November 2009 - Binghamton Review

Truth and Two Staples

NOVEMBER 2009

Binghamton Review

Prohibition Is Back!

Scandal ensues after students drink beer

INSIDE: The Fed CLIMATE Week Bellwether elections Student Activity Fee

Binghamton Review

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

Founded 1987 • Volume XXIII Number 3 • NOVEMBER 2009 Editor-in-Chief Adam Shamah Managing Editor Randal Meyer

Contents

Associate Editors Edmund Mays Rachel Gordon Elahd Bar-Shai

Departments

Copy Desk Chief Yadin Herzel

5 SATIRE

3 EDITORIAL 4 PRESSWATCH

Copy Editors Lawrence Faulstich Stephen Herman William Obilisundar Brian Curatolo

8

Layout Editor Elahd Bar-Shai

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

6

11 12

SUNY SA by Elahd Bar-Shai The inside story

The Financiers by Rod Alzmann Eliminating the Financial Council SWINE FLU HYSTERIA by Gabrielle Pontillo

ECO SOCIALISTS DEMAND CHANGE by Ethan Day A look at viable clean energy technologies

Proper Precautions by Joseph Aguiar The economic impact of being green

THE CRUCIBLE by Taylor Arluck The fed’s evolving philosophy

attack of the white house by Alex Paolano Obama’s war with Fox News

TWO STATES SET THE STAGE by H.L. A look at this year’s bellwether elections

Commentary on the UN and Israel

GEAR GRINDING by Paul Liggieri Pauly grinds his gears

TIRADE by The Editors Our farewell letter to Prospect

14

16 17

18

20 Galvanizing over goldstone by Aaron Sebag 21

23

EDITORIAL

Support CSA Carnival (Really) F

rom either the articles in Pipe Dream or the protest that occurred on campus last week, many of you have heard about the cancelation of the Caribbean Student Association’s annual Carnival. We’re here to support them.

Binghamton Review siding with a cultural group! No way!

But yes, when they’re right, they’re right. The administration has acted hastily and unreasonably in its cancelation of the thirty-two year old event.

To be sure, the carnival could not continue without reform. The university is correct in stating that the ‘night show’ portion of the event in years past has become a safety issue that the university and local community do not have the resources to deal with. The university’s report details a list of past incidents that includes everything from shots fired to a so called “gypsy operation,” in which a convenience store was robbed by a flash mob. UPD, Harper’s Ferry, and local police do not have the manpower to fully deal with the night show and its after-parties (though the after-parties are not sponsored by CSA) without significantly reducing their presence elsewhere. Nearly all hotels in the area have reported problems with overnight guests. Vestal police refuse to work the event, even if paid extra.

The university set up an ad-hoc committee to investigate the event to determine what its future would be. Two days before the end of the spring semester last year, the committee issued a report with recommendations that included putting the night show portion on indefinite hiatus. The day portion of the carnival would have to end by 5:30 PM. This September, CSA responded with a counterproposal that included a much shortened version of the night show,

one which would end by 9:30 PM. They also addressed several other issues brought up by the administration. For example, they promised to significantly reduce the number of tickets available to non-BU students to attend to the university’s concern that too many people non-students had been coming to the event.

A response from Vice President for Student Affairs Brian Rose read, in part, “The University will not reconsider the criteria set forth previously. Given that your proposal is not consistent with those criteria in the respects noted above, we cannot accept it.” This is just unreasonable. The CSA offered the University a compromise, which the University barely gave the time of day.

This being said, CSA could have done a better job responding to the university’s rejection. Instead of a rally with signs deeming the university “racist,” and classifying the administration’s actions as an attack on diversity, CSA should have made clear to the public how their proposal addressed each of the university’s concerns. They should articulate how the removal of the intermission between the day and night show (one of the aspects of their counterproposal) would address the alcohol concerns of the administration. Or how the reduction in the number of non-BU tickets and an added requirement to show a student-ID at the door would address the concern that too many non-students endanger the safety of the campus.

This is an issue of student group rights. Calling the university “racist” is not going to get you anywhere. Fight back with the kind of reason and logic that the University so obviously lacks.

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 Pipe Dream

October 12, 2009 “Something Needs to Change” Having covered the recent basketball scandal for close to two weeks, we’d think that the writers and editors at Pipe Dream would be able to provide B.U. students with a unique perspective on the issue. Instead, when writing about B.U.’s internal investigation into the matter, they offer up this laughable line in an editorial: “An audit is well and good, but are the finances of the team, or the athletic department for that matter, really the problem?”

Our jaws dropped after reading this. We understand that not all B.U. students are in the School of Management, but it takes an especially dense individual to overlook the fact that audits are not strictly, or even implicitly, financial. Last year, Pipe Dream claimed to be the “pinnacle of campus journalism.” The statement was a stretch at the time it was made but is absolutely obscene in the context of Pipe Dream’s current state of low morale and rock-bottom journalistic standards. Keep up the good work.

Free Press

November 5th, 2009 “Sexism in the Classroom” In our last issue, BR presswatched a Free Press article titled “Sexism in the Classroom.”

The article described women as a silent majority in classes who do not participate as much as males. The author of the article replied to our critique in a manner that makes us at the Review wish that there wasn’t a typewriter between the kitchen and the bedroom: “Women…are more likely to graduate with honors…they are not given the attention that they should receive for their achievements.”

Look at the recent Student Excellence awards our University has distributed: every finalist was a woman. What additional attention is needed? Does there need to be a Pipe Dream article every time a woman raises her hand in class? (That may solve PD’s content problems.)

“Despite all their accomplishments, women still have to deal with the old fashioned notion that they should been seen and not heard.”

Who is making women seen and not heard in class? The issue is that women aren't raising their hands. If a woman wants to be seen, as well as heard, then she should raise a hand when a question is asked. It is not like there is a sign in every lecture hall saying "Women can't answer questions because they don't have dicks." This author, however, is beyond a doubt better off seen and not heard.

4

Binghamton Review

TUNNEL VISION The vanishing Asian in Asian culture magazines How Asian Outlook’s editorial board fulfills its mission statement

0 Number of editorials on Asian culture

2 Number of editorials on Binghamton Review and homophobia

NOVEMBER 2009

SATIRE

CSA Carnival Canceled, Purim Carnival Next

S

everal months after shocking the campus by putting the annual CSA Carnival on “indefinite hiatus,” citing security concerns, the Binghamton University administration has set its sights on another cultural staple: the annual Purim Carnival.

“As with the CSA event, we had become concerned with the overall safety of the campus community,” said Vice President for Student Affairs Brian Rose, “I mean, 2000 Jews in a room, just picture what could go wrong.”

The Purim Carnival has been one of the Binghamton Jewish community’s most well attended and anticipated events for decades. According to several senior administrators, the university’s concern began in 2004, when a fight broke out between two freshmen over the proper amount to tip a hotel maid.

In 2006, the situation further escalated when event staff discovered that cases of Manischewitz had been smuggled in through a back entrance.

“Jews don’t have a strong stomach for alcohol, so even low-content grape wine spells trouble,” commented a senior university administrator familiar with the matter.

The final straw occurred last year when Binghamton Review editor-inchief Adam Shamah got into a fist fight with Vice President for Multicultural Affairs Maryam Belly. “Horsing around is one thing but when a black woman beats up a little Jewish boy, somebody needs to step in,” said a source from UPD. “I mean, in a situation like that, who do you arrest? Either way the ACLU is going to be called.”

www.binghamtonreview.com

Logistics for the event has become another concern facing the Purim Carnival. “The Jews have so many enemies. That means more police, bomb sniffing dogs and metal detectors,” said a UPD spokesperson.

Also, Hillel and Chabad could not stop arguing over who would foot the bill for the added security.

Members of the Jewish community pledge to accept nothing short of the full reinstatement of their carnival.

They plan to put up a hell of a fight-not a physical fight, of course, but rather one involving lots of paperwork.

They’ve already begun to rally support. Locally, Vice President for Multicultural Affairs Ricky DaCosta will be the first line of defense. “I’ll do what I can but to be honest I don’t see many people wanting to rally behind white people. CSA is a whole different beast.”

They’ve even reached out to national organizations such as the

Anti-Defamation League.

Moshe Robertsteinberg, who heads the New York regional office, believes it is important to handle anti-semetic situations as quickly and as swiftly as possible. “If Jews are being oppressed at a public school in New York, what does that say about our chances in the Middle East?”

The university has maintained that, as with the CSA Carnival, their decision to cancel the Purim Carnival has nothing to do with race. “We don’t like students. But ‘student’ is not a race,” said university spokeswoman Gail Grover.

Despite the uphill battle, the campus Jewish community has pledged to one day hold their annual carnival again. An anonymous Jewish student offered some uplifting words: “Together as a community we will strive on. If we can get through the closing of the 2nd Avenue Deli, we can get through this.” ◄

5

ACTIVITY FEE

ROD ALZMANN

The Financiers Vouchers can obviate our Financial Council, the group of ten students who independently allocate the Student Association’s $2 million annual budget

F

act: If you are an undergraduate student at Binghamton University you are obligated to be a member of the Student Association (SA). Fact: If you are a member you must pay a $173 student activity fee each year to fund the SA. Fact: Functionally, you have no say over where that $173 goes. It is time for that to change.

You wouldn’t expect it, but student government at Binghamton is surprisingly unique. According to David Hagerbaumer, Director of Campus Life, the SA at Binghamton University is one of only four autonomous collegiate student governments in the entire country. What that means is we have full control over our roughly $2,000,000 budget. The only limitations are a few rules the SUNY Board of Trustees sets down, such as prohibiting the purchase of alcohol and tobacco, firearms, drugs, and personal expenses.

Honestly, those constraints are reasonable, and protect the SA from potential litigation. Unfortunately though, a small committee of ten students hold the fate of all that money, and to whom and where it goes, in the palm of their greasy opinionated hands. This is a problem.

Last year I wrote an article regarding the student activity fee– your mandated $173 SA membership fee–that was published in Binghamton Review. After seeing Yadin Herzel and Randal Meyer both pen articles discussing the activity fee in last month’s edition, I felt the need to again propose a remedy. I have a solution that will give all students the power to decide which student organizations receive their personal share of the activity fee.

For those of you not versed in the endless politics in the SA, here is a quick overview. This group of ten individuals I am talking about is the SA’s Financial Council (FinCo). Every fall ten students are elected to a one-year term. Our constitution currently mandates

6

Binghamton Review

that there be one representative for each on-campus community (Hillside and Susquehanna split one) and four to represent offcampus students’ interests. I was the FinCo representative for Mountainview last year.

FinCo is the organization that determines the SA’s budget allocations, which then must pass in the Student Assembly. Last spring, the budget FinCo had proposed passed unanimously without a single change, effectively conveying that FinCo’s say is final. The Vice President for Finance, the SA’s Chief Financial Officer, appoints an SA treasurer who presides over FinCo. Throughout the year FinCo meets with student groups requesting funding for various reasons. A small presentation is made and an amount is voted on. I do not want to get too technical, but in sum, the committee has several accounts from which they can dish out money for specific uses. In the spring, FinCo sees all student groups requesting budgets for the upcoming academic year. After spending literally hours upon hours hearing budget presentations, FinCo spends an entire day, yes, upwards of 10 hours, determining the proposed budget for each student group next year.

So what have we learned? FinCo sets student group budgets, which can run as high as $20,000+ for groups like Hillel and the Asian Student Union, and all the way down to $100 for the smallest and newest of groups. The problem with FinCo and this method of allotment is that it is inherently flawed. The students who are actually members and participants in these groups have no say over their next year’s budget, they can merely try to convince the ten

NOVEMBER 2009

chosen ones that their group is more deserving than the next. When I say try to convince I am completely serious. FinCo has no access to the financial records of these groups, nor does it know how many members the group has or what kind of impact it has on campus.

Basically if the group appears before them professionally with a well-written presentation, it doesn't matter how little their group has done, they will get more than a group that comes off as sloppy and/or doesn't exaggerate their group's fundraising numbers. I kid you not, a group could very easily lie about their numbers and there is no fact-checking mechanism for this within the SA. I tried to be as objective as possible with my votes last year. I sought to increase the budgets of groups that had the greatest direct impact on undergraduate students while simultaneously slash the budget of groups that squandered their money on things that yielded little to nothing for BU students. What did I conclude? Having ten students solely decide the fate of a group’s budget is not the best method. There is a better method, and it’s called the market.

What I mean by calling the undergraduate student body a market is that they, not FinCo, should have the primary say over where their student activity fee goes. Have the SA initiate a system in which students have a personal account that they use to disburse funds to the groups that they want to support. For example, of the SA’s $2,000,000 budget, roughly 1/3rd reaches student groups. Let students have the first say over where this money goes. Each student would have about $61 to contribute to his or her preferred group or groups. This truly changes the playing field. Student groups now would depend on students directly for their funding, and would be

www.binghamtonreview.com

encouraged to increase their presence and lobby for student’s support and donations. The method for disbursement would even be implemented over the PAWS system, in the form of an e-voucher. Ahh, democracy in action.

There will always be skeptics. What happens if a student is apathetic towards the SA, like many are, and chooses not to allot his/her portion? That money would be transferred back into the discretionary accounts that FinCo controls after a predetermined time frame in the beginning of each semester. How can groups forecast what they will have? Groups should not be treated like children. Many are soundly run and turn profits every year. The SA VPF can authorize rolling over group’s accounts from year to year, and this method would encourage them to constantly be expanding their student base.

By giving the power over their money first to individual students, as opposed to FinCo, the SA would be encouraging more students to get involved in the abundance of extracurricular groups and activities Binghamton has to offer. If you knew you had given a group $60 of your own, it seems reasonable that you will have more at stake in that group, and would increase your involvement.

Also, by first giving students the chance to fund groups that hold similar values and views, students feel much more satisfied about how the budget allocation works. Personally, I sure don’t want any of my money going to the dozens of religious organizations on campus, so I would not use any of my allocation to fund them. On the other hand, the students that are members or supporters of these organizations and their missions would likely choose to send their portion of the activity fee their way. The balance of student values, the market, not the SA insiders of FinCo, would shape how groups receive their money.

It’s a win-win-win situation. Students gain direct control over the allocation of much of their portion of the activity fee. Second, groups can expand, or implode, much more quickly. That’s good?

Yes, it encourages professionalism, and a student oriented mission for student groups. The groups that fail to fulfill student needs effectively will receive less funding. And the last win is the inherently insider nature of the SA will be knocked down a notch.◄

7

SUNY SA

Elahd Y. Bar-Shai

The Inside Story It did not have any of the makings of a typical Student Association scandal—no racial undertones, no sexual advances, and no social security numbers.

There was alcohol involved, and we engaged in what could be described as voter fraud, but the incidents that unfolded at the SUNY SA conference last month were not earth shattering.

N

evertheless, controversy arose among allegations of cover-ups and blackmail, official censures, and impeachment hearings which attracted the attention of news media outlets across the state. Worse, it gave Pipe Dream fodder for some of the most outlandish and misdirected editorials in recent memory. This is the story of the Binghamton University SUNY SA delegation, and the scandal that never should have been.

By now, the SUNY SA story is a familiar one. Binghamton’s three voting delegates—SA President Adam Amit, Research and Planning Committee Chair Lawrence Faulstich, and myself, the Assembly Chair—were thrown out of the statewide student government’s semesterly meeting for each drinking a glass of beer while business was on the floor.

It was not a great idea, but let’s backtrack for a moment. SUNY SA is the United Nations of SUNY student government. The quasi-official organization is charged with allowing member schools to discuss common issues and to lobby state officials in Albany. Delegates from all 64 SUNY schools meet once each semester at a location selected by the SUNY SA Executive Committee, the group of elected students charged with leading the organization. This semester’s meeting took place at the Holiday Inn hotel in downtown Binghamton.

Unlike the Student Association at Binghamton University, which is an autonomous private organization, SUNY SA is a subsidiary of SUNY Central Administration, the state’s umbrella organization for all SUNY universities and colleges. This structure essentially places SUNY SA as a department within SUNY Central, akin to having the American Civil Liberties Union operate under the auspices of the United States Department of Justice. Traditionally, SUNY SA’s executive leaders move on to jobs at SUNY Central or elsewhere in state government and thus have little incentive to rattle the bushes while in their SUNY SA

8

Binghamton Review

NOVEMBER 2009

“

After explaining our...general intentions, we were offered forgiveness from each SUNY SA executive, along with pledges to continue working together in the future

advocacy roles. In short, the institution is systemically unable to meaningfully advocate for its constituents.

The Student Association at Binghamton University has long seen SUNY SA as a lame duck. For years, our representatives have reported back on poorly organized meetings and ineffective bureaucracy. This year was no different: the SUNY SA executive committee failed to adequately prepare its delegations in advance of the meeting, and worse, displayed little knowledge of the organization’s own bylaws.

How it All Began

Our delegation went into the convention with three clear objectives: Our top priority was to establish contacts at other universities for future projects. SUNY SA’s semesterly meetings are too infrequent to allow schools to respond effectively to all of the developing crises facing New York State’s higher education system. Secondly, we wanted to introduce legislation to coordinate all SUNY schools in gathering petitions opposing the diversion of our tuition increases to the state’s general fund.

The Binghamton petition model had been proven extremely effective by our Student Association last year in a collection drive organized by Lars and our Research and Planning Committee. Finally, we hoped to reintroduce amendments made by our S.A. to the SUNY SA constitution last year—at the organization’s request—which for one reason or another were not considered at last spring’s conference.

We had absolutely no idea what we were in for. At the convention’s Friday night business meeting—the first of two— the SUNY SA Assembly convened without quorum. Although the only items on the agenda for that session were executive

www.binghamtonreview.com

member reports (that is, no actual legislation), meeting in the absence of quorum would have effectively invalidated any business conducted that evening. Our delegation, along with others, objected to continuing the meeting at that time and suggested reconvening in the morning when all voting members had arrived. This is the only permissible action in the absence of quorum. When the Assembly continued on with business anyway, our delegation quietly left the room.

Rules, Rules, Rules

The SUNY SA legislature is governed by Robert’s Rules of Order, the 130 year old parliamentary procedure guidebook used by many deliberative bodies. Although elegant, Robert’s Rules are an absolute nightmare for anyone using them—at least in the realm of student government. I have become very familiar with these rules through my position as the Assembly Chair at B.U., but I still cringe at the thought of their practical application; regardless, if a governing body chooses to adopt these rules, they must be upheld.

The SUNY SA conference had delegations from a broad range of student governments: some big, some small; some new and some old and well established.

On Saturday, when quorum finally was achieved at SUNY SA’s second business meeting, it took no less than three executive committee members—each with a copy of Robert’s Rules in hand— to decipher the mechanics behind actually running the meeting. Conflicts occurred when inexperienced delegates tried to speak out of order, and when the triumvirate of chairs was unable to properly conduct votes. After long stretches of confusion, some rules of order were either improvised or bypassed altogether.

Many delegations were growing tired with the chaos taking over the room and began to speak up. Simply put, the procedural errors were irritating and had become an impediment to the handling of business which, of course, is why we were all there. As much I hate being “that guy” at a meeting, I began raising my hand to correct the chair, a move known as a point of parliamentary procedure by Robert’s Rules.

Raising a point of parliamentary procedure is not as obnoxious as it sounds—the motion exists for a reason—and is acceptable in a setting where it is expected that all members be somewhat uptight... and civil. Still, my persistence began to aggravate the already stressed chairs.

Beer

During a brief break in the business meeting, I purchased a beer for myself and Adam at the hotel bar, which was adjacent to the room in which we were conducting business. Lars went over to the bar with a delegate from another school and purchased a beer for himself, as well. As business went on, we happily sipped away at our glasses of Stella.

I continued to raise points of order as necessary, which was often. After I had raised a point of order during a procedural debacle relating to debate, the chair announced that the Binghamton delegation had been “caught” drinking beer—which was purported to be against hotel policy—and was ordered to leave the room. Incensed that the chairs were using a fabricated hotel policy as an excuse to silence a delegation which kept them in check, I raised one last point of parliamentary procedure: I informed the chair that ejections have to go to a vote.

The results were disappointing: 47 for, 16 against, with 11 abstentions.

After our ejection, some of the sixteen who voted to keep us in the room searched

9

through every SUNY SA pamphlet and email sent out regarding the event to search for any mention of a SUNY SA alcohol policy. Not one was found. The hotel, which runs its own bar, does not have an alcohol policy either. About an hour after we left the business meeting, other delegations followed either out of protest or due to their inability to tolerate the incompetent chairs. At that point, the Fall 2009 legislative session at SUNY SA came to an embarrassing end.

There’s More

The Binghamton delegation was composed solely of undergraduate students. At the start of Saturday’s meeting, long before we uncapped our beers, the Binghamton Graduate delegation was called during roll call. Having no idea that the Binghamton Graduate Student Organization even had the opportunity to be represented at SUNY SA, our delegation began to joke with a few of the SUNY SA organizers about filling the seat with an undergraduate student. Well, that’s exactly what we ended up doing. Within an hour of the start of Saturday’s meeting, a Binghamton University undergraduate student received voting placard number 75, registered to the G.S.O., courtesy of SUNY SA.

Back to the Plan

Despite the mess, our delegation fulfilled all of our objectives well beyond our expectations. Our petition legislation was

10

Binghamton Review

passed and is currently being carried out by schools across the state. Members of our own Student Assembly collected approximately 2,500 signatures at B.U. in two days, and will continue the effort for weeks to come.

Our constitutional amendments were heard on the floor and will be reviewed by the SUNY SA rules committee in time for the Spring 2010 convention. Most importantly, we built strong connections with many like-minded individuals at other universities who appreciated the tenacity that the Binghamton delegation showed in holding the Assembly to its own rules. These individuals have stuck by us throughout our ordeal at the SUNY SA conference and back on our home turf in Vestal. I make this statement hesitantly, but I believe that the strength of the relationships built at SUNY SA are owed to the passion and personality displayed not just by B.U., but by all of the delegations that did not sit quietly while the conference descended into chaos.

Coming Clean

After leaving the meeting, the Binghamton delegation headed back to my house on the West Side for a couple of hours to reflect on exactly what just took place. We returned to the hotel late that night to a surprising sight: whole SUNY SA delegations socializing at the hotel bar. Not only that, but they were happy to see us. We were greeted with handshakes, high-fives, and words of empathy; and not just from the 16 delegates who voted to keep us in the

meeting. One delegate thanked us for being the only group with the “balls” to unequivocally stand up to the chairs.

Regardless, we realized that we contributed greatly to the frustration of SUNY SA’s Executive Committee, which invested a tremendous amount of time and effort into the event, and detracted from the grandeur of the convention. Our first order of business upon returning to the Holiday Inn was to apologize to each Executive Committee member individually, beginning with SUNY SA President Melody Mercedes. Despite our differences, after explaining our issues with the meeting and our general intentions, we were offered forgiveness from each SUNY SA executive, along with pledges to continue working together in the future.

Admittedly, our apology to SUNY SA over the graduate representative came two days later, but it came nonetheless. After speaking with the president of the G.S.O., we were informed that the organization was perfectly fine with having us represent them and may actually allow us to use their seat at upcoming conferences.

Back on campus, not everything was so peachy. On the night following the conference, Adam and I met with our Student Association’s executive board to explain the situation and to determine how to move forward. Yes, there was hesitation at first amid a smattering of blackmail and threats, but at the end of the day we decided overwhelmingly to come clean at the Assembly meeting scheduled for the next day. At the meeting, we explained

NOVEMBER 2009

the story, offered our sincere apologies, and were censured by the Assembly for conduct unbecoming of Student Association representatives—a fitting response.

This is where it should have ended. Our delegation made mistakes, but the mistakes were harmless in practice and would have only reflected on each delegate individually. We should have known better than to bring beer into a meeting and we should have known better than to take G.S.O.’s spot without their prior approval. This was lapse in judgment on our part and I cannot defend our actions.

However, by our own initiative, we took every possible action to make amends with the offended parties who were all completely reasonable and completely understanding; campus media and members of the Student Association were much less so.

Pipe Dream called the delegation “despicable,” and demanded our immediate removal. Resolutions were introduced calling for our resignation and impeachment. When the Assembly failed to impeach, Pipe Dream called for the impeachment of the entire Student Assembly!

These reactions were overblown, and actually did more damage to the SA than our delegation ever could have. At some point, third parties to these events lost sight of the fact we are all students. Part of the university experience involves making mistakes without having calls for your head. The reputation of Binghamton University was not “shattered;” the SUNY SA executive board, as well as the Graduate Student Organization and Binghamton University administration all more or less stated that they recognize the insignificance of what happened and that they will not hold it against the Student Association.

No one outside of Pipe Dream and the SA has given the “drinking” part of the scandal any attention whatsoever. College students drink.

Three students having one glass of beer each is neither newsworthy nor scandalous, despite the inappropriate setting.

We messed up, but in the process we completed our jobs as student representatives and gained some valuable perspective along the way.◄

www.binghamtonreview.com

GABRIELLE PONTILLO

Swine Flu Hysteria

S

ince late last semester, the threat of Swine Flu has been spreading, much like the disease, over campuses and cities nationwide. Swine Flu, also known as Swine Influenza or “The Swine,” is an infection by any one of the several variations of the disease.

These variations include the dreaded H1N1, H1N2, H3N2, and H2N3.

The most common strain is the H1N1.

The World Health Organization (WHO) first identified the new strain as Pandemic H1N1/09 this past April.

The United States Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has dubbed the disease, 2009 H1N1 Flu – but it is still commonly referred to as Swine Flu. On April 29, 2009 there was a reported case of Swine Flu right here on campus. According to an article in Pipe Dream, “A Binghamton student on Wednesday was briefly believed to be a suspect case in the recent outbreak of H1N1 nfluenza A (known as swine flu), but later in the day was declassified as a suspect case and returned to his dorm.” If you ask me, this “suspect case” was blown way out of proportion.

He was treated more like a criminal on the FBI’s Most Wanted List rather than a patient in need of medical care! The disease has become as popular as the dreaded Avian/Bird Flu and Mad Cow Disease (I promise you this won’t lead to an infestation of Zombies). Once the craze and subsequent hysteria decreases, the world will return to normal and stop worrying about Piglet infecting them.

Recently on campus, Flu Stations have been made available to students.

According to a recent B-Line, “The University has established a pilot flustation program in the 26 RA offices on campus. The flu stations are stocked with supplies including alcohol prep pads for disinfecting cell phones, ID cards and other items; masks; disposable tempa dots to self-monitor for fever; a hand-sanitizer refilling supply…etc.”

So basically health services is doing all they can to make sure we students stay healthy (so they can have EVEN fewer hours of operation?). If the swine were really infecting us Bearcats, alcohol pads and self-monitoring fever devices aren’t going to do the job of a trained physician. But I’m not one with a medical degree.

H1N1 vaccinations have been made accessible to the University. In the UU-Mandela Room, on Monday October 26th and Wednesday October 28th, students with “a valid, signature ID and a signed consent form” received a free vaccination. But will this vaccination really help prevent the spread of the disease? Joseph Masciana, a sophomore, believes, “The vaccine will not be effective because the strain is mutating too fast for science to keep up with.”

Swine Flu is no laughing matter, although the name is pretty hysterical.

The presence of the Swine Mobile (a golf cart with pink ears and a snout) has been spotted all over campus, for what purpose I’m not sure. In order to avoid contracting H1N1, be safe, be clean and avoid people with pink noses, beady eyes and long curly tails.

Have a healthy winter!◄

11

GREENIE WEEK

ETHAN DAY

Eco-Socialists Demand Change, Offer Few Solutions The Week of Action: Convergence at the Confluence for Climate Change—seven days that will go down in history as world changing and unforgettable. Then again, it’s also possible you have already forgotten the dramatic events of October 19th through 25th or overlooked them altogether.

12

Binghamton Review

NOVEMBER 2009

“

Rather than investing money in disadvantageous and costly options, we must further pursue clean coal technologies

F

or those of you who had something better to do than keep vigil outside an inactive power plant in the pouring rain, here is what you missed: Mike Farrell, human rights and environmental activist (AKA B.J. Hunnicutt from the sitcom M*A*S*H), spoke at the Anderson Center.

When faced with pressing issues like climate change and morality, one should always turn to 1970s TV stars for answers. On Friday the “Critical Mass Bike Ride for Climate Justice” took place to generate “awareness” of some form or another. Those waiting in the Friday afternoon traffic on the Vestal Parkway were made painfully aware of the bikers as they traveled downtown. Several other activities took place throughout the week, coordinated by the Binghamton Regional Sustainability Coalition who partnered with 350.org, the group leading similar displays of awareness around the world for Climate Week. The week culminated with Saturday’s climate events, which created so much “awareness” one could almost feel the greenhouse gases dissipating from the atmosphere.

At 10:00AM on Saturday, a vigil was held at the front gates of AES Westover, a coal-fired power plant in Johnson City.

The vigil was sponsored by the non-profit organization Radical Joy for Hard Times.

The group promoted the event on their website with this statement: “Together we will spend silent meditation time in this ‘wounded place’, opening our hearts to difficult feelings of loss, fear, and guilt. We will share personal stories of what we each discover there, both in gazing at the power plant and examining our own hearts, Finally, we will leave after giving some creative, group-generated act of beauty back to the place.” Seriously? It’s a power plant, not a battlefield. The fact of the

www.binghamtonreview.com

matter is that this facility has been offline for months, meaning it hasn’t burned one lump of coal.

The environmentalists overlooked crucial information regarding the AES Westover plant. In 2006 the plant invested $50 million into clean-coal emissions control technologies. The project increased AES Westover’s removal rates for NOx emissions from 60 percent to 90 percent.

The new system uses a selective catalytic reduction system with ammonia injection.

Added to this, the plant’s SO2 emissions are scaled back by 95 percent with the use of a dry scrubber and a fabric filter baghouse. A significant bonus to these added technologies is that mercury emissions are reduced by 90 percent. In a statement at the beginning of the project in 2006, Jim Mulligan, Plant Manager at AES Westover had this to say: “Each of AES’s coal-fired plants in New York continue to emit significantly less SO2 and NOx than any other coal-fired facility in the state, based on EPA data, this technology will allow AES Westover to meet all of the requirements under the Clean Air Act while continuing to meet increasing demands for energy in New York.” Since 1999 AES has spent more than $150 million on emissions control projects. That should give the next environmental radicals something to ponder as they “gaze upon” the “wounded place” that is AES Westover.

The week rounded out with a rally at Confluence Park that included music and papier-mâché puppets, and an evening service at Unitarian Universalist Congregation with speaker Chris Hedges.

Through the many events scattered over Climate Week, something important seemed to be missing: Answers. If the

current situation is unacceptable, then what should we as a people do about it?

These organizations and their supporters claim that coal burning will be the death of our planet, so what then?

Natural gas drilling? They say no because it contaminates groundwater. Nuclear power? Can’t have that either, it’s just too scary. So how about solar and wind power?

Now that sounds environmentally friendly.

Unfortunately the technology is expensive and inefficient, and besides, it couldn’t come close to supplying the world’s energy demand. Aside from living in darkness, it appears our options are limited. Thankfully there is a great natural resource out there; it already provides half of the electricity that heats our homes, lights our schools, and powers businesses. America has over 250 billion tons of this recoverable resource in our reserves, equal to 800 billion barrels of oil—more than three times Saudi Arabia’s proven oil reserves. This enormous resource is coal, and we have enough of it in the United States to fully power the country for the next 200 years.

Since climate week proponents failed to determine a viable solution, I will: Rather than investing money in disadvantageous and costly options, we must further pursue clean coal technologies. We can currently contain emissions at the 90+ percent level; let’s work to improve that so we can use America’s most substantial resource and cheapest form of energy to its full potential. Rather than “opening our hearts to difficult feelings of loss, fear, and guilt,” let’s actually do something to reduce energy costs and environmental impact by moving forward with technology that is close at hand. Or you could just stand in the rain.◄

13

GREENIE WEEK

JOSEPH AGUIAR

Proper Precautions

I

n December 1997, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) adopted the Kyoto Protocol, which committed 184 signatories to cut carbon emissions and pursue clean technologies for the future.

With the Kyoto Protocol set to expire in 2012, the international community is meeting in Copenhagen from December 7th through 18th in the hopes of extending and updating it.

While watching the proceedings in Copenhagen, it will be important to recognize two principles. The first belief guiding climate change initiatives and virtually all environmental initiatives is an idea known in international relations as the “precautionary principle.” The precautionary principle is based on the idea that it is often extremely difficult to prove causal links between human activities and a given environmental problem. Accordingly, definitive proof of causal links is not necessary when forming environmental policy. Similar to the uncertainty of weather forecasts, projections of potential environmental damage are rarely made with absolute certainty. However, they are usually based on educated guesses.

We should proceed with caution when ominous projections about the future of the environment are made, even in the face of relatively high uncertainty.

14

Binghamton Review

Climate change reform also follows a second international relations principle known as “common but differentiated responsibility.”

Everyone partially contributes to the common problem and potential ramifications of climate change, but some nations are in better positions to respond to them and also to bear more responsibility. The level of obligation to fix the problem varies from state to state.

China and India have come under scrutiny in recent years for emitting just as much carbon as the Western developed nations while at the same time refusing to take on their share of the work to curb emissions.

However, the UNFCCC notes that the overwhelming majority of emissions over the last 150 years have come from developed countries and per capita emissions in the developing world are still very low relative to the West. Essentially, much of the carbon in the air originated in China, India, Brazil and other developing countries, but they are relative newcomers. The West has spent the better part of two centuries polluting the air, but is also significantly wealthier and has a far greater technological capacity to develop clean energy.

There are some serious problems with this current discourse on climate change.

The March 23, 2009 issue of The New York Times Magazine profiled a noted physicist and mathematician, Freeman

Dyson, who recognizes that human beings are responsible for the drastic spike in carbon levels in the Earth’s atmosphere during the last 100-or-so years, but argues that the models predicting future disasters should be taken with a grain of salt. More importantly, he argues that many of the heavy greenhouse gas emitters (coal in particular) have brought vast economic growth and modernization to the developing world.

The delegates at Copenhagen will discuss the various approaches to curbing carbon emissions such as cap-and-trade and carbon taxation, and will push developed countries to give aid and technological assistance to poorer countries with high emission levels (some developing countries say they will need $300 billion annually, as Michael Levi notes in the September/ October 2009 issue of Foreign Affairs).

The fact that this recommendation is taken seriously illustrates just how detached from reality some global warming advocates are.

It does, however, illustrate an important point: whether or not China or any other developing countries should pull their own weight in addressing climate change reform doesn’t matter. They are nowhere close to having the resources or innovation to do so and there is not a chance in the world that the “West” would allocate $300 billion dollars – or even $10 billion for

NOVEMBER 2009

Binghamton Review We already control campus.

SOON, IT WILL BE THE WORLD.

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

New Union Basement UUWB05 Email editor@binghamtonreview.com for info that matter – worth of foreign aid to the “developing world” even if there were a highly centralized dispersion mechanism.

Who would monitor donations and allocations? The entire United Nations barely scraps together $5 billion annually despite a large amount of arm twisting.

The rich economies of the world are in no rush to shower money on foreign nations, especially in this economy.

The West developed to where it is today because of coal and other cheap, high-carbon emitting resources. As the The Times Magazine piece on Freeman Dyson notes that, “Dyson has great affection for coal and for one big reason: It is so

www.binghamtonreview.com

inexpensive that most of the world can afford it.” The rapid development of the global south over the last few decades can be attributed to the efficiency of markets and the various low-cost energy resources, coal chief among them (and they all generate a lot of carbon). They helped make the West what it is today and it is now transforming the developing world.

Before making changes as consequential as many climate change reformers advocate for, we have to understand what the changes will do economically, both here in the US and in developing countries around the world that have copied our model for success. We

should follow the precautionary principle in our environmental policies and we should strive to develop efficient and clean energy sources. However, we must not reach the point where our efforts utterly stagnate economic growth, especially when the arguments are made based on uncertain and often-untestable future climate models.

Many developing countries and emerging markets are just beginning to take part in the things that we’ve become used to here: high literacy rates, strong GDP growth over a long period of time, and an overall increase in standards of living. Let’s not forget that it took a lot of carbon dioxide to get these. ◄

15

ECONOMICS

The Crucible

A

specter gathers in America as we pass the first anniversary of the financial crisis that has weakened global markets, initiated by the collapse of the investment bank Lehman Brothers on September 15th, 2008. We have watched as trillions of dollars of American wealth disappeared in a matter of months as real estate, stocks and credit plunged.

Our country’s pecuniary worth has been devalued before our very eyes as the ranks of the unemployed have grown and have evermore been tossed onto the rolls of the state.

Yet something else, something even more profound, happened within our borders alongside the depreciation of our assets. This seismic shift has been so fundamental and disastrous that its occurrence has indeed changed the course of this great experiment we call America.

Instead of rallying behind the standard of markets and freedom in our time of need, when the world itself has seemed to be splitting asunder, we rather have chosen to slink behind the alluring yet deceitful cover of a political class that helped summon the very storm that engulfed us over one year ago. However, in order to challenge those that seek to expand the apparatus of the state regardless of their intentions, we must recall the origins of our current predicament so as to set the record straight for ourselves and future generations attempting to peel back the wrinkles of time in hindsight.

Our opponents will point to the leverage of our investment firms and inefficient regulations as the sources of

16 16

Binghamton Review

TAYLOR ARLUCK

our woes, yet the roots of our crisis can be traced to the very same government institution that now claims to be our savior from the “evil” capitalists that supposedly have failed us. The Federal Reserve, which is entrusted with maintaining “stable prices” and “maximizing employment” along with steady rates of interest, has failed us on three accounts and is the true cause of our recession. Its strategy of quantitative easing and monetizing debt over the last decade was what caused investors to commit their capital under false pretenses due to distorted prices, that is to say the price of credit. With excessive credit available malinvestment was destined to follow and thus created a financial bubble within markets, specifically real estate from the years of 2002 – 2007.

This rampant speculation and overbuilding was unsustainable given the illusory capital that funded it, and so the house of cards collapsed upon itself.

Yet what are the proposals that the opposition have offered? Stimulation of the very housing market that indicated, by the decreasing value of real estate, was overextended. There is a surplus of housing units in the market and their answer is to construct more real estate! Excess leverage, stimulated by cheap money from the Fed, helped consumers turn their houses into ATM’s and incentivized individuals to disregard savings completely. And what is the answer according to those on the Left?

To subsidize further consumption with the

countless tax credits and low interest loans funded by further stretching the limits of our dollar.

These critics of capitalism still have yet to present us with viable alternatives that can restore the ingenuity and prowess of this nation. The paradise they speak of is the dystopia we now inhabit. Rampant corporate welfare, excessive taxation, onerous regulations, massive bureaucracies, trillion dollar entitlements and billions to “stimulate” whatever is left—these are the symptoms of their “paradise.”

Their solutions have been laid bare before us, in both theory and in practice, but now it is our turn to contest them. This is the test we shoulder, as believers in a free society, upon ourselves. We must restore the public’s faith in the free market that has delivered them from the grinding poverty that would otherwise exist in its absence.

The fruits of our labor are enjoyed on the basis of our implicit agreement in free establishments. Why now do we question these tenets in our time of exigency? We must remind ourselves of the treasures the market has born. Thank it when you don your Chinese shirt, or when you sip your Columbian coffee, or when you drive your Japanese automobile. If we wish to restore the gifts our economy has bestowed upon us, we need only let the market be free. ◄

NOVEMBER 2009

FREE SPEECH

ALEX PAOLANO

Binghamton Review Attacked by the White House!

M

edia is truly the public watchdog that should guard against misconduct on the part of our elected officials, but sadly, it has been shown through the Messianic following of the rise of Barack that this watchdog has become a shivering little sissy lapdog. CNN and MSNBC have mostly rolled over and had their tummy’s pet for being good little news stations by not covering things like the Van Jones scandal or the ACORN catastrophe. However, at Fox News the Tea Party rallies got the coverage that they deserved, and Fox has done its vital job of being critical of the government. But while Obama’s approval rating has been plummeting and his reforms have been losing support, Comrade Axelrod and Comrade Emanuel took to the airwaves to try and shoot the messenger.

It seems kind of odd—with a deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, joblessness continuing to rise, health care reform losing popularity, and all the other problems facing the United States—that the president’s administration would spend time trying to wage war with a media outlet. But when one really thinks about it, it is actually not too peculiar.

The agenda of trying to silence media has a long history on the Left and it seems that this has been brought into the White House. Perhaps the main piece of liberal legislation that pushes this idea is the “Fairness Doctrine.” This piece of fascism states( and I paraphrase) that for every conservative opinion on a controversial issue there is mandated to be a liberal counterpoint even if there is no audience for it. This has its main thrust on talk radio where conservative talk shows dominate the ratings and liberal shows have ratings slightly worse than shows such as The Tick did on Fox. It is just another way for the government to try and force their opinions down the throat of Americans and to cut off any link to opposition. This is something that you would expect from Venezuela under Chavez, not from the United States; however, liberals in Congress have already voiced support for this strong armed tactic.

Michigan Democratic Senator Debbie Stabenow said in February, “I think it’s absolutely time to pass a standard. Now, whether it’s called the Fairness Standard, whether it’s called something else – I absolutely think it’s time to be bringing accountability to the airwaves.” This is simply not some right wing conspiracy theory; this is something that liberals have pushed for and truly want.

We see that the left wing media acts like zealous 1950s teenage girls at an Elvis concert by constantly throwing their collective panties at Barack Obama while any popular conservative is treated like a rival tribe of monkeys at the zoo being pelted with shit. We look how

www.binghamtonreview.com

quick the media tried to destroy the threat of Sarah Palin and how quickly they jumped on false quotes found on Wikipedia to try and shame Rush Limbaugh. We see how the left wing media, as well as the Administration, has dismissed the Tea Party members as crazy, violent extremists when, in fact, there was not a single arrest when near a million “tea partiers” gathered in Washington (the same cannot be said for the left wing lunatics at the G20).Whenever anyone disagrees with Obama’s policy the race card is thrown out. When the media is out doing the White House’s dirty work, not a word is said; but when a whiff of opposition comes across their noses, the White House panics.

When noticing the huge ratings and resounding effect that Fox News has had on public opinion, the Obama minions came down from the castle to do the Great One’s (and I’m not talking about Wayne Gretzky here) bidding. The goon Rohm Emmanuel went on CNN to say that the President doesn’t want CNN and the others to follow the lead set forth by Fox News. David Axelrod, that sniveling weasel, declared that Fox News is not a news organization and is not going to be treated as such. Obama went on to say on MSNBC, “And if media is operating basically as a talk radio format then that’s one thing, and if it’s operating as a news outlet that’s another. But it’s not something I’m losing sleep over.” Yes, to be fair Fox News has some very influential conservative commentators on its program, namely Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck.

They openly have opinion shows; they do nothing to hide the fact of their political beliefs and are always willing to engage in debate on air. I am thinking of numerous occasions in which Bob Beckel, Alan Combs and even Michael Moore have appeared on these shows. But to try and shoot down Fox News as a puppet of the Republican Party is insulting and false. It is a lame attempt by the Obama administration to try and isolate and de-legitimize a popular news station because they don’t simply bend over the desk to be pleased by the all loving B.H. Obama.

Fox News has seen a growth in its ratings since this controversy has begun, so it is just another thing that this administration has done that hasn’t worked. But the very idea that the President and his administration would go out of their way to publicly criticize a media outlet shows the level of desperation inside the White House at this early stage in the game. Obama’s star is fading, his words and empty rhetoric can no longer carry him, and above all, his policies are failing.

Instead of moving off the hard left wing agenda they are trying to silence their critics and blind the American people of their past failures, their current failures, and their future failures. I truly hope that Mr. Obama doesn’t have any undercover agents in the Southern Tier that will try and shut down Binghamton Review, but it seems that trying to do this would only increase our ever growing readership.◄

17

BELLWETHERS

H.L.

Elections

Two States Set the Stage

T

his year, Election Day was on November 3, 2009.

There were no presidential or congressional elections this year, but two gubernatorial races in Virginia and New Jersey captured the attention of the national audience.

In every Virginian gubernatorial race since 1977, the political party of the incumbent President of the United States has lost the election. Virginia state law imposed a one term limit on the office of governor. That is why the state’s current governor, Tim Kaine (D), was barred from seeking reelection.

In this year’s race, Virginia Attorney General Bob McDonnell (R) ran against state senator Creigh Deeds (D). Deeds was the 2005 Democratic nominee for Attorney General of Virginia, but lost to Republican Bob McDonnell by 323 votes. This race was essentially a rematch between Deeds and McDonnell, only this time for the highest office in the state.

The outcome of the race was almost undisputed, as polls taken before election day consistently showed McDonnell leading Deeds by double digits.

The race for Governor of New Jersey consisted of incumbent Governor Jon Corzine (D) seeking reelection against US Attorney for the district of New Jersey Chris Christie (R) and Commissioner of the New Jersey Environmental Protection

18

Binghamton Review

NOVEMBER 2009

Agency Chris Daggett (I).

Chris Christie held a large margin over Jon Corzine at the beginning of the race.

However, Corzine, being a multimillionaire, attempted to buy the election, similar to how he bought the US Senate election in 2000 and the election for governor in 2005. In the 2000 US Senate election, Corzine was trailing his opponent by 30 percentage points, but then went on to spend over $62 million of his own money, which helped him defeat his opponent while simultaneously setting the record for the most expensive Senate campaign in US history. Then, in the 2005 race for governor, Corzine used $40 million more from his own coffers on the general election alone.

In 2009, Corzine did not do much to change his strategy. By October 23rd of this year (11 days before the election) he had spent $23.6 million, with over $22 million being from his own pockets. Chris Christie had accepted public financing, and thus was restricted to spend only $10.9 million, leaving Corzine free to try to buy another election.

The Virginia race ended up being a snapshot of the overall US population.

Virginia voted for Obama last fall, the first time since 1964 that the state had voted for a Democrat in a Presidential election. Twelve months later, Republicans were more enthused

www.binghamtonreview.com

than Democrats, and independents that had leaned left a year ago tilted to the right this time. Virginia had a swing-outcome quality, and the McDonnell-Deeds matchup was a key measure of how Americans felt about Obama at that time. As the people took a closer look at Obama’s policies, they were unimpressed with what they saw, which lead to a double digit drop in support for Obama in Virginia. This stance was cemented when Bob McDonnell crushed Creigh Deeds by 17 percentage points on election night. This was in the same state in which voters had elected Obama by 6 percentage points over McCain just one year ago. In a huge rebuke of Democrats and Obama, the Virginian voters were responsible for a 23 percentage point swing in favor of the Republican Party. McDonnell also won 63% of independents, the same voters that one year earlier had supported Obama.

In New Jersey, a state which in 2008 Independents elected Obama by 15 percentage points, Chris Christie claimed 53 percent of Independent votes while on his way to winning the governor’s seat. This was the first time that a Republican defeated an incumbent Democratic governor in New Jersey since 1993.

Chris Christie defeated the Jon Corzine political machine in New

Jersey despite being outspent 2 to 1 in his campaign. Corzine blanketed the airwaves with false negative attack ads on Christie, with one even implying and deriding Christie for being fat, leading to the people of New Jersey saying enough is enough. Independents were worried about what they saw as careless spending by Obama and his Democratic allies in Washington, and elected Christie over Corzine. The voters in Virginia and New Jersey voted Republican in order to send a strong message to President Obama that they dislike the governmental control the President’s policies that are being forced into people’s lives.

After these two big wins in New Jersey and Virginia, the grassroot conservatives are fired up. On Election Day 2009, the voters sent a clear message to the conservative Democrats in the House and Senate. The people have made it clear that they are watching their representatives’ votes and that they will stand up and remove them from office in the midterm elections in 2010 if they continue to espouse the policies of Obama, of which the majority of the American people disapprove.

Republicans winning in New Jersey and Virginia is definitely a positive sign as the GOP looks forward and tries to retake control of the House and Senate in the 2010 midterm elections.◄

19

AARON SEBAG

Galvanizing Over the Goldstone Report

W

ithin the realm of International Political Systems, some votes are eminently forgettable while others are not.

This past month, within the inappropriately-named UN Human Rights Council, a vote took place in response to the conclusions of the Goldstone Report, a report issued by a UN sponsored fact finding commission designed to investigate the conduct by which Israel chose to exercise its national right of self defense against Hamas in “Operation Cast Lead” this past January. The resulting criticism of Israel and the council’s response highlights the latter. Although denunciations of Israel have become commonplace in the Council, this vote provides a window into the souls of those 47 member states that currently belong to this Geneva-based body, and what we see will be long remembered.

In effect, the countries were asked a rather simple set of questions: Could they distinguish between a democratic state, Israel, and a terrorist entity, Hamas?

Could they recall that one nation, Israel, had left Gaza completely in 2005, while another group, Hamas, had seized control two years later, ousting the Palestinian Authority and strengthening ties with terrorist-funding, weapons-supplying Iran?

Could they recognize the legitimate right of a nation, Israel, for self-defense against a non-state actor, Hamas, which openly declares a desire to obliterate it?

Could they differentiate between the arsonist in the conflict, Hamas, and the firefighter, Israel?

Could they grasp the inherent challenge for a military, in this case Israel's, to uproot a terrorist infrastructure, that of Hamas, which

20

Binghamton Review

had deeply embedded itself in a civilian population?

Could they admit that the UN Human Rights Council was so viscerally anti-Israel, as evidenced by the stunning fact that 80 percent of its resolutions adopted over the past three years have focused on Israel alone, that it could not be deemed an objective body?

Could they recognize that the mandate of Judge Richard Goldstone and his three colleagues, including one who had publicly convicted in Israel before joining the group, was inherently biased, investigating what were already deemed to be Israeli "war crimes," while ignoring the thousands of Hamas missile and mortar attacks that preceded Israel's entry into Gaza?

And could they accept that the resolution before them spoke only of Israel, not of Hamas?

The verdict is now in. Twenty-five countries voted for the resolution.

In most cases, there were no surprises.

All the members of the Arab League and most of the Organization of the Islamic Conference voted together to condemn Israel. Nothing new about that. And the worst offenders against human rights, quite naturally, supported the resolution, happy to have attention once again deflected from their own shameful records. Again, no news there.

But there were a few unhappy surprises, particularly Argentina, Brazil, and Chile.

As democratic countries, they should have known better. Was there more to gain by opposing Israel than supporting it, or, at the very least, abstaining? Or were they motivated by some fanciful notion of human rights in the abstract that was completely detached from the reality on the ground thousands of miles away in the Middle East?

Then there were the six countries Hungary, Italy, Netherlands, Slovakia, Ukraine and the United States - that stood up to the mob and voted against the resolution.

Their moral clarity and political principle were on display. They deserve appreciation and recognition.

We should remember these six countries, just as we recall those that stood up to the herd mentality in Geneva at the socalled Durban II conference in April which similarly singled out Israel for denunciation-Australia, Canada, the Czech Republic, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland and the United States.

And then there are the other 16 countries that did not vote in favor of the resolution, some abstaining, others absenting themselves. In a multilateral setting, those actions can at times be acts of bravery.

Not always however. It was regrettable that Britain and France, with their profound understanding of Middle Eastern realities, were not in the hall to cast a "no" vote. They should have been.

On the other hand, kudos to Mexico and Uruguay, the only Latin American countries on the Human Rights Council not to vote in favor.

And it was gratifying to see several African nations - Angola, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, and Gabon - break group ranks and not endorse a one-sided resolution that even Richard Goldstone himself condemned for its inherent unfairness.

Courage and principle are always in short supply. When they're on display, as several countries demonstrated in Geneva, they should be acknowledged. But when they are overridden, and injustice and expediency become norms of the day, we must speak out loud and clear. ◄

NOVEMBER 2009

GEARS

PAUL LIGGIERI

Grinds His Gears

O

ne might think that all is quiet on the Western Front and perhaps that there is nothing left to grind my gears.

But I assure all of you that there is never a shortage of immaturity, stupidity, ignorance, or wasteful spending. You know what really grinds my gears, Binghamton? The people who go to the gym and feel the need to take their shirt off or look at themselves in the mirror every three seconds. We’ve all seen these people. They go into the gym after having never lifted prior to taking their two week supply of muscle milk and juice, and all of a sudden they think they’re the biggest thing in the gym.

They have two of their buddies come with them to the gym. It’s not to spot them but to gawk at them and help dead lift too much weight after the individual decides to do half reps so that it really looks like they can bench 285 pounds. You’re not fooling anybody, you’re killing your joints, and you’re not contributing to muscle growth by trying to lift like somebody you’re not. Do us all a favor, and go to Toys “R” Us to play with the children’s weight sets. When you get past that stage, then you can come to the gym with the regular folks.

You know what else really grinds my gears, Binghamton? All the kids who you see spend countless amounts of money, yet they have no job. So this means one of two things. One, you are living way above your means or spending your financial aid checks on nonsense. Two, mommy and daddy did not have enough sense to teach you the value of a dollar, and place exorbitant amounts of money into your account so that you can spend it on $60 meals, another pair of sneakers, or a wax job on your Mercedes Benz.

Stop pretending like you have money when clearly all you know how to do is spend your parents’ money (or the government’s).

In truth, I feel bad for these kids because they will never learn the true value of a dollar. I don’t hate the rich because at one point I knew what it was like to live comfortably. But I’ll never forget what my father used to tell me. He would say that no one gives you anything in life, you have to work hard for it, and you have to take it. Unfortunately it seems like everyone who doesn’t work hard is always the one swimming in cash. But while the trust fund babies run wild, what will they do if their trust fund runs out? These kids were never taught to hunt, work, and

www.binghamtonreview.com

fend for themselves because everything was handed to them on a silver platter. In the long run, they’ll end up doing too many drugs, running out of cash, and finding out that mom and dad will not support them forever. In part, the parents are the ones to blame for completely spoiling their children and not teaching them what hard work really is. I was not born with a silver spoon in my mouth, but I learned how to take one from the kid next to me. And I learned from good times and from bad that if you’re dealt a bad hand in life, learn to bluff. I hope the trust funds, fancy cars, and expensive meals disappear. That way, these kids experience what it is like to work hard and earn each dollar.

The next grinding of my gears came just as I was leaving work from downtown Binghamton. There are people who need to stop thinking that they are VIPs and can just cut the line whenever they feel like it. We’ve all seen this occurrence right in front of our eyes, and these VIPs walk to the front, ask to get in for free, and act like your friends. Then when you can’t comp them or bump them to the front of the line, they no longer want to know you. I didn’t know three dollars was such a hole in your pocket, especially after you came to the bar wearing $150 Ed Hardy Shirts and $200 Jimmy Choo high heels. A word to the wise: usually the people who don’t feel a sense of entitlement are the ones who get in for free and cut the line. Most of the people trying to get in for free usually don’t have any money to spend in the bar, so it simply doesn’t make sense to let them in. Good customers get rewarded in most cases and it works like that in almost any business establishment. Arrogance and entitlement usually don’t get the same treatment.

I’ll tell you guys what else really grinds my gears. When you ask somebody if they want to go eat, hang out, or go somewhere, and the response you get is “maybe, let me see what’s going first.”

This is code for let me check out every other viable option and then let you know if you fit into my schedule last minute. People should just commit to something or not commit to something.

There is no need to beat around the bush and lead people on when clearly you have no intention of eating, hanging out, or going somewhere. Next time you decide on using the word “maybe,” take a step back and recognize the fact that the person

21

“

I didn’t know three dollars was such a hole in your pocket, especially after you came to the bar wearing $150 Ed Hardy Shirts and $200 Jimmy Choo high heels

you’re talking to would rather hear the straight truth rather than cryptic statements one would have to decipher using a translator from Star Trek.

I guess that I can follow that up by saying that there are also people who use big words where little words will do. Sometimes you get these folks in class who try to dazzle you with words like “egregious” or “conundrum,” yet they use the word completely wrong and pulled it out of their ass to try to sound smart in front of the professor. Don’t kid yourself; most professors have masters degrees and PhDs, and are intelligent enough to know that you sound like a complete dumbass when you try to use these big words. They may not call you out on it, but believe me, it reflects poorly on you if you’re trying to make a relevant point to the topic discussion at hand.

That leads me to my next point, which is for all the kids who now want to be lawyers. Oh wow, you messed up your accounting major or economics major and now you want to join creative people in the fight to get into law school simply because it’s a recession and you would rather be in school. Please, stop stepping on the toes of those who have dreamed of being lawyers since the time they were young. Stick to crunching numbers and stop pretending like you’re the next Clarence Darrow just because you scored high on the aptitude exam otherwise known as the LSAT. Perhaps many of you will get into law school, but I assure you that the rest of us who dreamt of the profession since we were young will be in the court rooms while you file paper work in a cubicle.

The last grinding of my gears came as a fellow student approached me complaining about how she went to Student Accounts to take care of a grade change, then was sent to the

Registrar’s Office, who then sent her to Harpur Advising to see if the grade change was okay, who then sent her to financial aid to clear her hold before she could consult Advising, who then sent her to the Political Science Department to seek out advice, who then in turn sent her back to Student Accounts for a complete 360 degrees turn. If there is one thing that grinds my gears more than anything right now, it is the bureaucratic knots, underpaid and overworked employees who send you everywhere and anywhere to get an answer from an office that can’t even handle your problem. If private school has one up on Binghamton, it’s the private and intimate service they offer with private counselors. In proportion to the red tape, countless online forms, disgruntled employees, long lines, and “turfing” (sending to different offices to get rid of students) exist at Binghamton University. I am beyond sick of trying to do something in one office then being sent to four others who have no idea what a DARS report even is. DARS is another system that doesn’t work either; it’s like trying to read ancient cuneiform from Mesopotamia. Give me a report without all the little plus and minus symbols, and give me a report that makes sense with things like “Yes, Pauly, you no longer have to take more bullshit classes.” Or at the very least, give me a personal advisor like they have in private universities who help read the DARS for me.

While I rant and rave though, let me just say that life is good, so do not fret of graduation, hard 100 level courses, or not getting into a bar. All good things come in due time, go with the flow, role with the punches, and enjoy your lives. Life is too short to not be happy or to fall into a career just because mom and dad planned out your whole life. Live a little, travel a little, party a little, rant and rave a little, and enjoy each day. ◄

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 © 1987-2009 Binghamton Review. All rights reserved. Binghamton Review is distributed on campus under the authority of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Binghamton Review is a member of the Collegiate Network and is a Student Association-chartered organization. Binghamton University is not responsible for the content of the Review; the Review is not responsible for the content of Binghamton University. Binghamton Review thanks the Intercollegiate Studies Institute.

Past Editors of Binghamton Review: John Guardiano, Yan Rusanovsky, 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

22

Binghamton Review

NOVEMBER 2009

Prospect Editors, In the twenty-two years since Binghamton Review’s inception, numerous publications have graced BU’s lecture hall floor at one point or another, only to disappear entirely after a few semesters of printing. You may remember Element Magazine, or if you have been on campus as long as our layout editor, Off!, the publication of Off Campus College Council. Aside from Pipe Dream, the Review has been the sole student-run publication to print consistently these past two decades, never missing an issue.

A staple of ours since 1995 has been Campus Presswatch. In the weeks leading up to production, our staff reads through other publications in search of inconsistencies, mistakes, and arguments with which we disagree. Prospect has long been one of our favorite targets. However, after some careful consideration, we at the Review have decided to adopt a new policy: no more mention of Prospect.

Ever.

We do not want you to think we are giving up out of laziness. Honestly, we just don’t see the point anymore. It was once fun to pick one or two quotes from each issue, mock them to our best ability, and leave it at that. But your publication has become such a joke that we really can’t in good conscience spend our time on you anymore. It’s like pointing out the fat kid in the cafeteria. He knows he’s fat. Everyone knows he’s fat. He can’t help it, why continue to make an issue out of it?

We became concerned before we even opened up this semester’s first issue. The cover was of a large black fist clenched up as if it were rising to fight horrible injustices. “The progressive voice on campus returns,” read the cover. Since when does being the liberal voice on campus include recommending Grand Master Flash and the Furious Five as a “song worth stealing”? The folks over at E.M.O. may be nuts, but at least they have a set of ideas that they promote consistently. We might disagree with them philosophically on issues like police and tasers, but at least they have never dedicated their front cover to that attention-whoring kid with the afro. Additionally, your misogynistic attitude needs to end now. Referring to women as “biddies” and giving readers advice on how to “pull them” is not very progressive.

Occasionally, you live up to your purpose and try to promote a liberal agenda. But instead of laying out arguments for socialized healthcare or affirmative action, you attack Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin for being nuts. Why debate policy when you can stick to ad hominem arguments? The one time this semester that you did cover something substantive, you ranted against Reagan’s policies.

What’s next, a Vietnam protest?

We can already predict the content of your next issue: Sam Sussman will continue his crusade against the straight man. Meltner will attack Ann Coulter for her usual over-the-top rhetoric. And we’ll learn how to get a biddie to “gobble” during Thanksgiving. We look forward to it…

While they say imitation is the best form of flattery, your constant plagiarism is becoming too blatant to ignore. We don’t mind you adopting our style, but ripping off our content is a whole other story. Until your latest issue, you had never printed a satire section before. Then BR introduced one and not only did you follow, but you satirized the exact same subject as we: the basketball team.

Additionally, “your” jokes were pulled directly from our back cover and satire article. There are enough racist jokes to go around; come up with your own. We’re doing a satire on the CSA Carnival fiasco in this issue. Feel free to take what you like.

So, Prospect, we wish you luck on your journey to the bottom. Tell Free Press we say hi.

Sincerely, Binghamton Review

23

WE SUCK!

Everything You need to know about Prospect

A l s o I n s i de Un d e r s t a n d i ng B iddie s : T i p s F r o m A Vi r g in Politi c s : W e D o n’t Unde r s t a n d Th e m Ei t h er B ingha m t o n R e v i e w