october 2008 - binghamton review

�

Binghamton Review, April 2005

October 2008

Truth and two staples

Binghamton Review

BR Uncovers the Plot to Kick Students Out of

the City

EvictEd!

BR Interviews Walter WilliamsOpen Borders Advocate Speaks on Campus,

and Hinman RAs Try to Indoctrinate!

It’s all here, in Binghamton Review, the voice of students!

Plus:

Binghamton Review, October 2008

BinghamtonReview Founded 1987 o Volume XXII Number 2 o October 2008

Editors-in-ChiefAdam Shamah

Robert Edward Menje

Managing EditorRod Alzmann

Associate EditorRandal Meyer

Copy EditorYadin Herzel

Business ManagerMichael Lombardi

TreasurerDaniel Rabinowitz

Contributors Paul Liggieri, Nehemia Stern,

Alex Paolano, Samantha Mickle, Rachel Gordon,

Eugenio Campos, John Jensen, Theresa Juergens

GraphicsMichael Saltzman

Friends of the ReviewDr. Aldo S. BernardoThe Leonini FamilyThe Powell Family

Mr. Bob Soltis WA2VCSThe Shamah Family

The Grynheim FamilyThe Menje FamilyThe Leeds Family

The Lombardi Family

Binghamton Review is printed by Our Press, in

Chenango Bridge. We pro-vide the truth; they provide the

staples.

Binghamton ReviewBinghamton University

PO Box 6000Binghamton, NY 13902

913141719212426272930

Cover Story: Housing by the EditorsThe plan to end student housing in the city

Freedom Isn’t Free by Theresa JuergensRemembering Our Soldiers

Legalized Rape by Robert E. MenjeNew York City is the greatest city in the world, too bad the taxes there are enough to make me want to leave.

Why We Fight by John JensenRemembering 9/11

In a Nutshell by Rod AlzmannThe Credit Crisis

Binghamton Review Sits Down with Walter Williams

Think Like Me by Matthew HassellIndoctrination in Hinman Commons

The Demagogue by Nehemia SternBarack Obama and Mass Hysteria

MJ’s Handcuffs by Rachel GordonThe Case for Legalizing Pot

Obamanomics: Part 2 by Randal MeyerTaxes and Oil

Disaffirming Affirmative Action by Alex PaolanoLet’s end this counterproductive policy

In this issue...page 8

Departments3. Editorial 4. Letters5. Presswatch 6. Month in Review

�

kamlet’s commissionor years, students have been the target of attacks by groups like the Westside Neighborhood Asso-ciation and people like former City Councilman Joseph Sanfillipo. These individuals and organiza-tions have one goal: remove student housing from

certain parts of the city, usually the lower density, residen-tial districts. The most recent (and so far unreported by campus media) attack comes from Ken Kamlet and Mayor Ryan’s Commission on Housing and Home Ownership. The com-mission is deliberating a series of recommendations authored by Mr. Kamlet. These recommendations, if implemented, would spell the end to student housing in much of the City. (See page 9 for full story) To illustrate the absurdity of the very idea of con-trolling student housing, consider this: Recommendations from previous Comprehensive Plans that are included in the Kamlet report include the following: “If inappropriately lo-cated, [Binghamton University] students can be extremely disruptive to stable neighborhoods. More specifically, many single family West Side neighborhoods are currently being threatened by high concentrations of students.” Now, imag-ine if you replaced every mention of the word “students” in that statement with the word “negroes;” “If inappropriately located, [Binghamton University] negroes can be extremely disruptive to stable neighborhoods. More specifically, many single family West Side neighborhoods are currently be-ing threatened by high concentrations of negroes.” What is the difference between discrimination against blacks and discrimination against students? Students don’t have the NAACP to defend them, is all I can think of. It is in our opinion that the Housing Commission is being steered by Ken Kamlet to benefit Mr. Kamlet’s em-ployer, the Newman Development Group.

Councilwoman Teri Rennia had recently become concerned that the commission did not have a strong enough voice speaking on behalf of landlords. She recom-mended the appointment of Victor Salcedo, Vice President of the Landlord Association, to the commission. This rec-ommendation was later approved by Mayor Ryan’s office. However, once his appointment had come before Kamlet and his associates on the commission, the body’s politics came into play. At 2:05pm on Monday, October 6th, Salcedo re-ceived an e-mail from Alycia Harris, the Vice-Chair of the commission, inviting him to a meeting that would begin at 2:15pm that very same day. He of course could not attend, having been given just 10 minutes notice. The following af-ternoon, Salcedo received an e-mail from Harris telling him that he would no longer be welcome on the commission. “We are close to the end of our committee obligations/tasks, as the Housing Commission final report is due in December. The committee members feel that we have finally reached a cohesive point in the committee and that it would not be in the best interest to add another member,” her e-mail read. Translation: the commission has reached a consensus simi-lar to Kamlet’s recommendations and now has no room for dissident voices that might “screw the whole thing up.” This recent event shows that this commission is not in business to discover what is best for the City of Bingham-ton, but rather what is best for Ken Kamlet and the interests he represents. That is, the interests of Newman Group and groups like the Westside Neighborhood Association. It is in our opinion that Mayor Ryan should disband the commission, reject its corrupt recommendations, and start fresh. There are legitimate housing problems in the City that need to be addressed. Students being allowed to live in the residential districts isn’t one of them.

Editorial

Founded 1987 o Volume XXII Number 2 o October 2008

-Adam Shamah


Departments3. Editorial 4. Letters5. Presswatch 6. Month in Review

F

OurMission Binghamton Review is a non-partisan, student-run periodical of conservative thought at Binghamton University. A true liberal arts education expands a student’s horizons and opens one’s mind to a vast array of divergent perspectives. In that spirit, we seek to promote the free exchange of ideas and offer an alternative viewpoint not normally found on our predominately liberal campus. It is our duty to expose the warped ideology of political correctness that dominates this university. We stand against tyranny in all its forms, both on campus and beyond. We believe in the principles set forth in this country’s Declaration of Independence, and seek to preserve the fundamental tenets of western civilization. Finally, we un- derstand that a moral order is a necessary component of any civilized society. We strive to inform, engage, and perhaps even amuse our readers in carrying out this mission.

See Story on Page 9

To the Editor:

I just wanted to extend, in writing, my thanks for the privilege of meeting your staff when I visited Bing-hamton. It has been a long time since I was last able to attend a BR meeting, and I’m happy to report that they are still engaging, open to dissent, and slightly silly. I wouldn’t want it any other way. BR outshines any other campus publication and therefore has a respon-sibility to call attention to leftist chica-nery and administration boondoggles. Your articles have the right balance of taking on those who wish to demean our university, while still ultimately be-ing pro BU, and pro student. BR carries the torch of liberty at BU, and must never waver. Keep up the good work.

-Louis W. Leonini

P.S. If attendance at our meet-ings is any indication, it can be said that the Prime Minister of Italy had it right when he said “The left has no taste, even when it comes to women ...

(right wing women) are more beauti-ful.”

Buh like, donchuno praising the Review is like, offensive???

To the Editor,

After reading the latest issue of the Binghamton Review, I am ex-tremely disgusted and outraged. This trash that some may call news gives off a horrible representation of Bingham-ton University. God forbid someone came on our campus and picked up an issue of your Review, they would be appalled and think this school consists of racist groups and unbearable dis-crimination. This is not the first time the Binghamton Review has violated a race or group of people. Of course, ev-eryone is entitled to their own opinion and freedom of speech, but the school cannot fund something like this. A re-view highlights pros and cons. Instead, this review consists solely of cons and it allows one group of students to pub-lish incorrect information and wrong-fully categorize races and groups on this campus.

Where do you come from claiming that LASU sponsors terror-ism? Provide facts, provide footnotes because when you attend one of their meetings, you will see that they do way more for this campus than you do. The mural in the meeting room is a memo-rial of the trials and tribulations their people suffered. The things you say about mul-ticulturalism? How dare you? If that is how you really feel then you may need to leave the United States because this country does not consist of one group of people. This issue has stirred up many people and I am sure you will hear from a few other people who are determined to take a stance against racism and degradation in this school.

-Ashley M. Reid

To our readers: here you see how the typical multiculturalist responds to criticism. Eugenio Campos, the author of the article she is referring to, is a genu-ine Hispanic. In the past, he has used the Review to criticize the bastardization of Latin culture by the Latin American Student Union here at BU. He, like most of us at BR, rejects the concept of moral relativism; the idea that “everyone has his own culture, all cultures are equal, who are we to criticize? etc.” Guess what, most people agree that certain cultures are more productive and more civilized, than oth-ers. A culture that celebrates Euro-Latin values is clearly better than one that cel-ebrates “shawties,” illiteracy, and Che Guevara.

dEar Filthy Fascists...

letters to

4


theeditor

Agree with us? Disagree?

Write us! Email letters to the editor to

[email protected]


theeditor Campus presswatCh

PipeDreamSeptember 12, 2008

When confronted with the West Side Neighbor Association and R-1 zon-ing laws, Pipe Dream’s editorial board had two options; (1) they could have chosen to support the WSNA and the downtown Newman Group project, or (2) they could have chosen to speak out against the discriminatory zoning laws and Newman Group’s shady motives. Those familiar with Pipe Dream should not be surprised to see that they went with option (3), carefully skirt the issue while pointing out the blatantly obvious.

There will be no townie neigh-bors to disturb, no unresponsive land-lords to argue with and no board look-ing for eviction all within a stone’s throw of the Rat! Of course, the City of Bing-hamton wants the apartments too (though we do find the involvement of Ken Kamlet, a Newman employee, with the city’s housing commission to be questionable). Students who can af-ford the apartments undoubtedly can afford to spend at local businesses. Maybe with more students living closer to the heart of the city, pumping more money through it, the perpetually lamented town-gown rela-tions will improve marginally. Either way, Campus Suites will be nice digs, assuming UP’s hospital-style corridors aren’t included. Most important, stu-dents will be welcomed there. The WSNA wanted the stu-dents to go, and soon they will: across the river, with fat rent checks in hand.

Pipe Dream, the voice of stu-dents!


Pipe Dream’s editorial board typecasts all landlords as inat-tentive, irresponsible bastards.

“This is why BU students toss around the phrase “slum lord” so freely. We know landlords have the money for the water bills — it’s not like they spend anything on mainte-nance.”

There are a lot of bad land-lords—that’s for sure. That doesn’t mean all of them are modern day Peter Rachmans. An overwhelming majority of landlords who rent to students have paid their water bills and take care of their tenants. The majority of those who haven’t paid their bills do not rent to students. Lumping all landlords together like this is counterproductive and downright offensive to those who do care.


Sam Riedel, the freshman class’ resident socialist, vents his anger on Pipe Dream’s opinion page:

It’s entirely possible that taxes may have to be raised on the upper-middle class. Or on the middle class. And we have to shoulder that bur-den. And maybe we don’t get to take that cruise. And maybe we don’t get to keep the country club member-

ship. And maybe we need to cut back on the luxuries. But if that’s what it takes to keep this country out of bankruptcy? Um, let’s do it, guys.

Sounds like the American Dream—work hard, make money, and live a luxurious lifesty—no, wait—work hard, make money, and hand it over to the government so it can be used to pay for some louse’s drug problem or a sixteen year old teenager’s morning af-ter pill. Because we’re all in it together guys. Riedel is truly a visionary—just like Lenin.

FreePressSeptember 18, 2008

Free Press Editor--It must have been a real “challange” for you to get into Binghamton. Luckily, there are af-firmative action programs for “special” people like you.

Policing thE MEdia 5

6


this monthBOrDerAngelInvADesCAMPus

In the words of Enrique Morones, the open bor-ders advocate who spoke on our campus recently, this brief will serve to “promote fear” and should be considered “hate talk.” That’s how Enrique characterized opponents of il-legal immigration during his September 24th lecture. Also, if there are any hate crimes committed against Hispanics on campus in the next few weeks, be sure to blame us at the Review, because, according to Morones, “pundits on the right” are responsible for the increase in attacks against Hispanics nationwide. The lecture was part of the Multicultural Resource Center’s “Annual Dialogue on Diversity and Social Justice.” Linda Morales, the director of the Multicultural Resource Center, the department that sponsored this event, defined “social justice” as breaking down “barriers” and freeing cer-tain “segments of our society” from “institutionalized op-pression.” Morones operates mostly out of San Diego, and is the founder of a group known as the Border An-gels, whose purported purpose is to provide food and water to people coming across the Mexican-American border. In other words, provide aide to illegal immigrants. Morones’ lecture showed he does much more than provide food and

water to entering illegals; he unabashedly supports amnes-ty—excuse me, “pathway to legalization”—for those who are already here. His website also contains information on how to “protect yourself from immigration raids.” Aside from the sob stories about poor Mexicans dying on the border, Morones criticized the U.S. Govern-ment, and blamed the problem on America! We’ve lured them here, and since we don’t let enough in legally (around one million every year), it’s our fault that they break the law to come here. Maybe this will illustrate how one can be opposed to multiculturalism, “diversity,” and “social justice” without being a “racist.” Clear-thinking people know that opposi-tion to illegal immigration in most cases has nothing to do with race. Our opposition to open border policy and other tenets of multiculturalism stems not from race but from the moral and philosophical arguments behind each issue. The multiculturalist supports amnesty for illegal immigrants in the name of social justice, which, as previously mentioned, Linda Morales defines as freeing certain segments of our so-ciety from institutionalized oppression. We reject the claim that keeping people who are here illegally from becoming legal is somehow “institutionalized oppression” and oppose amnesty because of the economic implications, as well as out of support for the rule of law. Not because we’re “big-oted gringos.”

sOCIAljustICeCOnFerenCetOBehelD

The SUNY Social Justice conference, which is planned to be held here at Binghamton on November 7-9, looks to be one of the largest events the left will have orga-nized on campus in recent memory. The conferences purported purpose is to “build new movements for social justice.” Planned workshops include “Fuck the Corporate Mainstream,” “Farm Worker Organizing,” “Achieving Radical Reforms,” “Radical Men-tal Health,” “Anarchism for Social Justice,” and “Palestine 101.” Radical Socialist Howard Zinn will be the confer-ence’s keynote speaker. Zinn is the author of the unabash-edly anti-American novel The People’s History of the United States. Among others, the conference is being sponsored

Enrique Morones, founder of the Border Angels, spoke on cam-pus on September 24th, 2008.

at Bu and Beyond

�


by the Harpur College Dean’s Office, Office of the Provost, College of Community and Public Affairs, Department of Human Development, Women’s Studies Department, So-ciology Department, History Department, Political Science Department, Anthropology Department, English Depart-ment, and EMO/SAC. Check out future Binghamton Reviews for full cov-erage of this commie, hate America, get together!

FreePressPuBlIsherresIgns

Free Press publisher Jessica Poretsky has resigned in the wake of overbearing criticism of her first, and only, issue of Free Press. The article that stirred controversy was about OCCT, and seemed to blame much of the prob-lem on Matt Landau, the SA president. After reading the article, Landau was seen in the SA office on the phone with Poretsky. The subsequent conversation led Jessica to file harassment charge against Landau with UPD. Ap-parently, Jessica had a problem with Landau’s usually uncivil tone. After examining the police report, BR has determined that Landau had done nothing wrong and Poretsky needs to have her head examined. Free Press’ new publisher is Kate Alicia Bacille.

glOBAlwArMIngjustIFIesBreAkIngthelAw

Six greenpeace activists were recently cleared by a British jury after causing over $60,000 worth of damage to a coal power plant. The jury’s reasoning: the power plant’s role in the threat of global warming justified the otherwise unlawful act. The jury used the Criminal Damage Act of 1971, which was intended to excuse certain minor dam-ages to prevent even greater damage. For example, as the Independent points out, breaking down a door would be OK if it meant tackling a fire. So, by this logic, would knocking down homes with fireplaces be OK? Can I slash the tires of someone’s car to lower that person’s “carbon footprint”? What about murder? Humans emit more CO2 than power plants do.

AMerICAnCArOlFrAuD

An American Carol, a conservative comedy di-rected by David Zucker, was released last week in theaters nationwide. According to the American Carol website, “numerous people across the country [have come across] ticket fraud when buying a ticket for An American Carol.” People were “mistakenly” sold a ticket for another movie, and in some reports, certain movie theaters displayed that An American Carol was rated R, when in reality it was rated PG-13.

Sick of your professor calling Castro’s beard the “fuzz of freedom”?

Need an escape fromthe left’s various

“revolutions”?

Join

Binghamton Review

BU’s last refuge for campus

conservatives.

Meetings EveryThursday at 7:30pm

in the BR Office (B05, in the Union

Basement)

at Bu and Beyond

Robert SpencerAuthor of The Truth about Mohammed:

The Founder of the World’s Most Intolerant Religion

To Speak During

Sponsored by Binghamton Review and Binghamton University Zionist Organization (BUZO)

Tuesday, October 28th 8:30 pm

Susquehanna RoomRefreshments will be served

Islamofascism Awareness Week

�


For years students have been the target of coordinated efforts by the City of Binghamton, anti-student groups, such as the West Side Neigh-borhood Association, and assorted profiteers. These attacks are now cul-minating in what could be an end to student choice when it comes to off campus housing. A plan currently being delib-erated in the City Commission on Housing and Home Ownership, if im-plemented, could force Binghamton University students living in the City of Binghamton out of their homes. This report was authored and filed to the commission by member Kenneth Kamlet, who also serves as the Direc-tor of Legal Affairs for the Newman Development Group, L.L.C. The report recommends sweeping policy changes that include applying new zoning laws and modified enforce-ment procedures to private residences in the City of Binghamton. At the same time, Newman Group is planning to build a new

University Plaza style apartment complex in the heart of downtown Binghamton. These two events are by no means independent of each other and in reality they are heavily inter-twined.

housingreport

Binghamton Review has un-covered a report authored and filed to the Housing Commission by Mr. Kenneth Kamlet titled “Need for Tighter Zoning to Control Student and Other Rental Housing.” The policy changes recommended by the Kamlet report include limiting the number of students allowed to re-side in homes in the three residential districts (R-1, R-2, and R-3) in the City. The report’s third recom-mendation states, “[t]he Binghamton Zoning Code should be updated…to better control the number of tran-sient renters.” (All BU students are considered transient renters because

their living arrangements are tempo-rary.) In addition, “[t]he number of unrelated renters presumptively al-lowed in a residential district should not be set at more than three.” This would permit only students who live with two or fewer housemates to rent homes in much of the City. Kamlet’s report also proposes that the enforcement method be con-verted from the current “complaint-driven process” to a “more self-imple-menting process” in which there is “a ‘rebuttable presumption’ that more than a certain number of unrelated tenants (usually 3 or 4) is not the functional equivalent of a family.” This means that the City would as-sume that any 4 or more unrelated persons living together are doing so illegally and, consequently, can begin the eviction process. The burden of appealing to the Zoning Board rests on the renters themselves. The self-stated purpose of this report is to stabilize Binghamton’s res-idential neighborhoods. The desire to

Goodbye Fair Housing and Free ChoiceIslamofascism

Awareness Week

covEr story

by Adam Shamah, Randal Meyer, and Rod Alzmann

�0


control student housing is explained in previous Comprehensive Plans reiterated in Kamlet’s report: “If in-appropriately located, [Binghamton University] students can be extremely disruptive to stable neighborhoods. More specifically, many single family West Side neighborhoods are current-ly being threatened by high concen-trations of students.” In a section of the report titled “Unintended Market Implications” Kamlet addresses the concern that if his recommendations were followed, homes currently rent-ed to students would become vacant or infested with “criminal elements.” His response appears to just restate the problem: “[r]ental apartments not utilized by students will be available as affordable housing to those most in need of such housing.” However, according to the Landlord Associa-tion of Binghamton, there are already

more rentals available than there are students to rent. The demand for housing (especially when students are excluded) is not such that people will flock towards these properties.

newmangroup

Newman Development Group, L.L.C. is the organization that developed University Plaza in Vestal. They currently are in the pro-cess of planning a new project, Cam-pus Suites, which will be a Univer-sity Plaza-like complex downtown, at Washington Street and Riverside Drive. According to an article in Sep-tember 8th’s Press and Sun Bulletin, the complex will house as many as 800 students, and is projected to cost $65 million dollars. Parking availabil-ity, 350 spaces, will cover less than half the students expected to be living there. Rent is expected to be at least $600 per student, which is similar to University Plaza, whose rates range

from $635 to $770. This is more than double the average cost of renting a multiple bedroom home in the City. According to Ellie Farfaglia’s (the President of the Landlord As-sociation of Binghamton) letter to Mayor Ryan, “[a]t the onset of the West Side Neighborhood Associa-tion’s organized efforts to rid the west side of student housing, former City Councilman Joseph Sanfillipo pub-licly stated that the ‘low’ rents of stu-dent landlords were responsible for keeping developers from construct-ing downtown student housing. He reasoned they could not compete with us [the landlords]. The plan he offered was to introduce legisla-tion that would limit the amount of students in a unit. This would force landlords to raise their rents to help cover their losses. The increase would then put them near the amount de-velopers wanted to charge for rent thereby eliminating the competitive low rents. Also, because of the loss of available rooms, students would be driven into the costly apartments offered by downtown developers.” In essence, Mrs. Farfaglia, contends that Newman Group cannot compete in the free market, and therefore legisla-tion is needed to make their down-town project economically viable.

kenkamlet

As previously mentioned, Ken Kamlet is the Director of Legal Affairs for Newman Group. At the same time he sits on Mayor Ryan’s City Commission on Housing and Home Ownership (henceforth re-ferred to as the Housing Commis-sion). His involvement in these two positions has come under fire from certain parties, including Ellie Farfa-glia, who has said that “Kamlet…is working towards eliminating Mr. Newman’s competition for student housing,” and “steering those people on the commission to accept all the

Rory Finkelstein, a BU Junior majoring in Mechanical Engineering, two weeks after his eviction from his home on Cheshnut Street.

��


propositions the way he wants.” One of Kamlet’s recommen-dations is that “efforts to bring student housing downtown should continue to be pursued.” Under the “Unin-tended Market Implications” section, Kamlet responds to the concern that “if occupancy limits are tightened, some students may find themselves without affordable off-campus hous-ing.” His response is “hundreds of new beds to accommodate students

both on- and off-campus are being developed both by the University and by private developers” (emphasis add-ed). Binghamton Review takes this as an explicit reference to Kamlet’s em-ployer, the Newman Group, and its development of Campus Suites. Here Kamlet clearly states in what way his employer stands to gain from his policy recommendations. Although Mr. Kamlet himself does not stand to make any marginal pecuniary gain, his salary is provided by the Newman Group. Kamlet appears to have great power on the Housing Commission. In an interview with the Review, he called himself “far and away the most productive member of [the housing] commission.” He has also said “If not for my participation, the commission would have gotten no where during the time it existed.” Last month, Pipe Dream re-

ported on Ellie Farfaglia’s allegation “Kamlet wrote e-mails to members of the WSNA advising them on how to take action against student hous-ing.” In the same article, Kamlet was quoted calling the accusation “ab-solute nonsense.” BR has obtained a copy of an e-mail correspondence between Ken Kamlet and [email protected] (a WSNA email account) in which he advises them on how to proceed against the BU stu-dents who were evicted last year from their house at 8 Lincoln Avenue (see picture). Binghamton Review ques-tions whether, as the self-proclaimed “most productive member of [the housing] commission,” Ken Kamlet should be offering legal advice to par-

A plan currently being deliberated in the City Commission on Hous-ing and Home Owner-ship, if implemented, could force Bingham-ton University students living in the City out of their homes.

ties involved in the student-housing matter. In sum, there are clear threats to off-campus choice for student housing. While the committees, the mayor, and the property owners de-bate the fate of the zoning districts, students are left in limbo regarding their outlook for housing next year.

BR will keep students updat-ed on this vital story, and as always, will continue standing up for student rights.

�2�2

Help BR Grow

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

Mailing Address: ______________________________ ______________________________ ______________________________Enclosed is: ______ $30 ______ $100 ______ $1000 ______ $50 ______ $500 ______ Other

For 21 years, Binghamton Review has been the voice of the campus right at Binghamton Univer-sity. Now, more than ever, BR needs your help. Please consider donating to our cause. Every

penny counts towards advancing the conservative movement on BU’s liberal campus.

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

��


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

Mailing Address: ______________________________ ______________________________ ______________________________Enclosed is: ______ $30 ______ $100 ______ $1000 ______ $50 ______ $500 ______ Other

believe in the unalienable right of people to live with freedom, and support any methods of protect-ing that freedom from being de-

stroyed. No person should have to live in oppression and fear, especially when other countries have the means of pro-tecting them. Though world peace is a pleasant theory, as Thomas Jefferson once said, “If you want freedom, pre-pare for war.” If Thomas Jefferson has such a positive reputation for being a formi-dable president, then why is the world not listening to his advice? Wishing for world peace is not going to change much; the only way peace will be estab-lished is through freedom. People have to stand up and defend humanity’s right to freedom first, before being able to receive a prize for doing so. Jefferson got it right: if you want peace, bring freedom into the world, but in order to secure freedom, sometimes you have to fight for it, even through the means of war. Another great mind believed “We have every right to dream heroic dreams. Those who say that we’re in a time when there are no heroes, they just don’t know where to look.” This quote can be attributed to Ronald Reagan, another one of our presidents who knew just what to say. The people fighting for freedom in the world are no supermen—they are regular men—but are still heroes. Today, people view our soldiers as the ones who bring evil into the world, when they are doing the exact opposite; they are fighting for mankind’s freedom. The soldiers in Iraq, especially, deserve more respect and support from

the people in the United States. Even though not everyone agrees with the reasons that President Bush presented for the incursions into Afghanistan and Iraq, people should go get some patrio-tism and stand behind our nation on its noble endeavors. If world peace is what we are supporting, how is trading freedom for peace for oppressed people just? Whether or not the rationale was destroying weapons of mass destruc-tion, did no one feel the invasion was just and right in securing freedom for the people who were being tortured and subjugated in those countries? Are the people protesting the war, the ones that claim it to be about oil, not be-ing hypocritical then when saying they yearn for world peace? How can there be world peace if people in nations dwell in fear every day of their lives? Surely no one expected the in-vasion to be bloodless and simple. The people in those nations had to gain some perspective and courage in order to make a democracy work, but is it not great that we can be the generation to say, as President Reagan once sensibly said: “The house we hope to build is not for my generation but for yours. It is your future that matters. And I hope that when you are my age, you will be able to say as I have been able to say: We lived in freedom. We lived lives that were a statement not an apology.” What people must remember is not only that we are fight-ing to protect our freedom and ourselves, but also, we

are fighting for the freedom of our chil-dren and their right to live life freely, as we have lived when our parents pro-tected our freedom. So the next time you want to participate in an anti-war rally, have a second thought. Our soldiers are fighting for our right to live and our children’s right to live in freedom, hap-pily. So instead of arguing against it, be thankful that someone is risking his or her life to let us to live in freedom. I know it is hard for the soldiers to miss Christmas with their families or a birth-day; but still, I would have to say, most do not regret their decision to fight for our freedom. Remember, America means freedom. Let us do anything to spread the happiness we feel at home, to op-pressed people around the world by fighting for their freedom. If you were the exploited one, would you not want someone to fight for you?

Theresa Juergens is a sophomore majoring in Political Science.

i

Freedom Isn’t Free

by Theresa Juergens ‘11

RemembeRing Why They FighT

, like many students at Bingham-ton University, was born and raised in New York City. It is a great city for many reasons, one of

which being that there is always some-thing to do. New York City however, does have a major downfall: over-taxa-tion and fees. If you haven’t noticed, the Big Apple likes to tax everything. If it’s moving, tax it. If it’s stationary, tax it some more. The over-taxation of its residents is crippling their abilities to make ends meet. In NYC, you pay federal in-come tax just like everyone else. You also pay state income tax (many states, such as Texas, New Hampshire, Wash-ington, etc., do not have a state income tax.) Where it becomes tricky is when the City decides that it wants its resi-dents to pay city income tax on top of the other two. Thought it was go-ing to end there? These aren’t the only taxes one pays. Residents also pay property tax, sales tax (which is almost 9%, meanwhile the national average is about 5%), luxury tax, excise tax, bank-ing corporation tax, cigarette tax, com-mercial motor vehicle tax, commercial rent tax, those hidden fees on your cell

�4


iphone bill, horse race admissions tax, hotel room occupancy tax, mortgage recording tax, real property transfer tax, liquor license tax, taxicab license transfer tax, and, of course, utility tax. A pack of cigarettes in New York City costs over $8. The City im-poses a tax so high that it is higher than the actual cost of the pack! New York City has the highest priced cigarettes in the United States. The average price of a pack in the United States is $4.02. On top of these numerous taxes are all the ridiculous fees. If you haven’t noticed, there are fees for al-most everything (luckily you can still defecate and not pay a fee, but who knows how long this will last.) In most places around the United States, if you want to exercise your second amend-ment rights, you simply show two forms of ID, go through a bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms federal background check, then purchase your rifle. In New York City, you must pay a $140 application fee and a $94.25 fingerprinting fee ($105.25 if you get them done in ink) to get a gun permit. On top of that, you need to be finger-printed, photographed four times, fill

out nine pages of documents, and have two friends write letters attesting to your good character. The city recommends a lawyer, doctor, employer, member of the clergy, or a business owner write these letters, and that it must be on their company stationary/letterhead. Only after a lengthy investigation into your character do you finally get your gun permit, which could take several months. This permit is valid for three years. Every three years when you go to renew your permit, you must pay $140 more (money order only) and send in two more recent photographs. All of this is simply to get a rifle or a shot-gun. If you want to get a pistol, you have to go through close to ten times the paperwork and ten times the cost compared to the rifle/shotgun. In or-der to get a pistol, you must also show proof of need to have one. You can’t simply say, “Because George Washing-ton and Thomas Jefferson said that it’s my right.” Cigarette tax and gun permit fees aren’t the only things that will make your wallet weep. New York City loves raping your bank accounts if you own a car. On top of the high

Legalized Rapeby Robert E. Menje ‘09

hoW nyC gives you The shaFT

Read old issues, learn about the staff, and send us hate mail

at www.binghamtonreview.com

�5


gas tax, there are tolls (more fees) on most major river crossings in the city. These tolls can climb as sky high as $10 just to travel from Brooklyn to Staten Island. Tolls aren’t the only thing that puts the squeeze on motorists. New York City has an army of parking en-forcement agents who will write you a ticket for sneezing incorrectly (it’s true I’ve seen it happen.) If you are too far from the curb… ticket. If you are parked for more than one hour at

a broken meter… ticket. If one inch of your bumper is touching the white line of an intersection… ticket! The City loves collecting money so much that they often give tickets for signs that don’t exist. If a sign is missing on a block, you will still get a ticket, even though it’s the City’s responsibility. NYC expects its residents to have ESP and know the parking rules even when not visible. New York City is a great place

to be but it sure gets hard on the wallet. If you don’t pay attention you’ll end up sore from all the taxes, fees, and fines that you’re hit with. Metaphorically, when in NYC, don’t forget the KY to make it all a little less painful.

Robert Edward Menje is a senior majoring in History and is spending the semester in Washington D.C. He’s getting pounded hard there too.

Update arcticSeven

nowarctic

Six!VP NomiNee aNd alas-ka GoVerNor sarah PaliN orders the executioN of riNG leader mohammed Jihad, also kNowN as PaPa Bear!

Your help is needed more than ever. Please send us $15,000 for their criminal defense fund. If you can’t afford it, sell your home. We really need your $$$. Every second you wait, 5 babies in Africa starve is an-other second you allow the Bush/Cheney/McCain/Palin regime to con-tinue the political persecution of these innocent peace activists.

9/11 Never Forget

��


theworldtradeCenter,myworldview,andthepositionoftheunit-edstatesinthatworldwouldfor-everbealtered. Thatclearbluemorninginthewaningdaysofsummerwouldsee the livesof2,977 stolen,andthe lives of hundreds of millionsirreparablymarredbyalossofin-nocence,alossofconfidence,andalossofdirection.Onseptember10, 2001 our generation was in-vincible,caughtupinthejoysofyouth. since september 11, ourgeneration was torn into two bywarandpolitics. Iwillnever forgetdrivingdown the streets of my cookie-cutter housing development andwatching as neighbors affixedAmericanflagstotheirporches.Iremember the soundsofmilitaryplanes racing about overhead. Irememberthenewsreporterstry-ing toholdback the tears as thetowersfell.Thesethingswemustneverforget,wecanneverforget,fortoforgetthesethingsistofor-get why we fight, and to forget

thisistobedefeated.wefightforthe brotherhood that the Ameri-canpeopleexhibitedinthosedaysafterseptember11,fortherightsthat generations of immigrantscametothiscountryinsearchofand generations of soldiers laiddowntheirlivesfor. It was on september 11thatIrealizedAmericacouldnothopetoattainpeaceforitselfwith-outensuringthatfreedomandde-mocracywerefosteredaroundtheworld.Authoritarianismlikethatof thetalibanwouldneverallowAmericanstoliveinpeaceaslongasweenjoyedthefreedomsoftheconstitution,andoftherightstolife, liberty, and the pursuit ofhappiness.Itisthisunwillingnessto co-exist with freedom whichbroughttheseptember11attacksupon us and it is this which re-mains the greatest threat to ourfreedom. today, American service-men and women are deployedaroundtheworld,huntingdownthe people who would rob theworld of freedom and crush thedemocratic dreams of all people.wemustrememberwhywefightthiswaragainstterrorismandwemust stay the course. to simplystopinthemidstofvictorywouldbe to throw away all that whichso many Americans have foughtanddiedfor.wemustremembertheworldtradeCenter.wemustrememberthePentagon,wemustremember united Airlines Flight93, and we must remember theliberation of Afghanistan andIraq.wemustneverforget.

John Jensen is a senior major-ing in History. He is President of the College Republicans at Binghamton University.

was blessed to have grownup in a country where, as aboy, I never had to fear forwhatmighthappenthenext

day. Our generation was rearedinapost-Coldwarpeace,duringwhichAmericawastheclearlead-erofafreer,morepeacefulworld,and where the American youthnever had to worry about war,famine, or danger from foreignenemies.Butthissenseofsecurityinwhichmanyofourgenerationwere raised was shattered on abeautifulseptembermorningjustseven years ago, and while manyamongushavealreadyforgotten,therestofusmustkeepthemem-oryaliveandclose,lesthistoryre-peatitself. It was freshman year, myfirstyearinanewtown,andIwasmoreworriedabouthowIwasgo-ing to pass honors algebra thanabout the impending threats ofglobalterrorism.Butasthedoorof my english classroom swungopen to reveal an anonymousteacher coming to inform us ofthe first airliner slamming into

WhyWeFight

by John Jensen ‘09

i

�8


��


ost Binghamton Universi-ty students know that bad things are going on in the nation’s economy today.

Everywhere you look another bank has failed, or another company has been nationalized. What 99% of us don’t know is why we’re in this mess, the most dangerous economic situation since the Great Depression. Allow me to endeavor to (for the most part) ob-jectively explain why. First off, the United States’ economic motor runs on lending. We students (or at least the not-so-lucky ones) borrow money to finance col-lege. Our families borrow money to finance homeownership. Small busi-ness owners borrow money to run their company’s operations or expand their business. Yes, even those mighty corporations borrow to pay for expan-sion and growth. Money borrowed is invested in something and paid back for later, whether the loan is paying for our minds, our homes, or our busi-nesses. In a nutshell, lending is like steroids for economic growth, without the adverse side effects. Now that that’s out of the way, here’s what has set the entire U.S. lend-ing system reeling. In the ‘90’s and ‘00’s the hous-ing industry was booming. Property values were skyrocketing and homes were being built and bought up across the country. Some buyers were bank-ing (pun intended) on flipping the houses for quick profit, while some were in the market for their first home. Most people don’t have hundreds of thousands of dollars lying around in a duffel bag somewhere, so in order to

finance these homes people resort to mortgages. A mortgage is basically a lien secured by real property. In Eng-lish, it’s when you take out a loan for the property/home you’re buying. Banks issue mortgages to buyers at a certain interest rate with a certain amount of money down. The buyer then pays the loan off eventually, usu-ally over 30 years, and owns the land outright. During the housing run-up, many lenders lowered their standards for prospective buyers. However, this was not done out of greed as the me-dia likes to argue. It was, like most problems, chiefly government fabri-cated. The department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) gave Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two primary government spon-sored enterprises (GSEs), which made loans and loan guarantees, explicit targets to hit regarding what kinds of mortgages they made. From 1996 on, for low and moderate income borrow-ers, 42% of mortgage financing had to go to borrowers below the median income. This jumped to 50% in 2000 and 52% in 2005. Basically, the GSEs, which owned or guaranteed roughly half of the country’s $12 TRILLION mortgage market, were forced into making loans that would quickly go sour if housing prices ever dropped. This is the heart of our cur-rent troubles. People who simply should not have been buying homes were being given financing. Because of this easy credit (which was govern-ment mandated, remember?) the sec-tion of the mortgage market where buyers have poor credit histories

and/or insufficient income boomed. It’s referred to, affectionately, as the sub-prime market now. Some of these people weren’t very knowledgeable about homeownership’s implications, and simply went along with what their lenders told them. Others simply thought (as the federal government has maintained, wrongly) that own-

ing property is required to attain the American dream. The banks also jus-tified making these sub-prime loans under the incorrect assumption that home values would continue rising and never truly recede. Next, after these mortgages were created, the banks bundled up some of the loans and sold them to in-vestors (securitization). They lumped in mortgages to people with good credit (prime loans) with these sub-prime loans, and created securities that seemed highly secure. This came to be an illusion, however. During the summer of 2006, demand for housing peaked. As any-one who has taken basic economics knows (Sam Riedel?), when the de-mand has been satisfied, and supply

Most people don’t have hundreds of thousands of dollars lying around in a duffel bag some-where, so in order to finance these homes people resort to mort-gages.

In a Nutshellby Rod Alzmann ‘11

The CRediT CRisis

m

20


continues to increase, the price of the product, in this case houses, drops. Houses, like Rome, aren’t built in a day, so there is a slight lag effect on supply too. From July 2006 to July 2008, according to the S&P/Case-Shiller Home Price Indices, which are internationally respected, prices across the country have dropped 20% on average. I don’t know if that seems like a lot to you, but it is. If you owned a house that was worth $500,000, on average, it is now worth $400,000. One hundred thousand dol-lars is a lot of mon-ey to lose in two years. People then began to fall behind on their mortgage payments. With-out the ability to pay the interest, and without the ability to sell their house to cover their debts, defaults and fore-closures started rising rapidly. As this happened, prices began dropping even

faster as the glut of houses on the mar-ket soared while demand sank. The banks now began losing money and the investors began to see their invest-ments (which had been rated very

highly) diminish. This created even more selling as people wanted to

exit the market. With these debts (now referred to as

‘toxic’ on capitol hill and in the media)

dropping in val-ue, the banks that made the

loans started having to write-down the value of their invest-ments. As the banks’ losses

ballooned (on paper at least), they

required capital injections to keep them solvent. For a few months it seemed that the worst might be over, but the loses simply kept coming. Fan-nie and Freddie were running out of money and were nationalized. Many of the banks that had originated loans

in sections of the country where home prices dropped the most (California, Nevada, etc.), saw billions upon bil-lions of dollars disappear overnight. All of these actions have brought us to today, a day in which we’ve watched Lehman Brothers fall, AIG fall, Washington Mutual fall, Merrill Lynch fall, Wachovia fall, to name a few of the largest victims. All of these actions have caused the life-blood of the economy, lending, to tumble to a trickle. All of these actions have hurt every American, be they rich or poor, Main Street or Wall Street. All of these actions have brought us to the doorstep of another Great Depression, where fear, mistrust, and anger perme-ate the land. We cannot sit idly by in our anger. Inaction by the Congress, by the banks, and by the citizenry, will only cause what promises to be a tough recession ahead, to dissolve into a Great Depression 2.0.

Rod Alzmann is a sophomore majoring in Accounting. Poor people getting loans they didn’t deserve has cost him $5000...no, seriously, it has.

Great MoMents in MulticulturalisM

“i’M not exactly sure what that entails.”

-MaryaM Belly, referrinG to her position as sa Vice president for Multicultural affairs on 9/22/08, at a

MeetinG of the student asseMBly

2�


bR siTs doWn

WiThWoRld RenoWned eConomisT

Walter Williams

Binghamton review: As an econo-mist, what is your take on the eco-nomicbailoutthatwasshotdowninCongressyesterday?

Walter Williams: I think rather than work with a bailout per say, at least part of the debate should be on the causes of the problem so we don’t duplicate them in the future. In terms of that Congress is the cause of the problem and it could throw us back to the 1977 Reinvest-ment Act, whereby financial institu-tions and banks were intimidated into making loans to people that they would not have otherwise made loans to. High risk people and the fi-nancial institutions were willing to make these loans, and by that, the Community Reinvestment Act was strengthened under the Clinton Ad-ministration. The financial institu-tions were willing to make these loans because Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were guaranteeing their paper. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were govern-ment sponsored enterprises, and they are definitely responsible for much of the housing crisis; and, also the Fed-

eral Reserve Bank in keeping interest rates artificially low. This gave builders and buyers incentive to do things that they would otherwise not do. And so, my feeling on the bailout is that our economy is fairly sound, and I believe that the financial sector is in deep trouble. And so I think that for the people who were not involved in this risky business, maybe there should be something done. That is, people who have deposits at banks, and the banks might fail. Surely, they should be pro-tected because they had nothing to do with it. The financial institutions that were involved, I think they should fail. We should let them fail, and I think one thing we should recognize is that in the market economy, failure is just as important as business’ success. A busi-ness failure conveys the message that ‘well, you’re doing the wrong thing, you don’t do that anymore’. And, if we bail them out, we create what Econo-mists call a moral hazard. Whereby, in the future, people will do the same thing because they are expecting a bail-out. As the British philosopher Hubert Spencer said that “If you protect men

from their folly, you create a nation of fools.”

Br:Doyouthinkthatstudentsareill-preparedforcollegeasfreshmen?

WW: I think that too many students are in college who would be better off either not being in college or at least postponing their entry into college. That is, graduate from high school, and work at McDonalds or a car wash and gain some maturity. And then maybe later on, you have to go to college. I think that it is a huge waste of resourc-es for many students to go to college.

Br:Doyouthinkthatcollegeprofes-sorsdumbdowntheircurriculumintheirclassroomand/orgradeinflatedue the fact that there are so manyunintelligent people who shouldn’tbethere?

WW: Yes, I think there is a lot of grade inflation. That is clearly the case, and there is a lot of dumbing down. The students are unprepared. I mean, there are surveys that have been taken, where as seniors, students can’t place the Civil

22


War correctly within a fifty year inter-val. There is one survey asking college seniors ‘When was Reconstruction?’ The majority said after World War II. But on the other hand, they could cor-rectly identify who Snoop Dog is, or Bevis and Butthead. There is one sur-vey that found that today’s average col-lege graduate does not know as much as the average high school graduate in 1945.

Br: now as an economist, goingback to economics… whatdoyouthink the economic implications ofanObamaPresidencywouldbe,andwhat would the economic implica-tionsofaMcCainPresidencybe?

WW: I think that Americans are mak-ing a serious mistake, in saying that economic issues will be the major problem concerning the next presi-dent. I think that the major problems facing the next president will be in the area of foreign diplomacy. And I think that the next president will have to worry about North Korea, Iran, Rus-sia, Venezuela, and China. The person who is relatively inexperienced, such as Obama, I think that he may very well be challenged, just as Khrushchev chal-lenged Kennedy. But fortunately for our country, Kennedy stood eyeball to eyeball with him. It is a question whether Obama would do the same.

Br: should military spending in-crease?shouldtechnologybedevel-oped further, or should we keep itwhereitcurrentlyis?

WW: Military spending is a small part of the Gross National Product, but it is probably a much smaller percentage than it was during the Kennedy years. But I think that we should maintain a military advantage even if it requires an increase in the military budget. Be-cause, indeed, national defense is a con-stitutionally authorized function of the federal government. Most of what the federal government does today is not authorized at all by the United States Constitution. As a matter of fact, two-thirds of the more than three trillion

dollar federal budget has no authority whatsoever in the United States Con-stitution. Indeed, if you read the US Constitution and look at the sentiments of the framers of the Constitution, the Federal Government can only do what is enumerated in the Constitution. As a matter of fact there is a congressman, John Chattick, of Arizona. He’s been in Congress since 1995. In each ses-sion of Congress, he introduces what he calls the Enumerated Powers Act. If the Enumerated Powers Act were en-acted, it would require that Congress specifically put to (in the Constitu-tion) the authority for whatever they do. And right now, I think he might have 30 cosponsors in the House. It never has had a cosponsor in the Sen-ate, and it goes down every time this man brought it up. What that shows is that these people put their left hand on the Bible and raised their right hand, and swore to uphold and defend the United States Constitution, but they will not be held accountable to it. James Madison, who is the acknowledged father of the United States Constitution… I believe this is 1794, Congress appropriated 15,000 dollars to help some French refugees. James Madison stood on the floor of the House irate and he said, “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that arti-cle in the Constitution that authorizes Congress to spend the money of their constituents for the purpose of benevo-lence.” James Madison was really the acknowledged father of the Constitu-tion so he should know what’s in it. And, most of what Congress spends money on today is for the purpose of benevolence.

Br:so,wouldyousay thata lotofstuff shouldbe leftup to thestateswiththe10thAmendment?

WW: The 10th Amendment was effec-tively repealed during the war between the states in 1861. Where the Federal Government in effect, through the use of force, brutal force, said that states could not secede. Once it decided that

States cannot secede, well then the Fed-eral Government can treat the States any way they want. Very much like if you told a woman that she couldn’t divorce her husband, then he can treat her any way he wants. And so, it is the same thing at the State level.

Br:soifCaliforniawantedtosecedefrom the union, you’d be fine withthat?

WW: Oh yeah, I believe in self-de-termination. And indeed, one has to

recognize that the States are the prin-ciples and the Federal Government is the agent, and principles may fire their agent. In fact, if you read the Treaty of Paris in 1783 settling the war between Great Britain and the Colonies, the Treaty of Paris said that we had thir-teen different countries that were thir-teen different sovereign nations. And these countries came together in 1785 as principles and delegated some power to the Federal Government. And if you look at the ratifica-tion meetings of, I believe, New York, Rhode Island, and Virginia they said ‘that if the Federal Government be-came abusive under the powers that we’ve delegated to it, we have the right

2�


to resume those powers’. The Consti-tution would never have been ratified if the States thought that they could not secede.

Br: As a college professor do youthink that the general perceptionthat most colleges tend to be veryliberaliscorrect?

WW: Well, I think that most colleges are liberal. Most academics are lib-eral in the modern sense of the word, not liberal in the classical sense of the word. At George Mason University, our department is an entirely free mar-ket department. That is, most of us are Libertarians. In the Law School as well, and that is a rather unusual thing. We’re probably the only completely free market PhD-granting department in the entire world. Now I’m not sure, but I can’t give you a good answer on why the academics for the most part are liberal, but academics tend to be peo-ple who are full of themselves and they tend to think that they have wisdom that is superior to the masses. Many think that they have been ordained to forcefully impose that wisdom on oth-ers.

Br:what’syourtakeonracialpref-erencesandAffirmativeAction?

WW: Well, you have to define what that means. I believe that private enti-ties, that people when they are spend-ing their own money, have a right to choose on any basis they want. Even if it is found offensive. That is their right. I believe that the freedom of associa-tion also means the freedom not to as-sociate. But, in a public library for ex-ample, I don’t think they have the right to discriminate because my money is involved. But a private library, they can admit people according to any way they want to. Now, I think one of the im-portant things to recognize is that even though people have the right to discriminate (on the basis of race, sex, etc.), it doesn’t necessarily mean that they will. That is, because a person can

do something, it doesn’t necessarily mean that they’ll find it in their inter-ests to do something. For example, I can throw my wallet out on the street, but I won’t find it in my interest to do that. But I think that Affirmative Action as it is typically spoken of, es-pecially for college admissions, it has been something that has been dev-astating for Blacks. You go to some colleges, and you see what is called academic miss-match. I got the idea some years ago, from a colleague and a friend, Tom Sole. He was pointing out that during the ‘80s or ‘90s that sev-enty some percent of Blacks who were admitted to Berkeley did not gradu-ate. But at the same time, these Blacks who were admitted to Berkeley, their SAT score was slightly higher than the average SAT score of both Blacks and Whites across the country. But the problem was, at Berkeley, lets say Blacks average SAT score was 1052 or something like that, which was slightly higher than the national average. But at Berkeley, the average SAT score was 1300-1400. And so, they were miss-matched. He argues that Blacks that would have been a success at Cal State San Jose were recruited to Berkeley and turned into failures.

Br:whatisyourtakeonthecurrentstate of the Democratic Party andthe current state of the republicanParty?

WW: Well, I’m not quite sure what you mean by that, but my vision… A number of years ago, Governor Wal-lace said “there is not a dimes worth of difference between Republicans and Democrats”. Well, that might be a lit-tle bit of an overstatement, but they are very similar. I mean if you look at the Republicans that control the House of Representatives and the Senate, and the White House, and spending in our country during the time Bush was in office, it equaled almost the spending under the Johnson Administration. The essential difference between the Democrats and the Republicans, at least domestically, is that Democrats

believe in taking your money and my money and giving it to poor people in cities. Republicans believe in taking your money and my money and giv-ing it to businesses and farmers. They both agree on taking our money, they just disagree on what to use it for. And so, I don’t see much of a difference do-mestically. But however, I’m not one to hold politicians accountable for our bad state of affairs. I hold them ac-countable just a little bit. But the bot-tom line, the bulk of the problem lies with the American people. Politicians are doing precisely what the Ameri-can people want them to do. That is, American people want politicians to use their power (their office) to take the property of one American and give it to them. And you say ‘not me, not us in New York’, for example. Well, imagine I’m running for the Senate for the State of New York, and I say “I read the United States Constitution, I know what the Constitution authorizes, and if you elect me to the Senate, don’t ex-pect me to bring back high construc-tion funds, aid to higher education, Meals on Wheels, prescription drugs.” Do you think I’d get elected to the Sen-ate?

Br: Absolutely not, not in newYork.

WW: Not in any state, and the tragedy of this, and the reason why, is because I would not be promising the power of my office to bring back goodies. Now, the tragedy of this is that New Yorkers would be acting absolutely right by not electing me to the Senate, or recalling me if I were in the Senate. And the reason is that if I don’t bring back bil-lions of dollars, that doesn’t mean that New Yorkers will pay a lower Federal Income Tax. All that it means is that New Jersey will get it instead. That is, once the legalized stuff begins, it pays for everybody to get involved. And those who are not involved will wind up holding the brown end of the stick.

24


n the afternoon of Septem-ber 15th of this year, there was a Resident Assistant (RA) sponsored event in the

Hinman Commons, advertised as a “Stoplight Party.” Posters around Hin-man community seemed to indicate it was something of a social event, lean-ing towards a single’s mixer (see pho-to). I decided to check it out with a few friends of mine. After arriving we were imme-diately asked to sit down – I found this a bit odd for a social event. We grabbed seats in the corner and a woman in-troduced herself, stating that she was a specialist in relationships and sexual health. She asked for three volunteers and gave them each three circles: red, yellow, and green, indicating “stop,” “proceed with caution,” and “go,” re-

spectively. She then began reading prompts and hypothetical situations, and soliciting responses from the three volunteers in the form of holding up the colored circle that reflected their opinion of the situation. There was ab-solutely no context given, though her specialty and the brief introduction gave the entire lecture a sexual under-tone. The perplexed volunteers held up varying colors, changing them as they debated what was being asked of them. I quickly recognized what was going on here: indoctrination. Though subtle, all of its wicked and vile intrica-cies were present. First, we were drawn in under different pretenses. The rather vague posters made the event seem like a singles mixer, which much of it seemed to be, but there was no men-tion of this sex education. Next, these confusing situations, with no given context were presented to confuse the audience and participants. This is a great way to instill doubt in whatever notions were already in the minds of the students. One question the pre-senter asked was, “How do you know what the other person wants?” Again, this was only in the context of this im-plicit sexual environment. Someone suggested asking. Good idea. Another said look at their partner’s actions and their expression. This is insanity. I can only imagine how a court case involv-ing this would sound: “Your honor, she looked like she wanted it.” After ten minutes of these ut-terly disturbing prompts, I ran out of the room, unable to bear the thought that most of the other people in that room were absorbing this informa-tion as truth, where it is actually some

colluded fantasy constructed with the seeming purpose of confusion. As I watched this, I explained what was go-

ing on to one of my friends, an intelli-gent psychology major. He thought for a few moments, and looked at me ut-terly amazed at what was going on. We were all brought together with some vague idea that this event is a social get-together or singles mixer. Anyone who attended was probably filled with the hope of meeting new friends and maybe even a partner, indeed an excit-ing prospect. The entire socialization is immediately framed in a sexual per-spective, making it seem that the only kind of relationships are sexual ones. I shudder every time I think of the underclassmen at this meeting, gain-ing their first exposure to the college dating scene, and finding it to be en-tirely sexual. This is far from the truth. People can still form strong emotional bonds without a physical relationship, a point that was missing from the pre-sentation. For readers familiar with George Orwell’s 1984, the practice of “doublethink” and the related lin-guistic concept of “doublespeak” are

o

“Think Like Me”by Matthew Hassell ‘11

I quickly recognized what was going on here: indoctrination. Though subtle, all of its wicked and vile in-tricacies were present.

indoCTRinaTion in hinman Commons

25


used in both the book and reality by presenting confusing and disorienting juxtapositions so that anyone on the receiving end is unable to fully form a complete image of what is going on, much less discern the minute details and actual purpose of the talk. The use of this technique by Big Brother in Orwell’s novel is designed to prevent dissent among the citizens. Ultimately, the vocabulary of the State is decreased to the point where words no longer ex-ist to express dissent. The physical abil-ity to disagree is entirely removed from the society. As I sat and watched this talk, I saw that there was a subtler ver-sion of this going on. While not delet-

ing vocabulary, ideas of abstinence are being entirely deleted from the public mind, and portrayed in the few cases that they turn up as the works of the “evil” religious right. Those participat-ing, as evidenced in the apathetic re-sponses of the members of my group, as well as the complicit audience show the inability of the students to objec-tively process this information. Those that understood what was going on were utterly appalled. Everyone else seemed amused. They had no ability to protest or consider alternatives. I hope that the readers of this article see that this entire gather-ing was manipulative, and was seized

as an opportunity to inject one-sided opinions into the minds of the vulner-able. I could barely tolerate the sick-ening play that was put on before us, belittling serious matters that exist on college campuses across the country. If the authorities do not present them in a serious light, why would any student take them seriously?

Matthew Hassell is a sophomore majoring in Mathematical Sciences. Hinman RAs have warned him that submitting articles to the Review is pro-hibited under his housing agreement.

Movie Night with Binghamton Review

“alarmingandfunny”-KyleSmith,newYorkpost

“thisfilmhitsyouinthegut”-StanleyKurtz,nationalreview

OurEducation ...Their Politics

thursday,october30th8:00pmLectureHall7

refreshmentswillbeserveddoorsopenat7:30

26


“How fortunate for leaders that men do not think.”

-Adolf Hitler

his past summer, the then presumptive Democratic nominee Barack Obama spoke in Berlin to a thrilled

crowd of 200,000 Germans. As a “cit-izen of the world,” Obama spoke of his aspirations, hopes, and desires for a better social, political, and economic future. As an ardent supporter of the McCain campaign, I was more than upset to see such a large foreign crowd

roused to such a degree by what I con-sider to be the smoke and mirrors of a clever rhetorician. As an ardent stu-dent of society and history though, my political discontent was mollified somewhat by a rather ironic fact. This is not the first time in history that enormous masses of ecstatic Germans rallied behind an inexperienced, mes-sianic, political figure with a clever tongue. It has always been a mystery how, in less then a decade, the “Little Corporal” and his “Nasty Party” (to borrow two quotes from Winston

Churchill) could garner such popular political support. In May 1928, the Nazi party received only 2.6 percent of the vote. In March 1933, however, this num-ber ascended to 43.9 percent. In the end, 17,300,000 free and in-dependent German citizens voted for an inexperienced, hate-filled, soon-to-be tyrant. How were so many people seduced in so short a time span? The Democratic nomination of Barack Obama for the highest office in the land may shed some light on this question. Indeed, there are some rather disturbing historical parallels between the rise of the Obama Democrats and the rise of German National Socialism. Lest the members of EMO share one collective social-ized heart attack (would there be any other way for them to have one?), allow me to be absolutely clear on this point. I am by no

means comparing Barack Obama or the Democratic Party to Adolf Hitler. While some of their policies might be similar, (people tend to overlook the ‘socialism’ in National Socialism) there is really no comparison between

the two movements. I am, however, making a very forceful argument that alludes to a parallel in the ways these two individuals ascended to the head of their respected parties. The rise of Barack Obama has been foreshadowed by two events – war and a troubled economy. Pun-dits claim that the risk posed to our national economy is the worst since the Great Depression of the late 1920s. The price of oil has skyrock-eted, and major economic institutions have completely failed. This economic crisis has come on the heels of a long, complicated, and bloody war. While the war in Iraq is a necessary one, and the fight for freedom is a fundamen-tal cause, the road has not been easy.

tHitler embodied the hopes and aspi-rations of the Ger-man people. “Ich bin Deutschland.” Hitler was the state and the state was Hitler.

The Demagogue

by Nehemia Stern ‘08

baRaCk obama and The hisToRiCal Case FoR mass hysTeRia

2�


If there is anything liberals hate more then a struggling capitalist economy, it is foreign intervention. And so Barack Hussein Obama, with his soar-ing rhetoric, and messianic outlook has appeared on the scene. This one man claims to represent the diversity of the American people. This one man claims to represent the ongoing strug-gle for American values. The Demo-cratic Party, (along with the majority of Americans) has placed their hopes and desires for social change into the figure of this one man. Let us backtrack some seventy years. The rise of Adolf Hitler in 1933 was foreshadowed by two events – a se-vere economic crisis, and a long, com-plicated, and bloody war. During the early years of the Great Depression, inflation of the German Mark reached astronomical proportions. A wheel-barrow full of currency was required to buy a loaf of bread. Ironically, the wheelbarrow was worth more than the money it carried. This dire economic situation was compounded by the fact that Germany had come out on the losing side of the Great War. After suf-fering over two million military casu-alties, Germany signed a humiliating armistice with the Allied powers. And so, Hitler came onto the international scene. With his messianic vision of a

“new world order,” Hitler embodied the hopes and aspirations of the Ger-man people. “Ich bin Deutschland.” Hitler was the state and the state was Hitler. Sadly, I am no longer sur-prised by history. Men simply do not think. In 1933, in the wake of a brutal war and a lingering economic crisis, the German people suspended their critical faculties and elected an inex-perienced corporal as their chancellor. In 2008, in the wake of another bru-tal war and another economic crisis, the American people are about to do precisely the same thing. The election of a messianic figure in 1933 was the harbinger to the destruction of Euro-pean Jewry. Knowing Barack Obama’s foreign policy positions – it is fair to ask – will the election of another mes-sianic figure in 2008 be the presage to a second destruction? If it were up to that crowd of 200,000 individuals in Germany, the answer would be an unequivocal yes.

Nehemia Stern is a BU alum-nus who is currently pursuing his PhD. at Emory University. The Obama cam-paign has suggested he and his family be “relocated” before election day.

“If drugs didn’t exist, our government would have to invent them, the better to enact laws aimed at keeping the citi-zens ‘sinless and obedient’.” – Gore Vidal

$38,074,523,782 That is how much money has been spent on the War on Drugs by the Federal and State governments as of September 30, 2008. That data only includes figures from this year. That calculates to about $1,632 per second. With this funding, approximately 1.4 million people were arrested for Drug Law Offenses this year, and around half of these arrests were pertaining to Can-nabis . In the year 2000, this equated to $543.83 per capita (it is currently now around $1,200). The government, un-der the guise of protecting its citizenry from itself, is wasting more and more taxpayer money and is creating a larger problem in the process. The legalization of Marijuana is one of the most reoccurring topics in today’s world. It affects all of us in some way, and has an impact on every Binghamton student. If you were on this campus last year, you probably witnessed the Great Pot Debate. These bloated numbers and exhibitions are all proof that something needs to be done. It’s clear whom the fight is between; the government doesn’t want their workers to lose jobs, and the people that want it to be legal don’t want the government interfering in their lives. The scope of the government’s duty does not encompass taking drug rights away. People know perfectly well what the effects of marijuana are,

mary Jane’s Handcuffs

by Rachel Gordon ‘11

28


and those that do not probably won’t attempt it. Marijuana does nothing more than alter a human being’s state of mind. It doesn’t make one steal and it certainly doesn’t murder. These concepts became associated with drug use when the drugs were made illegal. All the ‘problems’ that marijuana per-ceivably causes are because people are afraid of being caught with it in their possession. For a quick comparison, in 2000, the Netherlands spent approxi-mately €223 ($319) per capita in their Criminal Justice System regarding drug use. This is almost $200 less than the United States. It should be noted that this nation does not punish individu-als who possess marijuana. It is there-fore easily obtained in privately owned stores that sell weed (dubbed ‘coffee shops’) and it is extremely similar to any other alcohol or tobacco shop in that regard. The only restriction is that you must be 18 years old. Technically, the Mary Jane is not completely legal and is punishable by a fine, however, this is not enforced. This is because Dutch laws work in such a way that the police spend their time enforcing more reasonable laws (such as the ones regarding heroine, cocaine, and ecsta-sy). One might expect this to create a

country full of potheads. This is not the case. Only 17% of their population has a ‘lifetime prevalence of marijua-na’ usage (compared to 36.9% in the United States ). In addition, only 3% of the Dutch population has a ‘lifetime prevalence of heroin use’, while the American population is at 5.4%. Also, the United States has an incarceration rate seven times higher than that of the Netherlands . The homicide rate in the Netherlands is also at a fourth of the United States . So what can we deduce from these numbers? We spend more mon-ey trying to enforce a policy that results in a higher substance abuse rate, more people imprisoned, and more violence than in a country that has this ‘illicit drug’ legally available to the public. If it sounds backwards, that’s because it is. The ‘War on Drugs’ makes ab-solutely no sense, especially when the Drug Enforcement Agency says that this war will eliminate addiction and violence. It will not. It only makes it more prevalent, more costly, and more of a burden on peaceful freedom loving Americans.

Rachel Gordon is a sophomore. If you’re nice to her, she’ll do your laundry, and make you coffee.

By TheNumbers

60 Percentage of people who identify them-selves as conservative in the USA.

36 Percentage of people who identify them-selves as liberal in the USA.

$6,000 Cost per taxpayer of recent $700 billion bailout.

134 Number of new, clean, nuclear re-actors being built in China and Russia by 2030.

0 Number of new nuclear reactors being built in the USA.

67 Percentage of Americans who support building new nuclear pow-erplants in the USA.Sources: Yahoo Finance, Zogby, Battleground, World Nuclear Association

Binghamton Review:We already control campus. Soon it

will be the world.Join us before it’s too late.

Weekly Meetings: Thursdays, 7:30 P.M. in our office, WB05 (basement of the Union, below

the food court).

E-mail: [email protected]

2�

axes are a touchy subject for libertarians. We think they are coercive, extortive, and always too high. However, there are

sound economic reasons beyond mere personal biases that substantiate liber-tarian opposition to Barack Obama’s plans to raise certain taxes and create certain new taxes. Obama plans to raise Marginal Income taxes in the highest bracket from 35% to 39.6%. He also wants to create a new Social Security tax of about 12.4% on small business income. Tak-ing into account State and Medicare taxes, etc., a July Wall Street Journal ar-ticle by Stanford University Econom-ics Professor Mike Boskin claims that Obama’s taxes would increase the total taxes on small business income from 44.6% to 58%. This increase, com-bined with his protectionist trade poli-cies, “could send the economy into a tailspin.” As if it needed any more help in doing just that. From a historical perspective, combining a declining economy with protectionism and tax hikes aggravates the general malaise. This could turn a stock market bubble/burst into a Great Depression. All of this begs the ques-tion, why does Obama want to obliter-ate small businesses, which according the Bureau of Labor Statistics, account-ed for roughly 75% of new jobs created in 2005? As a Binghamton University student, I want a job when I graduate. Electing Barack Obama doesn’t seem likely to be providing me with one any time soon. Obama wants to raise the capi-tal gains taxes back to the 1980s era 25-28%. Of course, Obama chose to ignore the fact that the drops in the capital gains taxes between 1993 and

2006 actually have shown that a Laffer curve exists (at least in reference to the capital gains tax; I refer doubting Eco-nomics majors to “Vienna & Chicago,” pages 233-235) and that around a 20% tax maximizes government tax revenue and above 20% decreases government tax revenue. Clinton was at least wise enough to see that, as was Bush. Keep-ing the capital gains tax low maximizes growth and increases tax revenues. Why should we change that? My favorite of Obama’s new taxes would be his oil profit tax. “I’ll make oil companies like Exxon pay a

tax on their windfall profits and we’ll use the money to help families pay for their skyrocketing energy costs and other bills” (New York Post). Don’t you just love Marxism? Before I go into why this is probably the dumbest thing that I have ever seen on a presidential platform, I need to explain something called price elasticity of demand. Price elasticity of demand is a measurement of the changes in quan-tity demanded and changes in price.

If a good is perfectly inelastic (|Ed| = 0), price changes have no bearing on quantity demanded. For example, if you need the antidote to a fatal poi-son you just ingested you will pay any price. If a good is perfectly elastic (|Ed| = 1), price changes cause huge drops or increases in demand, i.e. no one would trade two dollars for one dollar, but everyone would trade fifty cents for a dollar. If a good is perfectly inelastic, then any increase in the costs of pro-duction get rolled directly onto the consumer in the price (since consumers must pay anything for it). So, if crude oil is an inelastic good, then Obama’s plan means any tax increase will be directly tacked onto the price. Accord-ing to a 2003 study published in the OPEC Review by Professor John Coo-per of Glasglow University, crude oil is actually just about perfectly inelastic in the United States (|Ed| = .061, a statis-tically insignificant difference from 0). Obama’s tax will only be re-flected in gas price increases. The tax revenue itself will go through the dead-weight of bureaucracy and not make it to the consumer in full. Why does Obama want to increase gas prices? Why not just let it be and have us save the money in hand? However, another thing came to mind, which wasn’t just the practical objection to the fact that this will make me pay more for gas. It was a princi-ple question. What the hell is windfall profit? The only way to tax profits that doesn’t impose more practical problems than it’s worth is to tax a percentage of sales. ExxonMobil reported growth of 10% for 2007. So Congress, being the wealth of wisdom that it is, has im-

Binghamton Review, October 2008 Binghamton Review, October 2008

PaRT ii: Taxes and oil

t

As a Binghamton University student, I want a job when I graduate. Elect-ing Barack Obama doesn’t seem likely to be providing me with one any time soon.

by Randal Meyer ‘11

Obamanomics

�0


posed a tax on “Big Oil” of 25% on all profits over 10% if they weren’t invest-ing “enough” into renewable energy. (What is enough?) Allow me to cite an article in the next passage in order to show how ridiculous that is. “If that’s what constitutes windfall profits [10%], most of cor-porate America would qualify. Take aerospace or machinery – both 8.2% in 2007. Chemicals had an average margin of 12.7%. Computers: 13.7%. Electronics and appliances: 14.5%. Pharmaceuticals (18.4%) and bever-ages and tobacco (19.1%) round out the Census Bureau’s industry rankings … But if 10% is the new standard, the tech industry is going to have to rethink its growth arc. So will LG, the electron-ics company, which saw its profits grow by 505% in 2007. Abbott Laborato-ries hit 110% ... If Senator Obama is as exercised about ‘outrageous’ profits as he says he is, he might also have to turn on a few liberal darlings. Oh, say, Berkshire Hathaway. Warren Buffett’s outfit pulled in $11 billion last year, up 29% from 2006. Its profit margin – if that’s the relevant figure – was 11.47%,

spent a good portion of my summer working for the Suffolk County Department of Social Services. As I read the front of

the envelope it instantly perplexed me; it read “Affirmative Action Equal Op-portunity Employer.” The hypocrisy of this title begs for recognition here, but very few people seem to want to bring attention to this due to the fact that it is such a controversial topic today. To negatively comment on the subject of affirmative action would be considered extremely politically incor-rect, and therefore few would speak out against the racism that is created by the movement itself. As I am a writer for Binghamton Review, people accuse me

Words of Wisdom:“AmericA Will never be

destroyed from the outside...if We fAlter And lose our freedoms,

it Will be becAuse We destroyed ourselves.”

-AbrAhAm lincoln

which beats out the American oil ma-jors.” (The Wall Street Journal, August 2008) This “plan” is not only logis-tically thoughtless, but also blatantly hypocritical against every other indus-try; can only “Big Oil” make a windfall profit? Or is Obama acting like a dem-agogue and playing on people’s anger over rising gas prices to be elected? One thing is certain: Obama has gained as-tounding economic insight during his experience in the Senate of a whopping near-200 days. Obviously, Obama really needs to rethink his tax plans. The end result of his “growth” initiatives being passed would be increased unemployment, decreased incentive for entrepreneurs, increases in gas prices, and thanks to the Laffer curve, decreased tax revenue to provide public services; all in the name of “economic justice.”

Randal Meyer is a sophomore majoring in Philosophy, Politics, and Law. Sam Riedel, this is what a real col-umn on economics looks like.

disaffirming affirmative action

by Alex Paolano‘10

i

��


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 © 2008 Binghamton Review. All rights reserved. Binghamton Review is distributed on campus under the authority of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Binghamton Review is a member of the Collegiate Network and is a Student Association-chartered organization. Binghamton University is not responsible for the content of the Review; the Review is not responsible for the content of Binghamton University. Binghamton Review thanks the Intercollegiate Studies Institute. Past Editors of Binghamton Review: John Guardiano, Yan Rusanovsky, 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, Nathaniel Sugarman

of being a bigot anyway, so I might as well say what I believe. The very nature of affirmative ac-tion is that it is inherently not creat-ing equal opportunity. It takes people who are “historically” neglected and attempts to boost them up into “social equality” despite the fact that they may have lesser qualifications. When affir-mative action became prevalent during the civil rights movement, it might pos-

sibly have had a clear purpose and a po-tential need. That need has since dried up. Blacks, women, and other minori-ties have truly gained a firm grasp of the American Dream, and many reach the highest levels of success this nation has to offer. Women for instance have not only surpassed men in attendance at colleges around the country, but once there, are achieving more than their male coun-terparts. According to the New York Times, on average, men, no matter their race or socioeconomic standing, are less likely than women to obtain a bachelors degree, take longer than

women to obtain these degrees, and have lower grades. Today, one can see the success women have accomplished when looking at the Pepsi CEO and Chairwoman, Indra Nooyi, and the famous Oprah Winfrey. Not only is the latter extremely successful and a woman, but she is also black. In this past year alone, one has seen Hillary Clinton run for president, and Alaskan governor Sarah Palin be chosen as John McCain’s running mate on the Re-publican ticket. Given these facts and examples, women are certainly not un-der any kind of oppression, and are no longer in need of any affirmative action movement. In the past, affirmative action has helped many black Americans gain a standing in a society that was once closed to them whether through law or personal prejudice. This year, for the first time in our nation’s history, a black candidate has a chance to be-come president of this great nation. Although I do not agree with Barack Obama, and will not be voting for him for president, plenty of White America will. With this, Obama has done one thing all Americans can be proud of; he proved that no matter who one is, one can achieve great things, creating a reality in the Constitution’s words: “We hold these truths to be self evi-dent, that all men are created equal.” And it doesn’t matter if you are a man or a woman, black or white. In the words of Doctor Martin Luther King Junior, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by

the content of their character.” So let us stop judging job applicants by some minority-hiring platform and judge them on the basis of their qualifica-tions. If we unite together to repeal this racist hiring practice, we will all have an equal shot in whatever we decide to do, and won’t be the victim of some ridiculous quota based on where our ancestors were from.

Alex Paolano is a junior major-ing in history. He will soon be fired from the Review to make room for a transves-tite black woman, as per the new hiring guidelines.

Obama has done one thing all Ameri-cans can be proud of; he proved that no matter who one is, one can achieve great things.

You’ll get your degree fromBinghamton

University...but your education

from

Binghamton Review.

You’re Welcome.

Binghamton ReviewBinghamton UniversityP.O. Box 6000Binghamton, N.Y. [email protected]

Nonprofit Org.U.S. Postage

PAIDPermit 61

Binghamton, NY

StupidassociationFilmspresents...

THE EXODUSA West Side Story

STUPID ASSOCIATION FILMS IN ASSOCIATION WITH TRIPLE CITIES AND PROSPECT MAGAZINE PRES-ENTS A NEWMAN GROUP PRODUCTION. A FILM BY THE WEST SIDE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION STARRING KEN KAMLET AS “THE COMMISSIONER” MATTHEW RYAN AS “THE MAYOR” BINGHAMTON RE-VIEW AS “MR. T. RUTH” AND DAN LEVIN AS “THE TEST SUBJECT.” DIRECTED BY MARC NEWMAN. SOUNDTRACK BY MARYAM AND THE MULTIS. MORONIC COMMENTARY BY ANDREW EPSTEIN AND BASHEER BERGUS WITH A SPECIAL APPEARANCE BY ARIEL FEINMAN. LOIS DEFLEUR WILL NOT BE APPEARING IN THIS FILM, IN THE CITY, ON CAMPUS, OR ANYWHERE FOR THAT MATTER.

“We don’t care enough to cover this movie.” -Evan Drellich Editor-in-Chief of Pipe Dream

“Did I mention I saved Physical Ac-tivity classes?” -Matthew Landau SA President

“Students? Who cares about them?” -Matt Ryan Mayor of Binghamton

“This film is not reimbursable child!” -Alice Liou SA VP for Finance

“This movie looks madd gay.” -Dan Rabinowitz Binghamton Review

“Starring in Exodus isn’t a conflict of interest.” -Ken Kamlet Housing Commission Newman Group

From the XCEL Award winning team that brought you The Rise and Fall of OCCT and Fight Club 2: Serbians at the Rat

This movie has been restricted to 3-4 viewers per household. R

october 2008 - binghamton review

Documents

binghamton university

word students

trolling student housing

kick students

voice of students

greatest city

menjenew york city

ken kamlet