February 2012 - Binghamton Review

Truth and Two Staples

february 2012

Binghamton Review

Good Job Guys!

Nine Things That are Definitely Worse than the BU Basketball Team

Binghamton Review

P.O. Box 6000 BinghamTOn, NY 13902-6000

editor@binghamtonreview.com

Founded 1987 • Volume XXV Number 5 • February 2012

Editor-in-Chief Aaron M. Ricks Managing Editor Mark Soriano Copy Desk Chief Eric Larson Associate Editors Chris Formisano Ari Greenberg Nick Fondacaro William Obilisundar

Contents Nine Things Worse than Binghamton Basketball

Editor Emeritus Rachel Gordon Contributors Will M. Griffin, John Ewing, Nick Valiando, Daniel Rudder, Venanzio Cortes, Michael Hickey, Steven Kwon, Bridgette Cook, Heather Sherman, Eric Fitchett, Daniel Milyavsky

Page 12

6

SOPA? More like NOPE-A by Michael Hickey

8

What is a Conservative? by Aaron Ricks

9

They All Suck by Nick Valiando

Patriarchs of the Review Louis W. Leonini Adam Shamah

11

Don’t Rely on Redistricting by Mark Soriano

14

The Review Goes to Washington by The Editors

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

16

State of the Union Reaction by Dan Milyavsky

18

A Common Sense Approach to Iran by Eric Fitchett

21

The SA’s Peaceful Year by Mark Soriano

22

Do Not Underestimate Iran by Dan Rudder

Secretary Marissa Beldock

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

Departments 3 4 5

EDITORIAL CAMPUS PRESSWATCH what you missed

General Staff Meetings: Every Tuesday at 7pm in UUW-B05

EDITORIAL

Putting the “Press” Back in “Oppression” Since 1987 The Binghamton Review would like to congratulate Sodexo for successfully surviving Black History Month without featuring incredibly stereotypical food items in the dining halls to celebrate the occasion. Good job, guys!

In addition, the Review would like to congratulate the Student Association for avoiding any crises this past semester. Good luck avoiding any this semester.

Want to know how much fun the Review had at CPAC? Follow us on Twitter at @binghamtonrev Tell us what you think!

Direct letters to editor@binghamtonreview.com.

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

CPampus resswatch

by The Editors

Pipe Dream January 30, 2012 “The GOP is a Four Ring Circus and we’re sitting in the big top” Alyssa Mercante shows exactly how not to write.

“Ever since I started writing for the opinion section, I have steadfastly avoided writing a political piece for a multitude of reasons.”

Chief among these “reasons” must be Ms. Mercante’s refusal to conduct research before writing articles. “it was all thanks to Sarah ‘I Can See Russia’ Palin and John ‘Walking Dead’ McCain” “emerged the new ‘front-runners’: Newt ‘Turkey Neck’ Gingrich, Rick ‘wait, who are you?’

Santorum, Ron ‘Are We Beign Punk’d’ Paul and Mitt ‘Animal Abuse’ Romney” Instead of providing concrete arguments against the candidates, Ms. Mercante spews meaningless platitudes.

“The GOP has crossed the line into Gary Busy-crazy territory, and it’s going to absolutely murder their chances of ending up in office. I’m not complaining though. Obama 2012.”

Ms. Mercante has crossed the line into fourth-grader writing territory by making claims without evidence. After reading her article, you are left without any understanding of why you should think the Republican candidates are crazy. Her 4

Binghamton Review

little plug for Obama at the end only further discredits the president; his core supporters appear to be people who prefer to blindly follow a serial incompetent than conduct research about the alternatives.

Pipe Dream February 7, 2012 “Republicans are America’s notorious dysfunctional family” Jason Stack misunderstands politics and conveniently forgets the past.

“The main thing I want to hit head on is the dog pile known as the NeverEnding Republican Presidential Primaries.”

Mr. Stack seems to forget that these “ever ending primaries” are not specific to the Republican party. Go back four years and the Democrats were involved in a similarly long lasting series of contests.

“As for the wealth and corporations business, if you’ve [Mitt Romney] got money in accounts in the Caymans and say that you connect with people, you’re probably talking about corporations” Our readers will remember that President Obama was already a millionaire by the time he was elected after writing a series of memoirs about all the the nothing he accomplished in his life. and if Mr. Stacks’ argument is against corporations, just look at President Obama’s treasury department to find links between the current administration and big business.

“There is no unity or civility left in the Republican Party” The 2008 Democratic primary fight between Obama and Hillary Clinton was far more uncivil and far longer than the current contest, calm down.

Pipe Dream February 3, 2012 “Shredding the ‘Freshman 15’” Michael Snow wastes time explaining how to lose the “freshman 15” while ignoring the most obvious solution: not gaining them in the first place.

“Last June, I had to buy several pairs of new pants, and I’ll tell you why: during my freshman year, I gained 25 pounds” If only every college freshman was forced to buy several pairs of new pants, the economy would benefit from an annual micro-stimulus.

“In the campus cafeterias, I ate voraciously. All-you-can-eat kosher food? You tell me why I shouldn’t scoff down five hot dogs and two hamburgers.”

Because scoffing down five hot dogs and two hamburgers is disgusting, that’s why.

February 2012

WHAT you missed Best of the Worst Binghamton continued making headlines as its basketball team earned the coveted title of “Worst College Basketball Team in the Country.” Refusing to take a negative attitude, the team’s coach announced that “someone had to be the worst.”

injury.” To be clear, we would never make the claim that the 90 year old Prince murdered the woman, and suffered a heart attack while trying to hide the evidence.

However, if any of our valued readers make that connection on their own, we will not disagree.

Goodbye Iraq On December 15th, the United States officially ended the War in Iraq as the last U.S. soldiers left the country. The news came as a shock to millions of Americans, who had actually forgotten that the War in Iraq was still a thing.

Women and Children Last On January 13th, nearly 100 years after the sinking of the Titanic, an Italian cruise liner struck a rock off the cost of Italy, and tipped over onto its side. Eleven people are known to be dead, with several others still missing. The ship’s captain, Francesco Schettino, escaped the sinking liner while passengers were still on board. Asked later about why he elected to leave the ship, Schettino simply answered “it was f***ing sinking!”

Final Four The Republican caucus and primary season began officially began as voters in Iowa and New Hampshire went to the polls in early January. Only four candidates, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum and Ron Paul, remain in the race after Rick Perry, Michelle Bachmann and Jon huntsman ended their bids. Mitt Romney’s position as front-runner was eroded slightly, after Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Santorum pulled off last minute victories in important states.

Wild Stallions The planned culling of the deer in Binghamton’s nature preserve was cancelled over winter break, after it was discovered that members of the L.A.R.P. club had tamed the deer, turning them into trusted steeds upon which they now roam the Peace Quad.

Coincidence? We Think Not. On December 23rd, Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh, was hospitalized after suffering what was likely to have been a heart attack at the Queen’s estate in Sandringham, England. On New Years Day, the corpse of an adult female was found on the very same estate, with official reports claiming she died of “accidental www.binghamtonreview.com

United Kingdom?

The sun set a little further on the British Empire when Alex Salmond, first minister of Scotland, declared his intention to hold a referendum for Scottish independence from the United Kingdom. Salmond reasons that with North Sea oil revenues on the rise and the UK being further mired in recession and doubt, now is as good a time as ever to break the 1707 Act of Union binding Scotland to its southern neighbor. There is a long list of grievances leading to this desire for independence, led by opposition to an English law banning Scotsmen from marrying sheep.

Richie Rich On January 24th, Mitt Romney caved in to mounting pressure to release his tax information. Voters were appalled to learn that Romney had a reported income on $1.3 trillion dollars while paying five cents in income taxes in 2011.

You’ve Just Been Downgraded In January, ratings agencies Standard & Poors and Fitch downgraded several

the credit ratings of several European countries, following concerns over the continued Eurozone crisis and austerity policies on the continent. Among those downgraded are France, Italy, Spain and Austria, leaving Germany the only large economy in the Eurozone with a perfect AAA score. Refusing to take this defeat gracefully, French President Nicholas Sarkozy announced the creation of the “Occupy Credit Ratings Agencies” movement, labelling any country with a AAA rating as the new 1%.

Defense Less President Obama announced his plans to begin scaling back the size of America’s military. The plans include the creation of a smaller armed forces, which will no longer enable the U.S. to fight and win two wars simultaneously. The President’s announcement gained the support of budget hawks from both sides of the aisle, although it did draw its fair share of criticisms. Texas Governor Rick Perry, shortly before ending his presidential campaign, claimed that if elected, not only would he return troops to Iraq, but he would increase the military to the point where the U.S. could fight six wars at once. When asked where he would get the funding for these plans, Perry cited savings from the elimination of three cabinet departments, although he had forgotten all of their names.

Double Edged Sword Newing residents returned to their rooms with a general feeling of happiness, after the walls of the new dorm complex were insulated, following complaints last semester about the poor soundproofing of the buildings. However, not everyone was pleased, as gossipy girls across the community, no longer able to hear their neighbor’s every word through the walls, lost an important source of information.

5

INTERNET

SOPA? More like NOPE-A Keep your hands of my internetz.

by Michael Hickey

M

ost people have heard of SOPA and PIPA by now, if only just because it was clogging up their Facebook newsfeed. SOPA and its companion bill, PIPA, were introduced into Congress with the intention of stopping piracy and protecting intellectual property online. Many people seem to have jumped onto the anti-SOPA bandwagon, and the bill along with the whole idea of combating online piracy have seem to have become wrapped in a lot of negative press.

Whether people are legitimately concerned over the potential free speech issues the bill raises or are rather just big fans of online piracy is hard to say. The shame of this all is the failure of SOPA leaves the important issue of online piracy and Internet copyright laws misunderstood at a time when proper legislation is crucial.

Not many people would actively try and defend the bill itself, except for the big corporate backers of the bill like the RIAA or Viacom.

SOPA is vaguely written in such a way that it would threaten free speech online, would hinder online businesses, and would lead to a plethora of technical issues related to how it would block sites that hosted copyrighted material.

Opponent companies such as Facebook, Google, and Wikipedia argue that the nature of the bill could lead to online censorship by the government and would limit the freedom of information and online free speech. It is also argued that the bill would eliminate the “safe harbor” protections websites have 6

Binghamton Review

from copyrighted material linked or embedded in their sites. Instead of the copyright owners having to petition sites to address copyright violations, websites would be responsible for every link on them. Other technical issues are also brought up by the bill due to the way the bill would have blocked pirate websites. U.S. based businesses that host domains say that the bill would undermine the very domain system itself and could drive U.S. service providers overseas.

While the makers of the bill had the best intentions with the bill, it is clear by its very nature that many of them fail to truly understand the complexity of the issue. When it comes to any legislation relating to the Internet, lawmakers need to heavily rely on experts well versed in the many implications such a bill would have.

The backlash against SOPA is understandable and well deserved due to its many shortcomings.

However, the failure of this particular bill does not diminish the need for new laws relating to copyrights on the Internet. Online piracy is a serious problem, one that many people treat as barely a crime at all.

The recent Department of Justice shutdown of the site Megaupload has too been cast in a negative like, resulting in denial of service attacks against the websites of the bill’s corporate backers. These attacks do not help the cause against SOPA or any similar type of bills for they play into the fears of the corporations who are really only trying to protect their property. Megaupload was a clear violator of the law and it should come as no surprise that it would

be a target for shutdown. Sites that are blatantly in violation of the law should not be defended by the opponents of SOPA for it takes away their argument that the real issue posed by SOPA is potential free speech violation.

The House Judiciary Committee postponed plans to draft SOPA on January 20, and it is unlikely after all the contention over the bill that it will have any likelihood of being brought back up this year. Despite the shortcomings of SOPA, another bill called the Online Protection and Enforcement of Digital Trade Act (known as the OPEN Act) has been introduced to Congress.

Seen by the opponents of SOPA as a more effective and reasonable alternative, the bill is considered by many to help effectively combat and effectively take down piracy sites while protecting freedom on the web as well as not stifling innovation of online businesses. OPEN promises to protect against censorship of legal activity on the web and ensures to protect the technical structure of the Internet.

It is unlikely that the issue of online piracy and protecting intellectual property online will go away any time soon, as it is an important issue that needs to be addressed in the near future. If SOPA succeeded in anything, it was at least able to bring the issue of a hotly debated topic and draw attention to the need for effective legislation. Whether or not OPEN will prove to be the proper alternative to SOPA or yet whether another bill will need to be drafted, law makers will need to acknowledge that good intentions are not enough when it comes to legislation over the Internet. Only a well thought out bill can effectively combat piracy while still protecting the freedom and integrity of the Internet. B February 2012

1987:

2012:

HELP US REVERSE THE DECLINE For 25 years, Binghamton Review has been the voice of the campus right at

Binghamton University. Now, more than ever, the Review needs your help. Please consider donating to our cause. Every penny counts towards advancing the conservative movement on Binghamton University’s liberal campus.

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

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

Amount enclosed: $________

www.binghamtonreview.com

7

CONSERVATIVES

What is a Conservative?

The Jon Huntsman Story...

by Aaron Ricks

I

won’t lie to you; I was an outspoken supporter of Jon Huntsman. His inevitable exit from the 2012 GOP Presidential nomination race was perhaps the personification of all my feelings towards the Republican Party in the past two or three year: That being a conservative has been redefined from the belief that powers delegated to government should be as dispersed as possible between federal, state and local governments, and to the individual where possible. To that of being an asshole.

That being said, the former governor of Utah and ambassador to China had some serious flaws that will need to be overcome if he decides to seek the 2016 nomination in the event Obama is reelected.

Jon Huntsman’s campaign failed because of three problems: First, he decided to skip Iowa.

His campaign staff, seemingly learning nothing from the failed

8

Binghamton Review

Giuliani last-stand in Florida from the 2008 nomination, had made the strategic decision to place all of Huntsman’s hope on a strong showing in New Hampshire.

While there, his main opposition came from two camps: Ron Paul supporters, the most dogmatic, unrealistic supporters since Ross Perot voters in 1992 who are known for their undying loyalty to the brand, and Mitt Romney, another multi-millionaire, “moderate,” Mormon governor of a small state. Although actually competing in Iowa probably would not have proved fruitful for Huntsman, the lack of media coverage for his campaign in the days and weeks leading up to the Iowa caucuses hurt the campaign leading up to New Hampshire.

While you can applaud the hard-work required by Huntsman to actually place third, it was virtually impossible for him to do any better. On one hand, you have Ron Paul supporters who are extremely unlikely to change their vote despite Huntsman’s proto-Ron Paul foreign policy views, on the other hand you have Mitt Romney, the current front runner who is basically a clone of Huntsman: Mormon, governor of small state, multi-millionaire, industrious fathers, handsome, good hair, and families seemingly cut-out straight from a Mormon family advertisement. The only difference is that Romney has the resources and name recognition

necessary to actually do well in other contests. On a side note, the Huntsman girls never seem to reply to me on Twitter (@Jon2012girls), but I digress.

The third problem that dogged the campaign since its inception was accurately cited by Tim Stanley at the Telegraph: “Huntsman’s third problem was the most significant for US politics watchers: he had no constituency. He ran as a moderate.”

Yes, herein lies the biggest problem for Huntsman.

Following Huntsman’s announcement that he was dropping from the race prior to the South Carolina primary, the Facebook and Twitterverse exploded with disappointment from college liberals and leftists, with laments and grumbles that usually ran along the lines of “Jon Huntsman was the only one I could stand” and “Huntsman is the only Republican I would vote for.” Even Prospect went along with it: “There is a GOP candidate who is not crazy, and who might make a decent president. Jon Huntsman…”

But here is the secret to the leftists’ complaints of disappointment about Jon Huntsman dropping out: they do not matter. Is it really plausible to believe that if the contest came between Barack Obama and Jon Huntsman, that registered Democrats or left-leaning voters would even consider voting for Huntsman? Bear in the mind the reality of Huntsman’s policy positions: he has fully endorsed the Paul Ryan budget plan, was elected governor of a very conservative state dominated by Mormons (and reelected with 80% of the vote), signed numerous bills restricting abortion, proposed lowering the fEBRUARY 2012

REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES corporate tax rate, is not in support of gay marriage but is open to civil unions, and is a strong advocate for increased domestic energy production through various methods such as the Keystone XL pipeline and hydraulic fracturing, and was praised by the libertarian Cato Institute for his fiscal and tax management during tenure as governor. These are all reasons for a competent conservative to support Jon Huntsman, but in the end his “moderate” image does not hold to scrutiny when compared to the reality of his policy stances.

Since the party’s defeat in the 2008 election, Republicans have been frantically searching for an image that expresses its disgust with compromise and abandonment of traditional conservatism. In the process, I fear that Republicans may have cost themselves the future, given the political orientation of younger voters. While its true that younger Americans tend to have more liberal view in some areas of social policy, there is no reason that the center-right coalition cannot thrive under three tenents that all factions of the Republican Party can agree on: federalism, smaller government, and a strong national defense.

Despite leftist-visions of Republicans marching to the orders of Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority, Republicans have been a coalition consisting of factions aligned against the left.

Jon Huntsman was undoubtedly a good conservative, but not the kind Republicans want right now.B

www.binghamtonreview.com

They All Suck

The Disappointing Republican Field

by Nick Valiando

S

uffice to say that as a conservative Republican this just isn’t my year as far as presidential candidates go. I am not naïve and I can accept that there isn’t going to be a perfect candidate for president but this year just seems to set the bar extra low as far as candidates. Let me illustrate their failings to you one at a time.

Mitt Romney has had a tough primary season so far. For the man long championed by many mainstream pundits as the frontrunner, Romney is having a lot of trouble wrapping up the Republican nomination.

Romney’s problem is not that he is the moderate candidate; it is that he makes no strides towards trying to be a uniting candidate. People have criticized him for his record of flip-flopping on key issues and his support for Romneycare. These two main criticisms have seemingly caught him in a catch-22. He can’t renounce Romneycare lest he further strengthen his image as a flip-flopper and he cannot unite the party by continually standing by his flawed health-care plan. Many pundits like to cite Romney as the electable candidate because of his pandering to moderate Republicans and his generally moderate record as a governor. This would fit into the common Republican Party primary stereotype of a moderate vs. conservative, a stereotype which pits electability versus reliability

on conservative policy. However the electable candidate in this race seems to have some electability problems. Romenycare has been cited by many commentators as the model for Obamacare, a policy that remains widely reviled by most of the country. The two plan’s connection and Romney’s refusal to condemn Romneycare, places Romney at a disadvantage in that he cannot attack Obama on his health care plan. Running against Obamacare was a winning strategy for Republicans in 2010 where Republicans made massive gains in both houses and retook the House of Representatives.

President Obama is a skilled campaigner (one of his few talents) and as the nominee Romney would start at a disadvantage by forcing one of Obama’s biggest weaknesses to be off the table. It is unfortunate that Obama and his class warfare rhetoric has any effect on the American people but Romney’s history in the financial sector will undoubtedly hurt his candidacy in this miserable economy. Never have I seen an “electable” candidate with so many electability problems.

Newt Gingrich is one of the smartest men in politics when it comes to matters of policy. It is just too bad that he always seems to be making sure people don’t like him. It was always going to be an uphill battle for the former Speaker of the House. He left congress with so many skeletons in his closet that he is still stained 9

REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES

by scandal a decade later. Newt always manages to put himself in the right position to gain support every time a new issue comes to the fore. It is a little too convenient.

A candidate can afford to take a carefully planned position on a topic, but a President rarely has that luxury. While politician’s personal lives are really none of our business, Newt’s history of cheating on his wives contributes to his likability problem. He seems always one gaffe away from destroying his own candidacy and with a country at a crossroads Republicans cannot afford a nominee who could implode his candidacy right before the general election. It is a shame that a man who knows so much about the structure of our government and policy cannot seem to come off as entirely genuine. Ultimately Newt seems better suited to a cabinet position where his policy expertise can be properly utilized. That is as long as he can get along with everyone else.

Rick Santorum now seems to be the conservative candidate with Newt’s candidacy failing.

The problem is that Santorum’s conservatism is in the wrong place. His strong positions on social issues are well known but in truth they are only a hindrance 10

Binghamton Review

in what will likely shape up to be a close general election. The truth is that social issues like abortion and gay marriage are better left to state politics and don’t look to be an significant part of the upcoming election.

This is a general election that will be decided by which party and which President Americans feel more confident in regard to the economy. On those kinds of issues, Santorum’s record in the US Senate is not so conservative.

He is responsible for more a billion dollars of pork barrel spending as well as support for No Child Left Behind, the Medicare drug entitlement program and the infamous “bridge to nowhere” paints the picture of a big government, compassionate conservative. This is not the kind of conservative that Republicans need and not the kind of President America needs. All this is combined with the fact that Santorum was not even popular enough in a purple state like Pennsylvania to win reelection in 2006. A Santorum nomination would not fill me with confidence.

And then there is Ron Paul. Is suppose hooping and hollering for two decades was just too much for the Texas

Congressman but I just do not understand what his aim is here.

He has to know he will never be the nominee but he also seems to have no interest in trying to push the Republican party towards his libertarian ideal. Some of his warnings on the growth of government and out of control spending are spot on and many of the concepts he has promoted (the auditing of the Federal Reserve for instance) have filtered through and are being enacted by other Republican congressmen.

Yet his constant pressing of his isolationist foreign policy alienates Republicans and many other Americans. Yet for all this yelling, Congressman Paul has a rather sparse record when it comes to authoring legislation and generally seems content to vote. He seems satisfied in being a fringe figure, always yelling and never doing.

And so it seems that I will find myself once again pinching my nose and trying to vote for the best candidate. Doubtless all of these people (even Paul… probably) will do a better job of governing our country than President Obama has.

Nonetheless it seems to me that America deserves better. B

February 2012

REDISTRICTING

Don’t Rely on Redistricting

by Mark Soriano

usually the district’s incumbent.

By praising the benefits of gerrymandering for Republicans, John Boehner is being realistic and pragmatic.

Gerrymandering is a reality of our current political system, and obviously he would see friendlier districts for his members in a positive light. However, by making it seem like Republican’s electoral fortunes rely on rigged districts, Boehner is admitting that Republicans cannot succeed outright.

Instead of relying on underhanded

O

n January 23rd, House Speaker John Boehner declared his belief that Republicans will maintain control of Congress not only through the next election cycle, but for at least the next decade. Oratorical grandstanding like this is to be expected from congressional leaders, but the reason Boehner gave for his confidence was peculiar. Instead of touting the ideological correctness of Republicans, Boehner thanked congressional redistricting for sealing up otherwise vulnerable seats.

Boehner claimed that it will be “nearly impossible” for the Democrats to regain control of the House because of the “very strong foundation” that redistricting created for Republicans. Essentially, Boehner credits gerrymandering and political highjacking of the democratic process for his party’s expected good fortune.

For a more in-depth denunciation of gerrymandering, see October’s “Broken Government” report. Briefly, gerrymandering occurs when political parties shape congressional districts during the once a decade redistricting process, creating districts with electoral compositions more favorable to their party’s candidate. The process creates an unfair advantage for candidates, www.binghamtonreview.com

methods to achieve a Congressional majority, Boehner, as leader of the congressional Republicans, should attempt to help his party evolve a stronger national support network.

As the electoral composition of the United States becomes more diverse, Republicans will have to change to remain relevant. Instead of sitting on gerrymandered laurels for the next decade, perhaps Speaker Boehner can work to make conservatism legitimately popular and electable. B

Republican Primaries Cheatsheet

State

1st

2nd

3rd

Iowa: -Santorum -Romney -Paul New Hampshire:

-Romney

South Carolina:

-Gingrich -Romney -Santorum

-Paul

-Huntsman

Florida: -Romney

-Gingrich -Santorum

Nevada: -Romney

-Gingrich -Paul

Colorado:

-Santorum -Romney -Gingrich

Minnesota:

-Santorum -Paul

Missouri:

-Santorum -Romney -Paul

Maine: -Romney

-Paul

-Romney

-Santorum

*Upcoming Primaries:

-February 28th, Arizona and Michigan 11

It Could Be Worse...

1.

The title “worst in the nation” is thrown around a lot these days, but in regards to Binghamton’s 1-26 men’s basketball team, it used to be true.

With our team’s recent win against Vermont, we can rest assured knowing that other things about Binghamton are surely worse than our basketball team. Here are a few of our favorites:

Pipe Dream’s Sex Advice Call us “old fashioned”, but we prefer our blowjob advice to “come” in “oral” form rather than written down. That article was a little tough for readers to swallow.

2.

3.

4.

12

Binghamton Review

Downtown Binghamton After you have successfully avoided drunks on the bus, homeless people, drug dealers, and dirty Occupy protesters, what you have to look forward to is 5 bars, 4 police officers, 3 dollar cab rides, 2 slices at Pasquales, which all adds up to one disappointing night on the town.

The Bearcat Statue In case you haven’t noticed, the new statue near the Events Center is neither Bear nor Cat but is actually 28% testicles.

Students have begun to actually rub the balls of this bronze obscenity for supposed good luck. Maybe it worked...

Newing Dining Hall (C4) Does it bother you that the nickname for this Sodexo monstrosity is also the name of a high-grade military explosives? Which is incidentally just how your bowels will feel after eating here.

February 2012

5.

6.

7.

8.

9. www.binghamtonreview.com

School of Management We heard that the school is making efforts to improve SOM’s academic rigor and performance, or as we like to call it, actually educating. As for this plan, all we have to say is that you can’t throw sprinkles on a crap and call it ice cream.

The Town of Binghamton Did you know that the town of Binghamton has the largest concentration of sex offenders per capita in New York? At least we are number one in something. The only things to do in Binghamton are to commit sex offenses or watch it rain.

Acoustic Guitar Douches 99.9% of all kids who decide they need to bring an accoustic guitar to college have no idea how to play anything beyond a few of the more annoying cords. Regardless, armed with the delusion that they are this generation’s Bob Dylan, they take to the walkways of Binghamton University like clockwork the moment it reaches above 50 degrees.

Binghamton Memes That shit got way too popular way too fast. If they had managed to use the memes correctly, they’d still be morally reprehensible. One does not simply poke fun at disabled Sodexo workers, but look out for Sodexo using memes to advertise BUC$ in dining hall napkin holders.

Humans vs. Zombies It should be called Humans vs. Sexual Maturity. Just give up and join LARP already. Those guys really have it going for them: they play late at night, no one sees them, and everyone respects their dedication.

13

CPAC 2012

The Review Goes to Washington “Either I’m dead right or I’m crazy...” - Mr. Smith

by The Editors

O

n February 9th through the 11th, the American Conservative Union held it's 39th Annual Conservative Political Action Conference held at the Marriot Wardman Park in Washington, DC. A few of the editors from the Review joined with members of the Binghamton University College Republicans in a journey to the meeting of some of the greatest conservative minds and some of their most enthusiastic supporters.

The list of speakers included: Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Ann Coulter, Daniel Hannan, Andrew Breitpart, Jim DeMint, and many more. From our experience, CPAC 2012 proved to be a fantastic experience. Wherein all the pundits and politicians that we watch or read about every day in the media came to life. Below are some of the experiences and reactions that editors and contributors from the Review had while at CPAC: Aaron Ricks, Editor-in-Chief “To be honest, I wasn’t sure how I was going to feel about going to CPAC. Although I knew I would have an opportunity to see in person some of the politicians and pundits I admire, I am always wary of any type of large political gatherings of conservatives for fear of coming away either worried about the Republican Party or for feeling that as a "conservative" from New York, I wouldn't exactly fit in with the typical

14

Binghamton Review

conservatives that attend CPAC. What I got to see at CPAC was the overwhelming unity of conservatives of many stripes coming together: Social conservatives, libertarians, war-hawks, and fiscal conservatives, all discussing the issues that divide the country and divide party, in a very respectable manner. In addition, I was reminded of the diversity of the American people. Living in New York and attending a university occasionally makes you forget how strongly many people take their belief in God. And although many leftists at Binghamton would say that Republicans are the bible-thumping party, I think it's safe to say that a strong belief in religion is pretty non-partisan."

Chris Formisano, Associate Editor Prior to attending CPAC, I wondered if I would have any worthwhile stories to tell when I returned to Binghamton. Luckily I had quite a few. While waiting on a line to see Mitt Romney plead his case as to why he should be the Republican nominee, not 20 feet from me was Sen. Rick Santorum.

He was moving quickly surrounded by personal body guards. At that moment I had a decision to make; wait on line to see the man who many believed would be the Republican candidate for President, or leave my spot in line to risk a chance at a hand shake with someone who had a much smaller chance at nomination and I myself was unsure of his legitimacy. I

decided to take the risk and follow Santorum. I ran from my spot in line and gave chase. I found him at Google’s booth surrounded by his bodyguards wearing sunglasses on his head and headphones in his ears talking with a Google representative. I quickly positioned myself so that when Santorum left the booth, he would have to go through me. After thanking the Google reps, he stood up and just as I thought he began walking directly toward me. As he approached I found myself not nervous or gitty… but calm and relaxed. And when he grasped my hand and asked me “How’s it goin’ son?” he made me feel as if we had met before.

“Just fine sir, it’s an honor to meet you,” I responded quickly. And as he broke eye contact and was about to leave, I just instinctively responded “I’m prayin’’ for your daughter, Rick.” He seemed taken aback, not that some random kid had just called him Rick, but that a stranger was actually concerned about the health of his beloved newborn child. “Hey, Thank you so much. She means the world to me.” We continued to talk for about another minute about the power of prayer and family. The emotion in his voice was truly genuine and when we shook hands again to part ways, I decided that the Senator from Pennsylvania that I had just spoken with had become a legitimate contender in my mind.

It’s amazing how much your warm

February 2012

CPAC 2012

up to someone just from meeting them.

Nick Fondacaro, Associate Editor This year’s trip to CPAC was my second and the best. I remembered the energy, camaraderie, and the excitement I had the previous year.

I predicted that this year, however would be quite different. I knew there would be more energy being that it is an election year, but I did not know where that energy will be directed. Lately the groups under the Big Tent of Conservatism have been aiming their energy at each other instead of where it needs to be aimed, Barack Obama. For the most part, the events at CPAC were designed to remind us of our goal in this election, the defeat of Obama. The efforts of CPAC would be for not without the Friday evening speech by, left wing media dismantler, Andrew Breitbart. In his

www.binghamtonreview.com

speech he reminded us about what the real choice was in the voting booth this year. It is not candidates but the future path of this country.

As he said in his speech “There are two paths. One is America and the other one is Occupy…Black, white, gay, and strait, anyone willing to stand next to me to fight the progressive left I will be in that bunker. And if you’re not in that bunker because you are not satisfied with this candidate, more than shame on you, you’re on the other side!” After CPAC this year I am more energized than I have ever been and I am more proud to be a conservative than I ever was.

Kate Flatley, Contributor As a young, female, conservative, I am told time and time again by many leftist Binghamton students that my gender and my politics are mutually exclusive; how could one be both a

woman and a conservative? Because this is often a question I am asked, I was thrilled when a fellow collegiate audience member asked a personal hero of mine, Ann Coulter, the same question. Ann responded with her typical quick wit and definitely got a few laughs; however, the heart of her argument is that there is really no need for Ms. Coulter to address the question of feminism because she is living it. She doesn’t need to discuss women’s issues, although she commends the many conservative feminists who do so, because she is discussing global terrorism, the economy, foreign policy, and etc.

Ann Coulter doesn’t need to address her gender because it is irrelevant in her discussion of politics and isn’t that the ultimate display of equality?

Also, as Coulter pointed out, all the pretty girls are conservative. B

15

STATE OF THE UNION

State of the Union Reaction We haven’t had a president this dishonest since Clinton...

by Dan Milyavsky

O

bama is very good at appearing to make honest arguments, and in really caring about the future of our country. A close observer, however, will be able to see that his State of the Union was filled with hypocrisy, inconsistency, and demagoguery.

The President opened his speech by declaring that for the first time in two decades, the world is safe from Osama bin Laden’s terror.

Although he didn’t do it in this speech, Obama has gotten into the habit of taking explicit credit for bin Laden’s death, framing himself as indispensable to the operation. One would think that he personally parachuted out of Air Force One, landed on the outside of bin Laden’s compound in Pakistan, shot the son of a bitch in the head with his Presidential Colt .45, and then burned his porn stash for good measure.

In reality, the United States military was able to kill bin Laden precisely because of the anti-terror policies set forth by that dumb Texan that liberals all love to hate, even though when it came to fiscal policy he was a big spender just like they are: George W. Bush.

Things like renditions, indefinite detentions, and drone strikes (also known as all the things Obama campaigned against, and then went on to adopt). All Obama had to do

16

Binghamton Review

was say: “Yeah, you can go ahead with this operation that I had absolutely no role in planning, and that would have been impossible had the policies I campaigned on been in place.”

Anyhow, moving on from that, let’s get to the heart of the matter: Obama’s economic policy, a.k.a. ways Obama avoids taking responsibility for the economic damage that his own policies caused.

Here are some quotes: “Together, we’ve agreed to cut the deficit by more than $2 trillion.”

What’s with this “together” thing?

I wasn’t at the negotiations. I didn’t have any input. Did you? Actually, the deficit wasn’t cut at all. This line is utter bullshit. The rate of increase of the deficit was merely slowed.

Here is an example. Let’s say you are $1,500,00 in debt, you earned $100,000 this year, but you spent $147,000. Next year you’re still going to earn $100,000, but you were going to spend $160,00 next year anyway. However, after looking at your dire fiscal situation, you decided to only spend $158,000, and then started bragging about your $2,000 “cut.” This is exactly what Obama is doing, and it’s pretty damn deceptive.

“At a time when too many of our institutions have let us down,

[the armed forces] exceed all expectations. They’re not consumed with personal ambition. They don’t obsess over their differences. They focus on the mission at hand. They work together. Imagine what we could accomplish if we followed their example.”

While our military is most certainly a venerable and praiseworthy institution, civilian life should absolutely not be modeled on military discipline.

What Obama is really saying is the following: “You know, all these political processes are tiring. I don’t like it that the American people don’t like my legislative agenda and elected Republicans to the House in 2010 to oppose it. Wouldn’t it be so much better if this was like the army, where I can just give orders, and the people had to follow them without questioning them or having a say in the matter?”

“We can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well, while a growing number of Americans barely get by.

Or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules.”

I am reminded of that famous scene from the Lone Ranger, in which a white gunslinger and his

February 2012

STATE OF THE UNION Native American sidekick, Tonto, are surrounded by some very threatening looking Apaches.

The gunslinger looks towards Tonto and says, “Looks like we’re in trouble!” Tonto looks backs at him, and says, “Who’s we, kemosabe?”

This is exactly the reaction I had when I heard this part of Obama’s speech. When Obama says “we,” what he really means is “the federal government.”

Obama does not believe in economic freedom; he does not believe that markets are efficient ways of coordinating commerce.

He instead believes that the government should dictate how the economy is run. This crony capitalist model also favors Obama’s big donors, like the executes at Solyndra, who, it just so happens, along with Obama, are part of that hated 1%.

“We” are not the federal government. Yes, the President and the Congress are elected, but most of those who work in the federal government, and

www.binghamtonreview.com

who actually establish the rules that the bureaucracies enforce, are not. Furthermore, federal elections only take place every two years, so representatives are not as accountable to the voters as we would like to believe. After all, who votes on the basis of say, farm subsidies? Since very few people do, our representatives are pretty much free to do whatever they want in regards to crony capitalist agricultural policies.

By the way, in 2007, Congress passed one of the biggest farm bills in history. In an extraordinarily rare moment of fiscal sanity, President Bush vetoed the atrocity.

Congressional Republicans joined Congressional Democrats in overturning the veto. But now John Boehner and Mitch McConnell tell us they are serious about cutting spending. Uh huh.

Anyway, back to Obama: “In the last 22 months, businesses have created more than three million jobs. Last year, they created the most jobs since 2005.”

The only reason businesses created so many jobs these past 22 months is because of the massive job loss that happened before!

Actually, there’s been a net loss of 1 million jobs since Obama took office. But of course you can’t expect the President to mention that. To quote Al Gore, that would be an inconvenient truth.

As a registered Republican, this presidential primary has been a disheartening and depression experience for me. However, I can say with complete confidence that neither Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich, or Rick Santorum ever even approach Obama’s level of insincerity and doubletalk.

I hope that I have showed you how Obama is a master in deceptive communication. Do not let this man fool you. America, do not elect Barack Obama to a second term. If you do, it will be the biggest mistake since 1964, when Lyndon Johnson, who escalated the Vietnam War and brought the plague of welfare dependency on America’s poor, was elected in a landslide.B

17

AGAINST BOMBING IRAN

A Common Sense Approach to Iran Conservative arguments against going to war with Iran...

by Eric Fitchett

A

nyone who has been watching the news lately has surely heard about the possibility of Israel preemptively attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities to inhibit them from acquiring a nuclear weapon. This begs the question, “What should the US do about Iran?” Many base their arguments on myths and false perceptions of the world, history and foreign policy. It is my opinion that any sane person who examines the situation should conclude that the US position on this issue should be one of nonintervention. In this article I will argue 3 key points respectively: (1) Iran is not a national security threat to the United States, (2) Preemptive strike on Iran by Israel should be condemned, (3) US foreign policy in the Middle East has been misguided and detrimental to national security, and the American people have had enough.

First off, Iran is not a security threat to the United States as it is still very much a developing nation.

Militarily, they lack ability to cross seas and invade us. Their air force is meager, and their standing army is minuscule in comparison to that of the United States. To quote Congressman Ron Paul, “Iran can barely make enough gasoline for themselves!” If Iran did decide to attack the United States (or Israel, for that matter), it would be the last thing the current regime ever does. What interest does a county have in its own demise? Zero interest is the answer, and it is only common sense that even 18

Binghamton Review

the Iranian government would like to stay in power rather than be toppled after a brief tussle with a superior US military. The United States should therefore be disinterested with war on Iran because there is no self-interest involved (other than boosting our own egos and maintaining our policeman status).

In fact, I would argue that war in Iran would be destructive rather than constructive at all. Many realize that war with Iran could have unintended yet jeopardizing consequences.

Aside from mass loss of life, war could lead to a global recession. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has predicted that if Iran cut off its oil supply in an inter-war period that crude oil prices would rise 30%... I repeat, 30%. Now isn’t that exactly what the American economy needs right now?

Second, Israel should think twice before preemptively attacking Iran.

Let’s not forget, Iran DOES NOT have a nuclear weapon, and according to our CIA, is still several years from attaining one. A preemptive strike would likely translate to thousands of casualties, and could possibly escalate to include other countries that would have otherwise remained uninvolved (The US and NATO, Russia, China etc...). Israel should also consider the fact that even if Iran does obtain a nuclear weapon, it does not compare to Israel’s own nuclear stockpile, estimated to be around 300-400 weapons. If Iran did acquire a WMD and proceeded to use it on Israel, it is likely that within ten minutes of

such an attack Israel would have launched numerous nuclear attacks in retaliation. Iran would be devastated within the hour. Within days every major leader of Iran would be either dead or in custody. This begs the same question asked earlier: what interest does a country have in its own demise?

Iran wants a nuclear weapon for the same reason every country wants a nuclear weapon: respect.

Countries with a nuclear capability hold more weight in United Nations diplomacy, and also in any bilateral negotiations with other nations.

Lacking a nuclear weapon puts you at the mercy of countries that have them. Geographically, Iran is surrounded by nukes! Pakistan has nuclear weapons, Israel has nuclear weapons, and the United States and NATO allies have nuclear weapons.

If you were the leader of Iran, wouldn’t you like to have a nuclear weapon as well? Granted, remarks from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are unsettling. He has made preposterous claims in front of the UN saying Israel should be wiped off the map, and that the holocaust was a Zionist ruse. Comments like these are as despicable as I can imagine. However, as I have already argued, Iran has no interest in its own demise and would not, and will not, use a nuclear weapon on Israel for this reason. The idea of mutually assured destruction (MAD) remains, and will

“Even most Israelis are against military strikes on Iran!”

February 2012

AGAINST BOMBING IRAN

“The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government...” always remain, the primary deterrent for even the most crazed of national leaders to consider “The Bomb” as a reasonable way to go about business.

If you have been reading this article and have already decided my views are misguided, you are in the minority of Americans to say the least. A new United Technologies/ National Journal Congressional Connection Poll, finds that only 13% of Americans think the U.S. should “take covert action against Iran such as sabotage and assassination of scientists working on their nuclear program” and only 17% support “taking military action against Iran, including bombing weapons facilities inside the country.” Even most Israelis are against military strikes on Iran! Studies show that 90% of Israeli Jews believe Iran will acquire a nuclear weapon, yet only 43% actually fear its use. In fact, 65% of Israelis favor a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East, even after it was explained to them that this would mean Israel conceding its weapons.

Lastly, the United States should reconsider its entire foreign policy in

regard to the Middle East. So far, the unending and unwinnable “War on Terror” has resulted in over 55,000 United States casualties (soldiers and citizens) and over 1 million casualties when you add up both sides. Where has this war gotten us? Is the Middle East any closer to being at peace?

Are we safer now than we were after 9/11? Absolutely not. If anything, the terrorists have got us right where they want us – in their backyard. This is how they’ve managed to hurt us (i.e. 55,000+ American casualties).

9/11 was a horrible tragedy, but to strategically and repeatedly use the deaths of 3,000 Americans to justify endless, unwinnable and undeclared wars in countries of little to no interest to Americans is an abomination to the lives that were lost at ground zero. America is tired of the mindless warmongering, and frankly, we are out of money and patience to support it any longer.

We the people of the United States of America have had enough. We want our troops to come home and we want an end to the wars. We want America to once again be the land of

opportunity and prosperity instead of a land bent on policing the world and imposing our electoral process on others. We want the federal government to return to protecting individual liberty in America. We want our government’s policies to reflect the will of its people, not promote their own agendas for a “world safe for democracy.” Is this too much for us to ask? In the last decade it seems as if a great divide has been steadily growing between the American people and our government. We want this to end. In order to accomplish these things we have to get the attention of Washington and remind them who it is that they serve. Last I checked we still have a government “of the people, by the people, and for the people.” It was “Mr. Republican” Robert Taft who had long foreseen the future struggles of our time and warned that “aspiring to redeem the world from all the ills to which flesh is heir; Americans might descend, instead, into a pattern of imperial domination and corruption.” Let us hope that he was wrong. B 19

Current Problem The Student Association is a complex, high functioning organization. However, it is currently, only viewed legally, as an association, or simply a group of people with a common interest. This leaves all participating individuals accountable. If an accident occurred that lead to a lawsuit, all 12,000 undergraduate students could be listed in the lawsuit. Thus: The current legal structure of the Student Association leaves all Binghamton University undergraduate students unprotected in a potential lawsuit.

Especially vulnerable are the students elected as officers of the association. Meaning hall and community governments, club e-boards, and the SA e-board itself are especially vulnerable to being sued.

While lawsuits are unlikely, it is unsafe and unwise to leave students unprotected.

Solution The Student Association at Binghamton University intends to follow in the footsteps of the SA’s of Oneonta, Albany and Buffalo in applying for Non-Profit Incorporation status. This action will provide protections to individual students by transferring risk to the Student Association at Binghamton University, Inc. There will be no Constitutional changes and no foreseen operational changes to the Student Association. The only cons of pursuing incorporation are the nominal fees associated with filing, The goal of incorporation is to better protect students while they pursue all the diverse opportunities the SA offers. Incorporating does not make the SA a business, and it does not change how any level of the association operates.

Incorporating keeps the SA all about you, while protecting you.

As always, we urge every student to contact us with questions and suggestions. E-mail President Kathryn Howard at president@binghamtonsa.org, chat SA Programming Board on Facebook, or stop by in person to UUW203 (behind M and T Bank).

20

Binghamton Review

February 2012

SA INCORPORATION

The SA’s Peaceful Year The Case for Incorporation

by Mark Soriano

I

ncorporation is upon again, for the second year in a row. If you are confused about what incorporation is, stop reading this article, and find the SA E-Board’s official statement on the matter. If you want to see one of several arguments in favor of incorporation, read on.

Many of us remember the first attempt at incorporation a year ago. Incorporation was introduced to the student body in the weeks before the E-Board elections along with a batch of significant constitutional changes. The secrecy that surrounded those changes, and the abruptness of their introduction, made people worried that the SA was trying to pull the wool over our eyes. Incorporation, the most important part of the proposed changes, was ill explained and overshadowed by the controversy surrounding the changes to the

SA constitution. Despite the overwhelming approval of the Student Assembly, the student body lodged their disapproval by shooting down both incorporation and the constitution. Last year’s loss was a setback for the cause of incorporation, but a deserved setback. A culture of superiority had developed in the leadership of the SA, who assumed that students would rubber stamp anything the E-Board proposed.

This year is different. This E-Board has shown us that they learned from the mistakes of their predecessors, and have made an attempt to win students over.

Leaving constitutional changes for another time, the E-Board has coalesced around the sole cause of incorporation. In additional cutting down on the confusion of last year, this strategy show that the E-Board is committed

to incorporating the SA because of its inherent importance to students, instead of linking it to the political uncertainties of constitutional change.

Importantly, the culture of the SA seems to have changed from past years. In recent memory, the SA has suffered through multiple scandals and embarrassments, including the resignation of a VPF, the near impeachment of the president, racial slurs in both the Student Assembly and the Financial Council, and a thirtyseven year old man masquerading as the president of OC3, among others. Current student leaders and representatives should be proud to know that this year ha been calm, productive, and professional.

It is important to disconnect the attempt at incorporation this year from the mistakes of past years.

The changes proposed by the E-Board would only improve the quality and efficiency of the SA as an organization, better enabling it to protect the rights and privileges enjoyed by the students.B

Have Questions about SA Incorporation?

Ask an E-Board Member:

President Kathryn Howard: Executve VP Liz Robins: VP for Finance Karl Bernhardsen: VP for Academic Affairs Kate Flately: VP for Programming Catherine Cornell: VP for Multicultural Affairs Carlton Ramsay: Assembly Speaker Drew Howard:

- president@binghamtonsa.org - evp@binghamtonsa.org - vpf@binghamtonsa.org - vpaa@binghamtonsa.org - vpp@binghamtonsa.org - vpma@binghamtonsa.org - speaker@binghamtonsa.org

-Questions will also be addressed at an SA townhall forum on February 22nd in UU111.

-To vote on incorporation, attend your community government meeting on February 28th. www.binghamtonreview.com

21

IRAN

Do Not Underestimate Iran Arguments in Support of Preparedness

by Dan Rudder

L

ately, discourse regarding Iran almost always implies a negative connotation.

Whether one’s frame of reference is political, social, or otherwise, it is not difficult to find disagreeable aspects of Iran’s foreign policy or domestic government. Iran’s behavior towards both neighboring and distant nations throughout the past several years has been unacceptable; its negligence towards a global standard of morality and its embrace of theological governance raises serious questions about its ability to function in contemporary civic 22

Binghamton Review

society. Finally its contributions to international peace and security are beyond nonexistent; in fact they must be measured negatively. Iran provokes the western world more than almost any other UN nation.

While the Iranian threat is decades old, the country’s recent tendencies towards accelerating its nuclear weapons program has been raising eyebrows. Nothing presents a greater threat to the Middle East. To any educated person, Iran’s animosity towards America and the West in general, is quite understandable, but that does not make it tolerable. The United States

supported the radically unpopular although pro-American Iranian leader, Shah Pahlavi, for decades.

This man was known for his elitism, decadence, and overindulgence. He was essentially a puppet who put the interests of the super powers supporting him ahead of all else, often at the expense of his people and to his own personal gain. Perhaps he is most infamous for throwing a $100 million dollar party (with a guest list that included the British Royal family as well as then-incumbent United States Vice President Spiro Agnew) in celebration of the monarchy’s 2,500 year anniversary. Festivities February 2012

IRAN took place right next to the ancient city of Persepolis, and many of the decoration/construction projects were tasked to firms that also worked on prestigious projects in America, including the White House. The Iranians’ malcontent sentiments over their leader is certainly understandable and was a root cause of the 1979 Iranian Revolution.

Perhaps one of the most practical and least risky courses of action is to continue the practice of instituting sanctions. While Iran has enough oil wealth to insure its energy independence, the international community still has both the power and authority necessary to harm its economy into submission.

The nation’s economy is largely dependent on imports and exports, much more so than any domestic element. In order for sanctioning to have a noticeable and far-reaching effect, it must permeate every vital intricacy within the nation’s politicaleconomic framework. This means effects must be felt primarily by the Iranian government and leadership and not by its people. Withholding goods such as crucial medical supplies to needy and/or ill-equipped hospitals is unethical, will not be well appraised in the court of public opinion, and will likely do more harm than good.

Unfortunately, when dealing with Iran, success in diplomacy is

hit or miss. Their government is unpredictable, illogical, and radical.

Erroneous judgments include its unrealistic and deluded attempts at crafting a nuclear warhead, its denial of the Holocaust, and the general tendency of the nation to align itself in opposition with many Western/ European goals. A lack of proper diplomatic aggressiveness could mean that the desired effect does not occur, while pushing too hard could mean Iran would resort to military action. If they were to institute a naval blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, for example, there would be drastic consequences, mainly the interruption of trade in that region until an allied power exercises a military victory. Of course, the Iranian military is no match for the United States and its allies, and while such a victory is completely plausible, the consequences might outweigh the benefits. Intimation of formal, long term hostilities with Iran would be a major political headache, to say the very least. With American military forces already stretched thinly across the globe, it would be an unwise and frankly an unnecessary utilization of resources. Military force is always an option, but it is a desperate one. A traditional land invasion is archaic and impractical; a better alternative would be strategic air strikes.

Should the need arise to

forcefully intervene, it might be best for the United States to take more of a supporting role, like it did in in Libya last year by allowing NATO to lead the effort. It also might be a good idea to delegate military action/mobilization to other friendly countries in the area, like Israel. Israel is more than capable of defending itself, and because Israel would be the most threatened by an Iranian weapon of mass destruction (WMD), perhaps it is only right that they have the privilege of punishing Iran. While it is doubtful that Iran would use WMDs against the US, it is far more likely that they will use them against Israel. President Ahmadinejad has made his hatred of Israel public on multiple occasions, going as far as to say Hamas and its iniquitous campaign against Jews is a source of pride for all Muslims.

Additionally, the country has been known to extend support (both vocally and logistically) to terrorist groups in the past. Ultimately, there would be far less retaliation from the international community if Israel took military action against Iran compared to a super power like the United States doing the same thing.B

Binghamton Review is a monthly, independent journal of news, analysis, commentary, and controversy. Students at Binghamton University receive one copy of the Review free of charge (non-transferable). Additional copies cost $1 each. Letters to the Editor are welcome; they must be accompanied by the author’s current address and phone number. All submission become property of the Review. The Review reserves the right to edit and print any submission. Copyright © 1987-2011 Binghamton Review. All rights reserved. Binghamton Review is distributed on campus under the authority of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Binghamton Review is a member of the Collegiate Network and is a Student Association-chartered organization. Binghamton University is not responsible for the content of the Review; the Review is not responsible for the content of Binghamton University. Binghamton Review thanks the Intercollegiate Studies Institute.

Past Editors of Binghamton Review: John Guardiano, Yan Rusanovsky, Kethryn Doherty, Ephriam Bernstein, Michael Malloy, Paul Schnier, Adam Bromberg, Bernadette Malone, Michael Darcy, Nathan Wurtzel, Amy Gardner, John Carney, Paul Torres, Jason Kovacs, Robert Zoch, Matthew Pecorino, Michael O’Connell, Louis W. Leonini, Joseph Carlone, Christopher Powell, Nathaniel Sugarman, Robert E. Menje, Adam Shamah, Rachel Gordon, Mike Lombardi www.binghamtonreview.com

23

Newtlovin_Republican 50723956

Married, Man seeking a Woman For: A date, Open Relationship, Marriage (short term) From: Harrisburg, Pennsylvania Age: 68 years young

About Me Presidential candidate looking for new(t) love on the campaign trail. I am a fun loving, grandiose guy. Ph.D. in History, silver-fox hair, 5’10” tall, a bit chubby around the midsection. Resume includes being the inventor of supply-side economics, former speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Washington Outsider, former lobbyist, political commentator. If you think my ideas are the only thing about me that are big, you’re in for a surprise ; )

Logged in: 5 hours and 24 minutes ago Last Update: 2/8/2012

Likes: High school geometry teachers, politics, history, lobbying (for the American people, of course), freedom, grandiose ideas, star-gazing, moon colonies, balancing budgets, younger women, Donald Trump Ronald Reagan.

Dislikes: bailouts, wives with cancer, Communism, anyone that opposes my views, Massachusetts moderates, threats to Western Civilization, ethics committees, terrorism, food stamps, Nancy Pelosi, Democrats, Donald Trump

Where It Happens