October 2008 - Binghamton Review

October 2008

Binghamton Review

! d e t c

i v E Plus:

BR Uncovers the Plot to Kick Students Out of the City

BR Interviews Walter Williams Open Borders Advocate Speaks on Campus, and Hinman RAs Try to Indoctrinate!

It’s all here, in Binghamton Review, the voice of students!

Truth and two staples Binghamton Review, April 2005

Binghamton Review Editors-in-Chief Adam Shamah Robert Edward Menje Managing Editor Rod Alzmann Associate Editor Randal Meyer Copy Editor Yadin Herzel Business Manager Michael Lombardi Treasurer Daniel Rabinowitz Contributors Paul Liggieri, Nehemia Stern, Alex Paolano, Samantha Mickle, Rachel Gordon, Eugenio Campos, John Jensen, Theresa Juergens Graphics Michael Saltzman Friends of the Review Dr. Aldo S. Bernardo The Leonini Family The Powell Family Mr. Bob Soltis WA2VCS The Shamah Family The Grynheim Family The Menje Family The Leeds Family The Lombardi Family

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

Founded 1987 o Volume XXII Number 2 o October 2008

In this issue...

9 13 14 17 19 21 24 26 27 29 30

Cover Story: Housing by the Editors The plan to end student housing in the citypage

8

Freedom Isn’t Free by Theresa Juergens Remembering Our Soldiers Legalized Rape by Robert E. Menje New York City is the greatest city in the world, too bad the taxes there are enough to make me want to leave.

Why We Fight by John Jensen Remembering 9/11 In a Nutshell by Rod Alzmann The Credit Crisis Binghamton Review Sits Down with Walter Williams Think Like Me by Matthew Hassell Indoctrination in Hinman Commons The Demagogue by Nehemia Stern Barack Obama and Mass Hysteria MJ’s Handcuffs by Rachel Gordon The Case for Legalizing Pot

Departments 3. Editorial 4. Letters 5. Presswatch 6. Month in Review

Obamanomics: Part 2 by Randal Meyer Taxes and Oil Disaffirming Affirmative Action by Alex Paolano Let’s end this counterproductive policy

Binghamton Review, October 2008

Editorial

F

kamlet’s commission

or years, students have been the target of attacks by groups like the Westside Neighborhood Association and people like former City Councilman Joseph Sanfillipo. These individuals and organizations have one goal: remove student housing from certain parts of the city, usually the lower density, residential districts.

The most recent (and so far unreported by campus media) attack comes from Ken Kamlet and Mayor Ryan’s Commission on Housing and Home Ownership. The commission is deliberating a series of recommendations authored

by Mr. Kamlet. These recommendations, if implemented, would spell the end to student housing in much of the City.

(See page 9 for full story)

To illustrate the absurdity of the very idea of controlling student housing, consider this: Recommendations from previous Comprehensive Plans that are included in the Kamlet report include the following: “If inappropriately located, [Binghamton University] students can be extremely disruptive to stable neighborhoods. More specifically, many single family West Side neighborhoods are currently being threatened by high concentrations of students.” Now, imagine if you replaced every mention of the word “students” in that statement with the word “negroes;” “If inappropriately located, [Binghamton University] negroes can be extremely disruptive to stable neighborhoods. More specifically, many single family West Side neighborhoods are currently being threatened by high concentrations of negroes.” What is the difference between discrimination against blacks and discrimination against students? Students don’t have the NAACP to defend them, is all I can think of.

It is in our opinion that the Housing Commission is being steered by Ken Kamlet to benefit Mr. Kamlet’s employer, the Newman Development Group.

Councilwoman Teri Rennia had recently become concerned that the commission did not have a strong enough voice speaking on behalf of landlords. She recommended the appointment of Victor Salcedo, Vice President of the Landlord Association, to the commission. This recommendation was later approved by Mayor Ryan’s office.

However, once his appointment had come before Kamlet and his associates on the commission, the body’s politics came into play.

At 2:05pm on Monday, October 6th, Salcedo received an e-mail from Alycia Harris, the Vice-Chair of the commission, inviting him to a meeting that would begin at 2:15pm that very same day. He of course could not attend, having been given just 10 minutes notice. The following afternoon, Salcedo received an e-mail from Harris telling him that he would no longer be welcome on the commission.

“We are close to the end of our committee obligations/tasks, as the Housing Commission final report is due in December.

The committee members feel that we have finally reached a cohesive point in the committee and that it would not be in the best interest to add another member,” her e-mail read.

Translation: the commission has reached a consensus similar to Kamlet’s recommendations and now has no room for dissident voices that might “screw the whole thing up.”

This recent event shows that this commission is not in business to discover what is best for the City of Binghamton, but rather what is best for Ken Kamlet and the interests he represents. That is, the interests of Newman Group and groups like the Westside Neighborhood Association.

It is in our opinion that Mayor Ryan should disband the commission, reject its corrupt recommendations, and start fresh. There are legitimate housing problems in the City that need to be addressed. Students being allowed to live in the residential districts isn’t one of them.

See Story on Page 9

Our Mission

-Adam Shamah

Binghamton Review is a non-partisan, student-run periodical of con-

servative thought at Binghamton University. A true liberal arts education

expands a student’s horizons and opens one’s mind to a vast array of divergent

perspectives. In that spirit, we seek to promote the free exchange of ideas and offer

an alternative viewpoint not normally found on our predominately liberal campus.

It is our duty to expose the warped ideology of political correctness that dominates

this university. We stand against tyranny in all its forms, both on campus and beyond.

We believe in the principles set forth in this country’s Declaration of Independence,

and seek to preserve the fundamental tenets of western civilization. Finally, we un-

derstand that a moral order is a necessary component of any civilized society. We

strive to inform, engage, and perhaps even amuse our readers in carrying out this mission.

Binghamton Review, October 2008

Dear Filthy Fascists...

Letters thetoeditor To the Editor:

I just wanted to extend, in writing, my thanks for the privilege of meeting your staff when I visited Binghamton. It has been a long time since I was last able to attend a BR meeting, and I’m happy to report that they are still engaging, open to dissent, and slightly silly. I wouldn’t want it any other way.

BR outshines any other campus publication and therefore has a responsibility to call attention to leftist chicanery and administration boondoggles.

Your articles have the right balance of taking on those who wish to demean our university, while still ultimately being pro BU, and pro student.

BR carries the torch of liberty at BU, and must never waver. Keep up the good work.

-Louis W. Leonini

P.S. If attendance at our meetings is any indication, it can be said that the Prime Minister of Italy had it right when he said “The left has no taste, even when it comes to women ...

(right wing women) are more beautiful.”

Buh like, donchuno praising the Review is like, offensive???

To the Editor,

After reading the latest issue of the Binghamton Review, I am extremely disgusted and outraged. This trash that some may call news gives off a horrible representation of Binghamton University. God forbid someone came on our campus and picked up an issue of your Review, they would be appalled and think this school consists of racist groups and unbearable discrimination. This is not the first time the Binghamton Review has violated a race or group of people. Of course, everyone is entitled to their own opinion and freedom of speech, but the school cannot fund something like this. A review highlights pros and cons. Instead, this review consists solely of cons and it allows one group of students to publish incorrect information and wrongfully categorize races and groups on this campus.

4

Where do you come from claiming that LASU sponsors terrorism? Provide facts, provide footnotes because when you attend one of their meetings, you will see that they do way more for this campus than you do. The mural in the meeting room is a memorial of the trials and tribulations their people suffered.

The things you say about multiculturalism? How dare you? If that is how you really feel then you may need to leave the United States because this country does not consist of one group of people. This issue has stirred up many people and I am sure you will hear from a few other people who are determined to take a stance against racism and degradation in this school.

-Ashley M. Reid

To our readers: here you see how the typical multiculturalist responds to criticism. Eugenio Campos, the author of the article she is referring to, is a genuine Hispanic. In the past, he has used the Review to criticize the bastardization of Latin culture by the Latin American Student Union here at BU. He, like most of us at BR, rejects the concept of moral relativism; the idea that “everyone has his own culture, all cultures are equal, who are we to criticize? etc.” Guess what, most people agree that certain cultures are more productive and more civilized, than others. A culture that celebrates Euro-Latin values is clearly better than one that celebrates “shawties,” illiteracy, and Che Guevara.

Agree with us? Disagree?

Write us!

Email letters to the editor to binghamtonreview@gmail.com Binghamton Review, October 2008

Policing the Media

Campus Presswatch Pipe Dream September 12, 2008

Pipe Dream September 16, 2008

When confronted with the West Side Neighbor Association and R-1 zoning laws, Pipe Dream’s editorial board had two options; (1) they could have chosen to support the WSNA and the downtown Newman Group project, or (2) they could have chosen to speak out against the discriminatory zoning laws and Newman Group’s shady motives.

Those familiar with Pipe Dream should not be surprised to see that they went with option (3), carefully skirt the issue while pointing out the blatantly obvious.

Pipe Dream’s editorial board typecasts all landlords as inattentive, irresponsible bastards.

There will be no townie neighbors to disturb, no unresponsive landlords to argue with and no board looking for eviction all within a stone’s throw of the Rat!

Of course, the City of Binghamton wants the apartments too (though we do find the involvement of Ken Kamlet, a Newman employee, with the city’s housing commission to be questionable). Students who can afford the apartments undoubtedly can afford to spend at local businesses.

Maybe with more students living closer to the heart of the city, pumping more money through it, the perpetually lamented town-gown relations will improve marginally. Either way, Campus Suites will be nice digs, assuming UP’s hospital-style corridors aren’t included. Most important, students will be welcomed there.

The WSNA wanted the students to go, and soon they will: across the river, with fat rent checks in hand.

dents!

“This is why BU students toss around the phrase “slum lord” so freely. We know landlords have the money for the water bills — it’s not like they spend anything on maintenance.”

There are a lot of bad landlords—that’s for sure. That doesn’t mean all of them are modern day Peter Rachmans. An overwhelming majority of landlords who rent to students have paid their water bills and take care of their tenants. The majority of those who haven’t paid their bills do not rent to students. Lumping all landlords together like this is counterproductive and downright offensive to those who do care.

ship. And maybe we need to cut back on the luxuries. But if that’s what it takes to keep this country out of bankruptcy? Um, let’s do it, guys.

Sounds like the American Dream—work hard, make money, and live a luxurious lifesty—no, wait— work hard, make money, and hand it over to the government so it can be used to pay for some louse’s drug problem or a sixteen year old teenager’s morning after pill. Because we’re all in it together guys. Riedel is truly a visionary—just like Lenin.

Free Press September 18, 2008

Pipe Dream September 23, 2008

Sam Riedel, the freshman class’ resident socialist, vents his anger on Pipe Dream’s opinion page:

It’s entirely possible that taxes may have to be raised on the uppermiddle class. Or on the middle class.

And we have to shoulder that burden. And maybe we don’t get to take Pipe Dream, the voice of stu- that cruise. And maybe we don’t get to keep the country club member-

Free Press Editor--It must have been a real “challange” for you to get into Binghamton. Luckily, there are affirmative action programs for “special” people like you.

Binghamton Review, October 2008

This atand BUBeyond Month Border Angel Invades Campus

In the words of Enrique Morones, the open borders advocate who spoke on our campus recently, this brief will serve to “promote fear” and should be considered “hate talk.” That’s how Enrique characterized opponents of illegal immigration during his September 24th lecture. Also, if there are any hate crimes committed against Hispanics on campus in the next few weeks, be sure to blame us at the Review, because, according to Morones, “pundits on the right” are responsible for the increase in attacks against Hispanics nationwide.

The lecture was part of the Multicultural Resource Center’s “Annual Dialogue on Diversity and Social Justice.”

Linda Morales, the director of the Multicultural Resource Center, the department that sponsored this event, defined “social justice” as breaking down “barriers” and freeing certain “segments of our society” from “institutionalized oppression.”

Morones operates mostly out of San Diego, and is the founder of a group known as the Border Angels, whose purported purpose is to provide food and water to people coming across the Mexican-American border. In other words, provide aide to illegal immigrants. Morones’ lecture showed he does much more than provide food and

water to entering illegals; he unabashedly supports amnesty—excuse me, “pathway to legalization”—for those who are already here. His website also contains information on how to “protect yourself from immigration raids.”

Aside from the sob stories about poor Mexicans dying on the border, Morones criticized the U.S. Government, and blamed the problem on America! We’ve lured them here, and since we don’t let enough in legally (around one million every year), it’s our fault that they break the law to come here.

Maybe this will illustrate how one can be opposed to multiculturalism, “diversity,” and “social justice” without being a “racist.” Clear-thinking people know that opposition to illegal immigration in most cases has nothing to do with race. Our opposition to open border policy and other tenets of multiculturalism stems not from race but from the moral and philosophical arguments behind each issue. The multiculturalist supports amnesty for illegal immigrants in the name of social justice, which, as previously mentioned, Linda Morales defines as freeing certain segments of our society from institutionalized oppression. We reject the claim that keeping people who are here illegally from becoming legal is somehow “institutionalized oppression” and oppose amnesty because of the economic implications, as well as out of support for the rule of law. Not because we’re “bigoted gringos.” social justice conference to be held

Enrique Morones, founder of the Border Angels, spoke on campus on September 24th, 2008.

The SUNY Social Justice conference, which is planned to be held here at Binghamton on November 7-9, looks to be one of the largest events the left will have organized on campus in recent memory.

The conferences purported purpose is to “build new movements for social justice.” Planned workshops include “Fuck the Corporate Mainstream,” “Farm Worker Organizing,” “Achieving Radical Reforms,” “Radical Mental Health,” “Anarchism for Social Justice,” and “Palestine 101.”

Radical Socialist Howard Zinn will be the conference’s keynote speaker. Zinn is the author of the unabashedly anti-American novel The People’s History of the United States.

Among others, the conference is being sponsored

Binghamton Review, October 2008

6

by the Harpur College Dean’s Office, Office of the Provost, College of Community and Public Affairs, Department of Human Development, Women’s Studies Department, Sociology Department, History Department, Political Science Department, Anthropology Department, English Department, and EMO/SAC.

Check out future Binghamton Reviews for full coverage of this commie, hate America, get together!

free press publisher resigns

Free Press publisher Jessica Poretsky has resigned in the wake of overbearing criticism of her first, and only, issue of Free Press. The article that stirred controversy was about OCCT, and seemed to blame much of the problem on Matt Landau, the SA president. After reading the article, Landau was seen in the SA office on the phone with Poretsky. The subsequent conversation led Jessica to file harassment charge against Landau with UPD. Apparently, Jessica had a problem with Landau’s usually uncivil tone. After examining the police report, BR has determined that Landau had done nothing wrong and Poretsky needs to have her head examined. Free Press’ new publisher is Kate Alicia Bacille. global warming justifies breaking the law

Six greenpeace activists were recently cleared by a British jury after causing over $60,000 worth of damage to a coal power plant. The jury’s reasoning: the power plant’s role in the threat of global warming justified the otherwise unlawful act. The jury used the Criminal Damage Act of 1971, which was intended to excuse certain minor damages to prevent even greater damage. For example, as the Independent points out, breaking down a door would be OK if it meant tackling a fire.

So, by this logic, would knocking down homes with fireplaces be OK? Can I slash the tires of someone’s car to lower that person’s “carbon footprint”? What about murder? Humans emit more CO2 than power plants do. american carol fraud

An American Carol, a conservative comedy directed by David Zucker, was released last week in theaters nationwide. According to the American Carol website, “numerous people across the country [have come across] ticket fraud when buying a ticket for An American Carol.”

People were “mistakenly” sold a ticket for another movie, and in some reports, certain movie theaters displayed that An American Carol was rated R, when in reality it was rated PG-13.

Sick of your professor calling Castro’s beard the “fuzz of freedom”?

Need an escape from the left’s various “revolutions”?

Join

Binghamton Review BU’s last refuge for campus conservatives.

Meetings Every Thursday at 7:30pm in the BR Office (B05, in the Union Basement)

Binghamton Review, October 2008

Robert Spencer Author of The Truth about Mohammed: The Founder of the World’s Most Intolerant Religion To Speak During

Islamofascism Awareness Week

Tuesday, October 28th 8:30 pm Susquehanna Room Refreshments will be served

Sponsored by Binghamton Review and Binghamton University Zionist Organization (BUZO)

Cover Story

Goodbye Fair Housing and Free Choice

For years students have been the target of coordinated efforts by the City of Binghamton, anti-student groups, such as the West Side Neighborhood Association, and assorted profiteers. These attacks are now culminating in what could be an end to student choice when it comes to off campus housing.

A plan currently being deliberated in the City Commission on Housing and Home Ownership, if implemented, could force Binghamton University students living in the City of Binghamton out of their homes.

This report was authored and filed to the commission by member Kenneth Kamlet, who also serves as the Director of Legal Affairs for the Newman Development Group, L.L.C. The report recommends sweeping policy changes that include applying new zoning laws and modified enforcement procedures to private residences in the City of Binghamton.

At the same time, Newman Group is planning to build a new

by Adam Shamah,

Randal Meyer, and

Rod Alzmann

University Plaza style apartment complex in the heart of downtown Binghamton. These two events are by no means independent of each other and in reality they are heavily intertwined.

Housing Report

Binghamton Review has uncovered a report authored and filed to the Housing Commission by Mr. Kenneth Kamlet titled “Need for Tighter Zoning to Control Student and Other Rental Housing.” The policy changes recommended by the Kamlet report include limiting the number of students allowed to reside in homes in the three residential districts (R-1, R-2, and R-3) in the City.

The report’s third recommendation states, “[t]he Binghamton Zoning Code should be updated…to better control the number of transient renters.” (All BU students are considered transient renters because

their living arrangements are temporary.) In addition, “[t]he number of unrelated renters presumptively allowed in a residential district should not be set at more than three.” This would permit only students who live with two or fewer housemates to rent homes in much of the City.

Kamlet’s report also proposes that the enforcement method be converted from the current “complaintdriven process” to a “more self-implementing process” in which there is “a ‘rebuttable presumption’ that more than a certain number of unrelated tenants (usually 3 or 4) is not the functional equivalent of a family.”

This means that the City would assume that any 4 or more unrelated persons living together are doing so illegally and, consequently, can begin the eviction process. The burden of appealing to the Zoning Board rests on the renters themselves.

The self-stated purpose of this report is to stabilize Binghamton’s residential neighborhoods. The desire to

Binghamton Review, October 2008

10 control student housing is explained in previous Comprehensive Plans reiterated in Kamlet’s report: “If inappropriately located, [Binghamton University] students can be extremely disruptive to stable neighborhoods.

More specifically, many single family West Side neighborhoods are currently being threatened by high concentrations of students.” In a section of the report titled “Unintended Market Implications” Kamlet addresses the concern that if his recommendations were followed, homes currently rented to students would become vacant or infested with “criminal elements.”

His response appears to just restate the problem: “[r]ental apartments not utilized by students will be available as affordable housing to those most in need of such housing.” However, according to the Landlord Association of Binghamton, there are already

more rentals available than there are students to rent. The demand for housing (especially when students are excluded) is not such that people will flock towards these properties.

Newman Group

Newman Development Group, L.L.C. is the organization that developed University Plaza in Vestal. They currently are in the process of planning a new project, Campus Suites, which will be a University Plaza-like complex downtown, at Washington Street and Riverside Drive. According to an article in September 8th’s Press and Sun Bulletin, the complex will house as many as 800 students, and is projected to cost $65 million dollars. Parking availability, 350 spaces, will cover less than half the students expected to be living there. Rent is expected to be at least $600 per student, which is similar to University Plaza, whose rates range

from $635 to $770. This is more than double the average cost of renting a multiple bedroom home in the City.

According to Ellie Farfaglia’s (the President of the Landlord Association of Binghamton) letter to Mayor Ryan, “[a]t the onset of the West Side Neighborhood Association’s organized efforts to rid the west side of student housing, former City Councilman Joseph Sanfillipo publicly stated that the ‘low’ rents of student landlords were responsible for keeping developers from constructing downtown student housing. He reasoned they could not compete with us [the landlords]. The plan he offered was to introduce legislation that would limit the amount of students in a unit. This would force landlords to raise their rents to help cover their losses. The increase would then put them near the amount developers wanted to charge for rent thereby eliminating the competitive low rents. Also, because of the loss of available rooms, students would be driven into the costly apartments offered by downtown developers.” In essence, Mrs. Farfaglia, contends that Newman Group cannot compete in the free market, and therefore legislation is needed to make their downtown project economically viable.

Ken Kamlet

Rory Finkelstein, a BU Junior majoring in Mechanical Engineering, two weeks after his eviction from his home on Cheshnut Street.

As previously mentioned, Ken Kamlet is the Director of Legal Affairs for Newman Group. At the same time he sits on Mayor Ryan’s City Commission on Housing and Home Ownership (henceforth referred to as the Housing Commission). His involvement in these two positions has come under fire from certain parties, including Ellie Farfaglia, who has said that “Kamlet…is working towards eliminating Mr. Newman’s competition for student housing,” and “steering those people on the commission to accept all the

Binghamton Review, October 2008

11 propositions the way he wants.”

One of Kamlet’s recommendations is that “efforts to bring student housing downtown should continue to be pursued.” Under the “Unintended Market Implications” section, Kamlet responds to the concern that “if occupancy limits are tightened, some students may find themselves without affordable off-campus housing.” His response is “hundreds of new beds to accommodate students

A plan currently being deliberated in the City Commission on Housing and Home Ownership, if implemented, could force Binghamton University students living in the City out of their homes. both on- and off-campus are being developed both by the University and by private developers” (emphasis added). Binghamton Review takes this as an explicit reference to Kamlet’s employer, the Newman Group, and its development of Campus Suites. Here Kamlet clearly states in what way his employer stands to gain from his policy recommendations. Although Mr. Kamlet himself does not stand to make any marginal pecuniary gain, his salary is provided by the Newman Group.

Kamlet appears to have great power on the Housing Commission.

In an interview with the Review, he called himself “far and away the most productive member of [the housing] commission.” He has also said “If not for my participation, the commission would have gotten no where during the time it existed.”

Last month, Pipe Dream re-

ported on Ellie Farfaglia’s allegation “Kamlet wrote e-mails to members of the WSNA advising them on how to take action against student housing.” In the same article, Kamlet was quoted calling the accusation “absolute nonsense.” BR has obtained a copy of an e-mail correspondence between Ken Kamlet and Westside@ yahoogroups.com (a WSNA email account) in which he advises them on how to proceed against the BU students who were evicted last year from their house at 8 Lincoln Avenue (see picture). Binghamton Review questions whether, as the self-proclaimed “most productive member of [the housing] commission,” Ken Kamlet should be offering legal advice to par-

ties involved in the student-housing matter.

In sum, there are clear threats to off-campus choice for student housing. While the committees, the mayor, and the property owners debate the fate of the zoning districts, students are left in limbo regarding their outlook for housing next year.

BR will keep students updated on this vital story, and as always, will continue standing up for student rights.

Binghamton Review, October 2008

12

Help BR Grow For 21 years, Binghamton Review has been the voice of the campus right at Binghamton University. Now, more than ever, BR needs your help.

Please consider donating to our cause. Every penny counts towards advancing the conservative movement on BU’s liberal campus.

Donate now and get Binghamton Review delivered to your home free of charge.

Fill out this form and return it to: Binghamton Review Include a check P.O. Box 6000 made out to Binghamton, NY 13902 Binghamton Review Mailing Address:

______________________________

______________________________

______________________________ Enclosed is: ______ $30 ______ $100 ______ $1000 ______ $50 ______ $500 ______ Other

13

Freedom Isn’t Free Remembering Why They Fight

by Theresa Juergens ‘11

I

believe in the unalienable right of people to live with freedom, and support any methods of protecting that freedom from being destroyed. No person should have to live in oppression and fear, especially when other countries have the means of protecting them. Though world peace is a pleasant theory, as Thomas Jefferson once said, “If you want freedom, prepare for war.”

If Thomas Jefferson has such a positive reputation for being a formidable president, then why is the world not listening to his advice? Wishing for world peace is not going to change much; the only way peace will be established is through freedom. People have to stand up and defend humanity’s right to freedom first, before being able to receive a prize for doing so. Jefferson got it right: if you want peace, bring freedom into the world, but in order to secure freedom, sometimes you have to fight for it, even through the means of war.

Another great mind believed “We have every right to dream heroic dreams. Those who say that we’re in a time when there are no heroes, they just don’t know where to look.” This quote can be attributed to Ronald Reagan, another one of our presidents who knew just what to say. The people fighting for freedom in the world are no supermen—they are regular men— but are still heroes. Today, people view our soldiers as the ones who bring evil into the world, when they are doing the exact opposite; they are fighting for mankind’s freedom.

The soldiers in Iraq, especially, deserve more respect and support from

the people in the United States. Even though not everyone agrees with the reasons that President Bush presented for the incursions into Afghanistan and Iraq, people should go get some patriotism and stand behind our nation on its noble endeavors. If world peace is what we are supporting, how is trading freedom for peace for oppressed people just? Whether or not the rationale was destroying weapons of mass destruction, did no one feel the invasion was just and right in securing freedom for the people who were being tortured and subjugated in those countries? Are the people protesting the war, the ones that claim it to be about oil, not being hypocritical then when saying they yearn for world peace? How can there be world peace if people in nations dwell in fear every day of their lives?

Surely no one expected the invasion to be bloodless and simple. The people in those nations had to gain some perspective and courage in order to make a democracy work, but is it not great that we can be the generation to say, as President Reagan once sensibly said: “The house we hope to build is not for my generation but for yours. It is your future that matters. And I hope that when you are my age, you will be able to say as I have been able to say: We lived in freedom. We lived lives that were a statement not an apology.” What people must remember is not only that we are fighting to protect our freedom and ourselves, but also, we

are fighting for the freedom of our children and their right to live life freely, as we have lived when our parents protected our freedom.

So the next time you want to participate in an anti-war rally, have a second thought. Our soldiers are fighting for our right to live and our children’s right to live in freedom, happily. So instead of arguing against it, be thankful that someone is risking his or her life to let us to live in freedom. I know it is hard for the soldiers to miss Christmas with their families or a birthday; but still, I would have to say, most do not regret their decision to fight for our freedom.

Remember, America means freedom. Let us do anything to spread the happiness we feel at home, to oppressed people around the world by fighting for their freedom. If you were the exploited one, would you not want someone to fight for you?

Theresa Juergens is a sophomore majoring in Political Science.

Binghamton Review, October 2008

14

Legalized Rape How NYC Gives You

the

Shaft

by Robert E. Menje ‘09

I

, like many students at Binghamton University, was born and raised in New York City. It is a great city for many reasons, one of which being that there is always something to do. New York City however, does have a major downfall: over-taxation and fees. If you haven’t noticed, the Big Apple likes to tax everything. If it’s moving, tax it. If it’s stationary, tax it some more. The over-taxation of its residents is crippling their abilities to make ends meet.

In NYC, you pay federal income tax just like everyone else. You also pay state income tax (many states, such as Texas, New Hampshire, Washington, etc., do not have a state income tax.) Where it becomes tricky is when the City decides that it wants its residents to pay city income tax on top of the other two. Thought it was going to end there? These aren’t the only taxes one pays. Residents also pay property tax, sales tax (which is almost 9%, meanwhile the national average is about 5%), luxury tax, excise tax, banking corporation tax, cigarette tax, commercial motor vehicle tax, commercial rent tax, those hidden fees on your cell

phone bill, horse race admissions tax, hotel room occupancy tax, mortgage recording tax, real property transfer tax, liquor license tax, taxicab license transfer tax, and, of course, utility tax.

A pack of cigarettes in New York City costs over $8. The City imposes a tax so high that it is higher than the actual cost of the pack! New York City has the highest priced cigarettes in the United States. The average price of a pack in the United States is $4.02.

On top of these numerous taxes are all the ridiculous fees. If you haven’t noticed, there are fees for almost everything (luckily you can still defecate and not pay a fee, but who knows how long this will last.) In most places around the United States, if you want to exercise your second amendment rights, you simply show two forms of ID, go through a bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms federal background check, then purchase your rifle. In New York City, you must pay a $140 application fee and a $94.25 fingerprinting fee ($105.25 if you get them done in ink) to get a gun permit.

On top of that, you need to be fingerprinted, photographed four times, fill

out nine pages of documents, and have two friends write letters attesting to your good character. The city recommends a lawyer, doctor, employer, member of the clergy, or a business owner write these letters, and that it must be on their company stationary/letterhead.

Only after a lengthy investigation into your character do you finally get your gun permit, which could take several months. This permit is valid for three years. Every three years when you go to renew your permit, you must pay $140 more (money order only) and send in two more recent photographs. All of this is simply to get a rifle or a shotgun. If you want to get a pistol, you have to go through close to ten times the paperwork and ten times the cost compared to the rifle/shotgun. In order to get a pistol, you must also show proof of need to have one. You can’t simply say, “Because George Washington and Thomas Jefferson said that it’s my right.”

Cigarette tax and gun permit fees aren’t the only things that will make your wallet weep. New York City loves raping your bank accounts if you own a car. On top of the high

Read old issues, learn about the staff, and send us hate mail at

www.binghamtonreview.com Binghamton Review, October 2008

15 gas tax, there are tolls (more fees) on most major river crossings in the city.

These tolls can climb as sky high as $10 just to travel from Brooklyn to Staten Island. Tolls aren’t the only thing that puts the squeeze on motorists. New York City has an army of parking enforcement agents who will write you a ticket for sneezing incorrectly (it’s true I’ve seen it happen.) If you are too far from the curb… ticket. If you are parked for more than one hour at

a broken meter… ticket. If one inch of your bumper is touching the white line of an intersection… ticket! The City loves collecting money so much that they often give tickets for signs that don’t exist. If a sign is missing on a block, you will still get a ticket, even though it’s the City’s responsibility.

NYC expects its residents to have ESP and know the parking rules even when not visible.

New York City is a great place

to be but it sure gets hard on the wallet.

If you don’t pay attention you’ll end up sore from all the taxes, fees, and fines that you’re hit with. Metaphorically, when in NYC, don’t forget the KY to make it all a little less painful.

Robert Edward Menje is a senior majoring in History and is spending the semester in Washington D.C. He’s getting pounded hard there too.

Arctic Update Seven

Now Arctic Six!

VP Nominee and Alaska Governor Sarah Palin orders the execution of ring leader Mohammed Jihad, also known as Papa Bear!

Your help is needed more than ever. Please send us $15,000 for their criminal defense fund. If you can’t afford it, sell your home. We really need your $$$. Every second you wait, 5 babies in Africa starve is another second you allow the Bush/Cheney/McCain/Palin regime to continue the political persecution of these innocent peace activists.

Binghamton Review, October 2008

9/11 Never Forget

17

Why We Fight

by John Jensen ‘09

I

was blessed to have grown up in a country where, as a boy, I never had to fear for what might happen the next day. Our generation was reared in a post-Cold War peace, during which America was the clear leader of a freer, more peaceful world, and where the American youth never had to worry about war, famine, or danger from foreign enemies. But this sense of security in which many of our generation were raised was shattered on a beautiful September morning just seven years ago, and while many among us have already forgotten, the rest of us must keep the memory alive and close, lest history repeat itself.

It was freshman year, my first year in a new town, and I was more worried about how I was going to pass honors algebra than about the impending threats of global terrorism. But as the door of my English classroom swung open to reveal an anonymous teacher coming to inform us of the first airliner slamming into

the World Trade Center, my world view, and the position of the United States in that world would forever be altered.

That clear blue morning in the waning days of summer would see the lives of 2,977 stolen, and the lives of hundreds of millions irreparably marred by a loss of innocence, a loss of confidence, and a loss of direction. On September 10, 2001 our generation was invincible, caught up in the joys of youth. Since September 11, our generation was torn into two by war and politics.

I will never forget driving down the streets of my cookiecutter housing development and watching as neighbors affixed American flags to their porches. I remember the sounds of military planes racing about overhead. I remember the news reporters trying to hold back the tears as the towers fell. These things we must never forget, we can never forget, for to forget these things is to forget why we fight, and to forget

this is to be defeated. We fight for the brotherhood that the American people exhibited in those days after September 11, for the rights that generations of immigrants came to this country in search of and generations of soldiers laid down their lives for.

It was on September 11 that I realized America could not hope to attain peace for itself without ensuring that freedom and democracy were fostered around the world. Authoritarianism like that of the Taliban would never allow Americans to live in peace as long as we enjoyed the freedoms of the constitution, and of the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is this unwillingness to co-exist with freedom which brought the September 11 attacks upon us and it is this which remains the greatest threat to our freedom.

Today, American servicemen and women are deployed around the world, hunting down the people who would rob the world of freedom and crush the democratic dreams of all people.

We must remember why we fight this war against terrorism and we must stay the course. To simply stop in the midst of victory would be to throw away all that which so many Americans have fought and died for. We must remember the World Trade Center. We must remember the Pentagon, we must remember United Airlines Flight 93, and we must remember the liberation of Afghanistan and Iraq. We must never forget.

John Jensen is a senior majoring in History. He is President of the College Republicans at Binghamton University.

Binghamton Review, October 2008

18

Binghamton Review, October 2008

19

In a Nutshell The Credit Crisis

by Rod Alzmann ‘11

M

ost Binghamton University students know that bad things are going on in the nation’s economy today.

Everywhere you look another bank has failed, or another company has been nationalized. What 99% of us don’t know is why we’re in this mess, the most dangerous economic situation since the Great Depression. Allow me to endeavor to (for the most part) objectively explain why.

First off, the United States’ economic motor runs on lending. We students (or at least the not-so-lucky ones) borrow money to finance college. Our families borrow money to finance homeownership. Small business owners borrow money to run their company’s operations or expand their business. Yes, even those mighty corporations borrow to pay for expansion and growth. Money borrowed is invested in something and paid back for later, whether the loan is paying for our minds, our homes, or our businesses. In a nutshell, lending is like steroids for economic growth, without the adverse side effects.

Now that that’s out of the way, here’s what has set the entire U.S. lending system reeling.

In the ‘90’s and ‘00’s the housing industry was booming. Property values were skyrocketing and homes were being built and bought up across the country. Some buyers were banking (pun intended) on flipping the houses for quick profit, while some were in the market for their first home.

Most people don’t have hundreds of thousands of dollars lying around in a duffel bag somewhere, so in order to

finance these homes people resort to mortgages. A mortgage is basically a lien secured by real property. In English, it’s when you take out a loan for the property/home you’re buying.

Banks issue mortgages to buyers at a certain interest rate with a certain amount of money down. The buyer then pays the loan off eventually, usually over 30 years, and owns the land outright.

During the housing run-up, many lenders lowered their standards for prospective buyers. However, this was not done out of greed as the media likes to argue. It was, like most problems, chiefly government fabricated. The department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) gave Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two primary government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), which made loans and loan guarantees, explicit targets to hit regarding what kinds of mortgages they made. From 1996 on, for low and moderate income borrowers, 42% of mortgage financing had to go to borrowers below the median income. This jumped to 50% in 2000 and 52% in 2005. Basically, the GSEs, which owned or guaranteed roughly half of the country’s $12 TRILLION mortgage market, were forced into making loans that would quickly go sour if housing prices ever dropped.

This is the heart of our current troubles. People who simply should not have been buying homes were being given financing. Because of this easy credit (which was government mandated, remember?) the section of the mortgage market where buyers have poor credit histories

and/or insufficient income boomed.

It’s referred to, affectionately, as the sub-prime market now. Some of these people weren’t very knowledgeable about homeownership’s implications, and simply went along with what their lenders told them. Others simply thought (as the federal government has maintained, wrongly) that own-

Most people don’t have hundreds of thousands of dollars lying around in a duffel bag somewhere, so in order to finance these homes people resort to mortgages. ing property is required to attain the American dream. The banks also justified making these sub-prime loans under the incorrect assumption that home values would continue rising and never truly recede.

Next, after these mortgages were created, the banks bundled up some of the loans and sold them to investors (securitization). They lumped in mortgages to people with good credit (prime loans) with these subprime loans, and created securities that seemed highly secure. This came to be an illusion, however.

During the summer of 2006, demand for housing peaked. As anyone who has taken basic economics knows (Sam Riedel?), when the demand has been satisfied, and supply

Binghamton Review, October 2008

20 continues to increase, the price of the product, in this case houses, drops.

Houses, like Rome, aren’t built in a day, so there is a slight lag effect on supply too. From July 2006 to July 2008, according to the S&P/Case-Shiller Home Price Indices, which are internationally respected, prices across the country have dropped 20% on average. I don’t know if that seems like a lot to you, but it is. If you owned a house that was worth $500,000, on average, it is now worth $400,000. One hundred thousand dollars is a lot of money to lose in two years.

People then began to fall behind on their mortgage payments. Without the ability to pay the interest, and without the ability to sell their house to cover their debts, defaults and foreclosures started rising rapidly. As this happened, prices began dropping even

faster as the glut of houses on the market soared while demand sank. The banks now began losing money and the investors began to see their investments (which had been rated very highly) diminish. This created even more selling as people wanted to exit the market. With these debts (now referred to as ‘toxic’ on capitol hill and in the media) dropping in value, the banks that made the loans started having to writedown the value of their investments.

As the banks’ losses ballooned (on paper at least), they required capital injections to keep them solvent. For a few months it seemed that the worst might be over, but the loses simply kept coming. Fannie and Freddie were running out of money and were nationalized. Many of the banks that had originated loans

in sections of the country where home prices dropped the most (California, Nevada, etc.), saw billions upon billions of dollars disappear overnight.

All of these actions have brought us to today, a day in which we’ve watched Lehman Brothers fall, AIG fall, Washington Mutual fall, Merrill Lynch fall, Wachovia fall, to name a few of the largest victims. All of these actions have caused the lifeblood of the economy, lending, to tumble to a trickle. All of these actions have hurt every American, be they rich or poor, Main Street or Wall Street. All of these actions have brought us to the doorstep of another Great Depression, where fear, mistrust, and anger permeate the land. We cannot sit idly by in our anger. Inaction by the Congress, by the banks, and by the citizenry, will only cause what promises to be a tough recession ahead, to dissolve into a Great Depression 2.0.

Rod Alzmann is a sophomore majoring in Accounting. Poor people getting loans they didn’t deserve has cost him $5000...no, seriously, it has.

Great Moments in Multiculturalism

“I’m not exactly sure what that entails.”

-Maryam Belly, referring to her position as SA Vice President for Multicultural AFfairs on 9/22/08, at a meeting of the Student Assembly Binghamton Review, October 2008

21

BR Sits Down withWorld Renowned Economist

Walter Williams Binghamton Review: As an Economist, what is your take on the economic bailout that was shot down in Congress yesterday?

Walter Williams: I think rather than work with a bailout per say, at least part of the debate should be on the causes of the problem so we don’t duplicate them in the future. In terms of that Congress is the cause of the problem and it could throw us back to the 1977 Reinvestment Act, whereby financial institutions and banks were intimidated into making loans to people that they would not have otherwise made loans to.

High risk people and the financial institutions were willing to make these loans, and by that, the Community Reinvestment Act was strengthened under the Clinton Administration. The financial institutions were willing to make these loans because Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were guaranteeing their paper. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were government sponsored enterprises, and they are definitely responsible for much of the housing crisis; and, also the Fed-

eral Reserve Bank in keeping interest rates artificially low. This gave builders and buyers incentive to do things that they would otherwise not do. And so, my feeling on the bailout is that our economy is fairly sound, and I believe that the financial sector is in deep trouble. And so I think that for the people who were not involved in this risky business, maybe there should be something done. That is, people who have deposits at banks, and the banks might fail. Surely, they should be protected because they had nothing to do with it.

The financial institutions that were involved, I think they should fail.

We should let them fail, and I think one thing we should recognize is that in the market economy, failure is just as important as business’ success. A business failure conveys the message that ‘well, you’re doing the wrong thing, you don’t do that anymore’. And, if we bail them out, we create what Economists call a moral hazard. Whereby, in the future, people will do the same thing because they are expecting a bailout. As the British philosopher Hubert Spencer said that “If you protect men

from their folly, you create a nation of fools.”

BR: Do you think that students are ill-prepared for college as freshmen?

WW: I think that too many students are in college who would be better off either not being in college or at least postponing their entry into college.

That is, graduate from high school, and work at McDonalds or a car wash and gain some maturity. And then maybe later on, you have to go to college. I think that it is a huge waste of resources for many students to go to college.

BR: Do you think that college professors dumb down their curriculum in their classroom and/or grade inflate due the fact that there are so many unintelligent people who shouldn’t be there?

WW: Yes, I think there is a lot of grade inflation. That is clearly the case, and there is a lot of dumbing down. The students are unprepared. I mean, there are surveys that have been taken, where as seniors, students can’t place the Civil

Binghamton Review, October 2008

22 War correctly within a fifty year interval. There is one survey asking college seniors ‘When was Reconstruction?’

The majority said after World War II. But on the other hand, they could correctly identify who Snoop Dog is, or Bevis and Butthead. There is one survey that found that today’s average college graduate does not know as much as the average high school graduate in 1945.

BR: Now as an Economist, going back to economics… What do you think the economic implications of an Obama Presidency would be, and what would the economic implications of a McCain Presidency be?

WW: I think that Americans are making a serious mistake, in saying that economic issues will be the major problem concerning the next president. I think that the major problems facing the next president will be in the area of foreign diplomacy. And I think that the next president will have to worry about North Korea, Iran, Russia, Venezuela, and China. The person who is relatively inexperienced, such as Obama, I think that he may very well be challenged, just as Khrushchev challenged Kennedy. But fortunately for our country, Kennedy stood eyeball to eyeball with him. It is a question whether Obama would do the same.

BR: Should military spending increase? Should technology be developed further, or should we keep it where it currently is?

WW: Military spending is a small part of the Gross National Product, but it is probably a much smaller percentage than it was during the Kennedy years.

But I think that we should maintain a military advantage even if it requires an increase in the military budget. Because, indeed, national defense is a constitutionally authorized function of the federal government. Most of what the federal government does today is not authorized at all by the United States Constitution. As a matter of fact, twothirds of the more than three trillion

dollar federal budget has no authority whatsoever in the United States Constitution.

Indeed, if you read the US Constitution and look at the sentiments of the framers of the Constitution, the Federal Government can only do what is enumerated in the Constitution. As a matter of fact there is a congressman, John Chattick, of Arizona. He’s been in Congress since 1995. In each session of Congress, he introduces what he calls the Enumerated Powers Act. If the Enumerated Powers Act were enacted, it would require that Congress specifically put to (in the Constitution) the authority for whatever they do. And right now, I think he might have 30 cosponsors in the House. It never has had a cosponsor in the Senate, and it goes down every time this man brought it up.

What that shows is that these people put their left hand on the Bible and raised their right hand, and swore to uphold and defend the United States Constitution, but they will not be held accountable to it.

James Madison, who is the acknowledged father of the United States Constitution… I believe this is 1794, Congress appropriated 15,000 dollars to help some French refugees.

James Madison stood on the floor of the House irate and he said, “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article in the Constitution that authorizes Congress to spend the money of their constituents for the purpose of benevolence.” James Madison was really the acknowledged father of the Constitution so he should know what’s in it.

And, most of what Congress spends money on today is for the purpose of benevolence.

BR: So, would you say that a lot of stuff should be left up to the States with the 10th Amendment?

WW: The 10th Amendment was effectively repealed during the war between the states in 1861. Where the Federal Government in effect, through the use of force, brutal force, said that states could not secede. Once it decided that

States cannot secede, well then the Federal Government can treat the States any way they want. Very much like if you told a woman that she couldn’t divorce her husband, then he can treat her any way he wants. And so, it is the same thing at the State level.

BR: So if California wanted to secede from the Union, you’d be fine with that?

WW: Oh yeah, I believe in self-determination. And indeed, one has to

recognize that the States are the principles and the Federal Government is the agent, and principles may fire their agent. In fact, if you read the Treaty of Paris in 1783 settling the war between Great Britain and the Colonies, the Treaty of Paris said that we had thirteen different countries that were thirteen different sovereign nations. And these countries came together in 1785 as principles and delegated some power to the Federal Government.

And if you look at the ratification meetings of, I believe, New York, Rhode Island, and Virginia they said ‘that if the Federal Government became abusive under the powers that we’ve delegated to it, we have the right

Binghamton Review, October 2008

23 to resume those powers’. The Constitution would never have been ratified if the States thought that they could not secede.

BR: As a college professor do you think that the general perception that most colleges tend to be very liberal is correct?

WW: Well, I think that most colleges are liberal. Most academics are liberal in the modern sense of the word, not liberal in the classical sense of the word. At George Mason University, our department is an entirely free market department. That is, most of us are Libertarians. In the Law School as well, and that is a rather unusual thing.

We’re probably the only completely free market PhD-granting department in the entire world. Now I’m not sure, but I can’t give you a good answer on why the academics for the most part are liberal, but academics tend to be people who are full of themselves and they tend to think that they have wisdom that is superior to the masses. Many think that they have been ordained to forcefully impose that wisdom on others.

BR: What’s your take on racial preferences and Affirmative Action?

WW: Well, you have to define what that means. I believe that private entities, that people when they are spending their own money, have a right to choose on any basis they want. Even if it is found offensive. That is their right.

I believe that the freedom of association also means the freedom not to associate. But, in a public library for example, I don’t think they have the right to discriminate because my money is involved. But a private library, they can admit people according to any way they want to.

Now, I think one of the important things to recognize is that even though people have the right to discriminate (on the basis of race, sex, etc.), it doesn’t necessarily mean that they will. That is, because a person can

do something, it doesn’t necessarily mean that they’ll find it in their interests to do something. For example, I can throw my wallet out on the street, but I won’t find it in my interest to do that.

But I think that Affirmative Action as it is typically spoken of, especially for college admissions, it has been something that has been devastating for Blacks. You go to some colleges, and you see what is called academic miss-match. I got the idea some years ago, from a colleague and a friend, Tom Sole. He was pointing out that during the ‘80s or ‘90s that seventy some percent of Blacks who were admitted to Berkeley did not graduate. But at the same time, these Blacks who were admitted to Berkeley, their SAT score was slightly higher than the average SAT score of both Blacks and Whites across the country. But the problem was, at Berkeley, lets say Blacks average SAT score was 1052 or something like that, which was slightly higher than the national average. But at Berkeley, the average SAT score was 1300-1400. And so, they were missmatched. He argues that Blacks that would have been a success at Cal State San Jose were recruited to Berkeley and turned into failures.

BR: What is your take on the current state of the Democratic Party and the current state of the Republican Party?

WW: Well, I’m not quite sure what you mean by that, but my vision… A number of years ago, Governor Wallace said “there is not a dimes worth of difference between Republicans and Democrats”. Well, that might be a little bit of an overstatement, but they are very similar. I mean if you look at the Republicans that control the House of Representatives and the Senate, and the White House, and spending in our country during the time Bush was in office, it equaled almost the spending under the Johnson Administration.

The essential difference between the Democrats and the Republicans, at least domestically, is that Democrats

Binghamton Review, October 2008

believe in taking your money and my money and giving it to poor people in cities. Republicans believe in taking your money and my money and giving it to businesses and farmers. They both agree on taking our money, they just disagree on what to use it for. And so, I don’t see much of a difference domestically.

But however, I’m not one to hold politicians accountable for our bad state of affairs. I hold them accountable just a little bit. But the bottom line, the bulk of the problem lies with the American people. Politicians are doing precisely what the American people want them to do. That is, American people want politicians to use their power (their office) to take the property of one American and give it to them. And you say ‘not me, not us in New York’, for example. Well, imagine I’m running for the Senate for the State of New York, and I say “I read the United States Constitution, I know what the Constitution authorizes, and if you elect me to the Senate, don’t expect me to bring back high construction funds, aid to higher education, Meals on Wheels, prescription drugs.”

Do you think I’d get elected to the Senate?

BR: Absolutely not, not in New York.

WW: Not in any state, and the tragedy of this, and the reason why, is because I would not be promising the power of my office to bring back goodies. Now, the tragedy of this is that New Yorkers would be acting absolutely right by not electing me to the Senate, or recalling me if I were in the Senate. And the reason is that if I don’t bring back billions of dollars, that doesn’t mean that New Yorkers will pay a lower Federal Income Tax. All that it means is that New Jersey will get it instead. That is, once the legalized stuff begins, it pays for everybody to get involved. And those who are not involved will wind up holding the brown end of the stick.

24

“Think Like Me” Indoctrination

in

Hinman Commons

by Matthew Hassell ‘11

O

n the afternoon of September 15th of this year, there was a Resident Assistant (RA) sponsored event in the Hinman Commons, advertised as a “Stoplight Party.” Posters around Hinman community seemed to indicate it was something of a social event, leaning towards a single’s mixer (see photo). I decided to check it out with a few friends of mine.

After arriving we were immediately asked to sit down – I found this a bit odd for a social event. We grabbed seats in the corner and a woman introduced herself, stating that she was a specialist in relationships and sexual health. She asked for three volunteers and gave them each three circles: red, yellow, and green, indicating “stop,” “proceed with caution,” and “go,” re-

spectively. She then began reading prompts and hypothetical situations, and soliciting responses from the three volunteers in the form of holding up the colored circle that reflected their opinion of the situation. There was absolutely no context given, though her specialty and the brief introduction gave the entire lecture a sexual undertone. The perplexed volunteers held up varying colors, changing them as they debated what was being asked of them.

I quickly recognized what was going on here: indoctrination. Though subtle, all of its wicked and vile intricacies were present. First, we were drawn in under different pretenses. The rather vague posters made the event seem like a singles mixer, which much of it seemed to be, but there was no mention of this sex education. Next, these confusing situations, with no given context were presented to confuse the audience and participants. This is a great way to instill doubt in whatever notions were already in the minds of the students. One question the presenter asked was, “How do you know what the other person wants?” Again, this was only in the context of this implicit sexual environment. Someone suggested asking. Good idea. Another said look at their partner’s actions and their expression. This is insanity. I can only imagine how a court case involving this would sound: “Your honor, she looked like she wanted it.”

After ten minutes of these utterly disturbing prompts, I ran out of the room, unable to bear the thought that most of the other people in that room were absorbing this information as truth, where it is actually some

colluded fantasy constructed with the seeming purpose of confusion. As I watched this, I explained what was go-

I quickly recognized what was going on here: indoctrination.

Though subtle, all of its wicked and vile intricacies were present. ing on to one of my friends, an intelligent psychology major. He thought for a few moments, and looked at me utterly amazed at what was going on. We were all brought together with some vague idea that this event is a social get-together or singles mixer. Anyone who attended was probably filled with the hope of meeting new friends and maybe even a partner, indeed an exciting prospect. The entire socialization is immediately framed in a sexual perspective, making it seem that the only kind of relationships are sexual ones.

I shudder every time I think of the underclassmen at this meeting, gaining their first exposure to the college dating scene, and finding it to be entirely sexual. This is far from the truth.

People can still form strong emotional bonds without a physical relationship, a point that was missing from the presentation.

For readers familiar with George Orwell’s 1984, the practice of “doublethink” and the related linguistic concept of “doublespeak” are

Binghamton Review, October 2008

25 used in both the book and reality by presenting confusing and disorienting juxtapositions so that anyone on the receiving end is unable to fully form a complete image of what is going on, much less discern the minute details and actual purpose of the talk. The use of this technique by Big Brother in Orwell’s novel is designed to prevent dissent among the citizens. Ultimately, the vocabulary of the State is decreased to the point where words no longer exist to express dissent. The physical ability to disagree is entirely removed from the society. As I sat and watched this talk, I saw that there was a subtler version of this going on. While not delet-

ing vocabulary, ideas of abstinence are being entirely deleted from the public mind, and portrayed in the few cases that they turn up as the works of the “evil” religious right. Those participating, as evidenced in the apathetic responses of the members of my group, as well as the complicit audience show the inability of the students to objectively process this information. Those that understood what was going on were utterly appalled. Everyone else seemed amused. They had no ability to protest or consider alternatives.

I hope that the readers of this article see that this entire gathering was manipulative, and was seized

as an opportunity to inject one-sided opinions into the minds of the vulnerable. I could barely tolerate the sickening play that was put on before us, belittling serious matters that exist on college campuses across the country. If the authorities do not present them in a serious light, why would any student take them seriously?

Matthew Hassell is a sophomore majoring in Mathematical Sciences.

Hinman RAs have warned him that submitting articles to the Review is prohibited under his housing agreement.

Movie Night with Binghamton Review Our Education ...Their Politics “Alarming and funny” - Kyle Smith, New York Post

“This film hits you in the gut” - Stanley Kurtz, National Review

Thursday, October 30th 8:00pm Lecture Hall 7 Refreshments will be served Doors open at 7:30 Binghamton Review, October 2008

26

The Demagogue Barack Obama and the Historical Case for Mass Hysteria

by Nehemia Stern ‘08 “How fortunate for leaders that men roused to such a degree by what I condo not think.” sider to be the smoke and mirrors of -Adolf Hitler a clever rhetorician. As an ardent student of society and history though, his past summer, the then my political discontent was mollified presumptive Democratic somewhat by a rather ironic fact. This nominee Barack Obama is not the first time in history that spoke in Berlin to a thrilled enormous masses of ecstatic Germans crowd of 200,000 Germans. As a “cit- rallied behind an inexperienced, mesizen of the world,” Obama spoke of sianic, political figure with a clever his aspirations, hopes, and desires for tongue. a better social, political, and economic It has always been a mystery future. As an ardent supporter of the how, in less then a decade, the “Little McCain campaign, I was more than Corporal” and his “Nasty Party” (to upset to see such a large foreign crowd borrow two quotes from Winston Churchill) could garner such popular political support. In May 1928, the Nazi party received only 2.6 percent of the vote. In March 1933, however, this number ascended to 43.9 percent. In the end, 17,300,000 free and independent German citizens voted for an inexperienced, hate-filled, soon-to-be tyrant. How were so many people seduced in so short a time span?

The Democratic nomination of Barack Obama for the highest office in the land may shed some light on this question. Indeed, there are some rather disturbing historical parallels between the rise of the Obama Democrats and the rise of German National Socialism. Lest the members of EMO share one collective socialized heart attack (would there be any other way for them to have one?), allow me to be absolutely clear on this point. I am by no

T

means comparing Barack Obama or the Democratic Party to Adolf Hitler.

While some of their policies might be similar, (people tend to overlook the ‘socialism’ in National Socialism) there is really no comparison between

Hitler embodied the hopes and aspirations of the German people. “Ich bin Deutschland.”

Hitler was the state and the state was Hitler. the two movements. I am, however, making a very forceful argument that alludes to a parallel in the ways these two individuals ascended to the head of their respected parties.

The rise of Barack Obama has been foreshadowed by two events – war and a troubled economy. Pundits claim that the risk posed to our national economy is the worst since the Great Depression of the late 1920s. The price of oil has skyrocketed, and major economic institutions have completely failed. This economic crisis has come on the heels of a long, complicated, and bloody war. While the war in Iraq is a necessary one, and the fight for freedom is a fundamental cause, the road has not been easy.

Binghamton Review, October 2008

27

Mary Jane’s Handcuffs

by Rachel Gordon ‘11

“If drugs didn’t exist, our government would have to invent them, the better to enact laws aimed at keeping the citizens ‘sinless and obedient’.”

– Gore Vidal

If there is anything liberals hate more then a struggling capitalist economy, it is foreign intervention. And so Barack Hussein Obama, with his soaring rhetoric, and messianic outlook has appeared on the scene. This one man claims to represent the diversity of the American people. This one man claims to represent the ongoing struggle for American values. The Democratic Party, (along with the majority of Americans) has placed their hopes and desires for social change into the figure of this one man.

Let us backtrack some seventy years. The rise of Adolf Hitler in 1933 was foreshadowed by two events – a severe economic crisis, and a long, complicated, and bloody war. During the early years of the Great Depression, inflation of the German Mark reached astronomical proportions. A wheelbarrow full of currency was required to buy a loaf of bread. Ironically, the wheelbarrow was worth more than the money it carried. This dire economic situation was compounded by the fact that Germany had come out on the losing side of the Great War. After suffering over two million military casualties, Germany signed a humiliating armistice with the Allied powers. And so, Hitler came onto the international scene. With his messianic vision of a

“new world order,” Hitler embodied the hopes and aspirations of the German people. “Ich bin Deutschland.”

Hitler was the state and the state was Hitler.

Sadly, I am no longer surprised by history. Men simply do not think. In 1933, in the wake of a brutal war and a lingering economic crisis, the German people suspended their critical faculties and elected an inexperienced corporal as their chancellor.

In 2008, in the wake of another brutal war and another economic crisis, the American people are about to do precisely the same thing. The election of a messianic figure in 1933 was the harbinger to the destruction of European Jewry. Knowing Barack Obama’s foreign policy positions – it is fair to ask – will the election of another messianic figure in 2008 be the presage to a second destruction? If it were up to that crowd of 200,000 individuals in Germany, the answer would be an unequivocal yes.

Nehemia Stern is a BU alumnus who is currently pursuing his PhD. at Emory University. The Obama campaign has suggested he and his family be “relocated” before election day.

$38,074,523,782

That is how much money has been spent on the War on Drugs by the Federal and State governments as of September 30, 2008. That data only includes figures from this year. That calculates to about $1,632 per second.

With this funding, approximately 1.4 million people were arrested for Drug Law Offenses this year, and around half of these arrests were pertaining to Cannabis . In the year 2000, this equated to $543.83 per capita (it is currently now around $1,200). The government, under the guise of protecting its citizenry from itself, is wasting more and more taxpayer money and is creating a larger problem in the process.

The legalization of Marijuana is one of the most reoccurring topics in today’s world. It affects all of us in some way, and has an impact on every Binghamton student. If you were on this campus last year, you probably witnessed the Great Pot Debate. These bloated numbers and exhibitions are all proof that something needs to be done.

It’s clear whom the fight is between; the government doesn’t want their workers to lose jobs, and the people that want it to be legal don’t want the government interfering in their lives.

The scope of the government’s duty does not encompass taking drug rights away. People know perfectly well what the effects of marijuana are,

Binghamton Review, October 2008

28

By The Numbers

60

Percentage of people who identify themselves as conservative in the USA.

36

Percentage of people who identify themselves as liberal in the USA.

$6,000

Cost per taxpayer of recent $700 billion bailout.

134

Number of new, clean, nuclear reactors being built in China and Russia by 2030.

0

Number of new nuclear reactors being built in the USA.

67

Percentage of Americans who support building new nuclear powerplants in the USA. Sources: Yahoo Finance, Zogby, Battleground, World Nuclear Association

and those that do not probably won’t attempt it. Marijuana does nothing more than alter a human being’s state of mind. It doesn’t make one steal and it certainly doesn’t murder. These concepts became associated with drug use when the drugs were made illegal.

All the ‘problems’ that marijuana perceivably causes are because people are afraid of being caught with it in their possession.

For a quick comparison, in 2000, the Netherlands spent approximately €223 ($319) per capita in their Criminal Justice System regarding drug use. This is almost $200 less than the United States. It should be noted that this nation does not punish individuals who possess marijuana. It is therefore easily obtained in privately owned stores that sell weed (dubbed ‘coffee shops’) and it is extremely similar to any other alcohol or tobacco shop in that regard. The only restriction is that you must be 18 years old. Technically, the Mary Jane is not completely legal and is punishable by a fine, however, this is not enforced. This is because Dutch laws work in such a way that the police spend their time enforcing more reasonable laws (such as the ones regarding heroine, cocaine, and ecstasy). One might expect this to create a

country full of potheads. This is not the case. Only 17% of their population has a ‘lifetime prevalence of marijuana’ usage (compared to 36.9% in the United States ). In addition, only 3% of the Dutch population has a ‘lifetime prevalence of heroin use’, while the American population is at 5.4%. Also, the United States has an incarceration rate seven times higher than that of the Netherlands . The homicide rate in the Netherlands is also at a fourth of the United States .

So what can we deduce from these numbers? We spend more money trying to enforce a policy that results in a higher substance abuse rate, more people imprisoned, and more violence than in a country that has this ‘illicit drug’ legally available to the public.

If it sounds backwards, that’s because it is. The ‘War on Drugs’ makes absolutely no sense, especially when the Drug Enforcement Agency says that this war will eliminate addiction and violence. It will not. It only makes it more prevalent, more costly, and more of a burden on peaceful freedom loving Americans.

Rachel Gordon is a sophomore.

If you’re nice to her, she’ll do your laundry, and make you coffee.

Binghamton Review: We already control campus. Soon it will be the world.

Join us before it’s too late.

Weekly Meetings: Thursdays, 7:30 P.M. in our office, WB05 (basement of the Union, below the food court).

E-mail: binghamtonreview@gmail.com Binghamton Review, October 2008

29

Obamanomics Part II: Taxes

T

and

by Randal Meyer ‘11

axes are a touchy subject for libertarians. We think they are coercive, extortive, and always too high. However, there are sound economic reasons beyond mere personal biases that substantiate libertarian opposition to Barack Obama’s plans to raise certain taxes and create certain new taxes.

Obama plans to raise Marginal Income taxes in the highest bracket from 35% to 39.6%. He also wants to create a new Social Security tax of about 12.4% on small business income. Taking into account State and Medicare taxes, etc., a July Wall Street Journal article by Stanford University Economics Professor Mike Boskin claims that Obama’s taxes would increase the total taxes on small business income from 44.6% to 58%. This increase, combined with his protectionist trade policies, “could send the economy into a tailspin.” As if it needed any more help in doing just that.

From a historical perspective, combining a declining economy with protectionism and tax hikes aggravates the general malaise. This could turn a stock market bubble/burst into a Great Depression. All of this begs the question, why does Obama want to obliterate small businesses, which according the Bureau of Labor Statistics, accounted for roughly 75% of new jobs created in 2005? As a Binghamton University student, I want a job when I graduate.

Electing Barack Obama doesn’t seem likely to be providing me with one any time soon.

Obama wants to raise the capital gains taxes back to the 1980s era 25-28%. Of course, Obama chose to ignore the fact that the drops in the capital gains taxes between 1993 and

2006 actually have shown that a Laffer curve exists (at least in reference to the capital gains tax; I refer doubting Economics majors to “Vienna & Chicago,” pages 233-235) and that around a 20% tax maximizes government tax revenue and above 20% decreases government tax revenue. Clinton was at least wise enough to see that, as was Bush. Keeping the capital gains tax low maximizes growth and increases tax revenues.

Why should we change that?

My favorite of Obama’s new taxes would be his oil profit tax. “I’ll make oil companies like Exxon pay a

As a Binghamton University student, I want a job when I graduate. Electing Barack Obama doesn’t seem likely to be providing me with one any time soon. tax on their windfall profits and we’ll use the money to help families pay for their skyrocketing energy costs and other bills” (New York Post). Don’t you just love Marxism? Before I go into why this is probably the dumbest thing that I have ever seen on a presidential platform, I need to explain something called price elasticity of demand.

Price elasticity of demand is a measurement of the changes in quantity demanded and changes in price.

Oil

If a good is perfectly inelastic (|Ed| = 0), price changes have no bearing on quantity demanded. For example, if you need the antidote to a fatal poison you just ingested you will pay any price. If a good is perfectly elastic (|Ed| = 1), price changes cause huge drops or increases in demand, i.e. no one would trade two dollars for one dollar, but everyone would trade fifty cents for a dollar.

If a good is perfectly inelastic, then any increase in the costs of production get rolled directly onto the consumer in the price (since consumers must pay anything for it). So, if crude oil is an inelastic good, then Obama’s plan means any tax increase will be directly tacked onto the price. According to a 2003 study published in the OPEC Review by Professor John Cooper of Glasglow University, crude oil is actually just about perfectly inelastic in the United States (|Ed| = .061, a statistically insignificant difference from 0).

Obama’s tax will only be reflected in gas price increases. The tax revenue itself will go through the deadweight of bureaucracy and not make it to the consumer in full. Why does Obama want to increase gas prices?

Why not just let it be and have us save the money in hand?

However, another thing came to mind, which wasn’t just the practical objection to the fact that this will make me pay more for gas. It was a principle question. What the hell is windfall profit?

The only way to tax profits that doesn’t impose more practical problems than it’s worth is to tax a percentage of sales. ExxonMobil reported growth of 10% for 2007. So Congress, being the wealth of wisdom that it is, has im-

Binghamton Review, October 2008

30 posed a tax on “Big Oil” of 25% on all profits over 10% if they weren’t investing “enough” into renewable energy.

(What is enough?) Allow me to cite an article in the next passage in order to show how ridiculous that is.

“If that’s what constitutes windfall profits [10%], most of corporate America would qualify. Take aerospace or machinery – both 8.2% in 2007. Chemicals had an average margin of 12.7%. Computers: 13.7%.

Electronics and appliances: 14.5%.

Pharmaceuticals (18.4%) and beverages and tobacco (19.1%) round out the Census Bureau’s industry rankings … But if 10% is the new standard, the tech industry is going to have to rethink its growth arc. So will LG, the electronics company, which saw its profits grow by 505% in 2007. Abbott Laboratories hit 110% ... If Senator Obama is as exercised about ‘outrageous’ profits as he says he is, he might also have to turn on a few liberal darlings. Oh, say, Berkshire Hathaway. Warren Buffett’s outfit pulled in $11 billion last year, up 29% from 2006. Its profit margin – if that’s the relevant figure – was 11.47%,

which beats out the American oil majors.” (The Wall Street Journal, August 2008)

This “plan” is not only logistically thoughtless, but also blatantly hypocritical against every other industry; can only “Big Oil” make a windfall profit? Or is Obama acting like a demagogue and playing on people’s anger over rising gas prices to be elected? One thing is certain: Obama has gained astounding economic insight during his experience in the Senate of a whopping near-200 days.

Obviously, Obama really needs to rethink his tax plans. The end result of his “growth” initiatives being passed would be increased unemployment, decreased incentive for entrepreneurs, increases in gas prices, and thanks to the Laffer curve, decreased tax revenue to provide public services; all in the name of “economic justice.”

Randal Meyer is a sophomore majoring in Philosophy, Politics, and Law. Sam Riedel, this is what a real column on economics looks like.

Disaffirming Affirmative Action

I

by Alex Paolano‘10

spent a good portion of my summer working for the Suffolk County Department of Social Services. As I read the front of the envelope it instantly perplexed me; it read “Affirmative Action Equal Opportunity Employer.” The hypocrisy of this title begs for recognition here, but very few people seem to want to bring attention to this due to the fact that it is such a controversial topic today. To negatively comment on the subject of affirmative action would be considered extremely politically incorrect, and therefore few would speak out against the racism that is created by the movement itself. As I am a writer for Binghamton Review, people accuse me

Words of Wisdom: “America will never be

destroyed from the outside...If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.”

-Abraham Lincoln Binghamton Review, October 2008

31 of being a bigot anyway, so I might as well say what I believe.

The very nature of affirmative action is that it is inherently not creating equal opportunity. It takes people who are “historically” neglected and attempts to boost them up into “social equality” despite the fact that they may have lesser qualifications. When affirmative action became prevalent during the civil rights movement, it might pos-

Obama has done one thing all Americans can be proud of; he proved that no matter who one is, one can achieve great things. sibly have had a clear purpose and a potential need. That need has since dried up. Blacks, women, and other minorities have truly gained a firm grasp of the American Dream, and many reach the highest levels of success this nation has to offer.

Women for instance have not only surpassed men in attendance at colleges around the country, but once there, are achieving more than their male counterparts. According to the New York Times, on average, men, no matter their race or socioeconomic standing, are less likely than women to obtain a bachelors degree, take longer than

women to obtain these degrees, and have lower grades. Today, one can see the success women have accomplished when looking at the Pepsi CEO and Chairwoman, Indra Nooyi, and the famous Oprah Winfrey. Not only is the latter extremely successful and a woman, but she is also black. In this past year alone, one has seen Hillary Clinton run for president, and Alaskan governor Sarah Palin be chosen as John McCain’s running mate on the Republican ticket. Given these facts and examples, women are certainly not under any kind of oppression, and are no longer in need of any affirmative action movement.

In the past, affirmative action has helped many black Americans gain a standing in a society that was once closed to them whether through law or personal prejudice. This year, for the first time in our nation’s history, a black candidate has a chance to become president of this great nation.

Although I do not agree with Barack Obama, and will not be voting for him for president, plenty of White America will. With this, Obama has done one thing all Americans can be proud of; he proved that no matter who one is, one can achieve great things, creating a reality in the Constitution’s words: “We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal.”

And it doesn’t matter if you are a man or a woman, black or white.

In the words of Doctor Martin Luther King Junior, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by

You’ll get your degree from Binghamton University...but your education from

Binghamton Review.

You’re Welcome.

the content of their character.” So let us stop judging job applicants by some minority-hiring platform and judge them on the basis of their qualifications. If we unite together to repeal this racist hiring practice, we will all have an equal shot in whatever we decide to do, and won’t be the victim of some ridiculous quota based on where our ancestors were from.

Alex Paolano is a junior majoring in history. He will soon be fired from the Review to make room for a transvestite black woman, as per the new hiring guidelines.

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 © 2008 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, Christopher Powell, Nathaniel Sugarman

Binghamton Review, October 2008

From the XCEL Award winning team that brought you The Rise and Fall of OCCT and Fight Club 2: Serbians at the Rat

Stupid Association Films Presents...

THEAEXODUS West Side Story “Starring in Exodus isn’t a conflict of interest.”

-Ken Kamlet

Housing Commission

Newman Group “We don’t care enough to cover this movie.”

-Evan Drellich

Editor-in-Chief

of Pipe Dream

“This film is not reimbursable child!”

-Alice Liou

SA VP for Finance “This movie looks madd gay.”

-Dan Rabinowitz

Binghamton Review

“Students? Who cares about them?”

-Matt Ryan

Mayor of Binghamton “Did I mention I saved Physical Activity classes?”

-Matthew Landau

SA President

STUPID ASSOCIATION FILMS in association with Triple Cities and Prospect Magazine presents a newman group production. a film by the west side neighborhood association starring ken kamlet as “THe commissioner” MAtthew Ryan as “The mayor” binghamton review as “Mr. T. ruth” and dan levin as “The test subject.” directed by marc newman. soundtrack by maryam and the multis. moronic commentary by andrew epstein and basheer bergus with a special appearance by ariel feinman. lois defleur will not be appearing in this film, In the city, on campus, or anywhere for that matter.

R This movie has been restricted to 3-4 viewers per household.

Binghamton Review

Binghamton University P.O. Box 6000 Binghamton, N.Y. 13902-6000 binghamtonreview@gmail.com

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