture of a humanoid figure fashioned from liquor bottles, beer cans, and nips. Next to that is “Addiction”, which features a hollowedout figure filled with soda cans, food containers, cannabis wrappers, condoms, and other items which Huntley has used to symbolize addiction. And last is his Magnum Opus — the work which started it all — a sculpture titled “Pill Man”.
“Pill Man” is a skeleton made from prescription pill bottles — each bearing the name “Frank Huntley.” “This was me for fifteen years,” Frank tells The Fenwick Review, “I want people to see my work and think twice about throwing it away for addiction.” Frank built Pill Man from the skeleton of an old Frankenstein costume, and he believes that to be a representation of the way he rebuilt his life from addiction to where he is now.
Huntley, now age 55, grew up in Chelsea, Massachusetts. His father worked very hard to support his children, and taught Frank how to paint and wallpaper houses. Following in his father’s footsteps, Frank entered the trade and was successful until he was injured in the late 90’s in a small vehicular accident.
His doctor prescribed him Percocet — an opioid
Anthony Cash ‘23 & Brenden Robinson ‘26 Co-Editor-in-Chief&GuestWriter— and when his body built up a tolerance for it, he prescribed him OxyContin — another opioid. When he built up a tolerance for OxyContin, they gave him Methadone so that he wouldn’t have to take so much OxyContin. His addiction to these drugs began to take control of his life. “The drug controlled me, morning, noon and night”, says Huntley. “I used to have panic attacks when I’d misplace my pills, since I’d hide them when my kids’ friends would come visit. I became someone different — someone that wasn’t me.”
Growing up in Chelsea, Huntley had a lot of peer pressure to try different drugs, but he credits an experience he had at the age of fifteen to opening his eyes to the terrifying effects of substance abuse. “When I was 15,” says Huntley, “A friend of mine came over to my girlfriend’s house, and he said, ‘could I get high?’”
“I thought he was going to smoke a joint. He came in with a needle and a strap, and I said ‘What’s that?’ He told me it was heroin, and to watch, so he tightens his strap and shoots up, and within
“The drug controlled me, morning, noon, and night,” says Huntley.
ten seconds he’s a different guy. Screaming and sweating and shaking. Scares the hell out of me, so bad I never did heroin — never wanted to become something like what I was seeing.”
By his mid-40’s that’s what Frank Huntley had become. He was crippled by his addiction to painkillers, tobacco, alcohol, “and Mountain Dew!” says Frank. “That stuff is nasty, just plain syrup, but just as addictive as a cigarette.” But it was his opioid addiction that largely controlled his life, “You see all these addicts on the street standing around like zombies. That’s where I was, pretending to live a life. At my worst I was 125 pounds.”
Huntley says it took the revocation of his doctor’s medical license for him to start his road to recovery. He was supposed to go to a liquid methadone clinic, but Frank argues that these clinics were just bureaucratic cover-ups for the larger problem at hand. “My brother started at that clinic twenty-five years ago and he still needs it to live his life. Two sets of kids — he’d pack them all into his car and take them with him at five in the morning. It’s like the clinics take away the pain while the drug takes away your life.”
taking care of him during his recovery. “He helped me, he gave me a reason to win the fight. He is a blessing and a miracle.”
Despite his disabilities, Trevor achieved the rank of Eagle Scout in the Boy Scouts of America. He received a Key to the City of Worcester in March of 2017 for his award, and Frank is prouder of him than anything else. “I’m grateful for a lot of folks who’ve helped me along the way, but none of them more than my children.”
When Frank’s daughter had a baby six years ago, he felt he had another reason “to find [his] destiny away from drugs”. Unfortunately, Frank wasn’t out of the clear yet. He noticed that he was having severe difficulty walking. Frank stated that he could not even walk with his granddaughter in the park. Frustrated, Frank went to a doctor, who said the years of smoking cigarettes caused Frank’s main artery to clog, even after quitting several years before. They immediately rushed him into emergency surgery.
“That doctor must have had miracle hands,” says Frank. “God gave him miracle hands, and I woke up, and bit by bit I started to get better. And now I can take my granddaughter on a walk, and I realize that it was all worth it to get better.”
The long, curved scar left on Frank’s torso is a reminder of the price of addiction but also of the mountain he overcame.
Since he started taking opiates, Frank saved the bottles. He says he wasn’t quite sure why, but that he’s sure glad he did. His “Pill Man” stands as a powerful symbol for overcoming addiction, and he wants more people to see it because he hopes it will remind them how drugs take people’s lives.
So instead of going to the clinics or to rehab, Huntley stayed at home to take care of his son, Trevor, who lives with severe disabilities. Frank says that, ironically, it was Trevor who ended up
“You see them everywhere, around this part of town. Slumped over and dumb. But people don’t want to do anything about it, it makes them too uncomfortable. These people were others’ family members. They could have been lawyers, doctors, and look at them now. Don’t judge them. They’re our brothers and sisters.”
“His Pill Man stands as a powerful symbol for overcoming addiction, he wants more people to see it because he hopes it will remind them how drugs take people’s lives.”
Frank hopes that more people will see his work, and he is working on a new sculpture focused on spreading awareness about cannabis use.
October 1st is the 9th anniversary of Frank Huntley’s victory against opiates, and August 26th was the 8th anniversary of his victory against tobacco. Since October 1st, 2013, Huntley has been working to make a better life for himself and others struggling with addiction. He recently spoke at Worcester State University on the dangers of addiction, and Huntley recalls bringing Pill Man to political campaigns during elections to raise awareness of the Opioid Epidemic to voters and candidates. Huntley stresses that he does not want to stop people from taking
their prescribed medications, but that he simply wants to raise awareness and ensure people are informed about not only opioid addiction, but unhealthy addictions to alcohol, marijuana, food, sex, and the list goes on.
“Don’t let these things control you,” Frank told us, “and you’ll have a wonderful life. It’s not your destiny, and it’s up to you to find that destiny.” Be sure to say hello to Frank if you ever end up on that side of town. Besides working at Cash-4Clothes, he sells homemade Halloween costumes on the side. You’ll be sure to find him there if you catch him before he leaves at seven, living his honest, clean life to the fullest.
Every September 14th since 1982, protestors have come to Holy Cross to demand the removal of the ROTC, or Reserve Officers Training Corps, program from the College. This year was no exception, with protestors handing out flyers describing their beliefs to students on the steps of Dinand Library. This demonstration is led by members of the Catholic Worker Movement, who are Catholic pacificists. They argue, quoting both the Bible and notable Jesuits, that the Christian faith and any form of violence are fundamentally incompatible. Training for war should not exist at an institution of higher learning, especially a Jesuit liberal arts college, according to the demonstrators. They believe that ROTC takes advantage of impoverished students by offering free college tuition, doing little more than making the poor fight the wars of rich men.
Certainly, pacifism has a place within society. The Christian tradition has a long history of pacifism, including those who refuse to choose violence even when their own lives are at stake. Martyrs such as St. Peter, St. Sebastian, St. Maximilian Kolbe, and even Christ Himself are demonstrators of the nobility of those who choose not to lower themselves to violence. They remind humanity that violence should not exist, and that evil has corrupted the human soul and world. Even outside an explicitly religious context, nonviolence has been proven to be an effective way to change societies and the human heart. The Civil Rights Movement with MLK Jr. and the Indian Independence Movement led by Mahatma
Gandhi show that peaceful protests can work. But do not be mistaken — there are times when violence is justified and necessary.
Christianity has long held the idea that just wars are not only possible, but even necessary in a fallen world. In the Old Testament the Jewish Kingdoms were instructed many times by God to go to war to defend themselves. Later, as Christianity began to spread in the Roman Empire and eventually become dominant, Christians
found themselves having to understand the relationship between their faith and the necessity to defend their civilization. St. Augustine in the early fifth century, St. Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century, and other theologians have all discussed this idea. It has been agreed, in both Catholic doctrine and much of wider Christian thinking, that wars in the pursuit of peace and defense of the common good — if waged morally — are not only justified, but could even be the duty of a society. This is not just an invention of post-Biblical thinkers, however; passages such as Luke 3:14, Romans 13:4, and more all suggest the justification of warfare in certain contexts. An understanding of the necessity of warfare and
“...the failures of societywide pacifism are evident to all critically-thinking human beings.”
Joseph Nepomuceno, StaffWriter
militaries is not something that only exists within the Christian context. Other faiths, Abrahamic and non-Abrahamic, along with secular thinkers also agree with the justification of armed conflict.
This is because the failures of society-wide pacifism are evident to all critical-thinking human beings. If the United States did not have a military and was unable or unwilling to protect itself and the free world, who would instead reign? At this moment, a war is waging in Eastern Europe between Putin’s autocratic regime in Russia and the people of Ukraine who only desire to live independent and happy lives free of tyranny.
Would the protestors who came to Holy Cross recently tell those people to lay down their weapons and live as slaves? Well, they very well might, as they complain of the US “financing a seemingly endless war in Ukraine” in their handouts. Meanwhile in East Asia, the People’s Republic of China threatens the free people of Taiwan, menacing the small island nation with constant aerial incursions and declarations of an inevitable reunification. It is only with the deterrence of war through military strength by nations such as the United States can we hope a shooting war does not begin in the near future. History has also demonstrated the necessity of violence to protect what is right, as seen in America’s own history with World War 2 and the American Civil War. If it is clear that wars are sometimes justified and necessary, and therefore militaries are essential to the protection of free societies, why should America not want its military officers properly educated?
One of the key reasons for students at Holy Cross to receive a liberal arts education is that regardless of their career path after graduation, a broad education and understanding of the world will be invaluable. A military career does not make one ineligible for such an education. Do warriors not need to be able to think and understand? We want sailors, marines, soldiers, and airmen who are intelligent and well-rounded
individuals. We want our nation’s guardians to have instilled in them the Jesuit, Catholic tradition of the College of the Holy Cross that enables them to be “men and women for and with others.”
We want servicemen and women who love and respect human life, understand what is right and wrong, and have the knowledge and strength to protect good and fight evil. What we do not want are uneducated and improperly formed brutes, like those who committed war crimes in Bucha, Ukraine. What we do not want are unthinking automatons, like those who marched under the swastika eighty years ago. If we truly desire intelligent and moral leaders in our military, what better place to educate them than Holy Cross?
Our college certainly has its issues, the price of tuition being one of them. Many readers would agree with the idea that tuition should be lower than it is now, tuition with room and board costing a colossal $74,980. But, the idea that the ROTC program takes advantage of the poor by offering a full scholarship for eligible cadets is incorrect. Should society not reward those who risk so much to protect it?
Across the United States, there already are many veterans who lack proper health coverage for service-related injuries and struggle to attain valuable employment. Taking away any such scholarship for our officers would not only decrease economic mobility for those who would no longer be able to attend college, but also saddle both our active-duty military members and veterans with large debts. If one wants to address the student loan crisis as a whole, that is a valuable conversation, but it is separate from the legitimacy of ROTC at the College of the Holy Cross. Those who serve the United States and are willing to put themselves in danger’s way should be honored and cared for.
“Holy Cross offers ROTC not to help fight wars, but rather to protect peace.”
So, should ROTC continue to be offered at the College of the Holy Cross? It certainly should, as our military is necessary for our defense and needs educated leaders. Holy Cross, with our
uncommon Catholic liberal arts tradition, is a perfect place for our servicemen and women to be trained. Holy Cross offers ROTC not to help fight wars, but rather to protect peace.
On the morning of September 14, 2022, President Rougeau announced that the College of the Holy Cross will be partnering with the Schuler Education Foundation through its Schuler Access Initiative. This Foundation states that it is “committed to investing in access for undocumented and Pell-eligible students.” I do not have a problem with private organizations and entities providing financial assistance to college students. However, I do have a problem with organizations and entities providing financial assistance to undocumented immigrants, as this creates incentives for illegal immigration and results in an inevitable influx of immigrants. Recent news has demonstrated that the United States cannot handle immigrants as easily as some may think, with governors such as Texas governor Greg Abbot authorizing initiatives for immigrants to be bussed to different democratcontrolled portions of the country, including DC, New York City, and even Martha’s Vineyard. These ventures have proved to Democrats in those areas that the struggles of handling any number of migrants, legal or not, is a difficult task.
Now, before I start, I would like to get the correct wording out of the way. The politics of immigration is wrought in the media and debate stages with the divide between undocumented and illegal immigrants. Here, I will choose to denote those immigrants who have entered the country illegally as unauthorized because
that term is arguably the most correct. Undocumented implies there is some sort of mistake and that these immigrants simply do not have documentation, ignoring the violation
of the law in the process. Illegal cannot be used because illegal describes an action and not a person. Despite this, the term illegal immigration is still correct because the immigrants did illegally immigrate. The issue of rhetoric in this particular section of American life has become a litmus test for where you stand, instead of trying to properly describe the situation. That is why I will be using the terms unauthorized immigrant and illegally immigrated in this article.
The main issue that arises from policies like what Holy Cross is pursuing is that it creates incentivizes illegal immigration in an already stressed system. The College should provide financial aid for those in need, but to explicitly target unauthorized immigrants creates a dangerous message; not only will we not send you back to your country of origin, but that we will also give you and your family opportunities that some Americans do not
“...incentives for illegal immigration and results in an inevitable influx of immigrants.”
even have access to.
I would like to make it very clear that I do not believe that Holy Cross is single handedly causing a migrant crisis. I would instead like to point out how Holy Cross’ decision to join the trend of virtue signaling on the issue of immigration does little to help immigrants and does more to hurt Americans who have to deal with the influx along the border. Holy Cross alone does not hold enough power to incentivize illegal immigration, but through advertising together with other colleges across the country, it creates a dangerous narrative. Illegal immigration is fueled by two factors: How bad are the conditions in my home country? And how likely am I going to be able to cross and settle into this new country? Colleges creating this narrative that Americans are looking for unauthorized immigrants to educate cultivates a sense that not only are they welcome here, but they are wanted, which is even more dangerous as it actively invites them.
So, the question must be asked then, is illegal immigration even bad? Some may point to the fact that unauthorized immigrants work jobs that normal Americans would not, doing construction or farm labor, often for less than minimum wage. This view is inherently selfish, as it implies that those not born in the US and come here illegally do not deserve the same standard of living as Americans. Others may point to the economic benefits they may bring, such as creating more areas of commerce, providing taxes in some
influx of migrants flood local services. Similar to how stay-at-home orders were issued in the pandemic in order to slow the spread and ease the burden on healthcare workers and facilities, a flood of immigrants can stress the areas that these migrants pass through and settle in. A small stream is sustainable, which is built into the system with legal immigration. However, a sudden influx caused by a change in policy and an optimistic outlook of migrants crossing the border results in an inevitable disaster that
cases, and doing jobs some Americans will not, but the real issue arises when an unexpected
border states like Texas and New Mexico will have to deal with which states further from the southern border will not.
The college’s announcement is especially strange considering that states like Massachusetts do not bear the brunt of a wave of migrants flooding over the border. By incentivizing illegal immigration, Holy Cross is actively stressing border areas while claiming moral superiority without facing the consequences. This kind of posturing is not indicative of the Jesuit value of “serving the greater good” as the college claims, as it actively promotes a crisis that it will not have to deal with, all the while it claims to be helping the community by advertising it is providing education to unauthorized immigrants.
Texas, to prove the damaging effect that an influx of immigrants can have on cities and towns, has resorted to bussing immigrants from Texas to places like DC and Martha’s Vineyard. This policy was deemed necessary because of the increase in illegal immigration under the Biden administration due to illegal immigration friendly rhetoric and policy. The main point of evidence for Biden’s weak stance on illegal immigration is
“...Holy Cross is actively stressing border areas while claiming moral superiority without facing the consequences.”
“This view is inherently selfish, as it implies that those not born in the US and come here illegally do not deserve the same standard of living as Americans.”
his revocation of the Trump era ‘Remain in Mexico’ policy that made migrants seeking asylum stay in Mexico while they await trial in the US. Under Biden’s tenure, southern border encounters have jumped from 1,473,691 in 2021 to 1,997,769 in 2022 according to the US Custom and Border Protection’s website.
Because of the unauthorized immigrants bussed to DC, the mayor, Democrat Muriel Bowser, declared a public emergency, acknowledging the effect an influx of migrants can have on an area’s resources. With this, she also acknowledged that the federal response has been lacking in terms of handling traffic on the border. Washington, DC, has long considered itself a sanctuary city, declaring that unauthorized immigrants are welcome and are free from the hands of immigration enforcement there. It is difficult not to point out the irony that a city so welcoming of unauthorized immigrants declares a state of emergency for when they arrive.
Now, it must be acknowledged that many of the unauthorized immigrants that would be taking advantage of the Schuler Access Initiative most likely were brought here as children and grew up in the United States, and while they might not have citizenship in the United States, they are citizens somewhere, and should therefore be treated like international students. In turn, they should still receive the same amount of needbased aid that others at Holy Cross are afforded. The problem comes when the college directly allocates and advertises funds for unauthorized immigrants. The people deserve the aid, but the way in which Holy Cross and the Schuler Foundation is going about it only serves to virtue single rather than truly help the issue.
An emphasis of President Rougeau’s announcement was that is aligns with the college’s Jesuit values, yet this move only stands to prove to the community its Jesuit values, advertising it as the Jesuit thing to do, when, if something is the Jesuit thing to do, it would need no declaration
of being so, as it would be recognized on its individual merits. By advertising that the college, among others, are giving out aid to unauthorized immigrants, it only stands to worsen the migrant crisis, however slight the effects might be. If Holy Cross would like to do its part to ease the migrant crisis, then it should instead look for students abroad in Central and South America to sponsor. Instead, the college would rather boast about its Jesuit values, while 2,000 miles away, other states are forced to deal with their decisions.
It’s rare nowadays to walk through a high end housing development without seeing an “In this house we believe…” sign on at least one home’s front lawn. The problem is, when a person places such a sign out on their front lawn, they better believe what it says. Unfortunately, in regards to immigration policy, it doesn’t seem that such individuals have any interest in practicing the beliefs they espouse on their yard signs.
In the wake of Donald Trump winning the 2016 Presidential Election, Kristin Garvey, a Wisconsin librarian, was particularly distraught that Trump had won the election. In awe of the result, Garvey decided to list key values of hers and other Americans that she believed would be threatened by the Trump administration on a white poster board. Shortly after images of her sign made their way to the internet, an activist noticed the sign and recruited an artist to rework it into a colorful yard sign along with the help of Garvey. After the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests following the death of George Floyd, sales for the sign spiked.
All across rural Vermont, my home state, such signs stood in the front yards of most homes immediately following the BLM protests. Many of my white classmates with such signs standing on their front lawns decided to post a black square on their Instagram pages, believing that such action would significantly benefit the African American
community rather than directly engaging with African American individuals.
The very individuals decrying white privilege were the same people who failed to immerse themselves in communities with high percentages of non-whites. Perhaps this is because my friends live in rural Vermont, the state with the second highest percentage of whites of all U.S. states, at 94.2%, according to the World Population Review. The wealthiest members of our society living in bubbles secluded from reality often feel that they are the most qualified to offer critiques of
the general population. This is elitism at its finest. Unfortunately, such elitism has transferred to other social issues too, the most recent example being elitist Democrats’ reaction to Republican governors sending migrants to liberal parts of the country.
A key line from Kristin Garvey’s “In This House We Believe…” sign is “No Human is Illegal.” As of late, it doesn’t seem as if the people with such signs on their front lawns have been obeying this
“...Biden has failed to take responsibility for such an uptick in illegal immigration...”
key tenet of their belief system. As Democratic politicians bringing home salaries well into the six-figures decry the actions of Republican politicians sending migrants to Leftist havens of Washington, DC, Martha’s Vineyard, and in one case Vice President Harris’ home, they evade the necessary facts of the Biden administration’s current shortcomings in dealing with the out of hand crisis at our southern border with Mexico. Since President Biden took office on January 20, 2021 up until August 17, 2022, just about one month ago, nearly 4.9 million illegal immigrants have crossed our borders, according to Cision PR Newswire. According to agency reports, the crossings of approximately 900,000 illegal immigrants went undetected by American Border Protection Agencies. Of course, Biden has failed to take responsibility for such an uptick in illegal immigration flowing into the United States, constantly blaming the Trump administration for handing him the reigns to an incapable border response.
The inactions of the Biden administration threaten the prospect for political stability within Central America through failing to address the ways in which some Mexican government officials have coached citizens in how to immigrate illegally to the United States as well as the shortcomings of Central American countries such as Honduras and El Salvador in failing to address transnational crime as laid out by a United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations Minority Report. These issues are very much at the root of our border crisis, as Central American political corruption and pervasive crime leads to cartels being at ease to take advantage of their governments.
In response to calls that he tighten his policy regarding the border between the United States and Mexico, President Biden responded, “I make no apologies for ending programs that did not exist before Trump became president that have an incredibly negative impact on the law, international law, as well as on human dignity.” In essence, Biden, when given the opportunity to take responsibility for his failure in dealing with an influx of migrants, instead deemed Trump’s actions to contain the threat as negatively impacting the global order. In fact, Biden’s actions, not Trump’s, appear to be a major threat to the global order because they have caused instability within the United States, typically thought of as the epitome of strength to the world.
As journalist Adam Isaacson wrote after many trips to the border in both the U.S. and Mexico, “It would be hard to devise a migration system that benefits…’cartels’ more than the current one does.” as of April 2022 under the Biden administration. These cartels are responsible for human trafficking and other human rights violations and crimes, often unchecked by the incompetent Biden administration. It gets to the point where constantly blaming all of your administration’s incompetencies wears off and the American people demand accountability rather than constant scapegoating. 21 months into a presidency is more than enough time to start accepting any shortcomings as your own. What’s more disturbing than elected officials not taking responsibility for their actions in the current border crisis with Mexico is that they don’t have to feel the brunt of their foreign policy incompetency. Instead, everyday Americans living on our southern border and the governors of those states are tasked with either learning how to live with the constant threat of danger or formulating policies and taking action to counteract the incompetence of the federal government in regards to the latter. Recently, we’ve in fact seen governors take matters into their own hands through deciding to send migrants to Martha’s Vineyard, New York City, Washington DC, and Vice President Harris’ home in one instance. The White House has deemed
“It would be hard to devise a migration system that benefits…’cartels’ more than the current one does.”
the actions of Florida Governor Ron DeSantis in sending migrants from his state to Martha’s Vineyard as “disrespectful to humanity.” These words come from an administration that according to a June NBC news story, under the Department of Homeland Security planned to “transport migrants awaiting immigration proceedings from U.S. cities along the southern border farther into the interior of the country beginning with Los Angeles.” President Biden, just months earlier, planned to do the same thing that he chides Republican governors for currently doing. What’s more frustrating is that the only brunt of failed immigration policy that Biden has to deal with is that of public opinion. Republican governors, on the other hand, directly feel the effects of the Biden administration’s failures through being forced to determine what to do with an influx of migrants and how to incorporate them into their thriving society with jobs filled, among other difficulties that until now, Democratic leaders, especially President Biden, hadn’t really been forced to handle.
A second contradiction of the Left is that it openly encourages mass migration, calling for Americans everywhere to recognize the dignity of all immigrants regardless of legal documentation status, while referring to such migrants in a derogatory fashion when these migrants are at
their front doorstep, in some cases, literally. Max Lefield, who helped found the Casa Venezuela Dallas foundation, which seeks to help migrants adjust to living in America, recently responded to DeSantis’ actions regarding sending migrants to Martha’s Vineyard on charter planes. In his tweet, which was recently deleted by NBC News, Lefield said, “Florida Gov. DeSantis sending asylumseekers to Martha’s Vineyard is like me taking my trash out and just driving to different areas where I live and just throwing my trash there.” Lefield benefits from providing shelter and support to illegal immigrants, yet compares such migrants to “trash.” This is emblematic of other actions of the Left, which has actively encouraged illegal immigration up to the point where Republican governors take action to deal with the implications of such policy, placing migrants on the doorstep of Democratic elites. Then, all of the sudden, these previously wonderful immigrants have to be sent to a Cape Cod military base because these Democrats can’t possibly be forced to deal with the problems they’ve created. Conclusively, the Left’s response is emblematic of their tendency to employ “rules for thee, but not for me” approach. Until Americans recognize the massive hypocrisy and shortcomings of the Left’s response to immigration, specifically illegal immigration, our security is in peril.
President Abraham Lincoln, when he declared that “a house divided against itself cannot stand”, was warning against the dangers of hyperpartisanship that ultimately plunged the country into civil war. Fast forward to 2022, and it appears that the Republican Party has finished building the house. The occupants? The MAGA Republican and the Moderate Republican. And believe me, these factions are keeping their distance.
The January 6th attack on the Capitol solidified support for the former president as the red line dividing the MAGA republicans and the “R.I.N.O.S” (Republican in Name Only) who have spoken out against the former president. As polls increasingly point to Democratic gains in the midterm elections, the Republican Party will no longer be able to toe this line. Membership in the party will soon be based on one question: do you support the former president?
Ronny Jackson had to answer that question. The former physician to both former President Trump and Obama, won his bid for Texas’ 13th Congressional District in 2020, boosted by an endorsement from Trump. Since entering office, Jackson has been one of the most fervent supporters of former President Trump. And it’s not shocking why Trump endorsed Jackson. Jackson fits the bill for a MAGA Republican: faith-
based, family-oriented, tough on crime, etc.. However, it is Jackson’s virtue-signaling support of veterans that demonstrates the dichotomy of the MAGA Republican. There is no question that Congressman Ronny Jackson is outspoken in his support for our nation’s veterans. As he should be. The only problem? Jackson is an empty suit when it comes to supporting veterans. A simple click on the veterans’ issues page of his campaign website is evidence of this.
There were two paragraphs on that tab. Barely. The tab lacked any notion of a coherent, specific plan to help our nation’s heroes. Instead, he uses his words to prop himself up. “As a retired U.S. Navy Rear Admiral with nearly three decades of military service I understand the commitment and sacrifices made by servicemen and servicewomen to serve our country. I am very in tune with their needs, and that of their families.”
Translation: I have no plan.
Congressman Jackson’s thirty-year service in the Navy is heroic, and must be emphasized. However, Jackson is another MAGA Republican to trade away the virtues of public service for the virtues of popularity. The 2022 Midterm Elections will test the durability of the MAGA Republican platform. Swing states, like Ohio and Pennsylvania, are the crux to gaining the majority in Congress. The Republican nominees
in these respective states, J.D Vance (R-OH) and Mehmet Oz (R-PA), are caricatures of former President Trump, as they are willing to reiterate every conspiracy theory and lie that Trump has claimed throughout his presidency for the glory of a Senate seat.
Pennsylvania Republicans practically handed the Senate seat to John Fetterman and the Democrats by nominating “Dr. Oz.” Oz has run a terrible campaign and is completely out of touch with working class Pennsylvanians. He has a net worth of $500 million, and owns ten properties. As of August 2022, the average salary in Pennsylvania
for Donald Trump. Call it greed, a lust for power. It’s truly disheartening.
What is the MAGA Republican? The MAGA politician is blindly loyal to President Trump. No questions asked. He tells them to jump, they ask how high. And the truth is whatever President Trump decides. If President Trump declares that the 2020 election was rigged, then it was rigged, despite the overwhelming evidence arguing against this. If President Trump brushes off the dangers of COVID-19, the MAGA politician must do so.
is about $53,391. It will be interesting to see Oz debate Fetterman, especially when the only point he makes is that he was endorsed by Donald Trump.
J.D. Vance was once a never-Trumper. Aside from calling Trump “reprehensible”, he claimed that Donald Trump could become “America’s Hitler” in a text message sent to his law school roommate. So what does J.D. Vance do? Base his entire campaign on Donald Trump. On major issues, Vance has managed to weave tenets of Trumpism into every debate, interview, and town hall he participates in. We always say that a monarchical system of government is the antithesis of the United States, but the MAGA faction of the Republican party has treated Trump like a Monarch. They know that they cannot win a Republican election without selling their morals
Why was the United States hit harder by COVID than other countries? Science points to many things: a lack of medical equipment, weak regulations regarding mask-wearing, and an incoherent and oftentimes contradictory strategy from the federal government. Ask Trump that question and he’ll say it’s due to the massive testing campaign ushered by his administration. “We have it totally under control. It’s one person coming in from China. It’s going to be fine,” said President Trump on January 22, 2020. More than one million Americans have died from COVID.
In the MAGA Kingdom, truth is malleable. The moral compass is broken. Moral absolutism turns into Moral relativism. The Republican Party has an identity crisis. To win elections, the Republican Party must moderate its views and most importantly, ditch Trump.
On August 8, 2022, the FBI conducted a raid on former President Donald Trump’s home at Mara-Lago with authorization from U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland. Ostensibly, the raid was authorized because of Trump’s alleged mishandling of classified material. Setting aside the matter of the FBI looking the other way while Hillary Clinton maintained an unauthorized private email server in her basement and had aides smash her used phones, Trump is well within his rights to possess the material in question under the Presidential Records Act of 1978. But lest apathetic observers content themselves with the short-sighted prospect that their primary choices in 2024 may be made easier, President Trump’s statement that “they’re after you” has held true of the FBI for decades and is more pertinent than ever before.
Formed in 1908 to deal with the growing threat of anarchists in the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation was undoubtedly founded with the noble intention of bridging the gaps between state law enforcement agencies. However, as the FBI took an increasingly influential role in enforcement of Prohibition and the “war on crime,” it began to stretch its powers in questionable fashion. Under Director J. Edgar Hoover, the FBI engaged in the wiretapping of potential suspects, later being limited to bugging operations under the Communications
Act of 1934. The Bureau took the opportunity in 1939 to compile a list of individuals who would be taken into custody in the event of a war. The FBI took action hours after the Attack on Pearl Harbor, arresting thousands over the course of a few weeks without warrants.
The FBI only became more brazen during the latter period of Hoover’s time as director. Under the Counter Intelligence Program, or COINTELPRO, designed to infiltrate, disrupt, and discredit political organizations that the FBI deemed to be problematic. FBI agents resorted to
disinformation, harassment, blackmail, and even violence in order to achieve these ends. Perhaps the most notable target of the COINTELPRO operations was Martin Luther King Jr. King was subjected to surveillance by the FBI, who then proceeded to send King an anonymous letter encouraging him to take his own life, which was accompanied by audio recordings of King’s alleged sexual dalliances.
A pair of incidents in the 1990s stand out as the most egregious examples of the FBI’s willingness
“...it is time for the FBI to face scrutiny for its decades of malfeasance.”
to shed the blood of people it deemed to be enemies of the government, regardless of their actual innocence. After failing to show up to court on a firearms charge because of scheduling confusion in 1992, Randy Weaver refused to surrender to federal authorities due to fears of a setup. After an encounter with U.S. Marshals in which Weaver’s son, Sammy, was killed by law enforcement and Weaver’s friend Kevin Harris killed Deputy Marshal William Degan — for which Harris was later acquitted on self-defense grounds — the FBI set rules of engagement that allowed them to essentially shoot on sight. On August 22, FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi shot Weaver as he was paying respects to his deceased son, then fired through the door of the cabin at Kevin Harris as Weaver fled to safety. Horiuchi struck and killed Weaver’s wife Vicki, who was standing behind the door with her baby in her arms. After surrendering days later, Weaver was acquitted of all charges except for missing his original court date and bail violation, for which he was released after sixteen months. The FBI was never called to account for its actions in the Weaver case.
One year later, after a botched ATF raid on the Mount Carmel compound over questionable firearms charges, the FBI began a 51 day siege of the Branch Davidians religious organization. During the siege, the FBI cut the power and water to the compound, blasted loud music and sounds at night, and ran over the vehicles of the
Branch Davidians. On the final day of the siege, having grown impatient with the slow progress of negotiations, the FBI launched an assault with tear gas on the compound. The building burst into flames and burned to the ground, killing 76 people, including 25 children. The FBI admitted that the tear gas used in the assault was flammable, but has maintained that the Branch Davidians, and not the FBI, was responsible for the fire at the compound.
The American people are not exempt from similar treatment simply by virtue of the fact that they do not live on an isolated mountain range or in a religious compound in Waco. An organization that has overseen extensive espionage and the deaths of numerous innocent men, women, and children is unlikely to treat political enemies any differently than targets of its other operations, particularly considering the extremely partisan nature of the current administration. Indeed, parents who are concerned about the ideological indoctrination of the public school system have already been framed by the National School Boards Association as “domestic terrorists” in a letter to President Joe Biden, calling for FBI involvement.
Rather than investigate concerned parents and the former President of the United States, it is time for the FBI to face scrutiny for its decades of malfeasance.
Whether the Ukrainians win or lose the war with Russia, the ultimate loser is Vladimir Putin. His blundered invasion of Ukraine, coupled with the incredible resistance of the Ukrainians themselves against the Russian invasion, has opened a once in a generation opportunity that I pray our president can take. There have been three main benefits of this war for the United States.
The war completely knocks Russia off the board as a serious threat. The Ukrainians, with the weaponry that has been supplied to them, have been able to completely decimate the Russian army. This is a tremendous benefit for the United States because it allows us to completely focus on China as the primary geopolitical threat. China has lost a powerful ally, been cut off from the world, and set diplomatic ties with the Europeans back decades. In 2018 the United States sought with
were in the past, which will unite the west against China. It also halts China’s ambition towards Taiwan because they know if they move against Taiwan, the United States and all of the west will react in unison to defend it. And no matter what your opinion is on Xi Jinping, he is not foolhardy enough to think he can take the entire West on by himself. So not only has the war revealed that Russia’s military is even weaker than expected, but it has also produced significant consequences for China.
great difficulty to prevent Europe from buying China’s 5g Wi-Fi system. If that happens again we won’t have to do any begging. Europeans also will not be as open to peace with China as they
The war has refocused the political calculation of almost every nation and causes a massive realignment in loyalties. Before this war the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was essentially defunct and countries were happy to make agreements with Russia because they faced no downsides. Whether it was the Europeans buying Russian oil, NATO members not spending enough on defense, or some nations simply staying neutral, Russia had not been seen as a threat. Instead it was merely a trading partner. But now all of that has changed. Germany will now invest more than 2% of its gross domestic product (GDP) into the military which is a massive increase from the 1.5% it spent over the entire year. Europe also is cutting itself off from Russian natural gas and oil, realizing that it could be used as a weapon against them. Finally, previously neutral nations like Sweden, Switzerland, and
“This war has been a once in a generation foreign policy boon for the United States and her allies.”
the Netherlands are now joining both NATO and the European Union (EU). Meanwhile any nation that might have wanted to ally itself with Russia will now have to face the prospect of cutting themselves off from all of Europe and the United States. Presently, there is no incentive for any nation to align itself with Russia.
The west has been reunited under the American banner. Before the war the Europeans had largely been distancing themselves from the United States, and even other European states. As mentioned earlier NATO was basically defunct. The war in Ukraine reinvigorated the Europeans as they realized there are other threats in this war, and they cannot win without standing with the United States. This war has been a once in a generation foreign policy boon for the United States and her allies. Hopefully, President Biden
does not mess it up, because another nation will take the lead, and we will be left behind if he does.
We can finally defeat an enemy who we have been fighting for a century, since the Soviet Union was formed in 1922, and who has outlasted seventeen presidents, from Warren G. Harding to today with President Biden. If President Biden decides to actually take advantage of this moment we can not only finally defeat our longest-standing foe, but we can also reunite the west under a shared purpose, severely weaken China, and save millions of lives. But he cannot let this moment pass and he cannot let any other nation take the lead. He must take the advice of his predecessor, President Trump, and engage in America first foreign policy. Once he does so,America can finally defeat Russia.
In October of 2021, The Wall Street Journal reported that “half of young people ages 13 to 25 surveyed said they don’t think that religious institutions care as much as they do about issues that matter deeply to them…Those issues include racial justice, gender equity, immigration rights, income inequality, and gun control.” I want to discuss why these grievances are misguiding.
Let us take Catholicism, for example. In speaking with a Massachusetts Bishop, I learned that the input he received from the synod was that the Catholic Church needed to be more welcoming. I immediately thought of a parish in this Bishop’s diocese in which the priest says a special intercession for gay and lesbian children each week. He is welcoming, yet I see very few, if any, young people attending masses there. This is not an intercession said at every parish, but then I thought, “People put a whole lot of time and effort into researching the best place to go to school, the best place to buy a car, the best place to go out to dinner, etc., so why can they not put the same amount of time and effort into finding a parish that suits them?” It seems that unlike getting a good deal on a car, going to church is not high on many peoples’ priority lists. So perhaps the criticism the Church is receiving is coming from somewhat unreliable sources because the people giving the criticism are not invested in the faith.
Research presented by scholars at Public Religion Research Institute supports this hypothesis. Betsy Cooper, Daniel Cox, Rachel Lienesch, and Robert P. Jones, Ph.D. reported in their 2016 article “Exodus: Why Americans are Leaving Religion — and Why They’re Unlikely to Come Back” that 72% of religiously unaffiliated Americans say “that in their day-to-day life, they do not spend much time thinking about God or religion.”
Of the religiously unaffiliated, there are two prominent groups that personally reject religion: rejectionists and apatheists (“unattached believers” make up a third group that will not be discussed here). Rejectionists, who make up 58% of the group, “say religion is not personally important in their lives and believe religion as a whole does more harm than good in society.” Apatheists, “who make up 22% of the unaffiliated, say religion is not personally important to them, but believe it generally is more socially helpful than harmful.” 83% of rejectionists and 76% of apatheists report that they “seldom or never attend formal religious services.” I then pose the question that if 72% of the unaffiliated admit that they do not think about God on any regular basis, and if more than three-quarters of rejectionists and apatheists never or extremely infrequently attend religious services, then how are they to have informed views and, therefore, helpful answers to questions like “what is the
Church doing wrong that is driving you away?” In my research, I was encouraged to hear that houses of worship are not actively driving away the unaffiliated by traumatizing them with bad experiences. On the contrary, “more than two-thirds (68%) of unaffiliated Americans say their last time attending a religious service, not including a wedding or funeral service, was primarily positive.”
One of the first lessons I learned in a college English class is to not make statements about something I do not know. If I want to make the statement “throughout Shakespeare’s works, he stresses the deceptiveness of outer beauty,” I ought to have thoroughly read and analyzed all of his works, and not just have read a few sonnets for homework one night. I would say the same to the religiously unaffiliated: if you are going to make strong statements against a given religion, you ought to have done your homework. You ought to have deeply thought about the possibility of a God throughout your day-to-day life, even if you do not believe in Him. And if one is a rejectionist trying to claim that Catholicism has no positive impact on the individual nor on society, it would probably be wise to attend mass at many different parishes, go to Adoration, try to pray, etc. In short, give Catholicism a real try. If your views on Catholicism remain unchanged, then at least now your views can be better substantiated, and you will be a more interesting conversationalist on the subject of religion. I assume that Catholics like myself who are wondering why so many modern people reject the Church would be very interested to hear a substantial explanation for the emptying of our pews.
When asked “Why do you not come to church?” many of the disaffiliated will point to one of the trademarked criticisms of the Catholic Church (likely because 86% of apatheists and 79% of rejectionists report not spending “much time in their daily life thinking about God or religion,” and people do not like to admit they don’t know). For example, many will say, “In this day and age, why can’t women be priests?” Perhaps this bothers
an individual, and she claims it is the reason why she does not attend mass on a weekly basis. But I seriously wonder: if women were suddenly able to become priests, would that individual begin attending mass again? Or, if Catholic Churches started displaying rainbow flags in response to the criticism that the Church is “unwelcoming,” would droves of people be crowding into churches again? To begin to answer these
questions, we can look to Protestant churches. Many of them display rainbow flags, and many denominations, “including the Episcopal Church and the United Methodist Church, now allow women to be bishops and hold other top leadership positions.” However, in 2019 the Pew Research Center still reported that “both Protestantism and Catholicism are experiencing losses of population share. Currently, 43% of U.S. adults identify with Protestantism, down from 51% in 2009. And one-in-five adults (20%) are Catholic, down from 23% in 2009.” If these social issues are so prominent in the minds of Christians, why are they not attending Protestant services? My hypothesis is, again, that these issues are not the problem. So we should endeavor to find out what has drawn Americans away from religion. I think in this case we would be smarter to look at the people themselves rather than the religions they reject for the answers.
My research points to the progressively secularized upbringings of each subsequent generation. A National Review article by Daniel Cox entitled “Stop Blaming Young People for Leaving Religion” explains that “young people are showing the greatest movement away from
“...without the solid groundwork laid by childhood faith, many Americans are missing out on the spiritual richness of adulthood faith.”
religion.”The next step has been to “focus primarily on the distinctive characteristics of Generation Z and Millennials — things such as their higher rates of educational attainment, their attitudes about sex and sexuality, or their widespread adoption of social media.” But, these explanations were left unsubstantiated; “for instance, higher rates of formal education among young adults are unlikely to have contributed to the surge in secular identity given that most young people disaffiliate before they ever step foot on a college campus.” These explanations neglect the “single most important predictor of adult religiosity: our religious experiences in childhood.” Each successive generation, from Baby Boomers to Generation Z, has “grown up with less formative religious engagement than the one preceding it.” 57% of Baby Boomers attended religious services weekly in their childhood, compared to 40% of Generation Z. 61% of Baby Boomers attended Sunday school growing up, while 42% of Generation Z did. Cox makes the statement: “Young people are leaving a religion they were never particularly connected to in the first place. A 2016 study found that young people cited their family’s lack of strong ties to religion as an important reason they no longer belong to a religious group, more so than politics, sex-abuse scandals, or a specific negative experience.”
Another interesting fact was that most people disaffiliate before they turn 18. However, the religion of childhood, if one has a traditionally Catholic upbringing, often sounds something like: “my parents tell me to go to church on Sundays and pray before bed and before meals, so I do.” Church on Sundays and regular prayers are things that are expected and part of regular living in these increasingly rare families. But when a young man grows into adulthood, I would imagine somewhere around 18, he can now take ownership of his faith more and claim it as his own. In other words, he may now go to church and pray because he chooses to, not because his parents are expecting it of him. Religion becomes less associated with obligation and
more associated with a genuine love of God. But without the solid groundwork laid by childhood faith, many Americans are missing out on the spiritual richness of adulthood faith. And, “there is little evidence to suggest that Americans who have disaffiliated will ever return.”
After doing research, I have a much better idea of the real reason for the decline of faith in America, and once the source of a problem is identified, it is much less frustrating and futile finding a solution to it. However, it is very hard for the Church, or any other religious institution, to solve a problem that originates in secular homes. I want to offer my own opinion on possible ways of bringing people back to religion. I begin by thinking, “What in the modern world does hold nearly all people’s attention?” Some definite possibilities are movies and shows. Jonathan Rothwell at The New York Times states, “Other than sleeping and working, Americans are more likely to watch television than engage in any other activity.” He continues to cite “a new wave of social science research [that] shows that the quality of shows can influence us in important ways, shaping our thinking and political preferences…”
That being said, some entertaining TV shows or movies could be written that appeal to a wide audience while also featuring a positive portrayal of religion. If I ever had a doubt about the power of shows to influence thinking or introduce new ways of living into peoples’ minds, I remind myself of how the ideologies governing today’s world have gotten into the minds of so many young people and adults alike: through media, movies, shows, popular books, celebrities, etc. Perhaps with the added option of a show in which there is a likable character going to Church and practicing his/her faith, young people (and adults) in secular households will be exposed to a way of living that is perhaps foreign to them. It would, for once in mainstream modern entertainment, show religion in a positive light, and get people thinking about it and perhaps consider trying it out themselves.
Over the course of the last year I began playing the Yakuza series, and it quickly became a dear favorite of mine. There were several factors that contributed to the lasting impact it had on me. Not only was the music, including karaoke, (usually) fantastic, but the gameplay and storyline were incredibly engaging.
My personal introduction to the series was through the memes surrounding “Baka Mitai,” a song you can “sing” in karaoke. The majority of songs that you can play in karaoke are engaging and, at times, exceedingly funny. Most of the battle themes throughout the series are not only great on their own, but match the feeling of the game they are in.
The gameplay was developed in such a way that each game requires its own unique way of playing while still retaining enough similarity to make the transitions between games comfortable. The early portion of each game offers simple combinations and easy to learn mechanics. Every game has its own skill tree that allows for the slow accumulation of more complex skills and combinations that, if introduced all at once would be overwhelming, providing the player with the ability to build upon foundations already established while easily acquiring abilities that make the latter portion of the game not only ‘easier,’ but more interesting.
The minigames that can be found and played throughout the series are incredibly fun and
intriguing to the point that you may find yourself playing only minigames in one sitting. The karaoke, as aforementioned, is my personal favorite. The karaoke minigame is set up as a type of rhythm game where, thankfully, any mistakes you make do not disrupt the song. Regardless of skill with the karaoke minigame towards the end of the song, the screen switches from wherever the player is doing the karaoke to what seems like part of a music video. The music videos range from the crazy and hilarious to somber and sad. Personally, I found the music videos to be one of the main reasons I continued to play the karaoke minigame. There were other minigames like Mahjong that I found particularly difficult.. However, for those wanting to learn how to play Mahjong or looking for a challenge, this minigame is a prime opportunity. Each game adds or takes away different minigames, so there is always something new for the player to learn or do in each game.
While all that I have mentioned above are some of the biggest reasons why I love the Yakuza series, the main reason why it’s become one of my favorites is because of its story. While many who haven’t played may think that the games are usually happy and funny—the story is actually very dramatic and, in many parts, incredibly sad. The idea that the games are usually funny comes from the memes and other indirect references to the games’ minigames (like karaoke) and side stories. Some may think that the mixture of weird and funny elements and serious drama
would clash—when it comes to the Yakuza series however, they would be horribly wrong. Each of the funny moments fits well into the world the player engages with and doesn’t detract from the incredible drama. Without spoiling anything, the series takes the player through an incredible experience with an incredible amount of twists and turns—as soon as you think you know exactly what is happening, another element of the plot gets revealed that destroys what you’d expected. Not only is the plot well thought out and well developed, but the themes present throughout the series are particularly poignant and provide examples for elements missing from our society today.
Possibly my favorite theme throughout the series is that of redemption and forgiveness. Some antagonistic characters provide the most moving moments of the entire series specifically because of the opportunity provided by forgiveness
and encouragement. Many times throughout the series the plot only ends well or continues specifically because an antagonistic character had a change of heart that he could not have had without encouragement and forgiveness. The main character, Kiryu, has a sense of morality that he adheres to, and it can be other characters’ abandoning of morality that create the struggles Kiryu bull-headedly faces against all odds. In many ways it is his particular bull-headedness, sense of morality, and belief in the good in others that allows Kiryu to succeed where many would fail. I am certain that many would see Kiryu’s more idealistic nature as naive—perhaps it is to some extent—but there is far more good that came out of his seemingly naive actions than would have occurred had he been far more cynical. In an already clinical and increasingly unforgiving world, the lessons that can be gained from characters like Kiryu are sorely needed.
We must reserve the space to offer a heartfelt thank you to our benefactors, without whom TheFenwickReview would not exist. We extend our profound gratitude to the Collegiate Network and the generous individuals and alumni donors to TheFenwickReviewfor their ongoing enthusiasm and support for our mission.
Mr. Bob Abbott ‘66
Mr. Kevin Collins
Mr. John J. Ferguson
Mr. Robert W. Graham III
The Hon. Paul J. Hanley
Mr. Brian Kingston ‘68
Dr. James E. Mulvihill ‘62
Dr. William Sheehey ‘59
Mr. Mark Tassinari ‘82
Mr. Guy C. Bosetti
Dr. and Mrs. John P. Connors
Mr. Michael F. Fox
Mr. and Mrs. Thomas W. Greene
Mr. Robert R. Henzler
Mr. Robert J. Leary ‘49
Mr. Kevin O’Scannlain
Mr. Sean F. Sullivan Jr.
Mr. Chris Millard ‘82
Dr. and Mrs. Paul Braunstein
Dr. Thomas J. Craig ‘59
Dr. Dennis C. Golden
Mr. Paul M. Guyet
Mr. William Horan
Mr. Bernard Long ‘62
Fr. Paul Scalia
Mr. George Van Setter
Mr. Patrick Murphy
Mr. Bill DiSciullo ‘94
Mr. Jim Carter ‘59
Mr. and Mrs. Michael Dailey
Mr. and Mrs. Daniel Gorman
Mr. Patrick D. Hanley
Mr. Joseph Kilmartin
Mr. Francis F. Marshall ‘48
Dr. Ronald E. Safko
Dr. John Verdon
Ms. Katherine Gill
Mrs. Theresa Carbone
Mr. David A Luttinger’ 59
TheFenwickReviewisfundedthroughagenerousgrantfromtheCollegiateNetworkaswellasindividualdonations. TheFenwickReviewis a student organization affiliated with, but not funded by, the College of the Holy Cross.We welcome any donation you might be able to give to support our cause!To do so, you may either donate via credit card through our online donation link, found at the top of our website, or by writing a check to College of the Holy Cross (memo line: The Fenwick Review) and mail to:
Anthony Cash & Evan Poellinger P.O. Box 4A 1 College Street Worcester, MA 01610
