www.binghamtonreview.com
Binghamton Review February 2008
The Student Journal at Binghamton University
The Student Journal at Binghamton University
THE FUTURE OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY Also in this Issue:
Rock Band The NIE Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Academic Cowards Health Care
Truth and two staples
Binghamton Review The Student Journal at Binghamton University Founded 1987 o Volume XXII Number 1 o February 2008
Editor-in-Chief James Novak Assistant Editor Dan Gray Editor at Large Nate Sugarman
3
Editorial: James Novak debunks the thinking behind the Gay ban.
16
The Future of the Republican Party: Alex Rosenthal and Tom Shannon
4
Editor Emeritus Christopher Powell Treasurer Michael Calabrese Marketing Director Edward Aller Graphics James Novak Staff Writers Gil Auslander, Donna Lee Cohen. Ryan Dunham, Evan Engel, Paul Liggieri, Robert E. Menje, James Novak, Christopher Powell, Adam Shamah, Thomas Shannon, Ashley Spierer, Nehemia Stern, Adam Zabary, Annie Zaken, Dan Gray Contributors David Pert, Scott Tannenbaum, Mike Lombardi Friends of the Review Dr. Aldo S. Bernardo Mr. Michael J. Hayes The Kaufman Family Mr. Robert Larnerd The Leonini Family Mr. Michael O’Connell Mr. Tony Potochniak The Powell Family Mr. Conrad Ross The Shannon Family Mr. Bob Soltis WA2CVS The Sugarman Family Binghamton Review is printed by Our Press, in Chenango Bridge. We provide the truth; they provide the staples. Binghamton Review Binghamton University PO Box 6000 Binghamton, NY 13902-6000 binghamtonreview@gmail.com
Features
10
Rock Band: Scott Tannenbaum reviews the hit video game. debate.
Contents
Nehemia Stern tackles academic cowardice.
12
Adam Shamah feconstructs the National Intelligence Estimate.
18
Jason Birriel points out the merits of private health care.
22
Robert Menje takes a shot at Al Sharpton.
16 20 23 24 26 28 31 32
Ryan Dunham unleashes his inner luddite.
Ari Feinman takes a look at Clarence Thomas. Annie Zaken gives advice to Tom Selleck. Paul Liggieri’s gears are grinding!
Dave Pert takes a look at global warming and Summer Glau. Dan Gray’s NBA mid-season preview. Lombardi goes EMO.
Darth Vader is a Republican.
Binghamton Review is a monthly, independent journal of news, analysis, commentary, and controversy. Students at Binghamton University receive two copies of the Review free of charge (non-transferrable). Additional copies cost $1 each. Letters to the Editor are welcome; they must be accompanied by the author’s current address and phone number. All submissions become the property of the Review. The Review reserves the right to edit and print any submission. Copyright © 2007 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.
“Before all else, be armed.” -Niccolo Machiavelli
Past Editors of Binghamton Review : John Guardiano, Yan Rusanovsky, Kathryn Doherty, Ephriam Bernstein, Michael Malloy, Paul Schnier, Adam Bromberg, Bernadette Malone, Michael Darcy, Nathan Wurtzel, Amy Gardner, John Carney, Paul Torres, Jason Kovacs, Robert Zoch, Matthew Pecorino, Michael O’Connell, Louis W. Leonini, Joseph Carlone, Christopher Powell
Binghamton Review, February 2008
Gays in the military
‘Don’t Ask, Don’t’ Tell Doesn’t Work
P
erhaps one of the most tary commanders to get rid of disgraceful policies in our people they do not like. If one country is the ban on opendoes not find this believable they ly gay, bisexual, and lesshould go to the Service Members bian individuals from serving in the Legal Defense Network’s website United States military known as the or actually talk to some one who Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. This was in the military. No one really policy was the result of a comprocares about who sleeps with whom mise between Bill Clinton and the as long as they get their job done. congress in the early 1990s. The A Zogby poll concluded that 73% deal was that homosexuals would be of servicemen and women were allowed to serve in the military, but comfortable serving with gays and they couldn’t act on their orientalesbians. tion or let anyone know about their DADT damages national gender preference. DADT is a policy security by wasting a monumenthat is ill informed and ultimately tal amount of money, deterring Editor-inChief damages security. recruitment of talented individuals One of the most popular arguand discharging the types of peoments is that allowing homosexuals to serve would ple the USA needs to be successful in its war against lead to a collapse in unit cohesion. A 1993 publica- Islamic radicalism. A University of California report tion by the Heritage Foundation espoused this talk- in 2006 discovered that over the first decade of ing point (which is still repeated to this day) – “Unit enforcing the policy the government spent over 350 cohesion is the social bond that gives rise to that million dollars. Considering the fact that a large intangible feeling which causes a man to dive on number of our troops have been going without body a grenade to save his buddies, or to risk his life armor, it is fair to say that money could have been simply because his leader tells him to. It requires spent on much more urgent concerns. It is also the soldier to place the needs of the unit ahead of important to presume that the policy also deters his self-interest and individual identity. He will patriotic gays and lesbians from joining the military. do this, however, only if he trusts that his com- It is just common sense that telling some one that rades and commanders are doing likewise. While there is a policy that makes it illegal for them to cohesion requires a strong degree of mutual have sex would act as some kind of deterrent. The affection, sexual emotions are rooted strongly in military has lost 58 Arabic translators that have been self-interest. They can be distracting and even relieved of their duties as well. Stephen Benjamin of disruptive, and often lie beneath the surface, not the New York Times Op-Ed page raised an imporindicated by any overt action or statement.” tant question, “How much valuable intelligence Essentially John Luddy, the author, concluded could those men and women be providing today to that homophobia would lead to a break down in troops in harm’s way?” Considering thousands of how well our army operated. This is an utterly others have been discharged over the years, it is not foolish and immoral defense. At this point, most unrealistic to conclude that this policy is helping NATO countries do not have a ban and neither do stall our progress in Iraq and is costing lives? the Israelis, and their armies are functioning just Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell does not and never should fine. This idea is also morally repugnant because have been implemented in American law. It is a the same argument could have been made against policy that has cost this country not only money, a integrating African Americans into the mostly white better chance at victory, but most importantly lives. military. It has no place in this modern era and it must be The policy is essentially archaic because gays, ended. Our military is better served by having gays lesbians, and bisexuals happen to serve with their and lesbians than not. fellow sailors, airmen, and soldiers having full knowledge of their sexual orientation. It essentially only serves as a tool for homophobic mili-
James Novak
Binghamton Review, February 2008
Rock Band: A Brief Review by Scott Tannenbaum
-Was released in November and costs $169.99. It is supported for the Playstation 2, Playstation 3 and Xbox 360. - Previous controllers such as Guitar Hero ones can and should be used because accessories wont be around until this month. -The game is very fun and includes a campaign for singing, guitar, and drums. It is even more fun with multiplayer, in which you can play with friends or even over the Internet. -My favorite part of the game is the downloadable content. Despite the game coming with 48 excellent songs, every week you can download new ones for about 2 dollars a song. -The instruments feel sturdy for the most part, and the package comes with a limited warranty in case anything breaks. -The only downside to this game is that the drum pedal can snap easily and is not the most durable. Scott Tannenbaum is a Junior at Binghamton University, is a History major, and rivals the skills of McJagger after 500 hours of playing this game.
Binghamton Review, February 2008
Binghamton Review, February 2008
16
Feature:
BR Debate About The Republican Party
Opening Statement - Libertarian- liberty back to its citizens, who ism, the new (old) way forward. have known since the days of the revolution how to achieve “Politics is the art of achieving greatness without paternal influthe maximum amount of free- ence. dom for individuals that is con- Make no mistake about sistent with the maintenance of it, what made America, America social order.” was our liberty both in our pocketbooks and in our homes. - Barry Goldwater Enter the social conservative movement and a new wave of Republican, George W. Bush being the bumbling poster boy, with no respect for free, unhampered markets. They have regularly broken promises on spending (where it makes them rich or popular) and have made no effort to reduce the size of unconstitutional bureaucracies, instead adding billions to the Oh, how far we have strayed national debt financing ineffecfrom those simple, yet brilliant tive programs such as No Child sentiments uttered by Mr. Con- Left Behind. servative himself, Senator and The most egregious asRepublican Presidential Candi- pect of these new Republicans date, Barry Goldwater. Although he didn’t win the presidential election in 1964, Americas embrace of individual liberty can be pointed to as the great catalyst of our countries overwhelming social, economic and political success in the second half of the twentieth century. Indeed, what our country needs now, in the most desperate fashion, is a return to good is their unconscionable lack old fashioned conservatism, the of respect for the individual’s one that promised and succeeded right to social liberty, instead to unlock our nations prosperity asserting the states right to play by reducing the role, size and moral authority figure when the funding of an inefficient govern- constitution expressly forbids ment and giving the maximum this suction of liberty from the
individual. The country is sick of this leadership (see: 2006 elections), we must go back to the basics and focus on defeating big government spending and over bearing paternalism. We must retake the government that was to be elected for the sole purpose of preserving our rights – not asserting big government and a moral crusade. - Alex Rosenthal Opening Statement - Put the Chirping Sectaries in their place “The worst enemies of enduring freedom for all may be certain folk who demand incessantly more liberty for themselves.” - Russell Kirk Any prescription for what path the Republican Party should pick for the future must begin with an assessment of the George W. Bush presidency. Rather than snipe at each other over Bush’s public acknowledgments of God (which is objectionable to some only because he is a social conservative), the various factions of the conservative movement would be better served to at least start out by emphasizing areas of agreement. Traditional conservatives and libertarians alike can agree that the idea of encircling Iran with Democracy and car bombs has been delusional, deadly, and a colossal waste of money. Since the Afghanistan and Iraq wars began, many selfstyled conservatives have berated others for merely suggesting that “freedom” or “democracy” cannot
Binghamton Review, February 2008
work in all lands and among all people, and certainly not at the point of a gun. That Wilsonian mental tic clearly has to go… back to its proper and original home on the D side of the aisle. We can also agree that the Bush era has brought forth unnecessarily large expansions of the national government in the areas of prescription drugs and education particularly. We must, however, part ways on what the purposes of government are. Government is there to ensure that individuals’ rights are protected but it also exists to restrain the populace from their wilder passions, such as murder, rape, theft, drug use, and assorted other vices. There are limits of course; government cannot abolish vice, but through the laws it adopts it can go a long way towards defining just what kind of society we want to live in. Recognizing the geographic clustering of the two dominant strains of thought on abortion, gay marriage, and other social issues, these topics must be left to state legislatures. Only when the Left gets the Supreme Court to pull another constitutional right out of thin air should we even debate these topics at the national level. Call it a “moral crusade” if you like but it is little more than “defending normality.” Save the “how do you define normal” bunk for sociology class. - Tom Shannon
The above mentioned Russell Kirk, President Bush and many other ill informed conservatives share the same unfortunate belief that taking away constitutional liberties from the people serves the national interest by providing better security for all. In fact, this is nothing but pure illusion, our greatest defense we have against terrorist forces and rogue countries is our economic might and our domestic freedoms. When we allow the government to illegally spy on us (see: “patriot act”) we move ourselves perilously closer to tyranny and even scarier, one step closer to the society that those terrorists themselves live in. To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, “Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little
Bush and stop getting goaded into supporting unconstitutional baloney and fear mongering candidates (see: Rudolph Giuliani). As for the liberties that I am talking about, I speak of all liberties not just the ones I personally enjoy. Though I do not own a handgun I respect the right to bear arms, though I am not homosexual I respect the right for every human being to be treated equally and though I personally find abortions abhorrent, I respect the right of women to make that excruciatingly difficult decision for themselves. The key here is that I’m not fighting to preserve only those freedoms which I value, but the reasonable freedoms of all men and women. A reasonable freedom is one in which the expresser for that freedom does not expressly harm another. In the case of murder, rape, theft clearly a person is affecting another’s freedom but how does the act of drug use or the act of homosexual sex harm another human being? The idea of leaving these issues to the states is an attractive one and an easy trap to fall upon. The Constitution does say (10th amendment) “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” However, I would focus on the end of the statement as well as the amendment directly proceeding it (9th amendment) “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain security will deserve neither and rights, shall not be construed to lose both”. deny or disparage others retained True believers in liberty by the people.” need to standup to President It’s within these con-
“Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both”
Binghamton Review, February 2008
straints that social liberty must be protected upon by the federal judiciary. Since our country’s inception it has always been the judiciary that has protected and expanded our civil liberties and I would say with no hesitation with few exceptions, a great job they have done. - Alex Rosenthal What happened to libertarianism? Where did the Jeffersonian distaste for federal judges and political consolidation go? What of Sen. Barry Goldwater’s opposition to federal Civil Rights legislation on the grounds that it unconstitutionally expanded the national government? When did Ben Franklin become the Founding Father and his canard become the apex of political wisdom? It seems that libertarians these days are preoccupied with caving to the demands of degenerates and deviants by legalizing drugs and creating the institution of gay marriage. Many sleep well with the thought that any major presidential candidate who endorses either of those positions has committed political suicide. To articulate the Mill/ A. Rosenthal principle: human actions may be prohibited by law or social norm only if they cause harm to (post-natal) others. Theoretically, a guy shooting heroin or smoking pot by himself in his apartment has no adverse effect on anyone else. But, as anyone who has ever lived within a mile radius of a Ken-
nedy Fried Chicken can attest, life is not that simple. Likewise, the act of gay marriage may not obviously harm anyone else but if we look at similar social innovations from the recent past, namely mass divorce, single motherhood, and widespread illegitimate birth, all have been socially disastrous and harmful to everyone in the community. All conjure a shoulder shrug if not outright support from libertarians. That’s why it has been said “philosophical fundamentalism is not preferable to the religious variety.” Truth is, not even prohibitions on incest, polygamy, or bestiality would hold up if all laws were subject to the Mill/Rosenthal principle. It is patently useless in determining what should be allowed and what should not. On a topic vital to the 2008 campaign, orthodox libertarianism has no solution for the problem of Islamic zealotry. On this issue the national government can be used for one of its original and constitutional purposes: providing for the common defense. Sure, there have been some executive branch excesses since 9/11. Some parts of the Patriot Act have infringed on the ancient English rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights. On the whole, however, the Patriot Act has given law enforcement the ability to prevent another terrorist attack. To those who would do away with the entire act, I ask, do you have a better idea Binghamton Review, January 2007
for preventing another attack? What would it be? Zero Muslim immigration until Jihad’s fifteen minutes are up? That would probably be effective but it certainly isn’t libertarian. - Tom Shannon Our foreign policy is a nightmare and needs to be handled in a more straightforward, diplomatic and competent fashion. The use of the patriot act and illegal torture are not just morally and ethically wrong - they provide very little or no real world benefit. Even the greatest war hawk of the day, John McCain, disavows the use of torture by the U.S government because it negatively effects our world position. To approach Islamic extremism we don’t need American extremism, we need rational, focused and diligent policy. As to domestic matters I think the argument is very simple, social conservatives (and liberals) believe that the government should go beyond its initial limited purpose of protecting our national sovereignty and protecting individual rights and should become a state that dictates how people should live their lives based on the morality of the majority. In your words “laws [the state] adopts can go a long way towards defining just what kind of society we want to live in”. Why should the government be dictating the type of society we live in (or defining “normal”)? So-
cial conservatives claim that the government should not control the economy of the society; the distribution of wealth – yet – to control the social behavior of others is acceptable. Furthermore social conservatives and liberals are equally hypocritical on this point. Liberals take the stance that people should have their money saved for them as they are too incompetent to provide for their own retirement.
jihadists hate us more because of our long standing interventionist foreign policy than because of our “freedom,” must not be deluded into thinking a troop pull-out will automatically end the terrorist threat to our country. It has never been the nature of jihadists, medieval or modern, to stay where they are and live in peace even if all their grievances have been soothed. We can reasonably debate the use of “sneak and What this really all says to peeks,” National Security me is that liberals and social Letters, and law enforcement conservatives are quite simiaccess to library records (not lar in their belief that people exactly the Quartering Act, are not capable of handling folks) but without the core of their lives so they must be told the Patriot Act in effect, the what to do by a government U.S. all but asks for another that we establish (and the elite attack by Islamic enthusiasts control). The only difference on its soil. Juxtaposing the is, liberals believe it begins in Patriot Act with water-boardthe board room, while social ing and then pointing out the conservatives believe it starts cruelty of water-boarding is in the bedroom. not an effective argument against the Patriot Act. - Alex Rosenthal On domestic matters, it is critical to keep the The Bush Doctrine era has distinction between national indeed been a joke. How the and state or local government fresh in mind. There The Bush Doctrine is no grand national-level social agenda issuing forth from these stanzas. There era has inddeed have been overreaches, for examples the Terry Schiavo been a joke. case and the federal marriage amendment proposal, and mainstream of the Republican they have been regrettable. Party came to so fervently A devolution of authorchampion Woodrow Wilson’s ity to state and local governforeign policy and FDR’s ments on matters such as gay trade policy (and JFK’s immi- marriage, abortion, prayer in gration policy) is a sad story, schools, and others is what too complicated to be fair to social conservatives and, here. Nonetheless, those of more broadly, the Republican us who are persuaded that the Party should be seeking. Not Binghamton Review, January 2007
only is this proper in a constitutional sense it also is pragmatic, seeing as no national law or Supreme Court case on these subjects could ever satisfy more than say half of Americans, a people utterly divided on these bedrock cultural issues. As it affects the presidential race, this means seeking a candidate who will nominate Supreme Court justices committed to originalism and constitutional federalism. Liberals, and apparently libertarians too, are united in their view of the 14th amendment as Santa Claus – handing out presents to any and every pet cause that comes along, whether it be Planned Parenthood or a couple of gay guys in Texas. One more conservative justice on the Supreme Court means that the process of tearing down the cultural leftism that has been enshrined in constitutional law over the last fifty years can commence. −
Tom Shannon
Tom Shannon and Alex Rosenthal are both Binghamton Review regulars who are usually around CIW, smoking joints, and jamming to the audio recordings of Ronald Reagan’s speeches.
Cowardice in Academia
10
Intellectual Cowardice and the Art of Dissent: The Case of Three
“H
The United States of America is a country that in many ways was founded upon the principle of dissent. Individuals have the inalienable right of active and respectful disagreement. In December of last semester, we all had the privilege of witnessing this principle of respectful dissent. The lecture given by Dr. Daniel Pipes had the ability to galvanize our shared scholastic community in some astounding ways. However, what could have been an exercise in discourse and respectful dissent, unfortunately transformed itself into an act of scholastic ignorance and intellectual cowardice. I personally enjoyed the lecture given by Daniel Pipes. Sadly, for the many who so vociferously protested the event, very few of them had the gumption to stay and listen to the assumed ‘controversial’ message. The throngs of people who walked out of the lecture were just one more example of the insidious allure of ‘group-think’. Instead of staying to discuss and debate the issues, those bril-
University Professors by Nehemia Stern
liant collegiate minds chose to walk out and ignore that
Mike Rose which they disagree with. As Pipe Dream columnist Ali Rasoulinejad so eloquently stated such an act is “second only to covering
To be perfectly honest I am not so worried about those mindless minions who like sheep - so instinctively follow the antiestablishment shepherd of the radical left.
one’s ears and muttering “I can’t hear you”. This occurrence is disappointing Binghamton Review, February 2008
though not very surprising. To be perfectly honest I am not so worried about those mindless minions who - like sheep - so instinctively follow the anti-establishment shepherd of the radical left. What was very troublesome however, were the professors and intellectuals who so callously chose to turn their backs on the prized academic values of discourse, debate, and dissent. The day before the lecture, the Coalition against Hate (an oxymoron if there ever was one) organized an academic panel that in its essence unequivocally condemned Pipes’ views as racist and ‘Islamophobic’. The most notable participants on the panel were three Binghamton University professors, Dr. Ali Mazrui, Dr. Susan Pollack, and Dr. Ali Bounani. When asked if any of the above-mentioned professors planned to attend the lecture Dr. Bounani answered, “I am not, I already know what he is going to say”. In fact, it appears that none of the esteemed professors chose to attend the lecture. Perhaps I am an idealist, but I expect more from
11
intellectuals with doctorates in there respective fields. If they so passionately disagree with the political ideas of Daniel Pipes then it is their intellectual responsibility to attend the lecture and actively debate the issues involved. Failure to do so is nothing less then a brazen and ignorant act of intellectual cowardice. By failing to listen and subsequently to respond to Daniel Pipes’ political assertions, Dr. Mazrui, Dr. Pollack, and Dr. Bounani, have abrogated their scholarly duty towards academic inquiry and intellectual dissent. In the process of automatically vilifying Pipes as a bigot and an islamophobe these ‘Doctors of Philosophy’, have insidiously closed off all avenues of respectful opposition. Let me be clear. Daniel Pipes touches upon some very disconcerting issues that this country must begin to grapple with. One of these issues is the relationship between democracy and security. Daniel Pipes has (in his own words) painfully supported the use of ethnic profiling (not racial, this has absolutely nothing to do with race) as an element in the investigation and prosecution of Islamic Fundamentalism. This country needs to discuss and debate the values of democracy set against the needs
of security. Indeed other countries as well face this disturbing question. Recent events in Pakistan, the ongoing military situation in Israel, and the ‘culturewars’ occurring in Great Britain, prove the urgency of this point. Pipes’ position is only one part of this greater discussion. If as a nation, we do not discuss this troubling
By vilifying and labeling one side as being ‘racist’ or ‘Islamophobic’, one is impeding and obstructing a very necessary conversation from taking place.
issue (in and open and frank manner), then the conclusion will ultimately be decided ‘for us’ rather then ‘with us’. The United States of America is approaching
Binghamton Review,February 2008
a very precipitous moment. By vilifying and labeling one side as being ‘racist’ or ‘Islamophobic’, one is impeding and obstructing a very necessary conversation from taking place. By preaching to ones respective choir, and ignoring the opposition, one is in reality ensuring the demise of democratic rule. Before the larger issue of democracy vis-à-vis security can be addressed, intellectuals must somehow create a ‘language of debate’. Like children in a playground, scholars must first learn how to debate, how to discuss, and most importantly how to engage in respectful dissent. I urge Dr. Mazrui, Dr. Pollack, and Dr. Bounani, to engage with (and not against) their intellectual and political ‘other’ in an attempt to create this ‘language of debate’. Failing to do so is nothing less then intellectual cowardice, and has no place in the academy. Nehemia Stern is a Graduate Student in Anthropology who doesn’t expect to TA for Ali Bounani any time soon.
12
Liberals and the NIE: Both Lacking Intelligence Democrats on Iran by Adam Shamah
L
It has been an eventful two months in the Middle East since the last Binghamton Review was printed and as expected, on every new issue or development, the Democrats have taken positions that purposefully undermine the United States of America. In early December, the American intelligence community released a National Intelligence Estimate that many claim stated with “high confidence” that Iran halted its quest for a nuclear bomb back in 2003. For thoughtless liberals, the celebration began: Cheney and the Jews are not allowed to attack Iran now! (Flail arms) Yay!!! Liberals and the Ayatollah- One;, FOX News and Halliburton- Zero. But according to John Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, the NIE “is written in a way that guarantees the totality of the conclusions will be misread.” Much like the Democratic Party’s platform, this was done with the purpose of undermining America’s Iran policy. He calls the NIE’s findings “policy biases…recycled as intelligence judgments” and says that there is little difference between the facts presented in the 2005 NIE that said Iran was on its way to building an atomic weapon and the 2007 NIE. Iran still wants to leave a mushroom cloud over a city like Tel Aviv and this “intelligence report” will only help them in accomplishing that goal. The Israeli and British governments agree. The London Daily Telegraph reported on December 12th that senior British officials had stated that they “are skeptical” with regard to the new
NIE is hidden in a footnote on page five, where the writers of the assessment distinguish between Iran’s military weapons program and their “peaceful nuclear-energy program.” The Intelligence Community, and everyone else, agrees that Iran continues to enrich Uranium for what they claim are “civilian purposes.” Ahmadinejad brags intelligence and believe that it is about it weekly on Middle Eastvery possible that the US was fed ern TV stations, in between the false information by its Iranian televised beheadings and public sources. The same article claims stonings. He has yet to make that “many middle- ranking clear why an oil rich country CIA veterans believe Iran is still like Iran would invest billions of committed to producing nuclear dollars in nuclear energy. Then again, Nancy Pelosi has yet to make clear why a country with oil dependency issues, like the United States, won’t invest in nuclear energy. Gary Milhollin and Valerie Lincy, two experts on nuclear arms control, explain in a piece they published last month in the New York Times that “during the past year, a period when Iran’s weapons program was supposedly halted, the government has been busy installing some 3,000 gas centrifuges at its plant at Natanz. These machines could, if operated continuously for about a year, create enough enriched uranium to provide fuel for a bomb.” They go on to state that these centrifuges have “no plausible purpose in Iran’s civilian nuclear effort. All of Iran’s needs for enriched uranium for weapons.” Yuval Steinitz, an Isits energy programs are covered raeli legislator who serves on the by a contract with Russia.” They Parliament’s Foreign Affairs and remind us that “Iran is also buildDefense Committee reveals that ing a heavy water reactor [that is] Israel has “a lot of very clear and ideal for producing plutonium for solid intelligence, that...clearly nuclear bombs, but is of little use shows that the Iranians are devel- in an energy program like Iran’s, oping nuclear weapons today.” which does not use plutonium for The most important part of the reactor fuel.” Also Iran is busy
Liberals need a new costume if they wish to remain in power.
Binghamton Review, February 2008
13
building “long-range Shahab missiles, which make no military sense without nuclear warheads to put on them.” The two experts later explain why this information appears at first to be absent from the NIE’s conclusions: “For years these expensive projects have been viewed as evidence of Iran’s commitment to nuclear weapons. Why aren’t they still? The answer is that the new report defines ‘nuclear weapons program’ in a ludicrously narrow way: it confines it to enriching uranium at secret sites or working on a nuclear weapon design. But the halting of its secret enrichment and weapon design efforts in 2003 proves only that Iran made a tactical move. It suspended work that, if discovered, would unambiguously reveal intent to build a weapon. It has continued other work (crucial to the ability to make a bomb) that it can pass off as having civilian applications.” This path is similar to the one North Korea took in its nearly successful pursuit of nuclear weapons. The NIE was written as more of a psychological assessment rather than a reporting of facts. All it tells us is that we should believe Ahmadinejad when he says his nuclear program is for the creation of energy, not for wiping Israel off the map. The program described by the new NIE is almost no different from the one reported in 2005, and thus Iran is no less of a threat than it was before. The report’s authors must know this, so why did they frame it all in a way that guaranteed that its conclusions would be misread by the media? And why are so many politicians going along with the misinformation? As revealed by John Bolton, “many involved in drafting and approving the NIE were not intelligence professionals but refugees from the State Department [who had]…benign views
of Iran’s nuclear intentions five and six years ago, now they are writing those views as if they received wisdom from on high. In fact these are precisely the policy biases they had before, recycled as ‘intelligence judgments.’ ” To these people the NIE was not a means of reporting intelligence but rather a way to influence policy. Liberals in Congress, at the State Department, and in the media want to avoid war with Iran at all cost. To a liberal, things like “overcrowded prisons” and the Ten Commandments are much scarier than suicidal fanatics intent on destroying western civilization and they are willing to allow Iran to build nuclear weapons unmolested by the United States in order to maintain that crazy illusion. Even after the traitors eliminate from the equation Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons they still don’t know how to deal with the Islamist regime. John Edwards cites the NIE as proof that “Iran can be dissuaded from pursuing a nuclear weapon through diplomacy.” I cite it as proof that liberals should stay out of Government. John Bolton, referring to his experience as undersecretary of state for arms control in 2003, explains that “we were nowhere near exerting any significant diplomatic pressure on Iran.” In addition, Dennis Kucinich seems to think that the NIE rules new economic sanctions against Iran out of the question (though sanctions against Mars are still in play). Barack Obama and Joe Biden have suggested that this “new information” suggests that Iran can only be persuaded diplomatically (to stop its other terror activities) and that it should be made clear that the thought of military action is off the table. All of this would sound lovely if not for the inconvenient truth that the only international Binghamton Review, February 2008
action taken by America in 2003 was our toppling of Saddam Hussein’s regime in response to his pursuit of WMD. If Iran did halt its program, they did so because President Bush intimidated them by making clear that the United States is willing to use its military might to crush those who seek to harm us. Diplomacy without the threat of force cannot work. John Edwards has also made the wild assertion that the National Intelligence Estimate aproves we must “avoid radical steps like…declaring Iran’s Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization.” (emphasis added) This is almost as crazy as denying that there is a global war on terror. Oh wait, Edwards did that too! Liberals are very eager to write off their buddies in Iran as a danger to the United States and our allies, so somehow a report that “concludes” that they are not building atomic warheads excuses the Iranian regime of all of its other terror activity. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps host senior al-Qaeda leaders living in Iran and are undermining the government of Lebanon. They fund and train groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, and have in the past coordinated attacks with them. They are currently arming the terrorist groups that are killing Americans and Iraqis in Iraq. But no, John Edwards says they are not a terrorist group, so quick, someone invite them to join Libya on the UN Security Council! Liberalism has already ruined so much: Social Security, education, the inner cities, Green Day; let’s not let it destroy our foreign policy as well. Don’t help any of these people become Commander-In-Chief. Adam Shamah is a Freshman, a Business major, and a he is amazing at Backgammon.
14
Binghamton Review, February 2008
15
Binghamton Review, February 2008
Cyber Loneliness
T
Facebook Me...
Thre’s not enuff time to read tihs article. There’s not enough time to read a book, a newspaper, a blog, every now and then. There’s not enough time to flush the toilet, or wash your hands. If you’re reading this sentence, this article is not for you. However, no such discourse can reach the aimless minds of the text messenger, the e-mail sender, the cell phone user. Although these tools are great for emergency purposes, one should not anger because I refuse to answer a call, or respond to a text message/ e-mail. It’s a shame my Facebook profile does not reveal a single truth about my essence (although it’s a rather according portrayal, in line with everyone else’s fabrication of themselves). Somehow relationships have regressed to friendships via Internet platforms such as Facebook and MySpace. The rapid relationships we now have, that are contingent to discourse’s fusion with technology, have left us isolated, confused, and sexually frustrated. An Apple commercial for one of its latest products, the iPhone, informs the viewer that human beings have survived for centuries without text messaging, Internet access, e-mail, and up-tothe-minute stock updates—right in their pocket. The narrator then inquires….how? My rebuttal, has the ability to ask someone “s’up?” through a cell phone, really become a necessity? Cell phones distanced human communication enough by having kids call their parents to ask what’s for dinner instead of walking downstairs, or at the very least screaming their hunger-call. But now we no longer desire to talk to one another. Nearly every text I’ve received could have been spoken
I need the friends by Ryan Dunham
over the same phone through which the message was texted, or was completely unnecessary. I got a text from my brother after the World Series informing me that what I witnessed was indeed truthful and confirming that my television had not malfunctioned and mistakenly shown the 2004 World Series. I immediately called him and indulged him in his drunken euphoria that his team indeed won the World Series. The conversation was much more humane than reading “World Series Champs!!!!” I ask: what happened to drunk-dialing? Hearing an inebriated friend ramble his subconscious thoughts is more entertaining than reading “asgdshgsd dsfhdfsh dfs asdfsadfwtsah”. And then there was Facebook. Facebook was initially a platform through which friends could remain in touch while attending different colleges. One was able to tell the virtual world his or her favorite movies, his graduation year, and not much more. Some time during my freshman year (three years ago) I removed myself from the site, failing to see the point. Last spring semester I finally reactivated my account (which was surprisingly still kept in the archives). It would baffle me when I would meet someone, and the second time I met them they would ask why I was not on Facebook? Has having a Facebook page become obligatory? These days in order to have lasting (and I use such a term loosely) relationships, one must have a Facebook page, and update it frequently. Friendship has become letting someone know your favorite movies, how well you know The Lion King, and whether or not you are a vampire. Binghamton Review, February 2008
16
Then there was YouTube. Have you seen the latest video? The one with the penguin in a hula skirt surfing? The one with the fat guying singing while he reaches for a turkey that’s rolled behind the couch? The one with the edited clips of Leave It to Beaver with a porno music score? Only one good thing came out of YouTube: the ability to watch professional wrestling matches and promos from its glory years (1994 – 1998). But as rapid as our relationships have become, so has the so-called culture we experience. To paraphrase today’s society - ‘Forget Tolstoy, I want to watch a bear bouncing on a trampoline’. In conclusion, I understand that the instant gratification juggernaut cannot be stopped. Cell phones, Facebook, and YouTube are here to stay. However, the archaic discourses such as literature and painting do not need to become extinct. If you are going to text message, send the laconic messages between art displays. And if you are going to check facebook, check it between chapters in Bret Easton Ellis’s American Psycho or Vladimir Nobokov’s Lolita (and, yes, those are plugs). Ryan Dunham is an Enlgish major who is working on the latest publication of the Unabomber’s manifesto.
17
Binghamton Review, February 2008
Health Care
18
Socialized Medicine vs. Private Health Care by Jason Birriel
M
edicine is present in every industrialized nation except our own. Those nations have a system in which medical expenditures, hospitals, doctors and even substance rehabilitation is run and paid for by the government. Privately run healthcare dominates our healthcare sector and is prevalent only in the United States. Across the political spectrum liberals and democrats are calling for universal healthcare; though many have resisted calling for a total government run healthcare system, they are pushing for universal healthcare. However, this would only be a first step to an eventual complete socialized healthcare system. This idea is noble and in theory works. However there are a few misconceptions to socialized healthcare that the media and left leaning politicians fail to inform the American people. First, nations with socialized healthcare systems have extraordinarily high income tax brackets (Sweden (55%), France (59.5%), United Kingdom (57.5%) and Canada (53%). This tax burden is detrimental to economic growth and as a result leads to industrialized nations having low annual economic growth. Beside the tax burden on individuals socialized medicine puts an enormous financial burden on businesses. The reality is as much as liberals and left leaning politicians bash corporations and business, it is still private sector businesses which contribute to most of our economic growth, therefore placing more tax burden on an already high taxed sector of our economy will further hurt economic growth. With our economy potentially heading towards a recession, or at least a contraction, this is not the healthcare policy we should be seeking.
ing American consumers to spend more and more on insurance. This rising cost results in the loss of a job, also resulting in losing one‘s health coverage. The solution to these problems do not dictate that we expand government by socializing medicine; rather that we take steps to allow free markets to have full effect on the health care industry. An alternative is for the fedThe sad reality of government eral government to remove regulahealthcare is that it is the worse tion of the health insurance indusentity to determine the needs of in- try from the state level. One of the dividuals, especially the healthcare burdens the insurance industry has needs of people. The federal govstated contributes to high premiums ernment is a large and inefficient and high healthcare inflation is that bureaucracy, bound by legislation each state has its own regulatory and consensus making, which in laws and mandates that all comlegal and congressional duties is panies must abide by. Insurance required and justified. However, companies must conform to an estigiven responsibility over healthmated 1,852 different types of laws care, the federal government will and mandates. This leads to high probably run it like it does Amtrak, administrative costs, which acthe United States Postal Service, cording to a report by the Harvard and Social Security, which is very Medical School and the Canadian inefficient. It would primarily rely Institute for Health Information, on tax payers instead of market accounts for 31% of healthcare forces and revenue to fund medicosts in the United States. A Cato cal research, hospitals, and doctors Institute study concluded that state salaries. regulations cost consumers 340 Medical inflation conbillion dollars annually and only tinues to rise at a faster pace than provide about 170 billion dollars in general inflation and insurance pre- benefits. Regulations in New York miums continue their double digit State are estimated according to climb year after year. The left and Wall Street Journal to make health liberal thinking is that the current insurance 10% higher in New York healthcare problem is a result of the than neighboring Connecticut. This market’s failure. When carefully is perhaps the simplest and yet examined the problem is governmost cost reduction action that can ment regulations, which have led be implemented. The federal govto the spiraling healthcare costs. ernment must assume regulatory First, do you ever wonder why responsibility for health insurance healthcare is the only industry in and the states must abandon their which technology has not reduced protectionist laws with regard to costs? Nearly every industry in the healthcare. United States has been able to use Another solution is to technology to cut costs in labor, encourage health savings accounts manufacturing and transportaand to remove the regulation and tion. Healthcare costs nevertheless restrictions currently imposed at continue their upward trend forcboth the state and federal level. Binghamton Review, February 2008
19 This will foster not only savings to the insurance industry, but also widen coverage options and the extent of coverage. High deductible plans ensure that insurance covers only what individuals truly cannot afford which results in significant savings for the insurance industry that generates into lower costs to consumers. This also fosters a consumer driven healthcare system, which allows consumers and not bureaucrats in Albany or Washington DC to make their own healthcare choices based on their own needs. The arrogance that is prevalent in liberals, bureaucrats and the Democratic Party is that they and not individuals can make the best decisions with regard to healthcare. This is unfortunate and costs the very individuals they seek to help by advocating for socialized medicine. University of Rochester Health Economist Charles Phelps has stated that while the U.S healthcare industry is the most market-oriented healthcare system in the world it is also the most regulated in the world. Part of the problem is the third payer system, in which either a government program or a company is responsible for purchasing, providing and set-
ting the parameters of individuals health insurance. This is contrary to market principles and inefficient. The state and federal government should not only encourage health savings accounts, but encourage that they be individually purchased. Instead of defined benefit plans which are the predominant form of coverage now, a better solution is a defined contribution plan. This would allow individuals to set a portion of their income towards health savings accounts would allow individuals to work directly with insurance companies and set up plans that best suit their needs. Also, by avoiding the middle man, administrative costs would be cut substantially. Therefore to help in the overall reduction of healthcare costs, federal and state governments should reduce the tax preference for employer provided health insurance. Aside from reducing costs on businesses, it will give individuals a better say in healthcare and drive costs down by removing the middle men. The fact is healthcare is too important to leave out of the free-market. The idea that socialized-universal medicine should be implemented at the national level in our country is both unconstitu-
Agree with us? Disagree with us? Write us a letter to the editor and send it to binghamtonreview@gmail.com
Letters may be submitted at any time and must be limited to 600 words Binghamton Review, February 2008
tional and would be detrimental to healthcare. Taxes would go up and the level of care would go down. Innovation as a result of market forces is why we have the best healthcare system in the world. The second we impose universal socialized medicine in this nation is the day our healthcare quality begins to fail. What is needed is less regulation and a move towards a complete free-market healthcare system with government programs serving only as a last resort or safety net in the event of unemployment, poverty and/or old age. This is not a profit driven or conservative driven principle; rather it is a humble and smart one. The private sector historically and currently is the best solution to keeping costs down through innovation and market forces. Finally, the arrogance of the left must be restrained, because the idea that administrators in Washington or Albany know or understand what we people need is insulting. We must restrain from believing that government running our healthcare issues would be better for us. We are not all alike and the problem today is not whether Americans should have free healthcare, but that they have access to affordable healthcare that suits their individual needs. Jason is a Junior and a Political science major. He is also the late Milton Friedman’s home-slice.
A Great Legal mind
Reflecting on Clarence Thomas
A
fter being appointed by former President Bush at age 43, Clarence Thomas became the youngest Supreme Court justice in American history and the second African American ever appointed by replacing former Justice Thurgood Marshall. In an era of tolerance, affirmative action, and political equality, what made him such a controversial political figure as well as the target of unrelenting criticism and unfair name defamation by the left? The answer is simple and it requires the left to confront a seemingly contradictory stance in its attitude towards African Americans and other minorities. Thomas was a conservative African American. Thomas grew up as a Democrat and with many struggles facing his family which he feared threatened his chances of living a successful life. He said in an interview with CBS that “Because we had this enduring kind of vision or hope that, if given a chance, we could do as well as anybody. All we had to do is be given a chance.” Needless to say, he grew up being a vehement supporter of affirmative action policies. In 1971, Thomas was finally given the opportunity of a lifetime after being accepted to Yale University on its affirmative action plan. While still attending Yale it deeply troubled him that he was admitted only because he was black and sensed he was being treated much differently by teachers and fellow students because of it. In his autobiography My Grandfather’s Son Thomas explains “You had to prove yourself every day because the presumption was that you were dumb
18
by Ari Feinman establishment considers him a traitor to his own people and has vilified Thomas partly because he is black and partly because he is viewed as having benefitted from the very programs he now opposes. The following excerpt from the conversation in the CBS interview best describes this: and didn’t deserve to be there on merit.” His merits and qualifications for attending such a prestigious school were converted to a “well, you’re here because you’re black” mentality. While working for Senator John Danforth, Thomas began associating with the black conservative movement because he believed this was more in line with his political views than the black liberal movements. He solidified his belief that welfare, busing, government set-aside, and affirmative action programs make African Americans too dependent on government charity and do much more harm than good. His solution was that African Americans should help themselves through hard work, enterprise, education and self reliance rather than settle for government-sponsored integration programs. After reading Race and Economics by Thomas Sowell (a book that criticized government-sponsored social reforms and instead argued for individual action to overcome circumstances of adversity) Clarence Thomas solidified the intellectual foundation for his political philosophy. Above all, Thomas believes that the constitution is “color blind” and that laws granting preferential treatment based on race should be struck down. But the civil rights Binghamton Review, February 2008
“You’ve been successful. You moved on. You don’t care about people and your race,” said Steve Kroft. “Oh, that’s silliness,” said Thomas. “You do care,” Kroft remarks. “Oh, obviously I do,” Thomas says. “Come on, you know? But it’s none of their business. How much does Justice Scalia care about Italians? Did you ask him that? Did anyone ever ask him? Give me a break. Do I help people? Absolutely. Do I help, love helping black people? Absolutely. And I do. But do I like helping all people? Yes. In particular I like helping people who are disadvantaged, people who don’t come from the best circumstances. Do white people live in homeless shelters? Do Hispanics live in homeless shelters? Is disadvantaged an exclusive province of blacks? No.” Thomas quickly became the source of much controversy when he was nominated to the Supreme Court on July 2, 1991 to replace Thurgood Marshall. The nomination immediately came under attack despite the President declaring that he was by far the best qualified candidate for the job, even though he was only 43
21 years old and had only one year of experience on the bench. Because Marshall was a liberal and the only African American justice on the court, the nomination of Thomas preserved the existing racial balance of the court, but at the same time shifted the ideological balance to the right. This put major liberal organizations in a tough contradictory dilemma. Do they continue to do their jobs and protect the interests of African Americans and other minorities even if those people are politically conservative rather than liberal? Or do they only look out for the interests of liberal minorities and try to defame and politically destroy conservative minorities in the process? The NAACP, the Urban League and the National Organization for Women, all chose the latter. They all vehemently opposed Thomas’ appointment based on his past criticism of affirmative action and suspicions that he was an opponent of Roe v. Wade. However, Thomas repeatedly asserted in the confirmation hearings that he never formulated an opinion on the Roe Decision. However, liberals were intent on blocking Thomas’s nomination from the very start because above all else, they can’t stand conservative-minded minority politicians. During the confirmation fight, activist Florence Kennedy at a July 1991 conference of the National Organization for Women in New York City, made reference to the failure of Robert Bork’s nomination by saying of Thomas “We’re going to ‘Bork’ him.” Thereafter, this term has become a part of the American political vocabulary. Liberals generally refer to the term to describe their efforts to defeat conservative nominees to the court for being out of the judicial mainstream while conservatives use it to categorize unscrupulous tactics used by liberals to derail Supreme
Court nominees completely unacceptable to leftist interest groups. The greatest attempt by liberals to defame Thomas’ character conveniently came when they manufactured the Anita Hill sexual harassment case just as the Senate was on the verge of confirming his nomination. Anita Hill, a former employee of Thomas, submitted a statement to the senate judiciary committee alleging that he had sexually harassed her ten years earlier. The FBI extensively investigated the charge and then gave the judiciary committee a fully inconclusive report, declaring Thomas’s innocence. Two days after the committee decided not to pursue the investigation, Hill’s statement was leaked to the media. “It was only after her statement had been leaked illegally, to the public and the press, that then it becomes out of hand; it’s in the feeding frenzy.” Under enormous pressure from women’s groups and Democrats in Congress, Hill was summoned to the judiciary committee to testify about her allegations, while more than 20 million households tuned in to watch the farcical proceedings which received higher ratings than soap operas. Upon the committee’s investigation of Hill’s accusations, Thomas said, “This is a circus. It’s a national disgrace. It is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order you will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the United States Senate rather than hung from a tree.” In the CBS interview, Thomas perfectly summed up the reality of the situation: “Why did you use that language? Why a high tech lynching?” Kroft asked. Binghamton Review, February 2008
“If someone just wantonly tries to destroy you, if somebody comes in and drags you out of your house and beats the hell out of you; what is it?” Thomas replied “What do you want people to think about these allegations? What is important…,” Kroft asked. “I think most well-meaning people understand it for what it was. It was a weapon to destroy me, clear and simple,” Thomas said. Ari Feinman is the Chair of the Binghamton University College Republicans, and a product of affirmative action.
When Thuggery Was King
22
Al Sharpton by Robert Menje
W
ho died and made Al Sharpton the voice of black America? Why do whites apologize to this black supremacist whenever they make a comment that is seen as “racist”? Al Sharpton is one of those individuals who support any black individual or group, regardless of their crime or dealings. Al Sharpton has been called the black David Duke. He lives by the philosophy which states, black equals innocent, white equals guilty, regardless of the facts. When the Duke Lacrosse case was in the national spotlight, a case where a black stripper accused several white lacrosse players of rape, he quickly lambasted the Duke boys as rapist before the trial even started. When DNA evidence came out stating that the Duke players did not commit this crime, he refused to apologize, even after Whoopi Goldberg called him out on it on her show “The View”. When a white business owner wanted to expand his business by buying out a black business owner in Harlem in 1995, Sharpton was quoted as saying regarding the issue, “We [Sharpton and his protesters] will not stand by and allow them to move this brother so that some white interloper can expand his business.” One of Sharpton’s protestors later went into that white owned store with a gun and shot and killed seven people. Sharpton later apologized or his comment after he realized he incited this racial uprising that led to the deaths of seven people. In 1994, Sharpton gave a speech at Kean College where he made
the remark, “White folks was in caves while we was building empires... We taught philosophy and astrology and mathematics before Socrates and them Greek homos ever got around to it.” Clearly he needs a lesson in both history and tolerance. I am sure Professor Kadish could set Sharpton straight regarding this issue. The empire that he is referring to is the Egyptian empire which was northern African (Mediterranean-looking) and not subSaharan (black) African. Sharpton has also made bigoted statements towards Mormons, specifically Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. Sharpton was quoted as saying, “As for the one Mormon running for office, those who really believe in God will defeat him anyways, so don’t worry about that; that’s a temporary situation.” With all these racist and bigoted comments coming out of Sharpton’s mouth, why is it that people like Don Imus are forced to apologize and have a reconciliation meeting with him? Calling Greeks “homos” surely is just as bad as Don Imus calling the Rutgers female basketball team a bunch of “nappy headed hos”. In fact, what Don Imus said was meant as a joke whereas what Sharpton said is Binghamton Review, February 2008
his actual opinion. The reason for this double standard is political correctness that has gone too far in America. America has become a place where it is socially acceptable for blacks to hate whitey. It is even taught here at Binghamton, where Professor Charise Cheney in the History Department get away with saying that “only whites can be racist.” America is the place where a black individual can scream “black power” but “white power” is considered racist. You can have a Black Entertainment Television and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, but the second you change out the word black and colored with white, you once again become a racist. Al Sharpton continues to create this racial divide and as long as people like him exist, America will never become a colorless society. Robert Menje is a Junior at Binghamton University who is upset that his membership in the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition has ended.
Wax, Wax Baby
23
Keep it Simple, Keep it Clean by Annie Zaken
S
ince I’ve been home, I was able to see my friend Ruby more often. We’re not really that close, and most of the time I end up screaming, crying and cursing her out. Ruby is usually forgiving and tends to calm me down. She’s quiet and usually does whatever I tell her. At the end of our meetings, Ruby and I always end on good terms. I say good-bye and apologize for my ridiculous behavior and she always laughs and says that I’m just sensitive. I only call Ruby every two weeks where she gives me a time to meet with her and then we just repeat the whole process all over again. It might seem like Ruby and I have a strange relationship but we actually share a great deal of mutual respect and trust. Ruby is my waxing woman; she’s short, chubby and adorable. Ruby knows things about my body that no one else does. She also knows everything about my life. There exists an odd relationship between a woman and the people who help her achieve perfection. The hairdresser, the manicurist, the waxer - each gives great advice and almost serves as a therapist in woman’s life. Like the saying says, “When the going gets tough, the tough gets going.” I go to Ruby when I need to vent. Not only does she make me look great, I always leave her place feeling amazing. Which brings me to my topicBody Hair. While I was laying down on a narrow bed in a small white room, waiting for Ruby to do my eyebrows, I filled her in on exactly what was going on in my life. I began telling her about my rela tionship issues and other stuff that was bringing me down. Instead of getting into all the usual advice, Ruby simply said in her Indian accent, “you feel better, if you do Brazilian.” Now this was not the advice I was expecting! A Brazilian wax is the complete waxing of one’s pubic hair. After hearing this suggestion, I couldn’t help but wonder, ‘does a Brazilian really
help make a woman feel better’? After quickly pondering the pros and cons I decided to schedule an appointment and get it done. Body hair is a big deal to both males and females; it is often an extremely uncomfortable topic. By society’s general standards men are supposed to have body hair. Leg and chest hair are considered ‘manly’. However, ass hair and back hair are completely unacceptable. As far as I’m concerned, hair removal for men is acceptable as long as it is never mentioned. Women prefer to believe that a man is born without a uni-brow or chest hair, rather then know that they get it waxed. My friend Pamela briefly dated a guy who admitted that he Naired his chest. “Ever since he told me that all I can think about is him going into a CVS and buying the Nair. Every time I laid back in bed with him, I would think about the gross smell of that pink cream. I couldn’t date him anymore, the images ruined my view of him” Pamela said. Women, on the other hand, have to shave and wax every inch of their body. According to many of my male sources, women shouldn’t have any hair past their eyebrows. My friend Dan once dated a girl who had extremely hairy arms. He said, “She was hot, but every time she wore a T-shirt I wanted to vomit.” Recently there has been an explosion with the issue of pubic hair. My good friend Michael was telling me a story about how he met a Binghamton Review, February 2008
girl at the bars who he brought home for a night cap. He was extremely turned on until he saw what was going on down there. Michael said, “As soon as I saw hair, I got completely turned off; I like it nice, clean and shaved.” In New York City the newest trend is getting a Brazilian wax. There is even this salon in SoHo that applies rhinestones in different designs. Some people have way to much time on their hands; who would want rhinestones on their vagina? Which brings me back to my experience; all I can say is “ouch!” Once the hot wax sticks to your body, it instantly gets removed ripping out your hair from the root, leaving you in incredible writhing pain. Ladies, if you’re thinking about getting a Brazilian, don’t let the pain stop you. My advice is to take two Advils before hand. Beauty is pain. Some may say that there is no reason to go through all the trouble to get a Brazilian wax when you can just shave. I say there is a huge difference. Shaving leaves little bumps and razor burns, while waxing gives a smooth, clean look. Waxing also cleans the hard to reach areas and keeps them clean for about three weeks. I can’t stress enough how good you’ll feel after it’s all over. As I left Ruby’s place, I didn’t only feel great, I felt clean and most importantly I felt incredibly sexy. If you are ever in need of a pick-me-up, Brazilians are the way to go. Both men and women have to unfortunately deal with body hair. All I have to say is keep it neat and clean =)
Bringing Out Your Inner Peter Griffen
24
You Know What Grinds My Gears? by Paul Liggieri
W
ell, I’m back after a month off. To be honest with you, this past month gave me a lot of things to be thankful for like my friends, my family, and just being alive. I’ll tell you, it also helped me realize a lot more things that really grind my gears. You know what grinds my gears Binghamton? The word “Holiday” replacing the good words of Christmas of Hanukah. Will somebody please tell me what happened to the birth of Christ and the festival of lights? It’s mind boggling to me how either of these holidays could be offensive. After all, we live in a nation founded on JudeoChristian principles. God forbid we should offend the lowly Atheist. In truth, I don’t even think they’re offended. So why the hell did the media call it the holiday tree, the holiday lights, our holiday season? It’s all bullshit. Wish me a Merry Christmas damnit. If you happen to be Jewish, then earlier in the season I would wished you a Happy Hanukah. And if you’re nothing, then I can just wish you a joyous season. Secular progressive, left minded, bumbling idiots in their war against the holidays ground my gears. You know what else really grinds my gears? The kids who call themselves “friends”, yet they only manage to call you when they need
you out when you’re in trouble. You can tell a some one is a real friend when they’ll walk across the dining hall just to say hello to you. A real friend invites you places, and does not just you call you to invite them to places. A real friend will chill with you even if there is nothing to do, and a real something. You guys know friend will defend you even exactly what I’m talking about. if they know you’re wrong. Even as you nod your head, These people are far and few, you might be guilty of being and I’m lucky to know some one of them. I’m not a saint in of them, and for all you newthis arena either, but I’ve done bies in Binghamton, hopefully my best to avoid it because you’ll find real friends also. I hate when it’s done to me. I’ll tell you what else Doesn’t that phone call get you really grinds my gears? When going, with its sugar coated people say “Oh man, you start of “How are you man, missed a good night.” Or “Oh how’s everything, is school man, you should have come good, how’s your family, with us.” Well thanks asshole, where are you working now?” I know I probably did, but cirand then BANG, they hit you cumstances arose, and there’s with “Listen, I was wonderno need to remind me. Or how ing if you could help me out about the kids who will tell with this, or look into this, or you what they’re doing that give me this, or I need this, or night or that weekend with the are you working this weekend entire world, but they fail to because I have 30 friends who extend an invite to you. Now can’t get into the bar.” We’ve most of the time, I may have all had these types of phony other plans, but holy shit, the friends, and I would advise you other person does not necessarall to stay away from them. If ily know this, so would it kill you’re going to do favors for for them to extend an invite? your friends, at least make sure Oh yes, how about “did you that they are the real ones who get a haircut?” Listen, buddy, will call you just to hang out if you want to start a conversaor go for a bite to eat before tion, this is not the right way. they call you for a favor. You Obviously I got a haircut; my can tell a real friend because hair did not just magically they’re the ones who willing to shorten itself or create a design. spend their own time helping So please people, refrain from Binghamton Review, February 2008
Civic Literacy
making remarks that you know could be retorted to with by sarcasm. Here is the mother of all pissers. Why the hell does S.O.M get so much more money then any other academic school on Binghamton Universities campus? I know what the administration knows but would never ever in a million years tell its students. The fact of the matter is that they simply care more about their business students. They’re trying to advance the reputation of the business school and make it the face of the university while they crap on the rest of us. Can somebody please explain the logic of how Harpur College has the most students, but receives less funding, and the head of Harpur although advising many more programs receives substantially a lot less in salary? What makes these little calculator kids so much more special? Are we trying to send the message of inequality that we care about one group of students and not the other, because that’s what it looks like to thousands of students here at Binghamton? I can’t wait until most of these School of Management kids find themselves working middle management jobs for $40,000 a year anyway. I say, provide portions of money based on student population. It’s no wonder so many kids got closed out of classes due to lack of
25
professors; all the money went towards a pretty little lounge and a glass building for the “special” children. By the way, this is nothing person towards my fellow students in S.O.M, I say God bless you, and do well, but understand where the rest of us are coming from. The last grinding of my gears comes from the randomness of an essay grade in a large class. What the hell determines whether a teacher or a T.A for that matter takes off 1.5 points or 2 points for grammar? I know for a fact that most teaching assistants do not have PhDs or Masters in the area, so who they hell are they to tell me “funny sentence structure”, “could be worded differently”, or “are you sure about what you’re writing.” Here’s how it really goes, if a T.A agrees with your point of view, you get 1.5 points off, if not then you get 2 points off. I’m not one to complain about a B grade, but that does not mean I would not be happier with a B+ than a A-. I think we need to devise a better system for the grading of essays so that we do not have the randomness in deciding the fate of a students G.P.A. Oh yeah, one more thing, I hear Binghamton might want to remove its physical activity courses from being mandates, or simply change them all to wellness courses, who knows? But I will say Binghamton Review, February 2008
this, there’s enough of a problem with obesity in this world, and its bad enough Sodexo charges exorbitant amounts for healthy food, and only 30 cents for 100 hamburgers, while managing to pay their employees $,20,000 a year maybe less. For a dime we get eight gallons of soda, but lord forbid we want orange juice, which costs of over $2.00 dollars in some instances. So please Binghamton, keep our students running, kayaking, taekwondoing, and whatever else. If we don’t, we might have to invest in more money to widen the doorways. Paul Liggieri is a Junior at Binghamton University and he grinds the gears of Liberals and he kicks cute puppies too.
Culture
26
Reviews
An Inconvenient Book and Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles by Dave Pert
A
n Inconvenient Book:
The truth and two staples, meet the truth in hardcover. If you have read my whimsical article title and expect to see something written about Al Gore and the liberal scare tactic that is global warming, fear no more. A new book has hit the press that this nation is in dire need to read. So much so, that I feel hotel rooms should now include it right next to the complimentary best selling book of all time, the Bible. Readers, meet the latest hope for a better America by Glenn Beck, An Inconvenient Book. Two hundred ninety-five pages never looked so good. Glenn brings to light twenty-two problems America faces today, complete with twenty-two things you’ll never see at a liberal protest: SOLUTIONS. At the risk of being called a fascist by the left, I present to you chapter one. Chapter one starts off with none other then the infamous global warming “problem,” that Mr. Gore has glamorized and profiteered into a documentary (if you can call it that). How much hard evidence do you really know about global warming? I’ll lay down money it all comes from the media. And what is the main goal of the media? Money. And what makes money? Entertainment. Want some hard facts about what’s really going down around the world that might not fit into Al’s agenda? Glenn lays it out, plain and simple. Truth is, purchasing that trendy eco-friendly Prius not only makes you look like a tool, but it doesn’t even make a blip on the radar
of reduced CO2 emissions. I’ll spare you the math behind it, but I will say that if you want to go after a source of numerous greenhouse gasses, livestock and the livestock industry total to more then the entire worldwide transportation sector. That’s right, cow farts put our cars to shame. What is Glenn’s solution? Inaction. Stop dumping billions of dollars into altering the energy industry so that a possibility of climate change is evident. Instead, let capitalism (you know that little thing our country was built on) take over and do what it does best: innovate. That way, IF the global warming problem actually does exist, we will adjust and adapt technology just like we always have. Skipping along I feel a need to address chapter three, a chapter in which Binghamton U has been exposed to before and honestly instills fear into my American soul. At the risk of being called a racist, I present to you Islamic extremists. Glenn is upfront with this and I agree whole heartedly that when the words Islam and extremist exist in the same paragraph it does not make someone anti-Islam, let alone many of the words plastered on Daniel Pipes flyers by the intolerant left (racist, Nazi, xenophobic, etc). We Binghamton Review, February 2008
are at the point where political correctness has not only gotten way out of control, but is in a twisted way being used as a weapon against the country. Glenn looks at it this way by dealing with the many instances where Islamic extremists are infiltrating and slowly corrupting a country from the inside out (it’s happening more then you may think). Anyone with a legitimate voice out against what they are doing is immediately labeled a hatemonger and racist (there’s that word again, racist, it’s almost like the more one uses it the more, it loses its real meaning). With this total lack of opposition the terrorists win. This is one small example of many Glenn again tells like it is. His solution? Four easy to follow steps, call evil by its name, reinstate the first amendment, lock down the borders, and expose what is actually going on. He believes that we should encourage debate so that new ideas might actually flow rather than trying to silence unpopular views like the protesters of Daniel Pipes. Chapter four is about the ridiculousness that is placed on body image these days. Let me say this once and for all. Girls, you look good with curves, better than you look without them. Period. As a select few from the DC++ hub know, I think Rachel Ray has almost, if not the best, total package a woman could have in terms of physical attraction. This isn’t totally the point of Glenn’s chapter, but I feel it needs to be said. Following the first half of the book, Glenn goes into a few issues I really don’t care about, such as
27 minimum wage (should be zero, what happened to capitalism?), aging (no more fake hair please), and poverty (jobs aren’t THAT hard to find). Then he picks right back up with the last chapter, a chapter near and dear to my American heart: Illegal Immigration. At the risk of being called a bigot, I present a quote from my early years. Good fences make good neighbors. I was forced to read that somewhere in high school English class. Glenn must have too, because he agrees. Want to solve a lot of problems? This is a chapter for you. Fence up Canada, fence up Mexico. This is one more measure against terrorist entry to our country. But that is just the beginning. Fences separating the countries make illegal immigration much harder, which takes countless illegal aliens off government help programs that are sucking away our tax dollars AND frees up jobs for jobless American citizens. That in and of itself is reason enough to secure the borders, but Glenn goes into far more detail then this that the media has failed to bring to attention. His solution, along with fences, includes hitting employers of illegal aliens with bankrupting fines. It should not be tolerated, and that message needs to get across. All in all, Glenn Beck deserves an award for his efforts to enlighten the American people. Al Gore got the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to “solve” a “problem” called global warming. Glenn Beck lays out REAL solutions to twenty-two problems, including Al’s big movie full of charts and graphs and statistics that are designed to scare you into caring. I urge you to pick up a copy of this book; it delivers. Glenn applies wit and humor even a democrat could laugh at to his many straightforward ideas that will actually make a change in our
country if implemented (more so then whining in front of a fountain anyway). Terminator: Cybernetic Orgasm...I mean Organism... Finally, Prime Time TV has gotten a long overdue swift kick in the rear. With all of that ‘writers strike crap’ putting the best TV shows on hold (i.e. The Office) a void for a top-notch delivering program had formed. That TV program has been found. Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles, airing every Monday at 9pm on FOX, is an extension to Terminator 2 that chronicles the life of the Sarah Connor before mankind went to war with machines. Sounds badass? It is. Thus, I have taken the liberty of highlighting the greatness of this series as well as pointing out why Hollywood should have hired me to keep up the great name of ‘Terminator’. What’s Great: Cameron Phillips. Cameron is an advanced modeled Terminator who was sent back in time and programmed to protect John Connor. Played by Summer Glau, she is by far the hottest Terminator ever acquired by the resistance. Better yet, she is the perfect girlfriend. She can pack a punch that would rival Chuck Norris, has the bluest eyes in existence, knows how to effectively manipulate and use any weapon ever created, can drive stick (well), and has the hottest backside ever (ladies, take note, curves are in). FOX should start a spin-off series dedicated to the life of Cameron Phillips. It would be bigger than the Super Bowl.
Binghamton Review, February 2008
Thomas Dekker. The reason I do not use his character name, John Connor, is because John is a typical punk teenager with an attitude and is totally null and void of any self confidence. He may be the leader of the human resistance in the future, but right now he’s just a brat that needs to step up to the plate and start acting like the man he is to be. The reason Thomas Dekker is great in this series is because he himself is totally null and void of any selfconfidence and thus plays John like he was born to. Thomas should count his blessings each time he is able to witness Cameron in action. Time Travel, Guns, Cyborgs, Imminent Nuclear War. Nuff Said. Why Hollywood should have put me on payroll: Lena Headly. Lena is possibly the worst female that could be cast for Sarah Connor short of Lindsay Lohan. Lena has nothing on Linda Hamilton. Sarah Connor is supposed to be a hardened, ex-military type of woman who doesn’t take crap from anyone. Lena has none of this and acts like any other ‘miss-priss’ Hollywood actress with out of control emotions and an overall downer attitude. The only good she brings to the show is making Cameron look that much better. The Lack of Arnold Schwarzenegger. I know he’s over rocking the face off of California, but Terminator isn’t the same without him. I am personally gunning for a guest appearance in the near future. The only thing that almost makes up for no Arnold is Cameron. David Pert is a Sophmore at Binghamton University and he is currently interested in dating a young, conservative, cybernetic organism.
Shooting Hoops
NBA Midseason Preview
1. Detroit Pistons (3113) 1st place, Central – Best overall starting five in the league. Their most impressive win was in San Antonio. They’ve also proven they can beat Boston. With Antonio McDyess and Jason Maxiell they have the strongest frontcourt coming off the bench as well. 2. Phoenix Suns (32-13) In a year where the Western Conference is completely up for grabs the Suns have the distinct advantage and should come out on top if Steve Nash remains healthy throughout the season and playoffs. They’ll go as far as Nash takes them. 3. Boston Celtics (348) Don’t let the record fool you…they play in the worst division in the league. However, don’t let their inferior division fool you as well; this team is legit and if their bench play improves they have a shot at upsetting the Pistons. Plus has their ever been a player in league history more hungry for a title then Kevin Garnett is this season? Right now he’s playing as the most altruistic player in the league and has Pierce and Allan in harmony with shot selection. 4. Dallas Mavericks (3013) After Dirk Nowitzki recovered from his MVP hangover and started to be Dirk again this team looks to be a legit threat out in the West. Josh Howard’s play this year has the Mavs top two offen-
Power Rankings by Dan Gray
28
team looked unbeatable at home; now they look flat out beatable regardless of where they’re playing. A recent blow out loss at home to Detroit and a pathetic loss to the Knicks has got to have their fan base a little concerned. Parker keeps on improving but their bench isn’t as deep as it use to be and with an sive players posing as one aging Duncan that is someof the league’s top duos. For thing that needs to improve. some reason though you have Still wouldn’t shock anyone the feeling the collapse to though if this team won it all. the Heat in the NBA finals a couple years ago is going to 7. Denver Nuggets (26creep into their minds come 17) I’d like to see them playoff time. I’ll keep saying dominate their division in the it - this team is built to domi- second half; Utah is a connate regular season play, not tender while Portland is still the playoffs. a year away. Marcus Camby continues to be the ulti5. New Orleans Hornets mate role player averaging (31-12) No one would have fourteen rebounds and four picked the Hornets to have blocks per game. The best the best record in the West news regarding the injury after forty three games but plagued Camby? He’s missed that’s where they stand none- only one game so far. This theless. I expect Dallas to team looks destined for a 2nd overcome them in the secround exit but if everyone ond half of the season but it is gelling when the playoffs won’t be easy. Chris Paul is come around this team could quickly becoming the game’s make it to the finals. second best point guard behind Nash. If you watched 8. Orlando Magic (28him play at Wake Forest this 18) Dwight Howard is more shouldn’t come as a surprise; dominant at this point in his the biggest surprise from career then Shaquille was. In Get it Straight: this team is the emergence only his third year Howard A response to John Blatchof Tyson Chandler who is has emerged as the NBA’s ford’s September article averaging a double-double premier inside player. Aon Sports at BU in points and rebounds. They Women’s third year player is averagare also coming off register- ing twenty two points and ing a twenty four point beat Before fifteen rebounds I begin, letafter me just forty down against San Antonio. plus games; is unheard point out thatthat student-athletes of and he is having a brilliant have to stay on campus over 6. San Antonio Spurs MVP type season. Lewis is breaks and during the summer (28-14) After the first two paying off as a solid signto months of the season this ingget butthe heliving needsdaylights to step itbeat up Binghamton Review, February 2008
29
on the offensive end come playoff time, who knows how long Turkoglu will keep up this career year. This team is still one year away from being title threats and will get knocked out in round two by Detroit.
– They still got that wildcard of beating the number one seeded Mavs last postseason incase they get their backs against a wall late in the season. Plus Baron Davis plays basketball like a flat out, well, warrior.
9. Utah Jazz (26-18) Deron Williams is one of my favorite players to watch. Carlos Boozer plays his tail off at both ends of the floor. I think this team is a lot better then their record shows and they wouldn’t surprise me if they reach the Western finals. This team rounds out the list of contenders in the West.
14. Portland Trail Blazers– this is a team that anyone who loves basketball can get behind. They’re young, fearless and execute to precision. All with their big guy, Mr. Number One Overall Draft Pick, sitting out the entire year. Just imagine this team with a huge defensive presence underneath the hoop to challenge the Amare’s and Yao’s of the world.
10. Cleveland Cavaliers (24-19) No one is mentioning Cleveland as legit Eastern contenders and maybe they shouldn’t but LeBron James continues to improve, however impossible that may seem. Anytime you have a player who averages thirty, seven and seven you have a player that can carry you throughout the entire playoffs. 11. Los Angeles Lakers (27-15) Now everyone knows why the Lakers were so determined to not trade Andruw Bynum, the kid is a beast. Kobe is the best offensive player in the game next to Nash but I still see them not making the playoffs, switching spots with Utah. 12. Toronto Raptors (2419) talk about a team with a good, young nucleus. Chris Bosh is being as consistent as you can ask for and right now they’re slated to play Cleveland in the 1st round, a matchup I think that favors Toronto. 13.
Golden State Warriors
15. Houston Rockets – the league’s biggest disappointment this season, by far. 16. Washington Wizards – Playing above .500 ball without Gilbert Arenas, which is a good sign, but I’m not too confident even with Arenas they could beat an Orlando or Cleveland in the 1st round. 17. New Jersey Nets – As bad as they have been this season they still have a three headed monster. The only question is if that monster is slayed or just staying dormant. Look for them to take either Indiana or Atlanta’s place in the playoffs. 18. Chicago Bulls – And look for the Bulls to take the place of the team left remaining after the Nets get in. There’s a good chance this team will get the 8th seed with a record five games below .500 before getting swept by the Pistons. Binghamton Review, February 2008
19. Sacramento Kings – Kevin Martin continues to impress as the NBA’s best kept secret. This team is severely lacking a shoot first, pass second point guard… 20. Charlotte Bobcats – Usually this team would be two years away but with the East as bad as it is right now I can see the Bobcats overlapping the Nets or Hawks for an 8th seed next season. Okafor continues to post double double numbers and Felton is improving nicely. I wouldn’t be shocked if they made the playoffs only mildly surprised. Only 1.5 games behind as of now. 21. Indiana Pacers – Chris Mullin is not walking through the door. Fresh off a loss to Miami this team is heading South faster then a sixty five year old Monarch butterfly to a Florida retirement complex. 22. Atlanta Hawks – I like this team’s makeup, I really do, but they are the biggest pretenders since that crappy Beatles cover band at your high school talent show. 23. Los Angeles Clippers – They’re one prolific low post scorer who brings heart and determination away from making the playoffs…where could they find someone that fits that brand of basketball? 24. Milwaukee Bucks – One injury away (Michael Redd) from being an absolutely horrible team. 25. Memphis Grizzlies – Just might be the one team in the league with a worse point guard situation then the Knicks. No one is even
30
averaging 4 assists per game on this squad, pathetic. Gay is going to be a solid player but he’s still three years away at least from being an All Star. No one on this team can make the players around them better.
shooter… but is he the most valuable? SG Kobe Bryant – a nobrainer but kudos to Kobe because he has his whole team believing they can win the West.
drew Bynum Runner up: Tyson Chandler 1st Half MVP: Chris Paul – He has his team in 1st place in the loaded Western Conference and is putting up better numbers this season (21 and 11) then Nash had in any of his MVP years and he’s doing all of this with far less talent around him. Runner up: Dwight Howard
26. New York Knicks SF LeBron James – 30-7-7 – Highest NBA payroll and Fred Jones is the starting shooting guard to show for it. PF Kevin Garnett – playing like a man possessed 27. Philadelphia – The and has accepted a lesser Iverson trade has sent them role for the greater benefit Dan Gray is a Junior at back for a couple of years. of the team but is still one of Binghamton University who When will teams finally learn the most versatile players in has too much free time. you never ever trade away a the league; I don’t think the true, once in a decade, franleague will ever see a hybrid chise player no matter how quite like Garnett ever again. washed up you think he is (I’m looking at YOU New C Dwight Howard – Flat out York). When Samuel Dalem- BEAST. bert is your most consistent player on both sides of the 2nd team court you got to start looking at the GM first and foremost. PG Chris Paul – this kid bleeds basketball, he is the 28. Seattle – Kevin Durant definition of poetry in motion is the truth; a less talented, slasher type KG with a 3 SG Richard Hamilton – has point shot, not too shabby. Is sacrificed being a superstar in also very aesthetically pleas- order to make his teammates ing to the eyes when in mobetter but is still the heart of tion. Besides that, this team the Pistons offense is playing like their color – puke green. SF Carmelo Anthony 25.5ppg, 7 rebounds, he’s a 29. Miami – 2006 called. pool of unlimited potential. It wants those championship rings back. PF Dirk Nowitzki – Duncan was a close selection but 30. Minnesota – Sebastian Dirk has his team reeling at Telfair is NOT the answer, the moment while Timmy in more ways then one. If has his team being the main you take Al Jefferson off this focus of teams to be conteam they probably finish 3cerned about fading down the 79. stretch. C Yao Ming – I think it’s safe to say the Rockets are now officially his team, not PG Steve Nash – still the best Tracy’s. point guard in the league and the leagues best all around Most Improved Player: An1st team
Binghamton Review, February 2008
Liberal Fascism
31
Don’t Go Emo by Mike Lombardi
T
he one right which people hold above all others in this nation is the right to have free speech. Its importance in a free society is immeasurable and unquestionable. As Theodore Roosevelt put it, “Free speech, exercised both individually and through a free press, is a necessity in any country where people are themselves free.” Countless groups are in existence for the sole purpose of protecting and encouraging the right to free speech. One group who describes itself as a believer in this idea is the Experimental Media Organization, better known as E.M.O. No, this E.M.O. doesn’t involve teenagers wearing copious amounts of dark makeup or screaming along to Hawthorne Heights; it is a hypocritical organization which violates its own main principle of celebrating the first amendment. Instead, the principle which E.M.O. adheres to is that speech is only permissible if it is in line with their viewpoints. Their objective is to stifle and silence those with a differing opinion. The best example of this was the fairly recent visit to campus by Dr. Daniel Pipes. Regardless of what someone may think of his own personal views, Dr. Pipes is certainly an expert on the Middle East and the Islamic Religion. He has authored or co-written eighteen books on the subject and served in various positions relating to the situation in the Middle East. Dr. Pipes harbors the view that radical and militant Islam is the primary source of problems in the Middle East. The topic of his speech promoted this
point of view and it served as a source of irritation to E.M.O. The current head of E.M.O., Adam Friedman, created a Facebook group in protest of Dr. Pipes. The introduction reads, “Free speech is an important element of serious academic discourse. However, how should students react when a speaker is invited to campus who vehemently opposes academic freedom on college campuses and whose hateful views and policy recommendations represent a threat to members of our diverse student body?” What is so utterly confusing is how can a group which claims to be such a proponent of freedom of speech and expression consider a man giving a lecture such a “threat.” In answering Mr. Friedman’s question, they should react by letting everyone know how they feel about the views of Pipes. At the same time they should, at the very least, have the decency to let the man say his piece. The beauty of this country is a person has the right to respond to a lecture and possibly rip apart the lecturer. Mr. Friedman and his supporters did not do this. Instead they occupied a good portion of Binghamton Review, February 2008
the seats in the lecture hall and proceeded to interrupt Dr. Pipes by loudly and rudely leaving in the middle of his speech. After this they then began to protest outside the doors of the lecture hall in which Dr. Pipes was speaking. Stooping down to interrupting a distinguished speaker is a great embarrassment to this fine university. By doing this Mr. Friedman and his followers have basically said they are afraid of free speech and letting people hear what Dr. Pipes had to say. Actions like this do not benefit a group which claims to be a huge proponent of free speech. It is through actions like this that tyrannical regimes are able to rise up. When one person’s voice is stifled it brings us all a little closer to total silence. Through their actions the members of E.M.O. appeared to be exactly the type of so called ‘Fascists’ they so love to rail against. It is a dangerous game when people begin to decide who should have the right to speak and who should not. I close with a quote from an author who I hold in high regard, Sir Salman Rushdie. He says “Free speech is the whole thing, the whole ball game. Free speech is life itself.” It is our goal to protect this life, and not allow it to become extinguished by such radicals as the Experimental Media Organization. Mike Lombardi is a Freshman at Binghamton University. His goal in life is to make poorly drawn cartoons for inane political pamphlets.
Binghamton Review
Binghamton University P.O. Box 6000 Binghamton, N.Y. 13902-6000 binghamtonreview@gmail.com Binghamton Review, February 2008
Nonprofit Org. U.S. Postage PAID Permit 61 Binghamton, NY