March 2010 - Binghamton Review

Truth and Two Staples

MARCH 2010

Binghamton Review

Home Sweet Home Move Into Newman Group’s $7.8 Million Matchbox

Binghamton Review

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

editor@binghamtonreview.com

Founded 1987 • Volume XXIII Number 6 • MARCH 2010 Editor-in-Chief Adam Shamah Managing Editor Randal Meyer

Contents

Assistant Editor Ethan Day Associate Editors Edmund Mays Rachel Gordon Elahd Bar-Shai Copy Desk Chief Yadin Herzel

6

Copy Editors Lawrence Faulstich Stephen Herman William Obilisundar Brian Curatolo Layout Editor Elahd Bar-Shai Treasurer Rod Alzmann Business Manager Michael Lombardi Secretary Marissa Beldock Contributors Nick Valiando, Jason Birriel, Aaron Sebag, William Griffin, Nicole Narmanli, Joseph Aguiar, Taylor Arluck, Gabrielle Pontillo, Katie Dermigny 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.

4

Saturday Night’s Alright for Fighting by Randal Meyer

8

Irksome IRCo by Rod Alzmann Collusion on the international rubber market

10 12

Student Association Elections Report by Brian Parente Twenty Years of Lois by Michael Lombardi

Binghamton Review

Think twice before going downtown

A look at the past, present, and future of Binghamton University

13

Game Over by John Jensen

Democrats pass healthcare reform 14 Gear Grinding by Paul Liggieri Gear Grinding makes its triumphant return

16

War, What is it Good For? by Joseph Aguiar

The Success of American Counterinsurgency in the Middle East

18

Washington Isn’t Broken by Alex Filaci The Democrats’ Attack Against Democracy

19

Hello, Goodbye. by Adam Shamah Supreme Court to Review Student Group Policy

21 22

Spring Forward... And Never Look Back by Yadin Herzel Dissent of a Citizen by Taylor Arluck

Departments 3

2

Fahrenheit 45 Washington St. Luxury Suites to DIE For

EDITORIAL MARCH 2010

EDITORIAL

Putting the Press Back in Oppression Since 1987

“S

ocial justice is a vision of society in which the distribution of resources is equitable, and all members are physiologically and psychologically secure.” Equitable distribution of resources – where’s that from? Marx? Obama? Nope; it is the XCEL Center’s answer to the question posed by one of their recent workshops: “what is social justice?”

The XCEL Center for Excellence in Student Leadership is the arm of the University’s student affairs department responsible for strengthening students’ leadership skills as we prepare to enter the real world. Among the many workshops offered is one on motivation, another on goal-setting, and one intended to teach communication skills; all valuable resources for America’s future leaders. That is why a workshop on “social justice” seemed to us just slightly out of place.

Yet on Wednesday, March 17, we attended XCEL’s workshop.

In addition to lauding the “justice” behind socialist-style resource redistribution, the workshop leader—a resident director from College-in-the-Woods—explained what social justice seeks to eliminate: oppression.

According to the XCEL Center, “oppression” occurs when an oppressor—or “agent”—knowingly or unknowingly exploits a “target.” Agents are members of “dominant” groups who have historically been in power, groups with “a history of privilege.” It was explained that one may obtain this privilege either through hard work, or through birth by “being born white.” In America, targets are disenfranchised and marginalized by agents directly or by their systems or institutions.

Agents of oppression include whites, men, Christians (mostly Protestants), heterosexuals, and those who are middle-aged, upperclass, average-size, abled, or English-speaking. If you fall into one of

those categories, the XCEL Center teaches that you are responsible for racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, heterosexism, ageism, classism, and more. It doesn’t matter how liberal you might consider yourself; if you are a member of a privileged group, you benefit from institutionalized oppression and are thus just as racist as everyone else in your group.

Are you following? If what the XCEL Center teaches were true, most you reading are racist. And if you are not sure whether you are an oppressor or a target, keep in mind that it is possible to be oppressed without knowing it. For example, if you are a woman who prefers to live life as a housewife rather than as a workingwoman, the XCEL center says you are suffering from “internalized oppression.” You see, women who choose to stay at home do so not because they prefer that lifestyle, but rather because they have “internalized historical oppression.” Not sure what that means?

According to XCEL, it is what slaves who fought for the South during the Civil War suffered from. Who knew?

Essentially, the XCEL center is using student money to support poorly-run programs that do nothing but propagate a radically leftwing agenda. Note the inconsistency between the purpose and the actions of XCEL: rather than teaching leadership principles that all students can benefit from, XCEL has chosen to indoctrinate students with controversial political opinions. XCEL taught a Marxist theory of oppression as if it were the one and only valid view on the subject, and then disguised this as a “socially-active form of leadership” to further distract from the fact that what they are teaching is nothing more than their opinion. This has no place in any “leadership” program, especially at a university that is supposed to be the marketplace of ideas.B

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

VIOLENCE

Saturday Night’s Alright for Fighting Think Twice Before Going Downtown

by Randal Meyer

B

inghamton University students have seen a recent increase in warnings about the safety of State Street.

Between this semester and last, several press sources have covered altercations at the bar scene. According to Mayor Matt Ryan the amount of violent crimes in Binghamton has decreased 9.7% . However, as of late many BU students feel unsafe downtown and the severity of altercations has definitely increased.

For those unfamiliar with the matter, there have been several incidents both this semester and last. According to Pipe Dream, “20-year-old Binghamton resident Tyler Loop was allegedly assaulted by three men behind the Holiday Inn Arena, leaving him in a coma for more than five days.

In late August, BU student George Hamelos was allegedly assaulted on State Street by Joseph Rojas, 22, of Oak Street.

Hamelos was initially in critical condition.” Other incidents include the recent stabbing of a 30-year old behind Uncle Tony’s bar. Additionally, unreported incidents of alleged gang related crime have come to the Review’s attention. In one such incident, a student was brutally assaulted by a group of individuals in the parking garage on State Street. The assailants

According to the Press & Sun, twelve police positions are being cut and five additional officers are retiring. all were wearing blue bandanas to cover their faces and black hooded sweatshirts. Blue bandanas are a traditional sign for the Crips gang.

The question is why is the severity of State Street violence on the rise? According to Pipe Dream, David Husch, director of Off Campus College, said that “in his 14 years of working at BU, he has always been able to tell parents at orientation that very few fights occur. He also said that when these fights do occur, they are usually between students….this is not the 4

Binghamton Review

case anymore .” He further went on to blame the desensitizing of society and the continuation of fights to the extent of stomping an opponent unconscious. The Press and Sun quoted Police Chief Zikuski as saying, "Kids and booze are a problem that's never going to be eliminated.” Zikuski might as well have quoted Jaime Foxx and blamed it on the “a-a-a-alcohol.”

Both answers have left the Review wanting. However, one part of the quote that Husch gave to Pipe Dream grabbed our attention; he cannot tell parents the fights are between BU students anymore. If a fight isn’t between two or more BU students, it must be between BU students and Binghamton residents.

According to former Head of Security at Scoreboard bar, Paul Liggieri, there is a clear difference between BU students and Binghamton Residents. “BU students are easy to handle.

They leave when asked and don’t give the bouncers much of a problem. It’s very rare that a bouncer comes into an altercation with a student. City Residents on the other hand are a much more difficult crowd to deal with.” Liggieri further stated, “In four years of bouncing experience at various bars, I have come to a few conclusions about the current circumstance.

The townspeople and the students need to recognize that there should be an understanding that both are there to have fun, drink, and enjoy themselves. There is no reason for altercation.

A majority of those altercations are perpetrated by the city residents and I believe that it’s either because of jealousy or an animosity. That animosity in conjunction with intoxication causes altercations.” The average state street BU student is a Long Island kid who hasn’t grown up near severe poverty and economic destitution. Most BU students do not realize that Binghamton residents do not like the fact that their economy relies upon the university. From WSNA to the Crips, no one likes students in the city. This is the animosity that Liggieri speaks of. Conversely, residents need to learn to not bite the hand that feeds them.

There are also differences in how BU students act downtown versus city residents. BU students tend to go downtown in larger numbers (everyone piles into a cab) but separate into smaller groups upon arrival. Residents tend to stay in larger numbers at the bars for protection. BU students MARCH 2010

tend to think that the police and bouncers will always be there to stop them and that fights don’t continue outside. That is simply not the case. Deescalating conflicts is the best way to deal with altercations. Instead of punching someone when the circumstance arises, buy them a shot. It may save you a beating.

On a normal evening, State Street is “manned with two patrol cars and two walking men and it's been that way for the last four to five years,” according to police Chief Zikuski.

However, recently the City of Binghamton has been facing budgetary crises. According to the Press & Sun, twelve police positions are being cut and five additional officers are retiring.

In all, there will be 17 unfilled police positions. The City has promised to maintain enforcement on State Street at level that it has been in previous years. Mayor Ryan plans to levy an extra tax on bar owners and drinking establishments “for extra police patrols to control disturbances in the State Street bar district.”

However, with respect to the City’s plan for police presence on State Street, on March 19thand 20th, any student (all 21 and over, I’m sure) at the bars may have noticed that while the walking patrolmen were maintained, there was only one patrol car throughout the evening. Police presence on State Street is absolutely necessary. This is something our Student Association and the University Administration need to be

working on. Safety downtown is a problem. Even assuming that the crime statistics are actually decreasing, and that State Street specifically has faced a decrease rather than an increase (a statistic unreported to date, the crime stats deal with the city as a whole), severity of attacks has unquestionably increased.

As a consequence an effective police presence on State Street is more necessary than ever before. There should be more squad cars as well as a patrol in the parking garage and behind the bars. Since the stabbing behind Uncle Tonys, there has been no increase in police in the area behind the bars. This area is barely visible to pedestrian traffic and has been the place of many unreported, alleged altercations.

Overall, State Street is still the pinnacle of Binghamton night life. However, safety needs to be maintained. Between the unlicensed cab drivers and the lack of police officers, much is left to be desired. In particular, Matt Ryan’s solution to levy an extra tax on bars to pay to maintain the police force there is a poor plan. The Mayor’s office should be focusing on the endemic problem with the city’s lack of tax revenue - no economic base from which to tax. These safety issues need to be swiftly addressed. If State Street’s safety declines anymore, there will be a negative impact on the economy of Binghamton.

Students will be unwilling to travel downtown and spend the money that keeps Binghamton alive when they are walking into a completely unsafe circumstance. B

nation161 / flickr

www.binghamtonreview.com

5

NEWMAN

Newman’s College Suites Development Poses Safety Risks

by The Editors

T

he student housing project planned for downtown Binghamton may cost more than the planned $7,800,000. It may cost you your life. This proposal has been approved by the Planning Commission of the City of Binghamton and is being developed by Washington Development Associates, LLC, which is the land owning corporation of the Newman Development Group.

The approval process took several years to complete, starting with the acquisition of the necessary real estate for this development,

1, 2010, Washington Development Associates, LLC. addressed pending issues, and presented an updated site plan.

The foremost issue was spoken on by a member of the Planning Commission, Tom Pollak. According to Pollak, the building was completely unsafe for any type of residential population; let alone a massive quantity of students in an urban area. Pollak criticized the building extensively; his primary concern is that the frame of the building is made out of wood. Yes, wood­—the same material that is put in fireplaces to create heat. The

“This project scares me....This is a fire trap, it is a tragedy waiting to happen.” to its current stage where it has been approved by the Planning Commission.

The construction site, which is located at the confluence of the Chenango and Susquehanna rivers, has been demolished in the past couple weeks.

As previously stated in several Review articles, this construction proposal has had beyond its share of concerns.

Some of those reported issues include: flagrant conflicts of interest, questionable zoning reforms, and student-aimed discrimination by residents in the city.

All of these aforementioned skepticisms have a deep connection and a coincidental timeline with the Newman Development Group project.

At the monthly meeting of the Planning Commission on February 6

Binghamton Review

site plan calls to put around 400 students in an apartment made out of wood.

To directly quote Mr. Pollak at the meeting, “Mr. Chairman, this project scares me. The wood frame project is institutional…..I do not support this project as it is designed. This is a fire trap, it is a tragedy waiting to happen. I just can’t sit here for this anymore.”

However, the Planning Commission cannot legally deny the plan for College Suites based upon its internal structure.

A wood frame is allowed under NYS Uniform Fire and Protection Code, due to these standards being lessened over the last couple of decades. Even though these changes to the fire code have occurred, that does not mean there have been any changes to the flammability of wood over

the last hundred years. Just because the law itself does not forbid this, does not change the essential facts regarding the vulnerability of this building.

According to retired FDNY Fire Chief Vincent Dunn, “Of the five-types of building construction (fire resistive, non-combustible, heavy timber and wood frame) wood frame construction presents the greatest firefighting danger.” If a wood framed building that is over three stories tall (College Suites) were to catch on fire, the most immediate concern would be its collapse. The possibility of a collapse increases significantly once the building is three or more stories tall. In addition to the lone burn damage that a fire would cost, a building collapse would completely destroy any use of the building itself and it would have been $7,800,000 for nothing. However, this only takes into consideration the damage to the building itself. But what if there were students living in the building when a fire occurred? What if the planned 400 student residents were in this apartment building when it goes ablaze? Keep in mind that this type of structural fire is the hardest from which firefighters can rescue people.

Other site plan concerns that exacerbate the fire issue include the movement of at least one fire exit from the front of the building to the back corner by the parking lot and flood wall. This placement of the fire exit was not on the previous blueprints, and it is a significant cause for concern. The purpose of a fire exit at the front of the building is so it can support a large amount of people seeking MARCH 2010

safety on the main street. Otherwise, side exits will become jammed and there is not direct access to the main street. The site plan changes do exactly that: removes access from the main street and causes jamming of side exits.

Additionally, there are very few preventative measures that exist within the building to act as safety precautions in the event of a fire. The only systems built in place to protect against fires are smoke alarms and small sprinkling systems. As Pollak stated during the same meeting, “The two main causes of fires in these buildings are incineration and smoking.

This building has no provisions for smoking.” If a fire occurs from one of these instances, the sprinkling system would have little effect on a fire of this magnitude. This is in addition to the fire spreading far more quickly because of the wood frame.

Apart from fire safety concerns with the building itself, it is important to note the recent issues that the City of Binghamton has had with regard to their firefighting staff. Last year, a 10% cut to the police and fire budgets was proposed for the city. At this time the Planning Commission, as well as other bodies in the municipality, had knowledge of the College Suites project. This includes knowing that the site plan called for the structure to be built out of wood. That means that at the same time the city supported a budget decrease for their fire department, they also supported a construction project that would increase the potential for a mass urban fire. Thus, they increased their risk for an emergency of which they knowingly could not handle the consequences.

Even though the Planning Commission could not deny the project based upon their opinion of NYS Uniform Fire and Protection Code, they could have denied the project based on other factors, including the liability of having a smaller fire department and the risks involved with this fire trap in the most densely populated district of the city itself. As a result, it may be up to the conscience of every student to decide whether or not they want to live in this accident waiting to happen.B www.binghamtonreview.com

Newman Group’s University Plaza project in Vestal consists of steel-framed structures

Sorry, we’re from

BINGHAMTON REVIEW. We didn’t realize campus publications were supposed to suck.

BTW, we’re looking for writers.

Interested? Come to our meetings every Thursday at 7:30 p.m. in New Union WB05 or email editor@binghamtonreview.com.

7

RUBBER

Irksome IRCo

Collusion in the International Rubber Market

by Rod Alzmann

T

here are trade partnerships – NAFTA, CAFTA, etc. – and then there are cartels. Most people know the world’s friendly neighborhood black gold cartel, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC).

This amalgam of oil-oozing oligarchs collectively control about one-third of the world’s production of petroleum. Their moderate cornering of the market is part of the reason that world oil prices seem to defy gravity at times; should the market price seem too low for their liking, they shut off the pipelines. The price springs right back to where they want it. This is called manipulating the market, or in a more negative sense, collusion. OPEC sure seems like a bunch of bullies when they declare oil prices should be higher, but luckily for us (the American consumers and manufacturers) there’s still another twothirds of the market that isn’t under their thumb. OPEC’s clout pales in comparison to the powerful brigands who manipulate the world’s supply of rubber, and I’m not talking birth control.

Recently, while the Review’s very own Yadin Herzel was in the market for four new run-flat tires – to replace his completely bald Pirellis, I might add – he noted how expensive they were, coming in at over $300 per tire. Now, that’s not surprising considering that he is reequipping a BMW 3-series with runflat tires, but still, we’re college students.

C’mon. I thought this was a pretty high price for some rounded hunks of rubber and decided to do some investigating of my own. Oh what I learned.

The International Rubber 8

Binghamton Review

Consortium (IRCo) is a crooked cartel run by the world’s three largest natural rubber exporters: Thailand, Indonesia, and Malaysia. These three Southeast Asian countries collectively produce 75% of the world’s natural rubber. Seem high?

Consider also that Vietnam, a nation that generates another 10% of the overall supply, has agreed “in principle” to join IRCo. IRCo really irks me. For those of us automobile owners, this blatant collusion in the marketplace is a bad thing. Quick definition, collusion is defined by Merriam-Webster as a “secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose.” According to the Wall Street Journal, tire makers utilize roughly 70% of all this rubber output. With rubber prices effectively having a price floor due to this cartel, there is nowhere for the tire makers’ cost of production to go but up.

As their costs go up, the tire companies won’t want to see their profits go poof, and prices will be raised all the way down the supply chain, hitting the consumer right in the wallet. The equation ends up being something like this: great for rubber producers, neutral-negative for tire makers, and just plain bad news for tire consumers.

As Yadin learned when two of his bald tires literally went flat, replacing tires is a maintenance expense every automobile owner will have to pay from time-totime. Unfortunately for us consumers, international cartels continue to collude and create inefficiencies and distortions in markets. While this article is more

for both informative purposes and your amusement, I will at the very least offer up some possible solutions to counter foul play like this.

The way I see it, the four countries enumerated above are generally underdeveloped, and un-free. As someone who truly abhors the United Nations (UN), it is hard for me to say that any UN involvement in trade is good. However, what the UN can be good for is economic and trade sanctions. In this case, I am positive that the UN, European Union (EU), and USA all have varying degrees of influence over the IRCo countries. These big three players can all say, “either you play fair, or you’re getting no more foreign aid.” Collusion in the marketplace is not something to be tolerated, especially when the commodity’s demand is unwavering.

Perhaps this could be an example of how to deal with these cartels in the future.

All I know is I hope this darn monopoly on rubber doesn’t make condom prices skyrocket. Thank goodness for the government subsidized rubbers at Health Services.B MARCH 2010

Elahd Bar-Shai

President-elect Jared Kirschenbaum and girlfriend Jennifer Kornblatt await the results of the SA presidential election.

ELECTIONS

Student Association Elections Report

by Brian Parente

S

o the time has come and passed again when Binghamton University undergraduates exercise their rights as members of the Student Association and choose their executive leaders for the next year.

No doubt if you ventured outside on March 10th or 11th, you were accosted by someone handing you a small slip of paper and asking for your vote. Whether you were one of the 14% who actually did or not (and we hope you did, if you’re reading this publication), you were responsible for putting six of your 10

Binghamton Review

peers in charge of a two million dollar nonprofit organization.

The race for president of the SA was scaled back from last year, with the six candidates of 2009 being replaced with two for 2010. Jared Kirschenbaum, the current Executive Vice President, and Jeremy Goldstein, the president of Seneca Hall in CIW, were the two men seeking the highest office. The main issues on which debate centered were the future of OCCT, and how to improve relations with the greater Binghamton community.

General consensus before election day was that Kirschenbaum, with his current position and pre-existing support system, would be a lock to win. However when the first election day came, some felt that Goldstein’s campaigning outmatched Kirschenbaums’s, with Goldstein’s supporters handing out quarter-sheets in almost every community, while Kirschenbaum stayed mostly in Mountainview and on the spine.

Kirschenbaum came back on day two, however, even going so far as to hand out ice cream with his quarter-sheets to try and win more votes.

MARCH 2010

After the ballots were counted though, the original assumption was shown to be true, as Kirschenbaum won, getting almost 63% of the votes, with Jeremy getting a little over 34%.

Kirschenbaum won every community, even College-in-the-Woods, which was purported to be Goldstein’s stronghold.

The race for Executive Vice President, the position in charge of student groups and first in the presidential line of succession, was the only one which had more than two people running. Karl Bernhardsen, Jenna Goldin, and Randal Meyer contested for the position, and a tight race was expected by many. All three campaigned hard on the election days, with promises centering around what would be done with the Student Group Council, and better training for student group leaders. Bernhardsen set up a presence on the spine, complete with a poster sized printing of his campaign promises set up for people to read as they headed to the New Union. Goldin and Meyer stuck to the established tradition of handing out quartersheets (or eighth-sheets in Goldin’s case) to try and win votes. In the end, the race was much more of a landslide than anyone would have predicted, as Goldin won with 55% of the vote. Meyer came in second with 25% of the votes and Bernhardsen third with 18%. Like Kirschenbaum, Goldin won every community on campus.

The position of Vice President for Finance saw two candidates, Philip Calderon and Review Editor-in-Chief Adam Shamah. Debate for the position focused again on the future of the blue buses and OCCT, and the financial feasibility of its continued existence. Also up for discussion was the amount of freedom student groups should have when it comes to what they can purchase with money allocated to them by the SA. Both candidates were seen as qualified for the position, and both campaigned vigorously, so it is not a surprise that this was the closest race out of the six.

When the votes were totaled though, it was Adam Shamah who was victorious, claiming just under 55% of the total vote, while Calderon took home 42% of the vote.

Shamah won every community except for Hinman, but five of the eight community vote totals between the two candidates were separated by less than twenty votes.

The other three positions, Vice President for Academic Affairs, Vice

President for Programming, and Vice President for Multicultural Affairs were each run with only one official candidate.

Two incumbents, Daniel Rabinowitz and Aaron Cohn, ran again for VPAA and VPP respectively, while SA Treasurer Edmund Mays ran for VPMA. Rabinowitz and Cohn had been lauded by many organizations on campus for their work during this year, and the vote totals reflected this, as Rabinowitz gained 95% of votes and Cohn 96%. The VPMA race had slightly more contention, as a write-in campaign was organized by Jacqueline Tello, an executive board member of the university’s Amnesty International chapter and Newing College Council. The question over the leadership of the Inter-Cultural Awareness committee was on both Mays’ and Tello’s platforms, as was the promise of the creation of a Diversity Week of events on campus for the coming year. Mays won the election with a little over 88% of the total votes, with Tello coming in a distant second with a little under 6%.

The other decision students had to make was with regard to the Student Activity fee.

The Activity fee is the charge set by the SA that all students pay each semester in order to fund student groups, SA businesses such as OCCT, and the SA Programming Board, which brings speakers and concerts to campus. The Student Assembly had passed a resolution calling for the

vote to be whether or not student groups still wanted the fee to be mandatory, whether they wanted it to be raised from $86.50 to $92.50, and whether they wanted to pass constitutional amendments allocation specific amounts to OCCT and the Programming Board. Each of these referendum passed with over 80% approval.

A number of other constitutional changes were up for consideration as well, including changes to the function of the VPMA position, and the type of committees run by the student assembly, and these passed with 90% approval.

On a side note, kudos must be given to the unsung heroes, the Student Assembly Elections Committee and its chair Karen Galan. The fact that two days of elections managed to go off without a hitch is truly an accomplishment, and almost all credit for it should go to the Elections Committee. They should also be commended for running their own campaign to get people out to the polls, and the fact that nearly the same amount of students voted this year as did last year with a fraction of the candidates running is truly a testament to their work.

Finally, I must say thank you to all the candidates who participated in the elections , and wish good luck to next year’s Executive Board. Hopefully they can work together to regain any standing our university may have lost this year in the public perception, and continue to work towards a better experience for students at Binghamton University.B

Review Editor-in-Chief and Vice President for Finance-elect Adam Shamah takes a rest after a long day campaigning.

Elahd Bar-Shai

www.binghamtonreview.com

11

DEFLEUR

Twenty Years of Lois

A Look at the Past, Present, and Future of Binghamton University

by Michael Lombardi

I

n January, Binghamton University President Lois B. DeFleur announced she will retire from her post in July of this year.

Although this might not mean much to the average Binghamton student, it is an event of great significance to our school. Having been in office since 1990, President DeFleur is the longest-serving President in the history of our university. During her tenure, significant changes (both good and bad) have come to our esteemed school. I am here to offer an objective opinion on these events and to give my sentiments on what BU should seek in its next president.

In her twenty-year term, President DeFleur has been responsible for a tremendous amount of change at this school. Some of her greatest accomplishments include overseeing the construction of the Events Center, the Mountainview Community, the Downtown Center, the new Newing and Dickinson Communities, the reconstruction of the old union, and the expansion of the Information Technologies Complex. Binghamton made the transition to NCAA Division I athletics with DeFleur at the helm. Our school has also moved up significantly in the nationwide rankings during President DeFleur’s term. We have been named several times as the “premier public university in the Northeast” by Kiplinger’s. An example that I have personally watched is my own School of Management. S.O.M. has experienced a meteoric rise in the national rankings, and now it currently sits in 35th position on the list of best business schools in the country according to Business Week magazine. S.O.M. was not even a member of the top 100 a few years ago. President DeFleur has also significantly grown our university endowment and has been extremely successful at securing fundraising for BU.

12

Binghamton Review

However, there have been a few important black marks on President DeFleur’s seemingly stellar duration in office. The most recent is one which should be well known to the majority of the student body: the train wreck in motion known as the men’s basketball team. Although it will probably never be known for certain if President DeFleur had full knowledge of the various scandals and cover-ups surrounding the team, is it coincidental that she announced her retirement at the height of the investigation into

the scandal? It cannot be known what exactly the president knew regarding the issues surrounding the team, but they will forever mar Lois DeFleur’s record. Her successor and the other members of the administration must work to ensure that our schools academic and ethical standards will never be compromised in this way again.

This aside, there is one further critique I have of the President which the university should take

into account during its search for a replacement: the issue is one of visibility. In the end, running a University is quite similar to running a business, and a college president, just like a CEO, needs to be the face of the organization.

President DeFleur always preferred being behind the scenes, and was rarely ever present at university events, aside from commencement and basketball games. Having a president who is involved in university affairs and events helps create a sense of unity between the student body and administration. Staying behind, out of sight creates an impression of the Couper Building as an ivory tower, with the president having little to no care for the students. The bottom line is, for a college president, image is everything.

Another issue which should be of vital importance to our next president is continuing the growth of our University’s endowment. Compared to many other schools of our size, our current endowment, which stands at around ninety million dollars, is extremely small.

The new president should work hard on creating an active network of alumni, something our school sorely lacks. By utilizing this network for donations and allowing graduates to give back to the University, everyone wins. If the reputation and well being of a school improves, the values of graduates’ degrees will continue to rise.

To reiterate, running a college is comparable to running a large corporation. Our product is education.

This is a valuable product. What is needed now is a president who will bring our product to the national stage by establishing a strong, visible image of the school in the eyes of prospective students, current students, alumni, and outsiders. I have great hope for our school as we enter the eighth decade of its existence, and I hope our new president will continue upon the path down which Lois DeFleur has set us.B MARCH 2010

HEALTHCARE

Game

Over

Democrats Pass Healthcare in the House of Representatives

by John Jensen ‘09

O

n early Monday morning, change came to America. It came with much pomp and circumstance, with thunderous applause, and with unprecedented haste. In the midst of the greatest economic instability of our time, by slide of hand, by smoke and mirrors - amid twisted arms and back room deals - the Democratic majority fundamentally restructured one-sixth of the American economy.

Yesterday, all Americans could choose to have healthcare and yesterday the “prochoice” Democratic majority took that right to choose away.

In a whirlwind parliamentary experiment, and with the blessing of the chair of the House Rules Committee, Louise Slaughter (D-NY), the Democrats, in the span of less than four days, made public a mammoth bill, held “meaningful debate”, and blocked every attempt by Republicans to be heard. Republicans were denied even ten seconds to clarify a procedural question at one point Sunday afternoon. Late Sunday evening, by a slim majority of 219-212, the Democrats passed their healthcare bill. The bill, which passed without a single Republican “yay” vote, was also opposed by more than thirty Democrats for various reasons.

Notable among the late supporters of the bill were the so called conservative “blue dog” Democrats led by Michigan Congressman Bart Stupak. Stupak for months promised he would never support a bill with language that expressly provided for federal funding of abortions. Sunday afternoon, Stupak suddenly, and without having that exact language stricken from the bill, changed his stance to support the measure based

www.binghamtonreview.com

on a promise by the President to issue an executive order to “clarify” what the bill says about Federal abortion funding. Thanks to these formerly prolife Democrats from largely Republicanleaning districts, the Senate language, including federal funding for abortions, narrowly passed into law pending the promised approval by the President.

There can be little doubt that the American healthcare system that existed on Friday was the best in the world.

There can be little certainty as to what the future will hold for American healthcare.

However, if we believe the eloquent and ominous warnings of House Minority Leader John Boehner, whether the bill helps the few at the expense of the many or helps no one at all, the reality is things will change, things have changed, and this change may very well be for the worse. We must now have healthcare, whether we want it or not, under penalty of substantial fines.

Though the President has issued a promise to “clarify” and prevent the use of Federal funding for abortions through an executive order, unlike legislation, the order can be changed by the White House at any time for any reason, and does not have the power to supersede the intent of an act of Congress. To quote article one, section one of the Constitution, “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in the Congress of the United States.” It is unclear how a court might rule on the constitutionality of the executive order which will directly contradict the express language buried deep within the bill. But, there is a strong chance that if Pro-Choice activists raise a constitutional issue, the order could be deemed unconstitutional and would

be stricken down, allowing for Federally funded abortion. The Supreme Court has quashed other such executive orders in the past on similar grounds.

But all is not lost for the Republican and pro-life opponents of the bill.

Though the actions of the Democratic Party this week may classify as somewhat undemocratic, America is still a democracy, and 2010 is still an election year. Many in Washington and around the nation are predicting a clean sweep for the Republicans this fall in midterm elections after the passage of the hugely unpopular healthcare bill. Many of the Democrats, who sided with the more liberal elements of the Democratic Party hail from heavily Republican leaning districts, swept into office on the blue tidal swells of 2006 and 2008. Many were elected promising to stay true to their pro-life constituents and to strike down any bill which would increase abortions in the United States. After voting in support of the Healthcare Reform Bill, these “Blue Dogs” can, according to the remarks of Boehner and others, no longer call themselves prolife. Based upon the massive price tag of the bill and the drastic expansion of government to oversee one sixth of the economy, they can no longer purport to be conservative either. Perhaps, as one Democratic house member put it, the Democratic Party is “seriously deluding itself.” Perhaps, in November 2010, change will come to America.B John Jensen is a law student, proud Binghamton Review Alumni, and former Chairman of the Binghamton University College Republicans. He remains actively involved with the GOP. 13

GEARS

PAUL LIGGIERI

Grinds His Gears

The Return: Back by Popular Demand

I

t’s good to be back, and only after numerous requests, the “Grinds My Gears” column has returned to speak the truth in a university that frowns upon what is not politically correct, or adherent to the opinions of those in power. I recently graduated from Binghamton University, and I am currently working in the legal and political realm as a consultant. In time, I hope to earn a law degree and run for office. But in the meantime, I figured I might as well put together another article for the beloved Binghamton Review.

My first gear grind comes from the other articles I’ve read in other campus publications that try to duplicate the “Grinds My Gears” opinion piece. Some of these morons have even gone so far as to write about me in their articles.

I suppose that I should say that I’m flattered, but in truth, these articles give a bad name to “Grinds My Gears,” because they focus on issues that no one at Binghamton University cares about. They’re written in a dry tone, with no flair or personality given to any issue. These copycats need to get in line and realize that there is only one “Grinds My Gears,” and that all the rest are simply cheap imitations.

So, you know what really grinds my gears, Binghamton? The Olive Garden! Supposedly, “when you’re there, you’re family.” But that’s bullshit. I can’t stand their commercials which frame the restaurant as having all-authentic, 14

Binghamton Review

Italian cuisine. In truth, the place is for three kinds of people: those who are not Italian, people who wish they were Italian, and the Wonder Bread Italians who eat sauce from a Ragu jar.

Furthermore, not every Italian-American is as stereotypical as the commercials make them out to be (Jersey Shore cast notwithstanding).

The next grind of my gears occurred to me a while ago, but I could never write about; my positions on the Inter-Fraternity Council and as a representative on the fraternity/sorority leadership board kept me from speaking my mind. Now, however, I’m free to speak, and I’ve got news for you, Binghamton students: professional organizations are not fraternities!

These pre-law, pre-med, pre-music, preejaculation organizations do not qualify as fraternities; they are to fraternities what Doctor Seuss is to real doctors. This, of course, is not based on any substantiated evidence, but rather on the common definition of a fraternity as a social organization: dedicated to social events, giving back to the community, and creating a sense of brotherhood. Usually, there are no sisters allowed into a fraternity (because then we would call them sororities). Conversely, the professional organizations let everyone in, simply copy a pledge process derived from social fraternities, throw on some Greek letters, and than try to function as a “fraternity.” I would like to advise all the freshman and sophomores

who are considering Greek life to steer away from these organizations if what they are seeking is an actual fraternity or sorority. If writing legal memos until seven in the morning is your sort of thing, then by all means join the pre-law organization; but please, don’t call it the pre-law fraternity.

Rather than spending my final paragraphs explaining to you what grinds my gears, I want to help you by telling you, as an alumnus, which professors at Binghamton will help you broaden your mind, incite creativity, and help you to be innovative. A lot of professors play by the book, formulating lesson plans and rambling on with mindless chatter, all while taking little time out to actually see if their students are learning. I suppose the school system was built for mindless ramblers, but I have found that there are a few professors who made every day enjoyable, and have helped guide me in a direction toward personal, social, and economic prosperity.

Professor Jeffrey Yates of the Political Science department is perhaps one of the most creative teachers I ever took. With a soft voice but high expectations, he asks his students to produce on an unprecedented level. He prescribes a lot of reading, and his exams are not easy, but this is the only professor who gave exams from which I actually learned. Each of them presents real fact patterns that an attorney might face, and he challenges you to write as an attorney would.

MARCH 2010

Binghamton Review We already control campus.

SOON, IT WILL BE THE WORLD.

JOIN US BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE Meetings every Thursday at 7:30 p.m.

New Union Basement UUWB05 Email editor@binghamtonreview.com for info His lectures are entertaining, and his extra credit assignments are perhaps the most creative coursework I have ever completed. He helps his students to understand that not everything comes in a form of black and white, and that judges and lawyers produce decisions based on criteria one might never expect. It doesn’t hurt to know that Professor Yates was also a well respected attorney.

Speaking of attorneys, Professor Anna Gotlib of the Philosophy department is without a doubt one of the best professors on our campus. It is within her classroom that I was taught to think, as they say, “outside the box.”

Her seminars inspire students to learn from each other, and to open their minds to new ideas www.binghamtonreview.com

that perhaps they never encountered. She is a testament to what it means to be a great professor and she is the primary reason why I pursued a career in the legal realm. She understands her students and brings an exorbitant amount of knowledge to each subject.

I would also like to shout out Professor John Mcnulty who makes it fun to learn about politics, Professor William Heller who is all business but a great educator, and Professor Olga Shvetzova who taught me all about Russia; it was only through her that I was able to see the striking similarities between President Obama and former Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin.

As an alumnus, I can guarantee you that the real world is tough. But, as I always say, I

wasn’t born with a silver spoon in my mouth.

I simply learned how to take the one from the kid next to me. It took me three months to land a lobbying job, and even now I only plan on doing it for one year before heading to law school. Be aggressive, accept all challenges, and involve yourself in numerous activities.

Understand that Binghamton University is a bubble outside of reality. The jobs market is tough, but if you aren’t afraid to express what grinds your gears, than you’ll be bound for success.

And O, yeah, S.O.M.: you guys will always grind my gears. Enjoy your fancy suits and briefcases while they last, because in this economy, it won’t be for long. B 15

WAR ON TERROR

War, What is it Good For?

The Success of American Counterinsurgency in Afghanistan and Iraq

by Joseph Aguiar

T

he United States’ original plan for Afghanistan back in 2001 was to form a coalition consisting of NATO allies and the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance that would present the de facto Taliban government in Kabul with a choice: either remove the terrorist sanctuary it provided to Al Qaeda— which would presumably lead to the surrender of Bin Laden—or face the prospect of invasion and the subsequent removal of the Taliban from power.

The Taliban chose to call the United States’ bluff and were quickly driven into insurgent exile. Thus, what was supposed to be a brief operation whose sole purpose was to capture Bin Laden and strike back at Al Qaeda for an attack on American soil evolved into a conflict against the Taliban, a violent, repressive, medieval regime in its own right, but a group with no ambitions of waging war against the West. Since that time,

exist prior to 9/11 (this comes in the form of people who are indifferent to the notion of a world governed

by Sharia law but feel oppressed by the NATO presence in Afghanistan because they view it as a form of foreign occupation).

Yet in recent weeks, morale has been high for coalition forces.

“Operation Moshtarak” (together in Dari), begun on February 13, has largely been a success, driving Taliban insurgents out of the village of Marja in Helmand province, and securing an area of the country that has long been a Taliban stronghold.

Elements of the Afghan National Army have played a key role in Operation Moshtarak and the mission in Afghanistan as a whole has morphed into a traditional counterinsurgency campaign.

Rather than searching out and killing enemy forces and destroying their territory—the traditional application of conventional forces—

“Don’t get involved in counterinsurgencies. They take a really, really long time, cost a lot of money, and are usually not worth it in the end.” the campaign has morphed into a nation-building counterinsurgency that the United States had no intention of participating in at the time of the invasion and has created enemies in Afghanistan that did not 16

Binghamton Review

NATO forces are engaging with the people. They are seeking to establish a sense of community rapport by establishing security and winning over the support of the population.

Indeed, winning over the population

is the sole end of any force engaged in an insurgent conflict.

Accordingly, ever since 2007 with the success of the so-called “surge” orchestrated by General David Petraeus, this model of warfare—counterinsurgency—has become a household term. After years of our forces treading water, this doctrine first emerged as a kind of salvation for a war in Iraq that seemed lost and now has become the preferred course of action in Afghanistan headed by its own counterinsurgency expert, General Stanley McChrystal. Iraq was radically turned around to the point where it no longer seems to matter to the mainstream media and now hope springs in Afghanistan.

But we should hesitate to think we have turned a corner. What is more likely is that we have learned a lesson: don’t get involved in counterinsurgencies. They take a really, really long time, cost a lot of money, and are usually not worth it in the end.

Our problem, then, always comes back to what the true goals of the war in Afghanistan are. We went there in search of Osama Bin Laden and to bring Al Qaeda to justice for an act of aggression against the United States. When it became clear that that was not going to happen immediately, we found ourselves stuck and morphed the campaign into a large-scale nation building project. We found ourselves in the midst of a protracted conflict that MARCH 2010

United States Army

we had no intentions of starting.

Terms like “stay the course” entered our vocabulary, and while some called for an end to the war, when you break something you have bought it.

The early successes of Operation Moshtarak, while providing momentum to United States forces as President Obama increases the troop numbers on the ground, need to be taken with a grain of salt because while individual cases like Marja inspire optimism, the country and the war as a whole do not. In the scope of the so-called “War on Terror,” this single village in Helmand province will not make or break the conflict as a whole.

Even if the United States and its NATO allies could somehow establish a fully-functional, legitimate and accountable antiTaliban government in Kabul, Al www.binghamtonreview.com

Qaeda and those who wish to wage war on the West will still be able to find sanctuary. In fact, the Taliban are no longer the only insurgent group fighting the Americans (the Haqqani Network and Hezb-eIslami Gulbuddin have emerged as formidable insurgent forces) and they are no longer even headquartered in Afghanistan, but in Quetta, Pakistan in the ungoverned Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), a region between Afghanistan and Pakistan that makes the Wild West frontier seem civilized and tame. No government has ever controlled this region, and America will not be the first.

So, while the original campaign’s goal circa October 2001 was to quickly whip Al Qaeda, the Afghanistan war has evolved into a multilateral insurgency where rival groups who compete amongst each

other for regional influence, unite in opposition to the Americans. If 95% of the population could be persuaded to resist the Taliban, accepting a pro-American government in Kabul, the irreconcilable 5% could still carry on their jihad. As on September 11th, it only takes a dozen or so individuals to strike with boldness and effectiveness.

Thus, despite the successes of counterinsurgency since 2007, there will always be a fraction of irreconcilable crazies in Afghanistan and elsewhere (Yemen, Somalia, and the Maghreb come to mind) that will continue to wage war on the West.

The United States military, for all its technological sophistication visà-vis insurgent groups, and despite its adaptation to a different kind of war in recent years, did not defeat Al Qaeda in 2001, and it is no closer in 2010. B 17

DEMOCRATS

Washington Isn’t Broken

The Democrats’ Attack Against Democracy

by Alex Filiaci

C

itizens in Washington have written and spoken out recently that their city and our federal government is “broken.” Gridlock in the senate prevents the liberal congressional agenda from passing, so something must be wrong. The American public is frustrated according to polls, so we should blow it up and change the rules.

Vice President Biden spoke on the CBS “Early Show” on February 17, saying “Washington, right now, is broken.”

Newsweek titled an article “America the Ungovernable,” and blamed congressional Republicans and Democrats, and, get this… the American people! Speaking about a “cruel healthcare system,” and “an unsustainable deficit,” Johnathan Chait wrote in The New Republic, “I don't see how any of these problems can be solved or even significantly ameliorated under the present setup. That's my definition of ungovernable.” When Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana resigned in February, he claimed that “the system is broken.”

So you mean to tell me, because we have a faction in our national legislature opposed to an ideological bill, working within the rules of the Senate and our Constitution, our federal system is broken?

I’m not so certain about that. Further, Newsweek has it completely wrong when it blames the American people for the failure of a president to sell his agenda. Newsweek, turn it around and blame Obama! The government is supposed to work for the American people, not in spite of them.

In a republic, which happens to be the system of government used by The United States of America, the rights of minorities are protected against the mob rule of the democratic majority. So whether it be the richest one percent, the poorest one percent, African-Americans, or homosexuals, the majority cannot strip them of their basic 18

Binghamton Review

constitutional rights. The rules of our Senate are designed to reflect that idea.

Filibusters allow the minority party to extend debate on a bill indefinitely, effectively making it so that a vote is never held. Only fifty-one senators are required to pass any bill or rule changes, but rule changes can also be filibustered, effectively making sixty votes necessary for any rule change (such as removing the right to debate for unlimited time).

The Republican Party is working within the scheme of our Constitution which states, “Each House (of Congress) may determine the Rules of its Proceedings.” America’s federal system is not broken when a minority party maintains the right to block legislation.

I would accept the premise that the American system is broken if 51 percent of Americans banded together and physically expelled the president, each member of the Supreme Court, and all members of congress and named one of their own Supreme Leader. That is a broken American system.

Using the Constitution of the United States to block legislation that will increase our already unfathomable debt is precisely what the American public should love about our completely functional system.

No, reforms do not always come speedily.

But we cannot forget that our legislature is built on compromise, not ideology. When members of congress cross the aisle and work in a bipartisan fashion, legislation is more likely to be sustainable, as it will come from the middle, and not from either extreme.

So America, don’t listen to the Democrat’s “ungovernable” and “broken” rhetoric.

Demand that your majority party work within the Constitution, just as the Republicans are doing. Each party has an agenda. Right now, the Republicans are the only one accomplishing theirs. If you want healthcare reform, blame the Democrats that it hasn’t come yet, not the system.B MARCH 2010

FIRST AMENDMENT

Hello, Goodbye.

Supreme Court to Review Student Group Discrimination Policy

by Adam Shamah

I

t is not every day that the United States Supreme Court hears a case thats outcome might affect the everyday workings of our Student Association, let alone one which might have profound implications on student groups’ first amendment rights.

Next month, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments for Christian Legal Society v. Martinez et al., a case that challenges a Ninth Circuit Court’s ruling which upheld a “nondiscrimination” policy that requires student groups to “accept all comers as voting members even if those individuals disagree with the mission of the group” (emphasis added).

Even when disguised as a benevolent “nondiscrimination” policy, demanding that student groups accept those opposed to the group’s mission as a requirement for campus recognition may infringe on the First Amendment rights public universities are obliged to uphold. As the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) points out, “if student organizations cannot require that their leaders and voting members actually share the group’s viewpoints, freedom of association will be stripped of all meaning.” Such policies prevent

groups “from adhering to the very principles that are the reason for [their] existence when making decisions on leadership, voting membership, and— because the group’s statements come from its leaders and members—[their] message.”

The upcoming ruling by the Supreme Court could thus have major implications for student groups on campus, particularly those with minority viewpoints.

According to FIRE, the case began when Hastings Law School refused to recognize the Christian Legal Society as a registered student group. The school based its decision upon “the fact that while all students may attend and participate in CLS meetings and activities, including dinners and prayer services, CLS requires its voting members and group leaders to sign a “Statement of Faith,” which asked would-be members to assert their belief in a particular religious worldview.”

Included in the Statement of Faith was a clause that required voting members to subscribe to “biblical principles of sexual morality,” which CLS explains: a “person who advocates or unrepentantly engages in sexual conduct outside of marriage between a man and a woman is not considered to be living consistently with the Statement of Faith, and, therefore, is not eligible for leadership or voting membership. A person’s mere experience of same-sex or

“This will leave any student group formed around an unpopular viewpoint vulnerable to takeover...by those students who fundamentally disagree with the group’s mission.” www.binghamtonreview.com

19

FIRST AMENDMENT

opposite-sex sexual attraction does not determine his or her eligibility for leadership or voting membership.”

FIRE explains that because “CLS believes that effectively expressing the group’s view on homosexuality (or adultery, or premarital sex) requires those students who do engage in this conduct to be repentant about their actions, per CLS’s religious beliefs…CLS isn’t discriminating on a student’s immutable status, but rather…CLS is ‘discriminating’ based on a student’s changeable beliefs and conduct. In a nutshell, CLS asks that its membership and leadership be comprised of students who actually believe in the group’s core tenets, in the same way that the College Democrats want their membership and leadership to be Democrats.”

Hastings’ policy also opens up groups with minority viewpoints to takeover. “Expressive organizations must be permitted to make beliefbased choices when choosing their leaders and voting members,” reads FIRE’s amicus curiae, “…denying belief-based groups their right to limit voting membership and leadership to those who agree with the organization’s purpose will leave any student group formed around an unpopular viewpoint vulnerable to takeover and even dissolution by

those students who fundamentally disagree with the group’s views and mission.”

FIRE goes on to describe their experiences with challenges to student group membership policies. These challenges often come from students who disagree with the group’s core tenants, not someone seeking in good faith to join the group. Take for example an incident at Central Michigan University. Students who believed the school’s chapter of Young America’s for Freedom to be a “hate group” tried to obtain voting rights to dissolve the organization.

When YAF objected, they were told by university administrators that they “may not require members to be likeminded.” This left YAF powerless to control its own message.

“Depriving belief-based student organizations of equal rights of speech and association simply because those organizations choose to govern themselves according to distinct ideological principles…relegates groups seeking to organize around unpopular or minority viewpoints to an unconstitutional second-class status on campus,” says FIRE. The courts have ruled repeatedly that students at public universities “enjoy the full protection of the First Amendment,” and FIRE explains that

the Supreme Court “has repeatedly recognized the First Amendment implicitly guarantees citizens the right to join together their voices and associate with those of like mind…”

Thus, for the many reasons mentioned above, it appears that Hastings’ nondiscrimination policy, and similar policies at other public universities, are unconstitutional.

The Ninth Circuit’s ruling directly contradicts a previous ruling by the Seventh Circuit in Christian Legal Society v. Walker, where the court ruled that student groups may exclude from their leadership students who disagree with the mission of the group. Student group leaders may be familiar with this decision; it is the basis for the nondiscrimination policy by which the Student Association requires student groups to abide. If the Supreme Court uphold the Ninth Circuit’s ruling, our non-discrimination policy will by effect be void, and student groups will be forced to allow any student— even those who do not agree with the mission or core tenets of their group—to vote, assume leadership positions, and control the message of their groups.

Oral arguments will be heard before the Supreme Court on April 19.

Stay tuned for updates. B

You’ll Get Your Degree from Binghamton University...

But your education from Binghamton review.

YOU’RE WELCOME.

20

Binghamton Review

MARCH 2010

DAYLIGHT SAVING

Spring Forward... ...and Never Look Back

by Yadin Herzel

S

ince 1918, the United States government has mandated that we “spring forward and fall back.” Through less-than-clever public service announcements such as “You can’t stop time… But you can turn it back one hour at 2 a.m. on Oct. 28,” our politicians have effectively assumed control over something as fundamental as time.

Many of us don’t really give the biannual changing of our clocks a second thought, especially given the increasing preponderance of self-adjusting clocks. But is perpetuating a nuisance of a tradition such as daylight saving time (DST) really in our best interests? A growing number of people don’t think so, and not just out of laziness.

The typical impasse to “time reform,” and finally doing away the inconvenience of changing our clocks, is that proponents of DST present valid arguments as to why DST should be observed. Rather than facing the facts, however, opponents of DST either ignore, or erroneously refute, the numerous benefits that DST does, in fact, offer.

Maybe the confusion of changing our clocks has gotten the better of us, but there seems to be a rather obvious, and seemingly perfect, solution to the DST debate. Our current observance of DST should be phased out in favor of a year-round DST mandate. Under such a system, we would reap the benefits of DST without the hassle.

DST, in and of itself, is purely advantageous. In terms of energy use, consumption is slightly lower due to the “later” time of sunset.

Its economic effects are positive in that more industries than not enjoy increased revenues due to the “longer” days. Public safety is also benefited by “more” hours of sunlight, especially on the roads.

Arguably most importantly, in addition to everything else, DST is good for our health. The increase in afternoon sunlight hours encourages outdoor activity and exercise. It gets us students off of State Street and into the Nature Preserve. Also, increased exposure to sunlight greatly benefits our mental health and wellbeing.

Opponents of DST mainly argue that DST is largely an inconvenience, that there are associated economic switching costs, and that its effects on one’s circadian rhythm can be severe and long lasting. While all of these undesirable effects are true, the attributed cause is not. DST is not the culprit; the associated act of changing our clocks is.

If the government is actually so audacious as to regulate our time, shouldn’t they at least do so in a convenient way that benefits us? Yes. If DST is beneficial enough to justify the switching costs every year, isn’t it at least good enough to use year round? Yes. Hopefully the day will come when we “spring forward and never look back.”B

www.binghamtonreview.com

21

PARTISANSHIP

Dissent of a Citizen

by Taylor Arluck

I

t is argued by many that the country that we all know and love, regardless of political affiliation, is torn in twine, irreconcilable and doomed to vociferous partisanship.

The argument goes that this tear has existed since the days of Nixon and McGovern and that there remains since a canker at the very heart of America. This scourge is threatening to hemorrhage the intellectual class in this great nation, drowning out all reason and leaving chaos and bitterness in its wake. As victims of the 24 hour news cycle, we citizens are bombarded with partisan opinions from all walks of life ranging from the towers of television to the trivia of twitter.

These opinions and those who feel it necessary to opine them have done this republic a great disservice.

Seeking to expand their viewership at the expense of the stability of our great polity is disingenuous at best and unpatriotic at worst.

Though I may call myself a conservative I do not associate with many of those who claim to be such.

The fact that many will immediately judge me based on such a label are doing nothing but playing into the very hands of those that seek to divide us. Who are these insidious partisan figures you might ask? You see them on your television, hear them on your radio, read them in your papers and elect them to your civil offices. These individuals contribute nothing of value to society despite what their ratings, machines and polling data suggest.

They believe that they can label us by color rather than nationality,

22

Binghamton Review

making their machinations and schemes all the easier to accomplish upon our fracturing.

These demagogues (on both ends of the political spectrum) invest their very souls into demonizing their polar opposites leaving those in between without opportunity of rebuttal. Devoid of speech in equal magnitude and scope we are victims of our own political game, a game that self-perpetuates on the fears and prejudices we accuse one another of having. The real tragedy is that these partisans and their marginal audiences alienate the very citizens that are able to end their rants of madness. That is why those with the biggest ideas must reclaim their rightful place in the public sphere over those with the biggest microphones. I feel that

the very fate of our republic is at stake given the stark increase of hyperbolic and vitriolic language in this increasingly cynical land we share.

Considering such let me be one to extend a welcome and open invitation to the loyal opposition of my political ideology. For those who cherish the tenets of civil debate and cognitive dissonance I urge you to join me and others like us in the struggle against the fringe of this country. I have no office to gain or cross to bear, only a vision to see and promise to keep. I know that I am not alone in my conviction, and deep down, so do you. In this great country of ours let us remember that we carry the standard of reason, and with it we shall conquer the passions that seek to despoil it. B

MARCH 2010

FILLERS

We’re still looking for writers...

Interested? Email editor@binghamtonreview.com.

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 © 1987-2010 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

www.binghamtonreview.com

23

The Most $100k+ Jobs Welcome to TheLadder.com! Here is the job you’re interested in.

University President Hiring Company: Binghamton University Number of Employees: 1,000 - 10,000 Employees Total Compensation: $375K Reports to: No one Location: Close to students... but not too close

Pre-Screening Questionnaire 1) How likely are you to be seen on campus?

As often as the sun shines in Binghamton

As often as Pipe Dream comes out with a shitty issue

2) How many free speech debacles are you willing to sit through without taking action?

None

CENSORED

3) How far would you go for your university’s athletics program?

D3 is Fine With Me

4) How sexy do you find Baxter the Bearcat?

To Denver