October 2009 - Binghamton Review

Truth and Two Staples

october 2009

Binghamton Review

B.U. Basketball ROCKS! (That’s crack, in case you didn’t know.)

Binghamton Review

PO Box 6000 BinghamTOn, NY 13902 editor@binghamtonreview.com

Founded 1987 • Volume XXIII Number 2 • october 2009 Editor-in-Chief Adam Shamah Managing Editor Randal Meyer

Contents

Associate Editors Edmund Mays Rachel Gordon

Departments

Copy Desk Chief Yadin Herzel

4 PRESSWATCH

3 EDITORIAL 5 INSTIGATIONS

Copy Editors Lawrence Faulstich Stephen Herman William Obilisundar

12

Layout Editor Elahd Bar-Shai Treasurer Rod Alzmann Business Manager Alex Paolano Secretary Marissa Beldock Contributors Nick Valiando, Jason Birriel, Ian Swan, Aaron Sebag, Michael Lombardi, Will Griffin, Ethan Day, Paul Liggieri, Nicole Narmanli, Joseph Aguiar, Taylor Arluck Godfather of the Review Louis W. Leonini Friends of the Review Dr. Aldo S. Bernardo The Leonini Family Mr. Bob Soltis WA2VCS The Shamah Family The Grynheim Family The Menje Family The Leeds Family The Lombardi Family The Packer Family Mr. Michael O’Connell Binghamton Review is printed by Our Press in Chenango Bridge, NY. We provide the truth; they provide the staples.

7

Coma, condoms, and crack Binghamton’s basketball woes

Harpur’s Original Program by Dr. Aldo S. Bernardo The underminding of Glenn G. Bartle’s original vision

The Student Activity Fee by Yadin Herzel and Rod Alzmann Discussion regarding the nature of SA funding

Da Costa gets reviewed by Adam Shamah and Edmund Mays Review sits down with the VPMA for the first time in history

REALITY CHECK by the Editors Former Bearcats adjust to life after basketball

Talking Green while hiding gray by Ethan Day BU’s disregard for the campus power plant

Gear Grinding by Paul Liggieri Pauly sounds off on ESL, SOM, and city politics

Missing in Action by Alex Paolano Where was Obama at 9/11

The Top of the GOP by Nicole Narmanli A look at potential 2012 presidential candidates

Would Reagan Approve? by Joseph Aguiar Commentary on missile defense with a response by Ian Swan

Out of His Depth by Nick Valiando Obama’s Presidency thus far

Healthcare is not free

8

10 15

19 21

23 23

26 29

30 Sorry, But... HEALTHCARE IS NOT FREE by Taylor Arluck

EDITORIAL

History in the Making

Y

ou hold in your hands a piece of history. For the first time, Binghamton Review and the Student Association Vice President for Multicultural Affairs (VPMA) have sat down together for an interview.

The history of Binghamton Review and the VPMA has been a storied one, and can rather clearly sum-up why the interview will come as a surprise to many.

Throughout much of the position’s relatively short life, the use of the term “multicultural” in its name was entirely misleading. For a number of years, the VPMA served a very specific political purpose.

One VPMA organized a bus-trip for students to travel down to Washington D.C. to participate in Loius Farrakhan’s Million Man March. Another helped forge a memo full of racist diatribes in an effort to discredit an SA Vice President for Academic Affairs who did not buy into her idea of “multiculturalism.” VPMAs spent the better part of the 1990s fighting against the arming of University Police, often arguing that UPD was racist and arming them would endanger minorities everywhere. They fought vehemently against changes to the SA Constitution that today allow the entire student body, rather than only a select few cultural students, to vote in VPMA elections. In 1999, when, in an attempt to further campus discourse, the Review tried to join the Intercultural Awareness Committee, the VPMA led the successful effort in the Student Assembly to exclude us.

But the position’s staple issue involved the imposition into the university curriculum a “Diversity” general education requirement, which required all students to take a highly politicized course on the “history of oppression” in order to graduate. It took threats and an occupation of the Provost’s office, but a group of radicals led by the VPMA in 1994 did succeed in passing the requirement.

At the time, the University was unwilling to stand up to them. The general student body was apathetic, and the Student Association was, in part, dominated by the radicals themselves. The Review stood as the only opposition.

Armed with the right ideas, BR editors and contributors got involved in student government and, in 1997, successfully lobbied HCC to repeal the Diversity

requirement. Along the way, members were accused of racism for their beliefs, and issues of the magazine were stolen and thrown out, all at the behest of those affiliated with the VPMA office.

This isn’t to say that the campus culture wars were entirely provoked by the Left; students on the Right made mistakes too. Many have heard of the former SA President Anthony Benardello, whose presidency ended with his impeachment and resignation. His abrasive, tactless style alienated his constituents, angered the cultural groups, and led to a riot breaking out at an SA meeting that was followed by a week-long occupation of the Couper Administration Building.

Tensions settled down in the years that followed. Ever since, VPMAs have fallen into two categories: (a) toned-down version of the 1990 radicals, arguing in favor of leftist ideals, but not taking radical steps to actively impose them on the rest of us, or (b) useless do-nothings, who were not political in any way, but could not find much else to do with the office.

Now today, we print the first interview BR has conducted with a VPMA in our twenty-one year history. We actually agree with many of Ricky’s ideas, most specifically his desire to embrace diversity of thought rather than only diversity of race. We don’t oppose things just because they have the word “multicultural” in their title; despite our history with his position, we haven’t used it as a reason to write him off. We generally care about student issues, and if Ricky is on the right side of many of those issues, who cares what title he holds? We don’t agree on everything—take his views on the position’s ‘duty’ to represent the underrepresented, for example—but that doesn’t mean we can work together to create a dialogue.

Hopefully the campus left can treat the Review the same way; we know Ricky will. On issues like off-campus housing and student liberties with regard to the student code of conduct, the Review has been the forerunner in defending the student side of things. Nonetheless, there are segments of the student body who hate everything we do, no matter how much it might be in their best interest. This is detrimental to everyone. We are here to begin a dialogue; here’s to hoping no one will exclude themselves. ◄

Our Mission Binghamton Review is a non-partisan, student-run periodical of conservative 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 understand 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. www.binghamtonreview.com

3

PRESSWATCH

Campus Presswatch Exposing writers from other campus publications as the liars and communists they are

Pipe Dream September 11, 2009 “Next to psychotic, cynical is perhaps the best word to describe the assault-riflewielding, swastika-bearing opponents of health care reform who have dominated town halls and newspapers across the country. Apart from the fact that drawing pictures of the president that liken him to Hitler and chanting about "death panels" kind of undermines one's message, if we peel back the layers of ignorance on this onion of crazy, we find a deep-seated mistrust for all things government.”

This is the sort of ignorance and stupidity that irritates people who actually understand issues. It’s good to know that every intellectual, economist, medical professional, AMA member, and U.S. Senator who opposes Obamacare are all “Assault rifle wielding, swastika wearing opponents of health care reform.” To every opponent of Obamacare: Wear your Nazi arm bands and carry your rifles for the march tomorrow. Those who hold a PhD should additionally wear their S.S. jacket.

4

Binghamton Review

Free Press September 24, 2009

would we have a national day to celebrate "this guy"?

Free Press notices some sexist behavior underway at BU…

Steeves, who plans to describe Columbus as "the Hitler of the Americas" in her forum, hopes that students will question the celebration of the man who, according to her, brought European imperialism, slavery and genocide to the Americas, and was ultimately arrested for atrocities toward the Native American people.

“It’s a curious thing that I’ve noticed over these past few years at Binghamton: women will speak up less often than men in class. On the whole, this has been a recurring trend. Whether in the sciences or the humanities, male students will generally volunteer answers more often, and when female students do attempt to raise their hands, they are often overlooked in favor of the guys who spoke about five seconds earlier.”

According to The New York Times, men are getting lower grades, are less likely to graduate as seniors or super-seniors, less likely to graduate overall, less likely to take Honors, and compose only 42% of the college population.

Actual statistics, rather than some tallies taken from a maximum of five classes a biased reporter, show that women are performing far better than men in college.

Columbus also brought from Europe to America thousands of years of technological, scientific, and cultural progress without which America would be a part of the third-world.

The day is a celebration of the discovery that eventually led to the United States, which, if you don’t buy into the trash advanced by revisionist multicultis—who degrade western culture and then seek to establish all cultures as morally equivalent—was a good thing.

Inside BU October 1, 2009 Speaking of sexism…

Pipe Dream October 6, 2009 Get ready, Binghamton, for the kind of ultra PC, American-hating nonsense that makes Michael Moore movies look like Sean Hannity’s Freedom Concert...

Paulette Steeves, a graduate student and president of the Native American Student Association, who is set to host an Oct. 10 forum titled "Enlightenment on Columbus Day," poses the question: Why

“Laura Chaath, Jessica Falzone, Julie Razryadov, Lauren Schiffman, and Anna Yeo. These five undergraduates are finalists for the annual Exemplary Student Award.

The competition, coordinated by the Homecoming Committee, honors academic achievement, University involvement and knowledge of campus history.”

Did no men qualify for this award?

Imagine the outcry if the committee chose five men as the only finalists. A case for the VPMA for sure…

OCTOBER 2009

INSTIGATIONS

Instigations Point-less Initiatives “Why don’t they come to our meetings?”

This is a question that has been posed by various members of the Student Assembly and Student Association executive board with regard to student groups, and their lack of interest in SA-sponsored events like the Student Group Council (a fancy term for a meeting of student group leaders and SA officials). Attempts to reform SGC and to rebrand many of the SA’s leadership programs have been made, but none have realized much success.

This semester, however, the SA has developed a new “incentive” policy. The concept is fairly straightforward: groups will earn points for attending events such as meetings of the Student Group Council, Xcel Center workshops, and the Leaders Engaging and Developing (L.E.A.D.) Conference, or by completing various administrative functions on P.A.W.S., the SA’s student group networking site. Groups that accumulate enough points would, at the end of the year, see Executive Vice President Jared Kirschenbaum work to have their budgets increased at Financial Council’s annual budget meeting.

The point system presents several issues, some resulting from the system’s poorlyplanned implementation, and the other inherent in the plan itself.

Though the Financial Council has yet to meet, the EVP has shown no intention of presenting the point system to the council for approval, and has no way of knowing whether the council will take it into consideration during budget hearings. The power to send a budget proposal to the Student Assembly for final approval rests solely in the hands of the ten representatives on Financial Council; www.binghamtonreview.com

AN EXERCISE IN FUTILITY Freshman campus gay-rights celebrity Sam Sussman joins other students in engaging Deferio. Save it for Washington, Sam. they alone decide what factors to weigh while determining a group’s budget. Nevertheless, the EVP has already presented the plan to student groups as if it going to be law of the land. If Financial Council decides to ignore the point system while making their judgments next semester, as they should (keep reading to find out why), then you can bet the EVP will have a lot of angry student groups at his door.

Aside from failing to communicate with Financial Council, the EVP never brought the idea to the Student Group Council to ask for the student groups’ opinions. The purpose of the Student Group Council is to

give student groups a forum to voice their concerns about SA policy that directly affect student groups.

Student groups do not attend SGC meetings because they do not believe they would derive any benefit by doing so; the meetings are a waste of time. The SA should not be bribing groups with promises of a favorable budget hearing if they attend this or that event; it should be working to create programs that student groups would want to attend regardless of the point system. Why drag one hundred student group leaders into a room just to lecture to them about things they consider unimportant? Create 5

INSTIGATIONS

“

The SA should not be bribing groups with promises of a favorable budget hearing if they attend this or that event; it should be working to create programs that student groups would want to attend regardless of the point system.

an inherent benefit to the meetings, and the groups will show up on their own.

Looking past the problems with the program’s implementation, there are deeper issues with the point system. Why should the number of SA events a student group attends have any effect on its budget?

Students pay an activity fee, in part, to fund the programs put on by groups like Hillel, the Black Student Union, the College Democrats, or Binghamton Review. Groups that attract a lot of members and hold largescale programs deserve budget allocations that reflect the number of students they serve. Students do not pay the activity fee to increase the attendance at Student Group Council meetings. The use of any money generated by the fee for purposes such as this is irresponsible, and would represent a gross abuse by the SA. Take for example, the College Democrats and College Republicans. Both were founded at roughly the same time. They hold analogous programs, have a comparable number of members, and currently, are allocated similar budgets. Now let’s say that this year the College Republicans attend every SGC meeting, L.E.A.D., and a few Xcel workshops. Let’s estimate that this would earn them 400 points. The College Democrats, despite holding their annual debates, lectures, and voter registration drive, do not attend a single SA meeting, and earn zero points. Would it be fair to the group members, and just as importantly, the students paying the activity fee, to award more money to the College Republicans simply because they were able to put up with the bureaucratic nonsense that are SGC meetings?

As has been repeated many a times on the pages of this publication, the activity 6

Binghamton Review

fee, if it must exist, should be used only to benefit the student body at large. The Black Student Union hosts cultural programming like their annual fashion show, the SnöCats plan snowboarding trips, Chabad and Hillel organize Shabbat dinners and events like the Purim carnival, the Review prints a magazine for students to read every month. Access to these events and services is what students are paying for when they send their $86.50 to the SA each semester. The SA ought not to abuse its power by taking other considerations into account during the budget process next semester.

The Compelling Power of Christ Once again, Jim Deferio, the anti-gay speaker has shown up on our campus. At least once per semester, he makes an appearance to remind everyone that nutjobs don’t lurk only in the shadows north of Main Street, but come to campus to grace us with their presence from time to time.

And, once again, the Rainbow Pride Union was out and about all day, wrapped in rainbow flags with their chalk messages and witty signs, “protesting” Deferio’s speech.

Deferio goes from college campus to college campus to preach the saving power of Jesus Christ, and to “inform” the LGBTQ community that thousands of “exhomosexuals” have changed their ways after realizing the salvation power of “their Lord and Savior.”

Binghamton University is a liberal school in the Northeast; there are literally no more than ten people on campus who agree with the things this guy says. Even most of the students on campus who are opposed to gay marriage don’t agree that homosexuals are sinners who must be saved by Christ or else spend the rest of

eternity burning in the fiery pits of hell.

There are flaming homosexuals on this campus, just not in the fire and brimstone sense.

RPU, you aren’t standing up for anything by protesting this nutcase every time he steps foot on campus. When 99% of campus agrees with you, there’s no need to protest the 1% that disagrees.

Deferio is a nut; just ignore him and walk away. Giving him attention serves only to legitimize his cause. If everyone who disagrees with the views of Deferio and others like him (read: almost everyone), didn’t give him the light of day, no one would believe such views existed.

Homophobia may or may not be rampant in our society, but it is not on this campus.

Magnifying a lone nut like Deferio is what makes people think otherwise.

Identity Crisis Another resolution, two actually, regarding tuition were introduced to the Student Assembly last week. This time, one called for support of the New York State Comptroller’s report that recommended increasing out-of-state tuition to reflect national averages… and the other called for the opposite. And both were authored by the same assembly representative! These are just two of many tuition-related resolutions that will have been debated in the Student Assembly in the past couple of years, and are guaranteed to have the same effect as all the rest: nada. For one, the state legislature doesn’t care what Binghamton’s student government thinks. And two, Student Assembly representatives are in no way qualified to assess tuition policy; there’s no way the assembly can make an entirely informed decision. ◄ OCTOBER 2009

HARPUR

DR. Aldo S. Bernardo

Harpur’s Original Program The story of Glenn G. Bartle’s unique vision for the university, and how it was undermined

T

he class of 1954, the first class graduating from Harpur College, presented the college with an unusual gift. It was a large granite stone containing a bronze inscription describing the goals of the academic program the class had been pursuing for almost 4 years.

It said: FROM BREADTH TO DEPTH TO PERSPECTIVE. The stone now sits in the central quad at the intersection of a paved crossroad one side of which leads in the general direction of the Bartle Library and classrooms, the other in the direction of the student union and housing. The stone's shape and location could not have been more symbolic. The thick piece of granite resembles a cemetery headstone.

The crossroads point in the direction of growth on the one hand and carefree youth in the other.

The program celebrated by the stone died in the 1970's. The paths at whose intersection the stone sit explains why.

When Triple Cities College became an extension of Syracuse University in 1946, Glenn Bartle was appointed Dean. From the very first, Bartle's dream was to create an institution with an academic program similar to Swarthmore's where he had served during the war. With the takeover of the college by the state in 1950, Bartle started to recruit faculty to realize his dream. By 1955 the Syracuse program had been replaced by a program that resembled Swarthmore's in certain respects, but was highly original in others.

The program was based on two major assumptions: first, that overspecialization in limited fields of study has been a fundamental weakness of American higher education since the close ofWW1I; second, that American college students were capable of much greater intellectual effort than supposed. It also assumed that the then recent vogue of general education programs

www.binghamtonreview.com

in liberal arts afforded only a partial solution since the majority of such programs provided breadth at the expense of depth. The idea was to have the student first get immersed in general human knowledge, then investigate some basic areas in some depth, and finally focus on a specialization.

It was felt that this would afford the student a proper perspective toward life and learning.

Such a program required a drastic change in college structure. Formal departments were avoided in favor of three divisions which reflected the basic organization of human knowledge.

These were Humanities and Fine Arts, Social Sciences, and Sciences and Math. The goal was to give every student a thorough exposure to these essential areas of knowledge before moving on to a specific specialty. A student would thus first satisfy a series of general education requirements, then decide in which of the three Divisions he wished to concentrate (or major), then explore various areas within the Divisions, and finally determine a specialization. Such a structure also focused attention upon the inter­ dependence of all the disciplines in the college, making possible easy access to inter divisional programs.

To assure breadth for all students, the program, based on three-hour courses, required that 60 of the 124 credits needed for graduation be devoted to a core of general requirements and other courses which provided a common experience and served as the basis for subsequent development in divisional studies. This common core had three parts: (1) general courses to provide an introduction to the training in communications and to provide an introduction to the major areas of knowledge; (2) general requirements in mathematics and foreign languages; and (3) area requirements that insured a spread in individual programming.

Being built on knowledge already acquired in secondary school, the first two parts also afforded some depth of under­standing. The third part, the Area requirements, provided further depth through a series of upper-class requirements which called for some advanced work in divisions other than that in which the student elected to major. The remaining half of the 124 hours program consisted in the divisional major and area specialization or special program.

Another novelty of the program brought about by the non-departmental structure was the divisional rather than a departmental major. After completing the general college requirements and before specializing, a student had to elect one of the Divisions as a major. Here too, both breadth and depth were assured. The Humanities major, for example, had to take required courses in all the areas of the Humanities and in at least one area of the Social Sciences, and this in addition to the general course in the Sciences.

The general courses were given in Communications, Humanities, Social Sciences, and Sciences (biological or physical). Except in the Sciences, these were required yearlong courses carrying six hours of credit. In the sciences, two courses were offered, one in the biological, the other in the physical sciences. Each was a oneterm course carrying five hours of credit. The student was required to choose one.

Each of the general courses was designed to deal with the nature of its subject matter.

Communications dealt with the nature of human communications, from articulation of sound to produce words, to language as used in such daily media as newspapers, radio, TV, movies, and eventually to how communication is achieved

CONTINUED ON PAGE 31

►►► 7

ACTIVITY FEE

The Student Activity Fee Your $173 tuition surcharge will be put to referendum this year, but how effectively is it being allocated?

YADIN HERZEL

An Unnecessary Tax “Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with what is my own?” (New American Standard Bible, Matt. 20.15)

Y

es, it is, or at least it should be.

Specifically at issue here is the “Undergraduate Activity Fee,” currently assessed at $86.50, which is tacked onto every undergraduate student’s tuition bill each semester. Over the course of four years, or eight semesters, that comes to a total of $692. (And for you fifth-year students out there, that comes to a total of $865.)

Although the “Excellence Fee” and the “University Fee,” which also drive up every undergraduate student’s tuition bill every semester, remain a mystery to me even after my three years at Binghamton, I can tell you exactly where your Undergraduate Activity Fee goes. It goes to the Student Association, and in theory, is supposed to go back to you in the form of “activities.”

Can you imagine checking out in a store and being told that your total cost is 4.20 activities? What the heck does that mean? What exactly is the exchange rate between an activity and the US dollar?

How do you know that the SA isn’t ripping you off and not providing you with the full equivalency of $86.50 in activities that you pay for every semester?

8

Binghamton Review

Let’s start with the bad news first. The majority of students, which statistically more likely than not includes you, are being ripped off. Big time. The good news, however, is that this need not continue to be the case.

There are two different options to explore here. One is a pretty decent solution that works within the current framework of the SA and requires no legislation to implement. It should at least be utilized until the SA wises up and passes the necessary legislation to implement the second option, which will be outlined later on.

First and foremost, demand accountability from the SA. While it’s too late to advise you to elect qualified students to the SA who will perform their duties well since all elections have passed, it’s not too late for you to scrutinize your elected officials’ actions. If someone is doing something that you don’t support, or simply not doing enough, talk to them.

Make your opinion known. Every elected official that represents you was elected to represent you, and simply cannot do so without your input.

Although it does make for entertaining front pages of Pipe Dream, I sincerely doubt that you paid $86.50 this semester to be wasted on more SA infighting. The

SA E-board and SA Representatives, myself included, were not elected to make the news for racist comments, but to make the news for improving the quality of student life. (Keep in the back of your mind that it’s always in order to impeach an elected official who is not performing his duties.)

Should the SA ever function as an accountable organization, it really can do great things for all students. As the SA website says, “you may not believe it, but the Student Association is behind almost anything that is student oriented at Binghamton University.” The burden of recovering your $86.50 would then solely be on you. Join student groups, participate in SA events, get involved on campus, and you will surely get your money’s worth.

The second option will surely reveal my libertarian tendencies, and while it may sound ludicrous at first, you owe it to yourself to take the time to fully consider it. I’ll just lay it out there and then explain further – do away with the Student Activity Fee entirely. The fee is essentially a tax that cannot be logically justified. In theory, if a student did nothing throughout his college career other than go to class, sure he’d be a loser, but should he have to foot a $692 bill? And, in theory, if a student participated in every single student group, and attended every single SA event throughout his college career, should he only have to pay $692?

The answer is no in both cases. What would be so wrong with students paying to be a member of the specific student groups that they want to join, and what would be OCTOBER 2009

so wrong with students paying admission fees to the specific SA events that they want to attend? Students would benefit because they would save money by only paying for what they want and nothing more, and student groups would benefit because they would have bigger budgets with fewer regulations. Student groups and events with little or no interest would no longer be unjustifiably funded, and efficiency would prevail.

If you are an off-campus student and want to at least examine the feasibility of option two, come and talk to me. As your SA representative, I feel obligated to

push for your best interests and strongly believe that this is one of them. If you aren’t an off-campus student, find out who your representatives are and talk to them. Make your opinions known, demand accountability from the SA, and for the time being, participate in at least $86.50 worth of activities each semester.

Hopefully, some semester soon, you will soon have even greater control over your $86.50 because it is absolutely your right to do what you wish with what is your own. ◄ Yadin is a senior majoring in accounting.

RANDAL MEYER

Direct Payment for Actual Use

E

very semester, students pay $86.50 to the Student Association at Binghamton University in an effort to fund a body that, in return, is to provide services, advocacy, and representation. This year, the student activity fee (the aforementioned $86.50) is up for referendum, and some have argued that it should be abolished. Despite these arguments, this fee should be maintained, albeit modified in its structure for more student control.

One of the main arguments against the activity fee is that we spend money to support internal conflicts among the SA. The fact of the matter is that not a dime goes towards infighting. There is no SA budget for “Political Controversies” or “Racism.”

To say we spend any portion of the fee on SA infighting is a contrived fallacy formed by presupposing the existence of actual money being expended upon it. Infighting is a natural result of politics and a quasigovernmental entity, as well as people taking themselves way too seriously.

The next best argument is that we spend money on an Assembly that does www.binghamtonreview.com

nothing for us. This is based on the theory that a student who does nothing but live in the library and study does not get involved with any student group and does nothing but go to class. It seems that this student benefits from absolutely nothing the Student Association has to offer and thus should not pay for four years of unused services. While this argument holds some water, there are major holes. Student advocacy on Academic Policy and all major functions of the University are carefully monitored by the SA. Alterations to any credit requirements, academic policy, judicial affairs policy, ResLife policy, Dining Hall changes, construction, and arming of UPD all are major university functions on which the SA has both the power and means to influence and does so. This means that this student, regardless what the lack of political or student group affiliations implies, is still affected by the SA and utilizes its services. For example, this student is affected by judicial policies the university produces, and if in the course of the indicated solitary life this student happens to get in trouble, the

SA has a service run independent of the Ombudsman that will defend the student in front of the Judicial Board.

I am not here to say the SA is anywhere near perfect, but students at BU underestimate the value of our SA. We have two major advantages that we pay to maintain: independence from the administration and a strong tradition of student input on our university. That $86.50 maintains a student government that is not run by the Office of Student Affairs as it is at many other universities. Essentially, many colleges have administration-dependent SAs that do not receive necessary meetings with actual administrators, and these universities dictate the policies on which their SAs can advocate. We pay to maintain the right to fight for that which affects us. Furthermore, the student input and actual influence we have is unparalleled. Through our years of advocacy we have created contacts and networks of support for our sentiments.

This is a compelling enough reason to pay $86.50.

However, as a libertarian I believe in direct control over taxes (which is what the student activity fee is). I believe that students should have the opportunity to directly state which groups or entities their funds will go towards through the Student Association.

A voucher system is both feasible and possible, albeit difficult to implement.

Essentially, a student would log onto the PAWS system and select which groups’ and services’ expenses they want their fee to go towards and how much of it goes to each (every penny must be allocated). Once the initial implementation is done, students will have power over their taxes, pay for services directly affecting them, and will maintain a powerful advocacy organization for students on campus.

This system has been proposed many times by the staff of the Review, dating back to 1997 and most recently argued by Rod Alzmann, the proprietor of the PAWS implementation system. ◄ Randal is a junior majoring in PPL and Philosophy.

9

VPMA

Interview by Adam shamah & EdMUND mays

Da Costa Gets Reviewed For the first time in history, a Vice President for Multicultural Affairs sits down with the Review

BINGHAMTON REVIEW: What is the job of the VPMA, in your opinion?

RICKY DA COSTA: I think it is a position that has a lot of potential. In the past, it is a position that has pretty much been solely focused on the activist component of campus culture. And I think that did the position disservice, because I think there is a lot that could be done with the position. I think that it stems from the fact that people have this limited view of multiculturalism where we are only talking about race and ethnicity as opposed to things like diversity of thought, religion, and opinion. Those are things the VPMA could definitely get involved with on campus in terms of programming that simulates diversity of thought, and just caters to a wide audience on this campus.

BR: Why do you think that the VPMA should be an Executive Board position?

RD: I mean, I think, oh, how can I put this? (Laughs) Well, I do think that the position occupies an important role on the Executive Board, simply for the fact that there is no other position that really caters to the needs of cultural organizations on campus. Granted, the EVP [S.A. Executive Vice President] does have the administrative control, but that office is really too big for him to be able to deal with the day-to-day stuff that goes along with programming and putting on a successful 10

Binghamton Review

cultural organization. In addition to that, I think that diversity is something that the university is very committed to, and, as such the position on the E-Board facilitates that process in terms of making sure we are compliant with all the goals of the university, in terms of diversity and collaboration amongst different cultures.

BR: Why do you think the position has taken so much criticism in the past?

RD: I think the position has taken a lot of criticism because it hasn’t really done much. Not to say that they have all be been bad, but like I said, people occupying the position have historically tended to follow on the path as using the position solely in its facility for advocating for things; it was about being involved in the activist component of campus culture. So I think that what I am trying to do is bring a fresh approach that brings a lot of different perspectives to mind, so it tries to put more programming out there that helps more students instead of taking more reactionary measures to perceived disparities, or to discrimination. Not to say that we aren’t still fighting that stuff, but there needs to be a balance between the activism and the actual policy and programming.

BR: Do you agree with the statement that the VPMA is supposed to represent the underrepresented?

RD: I think a major component of the job as it is laid out is to be an advocate for underrepresented students on campus, yes.

BR: Are the cultural groups underrepresented in the Student Association, and if not, who is?

RD: I would say, looking at the way the Assembly has been put together, there has not been a lot of involvement from minority groups on campus. That is to say, we have a very diverse campus and not everyone tends to get involved in the Assembly and rather than trying to make assumptions as to why that is the case, I have made it my point to make sure that there is an equality of information on campus, and I’m making sure that at least everyone on campus knows about the things that are going on in the Assembly, and I think that in time, that will go along with people actually getting involved as opposed to simply criticizing the Assembly for what it is not.

BR: Last year, when the controversy came up surrounding your position, many cultural group leaders brought up that the VPMA is the only E-Board position that they can go to with their problems. Do you think that maybe the very existence of the VPMA contributes to this? In other words, do you think that the VPMA pigeonholes the cultural groups off from the other E-Board members and acts as a sign that says “come here,” instead of “go here”?

OCTOBER 2009

DIPLOMATIC HISTORY The interview went down something like this.

RD: Well, I think a lot of that is very perceptual, and going back to what I said about people dealing with these positions on a personal basis. There are a lot of times when the person cannot separate the person from the position. And the fact of the matter is that cultural groups haven’t always felt comfortable with the other offices than the ones in the office of the VPMA. You know, simply on the basis if the VPMA is the student of color, then students of color might feel more comfortable interacting with the VPMA, and so on. But I think we would like to break away from that, and open things up more so because people do feel that each E-Board member serves a niche in their position. Because at the end of the day, we are all here for the students.

And I think that we are all here to serve the common good.

BR: As VPMA, do you have to defend cultural causes that you don’t agree with? www.binghamtonreview.com

RD: I think that in facility of the position as being an advocate for the underrepresented, there will come a time when I will have to defend the right for people to feel comfortable with expressing themselves and their cultures, so yes, there will come times when I don’t agree with something, but as the main advocate for cultural diversity on campus, it definitely should be my role to advocate for them in situations where they feel slighted.

eradicate some of the conflicts that have risen over the years. We need to make sure that they aren’t taking things personally.

What I have found with a lot of cultural groups over the years is that people will take and make things more personal than they need to be.

BR: What do you do when two cultural causes conflict?

RD: I think the fact that the position exists here maybe helps it not be as big of an issue, but who is to say that if the position wasn’t there, that things wouldn’t be different? But I think it does play an important role in making sure that people don’t feel like they are being discriminated against.

RD: That’s always a difficult situation, and I think that the first thing that needs to be done is to have a thoughtful dialogue where people can understand the perspectives that are being brought to the table. It won’t always be easy, it won’t always be clean, but hopefully through dialogue and proper planning we can

BR: Do you believe that racism is prevalent on campus or do you think it is not as big as an issue as it may have once been?

CONTINUED ON PAGE 18

►►► 11

ATHLETICS

CHRIS PUSATERI PHOTOGRAPHY

Adam shamah & EdMUND mays

Coma, condoms, and crack.

In just over one year, Binghamton’s young Division I basketball team went from being an up-and-coming contender to an in-house case study on poorly handled risk management and public relations. The program is left surrounded by a publicity nightmare without any D-1 caliber players and not much hope for the future. Should anyone be surprised?

12

Binghamton Review

OCTOBER 2009

“

Alumni, donors, prospective students, and employers will no longer look at Binghamton Univeristy as the “premier public university in the northeast,” but rather as that school that recruited shabby leftovers to win a few basketball games.

T

he men’s basketball program made the shift from D-3 over to D-1 in 2001, ignoring the advice of the Faculty Senate, who voted against making the transition at the time. President DeFleur and Athletic Director Joel Thirer made the push, and the program followed, whether it was ready or not. Six years later, in 2007, the university hired Kevin Broadus as head coach, fully aware of his recruitment practices, which led directly to last year’s American East Championship and all of the off-the-court problems that came with it.

Taking the fast track It takes decades to build up a successful D-1 program. Binghamton tried to take the fasttrack by hiring Broadus, fully aware of his recruitment style that involves recycling talented players from other schools who did not fit in, academically or behaviorally, at their previous institutions, but were good basketball players nonetheless. Presumably, after a few years of on-the-court success fielding players like Tiki Mayben, our reputation would grow and we’d no longer have to rely on other programs’ sloppy seconds. Instead, we would be able to recruit, out of high school, talented players who could live up to any program’s academic and behavioral standards.

The logic behind the administration’s decision to take the fast track, and in all likelihood the reason why President DeFleur so strongly stood behind it, involves their broader vision for the university. As the university rises in the rankings, our average scores, number of applicants, and postgraduate employment rate all rise with it, but less so has the national image of the university. Binghamton University, despite its excellent academic programs, is known by very few outside of New York and New

www.binghamtonreview.com

Jersey. A successful sports program would go a long way to change that.

Ask any middle-school-aged student to make a list of the colleges they know. We’d bet that most of the schools they name would fall into one of three categories: their parent's alma mater, elite schools such as Harvard, Duke, and Princeton, and, finally, schools with nationally-known sports teams. Very few people would be unfamiliar with such men as Dean Smith, Mike Krzyzewski, or the inflammatory yet entertaining Bob Knight.

These men and the sport programs that they head, or have headed, are a source of fame and pride for their respective universities. A winning basketball team, in the long run, would land Binghamton University on the national stage, which, we have to admit, would enhance the value of our degrees just as much as any new academic department or faculty-hire would.

Not ready for the big leagues The campus outrage has thus far focused on the usual cast of characters: Lois DeFleur, Joel Thirer, Kevin Broadus, the players, and the athletic department as a whole. All of these people and institutions are in one way or another responsible for the embarrassing situation in which the university finds itself, but the problem stems not from the actual off-court incidents that occurred, but from the way in which the university and media have reacted. The university has proven that it was not yet prepared to manage a successful basketball program in the first place and was ill-equipped to deal with the after effects of such a scandal.

Prior to joining the Binghamton men’s basketball team as its head coach in 2007, Broadus was an assistant coach at Georgetown University. Unlike the American East

conference, the Big East contains established D-I basketball teams. How can a man with Broadus’ collegiate background and pedigree be so ill-prepared to handle a few unruly college athletes? We understand that he was dealing with raff – raff that he recruited, it is worth noting – but how many incidents had to occur before he cracked down?

Scandals like this come with the territory of running a D-1 program. While Binghamton’s situation may be unique, and the cause of it very easy to pinpoint, one would be hard pressed to find an NCAA program that has operated scandal-free or escaped public scrutiny. This year alone, at the University of Wisconsin, a player was dismissed from the men’s basketball team after burglary charges were brought against him. University of Kansas players have also been involved in DUI charges, and some are being investigated for their possible involvement in a bar brawl. Recently, Harvard University was cited by the NCAA for recruitment violations. Additionally, Kansas was on probation for several years for a laundry list of violations, from awarding benefits to potential recruits to academic fraud committed by current players and a university employee. With regard to the previous two examples, these were violations actively committed by the administrators or staff of the universities; not laws broken by the players themselves.

Taking Responsibility Not only do these programs survive, but they flourish. If BU wants its sports program to follow, those involved must take responsibility for their mistakes. Broadus has yet to condemn his past recruitment practices or take a stance on the future of the program.

President DeFleur should acknowledge that her 13

all-out pursuit of a nationally recognized sports team may have caused her and her subordinates to overlook some of the liabilities that came along with the program’s development.

Anyone who follows Division I athletics knows the routine when something this embarrassing happens: the university issues a strong statement pledging change, and the coach comes clean, takes full responsibility, and promises that it will never happen again. Then all is forgotten. It may be spin, but no one cares enough to keep pressing the issue.

But our administration is so inexperienced in these matters that they let Binghamton become part of the news cycle, not for one day, or two, but every day since the Tiki story broke. Instead of coming out strong by taking a stance on how

to fix these problems, the university tackled a new issue each day while still leaving many unanswered questions. The fact that we still do not know why most of the team was dismissed leaves us wondering what they are hiding. More telling is the absence of dissent from the remaining players.

These unanswered questions concern anyone who is following the story. Putting aside the negative speculation that arises when there are concerns left unanswered, the bigger problem here is one of trust.

The university lost the public’s trust when this story broke. To win it back, they must leave nothing unanswered; they should speak openly about past mistakes and come forward with plans for the future.

The irony in this story is in an effort to develop national presence, BU may actually end up destroying its long-standing image within the

regional circles that once had great respect for the quality of our academics. Alumni, donors, prospective students, and employers will no longer look at Binghamton University as the “premier public university in the northeast,” but rather as that school that recruited shabby leftovers to win a few basketball games. Those outside of the region now know our name, but beyond that, know only of our disgraced basketball program and not of our prestigious School of Management or our internationally-ranked political science department, among many other academic distinctions. The university must work to restore our image. Then it can worry about rebuilding our basketball program. ◄ Michael Lombardi contributed to this article.

Do you think of diversity as a way to manage your stock portfolio, not a university?

Join Binghamton Review before it’s too late Meetings every Thursday at 7PM in UUWB05 Email editor@binghamtonreview.com for more information.

14

Binghamton Review

OCTOBER 2009

SATIRE | Keeping your spirits high while the value of your BU degree hits an all-time low

Reality Check Former Bearcats adjust to life after basketball

O

ne week after Binghamton University made national headlines by dismissing the starting lineup of their men’s basketball team, five former NCAA basketball stars are adjusting to life as ordinary students.

On Monday, the five players—D.J. Rivera, Malik Alvin, Corey Chandler, Paul Crosby and David Fine—were given a tour of campus for the first time. “They all seemed to be surprised by a lot of things here,” said Adam Tima, a BU tour guide, “I can’t believe they didn’t know where the lecture hall was.”

Rivera was shocked to learn that he would have to spend time in class, where he will actually have to do his own work. “It’s going to be an adjustment for sure, but I’m looking forward to the challenge. Worst case scenario, I could always just transfer to Albany to play ball there.”

Corey Chandler also had a positive outlook. In reference to the Glenn G. Bartle Library, Chandler said “I used to wonder what that building was for. I thought it was just for storage or something, but then found out that it’s full of books. That’s pretty cool; it’s like the campus in How High.”

On Tuesday morning, David Fine excitedly arrived at his first class, HPY 111: Karate, only to learn that the university has decided to take a more proactive approach to mitigating risk since the scandals broke.

“The state has banned our basketball players from studying martial arts,” reported university spokeswoman Gail Grover, “they’re concerned for the safety of the general public.”

The players spent Tuesday afternoon meeting with one of their professors, Dr. Jon Krasnut, of the political science department.

“I had to explain to them what a syllabus was and that someone else doing your work for www.binghamtonreview.com

you is considered plagiarism... when you’re a regular student,” Krasnut told the Review.

Even more unsettling for the players was adjusting to common forms of transportation. “Lo-Lo De-Flo-Flo used to let us ride her plane all the time. Sometimes we’d go to Vegas and make it rain in the champagne room…now we’ve got to ride the blue buses like suckas.”

Malik Alvin was ecstatic to learn that condoms are available for free through the university. “After last year’s unfortunate incident, I just started pulling out.” Alvin has decided to go back to using condoms, alleviating the fears of university health services and the local Planned Parenthood.

The former players are all adjusting to the additional free time they have on their hands now that they no longer have to go to practice. “I used to play ball, get invited to parties, get high” Crosby said, “but now even when I do get invited to parties people expect me to pay for my own weed. That’s ridiculous!”

Some have suggested that the players join a student group to occupy their time.

“Getting involved in a student group is a great way to enjoy the many privileges of attending the premier public university in the northeast,” proclaimed Adam Amit, who spoke on behalf on the university’s marketing department. WHRW offered to give the players their own radio show, but Rivera was concerned about the station’s demographic.

“Too many creepy white people,” said the former lead scorer.

While public opinion in the weeks since the scandal has mostly turned against the former players, some students are showing support for the fallen stars. “We’re standing in solidarity with the Bearcat Six,” said Andrew Epstein, president of the

Experimental Media Organization, “the collective believes that the players have been targets of racial injustice. The NCAA has been built on decades of exploitation and racism. BU’s players are just the most recent victims of the B-Ball-industrial complex.” A rally is planned for next Thursday.

“We’ve bonded more than we ever did as teammates” Paul Crosby claimed, when asked about how the recent events have affected the former players’ friendships.

Although not yet official, the group has been thinking of forming a record label to launch their music careers. “I’ve always had these rhymes in my head. Some call it poetry. All I know is I spit hot fire,” read a statement released by Crosby’s manager.

When asked if they had any regrets about all that they’ve been through, the six young men tried to reflect on the journey that carried them to the top of the American East and on the scandals that dragged them to the bottom of gutter, but all were at a loss for words. “Biggie put it best,” said the soft-spoken yet eloquent Emmanuel Mayben, “‘Either you're slingin' crack-rock, or you've got a wicked jump-shot.’” ◄ 15

PHOTOS BY IAN SWAN

On September 11, 2009, Binghamton Review and College Republicans planted 2,977 American flags on the spine of in memory of each innocent victim of the attacks which to place eight years prior. A name reading was held at this throughout the day.

f campus ook location

VPMA

“

►►►

Diversity of thought and opinion is something the VPMA should be concerned with, maybe something that hasn’t been as true in the past. And I can really respect the fact that [BR staffers] are willing to stand up and voice [their] opinion, even though it is not popular.

CONTINUED FROM PAGE 11

BR: Last year when your position was faced with elimination, where were you? What kind of things did you do, either behind the scenes or in front?

RD: Well I tried to work with Maryam, and rally support. Being a member of a cultural group as well, we had things that we were working on, but we tried to help out Maryam and the cause of the position as much as we could. I was actually at that big meeting, in the Anderson Center. I didn’t speak, but I did watch everything that took place.

BR: What do you think of how your predecessor handled that situation and her office in general?

RD: She and I have very different perspectives on how things should be done. I am with the school of thought that if you are butting heads with everyone you are not going to get anything done. I think that was kind of evident by the year that she had. So, I am more looking to build coalitions and actually have dialogue with people as opposed to that. That’s not to say there aren’t times when the position needs to assert itself, and when you kind of need to be aggressive in how you attack certain situations, but my style is that that is just not something that I am trying to do. If you spend the whole year fighting for legitimacy, then you aren’t going to get anything else done. So I am trying to build the position up to a point where maybe that won’t be necessary in the future.

BR: Do you think that any of last year’s incidents in the SA were the fault of racism?

RD: Well, I think that if you look at racism the way I see it, it is the result of ignorance 18

Binghamton Review

and stupidity. Sometimes it is hard to separate the two. And there were a lot of things that took place last year, that shall we say were not acceptable in a legislative body, no matter what level. So, while I am not going to be the one just coming out here and slapping everyone with the racist tag, I think that it is important that all sides of the story be seen, and that we are able to put a perspective on things that take place. And that’s what I will be doing this year.

BR: Do you believe that conservatism and libertarianism are underrepresented philosophies on this campus in terms of academia, class loads, academic departments, and such? And if you do see it, what do you plan on doing to spread the diversity of political and philosophical thought on this campus?

RD: I think that Will brings a lot to the table, in terms of connecting to the activists that I spoke about, and it is important, even if you feel somebody is a little bit radical, to have that viewpoint in the room, because a lot of what I am trying to do is gather different viewpoints.

And I know what mine is, as well as my style of leadership, and at the end of the day I still have the final say of what comes out of the office. I just wanted to get Will’s perspective, and I think he has been a valuable addition to the office.

RD: And like I said at the times when the people talk about the position of the VPMA, I do think that conservative ideals are underrepresented on this campus. I mean we do have a very liberal faculty base, and I really look forward to working with a lot of groups and to put on some engaging programming with groups like the Binghamton Review to get those different viewpoints out there. I mean I think it is important that people don’t make judgments based on any preconceived notions even when it comes to things like conservatism, because we fall into that trap a lot. So it is important that people come out, and at least listen. And if you can form your disagreement after listening to somebody else, then we have got a little bit more of a sophisticated argument and we are in a better place.

BR: What do you think of the Binghamton Review?

BR: Do you think that there will ever be a day when we don’t need a VPMA?

RD: Diversity of thought and opinion is something the VPMA should be concerned with, maybe something that hasn’t been as true in the past. And I can really respect the fact that you guys are willing to stand up and voice your opinion, even though it is not popular. So, I have a lot of respect for what you guys do, you put out a great publication; I think it is very entertaining.

I think some people might take it a little too seriously, emphasis on sometimes. I don’t think you guys are inherently evil or racist, or anything like that. I mean, you are a good group of guys, and I enjoy working with you.

RD: I honestly can’t say that. It is kind of like the old question, when will we know if affirmative action has worked? If diversity is something you want to promote, I would think that it has to be exponentially. In that, if you have the position to promote diversity, then it can never become unnecessary. Hopefully there will become a time when the job will be a lot easier, where people will already be working with each other. I might have to facilitate a lot of the dialogue that goes on, but as of right now, I still feel that the VPMA is a vital need on this campus. ◄

BR: Considering all of the worthy cultural group leaders, why did you hire Will To, one of the most divisive ones, as your only assistant?

OCTOBER 2009

COAL POWER

PHOTO COURTESY RANDY CUMMINGS / BUNN HILL PHOTO

ETHAN DAY

Talking Green While Hiding Gray BU’s disregard for the campus power plant’s real environmental problem, and what could have been done to stop it

T

he recycling bins, the composting program, and the far reaching marketing campaign are all indicators of a school dedicated to environmental protection. Yet something else lingers quite literally in the air at Binghamton University; a factor that strays from the seemingly “green” campus atmosphere. It’s the ever-present smell of sulfur, a product of the

www.binghamtonreview.com

university’s own coal-fired power plant, one of the most poorly regulated facilities in the nation.

The subject of the power plant’s future arose recently when the Sierra Club and the Sierra Student Coalition started a new campaign to eliminate the use of coal at 60 universities across the country. Bruce Nilles, Director of the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal Campaign

says, “We’re focusing on campuses because universities should be leaders in technological innovation and sustainability, creating models for green society, campuses should be places of learning, development and growth where young adults can thrive, not homes to dangerous and polluting 19th century technology.” However, instead of being a leader in environmental 19

COAL POWER

“

Binghamton University, a state-run institution, is not subject to the stringent regulations of every other power plant in New York.

progress, Binghamton University operates a power plant that a Chinese sweatshop would be ashamed to have.

The reason for this epic failure is that Binghamton University, a state-run institution, is not subject to the stringent regulations of every other power plant in New York. As for the rest of the state’s power plants, they must adhere to new air pollution rules passed in March of this year, rules that are much tougher than the EPA’s national requirements under the federal Clean Air Act. So while industry across the state and across the country are forced to install new emissions controls and buy CO2 allowance credits, BU is free to burn its coal and let the soot and smog waft across the Vestal, NY campus.

What makes Binghamton University’s situation unique in contrast to other coal-fired plants on campuses is the revelation that the university could have put an end to coal use altogether over 25 years ago, all while turning a profit for the college. In the 1980s, a night school student in Binghamton University’s engineering program based his senior research project around a topic that interested college officials and unnerved key players in the New York State energy business. The student created a workable plan to install a gas turbine at Binghamton University’s power plant, a system that would eliminate the need for coal through the use of natural gas. The system would eliminate the use of boilers altogether, and instead heat for the campus would be electric. This electricity would have been generated by the campus itself, instead of being purchased from New York State Electric and Gas Company (NYSEG). The gas turbine would have been sized big enough to support the existing electrical load at the campus in addition to the new heating and air conditioning load (created from taking the old boilers offline and installing new electric heating system).

In the late 1980s, there was a federal program that included a “six cent law” which 20

Binghamton Review

stated that any cogeneration facility (a facility that generated its own electric needs as well as a surplus) would be paid $0.06 per kilowatt hour for any power put back into the state power grid.

The local electric utility was responsible for paying for the surplus power being put back into the electric grid. In Binghamton University’s case, the local utility is NYSEG. During this time, the campus load (the electrical demand) was between four and five megawatts. When the student submitted his outline for the senior project, he had calculated supporting economics that showed an approximate two-and-a-half year payback for the university’s investment in a 20-megawatt gas turbine. To summarize, Binghamton University could have eliminated all dependence on coal, decommissioned the coal-fired power plant, provided all electrical needs for the campus, and put 15 megawatts of power back into the power grid while being paid $0.06 per kilowatt hour.

This would have been a two-and-a-half year payback, and after the initial two-and-a-half years, straight profit for the school.

One may wonder why this system of startling economic and environmental benefit was never implemented. The answer is nothing more than office politics at their best. When the night school engineering student submitted the outline to his professor, it was of great interest to faculty. It is important to note that this student was enrolled in night school because he was a fulltime employee at NYSEG; the company that, if the plan were implemented, would be forced to pay Binghamton University for its extra electricity rather than sell it to them, as in the current arrangement. The professor took the outline and accompanying economics to the head of the engineering department, who immediately took the plan to the president of the university, who was also intrigued by the plan.

The university president encountered NYSEG’s Manager of the Gas Business Unit at a local Rotary Club meeting the following day, and he

brought up the proposition that the student had outlined. The following chain of events proved the validity of the plan, perhaps better than any economic analysis could: The next day at work, a Friday, the engineering student was called into the office of the Vice President of Generation Engineering at NYSEG. He asked about the student’s senior project, having already been filled in by the manager that day. After the student confirmed the outline of the project, the vice president said that he wasn’t telling the student what to do, but he suggested that he think long and hard that weekend about alternative project topics. Had the plan on paper become a reality at Binghamton University, NYSEG would be paying for electricity under the six cent law, rather than selling it to the school as they currently did.

The vice president’s message to the student was clear; this investigation ends now if you’d like to keep your job. The following Monday, the student assured the vice president that he had found a new topic for the report.

NYSEG was able to stop the idea of a coal free campus at that time, but there is no excuse for the 25 years that followed. Binghamton University should have pursed the system vigorously at the time. The result of the gas turbine installation would have been profitable for the school and would have hugely reduced the schools environmental impact. Instead, 25 years later, our university still burns coal in the winters and does nothing to regulate the emissions from the power plant. If this institution truly wants to call itself “green” and be deserving of the Princeton Review Green Rating Honor Roll, then it should immediately install an emission reduction system on the coal plant and work quickly toward alternate forms of energy. All other efforts at environmental protection on the part of the college are futile in the face of this, our prevalent dilemma. ◄ Ethan is a freshman majoring in Political Science.

OCTOBER 2009

GEARS

PAUL LIGGIERI

Gear Grinding Pauly sounds off on ESL, SOM, and city politics

F

or those of you who do not already know, I tend to be the one who writes articles on things that piss off a lot of students here at our beloved university, and believe me, there are many things that should be making us angry.

You know what really grinds my gears? Professors who do not have a good command of the English language. All of us have had at least one of these professors who seem to always know what they are talking about but can’t speak about it to save their lives. Then, to make matters worse, they test us on their subject as if we understood each of their words down to a tee. I recently had dropped a course with a professor (who will remain nameless) because she simply could not speak English. I cannot believe the audacity of the Political Science Department to even put this woman into an English speaking classroom. Have the budgets really been cut so much that we now have to hire people who can’t teach a subject in a university that is supposed to teach its students in the English language?

What grinds my gears even more is when some professors cater to students who cannot speak the English language either.

While I extend my respect to international students who come here to learn, that does not necessarily mean they should be taking classes on American politics only to expect leniency from professors simply because they cannot communicate on a collegiate level. Students should not be allowed to

www.binghamtonreview.com

write their papers in another language.

This leads me to the next grinding of my gears: professors who spew liberal ideology at their students and then denounce any opinion that does not coincide with their own. Let’s take a look at teachers on a basic level. According to the National Education Association, they donate roughly ten times more to the Democratic Party than they do to the Republican Party. I don’t mind teachers putting their money into any particular political party, but that does not mean

that these ideologies should be expressed to their students in an explicit manner.

Recently there was a class discussion over Iran in my former social conflicts course, and if any student even mentioned the well-known fact that Iran’s government had contributed to terrorist organizations or was exploring nuclear proliferation, the teacher immediately shot them down and chastised them. I knew 100% that if I continued to share my opinions, I would receive a bad mark in the course regardless of how well I did on exams and papers. This 21

GEARS

“

You know what else really grinds my gears Binghamton? People who quote rappers on their Facebook status. Why are you quoting some of the most grammatically incorrect, illogical, and ignorant statements known to man?

Obama-praising, America-hating, liberalloving, Democratic-donating nonsense needs to stop.

You know what else really grinds my gears Binghamton? People who quote rappers on their Facebook status. Why are you quoting some of the most grammatically incorrect, illogical, and ignorant statements known to man? Do you really think people read these quotes and say, “wow, that kid is cool”?

Because what they’re really saying is, “wow, this kid is a tool.” Maybe instead of rapping about excessive jewelry, fancy cars, clothes, promiscuous woman, and drug dealing, they should rap about bank accounts, legitimate businesses, stocks, and 401k’s. That way they don’t all land up like M.C Hammer, who went into millions of dollars of debt after his rapping career failed.

Here is another thing that grinds my gears at an unprecedented level. Have you ever texted somebody only to have them text you back roughly five hours later? To all the people who do this, do us all a favor and don’t even bother getting back to us because by that time the point is moot anyway. Or how about the person who you know is not in class, you call them, they won’t pick up, but they know how to text you back a million times. They claim that they’re driving or can’t speak on the phone. Well if that’s a fact, then how do you have the time to type a million letters onto your phone while driving and not consider that a reasonable distraction? Or how about the people who tell you they are busy all day but find the time to sit in the Union to eat lunch for five hours. Or the people who cannot help you do something because they have a test coming up in 3 weeks and have to study way in advance.

The city of Binghamton grinds my gears as well. Can the mayoral administration confidently tell me that they’re doing 22

Binghamton Review

everything to help get rid of crime? Can they legitimately say that they city is safe for students to live in? Students often become comfortable with the city but so do convicts who go to Sing Sing prison for 20 years. In the late 80’s there were policies passed in Binghamton by which a deal was made with NYC to flush the toilets of all its undesired people right here into the downtown area.

I cannot quote the exact measures because very little paper work exists to even prove that it happened. But all one has to do is open up their eyes to see that every other person in Binghamton is an actual nutjob, drug addict, or person who sincerely needs professional help. The city of Binghamton needs to institute what NYC put in place when Guiliani took office. Mayor Dinkins spent most of his time playing tennis while crime levels rose through the roof, but when Guliani took office he, his administration, and a group of psychologists instituted the “broken windows theory.” In essence, if NYC cleaned up the graffiti, locked up the people who beat tolls, and put the narcotics agents back on the streets, it would ultimately lead to overall crime rate going down because most of these small offenses were committed by big time criminals. The time has come for the City of Binghamton to restore its pride, clean up the streets, increase the amount of police officers, and change its mayoral administration. We must do this to not only save the city of Binghamton so that the value of our degrees goes up, but to also ensure that Binghamton University students do not have to fear getting beat up by towns people who should not be in the city to begin with. Or perhaps the current Mayor wants to keep the City of Binghamton in poverty so we can keep qualifying for a fat check from the federal government.

The last grinding of my gears came

naturally when I saw twenty S.O.M. (School of Management) students walking around with their over-sized, box-fitting suits, and their fancy brief cases speaking about the stock market as if they themselves were CEOs of a Fortune 500 company. Why does the smallest school at the University get the most amount of funding? Most people claim it’s because it’s the most successful school, but I submit to all of you that if they pumped just as much money into Harpur and bought us a fancy new building, perhaps our liberal arts programs would be able to keep up with Ivy leagues, just as much as the SOM school does. But our state, our school administration, and idiotic alumni have left Harpur in the dust. Well, let me just assure most of the SOM kids about the truth of the situation. Our economy is not doing too well, and most of you will come up working as middle management in some cubical for thirty thousand dollars a year while you take orders from an individual that graduated from Harpur who can actually articulate their words, act creatively, and think outside of the box in proportion to crunching numbers and speculating on stock portfolios.

Screw you S.O.M. with your fancy buildings, your fancy lounges, your fancy professors, your oversized suits, bad comb overs, lack of personality, and desire to be the next wannabe Gordon Gekko. Perhaps one day you’ll be able to humble yourself after you realize that all of the creative minds, natural born leaders, entrepreneurs, and lawyers, came out of Harpur, the school of engineering, and nursing; not SOM! While I complain about the university, it is still a pretty sweet deal to get a decent education at so small a price. ◄ Paul is a senior majoring in political science.

OCTOBER 2009

9/11

alex paolano

Missing in Action Where was Obama on 9/11?

T

his past September 11 we gathered again eight years later to remember the lives lost and the bravery exhibited in the moments after the 9/11 attacks. This also marked the first anniversary of the attacks under a new Commander-in-Chief. During previous anniversaries we saw President Bush make his sincere rounds about the landmarks of 9/11: the Pentagon; Shanksville, Pennsylvania; and the World Trade Center. However, this year President Barack Obama was unmistakably absent from the World Trade Center. Instead, he sent Joe Biden as his proxy. While to some this might not seem like a big deal, or another show of the right wing using 9/11 for political gain, I say that notion is ridiculous! With this article I am speaking as an American who stuck to the vow to never forget, and I am pissed.

Here is another situation in which the President has dropped the ball, in which he thought that his eloquent words could make up for his lack of action. His words near the Pentagon about national unity and continuing to fight the terrorists (although the term “war on terror” has been gone) were of course wonderfully spoken, and well, quintessential Obama. But to me, and I am sure to many Americans who noticed his absence, these beautiful words didn’t make up for him being absent from his rightful place on 9/11 as President of the United States.

The President was able to hop on a plane at a moment’s notice--and on the tax payer’s dime-and fly Michelle up to Manhattan to have a date night on Broadway. He was able to fly north to go to a eulogy for the great Walter Cronkite, whom I don’t believe he had ever met. During the campaign he spent a lot of time flying himself around the country in his pimped out plane, but on the anniversary of the worst terrorist attack in

www.binghamtonreview.com

U.S. history he couldn’t make the hour flight to commemorate the victims in New York.

So, he spent his day painting houses to fulfill his obligation on the National Day of Service that he signed into law, which seems very honorable, but the problem is this National Day of Service seems to be nothing more than a liberal attempt to completely erase the true meaning of the September 11 anniversary. A day of remembrance and reflection might well be morphed into a day of liberal activism.

This is a day which some fear will be turned into a platform for liberals to spout off about carbon emissions and socialist redistribution. Isn’t it wrong that people did not want to make 9/11 a national holiday because of the connotation of holiday as a celebration, but instead, are perfectly okay with making 9/11 a bland, meaningless day of service?

Whether or not you liked George Bush, you cannot deny that he was a hands-on man who understood the meaning of 9/11. In the wake of the attacks he was at Ground Zero, sleeves rolled up, talking with firemen, not painting houses. He attended funerals, along with Mayor Giuliani, and on the anniversary of the attacks he was there where he belonged, arms around the families who lost loved ones, not committing himself to a meaningless idea.

Moving away from the President for a moment, I think it is important to bring to light really how little we have progressed since then. At the Pentagon there is a wonderful memorial to the victims, a place for the families to gather to remember those who lost their lives. In Manhattan bickering and stupidity has led to very little progress. Everyone assumed that eight years after the attack there would be something built, whether a memorial or a building in the footprints of the towers, but this is not the case. The plan is for an extensive memorial to be built by the tenth anniversary, but I for one will not be holding my breath.

In Washington it seems they have not learned the lessons of Iraq and are again bickering over politics as the death toll continues to grow in Afghanistan. If our commanders on the ground think there should be more troops in Afghanistan to quell the violence and find the rest of the bastards who planned the 9/11 attacks, then Nancy Pelosi should, with all due respect, shut the fuck up and listen to the people whose job it is to fight and win this war. John McCain, who stuck to his guns and pushed for the surge that ultimately secured victory in Iraq, put it best when he said that if the politicians in Washington don’t stop arguing and allow for a surge in Afghanistan to happen it might ultimately be too late. As of the writing of this article there will soon be a formal request for upwards of 40,000 new troops to be sent to Afghanistan, and the Congress will debate this issue. How is there any debate if the generals need it? President Obama made it clear in his campaign that we will focus on Afghanistan.

So, eight years after 9/11, America has not experienced a major attack on our soil, and I personally believe that this has a lot to do with our armed forces work in Afghanistan, but we still live in a very dangerous world.

Iran is growing more contemptuous every day as it approaches its goal of a nuclear weapon, and Israel is poised to strike. North Korea has already obtained and tested a nuclear weapon, Bin Laden is still on the loose and the Taliban has seen resurgence in Afghanistan. I have my sincere doubts that the Obama administration is capable of handling foreign policy in a post 9/11 world. His absence from Ground Zero I believe is consummate of his naive thinking when it comes to the importance of that day. ◄ Alex is a senior majoring in history.

23

GOP

Nicole Narmanli

The Top of the GOP A look at potential 2012 presidential candidates

W

inning his election with 68% of the electoral votes, President Barack Obama has been in office for about eight months. For a member of the opposing party, it is never too early in our president’s term to get to know the future Republican candidates.

In fact, the race for 2012 has already begun. We would like to therefore introduce you to some of the top rumored GOP candidates for the 2012 presidential election.

One possible republican presidential candidate in 2012 is a lady that we all know and love - Sarah Palin. This 45-year-old, mother of five, has been engaged in politics since 1992, where she gained a place on the City Council of Wasilla, Alaska. She later gained the bulk of her experience, beating a three-term incumbent four years, in 1996, when she ran for Mayor of Wasilla. While mayor, Palin managed to: cut property taxes by 75%, eliminate personal property taxes, and strengthen the Wasilla Police Department. She served two terms as mayor until 2002 when she ran for lieutenant governor, losing by less than 2,000 votes. In 2006, Palin became the governor of Alaska. As governor, Palin signed the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act (AGIA), which awarded a license to the TransCanada Pipelines to create a pipeline to transport natural gas to the continental US from the North Slope through Canada. Pain, a strong environmentalist, also signed a bill for an Energy Package to be passed which would provide qualified Alaskans $1,200 to help cope with rising energy costs. A few years later, on August 29, 2008, Palin was named running mate of Republican nominee John McCain for the 2008 presidential election. This made her the first woman to be nominated for Vice President of the Republican Party. Although entrenched with advocating for small government, free enterprise, and stronger borders, Sarah Palin

24

Binghamton Review

never found her way into office. Since then, Palin chose to resign from her position as governor on July 26, 2009.

Another rumored Republican presidential candidate is Mitt Romney. He’s the son of George Romney, three-term Governor of Michigan and presidential candidate in 1968, and Lenore Romney, Michigan State Senate Candidate in 1970. Mitt seems to have politics in his blood. In 1994, Romney was the republican nominee for Senator of Massachusetts, coming in behind Ted Kennedy. Mitt first gained national recognition when he was hired as the CEO of the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympic Games Organizing Committee in 1999.

Working to guarantee the safety of the games after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, he accumulated a profit of about $100 million for the Games. He also donated $1 million of his own money and his $825,000 salary to charity.

In 2002, Romney successfully ran for governor of Massachusetts. During his term, Romney made momentous changes by signing a permanent ban on assault weapons and created a death penalty bill. Instead of running for a second term, on February 13, 2007, he announced his candidacy for the 2008 republican presidential election. One noteworthy promise made during his campaign was, “One Strike, You’re Ours;” a proposition for a bill taking charge against sexual predators. Although opposing gay marriage, Romney supports same-sex couples. He is also in favor of free trade and legalizing illegal immigrants. With donating some of his own money to his campaign, Mitt held a close race to McCain until early 2008 when he formally announced his withdrawal from the race. While announcing his candidacy he said, “It’s time for innovation and transformation in Washington.

It’s what our country needs. It’s what our people deserve.” All of you Mitt Romney supporters

have something to look forward to - this one looks like he can take us home in 2012.

This Arkansas-native was brought up in a religious home and became a pastor at a young age.

We know him as Michael Huckabee. From 19801992 Mike was heavily involved in two Baptist churches, becoming a pastor at the early age of 25.

Huckabee lost his first election for Arkansas state senator in 1992. He was, however, successful when running in a by-election for lieutenant governor in 1993. He was later re-elected to a full term as lieutenant governor in 1994. In 1998, he ran and won a full term as governor, staying in office for a total of two terms. During that time, Huckabee has made several key changes in Arkansas; including cutting the state welfare rolls by almost 50% and passing the Informed Consent Abortion Law. Mike also strengthened internet safety in schools and libraries and helped ban same-sex marriage in Arkansas. Huckabee is mostly recognized for his never-quit strategy and presidential campaign in 2008. Although being the last republican candidate to fight for nomination in 2008, next to McCain, the margin of delegate state counts was too wide for any hope.

On March 4, 2008, Huckabee withdrew from the race. When asked about the 2012 elections in late 2008, he responded, “I’m pretty sure I’ll be out there. Whether it’s for myself or somebody else I may decide will be a better standard bearer, that remains to be seen.”

Best known for being Speaker of the US House of Representatives during Bill Clinton’s presidency, Newton Gingrich is a top contender for 2012. As a politician who has seen the empirical failures of liberal welfare, state and foreign policies, we are glad to have him on our side. After being defeated twice for a seat in Congress in Georgia’s sixth congressional district, this neoconservative successfully claimed said position in 1979 and held it for six consecutive terms, until 1999. As Speaker, OCTOBER 2009

Gingrich, thus far, has reduced government waste, limited IRS abuse and saved Medicare from bankruptcy. Since being out of congress, Gingrich has been involved with neoconservative groups like American Enterprise Institute (AEI).

As part of AEI, Gingrich has campaigned hard for the “Drill here, Drill now, Pay less” petition that urges Congress to start drilling immediately for oil domestically, therefore lowering domestic gas prices. Gingrich is also chairman of American Solutions, a tri-partisan citizen action network of over 1.5 Million members. Being chairman of this organization, Gingrich claims, is the only reason that he did not run for presidency in 2008.

Had he run for presidency, Gingrich would have had to give up his seat as chairman. An unwilling Newton reportedly stated, “I wasn’t prepared to abandon American Solutions, even to explore whether a campaign was realistic.” Although there has been no formal statement made from Gingrich regarding the 2012 election, he has made implications that he will run himself if there aren’t any republican candidates that support his views.

At 37 years old, he’s the youngest contemporary governor in the country, as well as the first Indian-American governor in United States history. In 2012, Bobby Jindal is our man.

A witty graduate of Brown University, Jindal was appointed Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals at 24 years old. Rescuing Louisiana’s Medicaid program from bankruptcy, Jindal also increased child immunizations and expanded services for the elderly and disabled. www.binghamtonreview.com

Appointed by former President George W. Bush in 2001, Jindal became the Assistant Secretary for the US Department of Health and Human Services. He served only until 2003 when he resigned and decided to run for Louisiana governor. Although Jindal lost the election, his in-state recognition increased tremendously.

Losing no time after his loss, Jindal decided to run for Louisiana’s first congressional district in 2004, winning with 78% of the vote. In 2008, Jindal prevailed while running for Louisiana state governor for the second time. With only about a year and a half of experience as governor, Jindal has accomplished more than some do in a whole term. One of the first completed tasks involved pushing for an ethics reform package that helped root out corruption and ‘free passes’ in the government. Since taking office, Jindal has also cut taxes six times, which will give back over $1.1 billion to taxpayers over five years. He has promptly responded to 2008 hurricanes Gustav and Ike through his prestorm campaign entitled, ‘Get a Gameplan.’

On a few hot topics, Jindal advocates for: universal health care (not government-run), the creation of a fence along the Mexican border and the creation of jobs by lowering tax rates for families and businesses. The rumors of Jindal running for presidency in 2012 have been flying.

Any experience that Jindal may lack, he will surely make up for in the next three years before the presidential race. Just as the democrats love Obama, we love Bobby Jindal.

As for a newer, fresher face to the political world, we have General David Petraeus. Petraeus started his military career while attending the US Military Academy in 1970. Upon graduating, Petraeus was assigned to the 509th Airborne Infantry Battalion in Italy. After he left the infantry, he attended Princeton University where he earned his MPA and PHD in international relations, becoming a Major General in 2001. In 2003, Petraeus became commanding general of the 101st Airborne Division in Baghdad, Iraq. He was later nominated in 2004 to become assigned as the chief of Office of Security Transition-Iraq.

This gave him the responsibility of training the new Iraqi army. Petraeus is mostly recognized and appreciated for commanding CENTCOM. Former President George W. Bush announced that Petraeus would be appointed general of MNF-F in 2007, meaning that Petraeus would be in charge of all US troops into Iraq. Petraeus has some views agreeing with former president George W. Bush on the war in Iraq and as such, one can only imagine the opinion clash that may be prevalent between Petraeus and Obama. As a result, it is possible that Obama will put another general in command during his term, which is grounds for Petraeus to run for president himself.

With several indications of a desire to run for president, we have to wonder if he will run in 2012 or wait until 2016. We wish him the best of luck and hope that he goes for the gold. ◄ Nicole is a sophomore at Binghamton University.

25

STAR WARS

JOSEPH AGUIAR

Would Reagan Approve?

Obama’s call on missile defense

O

n March 23, 1983, Ronald Reagan described building a strong missile defense system as the “most basic duty that any president and any people share— the duty to protect and strengthen the peace.”

Although it was his dream to see a world free of nuclear weapons, he understood the importance of deterrence. On September 17, President Barack Obama, who also believes in the “logic of zero,” took steps to reconfigure the George W. Bush Administration’s 2006 plan to build a missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic, which many view as continuations of Reagan’s legacy.

Under the Bush plan, 10 ground-based interceptors would be placed in Poland, and a highly sophisticated “X-band” radar system— able to rotate 360 degrees and see into many parts of western Russia where missile silos are housed—would be placed in the Czech Republic.

Both of these provisions had angered Russian leaders; however, the Bush Administration had always maintained that the defense system would serve as a countermeasure to Iranian long-range missiles with the potential of striking European cities. In contrast, Poland and the Czech Republic have always viewed the defense shield as protection against a potential Russian first strike. Consequently, the Russians have always viewed the system as a defense mechanism against Russia first, Iran second. Of course, the Russian nuclear arsenal, even now in 2009, could easily overwhelm the interceptors in Poland. But the Moscow Kremlin worried that in the future the US might increase the interceptors to more than 100 and could mount them with nuclear warheads. This is probably a delusion, but that it is how Russia felt.

According to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, under the old plan the Iranians “could

26

Binghamton Review

overwhelm even when the 10 interceptors were in place,” and the American defense shield “had no capability against short and mediumrange missiles until probably 2018.” Antimissile batteries under the Bush plan would have been too far away to be effective against an Iranian short-range attack, which US intelligence officials believe to be the more serious threat at the moment. The new system will be ready in 2011 and will defend against short- and medium-range missiles but, allows flexibility down the road if Iranian technology improves to the point where it can successfully launch long-range missiles.

It is crucial to point out, and Secretary Gates emphasizes this in his September 20 op-ed piece in The New York Times, that there is no missile defense system in Europe at this time. Under President Bush’s plan, the missile interceptors would not be ready until 2017. The new plan utilizes SM-3 interceptor missiles which have been proven effective and will be ready by 2011.

Either option at this stage is a plan for the future, and critics should understand that the Bush plan is not currently in use and is almost a decade away from being operational.

The Bush Administration’s system, according to its architect Secretary Gates, would be ineffective against Iranian missiles, plus, it had unnecessarily angered a Russian government that the current administration is trying to reach out to. As anyone who has watched a History Channel documentary on the Cold War or has seen Rocky IV can attest to, Russian paranoia knows no bounds and the threat, real or imagined, of American military activity in the former Soviet sphere of influence with the ability to spy on and strike Russian targets has high political costs. In reality, the missile defense system was never a threat to Russia and it was not a useful countermaneuver against the Iranians, yet, it strained

relations with the Russian government while not improving the security of the United States or its allies.

Accordingly, criticism that Obama has compromised US national security is off base.

The threat of an Iranian strike against US allies is something President Obama still takes very seriously, particularly in the last few days as Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s rhetoric has been unusually delirious, even by his standards. It is for this reason the president has decided to scrap the Bush plan. The new plan is a more effective counter-strategy to Iranian aggression and has the support of Bush-appointed Defense Secretary, Robert Gates; JCS Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen; and former national security adviser to Presidents Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush, Brent Scowcroft, who claims that the new system “advances U.S. national security interests, supports our allies, and better meets the threats we face.”

Administration officials argue that the president’s decision is based solely on Iranian threats, and for the most part it is, but the fact that Russian officials have welcomed the change in policy matters too. Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has called Obama’s decision “correct” and “brave” and President Medvedev announced that he plans to withdraw Russia’s threat to place short-range missiles in Kaliningrad, a Russian enclave between Poland and Lithuania. All of this is a boost to President Obama’s plans for a so-called “reset” with Moscow.

The Obama Administration is not backing down to the Kremlin. Any short-term political benefits Russia gains from Obama’s decision will not last in the long term. The former Soviet eastern bloc is largely pro-western and most countries in the region value their relations with NATO and the European Union more than their OCTOBER 2009

ties to Moscow. Poland and the Czech Republic are in no position to dictate the course of bilateral relations with the United States, and there is absolutely no threat of those countries running to Putin and Medvedev with open arms.

Worries that the US has angered its Eastern European allies are exaggerated; it is they who need the support of the United States, not the other way around. And fears that Russia will be emboldened by this decision are likewise unfair; the administration still plans to put a missile

defense system in Eastern Europe.

It must be stressed again that Robert Gates and the Defense Department were the architects of the original Bush plan in 2006, and they are the authors of the new plan. In their judgment, times have changed, and the threats posed by our enemies have evolved. The criticisms of the Obama administration are mostly political; in reality, the decision to change course was made by the people who created the original plan. And in the process of upgrading its technology, the

United States has taken steps to alleviate tensions with Russia, an important, if however reluctant, ally in any successful plan to thwart Iranian nuclear ambitions. In any case, easing tensions with Moscow is a good thing, especially when we are able to strengthen our national security in the process. President Reagan would approve. ◄

Joseph is a junior majoring in political science.

Ian swan

Obama is Dead Wrong A response to Joseph Aguilar’s assessment

I

n 2006, President George W. Bush reached agreements with Poland and the Czech Republic to house ground base interceptors and X-band radar respectively. The goal was to provide a defense for Europe and possibly the east coast of the US against Iranian long range missiles possibly armed with nuclear warheads.

A couple weeks ago, President Obama decided to scrap these plans after previously promising to keep these systems in place. The President argued that he was realigning priorities. But there are enough reasons to cast doubt on his conclusions and little proof to support it.

Iran presents one of the biggest threats to the security of America and its allies. The West is considered an enemy of the Iranians, and coupled with an extreme apocalyptic version of Islam, Iran’s hard line rulers follow; adding nuclear arms to the mix is not a good combination. This is particularly true in the light of its threats of genocide toward Israel. Yet this is the path the world is on as the Obama Administration seems to be unwilling to do anything to deter the Iranian nuclear program.

This is evidenced by obsession with talks, which Iran has so far spit at, and the repeated

www.binghamtonreview.com

extensions of deadlines for Iranian compliance, again which Iran has ignored. The military option by the US can be ruled out, as Obama doesn’t have the stomach and spine to do it.

And meanwhile, Obama is doing everything he can to prevent the Israelis from attacking.

The Administration’s conclusions that Iran’s long range ballistic missile program is not a threat—warranting the cancelation of the European interceptors—are highly faulty.

They contend that the sites won’t be ready for many years. What they don’t reveal is that Iran continues to develop its Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBM) program, which is estimated to be completed at about the same time, perhaps a bit later, when the European sites would come online. Also, Iran, in February, launched a satellite, an important step in ICBM development. And then there is the recent revelation of Iran’s secret second enrichment site, which Obama has been aware of well before he was sworn in. So, in light of the proceeding ICBM program and nuclear weapons program, it is very foolish to scrap the system that would provide defense against such weapons. This fact is very revealing.

The Left, since the time President Reagan unveiled his goal of a missile, has ridiculed, opposed and has done everything possible to scrap the system. They argued that is was impossible to hit a bullet with a bullet. Today, our missiles are much more accurate. However, that has done nothing to deter the Left. In the face of a nuclear armed North Korea, nuclear arms-seeking Iran, and other rogue nations seeking weapons, this year’s Democrats have succeeded in cutting the missile defense budget by billions rather than having increased it in the face of these grave threats. The cancelation of the European defense sites appears to be part of the escalation of the Left’s war on America’s missile defense systems.

The current excuse that such a system in Europe would be overwhelmed and missile defense programs should be mobile and focused on shorter ranged missiles is drivel. Perhaps in the future it may be, but for the near future it would provide a transition defense until the development and deployment of more advanced systems. But funding for some of those projects is also in doubt. Agreeing with the President, the US 27

STAR WARS

should develop other missile capabilities, but however, they shouldn’t come at the expense of longer range assets. The extra money spent shouldn’t be a problem in an administration that routinely pushes trillion dollar programs, and the sheer number of people at risk from a potential nuclear attack from a rogue state justifies it. The US needs to be prepared as soon as possible, not further down the road when the threat becomes closer to realization.

It would be utterly irresponsible to wait until the last minute to attempt to do so.

Then there is the matter of Russia. Even in the Cold War, the Left advocated a policy of appeasement, something Reagan was wise to reject. Today, in the face of a resurgent Russia, the Left has once again returned to appeasement.

Russia’s complaints were absolute nonsense. The supposed threat to their deterrent is nonsense, is absurd. Ten interceptors don’t pose a threat to 2-3 thousand missiles. The supposed threat to Russian cities is also idiotic due to the deterrent of mutually assured destruction long in effect for decades. The President has agreed that the ruckus raised by the Russians was just a game.

For Russia, this has all been about the US strengthening ties with the former satellite nations of the USSR. They are jealous of their loss of influence and power over these areas after being in control for half a century. They’ve done it over the Baltic States joining NATO, Ukraine moving closer to the West, Georgia strengthening ties with the US, Kosovo after its independence from Serbia and the list goes on. With the Poles and the Czechs both moving closer to the West and particularly the US, Russia’s reaction was not surprising.

With the Left in power, the Administration didn’t hesitate at the chance to appease Russia and reset relations. Upsetting the Russians in any way is unacceptable. Just look at their response to the Russian invasion of Georgia. Accordingly, tossed overboard were the Poles and Czechs, both of whom suffered many threats from Russia ranging from fuel embargos to the targeting of nuclear missiles.

The Administration was so eager to do this that they did it on the 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland in 1939, a very thoughtful touch. In the rush to be popular with Russia, who applauded the move, the US broke its word to two close allies. In the case of the Poles, 28

Binghamton Review

they were so angry that they refused to take the calls from Secretary of the State Clinton.

Once again, the Left is demonstrating to our allies and potential allies that our word means nothing and that appeasing countries like Russia is more important than commitments to our friends. It’s always a good thing for our national security.

For this betrayal of our close allies it would be expected that the US would receive, in exchange for scrapping the European sites, something concrete from Russia to stop Iran’s nuclear program. This would have been tolerable because if the Iranian program was dealt with, there would be no need for such sites. However, Obama, in all his infinite wisdom, failed to do so. He chose to act unilaterally and hoped Russia, which sees such concessions as weakness, would reciprocate.

So far, after being pressed for days, Russia has responded with essentially, “I’ll consider it.” In other words, Obama gave up a huge bargaining chip for empty words and a little more popularity with the world. That seems like a great deal in exchange for the security of

the country and its allies. Though, it should be known that several large corporations, few of which are Obama allies, declared after Obama’s announcement they were headed off to Russia to negotiate business deals, something that had been banned by Russia in retaliation for the missile sites. Most notable is the General Electric Company (GE)—whose CEO is an Obama Advisor, and whose news outlets, NBC and MSNBC, are some of the biggest Obama cheerleaders in the country.

By scrapping our European based shield, Obama is being incredibly shortsighted. He gave up the biggest potential negotiating chip with Russia, concerning Iran for nothing in return, all the while breaking agreements with close allies. Instead of making America safer, he has done the opposite: doing nothing to reduce the threat from a potential nuclear Iran developing ICBMs. Unless there was some secret deal that makes this all worthwhile, we can only hope that his decision doesn’t come back to bite us one day. ◄

OCTOBER 2009

OBAMA

NICK VALIANDO

ut of His Depth

Obama’s Presidency Thus Far

D

uring last year’s election season in the run-up to the Presidential election, Joe Biden infamously said, “It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking.”

Congratulations Joe, you were right. In just the first few months of his presidency, Obama had dealt with many foreign policy issues, some of which had involved Russia, Iran, and Honduras. Thankfully, these policies have had a relatively small impact so far, but Obama’s reactions show him to be an empty suit when it comes to foreign policy. As if that isn’t bad enough, Obama is also a failure on the home front; his tanking popularity numbers represent an America that is just now becoming familiar with the real Barrack Obama, and the public does not like what it sees.

On September 17th, 2009 President Obama officially cancelled plans conceived during the Bush administration to place missile defense installations in Poland and the Czech Republic. He couldn’t have picked a more appropriate day to sell out the Poles, because exactly 70 years ago that day the Soviet Union had invaded Poland. In a subservient gesture to the growing Russian bear we did exactly what Putin wanted. This is the same Russia that, just last August, invaded the peaceful Republic of Georgia on the pretext of helping South Ossetian separatists. Putin clearly has the goal of putting the old Soviet Union back together with himself at the head. Who’s next? The Ukrainian’s, Georgia again, or the fresh meat that is Poland (which Obama as good as threw into the cage of the Russian bear)? Well, we must have gotten something good for selling them out, right? Oh wait, we didn’t. All we got were vague Russian assurances that they would help with Iran, the country to which they had sold all sorts of conventional weapons to for years. In typical Joe Biden style, the Vice President said in reference to the missile defense plans that Iran (a www.binghamtonreview.com

JMT IMAGES

country that the UN International Atomic Energy Agency indicated already capable of constructing nuclear weapons) is not a threat.

Is Obama’s administration going to wake up and realize that a terrorist sponsoring nation with nuclear weapons is a severe danger to the United States? No, they’ll probably just sleep through Armageddon dreaming of Hope and Change.

On the 28th of June, 2009 the South American nation of Honduras threw out its president Manuel Zelaya after he attempted to pass an illegal referendum which would have given him control over the Honduran constitution. The ouster was a legal maneuver passed by Honduran legislature and the Honduran Supreme Court and carried out by the Honduran military. It was a bloodless affirmation of the Hondurans’s respect for their free democracy. However, Manuel Zelaya is a crazy left wing socialist (and I mean legitimately crazy. After sneaking

into Honduras and hiding in the Brazilian embassy, he complained that his throat was sore from “toxic gasses” and accused “Israeli mercenaries” were torturing him with high frequency radiation as a prelude to his assassination…) and you know what that means! Our own personal socialist President has labeled this a coup and cut off all foreign aid to Honduras.

We really have to wonder as a country whether Barrack Obama knows who America’s friends and enemies are anymore.

He is a flop on the world stage, and although every leftist trumpets how much Obama is “loved” around the world, this love doesn’t seem to be doing any good. Our European allies refuse to send more troops to fight in Afghanistan. The Saudi’s said stick it when Obama asked them for concessions to Israel, and the Israeli’s responded in much the same way when he asked them to stop their settlement expansion. Hell, the North 29

HEALTHCARE

Koreans tested a Nuclear weapon with not so much as a pip out of Obama, much less something with a little bite.

Back home, Obama is also having very little success, even with a leftist Congress in his pocket. I’ll leave the specifics of the health care debate to another article but suffice to say that Obamacare is bombing.

Doctors don’t like it by a significant margin (65%) as an Investor’s Business Daily poll shows. The same poll also reports that nearly 70% of those doctors believe that Obama cannot provide coverage without harming care. In fact, 45% of the doctors would consider quitting if Congress passes the Democrats Health Care overhaul. Among the American people the sentiments are the same; 46% would rather do nothing than pass Obama’s plan compared to 37% in favor of it. Obama is struggling to pass a bill that he banked much of his energy on, and his failure is showing. He seems to be incapable of even doing the little things right. Recently, Obama got involved in politics here in the State of New York, asking Governor Patterson to not run for reelection. This led to a heated spat in which the race card was somehow used in argument between New York’s first black Governor and the United States’ first Black President.

Well, anyone who’s ever tried to debate a liberal (that is, if they aren’t putting their fingers in their ears and refusing to listen) knows that the race card is their favorite ace in the hole. However, this is just ridiculous.

Obama’s mistakes and blunders will cost the Democrats dearly when it comes time for the midterm elections in 2010.

Republicans are up by 4 points in generic voter preference and it seems likely that the GOP will recapture the House in 2010. So much for “Hope and Change,” all we seem to be getting from President Barrack Obama is empty promises, failed policies and taxes, taxes, taxes. We were warned about Obama’s qualifications back in election season, but it seems enough people think the world runs on hope that this country ignored them. Now we are stuck with a failure for a President, but that doesn’t mean we have to be stuck with his duncical policies. All you have to do is pay attention! ◄

30

Binghamton Review

taylor Arluck

Sorry, but...

Healthcare is not a right

C

ongress and the American people over the past few months have been embroiled in a great debate over the state of healthcare in this country, a debate that ultimately holds the fate of approximately one fifth of the United States’ gross domestic product. According to the Democrats in the House of Representatives and more liberal members of society, the very core of this debate lies in the notion that healthcare is a right, not a privilege, and that it is a moral imperative in this bountiful land of ours that the government adopt and provide healthcare for all. Advocates of universal healthcare will point to the Declaration of Independence, which proclaimed this great nation “free and independent states” as proof that healthcare is a right; citing the clause “that they [citizens] are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness” in their egalitarian defense of the uninsured.

It seems that in contemporary culture, it is popular to proclaim that certain aspects of life are “rights.” This can be seen with regard to employment, housing, and now in the current debate over healthcare. Yet this was never the intent of the founders when they crafted these words within the Declaration of Independence. In spite of this, social progressives and their liberal colleagues wish to expand this “right” under America’s social contract (as they see it) toward those without healthcare out of the best of good intentions.

This altruism is commendable and should be duly applauded among all aspects of life and across all political spectrums. However, if we vest any faith in the spirit of proverbs, then we should solemnly remind ourselves that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Take the numerous social welfare programs that were administered by the federal government on the onset of the “War on Poverty” in 1964, waged by Lyndon B. Johnson. Johnson was one among many others

with the noblest of intentions, chief among them aiding the poor by allowing them the opportunity to obtain a wage that upholds the ideals of “social justice.” How can one object to a cause as pure and just as this? My rejection is not of such a noble cause, but of the deceitful and ruinous effects of the programs proposed by these crusaders of “justice.”

The history of welfare in this country is one of sadness and gross inequity based on the countless stories that surface of husbands leaving their wives for the subsistence granted by welfare, citizens abandoning the search for work to continue living off of the rolls of aid, and people driving off in Cadillacs with taxpayer funds. These atrocious truths all haunt the legacy of the “War on Poverty” and impede its victory. Nothing could have been done to further the cause of poverty then the supposed war that Johnson waged. This is the tyranny of unintended consequences.

Damnation lies not in the causes that these crusaders adopt, but in the ruinous outcomes of their well-intended endeavors.

Unforeseen consequences also lie at the conclusion of universal healthcare. Does anyone honestly believe that individuals will be able to retain the level of care that they are able to get access to currently? The addition of tens of millions of healthcare recipients would doom an already ailing medical system to infirmity. Rationing will have to take place on some form or another based on the level of care promised by the administration. Is it “just” to take from those who currently have access to high quality care and redistribute to those that don’t? What level of cost are we willing to impose on those who will be denied their current care? The claim that everyone can have high quality care at a low cost is analogous to the notion that everyone can have a high paying job and traditional house. A claim to which I respond: if only, if only. ◄

OCTOBER 2009

HARPUR

►►►

CONTINUED FROM PAGE 7

in art, music, theatre, dance and other arts. The Humanities course dealt with the great works of Western Civilization from Homer to the end of the nineteenth century as they related to the growth and development of the dominant ethical ideal of the West. 'The Social Science course dealt with the nature of such disciplines by examining how each contributed to an understanding of some contemporary social problem, such as urbanization.

The Science course dealt with the manner in which the biological and physical sciences complement the Humanities and Social Sciences by showing their limitations when faced with the mysteries of Nature in the biological and physical realms. All divisional faculty was expected to participate in such courses either as lecturers or as section leaders.

Since space does not allow full coverage of the program, I shall focus on how the program worked for the Humanities Major, and suggest its operation in the other two divisions.

Along with other candidates for the B.A., the humanities major had to take from 23 to 41 hours of general education, mathematics, and foreign languages, plus 18 hours of area-study courses. In addition, he had to take introductory semester courses of three hours each in the fields of art, music, and philosophy. Once these basic requirements were satisfied, the student could be admitted to the humanities ma­jor. He then had to take 21 hours of significantly advanced work in areas that lay outside his specialization as follows: I. Art and Music Either three hours of advanced courses in the history of art and six hours in advanced music history OR six hours of art and three hours of music history. Total: 9 Hours.

II. Literature A. A Chaucer course and a Shakespeare course, with the option of substituting some other English literature course for one. Total: 6 Hours B. Courses in a foreign literature. Total: 6 Hours III. Philosophy Two philosophy courses beyond the introductory course. Total: 6 Hours Thus, a student specializing in English would have to do nine hours of advanced work in art and www.binghamtonreview.com

music, six hours in a foreign literature, and 6 hours of advanced courses in philosophy. This explains why the average student would not be ready for specialization until the end of his sophomore year.

At this time he was assigned a personal adviser from the department of his choice.

The requirements for specialization within the Humanities Division were as follows: Art 21 hours; Music 32 hours; Theatre 19 hours; Foreign Languages & Literature 32 hours; American & English Literature 24 hours; Philosophy 21 hours. Each department also provided special programs for students interested in crossdepartmental or cross-divisional specialization.

Finally, each department offered a senior course entitled Humanities 97-98, which provided an opportunity for independent work under the guidance of an advisor as well as a means of integrating his humanities experience. This resulted in a senior thesis that could take the form of a paper or of creative work.

In recapitulation, the potential Humanities major did from 41 to 59 hours of work outside the humanities. He then balanced this with 51 to 64 hours of work in the humanities (including the specialization). If his pre college preparation was normal, he would have from 19 - 32 hours for free electives. If such preparation was inadequate, there would be little room for electives. In either case, the student was assured a well­rounded program of studies without the frequently irreparable gaps left in the program of free electives and narrow specialization. The Social Science Major required a similar distribution of hours, with even greater emphasis on work outside the Division Specializations required from 18 to 30 hours in a single area, culminating in a senior seminar and report. Specializations included Economics, Business, Geography, History, Political Science, and Sociology.

The Science and Mathematics major understandably was expected to concentrate to a greater extent on individual disciplines. Such a student had to take either a substantial amount of work in a science in addition to the one in which he wished to specialize, or an equivalent amount of work in two sciences in addition to the specialization.

The senior seminar often led to some form of research. Possible specializations included biology, psychology, chemistry, geology, and physics.

It is important to bear in mind that Harpur College came into being in 1950. From 1946 to

1950 it was part of Syracuse University. From 1950 to 1954 the college was able to attract a faculty that was willing and able to undertake this highly original program. While other institutions, such as Columbia, had developed similar program over the years, Harpur, as a brand new school, was about the only one nationally that was able to organize a program that encompassed the entire curriculum in a way that avoided invidious distinctions between disciplines or departments.

The entire curriculum was administered by the three division chairmen working in concert. The end of the '50s had touted the Harpur program nationally as highly original. There is little doubt that to this day this distinction still lingers in the reputation that Harpur currently enjoys.

The national student movements of the 60s were instrumental in the erosion undergone by the program. Student rights ad­vocates insisted that the program was too rigid and demanded a voice in overhauling the curriculum to suit their newly founded freedoms. Similarly, disgruntled faculty who felt that they program was taking too much time from their research interests agreed to share their role in university governance with students. This eventually led to a radical diminution of general requirements to a few distribution requirements which operated at the level of electives. Student leaders had convinced the student body and a good portion of faculty that students were capable of determining a curriculum that was best for them.

Finally, when in 1966 the undergraduate campus initiated graduate studies and formalized a departmental structure, the original program started to disintegrate. By the late 1970's, as graduate studies took hold and an increased number of graduate assistants were assigned to the discussion sections of the general education courses, student protests and faculty support sealed the demise of the program. Throughout the '70s and '80s several attempts were made to salvage the program by organizing a separate "classical college," but to no avail. Today, all that is left is an intimation of the divisional structure and tomb-like granite stone at the intersection of that leads to the library or to the student union. ◄ This article was originally printed in our October 1997 edition. Dr. Aldo S. Bernardo was the Faculty Advisor of Binghamton Review.

31

Confessions on Crime, Egoism, and Basketball

PostScandal, c/o Binghamton Review, P.O. Box 6000, Binghamton NY 13902-6000