This past week saw Texas Rangers outfielder Josh Hamilton solidify his case as the best player in baseball, and for his next contract. A free agent after this season, Hamilton hit four home runs in a game against Baltimore (only the 16^th player in MLB history to do so), and is currently hitting an absurd .400/.456/.854 triple slash line for the year. To cap that off, he has 18 home runs, and it’s only the middle of May. At that pace, he could very well surpass the record for most home runs in a season, set by Barry Bonds with 73 back in 2001 (with an asterisk, of course). He also could win the first baseball Triple Crown (highest average, most home runs, most RBI’s) since Boston’s own Carl Yastrzemski back in 1967.

There are several concerns, however, that may set Hamilton back from getting a record-breaking deal in free agency. He has a history of drug addiction that almost derailed his path to the major leagues. Granted, he has been mostly clean since making the majors, but he has had several minor relapses with alcohol over the past several years. Still, soon to be 31 on May 21, no one is sure whether or not his past addictions have permanently damaged his body. His next contract will definitely surpass $100 million, but as to who will sign him and for how much is still anyone’s guess.

Some good Boston College sports news, and no, unfortunately, Coach Spaz and/or Gene DeFilippo did not get fired: an anonymous donor gave $5 million dollars to endow the men’s ice hockey head coach position. This is the largest donation BC Athletics has ever received. According to a press release, “the donor cited a long love for BC Hockey, admiration for Jerry York and his leadership, and the commitment that BC has to student-athletes as demonstrated by its high graduation rates as the catalysts for his gift.”

This is great news for BC hockey. Coach York deserves this prestigious honor, not only for his 913 career wins and 4 national championships (3 at BC), but also exemplifying a commitment to excellence and integrity throughout his collegiate coaching career.

(Editor’s Note: This blog is being hijacked by Managing Editor Robert Rossi)

When Kenny volunteered to cover sports for our Gavel Summer Blogosphere, I told him it was under the condition that he cover basketball and hockey in addition to baseball.  He responded simply with, “You do it,” which I now realize was not insubordination, but a wise suggestion because:

1. I’m from Boston
2. He’s from New York
3. People from Boston know more about sports than people from New York (why do you think there’s never a writer from the New York Times on Around The Horn?)

The West has taken various diplomatic measures to hurt and discourage Iran from continuing to develop their nuclear program.  Despite numerous crippling sanctions by the United States and the international community, Iran has continued to enrich uranium, and has been gradually acquiring the technology necessary to produce a weapon.  Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has stressed the dangers posed by the prospect of Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon, and has maintained his country’s right to defend itself should it feel threatened by Iran.  This Israeli unease is not unwarranted, as Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei recently described Israel as being a “cancerous tumor that must be cut out.” This leaves the Western community, the United States especially, with the dilemma of how to deal with Iran and curb its nuclear ambitions without aggravating the situation in the process.

For President Barack Obama, going to war in an election year is not the most prudent idea, but that is by far the least concerning problem at hand.  If Iran were to acquire a weapon, even if it were simply to defend itself, the surrounding nations such as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, or Egypt would then feel the need to arm themselves with nuclear weapons as well.  Thus an arms race would be started.  Given the instability of the region, the last thing the world needs is for Middle Eastern leaders who hate each other—and Israel—to have an arsenal of nuclear weapons at their disposal. This would bring even more instability to an already volatile region ripe with religious and ethnic feuds.

It is therefore without question that Iran cannot be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon—the matter at hand is how to go about preventing them.  A pre-emptive strike, as supported by Israel and many of its Republican allies in Congress, is not the answer to the Iran problem.  An Israeli strike would have many undesirable consequences.  Iran could always retaliate, either directly or through its proxies Hezbollah or Hamas, which are both located closer to Israel. This might also put Americans and Jews across the world at risk, as it would certainly intensify anti-American/anti-Semitic sentiment by terror groups around the world.  Iran, with its ability to raise oil prices, may also retaliate by hurting the world economy.

Then there is the question of whether or not a preemptive strike is worth the trouble.  The entire purpose of an attack would be to set Iran’s nuclear program back at least two years.  However, the chances of that happening are slim, as Iran’s nuclear sites are now more spread out, many of them having gone underground, making it far more difficult for an attack to have any noticeable impact to the nuclear program.  Even if an attack by the West were successful in delaying Iran’s nuclear program, it could never do away with Iran’s nuclear ambitions completely.  It would almost certainly lead Iran to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which is the only thing allowing the West to monitor its nuclear activity (Iran’s uranium enrichment is currently monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency as mandated by the treaty).  Therefore, if Iran were to withdraw from the treaty, the world would have no way of monitoring Iran’s nuclear progress, as its entire nuclear program would go underground.

An attack on Iran, therefore, would certainly be the wrong course of action by Israel or the United States.  It would make Iran more aggressive towards its enemies (e.g. Israel) and would only stabilize the regime by rallying its people around its leaders—at a time in which the Iranian government is struggling to maintain the little popular support it has.  Thus, the best course of action for the United States and Israel to take is to continue diplomacy through all channels and continue to monitor the situation for opportunities that may arise.  The United States has already put a number of burdensome sanctions on Iran, depriving its government of tax revenues, cutting off its financial system from the global economy, and plummeting the value of its currency.  With little popular support and a divided government, it is only a matter of time before the Arab Spring reaches Iran and a new regime is put in place.  It is essential, however, that this be allowed to happen on its own, without reckless instigation by the Western world.

In an age where a woman or a minority can become a doctor or a CEO if they want, the reason that we do not see more of these people in positions of power must be the fault of these people themselves.  As a result, movements like feminism or affirmative action are met with staunch opposition because people fail to recognize the cultural norms that continue to perpetuate oppression and hinder social mobility and freedom.  For this reason, “consciousness raising” among men is equally important to the feminist movement as is consciousness raising among women.

Consciousness raising involves simply talking with others about sexism or any system of oppression in an attempt to broaden one’s understanding of how that system actually functions in society.  In my experience, the biggest impediment to the feminist movement is not apathy on the behalf of women, but opposition on the behalf of men, who do not realize the need for such a movement.

Sexism is very complex and social constructions of gender are so engrained in our culture that it can be difficult to detach oneself from them.  In my experience, men actually believe that women have more freedom and benefits in life then men in some cases.  Many questions often arise, such as why can women wear men’s clothing but men can’t wear women’s clothing? Why is it acceptable for women to be tomboys, but men can’t be sissies? Why can women say a man is an asshole, but men can’t call a girl a bitch? Why can women go into any field that they want, but men can’t go into fields like nursing without there being a sigma associated with it?  All of these types of question unfortunately fail to see the subliminal issues at play.  Men don’t recognize that the pressure of women to dress in a certain way is an example of sexism in a very basic form; men don’t recognize that women can be tomboys and men can’t be sissies because masculine qualities are valued and desired and feminine qualities are not; men don’t recognize that bitch is a gendered word of which there is no male equivalent and which holds very negative and oppressive connotations.  Most importantly, men fail to see how they are prisoners of their gendered identities as well.

Men hold the power in today’s society, meaning that any attempts at social change will be extremely difficult without their support and understanding of the issue.  With the right efforts to make men see how they themselves are playing into socially constructed gender roles, this support can be won.  Therefore, we should be sure not to solely focus on female consciousness raising, but also on male consciousness raising. Men need to understand that feminism is not a threat to their existence, but rather a movement for liberation of all people.

You know that cute girl you met off campus last week?  She has given up on both showering and sleeping for the week, and by no means is she interested in talking to you.  As for that pre-med guy you met in a mod and decided to marry to enjoy his future success, you may as well kiss that dream goodbye.  He is fully committed to his orgo textbook.

Amidst all of this finals-induced stress, a pattern has emerged among BC students that needs to come to an end.  As we spend hours on end typing up final papers or review guides, the constant screen time leads to a natural increase in time spent on Facebook.  Somehow, instead of using Facebook as the instrument of procrastination, people have turned Facebook statuses into their personal diaries where they can bitch and moan about how stressed they are.  Suddenly, our news feeds are drowning in complaints and woe-is-me’s over the experience that we are all going through at once.  If you really think that your situation is any worse than the 9,000 other students in your position, it is time for a reality check.  That’s right, Miss “15 straight hours in o’neill and counting… get me out of hereeee.”  And you, Mister “If guy loudly chomping his pen in Bapst doesn’t stop in the next three minutes I’m going to shove it down his throat.”  Stop it.  Stop it right now.  I sign onto Facebook to avoid doing work only to find that you’re forcing your own stress upon all 846 of your Facebook friends?  Talk about selfish.

Let’s be real for a minute. Mark Zuckerberg would not have wanted it this way.  He went to harvard; he knows how stressful finals are.  He was sued in his pursuit of creating a means of escape, and it is a slap in the face to use his gift for evil.  Shape up, Boston College.

When I log onto Facebook during finals, I don’t want to know how many pages you have left to write, I don’t want to know how many cups of coffee you’ve had today, and I sure as hell do not want to know how many pages your study guide is especially if we have a class together and mine is shorter.  I came here to find links to funny YouTube videos.  I came here to stalk your old profile pictures from 2007.  I came here to stop thinking about finals.  Please do not take that from me.

Whatever this week of hell has in store for you, it is fair to say that it will not be pretty.  So, let us take a moment and think: how are you going to handle your stress?  YouTube meditation videos are deeply underrated, and ritual burnings never hurt anyone (disclaimer: yes they have).  You can go for a run, catch up on old episodes of your favorite TV shows, braid your hair, roll down a hill, etc.  The possibilities are endless.  There are plenty of ways to release stress during finals, so I beg you, please, whatever you do, do not use Facebook as your stress ball.  Just buy a stress ball.  It will work wonders.

Three years ago, on January 19, 2009 to be exact, the Frank Spaziani era began on the Heights and the downward spiral began.  Before the team even played its first game that year, starting quarterback Dominique Davis was suspended for academic reasons and decided to transfer.  The starting quarterback position was eventually won by Dave Shinskie, a 25-year-old ex-minor league pitcher who hadn’t played football since high school.  Despite the inexperience at QB, the Eagles went a respectable 8-4 before losing in the Emerald Bowl to USC.  Montel Harris ran for 1,457 yards and 14 TD’s on the way to an All-ACC Second Team selection.

The next year got off to a rocky start, with underwhelming victories against uninspiring opponents in the first two games before an embarrassing shutout loss at home against Virginia Tech on parents’ weekend that cost Shinskie his starting job.  In a move that some felt should have come at the beginning of the year, 19-year-old true freshman Chase Rettig found himself the new starter.  Making his first career appearance against archrival Notre Dame in primetime on national TV, Rettig played well before being injured and replaced by Mike Marscovetra.  However, instead of sticking with Marscovetra while Rettig recovered the next week against NC State, Spaz went back to Shinskie in a questionable display of indecision that led to a 44-17 shellacking.

It would be five straight losses for the Eagles until, on his 21^st birthday, Montel Harris led the team to victory on the strength of 142 rushing yards (remember this picture?).  The game launched a five-game winning streak that salvaged the season but resulted in another bowl loss, this time to Nevada.  Montel Harris was selected to the All-ACC first team, but did not play in the last two games of the year due to injury.

Harris was not healthy to start the 2011 season, and the Preseason ACC Player of the Year made only two appearances in a disastrous season that saw the team finish 4-8 and miss out on a bowl game for the first time in over a decade.  His absence obviously played a big role in the decline, but so did the graduations of key players like Anthony Castonzo and Mark Herzlich and the injuries to veterans like Ifeanyi Momah and Donnie Fletcher.

Yet the complete debacle that followed exposed the flaws of Frank Spaziani as head coach.  Whether a failure of recruiting or coaching, the vaunted O-Line U failed to make up for the loss of starters Castonzo and Thomas Claiborne and consequently allowed Chase Rettig and the revolving door of Montel’s replacements to take violent beatings on a weekly basis.  The injury to Momah exposed shortcomings in the receiving corps.  One of the starting safeties was dismissed from the team in late August, and the other departed the team voluntarily.  An injury to Donnie Fletcher meant that Jim Noel was the only opening day starter with any significant experience in the secondary.  Obviously it would not be realistic to expect new players to step in without hiccups, but it’s the coach’s job to minimize those growing pains and Spaziani did nothing of the sort.

While some critics have called Chase Rettig underwhelming during his first two seasons as BC’s starting QB, more of the blame should fall at the feet of the coaching staff.  In 2012, Rettig will be working with his third offensive coordinator in as many years.  It’s ridiculous to expect Rettig, or any offensive player for that matter, to realize his potential when he’s learning a new system every year.  Since Spaziani became HC, offense has been a problem for the former defensive coordinator.  Rather than take responsibility, the OC has been made a sacrificial lamb each year.  It will be interesting to see where the blame will fall this year when the best defensive player in BC history isn’t there on the other side of the ball to bail out the team anymore.

As we head towards the 2012 season, the biggest positives on Spaz’s head coaching resume are “starting Kuechly as a freshman” and “recruiting Kevin Pierre-Louis.”  The negatives are a bit more numerous: a continuously declining winning percentage as the roster is made up of more and more of his recruits and less and less of O’Brien’s and Jag’s (his predecessors); 28 straight games that BC has failed to score 30 points against an FBS opponent – and counting; the departure of the team’s starting quarterback and now its all-time leading rusher for disciplinary reasons, as well as the unheard-of forgoing of the senior season by its most valuable player.   We could go on.

Whatever Montel Harris did to get booted from the team, he chose to do himself.  But for a school that prides itself on graduating its athletes and recruiting “the right kind of players,” it’s an unmitigated disaster.  Forget that Montel is one of the greatest players in school history and forget that “How do you allow a player that important to get into that much trouble?” is a legitimate question to ask.  Since that last ACC Championship, the only other BC football news this big was Mark Herzlich’s comeback, and for reasons that transcended the quality of the team’s performance.

Most of BC’s current SuperFans saw BC competing for ACC Championships as they filled out their college applications.  But instead of having the chance to participate in celebrations like this, they get to pay $140 to watch the team get smacked around on its home turf by “powerhouses” like Wake Forest and Duke in remarkable displays of playcalling incompetency.  Frank Spaziani has proven that he can’t maintain the level of success that was expected of Boston College football when he inherited the head coaching position.  His own former players have even taken to calling for his replacement on Twitter.  As a rising senior, I don’t want my last season in the student section to cost $359,803 per win.  Montel Harris’ dismissal is just another sad chapter in a head coaching career that has already lasted too long.

[Update: In response to this article, The Committee for a New Direction in Boston College Athletics contacted The Gavel with a link to a petition demanding change within the Athletic Department.  That petition can be found here.]

Because thousands of Boston College undergraduates have taken out student loans, the College Democrats of Boston College stands with Elizabeth Warren, Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate in Massachusetts, and other Democratic leaders who have called on Congress to prevent this rate increase from occurring.  Furthermore, we thank Elizabeth Warren for her outspoken support of college students in Massachusetts who are struggling with rising college tuition.

We agree with Elizabeth Warren regarding young Americans when she says, “They work hard, they play by the rules, they recognize the importance of education and invest so they can get a better job and earn a brighter future. They should not suddenly face higher interest rates, and they should not be left drowning in debt because they are trying to get an education.”  This loan increase would be one more burden placed on the backs of already struggling middle class families.

Democrats have been committed to helping young Americans afford college; during his time in office, President Obama has doubled funding for Pell Grants and created the American Opportunity Tax Credit, worth as much as $10,000 over four years of school.  We as a nation need leaders like President Obama and Elizabeth Warren, who are willing to tackle the serious issues related to higher education in the United States, while remaining committed to ensuring young Americans of all economic backgrounds equal access to education.

Much has happened since that tale for the ages. Al-Qaida is on the run, disorganized and in hiding. Several top al-Qaida leaders, including the American born Anwar al-Alwaki, have also been killed this past year. We are, without a doubt, safer from terrorism than we were one year ago.

But I feel that our nation’s leaders, both Democrats and Republicans, have lost sight of why we are in Afghanistan to begin with. In 2001, America invaded Afghanistan to destroy al-Qaida and either kill or capture Osama bin Laden. The War on Terror has instead become an arduous process of costly nation-building for a country whose citizens do not even want us there.

Granted, that is not to say that the Afghanis are not capable of, or not worthy of, a democracy. They should be working to build a democracy from the ground up. However, our continued presence in the country, with no clear cut goal, objective, or end in sight, is not working, as the Afghanis see us as occupiers rather than liberators.

In a time where money is tight and our country is facing a massive budget deficit, the time has come to do some nation-building here at home. American troops should be pulled out of Afghanistan, the mission has been accomplished.

Granted, in this tough economic climate, sacrifices in terms of salary and benefits need to be made across the board. Admittedly, there are some unions that are too strong, and as a result refuse to make compromises with employers for the greater good of all involved.

Unions that are too powerful diminish the ability of weaker unions to negotiate new contracts. For example, my mom is the Vice President of a Secretary’s Union at a school district on Long Island. The teacher’s union there is extremely powerful, and received their usual pay increase in last year’s negotiations with the school district. The school district was therefore unable to afford to meet the Secretary’s Union halfway, and as a result the union was forced to take a two year pay freeze. With the cost of living going up immensely due to inflation and gas prices, it is unfair for one union to reap benefits while another union is unable to negotiate a fair contract for its members.

That is why I was curious when I heard that the anti-union interest group, the Center for Union Facts, was pushing for the so-called Employee Rights Act. Granted, there are a few provisions in the proposed Act that I support, like giving employees the right to a secret ballot when choosing whether or not to join a union, or deciding whether or not to strike.

However, as a whole I have numerous misgivings about the Act, and in a greater sense, the Center for Union Facts. For example, the Center ran an ad during this year’s Super Bowl that claimed that only 10 percent of workers in a union actually voted to join the union. This claim was debunked by the Washington Post, and an economist with the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities stated, “It is a bit like saying Virginia isn’t a state because none of its current residents voted for statehood.” In addition, the Center in 2006 received $2.5 million in funding, but refused to disclose their donors.

Furthermore, as an Italian-American, I was offended by one of the Center’s most recent ads, which pushes anti-Italian stereotypes. In this ad, entitled “Classroom Elections,” a boy in a black shirt with rolled up sleeves, sunglasses and greased hair, is coercing his classmates to vote for him in a class election by saying “there ain’t gonna be any secret vote,” in a stereotypical Brooklynese accent. He then says that his “campaign committee” will collect and count the class’s votes. The shot then zooms out to show the “campaign committee” of three boys standing behind the Italian gangster wannabe, with one looking like a Mafioso in a white t-shirt with a leather jacket with his arms crossed, and another one in an outfit that looks like it was taken straight out of Little Italy at the turn of the century.

Now, even though I am an Italian-American, I am not easily offended by negative portrayals of Italians in the media. “The Godfather”, “The Godfather Part II” and “Goodfellas” are three of my favorite movies. Some may criticize them as promoting anti-Italian stereotypes, but I disagree. The three movies I mentioned are universally acclaimed, were deemed “culturally significant” by the National Film Registry of the Library of Congress and are accurate and historical depictions of the Italian Mafia.

Why I am offended by the “Classroom Elections” ad is because it is exploiting anti-Italian stereotypes for political gain. The Italian Mafia has been accused of controlling a number of unions in the past, most notably the Teamsters Union of Jimmy Hoffa fame. However, stereotypes have no place in political discourse.

Ultimately, both the Employee Rights Act and the Center for Union Facts are misnomers. The Act doesn’t protect the rights of employees; rather, it only limits the rights of employees and their ability to collectively bargain. This leads me to believe that the ultimate objective of the Center of Union Facts is to increase corporate profits by means of anything but the facts. And if the use of racist ethnic stereotypes is deemed to further their own cause, then full speed ahead.