March 2009 - Binghamton Review

March 2009

Binghamton Review

SA Chartered but Not SA Endorsed Featuring...

SA Elections The Division 1 Folly AO’s Return to Left Wing Propaganda Status Collective Racism The New Constitution Double Standards and Discrimination How Liberalism is Destroying America....and more!

Truth and two staples Binghamton Review, April 2005

Table of Contents Founded 1987 o Volume XXII Number 6 o March 2009

Feature

Departments

10

Letters 4

A Reader pens a tome on the Bearcats and their D-1 success.

Jonathan LaSala, Candidate for SA President

Presswatch 12

Mayor Ryan coverage, multiculural rags, and more is featured in this month’s Presswatch.

SA Elections Are Upon Us.

Flashbacks 30

Over a decade ago: similar budget crisis, better solution.

Articles Vote No! 5

SA Endorsements

10

Adam Shamah explains the flaws in the new SA constitution.

BR throws our support behind candidates who will fight for all students.

should NOT be a factor when choosing your friends.

Alex Paolano tells us what he saw at CPAC this year.

Conservatism is Collective Racism 6 Alive and Well 14 Robert Menje mentions what The D-1 Folly 7

Rachel Gordon lays the smackdown on the basketball team.

Go Team! 17

Timothy Sadrakula defends the basketball team.

Binghamton Review, March 2009

Discrimination 21

Alex Paolano on discrimination and double standards in sports.

Destroying America 21

Ian Swan on how liberalism is doing just that.

editorial

The Campus Uniter

U

nity. It is a word thrown around quite often by various people and groups on campus. Just last month, VPMA Maryam Belly wrote an entire article on it in Asian Outlook, the publication of the Asian Student Union. Skip ahead a bit to Presswatch and you’ll see that one of her points stated that through oppression (by Binghamton Review, campus rapists (?) and hate crime perpetrators, apparently) the cultural groups have and will find unity amongst their fellow oppressed. In the very same issue, a cultural group member, Calvin Prashad, wrote that Binghamton Review has divided this campus by moving into the SA with the sole goal of removing the VPMA.

Well, they’re both wrong. “Oppression” should not be what unites us. The way to unite students on campus is not to unite black, white, and Asian by showcasing our cultural differences, but rather by focusing on how we are all similar. And how are we all similar? What unites us? Well, the fact that we are all students is a good start.

On Monday, Mayor Ryan came to campus to address students on the issue of off-campus housing and zoning. He walked into a lecture hall packed with over 250 students. These students were black, white, Asian, Jewish, Greek, non-Greek, etc. The only thing that united them was the fact that they are students. And unite them it did. The students in that lecture hall on Monday night stood as one voice and made it quite clear to the Mayor and local media that zoning laws that discriminate against students is not going to stand. That is what we need more of, students rallying around a cause that affects us all. The unity generated by joining together in a common cause is something that cannot be artificially created by positions like the VPMA

and offices like the Multicultural Resource Center.

And who has done the most to promote this type of unity this year? Not to sound modest or anything, but we have, Binghamton Review. BR is the only institution on campus that has consistently stood up for students when it comes to the off-campus housing issue. You may remember, we broke the story about Mayor Ryan’s housing commission last November. We informed and organized students on the issue, and through our work on the Student Assembly, formed a united front of students. This issue has so engulfed the campus that it is part of almost every SA candidate’s platform.

So, no, Binghamton Review is not a divider, nor do we care about nothing but the VPMA. We’re here to do what we think is best for all students. Sometimes, you’ll agree with us, such as on the housing issue, an issue on which I don’t think there is disagreement amongst students.

Other times, you’ll have a different perspective and come to a different conclusion as to what is best for students. We are against the VPMA not because we’re out to “get” any particular group of people, but because we really do believe that everyone on campus would be more united if the VPMA’s responsibilities were shared by the other 5 e-board members.

So, I hope you all enjoy this March issue of Binghamton Review, the campus uniter. If you disagree with any of what’s inside, remember, we’re all students; we’re all on the same side. Write us a letter. We’re here to start a dialogue.

-Adam Shamah

Our Mission

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, March 2009

Binghamton Review

Letters

Volume XXII, No. 6 • March 2009 Founded 1987

Editors-in-Chief Adam Shamah Robert Edward Menje Managing Editor Randal Meyer Associate Editor Rachel Gordon Copy Editor Samantha Mickle Business Manager Alex Paolano Treasurer Daniel Rabinowitz Contributors Nehemia Stern, Eugenio Campos, John Jensen, Theresa Juergens, Matthew Hassell, Stephen Herman, Ariel Levin Waldman, Nick Valiando, Jason Birriel, Ed Mays Godfather of the Review Louis W. Leonini 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 The Packer 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 4

F

To the Editor,

Athletics are important. Being a Division I school is not. At least, it is not nearly as important as being a university that is respected for its academics and research. If we really wanted to play to “win the game,” we would have spent $33 million on a new research center rather than a sports arena, or perhaps on building a new library so that we do not have to store our books in a warehouse in Conklin and so that we have more study space.

I could go on enumerating the ways in which $33 million could have been spent on research or academics. The academic reputation of Binghamton University should receive the full attention of the administration, and sports teams should not fall anywhere near the top of our priorities.

Very few people will care if your school had D1 teams after you graduate, and we should not be trying to dazzle high school students with sports (do we really want to take students who are more interested in athletics than academics?).

Of course, the money was already spent, and we already have the Events Center, so we are stuck in a “now what?” situation. Here is what we should not do: push so hard to win a championship that we start taking in students with questionable academic records. Mr. Broadus noted that one of our players had a 2.7 GPA, as if this was something to be proud of. We have been recruiting players without regard to their academic backgrounds simply because they are good at basketball. Is that our priority?

It seems that it is. President DeFleur has said that the academic environment at Binghamton is just fine for a state school. I suppose the same does not apply to sports -- our standing in the world of college basketball needs improvement, to the point where we are tolerant of poor academics on the part of our players.

After graduation, nobody cares whether or not your school was D1 (well, mostly nobody -- there are always outliers). When someone asks you about the school you graduated from, they want to know whether it was a respected academic institution, not whether or not its team could play better than some other school’s team.

If Binghamton is to stand out, we should stand out in a meaningful way. In a few years, if I tell someone I graduated from Binghamton, it would be nice to hear, “I read about that research they did there...”

- Benjamin Kreuter

Letters should be sent to editor@binghamtonreview.com and be less than 300 words.

Binghamton Review, March 2009

The New SA Constitution

vote no

And why it must be stopped

by Adam Shamah ‘11

W

hen you go to the polls on Wednesday or Thursday to cast your ballot for SA elections, you’ll probably be asked to read (or at least look at) the monstrosity that is the new SA constitution.

Over 30 changes, authored by the SA President, Matt Landau, with input from his fellow Executive Board members, have been made. Most of these seem common sense and non-controversial. For example, any mention of College Bowl, a company that used to run the VPAA’s academic competition but has since gone out of business, has been removed, and things that have been done in practice, such as the VPAA’s Student Advocate system, have been set in stone.

The one change that is not “non-controversial,” and whose negativity unfortunately outweighs the benefits of the other 30 or so changes, involves the Vice President for Multicultural Affairs (VPMA). For one, it still exists. But secondly, “responsibilities” have been added that will not “empower” the position like current VPMA Maryam Belly

has claimed, but will only further the problems and division caused by the office.

The new constitution adds the following responsibilities to the VPMA’s office: (1) Shall promote culture and diversity throughout campus, (2) Shall work with the University Multicultural Resource Center on spreading diversity throughout campus, (3) Shall work with the Office of International Student and Scholar Services, (4) Shall assist the Vice President for Academic Affairs in ensuring that academia is sufficiently diverse, and (5) Shall serve as or appoint a representative to the Educational Opportunity Program Advisory Committee under the Faculty Senate.

During the VPMA debate last semester, the point was brought up that the EVP is not accessible to the cultural groups and that is why we need a VPMA. Well, duh. If there exists a position whose sole purpose is to work only with the cultural groups, then why would the EVP ever want to get involved with them?

Under the current system, it’s not his responsibility. If there were no VPMA, I’d

be willing to bet that the other 5 eboard positions would be much more proactive in dealing with issues relating to the cultural groups on campus.

The VPMA stands not as a facilitator, but as a barrier to communication between and representation for cultural students in the SA. If the multiculturalists truly wanted more unity, they would want the VPAA to work with them on cultural issues in academia. They would want the president to advocate for them when it comes to the Multicultural Resource Center and ISSS office. They would want the EVP to address the cultural groups’ needs and would want the VPP to put on cultural programming.

If you want a more “multicultural SA,” spread cultural responsibilities around.

Don’t create a position that will partition off culture from the other 5 eboard members. Any constitution that includes one should be voted down by the students.

Adam Shamah is a sophomore Management major and is Editor-in-Chief of the Review.

Agree with us? Disagree?

Write us!

Email letters to the editor to editor@binghamtonreview.com Binghamton Review, March 2009

culture

Collective Racism Don’t let race play a factor in with whom you do and do not socialize

by Robert E. Menje ‘09

R

acism. No one wants to be called a racist. Generally, in a civilized society, racists are shunned and ostracized. My question is, why is racism on campus not only overlooked, but both accepted and propagated by the University? The racism that I am referring to is not individual racism, but collective and group racism. In this article, I am going to call attention to an issue that far too many people ignore. Both the MultiCultural resource center and the cultural student groups that exist on this campus promote this racism.

For a moment, take a look around. Walk through the food court. You will quickly see the racial factions that exist. Notice how the Asian kids, who are members of the Asian Student Union, all hang out together in their little social circle. The black students are all segregated with the members of the Black Student Union. The Jews all levitate towards other Jews who are members of Hillel and Chabad.

SUNY-B likes to preach how diverse we are; they preach how we have a plethora of races on campus.

What good is all this racial diversity if the mixing of races, ideas, and cultures is non-existent? For example, if a white student goes to an event by the Vietnamese Student Association, he/she will be ostracized. Need proof? Just look at the mission of the VSU. “The Vietnamese Student Association is a group of Binghamton University students who come together based on a common Vietnamese heritage. The purpose of VSA is to pro6

mote and celebrate the Vietnamese culture and traditional values and to serve as a forum for Vietnamese students to come together. Our organization also has interests in creating strong ties with the surrounding Vietnamese Community in and around Binghamton. Our goal is to provide an atmosphere where we can learn and educate about the Vietnamese identity and to offer an opportunity to actively address the issues and concerns of Vietnam and Vietnamese-Americans.”

Serve as a forum for Vietnamese students

to come together? Sounds like they are purposely trying to segregate themselves from the rest of the student body based simply on their race. To me, this appears to be collective racism.

The most ironic thing surrounding this issue is that if a group of white students attempted created a group based on white heritage and brotherhood, they would instantly be branded racists and driven off campus. What if this group used the Vietnamese Student Union’s exact mission but simply changed the word Binghamton Review, March 2009

“Vietnamese” to “white”? It would look something along the lines of this: “The White Student Association is a group of Binghamton University students who come together based on a common white heritage… Our organization also has interests in creating strong ties with the surrounding white community in and around Binghamton. Our goal is to provide an atmosphere where we can learn and educate about the white identity and to offer an opportunity to actively address the issues and concerns of… whiteAmericans.” “RACISTS!” “The KKK has infiltrated the campus!”

These are just a couple of rallying cries that would be audible by the campus left if this ever were to happen.

How can the racist veil that hangs over the students of this university be lifted? The answer to this is a simple one. If you are a member of one of the many cultural groups on campus, leave that group, or, at least, don’t base your entire life around it. Don’t let race determine with whom you socialize. I’m not saying it’s wrong to be an Asian and have Asian friends, but don’t let the fact that you are both Asian be the reason why you are friends. If everyone embraced this idea, Binghamton would truly become the melting pot that it claims to be.

Robert Menje is a senior History major and is Editor-in-Chief of the Review. Mayor Ryan of Binghamton is filing to get a restraining order against him.

Ncaa Fever

D1: Is It Worth It?

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

by Rachel Gordon ‘11

A

s you may or may not know, our own basketball team here at Binghamton University is doing better than they ever have before. There is a lot surrounding this news, most notably the controversies attached to the team itself.

On Friday, March 6th, the Bearcats competed in the America East Conference Tournament as the top seed. This was not only historical for the team to make the top position in the American East tournament; it is beyond exceptional that we may see our team make it to the NCAA Tournament in March.

Despite these accomplishments, it seems as though the means to get there might not have been ethical or respectable.

The Bearcats have been a team in NCAA Division I athletics since we made the move to D-1 in 2001. This move had its share of controversy then as well. The main arguments made at that time were that the school should be spending its money on academics and the residential aspects of student life.

Building the Events Center, which is primarily used for the basketball team, cost approximately $33 million. In addition, the costs of athletics include coaches’ salaries, traveling, promotion of the team, and recruitment. None of these things are cheap. When justifying these costs, think about how many times you went to a basketball game before the Bearcats started doing

well. Think about how many of your friends have gone. And now, think about how this money could be used if it went towards a student group, or how it could be used to further your academics. It is important to comprehend what a winning basketball team accomplishes apart from mere fame for the school. If you believe the popularity that stems from a successful athletic program justifies almost $50 million of you and your fellow students’ money, you have some more thinking to do. Popularity, if that’s even something you consider essential to our university, should have its foundation in academia.

Yes, it is also crucial to acknowledge that our school should promote fitness and recreation for its students, but there is a limit to how much this should cost, especially now, with the economy pretty much going down the tube—there are the proposed budget cuts by Governor Patterson for the 2009-2010 year.

These contingent cuts would result in a $10 million loss directly to Binghamton University. Counteracting this is the tuition increase for students ($620.00 per year per student), of which only 20 percent is going to the University. This equates to approximately $1,426,000 in additional funding for the university by its students for one year. This increase would only cover one twenty-third of the cost that it was to build the

Continued on Page 16

Binghamton Review, March 2009

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)

Pr esswatch They [Binghamton Review] have cleverly moved into the SA for the single-minded goal of eliminating the Pipe Dream reports on the mayor of- [VPMA] position. fice’s Andrew Block’s visit to the Student Assembly…

Yeah, because the same people behind the VPMA amendment were not also “A way we are thinking about our the ones who brought up and led the housing stock and making it safe is fight on the off-campus housing issue, our zone code, and zoning as it relates an issue that all of the SA candidates to housing density,” he said. “The in one form or another have included reason why density is a concern is it in their campaigning. We have nothrelates exactly to the nature of activ- ing better to do with our lives than sit ity, the nature of life, the quality of through mundane, four-hour-long aslife in the surrounding area.” sembly meetings with the hope that one “The number of people that live in day it will all pay off and the position the house has a direct impact on the will be gone. integrity of the structure, its safety in terms of being susceptible to fire,” Asian Outlook Block added.

February 2008

ple of different cultures? Around their constant state of oppression? What happens when the VPMA can no longer create the appearance of oppression? What will unite the cultural students then?

Two problems: one with these quotes themselves, and another with Pipe Dream’s reporting of the forum. A student questioned Mr. Block at that meeting; he asked him what the difference is, with regard to safety, between a home with eight unrelated students and a home with two parents and six children. Block couldn’t give a good answer because one does not exist. That is what should have been highlighted in this article. The political BS that Block was spewing is not what should have been featured. Pipe Dream is supposed to be the voice of the students, and it has failed miserably on this issue time and again.

Yes, it is so troubling that there are minorities who have dissenting views.

Too bad they aren’t all sheep. Seriously though, what kind of diversity is it that the multiculturalists at AO are looking for? Clearly not diversity of thought, since apparently anyone amongst their own flock who does not conform to the multicultural/left-wing dogma is considered a sellout, or as To puts it, “self hating.” Think about this next time you question BR’s commitment to diversity.

Think about the kind of diversity we promote vs. the kind the campus left promotes. Then ask yourself what is more important, peoples’ thoughts or their skin color. Then think about who the real racists on campus are.

Pipe Dream February 24, 2009

Asian Outlook February 2008

VPMA Maryam Belly explains the never ending oppression (facilitated by certain publications...) found on Binghamton’s campus…

The types of tactics utilized by these publications never change, and while the victims might vary in appearance, ethnicity, religious affiliation, etc, they are the same—in that they share the common bond of being victimized…We must recognize that the Asian student assaulted on campus a few years ago are no different from the gay student assaulted downtown, who in turn is not different than the girl raped in her bathroom, and who is also no different than the Muslim students accused of terrorism.

We’re not sure what world Maryam’s living in, maybe there’s a gas leak in TIn what appears to be Asian Outlook’s the VPMA office, but we weren’t aware return to a left wing rag, the paranoia that Binghamton University is plagued of the multiculturalists continues… by rapists and hate crime perpetrators.

Is this how Maryam plans to unite peo8

Binghamton Review, March 2009

Asian Outlook February 2008 Asian Outlook’s Editor-in-Chief, William To, on what he calls “self-hating” Asians…

The rise of conservative thinkers, writers, and legislators of minority descent is a troubling one…[these conservative minorities are] perhaps compensating for their skin color by adopting these views and taking them to extremes.

I n sti gation s N

YPIRG appeared before the SA Financial Council this month to request that over $11,000 of the $14,200 given to them by BU students be approved as stipends for their professional staff. Hats off to the Financial Council, who unanimously denied NYPIRG’s demands. The $14,200 sits in their account, unused, because NYPIRG maintains the position that it should be spent only if it’s transferred to the statewide NYPIRG account, something the SA has made very clear is not going to happen. So, having moved on from plundering the student activity on left-wing lobbyists, NYPIRG has moved to plundering it on total inactivity. Financial Council did great work by denying them their stipend request, hopefully they won’t stop there and will cut NYPIRG’s budget even further this year.

W

e thought they were finished peddling their nonsense. We were wrong.

Last Tuesday, a variety of groups and interests, including the Graduate Vice President for Multicultural Affairs, held a lecture by Professor Lesley Gill, “Solidarity and Fragmentation.” A main focus of the lecture was the Coca Cola Corporation, and what is known as the “Killer Coke” campaign, which was present on campus for much of last year. Killer Coke advocates for the banning of Coca Cola products from campus because of alleged human rights

abuses by the corporation’s local bottlers in Colombia. Until this lecture, Killer Coke was absent from campus so far this year.

Binghamton Review covered the campaign and its misinformation heavily in our April issue last year. Basically, it comes down to this: Killer Coke claims that Coca Cola played a part in the murders of several of its unionized workers in a plant in Colombia over a decade ago. They demand that Binghamton University pull out from its contract with Coke and serve a different beverage on campus from now on. (They got as far as getting a meeting with the committee that would make such a decision.)

The problem is, there was never any evidence of Killer Coke’s allegations. A federal court dismissed them several years ago. Colombia is a country in political turmoil and engaged in internal guerilla warfare between Marxist revolutionaries, right-wing paramilitaries, and various local factions. A couple of union guys getting knocked off is nothing abnormal in a country like that. Furthermore, Coca Cola’s unionization rate is 8 times that of the national average.

Besides all of this, the Coca Cola Corporation has nothing to do with the bottling plant in Colombia. It is operated by an independent licensed bottler, just like the local one in Binghamton, NY. The lies spewed by Killer Coke would hurt no one but the employees of that local bottling plant. We hope this lecture was a one-time thing. The last thing

our campus and the local economy need right now is a disingenuous anti-business campaign that will eliminate jobs and delicious soft drinks.

O

n the day of publication, WHRW news reports the following: “Binghamton University has once again dropped the ball on securing the private information of students and parents. In a titanic breach of security, Binghamton University kept payment information for every student, possibly dating back at least ten years in a storage area next to one of the most trafficked lecture halls on campus, behind a door that was not only unlocked but taped open. The information itself contained social security numbers, credit card numbers, scans of tax forms, business information (including social security numbers and salary information for employees of students’ parents), asylum records and more, all kept in a haphazard and disorganized fashion, sprawled out in boxes, in unlocked (yet lockable) filing cabinets and shelving units. And, to seemingly add insult to injury, the university left dollies and a shopping cart in the room, apparently to aid in any attempted theft.”

This is not the first time something like this has happened and when it did, was not at this magnitude. Someone needs to be held accountable. The university is entrusted with this private information; this gross negligence is the kind of stuff that should lead to mass firings.

After the revolution, you’ll have to read it..

Binghamton Review Binghamton Review, March 2009

SA Elections

SA Election Endorsements “Voting is simply a way of determining which side is the stronger without putting it to the test of fighting.” -Henry Louis Mencken by the BR Staff

I

t’s that time of the year again.

Strangers wearing “vote for Joe!” shirts creeping up to you in dining halls, trying to spread their campaign pitch. Overzealous campaign managers shoving quartersheets down your throat. It must be SA elections!

We’ve been studying the candidates, and we think we know who would make the Student Association one that works for all students. You may notice that a lot of the candidates we support aren’t conservative, or even center-right politically. That is because we chose our candidates based how they will handle the issues that affect students on this campus. We are supporting the students who we believe will do the best

job standing up to the administration on issues like Judicial Affairs and campus renovations, and to the City on issues like off-campus housing.

So here’s who you should vote for— er, wait. The SA election bylaws say we can’t say “vote for so-and-so,” so here’s “who we support and you should too.”

Hopefully that isn’t a violation of anything.

President- Jonathan LaSala

The candidates for President are Jonathan LaSala, Aaron Butler, Adam Amit, Ah Hil Kim, Jasen Pascal, and Josh Berk. Jasen Pascal did not attend our endorsement meeting. He is the president of the Black Student Union but, as far as we know, has never really worked for the student body at large and has not really shown that he has any new ideas.

Adam Amit has been planning this run since September, and we can’t help but think that every move he’s made this year, from the short letter he wrote to Pipe Dream in October to the cliché Jonathan LaSala is our choice for SA President. speech he made during the VPMA debate, has

10

Binghamton Review, March 2009

been made with the thought of how it effects his chances in the front of his mind. The SA needs fewer politicians, and electing Adam Amit will not get us that.

Aaron Butler has been a great SA Vice President for Programming, and we wish he would have opted to run for reelection rather than move onto the presidential race. What Binghamton needs is someone who can bridge the gap between the SA and the average student. That is why we opt for Jonathan LaSala for SA President.

Jonathan is the president of the Interfraternity Council (IFC). He has the leadership qualities to coordinate the efforts of the Student Association, but more importantly, has the ability to relate to, and communicate with, the average student. This is what has been lacking in the past few SA presidents, and Jonathan, in our opinion, is our best chance at something different. For someone never involved in SA politics, Jonathan has several bold and original ideas, including a Student Rights Handbook so students can know their rights in the face of the administration and UPD. He is our choice for SA President.

Executive Vice PresidentJared Kirschenbaum The candidates for Executive Vice

sa elections President are Jared Kirschenbaum, Lawrence Faulstich, Ariel Feinman, Jevon Williams, and Joseph Bansgopaul. Joe Bansgopaul did not attend our endorsement meeting. His platform consists of ways in which he will infringe on the responsibilities of other e-board members. The infighting that has become a trademark of the SA usually stems from e-board members who try to tell other e-board members how to do their job. The SA needs less infighting, and electing Joe Bans is not likely to bring about such change.

Jevon Williams has a great philosophy about SA government and is one of the most active and responsible students on the Student Assembly. This being said, he is only a freshman, and we do not feel he is ready to run an executive board office as effectively as Jared will. We do hope Jevon continues to be involved in the Student Association next year.

Jared Kirschenbaum is a second year assembly rep and the Executive Vice President of Hillel. He supports autonomy for student groups when it comes to fundraised money and has some bold ideas for restructuring the Student Group Council. Most importantly, he is the leader of the large student group, not a veteran politician, which makes us think that he will understand the needs of student groups more easily than some of the other candidates.

Vice President for FinanceA.B.A.: Anyone but Abid The candidates for Vice President for Finance are Rod Alzmann, Ed Mays, Matt Allwood, and Abid Hossain. Abid Hossain did not attend our endorsement meeting. He is perhaps the most dangerous candidate in any of the races. “A big part of democracy is having some sort of protection for minorities.

By attacking multicultural positions, that’s an attack on democracy.” So said Abid last semester when interviewed by Pipe Dream. Anyone who thinks like that has no business being anywhere near the VPF’s office, an office whose

biggest problem in the past has been bias and favoritism. And while he does have some decent platform ideas, they are outweighed by his lack of understanding of how the VPF office works. If there’s one office that requires experience, the VPF’s is it.

That brings us to the next candidate, Ed Mays. If there is someone on campus qualified for this position, Ed is it. He has spent two years working in the office and knows about every financial rule in the book.

Rod Alzmann, the third candidate, has great ideas on how to improve the office, such as reforming the $150 prior approval system so that groups with large budgets can spend Aaron Cohn is BR’s guy for VPP. more than $150 without first getting the Judicial process. Rabinowitz is the permission from the VPF. Less bureaucurrent student advocate, and plans to cratic paperwork is something that ofexpand the service by hiring more so fice definitely needs. one is always available for a student in Both Ed and Rod would do an exneed. He has a history of fighting for cellent job as next year’s VPF. We are students with regard to Judicial Affairs, therefore unable to make an endorseand has authored several resolutions ment in this race. aimed at making the process more fair and student friendly.

Vice President for Academic AffairsDan has the ideas and the experiDaniel Rabinowitz ence to get things done. He’s worked with the current VPAA, Peter Spaet, so The candidates for Vice President he knows the system, but brings new for Academic Affairs are Daniel Rabiideas to the table that haven’t been nowitz, David Lundgren, and Shaun tried before He wants to advocate for Hiller. Hiller did not attend our enthe creation of minor programs in dedorsement meeting. While we love partments that don’t currently offer that Shaun is a strong opponent of the them, and wants to look into the creVice President for Multicultural Affairs ation of an individualized minor pro(VPMA) position, we don’t feel that he gram. Daniel promises to fight to list has the experience or ideas to be an efas a gen-ed, all classes that qualify as fective VPAA. He has never authored a a gen-ed. Currently, because of various major piece of legislation and his platbureaucratic hurdles, there are classes form consists mostly of recycled, failed that fulfill the requirements but aren’t ideas of the past. approved by Harpur for student credit.

Daniel Rabinowitz is easily the More availability and less bureaucracy best candidate to represent students sure sound good to us. He is also the to the administration and positively only candidate in the race to get inshape academic policy on campus. volved in the off-campus housing issue, One of the duties of the VPAA is to as he addressed the Housing Commisoversee the Student Advocates, who sion in public comment last semester. advise students who are going through Binghamton Review, March 2009

11

SA Endorsements Daniel Rabinowitz is our unanimous choice for VPAA. Vice President for ProgrammingAaron Cohn The candidates for Vice President for Programming are Aaron Cohn and Nico Meyer. Aaron Cohn is far and away the more qualified of the two.

In only his sophomore year, he serves as president of C.I.W. Council, SAPB Variety Chair, and Co-founder/president of the Binghamton Snocats Ski and Snowboard Club. He has planned such events as the upcoming Mythbusters show and last semester’s Great Porn Debate. He unquestionably deserves your support in his race to become VPP. Vice President for Multicultural Affairs- Yadin Herzel If there must be a VPMA, then it might as well be one who will do a good job. What is a good job with

regard to that position, you may ask?

Good question. Well for one, we don’t need another VPMA who will call anyone who disagrees with her racist. We don’t need another VPMA who will favorite some groups over other groups.

We don’t need another VPMA who will blame everyone around her for her failures. Yadin Herzel is our best chance at change in that office. He has a moderate platform that calls for more collaboration between cultural groups and wants to allow the I.C.A. groups to elect their own chair. That way, the radical multicultural agenda can be pushed down our throats by someone who wasn’t elected to represent ALL students.

VOTE NO on the SA Constitution If you didn’t read the editorial on page 7, go back and read it. The new SA constitution is riddled with problems, specifically the further division that is added between the cultural groups and Executive Board members. The amend-

ments add duties to the VPMA that currently belong to the President and Academic Vice President, something that certainly won’t help bridge the gap that supposedly exists between those eboard members and students who feel t h a t they are not represented.

The problem with the VPMA is that it only works with certain types of students, not that it doesn’t have enough power and responsibility, and any constitution that doesn’t remedy that problem deserves to be voted down by the students.

The Binghamton Review Survival Guide What you will and won’t need to survive the next four years of Obama

Won’t Need Will Need 1. Paper money... Obama 1. Guns... lots of them is providing enough

“change” for everyone 2. Ammo... lots of it 3. Febreze... to keep away 2. A Job... Obama will the hippie smell take care of you 4. Alcohol... to drink 3. Religion... Obama is your sorrows away your new Messiah

12

Binghamton Review, March 2009

Conservatism

Conservatism is NOT Dead This Year’s Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC)

by Alex Paolano ‘09

I

t has become common throughout America’s political elite to say, and even whole-heartedly believe, that the conservative movement, the Republican Party, and the ideals of Ronald Regan are dead. I have to admit that after the election of Barack Obama and the increasing Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, things did not look good for the conservative movement in America. I personally felt defeated, tired, and scared.

I was looking for something, anything, or anyone to inspire hope, and it seemed that it was not going to be easy to find. The Democrats, in their first month in power, have spent more money than almost all the money spent previously in United States’ history. Their ideas of not just big, but HUGE government continue to run rampant. They suggest this while saying that Republicans are being obstructionist and partisan. Well I am sorry Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid, when you are asking conservatives to leave our principles at the door in order to become what you deem to be “bipartisan,” the answer will be: GO TO HELL. We will not abandon what we believe in order to look united as you spend money that my grandchildren will have to come up with. You are stripping this nation of its security.

I attended the annual Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington DC at the end of February and I have some news to the people who said conservatism is dead; it is far from it. While there are still disagreements within the party on which way to move, we know that those will be put aside in order to 14

defeat the socialist agenda of Barack, Nancy, and Harry. This year’s CPAC drew well over 8,000 people, the largest crowd ever in the history of the 35-yearold conference. Not only was this conference jam-packed, it was full of youth.

College students and even high school students ran wild around the conference learning about what we could do to help push our movement forward.

The energy at the conference among speakers and attendees alike was unbelievable. Anger was something that many of us felt as we discussed what the Democrats are doing to destroy the fabric of what has made this country great. Yet out of that anger, the hope that we were all looking for began to rise. Speakers at the conference included Representative Mike Pence; who was part of the block of Republicans that unanimously voted

Binghamton Review, March 2009

against the spending (stimulus) package, Jim Demint, Mitt Romney, Governor Tim Pawlenty, Newt Gingrich, and Ann Coulter. The weekend closed with El Rushbo himself; Rush Limbaugh. Many other people spoke at CPAC, or facilitated meetings, and this group demonstrates how the voices of the old guards of the movement, and those of the rising stars in the movement, are coming together to prove to the United States that there is an alternative to bigger government, higher taxes, and a less secure America.

The future of any movement is highly dependent on the youth that powers it.

As I have previously stated, the amount of students at this conference shows me that the future is bright. Our membership is also filled with younger rising stars that will have the wherewithal to lead

this country forward, like Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty. Those who couldn’t attend, such as Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, and the gun-toting hottie from Alaska, Governor Sarah Palin, are also great examples of possible leadership in our movement.

The future needs great leaders and a motivated base, and despite what you may hear in the media, we are motivated, and we will fight for our country.

Hitting a bit closer to home, the Binghamton University College Republicans began two short years ago with 3 or 4 members, and as the year went on, membership slowly increased. Last semester membership again saw modest growth, but nothing that showed a huge conservative swell at this campus. This semes-

ter after the election of Barack Obama I believe the conservative students on this campus had finally had enough of the mindless zombie following that is so prevalent on this campus. It’s like a bad sequel to Night of the Living Dead with people moaning “Oooobammmaaa” or “Chaaaange”, or some other pointless nonsense. This semester the ranks of BUCR has grown considerably, and believe me, as the true nature of the Obama administration comes to be seen, our numbers will only grow.

So I say to anyone who reads this, do not let yourself believe that conservatism is dead. It may be weakened, it may be wounded, but we are already beginning to recover. When we emerge, we are going to take back the House. We are going

“Only white people can be racist.”

Professor William Martin Sociology Department

to take back the Senate. We are going to take back the White House. And then, we will take back America. Because we love America more than anything, and we will fight for her with everything we have. Our movement will not be resurrected with one Messianic figure, one false prophet, as the Democrats have.

Instead, conservatives need to remember the old adage, “It is always darkest before the dawn.” Our time is coming. Stand up and fight for what you believe in. Fight for America.

Alex Paolano is a senior at Binghamton. Soon, he will overtake Rush Limbaugh as the voice of the GOP.

Professor Charise Cheney Africana Studies Dept.

“C.I.A. + K.G.B. = A.I.D.S.”

Do you know a professor crazy enough to join this elite bunch?

Nominate him or her for BR’s Annual Worst Professor Award!

(We’re Also looking for best) email editor@binghamtonreview.com Binghamton Review, March 2009

15

16

Binghamton Review, March 2009

NCaa Fever

The D1 Folly Continued from page 7 Events Center. Clearly, if these athletic programs cost this much money, there would not be enough to cover anything under the spectrum of scholastics. There is no way, with the potential loss of capital that the school is going to encounter, that they would be able to support athletics and academics in the way that they currently are. When budget cuts are made, the last thing that should be cut is education.

Lastly, another shortcoming in our success as a Division I basketball team is our reputation. As I am sure, no one can forget the incident last spring involving one of our basketball players, Miladin Kovacevic, that resulted in a student falling into a coma and Kovacevic fleeing to his native Serbia. More recently, another player was charged last fall after stealing condoms from Wal-Mart and assaulting a 66 year old woman. If this seems questionable in the least, the list continues. Professors have commented on how disruptive some players are. At least one has stated that they have been forced to change their grading policies so much for players that it is close to harassment. Other attributes of our team include a misdemeanor for marijuana possession, academic issues, and failures to meet eligibility requirements. Is this really how you want Binghamton represented on the basketball court? If your money is going to support athletics instead of your education, are you

going to accept the reputation that we currently have? Apparently, the reputation is so bad that at the America East Conference Tournament, not one single coach voted for our athlete, DJ Rivera, for the player of the year award (beforehand, he was considered to be the frontrunner). This was considered to be a statement against the questionable recruitments of the coach, Kevin Broadus. Not only does this show that there is dissent on campus regarding the team but there is also dissent amongst the rest of the colleges in the America East division.

Concluding, it is pretty ridiculous that many do not even feel a small amount of shame or regret when looking at our basketball team. In no way does the end justify the means if the means are so substandard that Binghamton University loses respect and admiration as an academic institution. I encourage you to not view this disapproval as me being “against” the university, or me not being a ‘real Bearcat.’ I am proud of the school I attend and I want others to see what we have to offer. However, this basketball team does not portray what I see excellent about this school.

We deserve to be represented in a proper manner, or we deserve to not be represented at all.

Rachel Gordon is a sophomore at Binghamton. She is no longer welcome in the events center.

Binghamton Review, March 2009

In Defense of the Team

by Timothy Sadrakula

O

n February 21, 2009, The New York Times published “At Binghamton, Division I Move Brings Recognition and Regret,” by Pete Thamel. Thamel argued that Binghamton’s rise to a Division I basketball program and to the top of the America East division, has been met with suspicion and regret. The article claims that Binghamton overlooked its policy of academic integrity by choosing players in bad academic standing, as well as players who have judicial records.

First off, on behalf of all Binghamton faculty, athletics, and students, we would like to thank The New York Times. We love the fact that our small, newly formed Division I program has been highlighted by one of the largest newspapers in the world. Despite the article’s negative connotations, most people at Binghamton could care less about points made by the author, and are happy that their school is getting some long deserved media attention.

In 2007, Kevin Broadus, a former assistant coach of Georgetown Basketball, was asked to coach the Binghamton Bearcats. In his two years as head coach, Broadus has brought Binghamton’s faltering basketball program to the top. Thamel mentioned Broadus’ recruitment of players who were on academic probation at other schools. He cites Binghamton’s two top players, Tiki Mayben and D.J. Rivera. First off, I 17

NCAA

would like to find one basketball program in this country that recruited players on academics, not skill on the court. These players were hidden talent sitting on the bench at top Division I basketball programs. Why wouldn’t an up-and-coming Division I basketball program jump on taking these players?

Dennis Lasser, a former athletic representative, said, “It appears to me that minimum qualifications as specified by the NCAA are the only academic criteria currently needed for the men’s basketball team to be admitted to Binghamton University.” Is that only Binghamton University? Do prestigious Division I

programs in great academic schools like Georgetown or Duke recruit any differently? No, of course not. In the America East Conference, Stony Brook and the University of Albany have been held responsible by the NCAA for major infractions for playing academically ineligible players. As far as academic standards in an athletic program, Binghamton University’s soccer and tennis teams had the highest GPAs of all Division I teams in the country. Binghamton’s basketball team has never not had someone graduate.

As far as criminal records, is Binghamton the only Division I program that has had players on the team

with criminal records? I highly doubt that too. Not to mention, any player charged with a crime is suspended from the team. The infamous sophomore center, Miladin Kovacevic, fled the country after assaulting a fellow Binghamton student because of fear of punishment. His scholarship was dropped from the school. I’m missing what the point here was in the article.

Binghamton’s basketball team may not be made up of model students, but it is made up of good basketball players. And that is what matters in the world of NCAA basketball.

We already control campus...soon it will be the world.

Join us before it’s too late.

Binghamton Review We’re still looking for foot soldiers.

Meetings every Thursday at 7:30pm in the BR office.

Email editor@binghamtonreview.com to get involved.

18

Binghamton Review, March 2009

discrimination

Double Standards and Discrimination

by Alex Paolano ‘09

M

ixing sports and politics is usually not a good idea. Generally, the playing field is a place political ideology, race, religion, and any other dividing factors evaporate in order to compete on an even playing field. Sports and politics have mixed in the past with astounding events, such as the 1980 Winter Olympics, better known in the United States as the “Miracle on Ice.” This was an instance in which mixing the two was in fact a very good thing. This competition was perhaps the friendliest way in which the United States and the Soviet Union ever fought for supremacy. To all who lived through it, that hockey game was much less stressful than reports that seemed nearly constant of the Soviet Union and the United States testing bigger and stronger atomic weapons.

The mixing of sports and politics took a much uglier turn eight years earlier, at the Munich Summer Olympics. In the summer of 1972, Israeli Olympians were held hostage and murdered by a terrorist cell known as Black September, a group with ties to Yasser Arafat. The idea of Israeli athletes competing in Germany just twenty-seven years after the Holocaust was poignant enough, but for these athletes, they would meet a murderous fate similar to many of their relatives who had died at the hands of the Nazis.

In mid-February, the United Arab Emirates denied the visa of Israeli tennis player Shahar Peer, who was scheduled to be the first Israeli to compete in the UAE. While I have very little interest in the game of tennis, I was shocked while watching Sportscenter one morning when I heard that this

had happened. Not only was I disgusted by the treatment of a world class athlete by the UAE, I was even more disgusted by the lack of solidarity on the part of the players participating.

While there were words of support from the various athletes, there were no calls to boycott the games, nor were there any symbolic gestures made, such as the displaying of a uniform or a mark made on the competing athletes.

Venus Williams is a fantastic example. She is crowned the voice of the sport and her lack of support for Peer is something I found utterly lackadaisical, and to be perfectly honest, sickening. Her inability to think outside of the party line is not something you would expect from someone who so often talks of the prejudice she faced as a black women growing up in Compton. Venus Williams said the following when asked about the issue; “The big picture is that Shahar Peer didn’t get a chance to play, but making an immediate decision we also have to look at sponsors, fans and everyone who has invested a lot in the tournament.” There are certain times when the “big picture” isn’t as big as one thinks it is. The big picture here was prejudice and injustice; and obviously for Ms. Williams, this wasn’t as important as some sponsors or rich fans that might have been unhappy had an Israeli been allowed to play.

Later on, the UAE, bowing to some pressure, allowed Israeli Andy Ram to compete. On the admittance of Andy Ram, Venus Williams again chose to stay out of the political ramifications of the situation; “I think it’s wonderful that Andy Ram has the opportunity to play.

We are all athletes and we have no platform. We are here to play tennis, we are entertainers, and I am happy he has the opportunity to do that.” Obviously Ms. Williams doesn’t realize that as a professional athlete she does have a platform,

Binghamton Review, March 2009

19

jew hatred

and in a sport like tennis, she has a global platform.

I have to imagine if this situation had happened slightly differently.

What if a black athlete was denied entry into a country to participate in

it is inexcusable that it was not made into a bigger issue.

There were some measures of support made by the Tennis Channels decision not to air the Dubai competition, but honestly, who watches

letes to take a stand and say that they do not condone the stance of the governments who discriminate. While to be honest I do not care about the sport of tennis, I do care about the position of one of America’s greatest ally, Israel,

Venus Williams’ inability to think outside of the party line is not something you would expect from someone who so often talks of the prejudice she faced as a black women

growing up in Compton. an event? The country/event would be boycotted without question, the Left in the United States would be up in arms, and there would be a level of solidarity among the players. This instance shows again the plight of the Israeli Jew is something not held in high regard among most people in the world. While this situation is a consequence of prejudice and hatred against Jews in the Middle East, and was no doubt made more complicated by the defensive war fought by Israel in Gaza,

the Tennis Channel? The one person who truly took a personal stand and should be commended was American tennis star Andy Roddick, who decided to sit out of the tournament when he learned of Dubai’s decision to not admit Peer. I personally would like to congratulate Mr. Roddick on his brave stand against oppression.

While it is not always good to mix sports and politics, but when radical fundamentalist politics sticks its dirty nose into sports it is up to the star ath-

as well as the rights of all people to be free.

Alex Paolano is a senior at Binghamton. His three favorite things in life are freedom, liberty, and $3 pitchers of skunk beer from the Rat.

Words of Wisdom:

“You have enemies? Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life.”

-Winston Churchill 20

Binghamton Review, March 2009

the left

Liberalism: Destoying America

by Ian Swan ‘10

L

iberalism, the political ideology that dominates most of Europe and Canada, and part of America, is on a pathway of destruction. Its theories are flawed and its policies have been undeniable failures.

Freedom, liberty, morals, tradition, responsibility, independence, and hard work are completely disregarded. It is an infectious disease that is destroying everything this great nation was built

Liberalism is incompatible with freethinking independent individuals.

Liberals want us to be blind, thoughtless, and unquestioning; in one word, sheeple. Those who think for themselves are categorized as enemies, to be disparaged, mocked, shunned and if necessary, destroyed (in a political and reputational way). Our education system, controlled and run by liberals, has continuously dumbed downed people

remain pure to their group and reject foreign influences. Those who don’t are traitors to their race or ethnicity and are attacked. Policies, codes and laws enacted by liberals force us to look at a person’s skin color and then make appropriate adjustments in speech and behavior in order not to “offend” them in any manner. These affirmative action, diversity, and multicultural policies have hindered the American melting point;

Success, instead of being praised and admired, is disparaged and punished. Instead of raising the bottom to the top, which capitalism does and has

long done, the top is torn down and their wealth and property redistributed. upon.

Liberalism is completely incompatible with freedom and liberty. It is about one thing, control. Liberals routinely try to, or do, censor the speech of anyone that poses a serious threat to their power. Prime examples are the doctrines of “fairness,” “diversity” and “locality” in regards to radio. This is a thinly veiled attempt to silence a bastion of opposition that has successfully exposed and thwarted the plans of liberals. Freedom of religion is disregarded, as they want you to put your faith in them and government, not God. Gun rights, which give the people a last line of defense against tyranny, are thrown out the window in the Liberal’s world.

The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence mean nothing to these people. The consequence is tyranny.

and its schools have become liberal indoctrination centers. For them, the once great marketplace of ideas is intolerable. As a result we have a generation consisting of many close-minded individuals unable to think for themselves and falling farther behind in the world.

Liberalism is obsessed with race.

Whites are always, and will forever be, racists, while all non-whites are minorities that somehow are always being oppressed. Whites are taught to be ashamed of their heritage and culture.

Absolution can only come from being a liberal and a lifetime of service to pay for their “crime.” Non-whites, on the other hand, are divided into groups based on race, ethnicity and creed. Race and ethnicity is the key to their identity; everyone in their respective group is required to act, believe and think the same, to Binghamton Review, March 2009

instead of a single united American culture, we have a divided, segregated one.

For any nation to succeed, its people need to be united; liberals promote the opposite and are impeding success.

Liberalism is hostile to families, the long time bedrock of society. Liberals promote out-of-wedlock children and single motherhood, with little if any fatherly involvement. They strip parents of their rights and want them to treat children as friends and equals, not as children. These have disastrous consequences for the lives of children and are causing many societal problems today.

Continued on Page 23 21

Flash backs Why do we fail to look beyond the shadows in the cave?

October 1995

Robert W. Compton Jr. Editor’s note: Believe it or not, the current budgetary situation that the university is facing is not unique. Over a decade ago, a Review writer offered some suggestions that we think still apply today:

I

t has been 10 months since I last wrote about the decimation of the quality of SUNY-Binghamton in Pipe Dream. I detailed some of my concerns in the piece, although the editors surreptitiously changed the title from “SUNY-Binghamton Burns as We All Fiddle” to the comparatively sterile “Quality of Binghamton U Declining.”

This time, I will suggest solutions for the

the present administration has done is akin to a slow poisoning by arsenic. The university administrators must decide whether they want to focus on graduate or undergraduate education. Given the declining economy of the state, the government of New York lacks both the resources and political will to excel at both levels. Sententiousness aside, it is always better to be a master of one trade than a jack-of-all trades.

The second point that I’d like to focus my energy on is misdirected student activism. In my December piece, I said that many student groups employ a liberal clone mentality and maintain that

to report their marketplace value to the administration. In other words, they must identify the utility they provide to the marketplace.

• The Board of Trustees should contract out managerial and administrative functions—such as financial aid, student accounts, and the office of the president—through a system of competitive bidding, one subject to review and contract.

By the way, the Financial Aid Office should be the first in the pilot studies of privatization efforts because they seem to have mastered the art of creating ulcers in students.

Someone, in the tradition of Harry S Truman, must say that “the buck stops here” and make the necessary programmatic cuts, instead of spreading slow and agonizing pain throughout the university. ailing SUNY-B. The first point to be reiterated is that the students at Binghamton are not getting a “big bang for their buck” as ubiquitous college guides and conniving university administrators suggest.

Instead, we are getting a “whimper”.

Class sizes continue to increase and graduate students teach more courses than ever before. Is this Lois DeFleur’s idea of innovation? Innovation requires leadership and informed decision making, not gimmickry like new signs and new stationary. Someone, in the tradition of Harry S Truman, must say that “the buck stops here” and make the necessary programmatic cuts, instead of spreading slow and agonizing pain throughout the university. What 22

low tuition is their primary objective instead of programmatic improvements.

Universities simply cannot operate without faculty members. We need an infusion of fresh blood into the system.

Faculty members should be the last resource that we cut. Student organizations should work with the administration so that certain programs are improved or maintained. This would involve the university operating as a private institution in a free and open marketplace.

The decline of the university can be alleviated by becoming integrated into the marketplace. This would entail: • Working closely with the private sector to decide what courses provide better opportunities for students.

• All departments should be required Binghamton Review, March 2009

It has been my observation that the university administration suffers from cronyism. When was the last senior administrator promoted from within the university? How can one justify the present gynecocracy except through patron-client politics?

Let me conclude by saying that the university is in serious trouble. Understanding how it got to this point is a step forward in solving the problems, but it is important for the university to try new approaches. We should keep the following in mind: Those who continue to cling to antiquated approaches in a new era are likely to continue to suffer from the harsh blast of changing times.

It is past time for the university community to wake up.

LIBERALISM

Continued from Page 21 Liberalism is incompatible with capitalism and free markets. Capitalism is viewed as evil and unfair; despite this system bringing more freedom and prosperity to more people than any other in history. The wealthy are all evil, corrupt and prey upon the poor, despite the fact that most are honest, hard working and generous. Success, instead of being praised and admired, is disparaged and punished. Instead of raising the bottom to the top, which capitalism does and has long done, the top is torn down and their wealth and property redistributed.

Envy, entitlements and class warfare have replaced the values that built this country to greatness; hard work, ambition and responsibility. These un-American replacement values do not help anyone; over the long run, they hurt us by making us absolutely dependent on the government and redistribution of wealth to survive, instead of us being responsible for ourselves.

Liberals spend our money like there is no tomorrow. However, now they are increasingly spending the yet-to-be-created wealth of future generations. There is no debate being conducted on this.

No major spending cuts or reforms, just trillion dollar deficits. Their solution of taxing the rich isn’t enough to pay for their electoral bribes to voters and is leading us to an unsustainable debt that will lead to massive economic problems.

Liberalism and national security are absolute polar opposites. Liberals treat terrorism as a law enforcement problem, the same mentality prior to 9-11,

instead of as a war. They want to grant terrorists, who don’t follow the Geneva Conventions, full constitutional rights.

They advocate open borders that would let anyone from anywhere enter our country. Meanwhile, the enemies of America arm themselves as liberals plan to slash military funding and give up our missile defenses. These policies are foolish and naïve, leaving us increasingly vulnerable with more Americans getting killed here and abroad.

Liberal foreign policy is insane. In their view, America is the cause of all the world’s problems. They base their decisions and polices on what’s popular with the world, not on whether it’s right or works for us.

They rooted for the defeat of our country in Iraq and opposed winning strategies. They are determined to appease our enemies instead of confronting them.

They side with the forces of tyranny over the forces of freedom.

Boiled down, liberals support a policy where America is weak and submissive and the forces of tyranny prevail over liberty, a dangerous and terrifying proposition for us and the world.

Liberal policies are failures and dangerous. History is littered with examples. The New Deal failed. The Great Society failed.

High taxes, strong unions and government control hurt economic growth.

Foreign policy and national security leaves us wide open to attack. Universal healthcare has been an expensive disaster abroad. The destructive policies of liberals are bringing the Republic to its knees, a feet no other force has yet been able to do. Left unchecked, liberalism will cause the period of freedom and prosperity to end, replaced by one of submission and tyranny.

Ian Swan is a junior at Binghamton.

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 © 2009 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 23 Binghamton Review, March 2009

SA Elections Presents:

The Maryamettes

A story of lies, manipulation, and people who can’t think for themselves...