October 2006 - Binghamton Review

¡Binghamton Revolucion!

Premier Issue of Binghamton’s Communist Discourse

why we love che Even though he killed over 14,000 Cubans, but don’t tell anyone about that

Inside this issue:

-Marxism -Liberal dating -Free traded coffee -and tips for the common man

Binghamton Review Halloween 2006

The Student Journal at Binghamton University

The Student Horror at Binghamton University

Happy Halloween We hope you enjoyed our costume!

Binghamton Review The Student Journal at Binghamton University Founded 1987 o Volume XX Number 2 o October 2006

Departments

“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing .”

-Edmund Burke Editor-in-Chief Christopher Powell Managing Editor Thomas Shannon

5

Editorial: Christopher Powell wants a refund.

6

Presswatch: We didn’t know college newspapers were supposed to suck.

Business Manager Nathaniel Sugarman Treasurer Michael Calabrese Layout Editor Jeff Lichtman

Staff Writers Arielle Deutsch, Megan Donahue, Dylan Lainhart, Harrison Salzman, Nathaniel Sugarman, Thomas Shannon.

Contributors Rebecca Kaufman, Nick Tinen, Denis Fitzgerald, Amanda Jaret

Friends of the Review The Aronoff Family Dr. Aldo S. Bernardo Mr. Anthony Carlone Sr. Mr. Michael J. Hayes The Janovsky Family Mr. Robert Larnerd The Leonini Family Mr. Michael O’Connell The Kaufman Family Mr. Tony Potochniak The Powell Family Mr. Conrad Ross Mr. Robert Soltis

Binghamton Review is printed by Our Press, in Chenango Bridge. We provide the truth; they provide the staples.

Binghamton Review

Binghamton University PO Box 6000 Binghamton, NY 13902-6000 binghamtonreview@yahoo.com

Contents 8

Arielle Deutsch is tired of self-gratifying activism.

11

Nate Sugarman yearns for ye olde English.

12

Chris Powell discusses the failure of American universities.

16

Denis

18 19

Fitzgerald learns to stop worrying and love the bomb.

20

Nick Tinen fears five foot tall, Stalinist leaders.

22

Tom Shannon gets in touch with his roots.

Cover Design by Jeff Lichtman

Binghamton Review is a monthly, independent journal of news, analysis, commentary, and controversy. Students at Binghamton University receive two copies of the Review free of charge (non-transferrable). Additional copies cost $1 each. Letters to the Editor are welcome; they must be accompanied by the author’s current address and phone number. All submissions become the property of the Review. The Review reserves the right to edit and print any submission. Copyright © 2006 Binghamton Review. All rights reserved. Binghamton Review is distributed on campus under the authority of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Binghamton Review is a member of the Collegiate Network and is a Student Association-chartered organization. Binghamton University is not responsible for the content of the Review; the Review is not responsible for the content of Binghamton University. Binghamton Review thanks the Intercollegiate Studies Institute.

Past Editors of Binghamton Review : John Guardiano, Yan Rusanovsky, Kathryn Doherty, Ephriam Bernstein, Michael Malloy, Paul Schnier, Adam Bromberg, Bernadette Malone, Michael Darcy, Nathan Wurtzel, Amy Gardner, John Carney, Paul Torres, Jason Kovacs, Robert Zoch, Matthew Pecorino, Michael O’Connell, Louis W. Leonini, Joseph Carlone

Binghamton Review, October 2006

editorial

Where Your Money Goes tudents of Binghamton University, I would like sible for their decisions, resulting in at least two conto invite you to my Super Bowl party. Normally secutive years that ended with more than $10,000 in I wouldn’t invite an entire campus to one of my debt. Call me crazy, but if the students of UPB want parties, but this event will be special. First, my to see ridiculously unpopular artist like Ludacris and party will be one of the few in this region to boast a OAR they should travel to larger venues, not waste real, big screen, high definition television. Second, it is $20,000 + to host them in Binghamton. I claim that conveniently located on campus. Finally, every single it is not the student body’s responsibility to host these one of you has already contributed your dollars to help concerts: instead, the SA should lower activity fees and fund it. That is, of course, because I plan to watch the increase ticket prices; this way if an event is to be held Super Bowl on the Student Association office’s brand- the artist must first prove economically viable. But spanking new big-screen TV! after all, who cares what the students want to see?

The Student Association is funded by the Another extraordinarily wasteful venture of the Undergraduate student activity fee, which is currently student government is Off Campus College Council set at $84.50 per student per semester (a whopping (OC3). You know, the hippies who use your dollars $1,951,950!) and is rumored to be on the rise. Where to send care packages to prison inmates, give stipends do all of these dollars go, you ask? Well I suppose to figurehead managers (Louis Leonini, former editor that depends on who you ask. If you ask any one who of BR actually earned such a position simply to prove is too immersed in the Student Association I’m sure how easily one could earn money from OC3) of such you’ll hear the typical answer given by over-funded, underutilized campus functions as the yoga gym, bike under-producing organizations (see: NYPIRG), that shop, and craft center? It’s time that someone really the money is used to provide students with all things look at what services OC3 provides to its constituency necessary for their college experience. If you ask and severely reduce the budget. an office outsider with a more conservative, critical The most underhanded group of wasteful spendmindset you would certainly receive a very different, ers is campus charities. These student groups, such significantly more accurate answer. as Habitat for Humanity, take student activity dollars Students have always griped about the constantly and apply them directly toward funds that benefit a increasing costs of education, as tuition prices continue national group. I understand the argument that even to soar and lawmakers continue to cut public funding if these groups are to rely solely on fundraising they for higher education. However, one frequently over- do need seed money, but Habitat received several looked source of this inflationary pressure is student thousand dollars last year that was primarily sent off to governments. The idea behind a student government is charitable causes. While I do hate Habitat as a charsimple, and can be epitomized by the preamble of our ity, not because I hate Jimmy Carter (although I do), own SA constitution: “to advocate for… [and] remain but because they build inferior homes with non-proaccountable to its only constituency: the students.” fessional staff and then shove the poor in and expect Now, I understand that this is an extremely broad state- gratitude, that is not why I am against their funding. It ment, but there is a statute of reason that should be is not the responsibility of the government to transfer applied to all decisions made by the S.A., particularly funds from constituents’ pockets to altruistic causes; when they involve the spending of student activity fee it’s as simple as that. dollars.

Finally, I would be remiss if I did not mention the Not all of the spending decisions made by the plethora of cultural groups that are constantly squawkStudent Association are bad; after all we wouldn’t have ing for their piece of the pie. It is beyond my comprean SA if it wasn’t worth a dime. For instance, without hension why the Black Student Union and the African our lovely blue buses hundreds of students would have Student Organization need separate budgets—not only no way to get to and from campus. Additionally, the are budgets for cultural groups only of use to their corSA helps sponsor important student programs such responding ethnicities, but most major ethnicities have as the Graduate school fair, the Law fair, and the Job more than one recipient for SA dollars on campus. It is fair while additionally maintaining a student voice on time that the students of Binghamton University stand several important faculty committees to protect student up to our Student Association and demand some introinterests. After all, without the SA on-campus stu- spection: it is time to stop spending student’s money dents would have had no access to the New York Mets on redundant student groups, altruistic issues that don’t (World Series 2007 Champions)! However, beyond benefit students, and over represented student populathese basic functions the benefits of our SA begin to tions. But if you no one has the guts to stand up, can cloud. somebody at least pass me the remote?

The SA’s University Programming Board graciously provides students with concerts and other -Christopher Powell shows. However, they are never held fiscally responBinghamton Review, October 2006

presswatch

A challenger to Pipe Dream emerges, but will they last? by the Editors of Binghamton Review News

his may not be your normal Campus Presswatch, but then again this was not your normal month for the campus press. The difference, as many students ambivalently noted, is that we all had the “privilege” of reading the first issue of the Binghamton University Free Press (BUFP).

Whether students read it or not, the Binghamton Media Group swears that the BUFP is here to stay. While I would not say that the BUFP said volumes about anything in its pages, I will say that its mere existence says volumes about how many students are fed up with Pipe Dream (PD).

I don’t think either paper provides extremely interesting reading, but the conflict certainly does make interesting copy, so we at the Review have decided to dedicate our Presswatch to a heads-up review of each paper.

The structure of this battle is simple: we’ve broken up the scoring into four categories: News, Op/Ed, Entertainment and Sports. Finally, we will discuss the paper’s Overall Readability.

Students wanted to see some competition for student news, and it has arrived. Without further adieu, I present to you BU Free Press vs. Pipe Dream, our take on the fight for campus readership.

BUFP was created in response to Pipe Dream’s of being inaccurate and because many perceived the writing as biased. While Pipe Dream has a history rife with important gaffs (see: William Marulanda), on a regular basis they provide students with information they would not otherwise receive. On the other hand, BUFP, which pledged to improve the campus discourse and bring better coverage of events failed on many accounts. First, they had no issues that students had not heard about days earlier from PD. Secondly, their special focus pieces were rife with biases and inaccuracies. It is reprehensible that Student Association “policywonk” (borrowing from PD) Alex Rosenthal, who sat on the council that altered NYPIRG’s budget last semester should allow such inaccurate, biased reporting on the issue. In response to NYPIRG Project Coordinator Yoni Levin: I can find several issues NYPIRG pursues that are a waste of student time and money (see: “bigger, better bottle bill). In response to Michelle Jaret, don’t grossly inflate the impact of NYPIRG’s budget reduction, the last thing students need is manufactured support for a wasteful, politically biased, and functionally inept student group. I hope to see better fact checking in the future.

Binghamton Review, October 2006

Advantage: Pipe Dream is still the place to go for student news, while BU Free Press must be commended for getting an interview with departing University VP Rodger Summers, they still have a long way to go.

Op/Ed

Okay, BUFP’s first editorial collection was rife with self-trumpeting pieces to try and rally support.

However, they did have an interesting, informative piece by Jason Sperber, and they seemed really devoted to their collective cause and future. On the other hand, the only interesting thought I’d seen from PD’s Op/Ed in the last month was Nicole Zimmerman’s suggestion to season chicken with maple syrup. It’s time for PD to either shrink their Op/Ed section or expand their search for writers.

Advantage: BUFP wins on pure passion. The section wasn’t great, but at least there’s potential instead

of vacuous, narcissistic babble and poor sex advice.

Entertainment

PD has “Weekend Warriors”.

BUFP has an assortment of weird, unpopular, underground artist reviews. Neither section is worth reading in its entirety, but at least BUFP made an effort. However, that effort still doesn’t trump the awesome picture of my housemate falling over himself at the Rat. Advantage: Draw, BUFP really has an entertainment section. PD’s Tuesday Edition provides this campus’s most worthwhile reading between Binghamton Review releases.

Sports

Pipe Dream has a sports section and Free Press doesn’t. It could be as simple as that, but I’d like to elaborate. PD has improved its sports section by leaps and bounds in the past year, expanding its cover of both national and

BU sports. I don’t think that Binghamton students could ask for a better section (unless we could convince PD to spell check their section).

Advantage: PD.

Overall

Pipe Dream is still the rag of choice for BU students who care to stay informed about the world on campus. Their layout is vastly superior to the Free Press, which couldn’t afford full color for their first issue. However, if BUFP ever gets the infrastructure and funding to compete with PD in terms of output and technology then it would be an interesting battle.

BUFP has a lot of improvements to make, but over time it is quite possible that they could match or surpass PD. I look forward to lambasting both over the remainder of this academic year regardless of which paper captures students’ favor.

Binghamton Review: “Where the real debate on campus takes place”

Positions available: Conservatives, Objectivists, Libertarians, writers, cartoonists, debaters, and all lovers of liberty, justice, and the American way.

Join Binghamton Review and become part of the class publication at Binghamton University!

Weekly Meetings: Thursdays, 9 P.M. in our office, WB05 (basement of the New Union below the food court). e-mail binghamtonreview@yahoo.com Binghamton Review, October 2006

Activism

“Deer In the Headlights” The Blinding Affect of Soap Box Protesting

by Arielle Deutsch n 2001 President Bush ferociously dealt with a terrorist that had, for 20 years, orchestrated the abuse of hundreds of mentally ill American teenagers in his own country. Determined to set an example to this cold-hearted man, he bravely increased price of the Ambassadorship of Italy to $600 more than H.W. Bush had made him pay for the Ambassadorship to Australia.

Did I mention that “The Honorable” Melvin Sembler, a longtime Republican campaign contributor, was also the founder

of Straight Inc., which some people have called an absolutely brutal torture-rehabilitation program for drug-using teens that existed between 1976 and 1991? How about the fact that he has a 113 million dollar mansion in Rome, funded by your generous tax dollars? Did you know that he and his wife have been consulted by the Supreme Court for advice on decisions regarding drug testing in high schools? How about that Jeb Bush is a contributor to the Drug Free American Foundation, the new anti-drug program Sembler Binghamton Review, October 2006

created after Straight Inc. had to be shut down following several allegations of abuse?

What sort of abuse you ask? Well, according to court testimony from former clients and various reports, including an episode of The Montel Williams Show devoted to Straight Inc. victims. The episode specifically covered a treatment program Straight employed that involved disciplinary regimen that could last up to two-years. The program consisted of sitting the patient in a straight-back chair for 12 hours, forcing participation in therapy sessions that consisted of other teenagers forcing the patient to admit to drug use. If there was any sort of noncompliance punishment often included starvation, constant physical abuse for hours at a time, sleep deprivation, not allowing the patient o use toilets (forcing the patient to walk around in pants encrusted in urine, feces, and blood), the denial of medical treatment and, of course, constant verbal and emotional abuse. There were also reports of molestation, rapes, and forced abortions. More than 40 former Straight Inc. clients have committed suicide.

There are no protesters today that stand up demanding reparations for these victims. As Sembler consistently kills potential lawsuits, the voices have died down except for a determined few.

President Bush has been honored for bravely dealing with his war

on terror overseas and trying to track down the men in charge of the terrorist operations, but here in his own country hundreds of teens were abused for long periods of time just for being a “drug user” (did I mention that the teens targeted for the program were precious, affluent, white adolescents?), and he awards the mastermind with gifts. And no one calls their relationship into question. Why should they, after all, Sembler was supported by the first President Bush and the Straight program was heavily advocated by the Reagans.

It’s all right; the torture of these children is government-approved.

However, I am not writing about this issue just to “enlighten” readers. So, why am I telling you about this? Because we are all too busy fighting our own mini-cru-

sades to even care about Sembler’s victims, or the fact that a man can get away with creating a franchise of pain and still be further rewarded. This issue, like so many others that can horrify and anger, slips through the cracks. They drown in a torrent of screams of other people’s Very Important Issues.

I am not telling you to fight for this cause. I am telling you that every time you publicize your Very Important Issue, you shine another bright light in the eyes of the public. You blast another loud noise into the ears of the public.

And the public gets blinder and deafer with every Very Important Issue it encounters. They do not seek items of importance anymore. They do not put an effort towards staying informed. They wait for issues to come to them,

Binghamton Review, October 2006

and even then only the flashiest, loudest ones get through to their numbed senses, regardless of their importance. What I am telling you is to choose your issues wisely, not based on what makes you feel good or what can benefit you, but based on what is just, what is right, what can help those most in need, those most deserving, instead of simply the needy. And regardless of who you are or what you believe in I believe that people have many more similarities than differences, and if we all look at things objectively, we can see what really needs to be fought for.

Most importantly I am asking you to find those issues yourself. I am asking you to care enough about the victims to uncover those issues. To stop wasting time and start finding things that

10

Binghamton Review, October 2006

Webster’s

11

How Queer It Is A Look at Changes in the English Language

by Nathaniel Sugarman ver the past century, the English language has changed significantly.

Indeed it is normal for languages to change over time.

For instance, it was not so long ago that a sick party would have referred to a hospital shindig and burning faggots would simply have been an efficient way to heat one’s home. However, many of the recent changes in our language have not occurred because of natural linguistic evolution, but from an effort by certain political groups to alter words and phrases for their benefit. Surly there have always existed those who would seek to consciously and forcibly change a language for political gain, but in the past century advances in multimedia have increased the number of opportunities for as well as the potential gains from such changes.

Some changes are incidental, while others stand out as blatant attempts to distort something by changing its name. Many such changes were quite drastic and were most certainly intentional.

However, the question remains: Who is to blame for these sudden changes? The answer: Political groups both right and left are responsible. Let us examine the abortion debate. In this case, these are not individual words that have been affected, but rather phrases, the meanings of which we take for granted. We are told by the mass media in this country that we are either pro-life or prochoice. Now, I don’t know about you, but I would like to think that I am both in favor of life and also in favor of choices. In fact,

most people are pro-life and prochoice—the question is, are they pro or anti-abortion? It is not difficult to infer why the political right and left have adopted these phrases as euphemisms for their beliefs. Surly one would be more likely to vote in favor of banning abortion if not doing so implied being anti-life. In addition, it is easier to be convinced to vote for unlimited and unrestricted abortion if not doing so implies that

you are infringing on a woman’s right to chose. As usual, the language coming from both sides of the political spectrum is not accidental—each word and phrase is carefully chosen to maximize the chances of your support for their cause.

In no area is this change in language more apparent than in the issue of homosexuality. Over the past hundred years, countless words connoting homosexuality have switched meanings so many times that it is hard to keep track of what anything means anymore.

The word gay has meant homosexual for quite some time. It is no accident that the word gay, which actually means happy, has been used to replace the slightly cruder homosexual. As in the Binghamton Review, October 2006

abortion debate, a euphemism is used to replace the actual thing, which for some may be less palatable. While many might cringe at homosexuality, it is hard to see wrong in gaiety. I would not be in the least bit surprised if, in a few years from now, polygamists chose to be called ambitious, cannibals taste bud impaired, and promiscuous women enthusiastic—it would certainly broaden their appeal and be consistent with the other euphemisms and misrepresentations I have addressed.

The word queer has meant homosexual for perhaps even longer than gay. I have always had an affinity to the word queer. It conjures up the image of something that is almost normal, but is not quite right—it is a small word that expresses a lot of sentiment.

Unfortunately, now the word cannot be used without conjuring up images of Elton John or Freddie Mercury, which is a shame. As much as I like Elton and Freddie, I am upset to see a multifaceted word like queer become so simple and uninteresting. The homosexual movement has hijacked countless beautiful words and destroyed their original meaning. Even something as innocent as a rainbow cannot be mentioned without a snicker these days. There are enough words that mean homosexual in the English language today, and it is time that the movement stops ruining interesting words that other people enjoy using.

Continued on page 17

Civic Literacy

12

A Sobering Victory New Survey Cites Colleges Failure to Properly Educate Students

by Christopher Powell or years the staff of Binghamton Review has lamented the extremely biased composition of the faculty of Binghamton University, as well as the composition of academia at large. We have sounded off repeatedly, warning of just how disparate the number of liberals in academia were when compared with the number of conservatives, and how this would negatively impact the balance of a students education. Our academic issues have cited the role that Marxist teachings play in many courses as well as the number of professors (particularly in the Philosophy and Political Science departments) that allows their own views to impact the structure of a class or the grades of students. Most importantly, we have had several writers call for the revamping of the General Education policy into a Core Curriculum, with a larger focus on American history and government.

Well readers, today we at the Review sadly say, “we told you so.”

On September 26th, 2006 the Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI) released a report titled “The Coming Crisis in Citizenship, Higher Education’s Failure to Teach America’s History and Institutions.”

This report was the result of an enormous study on the knowledge of college students about four different subject areas: American history, government, America and the World, and market economics. The study was conducted at fifty different universities around the country, 25 of which were randomly selected by the University of Connecticut’s Department of Public

Policy (UCDPP) with the other 25 being top schools as ranked by U.S. News and World Report (think: Ivy League). An average of 140 freshmen and 140 seniors were selected at each of the schools, giving the survey a total population of 14,000 students that represented all of the schools. Each of these students was then administered the same, sixty question exam with questions from each of the four study areas (the exam was authored by college faculty and consisted of questions about topics such as The Federalist Papers, the Civil and Revolutionary wars, early Presidential action, and other events through the twentieth century as well as basic questions on economic and political theories). This study, the largest ever conducted on this subject, reached some very sobering conclusions.

For starters, it found that the average incoming freshman scored a 51.7 on the exam, clearly a failing mark and an indication that high school freshmen are not well prepared to function as conscientious, active American citizens. However, this was not the most alarming finding. The study found that, on average, student’s scores improved by only 1.5 points over the student’s college career, with seniors scoring an average of 53.2 on the exam. Of the fifty schools surveyed sixteen displayed negative learning, meaning that seniors actually scored lower on the exams then freshmen! The bottom three, from worst to pretty damn bad, were: Johns Hopkins University; the University of California, Berkeley; and Cornell Binghamton Review, October 2006

University. So there you have it, three of the most liberal infested colleges known to man, including the People’s Republic of Berkeley, display strong evidence of negative learning about American Citizenship and basic market economics (the average scores fell 7.3, 5.6, and 3.3 points, respectively).

While many people expected the staff of the Review to savor this survey as an ultimate victory we are, in fact, quite depressed by what these results predict for America’s future.

Many college students are content with the fact that they garnered a high enough score on a United States history AP exam or a microeconomics AP exam then they are prepared for their roles as American citizens and may fully invest themselves in their theater major. However, this rationale bodes very poorly for our country’s future. If American citizens continue to become more ignorant about basic civic literacy the risk to our country will grow exponentially. In this magazine alone you can read about several external risks facing America today such as North Korea’s nuclear ambitions, Hugo Chavez’s efforts to undermine the United States government, and the threats posed by an unpredictable Iranian government. If American citizens are unable to rely upon a solid knowledge of subjects such as American history, international affairs, and the workings of our government then how can they make rational decisions to protect our country? For instance, many citizens that accept the Venezuelan oil subsidies detailed by Amanda Jaret claim that

13 accepting the offer isn’t bad because it isn’t as though this ‘oil was funded by organized crime or some other negative agent.’ However, these people fail to appropriately consider the threat of a man like Hugo Chavez who ceaselessly attacks our President while oppressing his own people. Accepting this subsidy not only serves to leverage Chavez in his attacks against Bush, but also supports a dangerous government economically by buying from a stateowned Venezuelan oil company. The possibilities for government weakening are endless (think Kucinich 2012).

However, there is still hope for our generation.

The ISI’s study did find 34 schools that exhibited positive learning, with score improvement as high as 11.6 points at Rhodes College. While the average senior score at Rhodes was still failing, this dramatic improvement does show that colleges can add value to a student’s American civic literacy. The study found that schools that require more courses in Political Science, History, and Philosophy tend to see larger improvements in students scores throughout their college careers.

However, these colleges still did not see their average students attaining passing scores on the survey’s exam, so there is more that must be done than simply increasing the number of civics courses. ISI was wise enough to not offer one fast and firm solution to this severe, multi-faceted issue, but several

important suggestions were made, and I will now detail some of Binghamton Review’s suggestions for improving BU’s civic literacy knowledge, for I shudder to think how poorly the product of our “Bix-ian” school of political science would perform on this exam.

1. Change the General Education requirements to focus on a core curriculum rather than a “broad learning experience.” It is more important for students to study basic American history courses, economic principles, and American government structures (remember the Experimental Media Organization’s paper Fair Use, which was “named after the Fair Use clause of the constitution”—a document that contains no such clause) than for them to expand their exposure to art history electives.

2. Institute a realistic framework for assessing the performance of professors and the learning outcomes of the University’s most important classes.

I know it’s considered taboo to suggest results-oriented investigation in Binghamton, after all intentions are everything, but it’s about time someone verifies that students are leaving with more real knowledge instead of just the courage to, like, umm…challenge the man or whatever.

3. Utilize more University dollars to bring value-adding speakers to the

Binghamton. I honestly believe that students have learned all they could learn from former Black Panthers (no matter how popular Bobby Seale and Angela Davis may be among BU’s white, self-loathing Long Islander population) and outspoken war critics (Noam Chomsky, a man who clearly has no idea what a “linguist” is supposed to study) and could really benefit from real government leaders. In the past few weeks current government leaders Hilary Clinton and Andrew Cuomo both attended this campus, and as much as the Review may disagree with their policies, it could have greatly benefited students to hold scheduled lectures with these national leaders.

It is clear that something must be done to improve student knowledge of American civic literacy, for our great nation will not survive the threats posed by foreign radicals without informed, active citizens.

-Christopher Powell is the Editor-in-Chief of Binghamton Review Read more about this issue: www.americancivicliteracy.com http://www.msnbc.msn.com/ id/15014682/site/newsweek/ http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/ life/20060926/civics.art.htm http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pdupont/?id=110009000

Binghamton Review EVER WONDER WHAT MOHAMMED LOOKS LIKE???

Meetings Thursdays at 9PM, UU WB05 Binghamton Review, October 2006

Elections

14

Survivor, D.C. A Look at the 2006 Elections and Candidate’s Self-Sabotage

by Tom Shannon Well readers, election time in is upon us once again.

Although it doesn’t quite feel like election season yet—maybe it’s me, or maybe it’s the pristine “Kucinich for President” sticker that’s still stuck to a light pole at the corner of State and Henry. It could also be the general listlessness of our 109th Congress. After all, they spent most of 2006 deadlocked on illegal immigration and Gitmo detainees. So here we are, ready to flex our “People Power” and hope for the best.

However, even in a dull election we certainly don’t lack for political theatre. There’s been some taxpayer financed phone sex (Michael Arcuri), a freezer full of bribe money (William Jefferson), some virtual pederasty (Mark Foley), and who can forget former N.J. Gov. Jim McGreevey’s appearance on Oprah? Neither Party’s hands are clean—nor have they ever been. Like it or not, these are the kind of men who rise to the top in democracies.

A prototypical small town Jacksonian, considerably keener than most political scientists, once told me that the choice in most elections is “which one do you hate least?” Such an outlook epitomizes conservatism, for it discourages people from expecting a whole lot from politics. This year our choice is, for all intents and purposes, between President Bush and Nancy Pelosi.

The staff of Binghamton Review is not in the business of begging college kids to vote—for one reason it doesn’t tend to produce a conservative result—so we’ll leave that work to NYPIRG. However, we will provide a snapshot of the 2006 midterm-elections.

House of Representatives, NY 24th District: State Senator Raymond Meier (R) versus Oneida County DA Michael Arcuri (D).

Quite simply, this is the hottest race in the vicinity of Binghamton.

The seat is currently held by the retiring Sherwood Boehlert (R-New Hartford). Boehlert is widely perceived as a moderate, and his lifetime American Conservative Union (ACU) ranking of 40 (on a 0-100 scale, 100 being the most conservative) bears that out. The fear of many Republicans is that Meier, a man fond of quoting Ronald Reagan, is too conservative to win the district. According to the Political Money Line (PML), Arcuri has outfundraised Meier $1.2 million to $1 million. Both have received generously from their parties at the national level because this district is so important. The most recent poll by RT Strategies/Constituent Dynamics shows Arcuri pulling ahead of Meier, 53% to 42%.

House of Representatives, NY 26th District: Incumbent Thomas Reynolds (R) vs. businessman Jack Davis (D). This is a rematch from the 2004 election cycle when Reynolds beat Davis with 55% of the vote. It looked to be a similar result this time around until the Mark Foley congressional page scandal broke. Reynolds, in his role as chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, had access to emails (though not the infamous instant messages) suggesting that Foley was a potential candidate for NAMBLA. Reynolds says he handed the emails over to House Speaker Dennis Hastert some time before the story broke, but the public perception is that Reynolds covered up the Binghamton Review, October 2006

Foley mess. Almost overnight, Reynolds trailed Davis by 10 to 15% in the polls. However, in a poll released on Oct. 19th by Survey USA, Reynolds had come back to lead Davis 49% to 46%. We at the Review expect the election to swing to Davis in the end…possibly because of an upwelling of support from the young male population.

House of Representatives, NY 20th District: Incumbent John Sweeney (R) versus Kirsten Gillibrand (D). This has heretofore been a very Republican district.

Not only did Sweeney beat a no name Democrat by a 28% margin in 2004, but the ratio of registered Republicans to registered Democrats is nearly 2 to 1! However, an influx of money from the national Parties has made this race is very tight.

According to the PML Sweeney has currently raised $2.4 million to Gillibrand’s $1.8 million. This race has been largely free of substantive issues - Gillibrand is still trafficking in gas price demagoguery and Sweeney emphasizes his opponent’s NYC origin, which is political poison in this district. Of two recent polls, one shows Sweeney leading by double digits, one shows Gillibrand leading by double digits.

Toss up.

The big picture: At the macro level, it looks like Democrats will take over the House, making the lovely Nancy Pelosi Speaker. The Evans-Novak Political Report predicts that Republicans will lose 20 seats to the Democrats. That would give Democrats a 5 seat majority and the all important agenda setting power. Not to be overlooked is the probable continuation of the trend towards geographical homogeneity as Republicans move towards

15 extinction in states like New York, Illinois, and Ohio.

Senate Races: Republicans are also likely to lose some Senate seats in this election cycle. Among the most endangered Republican incumbents are Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, Conrad Burns of Montana, Jim Talent of Missouri, Mike DeWine of Ohio and, thankfully, Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island. Senator George Allen is also feeling the heat in Virginia after a prolonged deluge of racism allegations and the “macaca” incident. Democrats may lose a seat or two to the Republicans in states like New Jersey and Maryland. The New York Times election guide shows 48 likely Democrat seats, 48 likely Republican seats, and 4 tossups. Clearly the Senate majority will be weak no matter which Party holds it. Here at home, Hillary Clinton need not worry about losing her Senate seat. Running against her is the largely unknown former mayor of Yonkers, John Spencer. Meanwhile Hillary has the luxury of fundraising as if she were running for President (hint, hint). According to the PML Hill currently has $15 million in the bank, which compares favorably to Spencer’s less than $500,000—so much for rich Republican/commonman Democrat stereotypes. As hard as it may be to admit, Mrs. Clinton will cruise to victory and continue her efforts to run the Congress like a plantation, or something.

A look at the home races: On the whole, the New York State elections are shaping up to be quite the Republicanicide; after all, most Republicans left New York with the jobs and the money, right?

N.Y. Governor: Attorney General Eliot Spitzer (D) versus former Assemblyman John Faso (R). Declaring his candidacy a year and eleven months ahead of the election turned out to be a stroke of genius by Spitzer. He has lead

by more than 50 percentage points in virtually every poll ever taken for this race. This is reflected even more starkly in the fundraising numbers. Spitzer, an advocate of public financing of campaigns, has raised $39.1 million. Faso, who is opposed to public financing of campaigns, and may be about ready to reevaluate his position, has raised $3.5 million.

Even though New York’s Governorship is relatively powerful compared to other states, Albany’s institutional predisposition towards free-spending liberalism is hard to combat. It didn’t take Pataki long to get comfortable with double digit annual state budget hikes; look for Spitzer to be at least as comfortable.

After all, New York is crawling with social justice peddlers (a nation leading 3,842 lobbyists according to the Center for Public Integrity) and many of them have contributed generously to Spitzer’s campaign.

How can anyone be confident in Spitzer’s ability to just say “no” to them come budget time?

N.Y. Attorney General: Former Westchester County DA Jeanine Pirro (R) versus former Housing and Urban Development secretary Andrew Cuomo (D). Here we have a card-carrying member of the Lucky Sperm Club running against a woman wedded to the king of all political liabilities, Al Pirro. You knew things were going to be fun in this race when the New York Post ran a front page photo of Al Pirro’s love child. Then there were the speeding tickets (98 mph through New Rochelle—pretty excessive, even by Westchestuhhh standards)…what about the secret video taping of a suspected yacht rendezvous? Through it all, Mario’s kid has maintained a solid lead in the polls.

N.Y. Comptroller: Incumbent Alan Hevesi (D) versus former Saratoga County Treasurer Christopher Callaghan (R). Hevesi was cruising along with a huge lead Binghamton Review, October 2006

and seemingly content to not campaign until the “chauffer scandal” broke. If you missed it, here’s the skinny: Hevesi used $83,000 of taxpayer money to hire a chauffer to cart his wife around over the last three years. Turns out he did the same thing, using the same driver, when he was New York City comptroller. After being tipped off Callaghan took the waggish step of calling the State Comptroller’s fraud hotline to report it; Hevesi paid back the $83,000, but not before killing his credibility. Callaghan, being both anonymous and nearly broke, will have a hard time coming within 15 percentage points of Hevesi, and will therefore still be stuck driving himself around come November 8th.

State Senate: where Republicans hold a 35-27 seat majority, is worth keeping an eye on, too. Republicans have controlled the State Senate since 1938 with the exception of one year, but this year there are many hot races, especially downstate. In Westchester Sen. Nick Spano (R) is again once again battling Andrea Stewart-Cousins (D) in a rematch of their 2004 race, which Spano won by 18 votes after a lengthy recount.

Elsewhere, Sen. Vincent Leibell (RPatterson) and Sen. John Flanagan (R-Suffolk County) are sweating out tough races. Should Democrats gain control of the State Senate, New York will likely have a one party government with Papa Spitzer at the helm.

It’s looks like a great year for Democrats, as history suggests the midterm election during a Republican President’s second term would be. I guess the biggest question is this: Pelosi or Bush? The decision is yours, fellow voters; who do you hate least? BR

Economic Freedom

16

egardless of the topic initially broached, it seems inevitable that all conversations about current world issues will boil down to oil.

Although it is not as difficult to make such a connection when considering the current state of United States-Venezuelan relations given the role the latter plays in OPEC, it is interesting to note just how deep-seated and visceral the reactions to these conflicts truly prove.

With so many strange and intimidating personalities strutting about OPEC and affecting its dealings and stratagems, it might

at first seem objectively comical to isolate one as specifically more peculiar than the others. This objectivity, however, is entirely shattered when one considers the character that is Hugo Chavez.

What sets Chavez apart from other figures in the debates about oil is his notably creative anti-American invective. Most recently noted for equating President Bush with Satan by asserting that the smell of sulfur surrounded the podium at the United Nations after Bush Binghamton Review, October 2006

spoke, Chavez has made no secret of his sentiments. However, Chavez has adopted a curious policy approach of late: he is transferring Venezuelan oil to poor Americans, especially those located in villages situated along the Bering Sea in Alaska.

One wonders what would encourage such action on Chavez’s part. It cannot be reasonably inferred that he would enact such a seemingly contradictory policy without the possibility for immense personal gain embedded somewhere in the blueprints.

One of the best theories about the source of his motivation is, quite simply, his desire to irritate and embarrass the United States government for failing to provide for these villages adequately. Given Chavez’s history of unusual tactics in his international relations, it would hardly seem a surprising motive.

It seems almost counterproductive to discuss the imminent need for oil the United States currently possesses. With a demand that is so high and with control of the market sitting so squarely in the hands of countries with which the United States has such difficulty, other solutions are being sought. Alternative energy solutions are being given a wide breadth of public attention, with celebrities clambering aboard ideas like ethanol, hybrids, and electric cars in large numbers. These

17 efforts are necessary, without question, and the developments will probably prove critical in the future. However, no technology in existence currently is viable enough to sustain the amount of energy consumption to which the global economy is accustomed. It is this practical problem that leads the United States into situations as difficult and awkward as the current Venezuelan Oil Subsidy Program. While accepting this foreign oil feels like we are relinquishing our national pride and integrity, it does serve a practical purpose. While Americans are forced to cope with Chavez’s “comic-strip diplomacy” and his cartoon-ish assaults on our government, we must also find more affordable oil sources; and so we deal with Chavez out of necessity.

It is precisely this kind of gross manipulation we must combat in the foreseeable future.

There exists one primary way to accomplish this and, ironically, it too intimately involves the state of

Alaska. Perhaps one of the most contentious issues in the entire energy debate has been the question of ANWR, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, an area home to various caribou and bird groups as well as tremendous stores of petroleum and natural gas. Depending on whom you speak to, the former or the latter is the area’s greatest resource. Despite environmentalists’ protests it is important that, for our nation’s greater purposes, we extract the latter. The greater degree of financial autonomy we can control as a nation, the better.

It is, in fact, that simple. In 2004, the United States imported $150 billion in oil alone. It is our reliance on oil imports that has led us to this compromising position in the first place.

Most of the arguments against drilling in ANWR that masquerade as cogent involve environmental issues. Since no amount of counterfeit logic can refute the fact that less dependence on imports of oil will objectively

benefit our economy, this point is always conceded and written off as irrelevant. However, some of the more damaging mistruths that are perpetuated include references to the uncertainty about the amount of oil and natural gas that could feasibly be extracted, as well as references to maintaining the natural habitat and ecosystem.

However, these arguments are essentially baseless. Only 8% of the entire ANWR region would be considered for drilling. The drilling process would create between 250,000 and 735,000 jobs. The allegations that animal populations would suffer are also exaggerated.

Based on studies conducted around the North Slope and Prudhoe Bay, the caribou and bear populations actually increased because of the slight temperature increase in the area. Finally, 75% of the native Inupiat population supports the drilling in this area. In 1980 the United States Geological Survey also estimated the Coastal Plain of ANWR could contain up to 17

Continuation of How Queer It Is, Page 11 What can anyone possibly do to slow this acceleration of unpleasant changes in the English language?

Unfortunately, we cannot do much. All that we can do is to hold ourselves to a slightly higher analytical standard by thinking twice when we see an advertisement on television paid for by a political group. When they say, “vote for the candidate who is in favor of life,” or “vote for this guy who supports rainbow pride,” just think about what the issue actually is, and then decide whether you support it or not. Political groups both right and left rely on us to be malleable, and accept whatever their message is, and it helps if we can palate the language. By holding ourselves to a higher intellectual standard, perhaps we can combat these perversions of our versatile and beautiful language.

-Nathaniel Sugarman is the Business Manager of Binghamton Review. His article might be queer, but at least he isn’t gay.

Binghamton Review, October 2006

Back Burner

18

lthough the tension between the U.S. and Iran has seemingly settled (at least in the news), it’s still a problem that needs to be properly addressed. Because of world events that have happened in the past few years, the U.S. finds that it has its hands tied in regards to how it can respond to the situation with Iran. Any sort of military response is out of the question due to Iraq and Afghanistan.

Military strikes on sites where we suspect weapons are being created would be equivalent to throwing gasoline on an already serious problem. Additionally, this would further endanger U.S. soldiers in the Middle East because they are the closest and easiest American targets for Iran to attack. Furthermore, attacking Iran in any way would squelch the reform efforts of the students in an upwelling of tribalism (unless you consider Iran to be a civilized nation). And a return to old CIA assassination tactics is, unfortunately, out of the question for fear of anti-American backlash.

So what options remain? I think that the only sound course of action the U.S. could pursue is the imposition of economic sanctions.

The difficulty this strategy poses is that the current U.S. government is quite unpopular throughout the rest of the world. While I am sure that we could throw together some sort of a coalition of allies, but it would be a lot more difficult due Binghamton Review, October 2006

to our entanglement in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The main players thus far that are supporting economic sanctions in one way or another are the five permanent members of the UN Security Council. I say “in one way or another” because both China and Russia have conflicts of interest with these sanctions.

China has secured a deal with Iran for the sale of natural gas and oil worth $70 billion. (BBC) Russia is tainted, too—it has been contracted by Iran to build an $800 million nuclear reactor. This scenario has forced the other three powers to try and work around these blatant conflicts of interest. On October 17th, Reuters reported that European and U.S. governments were willing to allow Russia to continue working on the project even if sanctions were imposed on Iran. Russia would be allowed to provide Iran with fresh nuclear fuel and Iran, in turn, would be expected to return the spent fuel to Russia to prevent the Iranian development of nuclear weapons. Currently, two Russian arms and aircraft companies are being sanctioned by the United States for making deals with Iran. On October 16th, Russia demanded that the United States lift these sanctions. Although Russia has not made any explicit demands requiring that the U.S. drop these sanctions as a condition of Russia’s support for economic

Science

19

arlier this month Kim Jong-il turned his country into the laughing stock of the world-- again. For those of you who have been dead since July, or just plain don’t know what http://news.google.com is, here’s what has been happening: North Korea, for some time, has acted like a young, disturbed and misunderstood child acting out to gain attention. Unfortunately, North Korea is a country and not a small child. Naturally this causes our allies in the area some concern, just as a disturbed kid with a gun might concern any one of us. However, North Korea doesn’t have anything as harmless as a gun or two; they’re working on a nuclear program and delivery system.

North Korea has been looking into delivery systems for these wonderful nuclear devices of theirs. Apparently they’ve realized that our air defense is a bit better than Japan’s was 60 years ago and a B-29 Superfortress, like the Enola Gay, won’t cut it. This past July, North Korea launched a volley of test missiles across the Japanese mainland, but the missiles attained less than optimal range before self destructing in a perfect display of why plagiarism is never a good idea.

While I don’t think anyone is sure what North Korea intended when they launched these missiles, I can almost guarantee that they weren’t planning for a Japanese arms buildup, proposed amendments to the Japanese constitution to remove restrictions on Binghamton Review, October 2006

Japan’s “defensive only” military or international condemnation.

Since the missile test North Korea has increased efforts to achieve nuclear capability, and recently detonated a nuclear device. North Korea’s nuclear program has used design schematics that, if done properly [insert chuckle], would be capable of producing a nuclear yield similar to that of the plutonium device, “Fat Man”, used over Nagasaki—with an estimated yield range of 15 to 20 kilotons.

On the day of the nuclear test, North Korea informed China less than a half an hour before the test was scheduled to start, and China then informed the United States.

Measurements of geologic activity from the underground test site estimated the yield of the explosion to be 550 tons, or about 0.04 times the expected minimum yield.

According to Robert Oppenheimer, the father of the atomic bomb, “It [a “Fat Man” style bomb] should not be much less than 1000 tons (1 kiloton) unless there is natural malfunctioning of some of the components.” The United States’ nuclear ambitions started in 1939 and the first test of a nuclear device was in the desert at Trinity in 1945. 61 years later the North Korean nuclear scientists couldn’t accomplish a similar fission device between research and stealing nuclear plans and secrets. As will no doubt come as a surprise to you, the bomb is considered to be a dud. But duds could still be cause for worry.

“What about the terrorists?” you might ask. Well, North Korea’s

Book Review

20

State of Emergency Pat Buchanan’s Newest Book and the Dangers Facing America

by Tom Shannon y now you’ve read through a good portion of your overpriced academic textbooks and been bombarded with language such as “craftpersonship,” LGBTQMcG,” “Thomas Jefferchild,” and “B.C.E.” (I don’t know what they mean either.) One place where none of that nonsense will be found is Pat Buchanan’s new book entitled “State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America.”

The man Dana Carvey once called “Saint Patrick of Buchananomics” is back to tackle the illegal immigration issue. An issue like this raises several existential questions for the United States.

Does the racial makeup of our nation matter? Do all races have equal ability to assimilate into American culture? Is our nation held together by anything other than a shared quest for utility maximization? Is the road to World Government paved with free trade? Was James K. Polk evil?

The short answers, in Buchanan’s view, are yes, no, not at this point in our history, probably, and no.

Consider the nature of the U.S.A. We are a “nation of immigrants” bound to our communities and country only by a common subscription to lofty political ideals such as equality before the law, democracy, and the Constitution. Or so the people who go around chanting “diversity equals strength” would have you believe. Take for example that most highly placed of open borders advocates, President Bush, and

his thoughts on the subject: “America has never been united by blood or birth or soil. We are bound by ideals that… teach us what it means to be citizens.” - First Inaugural Address.

But these bulwarks which supposedly are the only things binding Americans together – democracy, equality, the Constitution – are a source of conflict in American society. Sadly but truly, we are a

50-50 nation when it comes time to interpret the Constitution. It gives us a government, but little else – certainly not cultural unity or love of country.

Or take Jefferchild’s maxim that “all men are created equal.”

To express disbelief in this is unAmerican, right? In Buchanan’s view, these words “do not mean the same thing to all Americans.

They never did.” No argument here, Gettysburg Address notwithstanding.

Binghamton Review, October 2006

Collective belief in the virtues and folklore of democracy is the only plank remaining for those who suggest that political ideals are what keep the American people united as a country. Let’s turn to what America’s greatest immigrant had to say about democracy. Writing the night before he was fatally shot in the fields of Weehawken, Alexander Hamilton referred to what he called “our real Disease; which is DEMOCRACY.” John Adams, writing to John Taylor of Caroline, was even less generous: “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide.” And yet it is impossible to call Adams or Hamilton un-American.

This has profound implications for the illegal immigration debate. If the U.S. is not an “ideological nation,” bound only by shared political ideals, then it follows that being American means more than just pledging allegiance to the flag or reading the Constitution.

The U.S. should be looked at by its inhabitants, Buchanan argues, as a “roots nation,” bound by a “passionate attachment to one’s own country – its land, its people, its past, its heroes, literature, language, traditions, culture, and customs.” Only with a cultural unity of this sort, rather than mere unity in our bedrock political beliefs, can the U.S. avoid the fate of the Habsburg Empire.

That “roots nation” unity is indeed threatened by multiculturalism but more principally a general loathing/indifference towards much of

21 American history by Gen X, Gen Y, and the 12 million plus illegal immigrants presently in the U.S. – stated alternatively: most everyone educated post-1959. The shamefully small percentage of college seniors who have managed to acquire a working knowledge of American history (see: www.AmericanCivicLiteracy.com) are as likely to think of their forefathers as racist (or, in Jefferchild’s case, a racist miscegenator) and irrelevant rather than esteemed and heroic. How many major pre-World War II figures in American history have escaped the wrath of the multiculties? Virtually none. As Buchanan puts it “we… call our ancestors racist, as we trumpet our moral superiority.”

This has the effect of making us unable to demand that all immigrants speak English, learn American history, and leave their ethnic label and hyphen at the border. At the very least, immigrants should leave Mexican nationalism south of the Rio Grande. In recent weeks we’ve seen, at Columbia University in particular, what I like to call “Mexican Nationalism Gone Wild”. This is the vital difference between Mexican immigration and all other ethnic group immigration. Many Mexicans are taught from early on that the land gained by the U.S. during the War with Mexico (i.e. California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, etc.) still belongs to Mexico. With the reconquista marches of earlier this year and an inflow of illegals that is mostly Hispanic and which is, cringe, estimated at close to one million people per year, a de facto policy of unlimited immigration is tantamount to national suicide.

The advocates of unlimited immigration essentially have only one viable argument, and it centers

on opportunity cost. What would America’s GDP numbers be like without all the Hispanic immigrants to work our farmland, scrub our toilets, and mow our lawns? Lou Dobbs put it best when he said “This is America. Mow your own damn lawn!” Columnist Robert Samuelson identifies the dominant religion of the last century as the “Church of GDP.” Followers of this cult, Buchanan argues, see “mass immigration [as] more workers, more consumers, bigger markets, a bigger economy. And because it is good for the GDP, it is good for America.” Cultural consequences be damned, because we are getting rich. Herein lies the “great rift” in conservative thought: the rift between those concerned with conserving our culture and those who choose to conserve our wallets.

Traditionalists and libertarians have played nice for the better part of the last four decades, but it’s hard to see this coalition surviving the current immigration predicament intact.

Well, if unlimited immigration is not the answer, then what is the traditionalist solution for mass illegal immigration? We can build a wall from Brownsville to San Diego, pursue a policy of “attrition,” organize a 2006 version of “Operation Wetback,” or better yet, all three.

“Attrition” means several policy changes such as cutting all welfare for illegal immigrants and amending the Constitution to prohibit “anchor babies” (U.S. citizens born to illegal immigrant mothers in the U.S.) all in the hope that illegals will move back to Mexico or at least lose their foothold in the United States. I’m not holding my breath, but at least the welfare savings could be put towards construction of the wall along our southern border. Forced deportation would be costly and useless without

Binghamton Review, October 2006

a wall but it is not without precedent.

“Operation Wetback” was enacted in 1954 and successfully deported nearly 100,000 undocumented Hispanics and led to as many as one million more left voluntarily for fear of deportation. If we could find the right combination of a wall, attrition, and deportations we would deplete the present number of illegals and prevent all future illegal immigration.

Once we are able to successfully enforce immigration laws, we need to act to encourage immigrant assimilation. This was the point of the Harding/Coolidge era immigration laws that remained on the books until 1965 and were, by all accounts, successful in assimilating the “Great Wave” of the early 20th century without a significant depletion of American unity. Cultural assimilation is more important now than ever before when one considers the radical shifts in ethnic makeup of the American populace since 1965.

As Buchanan puts it “Immigration is not a right that belongs to anybody and everybody who wants to come.”

If we do not defend our common culture and roots then the American democracy is doomed to fail. Try floating that idea next time you’re in the Multicultural Resource Center.

-Tom Shannon is the Managing Editor of Binghamton Review

Military Strategy

22

his past August three young men entered an army-recruiting agency in Wisconsin with the goal of entering the service. However, these men were not allowed to join. All three of them were students at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and all were in good health. So, why were these men rejected? The reason was that they were homosexual and they refused to conceal it from the public—“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” strikes again.

In the 2005 fiscal year 742 men and women were discharged from military services because of their sexual preferences. Specifically, 16 were from Coast Guard, 75 from the Marines, 177 from the Navy, 386 from the Army, and 88 from the Air Force. However, discharges from the military over homosexuality are not uncommon.

Between the years 1997-2000, approximately 4,447 people have been discharged due to sexualBinghamton Review, October 2006

ity from military service. It is interesting to note that no reasons beyond sexuality have been attributed to the discharging of the servicemen.

Historically, the bias against homosexuals within the military is blatantly obvious. Homosexuals have been thought of as a security risk and been considered to be unequal to heterosexuals. Often times, harassment of homosexuals by heterosexual servicemen would pressure and persuade them to resign from the military or turn themselves in to investigators.

The most infamous form of harassment, the “blanket party”, involved several servicemen going into the barracks at night and covering the face of the victim with a blanket and then committing severe, sometimes fatal assault.

During the American revolutionary war sodomy (broadly defined then as oral or anal sexual conduct) was grounds for a dishonorable discharge. Such discharges can be dated as far back as 1778, when General George Washington approved the dishonorable discharge of Lieutenant Gotthold Frederick Enslin, after charges of homosexual sodomy and perjury were made against him. Since those days the war against homosexual in the military has had several incarnations.

Between 1940 and 1981 the armed forces used a pre-screening to weed out gays and bisexuals from duty. However, there is no proof

23 that the screening process was successful or accurate. It is rumored that during the Vietnam War, heterosexuals would occasionally pretend to be homosexual to avoid the draft. Additionally, there were many homosexual men and women who deceived the screening process, and served in the armed forces despite the ban.

One famous story from the 1950’s and 60’s was that of Navy Medical Doctor Tom Dooley.

Doctor Dooley received national fame for his anti-Communist and humanitarian efforts during Vietnam. However, his homosexuality became an open secret in the Navy and, despite his fame, he was forced to resign. Following Dooley’s resignation the Navy conducted its first official study the Navy rules and regulations regarding sexual orientation. The 1957 report, Report of the Board Appointed to Prepare and Submit Recommendations to the Secretary of the Navy for the Revision of Policies, Procedures and Directives Dealing with Homosexuals, found that homosexuals were no more likely to be a security risk than heterosexuals. Additionally, they found that there was no rational basis for excluding gays from the Navy.

In 1981, the Department of Defense issued a new regulation on homosexuality that was made to develop uniform, welldefined regulations and justifications that made homosexual status and conduct grounds for discharge. Written in DOD Directive 1332.14, “Homosexuality is incompatible with military service.

The presence in the military environment of persons who engage

in homosexual conduct or who, by their statements, demonstrate a propensity to engage in homosexual conduct seriously impairs the accomplishment of the military mission.”

According to the White House, “the mission of the military is to be prepared to fight and win war and, therefore, prevent war from happening in the first place.”

That begs the question: how does homosexuality interfere with this mission? A sexual preference does not prevent the military from being prepared to fight and win. I don’t believe that homosexuality does not single-handedly debilitate the military—its effects are not that grandiose.

Arguments are constantly made that allowing homosexuals in the military would erode unit cohesion and morale. However, as I see it, the only ones who would cause the erosion of unit cohesion would be the servicemen who have issues serving alongside gays. It would then not be the homosexuals themselves who cause the erosion, but the heterosexuals who allow their personal beliefs to come between them and their ability to successfully serve and protect their country.

In 1993, the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” Congressional compromise was created, and it dictates that the armed forces will no longer ask recruits about their sexual orientation, will not investigate any serviceman or woman’s sexual orientation without solid evidence, and that homosexual servicemen and women agree that they will not engage in homosexual acts, or do anything that announces that they are homosexual.

Binghamton Review, October 2006

This is a policy that is unfair to gay and lesbian citizens.

Homosexuals spend their lives being ridicule by those that do not approve of their sexual preferences. “Coming out” is a difficult task for many people, and it is unfair that the armed forces and the federal government have the ability to restrict troops civil liberty by refusing them the freedom to choose their sexual preference.

“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” essentially forces homosexuals that want to serve America in the armed forces to go back in the closet until their tour of duty is complete. This causes emotional and physical discomfort to the gays and lesbians in the army for extended periods of time—something that the heterosexual servicemen and women do not have to deal with.

Additionally, is not an easy task for the federal government to enforce “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”.

In February 2005, the Government Accountability Office released estimates on the cost of the policy to the United States government, totaling approximately $190 million since 1993. It is also important to note that polls have shown that a large majority of the American public favors allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the US military. A Pew Research Center survey conducted in May 2006 showed that 60% of respondents favored allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly while 32% opposed.

Even Republican members of the House of Representatives feel that “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is unfair and that restricting homosexuals from the military is not right. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen,

The scariest sight at BU since Lois DeFleur appeared in Playboy Binghamton Review

Binghamton University P.O. Box 6000 Binghamton, N.Y. 13902-6000

Binghamton Review, October 2006

Nonprofit Org. U.S. Postage PAID Permit 61 Binghamton, NY