February 2007 - Binghamton Review by Binghamton Review

Binghamton Review February 2007

The Student Journal at Binghamton University

Winter Arrives in Binghamton! The Student Journal at Binghamton University

Inside This Issue: -A Review of Campus Dining -SA Endorsements -The Libertarian Debate

-A Look at the 2008 Elections -A Tokinâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Response -Joe C. Galante-Eisenberg! Truth and two staples

Binghamton Review The Student Journal at Binghamton University Founded 1987 o Volume XX Number 5 o February 2007

Departments

“Ambition can creep as well as soar.” -Edmund Burke Editor-in-Chief Christopher Powell Managing Editor Thomas Shannon Business Manager Nathaniel Sugarman Treasurer Michael Calabrese

Editorial: Christopher Powell placates the masses.

Presswatch: Tom Shannon is sick of the filth within the campus press.

Letters: Our crazy readers, they love us and they hate us!

Centerfold: A comprehensive review of our campus’s culinary options.

Special: SA Election Endorsements.

Layout Editor Nathaniel Sugarman Graphic Mercenary Josh Geller

Contents 6

Thomas Shannon predicts a libertarian schism.

Staff Writers Arielle Deutsch, Denis Fitzgerald, Rebecca Kaufman, Alex Rosenthal, Thomas Shannon, Nathaniel Sugarman, Nick Tinen

Alex Rosenthal files his walking papers.

JohnPaul Callan apologizes for upsetting terrorists.

Contributors Derek Abdekalimi, JohnPaul Callan, Joe C. Galante-Eisenberg, Adam Zabary

Joe C. Galante-Eisenberg goes after the Elders of Zion.

Nate Sugarman defends his homeland.

Gil Auslander gets ready for 2008.

Friends of the Review The Aronoff Family 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@yahoo.com

Cover Design by Josh Geller 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 © 2006 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

Binghamton Review, February 2007

editorial

Let Them Smoke Cake

ere it is. You hold in your hands the latest and greatest from the minds of Binghamton Review staffers. This month’s issue features a smorgasbord of content ranging from preemptive strikes against ignorance of the 2008 election to libertarian marching orders. Maybe you’ll read the whole issue; perhaps read only some, and maybe none of it at all (the pillar of a liberal arts education – jacket reading). The point is that regardless of how many students choose to enjoy our wit and wisdom (yea, that’s right) every month we will continue to print it. Binghamton Review is not here to kowtow to popular demand. As a matter of fact, most student groups are relatively unconcerned with how they are perceived or regarded by non-members. Regardless of what you think of WHRW’s “music”, the Food Co-Op’s “food” or the Experimental Media Organization’s Birkenstocks, they will continue to transmit some of the strangest tunes, cook the funkiest semi-eatables, and fight society’s oppressive standards for hygiene…and maybe that’s the point. Presently, the Student Association is comprised of approximately 180 student groups, and their activities include dancing, Judaism, cooking, community service, and watching weird Japanese cartoons. A significant portion of that list is of no interest to a major portion of the Binghamton University population, but that does not reduce the intrinsic value of such organizations. Sometimes it is hard to appreciate the worth of many of the different student organizations that are funded by the student activity fee, but almost all questions students have about a group can be answered by attending one of the group’s meetings. As hard as it may be for some to understand the benefit students receive from getting together to decorate cookies or construct bearcat dolls from pipe cleaners it is always clear that the groups’ members love what they do and enjoy the time they devote to these activities. I always viewed LateNite as the administration’s pitiful attempt to curb student inebriation, but when attending LateNite functions it is clear that those who do attend (dorks) really enjoy the programs and activities that the administration and students collaborate to provide. The system works. While it may not be intelligent or cost effective for a government to attempt to provide comprehensive services to its citizens, there is definitely a significant benefit associated with the efforts of University and student leadership. It is important for students to remember that the Student Association is in many ways less of a government than an alliance of students who work together because it is more productive. So, after we identify the unique paradox

that the Student Association presents to students (i.e. what level of benefits should the Student Association provide and what level of funding should it tithe in order to function) the question becomes how much is too much? In regards to student groups and activities, I would like to paraphrase French Royalty and say “let them smoke cake.” You’re probably pretty confused by what that statement could possibly mean, but it is really quite simple. When granted the opportunity, college students will “expand their minds” by doing any number of strange, unconventional, and often unadvisable things. The goal of the SA should be to pool the resources of all undergraduates so that at least some of these resources are available to any number of students (typically agreed to require at least 10 members) who wish to engage in any sort of activity. Would I advise students to attempt a skeleton race down Bunn Hill Rd? No. But hey...let them smoke cake. Where I draw the line for the exercising of said resources is in providing expensive, rarely needed services to a small portion of the general population who will take advantage of it. The best example of this abuse I have seen this year was the Student Assembly’s attempt to provide free STD testing to all students. These currently cost about $60 per test, and the costs associated with making these tests free are completely unknown. However, any student is welcome to go to the Broome County Department of Health and take advantage of the free testing they offer (don’t even get me started on that abuse of tax dollars). It is absurd to think that every student should chip in extra monies to ensure that those students who decide engage in risky behaviors can have the convenience of not having to leave campus to determine if they have contracted anything…gimme a break! So now we move into the conclusion and I bet you’re still wondering why I have chosen to devote an entire editorial to the principles of student government. The short answer: It’s Student Association election time! It is that magical time of the year when students decide who will serve as their executives for the coming academic year as well as addressing some important referenda questions. I hope that all students will choose to take advantage of their right to vote to improve their student experience. P.S. Read on to get BR’s ideas for who you should vote for on March 5th and 6th! -Christopher Powell

Binghamton Review, February 2007

PRESSWATCH

February 18, 2007

Slicing Through the Smut that is Campus Journalism by the Managing Editor of Binghamton Review - Pro-Hillary op-ed by Polina Deryuga, Feb. 9, 2007 “Many feel as though Hillary has merely changed her position on the issue [Iraq] in order to attract liberal votes. However, what seemed like a good decision in 2002, seems like a complete mistake now that the United States has been in this war for over five years…..” Perhaps it was an innocent mistake but March 2003 to February 2007 does not equate to “over five years.” Surely she meant to say “almost four years.” However, in the world of political opinion pieces, “over five years” can only be categorized as a distortion. - Pro-Hillary op-ed by Polina Deryuga, Feb. 9, 2007 “Hillary has always been an advocate for women’s rights. Remember the Plan B pill, boys and girls? Guess who made it readily available on the shelves of your local pharmacy for your convenience?” Is this an opinion piece or a press release from Hillary’s war room? How could all the credit for FDA approval of Plan B accrue only to Clinton? Indeed the entire Paris Hiltonization movement was out in force demanding the “oops” pill over the counter. Free Lovers everywhere deserve credit, not just Hillary. - Letter to Just Ask Reach, Jan. 26, 2007 “I was wondering if HIV can be

Were the bad old days when we didn’t talk about these sort of things really all that bad? Only a society that causes nonhomosexuals to think they’re at extremely high risk for HIV infection could produce someone like Fingered and Worried. Unfortunately this is par for the course at Pipe Dream, which prints comparable smut on a biweekly basis.

Words of Wisdom: “Freedom of speech doesn’t

protect speech that you like, freedom of speech protects speech that you hate.”

-Ron Jeremy

transmitted through fingering or any hand to genital contact. My boyfriend didn’t have any cuts or abrasions on his hands but he did come in contact with my vaginal secretions. Am I at risk of contracting HIV? ... Thanks - Fingered and Worried” What planet am I living on? Binghamton Review, February 2007

- Campus to Host Controversial Preacher, by Erika Neddenien, Feb. 2, 2007 “The Rev. Franklin Graham… has rented… the Binghamton University Events Center to hold a religious festival from June 8 to 10 of this year… ‘I feel that his brand of extremism is adding to an environment where queer, non-Christians are marginalized,’ said senior queer studies and Student Action Collective member Adam Friedman.” Who knew the queer studies department offered summer classes? It’s hard to understand all the hubbub and indignation about Rev. Graham considering that that vast majority of students won’t be in town when he’s here. Mr. Friedman sure wishes he lived in a world where vertebrate Christianity is extreme and queer studies is mainstream. He could always relocate to Manhattan after graduation… or continue his studies at Binghamton.

Letters to the Editor

One Student’s Take on Our Marijana Debate by Francisco Mena I read both articles in your November/December issue concerning the legalization of marijuana and I was impressed and agreed with the arguments from both sides. However, I wish to point out the difference between pop culture’s stance on marijuana and the government’s stance. Marijuana was officially banned over forty years ago in the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, an international treaty that also banned opium and coca plants. The treaty has gone on to ban LSD, Ecstasy, and other psychoactive drugs. Although these drugs are certainly more harmful than marijuana, it is important to point out that at the time of the legislation marijuana was perceived to be just as potent and detrimental. Since then we’ve gone through some turbulent times in our nation’s history, and although the seventies were very drug-filled, at least the hippie era taught us that marijuana can’t cause insanity or lead to murder. The debate on legalization has changed from whether or not weed is bad for you, but

rather how bad it is and what are the benefits and costs of legalizing it. Handfuls of cities and counties across America have decriminalized marijuana possession laws, and some have even allowed for the possession of small amounts of cannabis. Several states allow for the possession of marijuana for medical purposes. But the federal government has been slow to catch up. A small number of bills concerning state’s power of litigation over marijuana have been brought before congress, but no monumental decisions have been made as of yet. It will take a long time before a bill which legalizes marijuana comes to the floor. As for the financial benefits for legalizing marijuana, I feel that although it would certainly save the US millions of dollars to legalize the drug, this fact is a moot point in Washington. The United States government is no stranger to spending absurdly large amounts of money on programs and policies with very small results, especially when it comes to stopping perceived threats to Americans (see:

the War on Terror, the “Star Wars” Strategic Defensive Initiative, the stealth bomber, etc.) I see little reason why Washington lawmakers should take a drug initiative any differently. Does this mean that Democrats and Republicans are completely out of touch with the American people for ignoring this debate? Although many college students will answer with a resounding “YES!” I would not be so certain. It is important to remember that marijuana is still an extremely dividing issue in this country, with very strong opinions and backers on both sides. For one party to take a strong stance on the issue would be a very risky gamble, and it could make or break the party’s current supporters. Still, with the rising use of marijuana in America and the steady trend of states and cities reconsidering marijuana laws, it is only matter of time before this debate is heard on a national level. But that debate will be a much quieter and cautious debate than the one heard on college campuses.

Binghamton Review:

“Where the real debate on campus takes place” We Are Always Looking For:

Conservatives, Objectivists, Libertarians, writers, cartoonists, graphic designers as well as all lovers of liberty, justice, and the American way. Weekly Meetings: Thursdays, 9 P.M. in our office, WB05 (basement of the New Union below the food court). e-mail binghamtonreview@yahoo.com Binghamton Review, February 2007

A House Divided

Liberaltarianism Refuted

Why Libertarians Could Never Bunk With Modern Liberals by Thomas Shannon

here’s been a lot of chatter lately alleging the death of Frank Meyer style Fusionism. Libertarians such as New York Post columnist Ryan Sager have written tomes denouncing GOP accommodation of evangelicals and other social conservatives while predicting an imminent split of the conservative movement. Occasionally these critiques are accompanied by calls for libertarians to align with liberals and create a new left-wing Fusionism. So called “Liberaltarianism” will prove to be what Russell Kirk once said of libertarian doctrine: “as unreal as Marxism.” There are several reasons why this debate has emerged at this time. Chief among them is that libertarian has become a buzzword. The status of buzzword necessarily brings vulgarity and meaninglessness with it. Responsibility for this can be laid at the feet of two men in particular: Selfproclaimed “downtown libertarian” Jon Stewart and former Libertarian Party candidate for NY governor Howard Stern. Youthful admirers of these men have wholeheartedly grasped at the libertarian label. Murray Rothbard distinguished two separate orders of libertarians. The lower order, known as the “utilitarianemotivist-hedonic wing” and a higher order called the “Aristotelian-Lockean natural rights wing,” to which Rothbard belonged. Adherents who have arrived at their libertarianism through Stern or Stewart, by definition, belong to the former. The hedonic wing, as Kirk pointed out, hates custom and tradition at least as much as it hates collectivist government. It is to this mental tic that the proponents of “Liberaltarianism” appeal. Brink Lindsey, vice president for research at the Cato Institute, penned the now famous “Liberaltarians: A Progressive Manifesto” in The New Republic’s Dec. 11, 2006 issue. To Lindsey, it’s “clear that capitalism’s relentless dynamism and wealth creation… have been

pushing U.S. society in a decidedly progressive direction.” Has anyone noticed a Microsoft advertisement lately? The move towards ever greater convenience coupled with ever lower barriers to trade has coincided with exponential increases in electronica, brain dead open-mindedness, reverse mercantilism, and self-absorbed globalizers as personified by Mr. Moustache of Understanding himself, Thomas Friedman. All of these are hostile to conservatism as properly construed. The question is: can liberals learn to love their “great natural ally,” globalized capitalism? Don’t count on it. The New Republic’s senior editor, Jonathan Chait, said as much in his response to Lindsey entitled “Kiss Me Cato, Buzz Off Ayn Rand.” Chait sees no reason for Liberaltarianism considering that libertarians are, at most, 13 percent of the electorate and even that statistic is probably a bit high because it came from the Cato Institute which would have an interest in inflating it. Even if there was a sincere commitment to reconciling libertarianism with statist liberalism, the logistics are such that it would be impossible. For example, what to do about the sacred (and enormous) cows of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid? As we saw in 2005, there is hardly a liberal willing to even discuss reformation of Social Security, much less a reform along libertarian lines. Medicare and Medicaid are off limits to an even greater extent. These programs plus military spending make up an extremely large portion of the federal budget. If the liberal is unwilling to reduce spending in these areas, he has nothing to offer the libertarian as far as budget matters go. The only area of potential compromise between liberals and libertarians is on social issues. If this compromise is to go much beyond blocking partial-birth abortion bans or parental notification laws, it is going Binghamton Review, February 2007

to have to spill out of politics and into the wider culture war. Social conservatives may have pursued an overly ambitious legislative agenda of late but, for the most part, they’ve attempted to prohibit through law what was until recently prohibited by custom or tradition. The culture war will increasingly have to be fought within the culture itself and not in the halls of politics. But do liberals and Democrats want in on this fight? More importantly, do they want to fight alongside libertarians? Chait admits that the most “politically fertile terrain” right now lies in a combination of “economic populism” and “social traditionalism.” Decidedly non-libertarian terrain this is. The tough thing for libertarians to come to grips with is that neither side of the aisle will ever fully implement their agenda. Lindsey has a legitimate laundry list of gripes against the GOP during the George W. Bush years including an explosive increase in earmarks, the Medicare drug bill, and unusually rapid expansion of executive power. (Truth be told, no one since Coolidge has voluntarily reduced or even held constant the powers of the presidency.) The timing of Lindsey’s article, less than a month after Democrats swept the 2006 elections, exposes the front-running nature of Liberaltarianism. If, as it seems, a full scale political realignment is underway, it will most likely cleave along proand anti-globalization lines, as David Brooks has hinted at. Free traders, many libertarians, and the diversity people constituting the pro-globalization side. Traditionalists, some unionists, some environmentalists, and libertarians more afraid of collectivist world government than a tariff or two will line up on the anti-globalization side. It’s a bit messy but certainly a more plausible scenario than Liberaltarianism. -Tom Shannon is Managing Editor of Binghamton Review.

Time To Move Out

My Fellow Libertarians Why You Should Vote Democrat by Alex Rosenthal

It is time to take a stand. The Republican Party no longer represents our views in virtually any way. We have voted for Republicans locally, regionally and nationally and have only a dysfunctional, bloated and unresponsive government to show for it. Our strongest values of individual liberty and economic freedom have been obliterated with the taint of pork barrel spending, radical pseudo religious meandering and an expensive, unnecessary middle east conflict. If Libertarianism is the party of common sense we must clearly disconnect ourselves from the party of foolishness. Yes friends, it is time to abandon this corrupted rotting shell of conservatism called the Republican Party and switch our allegiance to the Democrats. How has the Republican Party become such an albatross? For a long time a natural bond formed between Republicans and libertarians, we fought together against liberals to keep government out of our lives socially and economically. We fought for responsible spending, low taxes and social freedoms for all. Along the way, Republicans seemed to have forgotten all these tenets outside of election-saving tax cuts as they have irrationally and irresponsibly cut taxes while increasing spending. In their ego-maniacal plot to “save” america they have forgotten about the terrific concept of limited government, and they have developed an ego and a love of spending unseen since Marie Antoinette

discovered King Louie’s credit card. Take for example our distinguished state senator Thomas Libous. Libous has made a career of delivering millions of dollars of poorly regulated pork to the kitchen tables of the Southern Tier. He has eschewed any sense of financial prudence, choosing instead to gobble up favoritism from local business’ such as the good will he drummed up with the $750,000 dollars of state money he had appropriated to the Binghamton Mets for a new outfield sign. Sure, those dollars could have helped fix the infrastructure of the City of Binghamton, but where would Binghamton display Libous’s name in bright lights? Perhaps we could blame that on silly local politics, but let us think regionally what about our former Republican Governor George Pataki. Pataki increased state spending well over twice the rate of inflation in his final proposed budget. Does this sound like a fiscal conservative? Pataki not only spent wildly; he also had no inclination to follow any moral principles while grandstanding for a future (not happening) presidential run. He vetoed a bill that would have made the morning after pill available without a prescription, obviously believing not all individuals are entitled to make contraception choices for themselves. It wasn’t until Democratic Governor Eliot Spitzer was elected that New York State was able to move into the 21st century and establish it’s public policy by science and medi-

Binghamton Review, February 2007

cine--not politics and rhetoric. Nationally, the Republican party is in shambles. After losing the House and Senate in the midterm elections, most Republicans have failed to take any voter intent to heart. They have chosen instead to stay the course on the most disastrous war conflict since…well… it’s actually worse than Vietnam. Incredibly, only 17 Republicans had the guts to stand up to a regime that had absolutely no clue what they were doing while going into Iraq and have no clue what they’re doing now. Wait and see has been the message for four years. It is no longer a matter of having the will to win. That time is over; now is the time for having the will to be pragmatic. We have spent billions of dollars, thousands of American lives, and priceless diplomatic good will without seeing any positive change in the Middle East situation. President Bush, inarguably a disaster as President, has no legitimate challenge from his own party to leave Iraq. The answer is clear--the Democratic Party must be thrust into the leadership vacuum. We as libertarians, arguably the largest independent party, should stomach our problems with liberals, and support the Democratic candidate who has the guts to oppose the war and pragmatically plan an exit strategy.

-Alex Rosenthal is a staff writer for Binghamton Review as well as the Publisher of Binghamton Free Press

War On Terror

Introspective A Liberal Self-Study: The Real Root Causes Behind Jihad by JohnPaul Callan

or the longest time I could not understand terrorism. Like most Americans I assumed its driving force was found deep within ideological beliefs that clouded reason and judgment, leaving room only for hatred and destruction. With this perception of terrorism it became easy to understand why America was attacked. They are crazy. And that is what crazy people do. On September 20, 2001 President Bush confirmed my assumption, “Americans are asking, why do they hate us? They hate what we see right here in this chamber -- a democratically elected government. Their leaders are selfappointed. They hate our freedoms: our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other.” So, there it was. We are free. They hate freedom. They attack us. We kick their ass. It all seemed quite clear. However, as I grew older I began doubting these simplistic explanations of terrorism. I tried to imagine myself in their shoes. What would it take to convince me to strap a bomb to my chest? What would it take to convince me to murder innocent women and children? What would it take to convince me to take my own life? Would a blind hatred of another people be enough reason for me to take such actions? No, there had to be

something more to it. There must be legitimate, or at least what they would consider to be legitimate, reasons for their hatred. I wanted to know what they were. And although I may not be an expert on the Middle East, American foreign policy, or the history of international relations, I was able to find the “reasons” that they hate us so. It might shock some to hear that terrorist organizations have reasons for their actions, but I will not apologize for truth. Whether or not there is validity to their assertions I cannot know for sure. But what I do know is that these are the justifications and arguments used by Bin Laden and other terrorist leaders to rally support in their battle against America. According to Michael Scheuer, former head of the CIA Bin Laden Unit, “The United States is hated across the Islamic world because of specific U.S. government policies and actions. That hatred is concrete not abstract, martial not intellectual, and it will grow for the foreseeable future.” Now the question becomes what are these policies? And are these policies worth the costs? Bin Laden’s current justifications for his organization’s acts of terror are: (1) U.S. support for Israel, whom he considers to be a tyrant and Binghamton Review, February 2007

an oppressor of the Muslim people. (2) The presence of U.S. troops on the Arabian Peninsula, which he considers to be an example of U.S. support of an illegitimate government. (3) The U.S. occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. (4) U.S. support for Russia, India, and China against fellow Muslim militants. (5) U.S. pressure on Arab energy producers to keep oil prices low. (6) U.S. support of tyrannical puppet governments in the U.S. The last point, in my opinion, appears to be the most valid. For while the American people were at home enjoying situational comedies and Sunday afternoon football games, the U.S. military and CIA were hard at work in the Middle East. Some examples of U.S. military and covert operations in the Middle East are: 1949- CIA supports a military coup of a democratically elected Syrian government establishing a military dictatorship under Colonel Za’im. 1953-In response to the nationalization of a British oil company the CIA sponsors the overthrow of the democratically elected Mossadeq government in Iran establishing a twenty five year oppressive monarchy under the Shah. 1978-U.S. puts full support behind Iranian monarchy urging the Shah to use force to put down political protests. One result of this policy is the massacre of 10,000 anti-Shah demonstrators at

Teheran’s Jaleh Square. 1982- U.S. supports Israel’s invasion of Southern Lebanon to attack anti-U.S. and antiIsrael groups including Palestinians. Israel seizes and then occupies Southern Lebanon until 2000. 1983U.S. sends troops into Lebanon as a peace keeping operation sanctioned by the U.N. 1991-U.S. invades Iraq in response to Saddam’s decision to invade Kuwait in order to stop Kuwaiti slant drilling of Iraqi oil-estimated Iraqi casualties somewhere between 100,000 and 200,000. 1998- U.S. and Britain launch Operation Desert Fox, for the majority of the next year Iraq is bombarded by aerial attacks. Granted, this is a one-sided account of the occurrences that have taken place in the Middle East and only represents a

small fraction of its complete history. However, it still serves as representative of the types of reasons why terrorist and other members of Muslim society hate us. It is not because we are infidels. It is not our freedom. It is not our way of life. It is not our money. It is not our celebrity worship or gossip loving ways. It is our government’s actions and policies that terrorist organizations fight against. This is not meant to implicate that terrorists rest on high moral grounds. It only demonstrates that our understanding of terrorism has been greatly skewed. Only when we begin to understand the true nature of the terrorist threat will we be able to address the issue in a logical and just fashion. Until then we will be forced

to wait like the patiently obedient, or perhaps simply apathetic, citizens we are, hoping that those who hold power know what they are doing. Unfortunately, I am not certain that they do. And while we may write Bin Laden off as a madman, those people who find themselves on the other side of U.S. military action do not. As Bin Laden has publicly stated, “No one except a dumb thief plays with the security of others and then makes himself believe he will be secure.” -JohnPaul Callan is a Senior at Binghamton University. He is majoring in Political Science with a minor in Liberal Guilt.

Arto Barber Shop $12.00

Specializing in Men’s Haircuts

Flat Tops High & Tight Ceasar Cuts Fades Military Cuts Located in the University Plaza (Next to Planet Fitness) Walk-Ins Only 607-729-3073

Hours: M-F, 9-6PM Sat, 8-4PM Binghamton Review, February 2007

Zagat Approved

Campus Dining:

The search for culinary delight in a Sodexho-run world by Nathaniel Sugarman and Adam Zabary In general, the dining halls at Binghamton University are mediocre at best. If you live on campus, the point is moot because when it comes to buying a meal plan, we have about as much of a choice in the matter as Jodie Foster had in ‘The Accused.’ However, what we can choose is which dining halls to eat in. Despite the community in which we live, we are free to use our meal card in any of the dining halls on campus. These dining halls vary in terms of food quality, cleanliness, and atmosphere. In addition, the ‘Nite Owls,’ which are open until 1:00 am for snacks, differ depending on the living community. This article is intended to help the average student make intelligent decisions about where to eat. After all, unless you are a troubled Long Island girl living in Bingham, you probably don’t actually want to puke your food up right after you eat it. We have covered all the dining halls on campus, but have chosen not to discuss the food court because we don’t consider it a legitimate dining hall. That said, we hope this expose helps you on your quest for culinary satisfaction at BU. College in the Woods: This dining hall is by far the worst on campus. The food is poorly organized and the dining hall is understaffed. The food quality is consistent with the other dining halls, but for a few reasons, CIW ends up

being sub-par. The food is left out longer than in other dining halls, and because of the way the food is presented, it ends up being less appetizing. On top of all that, they always seem to run out of napkins. The salad bar is decent, but other than that, don’t bother with CIW. One plus is, many cute sorority

The only reliable aspect of the Kosher Kitchen is its seemingly infinite source of loser cliques, ugly girls, bleeding-heart liberals, Looney Tunes character looka-likes, and selfhating Jews. girls show up during pledging, but normally CIW is filled with dirty hippy underclassmen. As far the Nite Owl is concerned, CIW has the worst. The dude with the dreadlocks who works there is nice, but the milkshakes are terrible, and they probably won’t have the flavor you want. The big plus is, at 1 am when Binghamton Review, February 2007

they close, they usually give away all their perishable food. Hinman: One step up from CIW, Hinman is an accessible dining hall with average food. Hinman is located across from the lecture hall near Lot M, which makes it a good option for students who commute to and from off-campus. They have a nice staff, the lines always move fast, and in terms of cleanliness, Hinman is outperformed only by Mountainview. If the food isn’t good, you can always rely on the salad bar. Hinman’s Nite Owl is second only to Mountainview—they have a good selection of groceries in addition to drinks and fried nosh. Something to keep in mind: If you consider yourself shy in any way, stay away from Hinman on your birthday—Tina (who works there) will make it her business to make sure everybody in the Southern Tier knows it’s your special day. Newing: For all of its flaws, the one thing that distinguishes Newing dining hall from the rest is the hotness level of the girls. If it is eye candy that you want, Newing is the place to go to find an endless supply of sorority girls, tight sweatpants, and trendy Ugg boots. Besides the salad bar, the food is nothing special; it’s just standard cafeteria fare. Newing’s Nite Owl is better than CIW’s, but it is

nothing exceptional—if you do live there, walk over to CIW or decide to go though, keep a look Newing. out for the righteous dude who wears grills on his teeth. Kosher Kitchen: Lord, where do we begin. First Mountainview: off, you have to be a member Situated in the heart of in order to avoid the exorbitant the Binghamton Rockies, prices. Membership costs $55 Mountainview dining hall is a per semester and requires a reasonable trek from civilizatwo hour per week work shift tion. If you have the time to which could include anything walk there, it is well worth it, from washing dishes to pluckbecause you will not find a ing feathers off of dead chicknicer dining hall at BU. Built ens. If you are not a member, in 2002, Mountainview is the breakfast, lunch, and dinner cost newest community on campus approximately $3, $6, and $10 and consequently the dining hall respectively. (Once a member, looks like one from a school the prices end up coming out to more decent that this. The about half that.) The KK does Nite Owl is legendary—by far not have a Nite Owl, and their the best on campus, they have hours are very limited—they burgers and fries in addition to are only open for about an hour smoothies, shakes, and grocerand a half per meal. The food ies. The one drawback is the is unreliable, but if they are obnoxious and confrontational serving a good meal, the Kosher fat lady who makes the milk Kitchen is all you can eat, so shakes. Don’t cross her, or occasionally it is worth spendshe’ll eat you alive. ing the money. For example, come between 5:00 and 6:30 Dickinson: pm on Friday evening and you Located next to the Old Union, will be pleasantly surprised Dickinson is the most cenwith a great meal. Back to trally located of the dining the negatives: The salad bar halls. Dickinson has the best is atrocious, the soda machine pizza on campus, but the sandis undependable, and the ice wiches are the worst. The cofcream machine will growl and fee is inconsistent, so stick to spit at you if it doesn’t like you. Jazzman’s. One significant plus The only reliable aspect of the to Dickinson is that because of Kosher Kitchen is its seemingly its size, quietness, and natural infinite source of loser cliques, light, it is the best dining hall ugly girls, bleeding-heart liberto do your work in. Dickinson als, Looney Tunes character is the one community on camlook-a-likes, and self-hating pus which serves Halal food, Jews. but unfortunately, it sucks major goat tuchus so observant Susquehanna Room: Muslims might have to resort to Located in the Old Union above eating at the infamous Kosher the post office, this inconspicuKitchen. Regrettably, they ous dining hall is shrouded in have no Nite Owl, so if you mystery. Few students have Binghamton Review, February 2007

been bold enough to venture there—it tends to be dominated by professors and BU staff. The sandwiches are decent, but take them to go so you don’t end up sitting next to your econ professor. Some final words of advice: If you are an adventurous eater, Binghamton University is not the place for you. If you see something in the dining halls that you don’t recognize, do not eat it—you will probably get sick. Eat in Mountainview, chill with friends in Newing, and catch up on reading in Dickinson. If you feel hopeless, the salad bars will almost always have fresh fruits and vegetables to eat, unless you are in the Kosher Kitchen. If you can afford it, try to eat off campus as much as possible. Decent restaurants in Binghamton include Tony’s, Taj, Moghul, and Texas Roadhouse, and if you’re looking for a sandwich, go to Wegman’s. I may be stating the obvious, but let us not forget Dunkin Donuts. If, however, you must stick with campus options, we hope this culinary analysis has proven to be of service. -Nathaniel Sugarman is Business Manager of Binghamton Review. -Adam Zabary is a Junior at Binghamton University and enjoys eating as far away from campus as possible. .

Campus Politics

As If You Cared

Binghamton Review’s SA Election Endorsements

by the BR Staff President

Ok, so we’re off to a bad start. Binghamton Review staffers were unable to reach a consensus endorsement of any candidate – but we’re confident it should be one of the Dave B’s… David Bass: Bass is a motivated, active student leader who has done a great job making the VPMA’s office matter this year. As SA President Dave Bass would definitely do a superb job fighting for students as evidenced by his great rapport with students on campus and his unflagging enthusiasm and energy. Our concern with David isn’t his ability, it’s his politics – sure he’ll fight…but for what? David Belsky: Belsky has proven himself as an accomplished student leader through two years of successfully fighting for student interests. His biggest upside is that he has a better relationship with administrators than probably any other student on campus – a major plus for an SA President. He also tends to deliver on his promises – look for an increase in your webmail quota (50mb!) by the end of the semester.

Executive Vice President

Joseph Danko: Joe Danko is the perfect candidate for EVP. He has spent the last year as a well liked and respected chair of the Student Assembly’s Rules committee – the

legislative equivalent of the EVP. Additionally, he is easy to get along with and very receptive to student needs—all the things you could want from an EVP.

Vice President for Finance

Our Editor-in-Chief is running… ’nuff said.

Vice President for Student Programming

Sandra Dube: Sandi is running unopposed – so that helped. However, it is doubtful that a better candidate than her could be found anyway. She is the incumbent and has done a great job of bringing popular shows to campus through all of her office’s different programming arms while keeping cost low and managing to (gasp!) stay within her budget! Look out for Jim Gaffigan tickets and thank Sandi later.

Vice President for Academic Affairs

Boris Tadchiev: Boris has a twoyear record of fighting for students on the Student Assembly and he makes a great Ivan Drago. His platform also calls for serious, moderate initiatives to improve students’ academic experiences on campus.

Vice President for Multicultural Affairs

Rabeel Patoli: So what if

Binghamton Review, February 2007

Binghamton Review is not enamored with multi-culturalists? If there must be a VPMA he should be a good one. Rab is very down to Earth and brings a platform that seeks to improve student relations from the residence halls up to our reputation as a university, which might not be a bad idea judging from our Princeton Review rankings.

BR’s Most Important Endorsement: VOTE NO ON THE NYPIRG REFERENDA! NYPIRG is a corrupt, dubious organization that has been hijacked by liberals and provides little to no value to students on campus. They are seeking over $108,000 and hope to allocate nearly $75,000 of that to their payroll alone! No other student group on campus has a paid, full-time staffer whose salary comes from the Student activity fee. Additionally, NYPIRG deemed it to be in the interest of the public to misrepresent themselves in classrooms all over campus – passing this referenda (which is thankfully only advisory) would nearly double NYPIRG’s budget, not maintain it. It’s time for students to step up to the plate and reclaim their freedom from NYPIRG’s corruption. For more information on this horrible organization find them on: www.charitynavigator.org

Birth Wrong

Turning A Blind Eye

The American Media’s Favoritism of Israel and Birthright’s Propaganda by Joe C. Galante-Eisenberg

n the grand American discourse on foreign policy, with philosophies ranging from Wilsonian idealism to Hobbesian realism, one nation since its inception has managed to evade criticism, or at the very least critical analysis, of its diplomacy. This nation, of course, is Israel; and the media and government’s reticence toward Israel’s foreign policy is something that has always struck me as odd. The American media’s tendency is toward hyper-scrutiny, as is essential to our precious liberal principles and history. Our government’s tendency is toward extraordinary vigilance, and a diligent apprehension of international affairs, as is required of a superpower. One would think that in a region so critical to the national interest that Israel’s foreign policy would be subject to unrelenting appraisal. Remarkably, as most recently observed by former President Jimmy Carter in his work “Peace, not Apartheid,” Israel has managed to avoid being sucked into a debate, no less become engaged in a partial, favorable one. Visible individuals to the American public that do levy assessments of Israeli policy are largely left-wing nut jobs that are relegated to the fringes of academia and Muslim extremists of no political consequence. Syndicated columnist Adam Dershowitz, in his review of the book, says: “The suggestion that without peace Israel is an apartheid state analogous to South Africa is simply wrong…Why then would Jimmy Carter invoke the concept of apartheid in his attack on Israel?” Nice try, Mr. Dershowitz,

but your maligning of President Carter serves my point well. First, arpathied is defined as “any system or practice that separates people according to race, caste, etc.” The analogy drawn between Israel and the wicked, deplorable government of South Africa is a product of his own imagination. The second, more scurrilous implication of your review is that President Carter’s book, who incidentally lost his reelection run in part because he refused to attack anyone, is that the Noble Peace Prize winner and highly esteemed author is an “attacker.” It is important for individuals trying to suppress the debate about Israel to label a book that offers critical insight and an eyecatching title as an “attack.” In typical fashion, the response is disproportionate to the criticism, a cunning tactic used to take things out of context and conflate their meaning. You should be ashamed. You may disagree with the suggestions advanced by Mr. Carter; I don’t necessarily agree with him. For instance none of Palestine’s neighbors were receptive to “refugees,” preferring rather to keep the Arabs of the contested territories in occupied areas so that they may continue to use their plight for political purposes. Israel gave Palestine a shot at democracy and they elected Hamas to the majority, a terrorist organization better eradicated from existence than elected to office. This is what in normal debate you would call a “counter-point,” but in American discourse on the Middle East the point is anything to the contrary is somehow an “attack on Israel,” which is ludicrous, and intellectually dishonest. A close friend of mine went on birthright this winter. This caused Binghamton Review, February 2007

me to take a much more critical look at the apparatus behind this incontestable support for Israeli policies among Americans. Birthright, contrary to popular belief, is not a charity. Birthright ought not to be painted with an altruistic brush; it would grossly misrepresent its purpose and effect. My friend is a man whose intelligence and command of international affairs very much dwarfs my own. Prior to leaving he was hostile to the notion of organized religion. He returned from birthright proudly Jewish and a keen supporter of Israel. My friend lives in Greenwich, and both of his parents are doctors. A two week vacation in Tel Aviv would not have caused any financial hardship to his family. Birthright’s effectiveness lays in its ability to affect subtle shifts in psychological alliance. Loath as I am to say it, Birthright is part of a propaganda apparatus, in which young formative intellectuals such as my friend are molded into reactionary supporters. Bolstered by academic types and foreign policy gurus, Israel’s original supporters have constructed something of an impregnable philosophical fortress behind which its policy is conducted with a degree of implicit infallibility. Sometimes our harshest critics are also our closest allies – think parents. My friend summarized his experience well: Friend: well, I did criticize birthright; that being said, I am far more proudly Jewish after the trip than I was before NatoJ0E: which means it worked? Friend: correct, and I’m as cynical as they get, so I imagine it only worked to a greater extent for everyone else Again, because of the sensitive nature of this topic, it is necessary to

14 qualify any statement by noting that I support many of Israel’s policies, and American-Israeli policy. I do not accept them blindly and without analysis. These sentiments may represent those of a silenced majority. However as it relates to Birthright, I feel that if it is the intent of the international Jewish community to generate support for Israel’s cause, which it should be, that perhaps they could redirect the billions of dollars spent sending middle class American Jews to Jerusalem toward combating real global ails, like AIDS, under the auspices of a Jewish-Israeli coalition. Charity by its very definition is blind to ethnic or racial causes – it serves the neediest. Birthright, but more broadly the general machinery used to keep support for Israel from flagging, is certainly effective, but I question its long-term usefulness. If the loyalty to the state is genuinely strong, young Americans will fund their own trips.

Ironically it is my father, where I derive Jewish lineage, who most strongly agrees with these principles and was most appalled by the offensive into Lebanon this summer. Because he is rational, lucid, perceptive and good man, and his loyalty rests with those principles, not an ethnic identity. I am Italian through my mother (oddly there are no free trips to the Vatican), and religion to us remains a very personal, apolitical matter. Political realism and pragmatism may, eventually, make headway in American discourse toward the region. In the mean time I will remain wary of the notion that a critical analysis of questionable (often counter-productive) policies of any nation, including our own or any of our allies, must be associated with any pretenses; as the Economist incisively put it: “Helping Israel should no longer mean defending it uncritically.” Supporting stupid policies because you are compelled to

Charbel’s

by religion is simply stupid– just ask John Kerry. To conclude, it is not the support for Israel for which I wish to change. Israel is philosophically and militarily embattled and surrounded by enemies, and has proudly defended her sovereignty. I support any democracy in any region of the world. This does not mean I am required to support the policies put in force but such said democracy, and I abjure any assertions that I am anti-Semitic or soft on Muslim extremism if I find their policies not in the best interest of the United States or the best interest of fairness. I seek to alter the framework of the debate; so that it may less closely resemble Yankee fans talking about whom “Dah best team EVA” is, and more like an open, good-hearted debate. -Joe C. Galante-Eisenberg is a Junior at Binghamton University.

Tuxedos and Tailoring

-Tuxedo Rentals & Sales -Complete Alteration for Men & Women -Dry Cleaning Charbel’s

Campus

U-Plaza Located at 4513 Old Vestal Rd (607) 729-7953 charbels@stny.rr.com

Tuxedo Special! Rent your Tux by March 3rd for only $39.95! Binghamton Review, February 2007

Israeli Defense Force

Get it Straight A Response to Joe C. Galante-Eisenberg’s Attack on Israel by Nathaniel Sugarman

here are two major issues in Joe C. Galante-Eisenberg’s article on which we disagree—specifically, the two issues that he addresses. Mr. Galante-Eisenberg disapproves of the American Media’s unwavering support of Israel, as well as a program called Birthright. First of all, Joe claims that critics of Israel are “leftwing nutjobs relegated to the fringes of academia and Muslim extremists of no political consequence.” This assertion is ridiculous. If Mr. GalanteEisenberg actually paid attention in any poli-sci or history classes (or if he took them at all) he would realize that most professors hold a rather negative view of the Jewish state, and this is Binghamton—not a university famous for its ultra-leftist standing (see: UC Berkley/Columbia U). We hardly represent the “fringes of academia.” At the national level I suggest Joe pick up a New York Times or tune to NPR and listen to the countless apologists for Islamic terror. The New York Times, for example, routinely focuses on Palestinians inadvertently harmed and conveniently ignores Israeli civilian men, women, and children deliberately targeted by Hamas, Hezbollah and others. And Joe--a quick history lesson for you: Israel was not only vilified by the American and International media for virtually every defensive war she has fought, but also criticized for the daring rescue of hostages during the famous Entebbe raid of 1976. As far as Birthright is concerned, Eisenberg presents it as a political organization directed at infusing young students with unconditional

diplomatic support for the state of Israel. This could not be further from the truth. Birthright is an organization that seeks to reunite Jews with their homeland and allow them to gain perspective on their religion. Many people cannot afford this expense, an

It is true that, at this point in time, Democrats and Republicans, at the national level, appear to favor the Jewish State. However, it cannot be understated that this support is not shared by the American media. issue which Eisenberg condescendingly dismisses. Eisenberg recalls his friend’s enthusiasm for Birthright who, in his own words, is a “man whose intelligence and command of international affairs very much dwarfs my own.” Joe, maybe you should listen to your friend rather than assume that he has been brainwashed by the Israeli Binghamton Review, February 2007

government. Is it possible that he was enlightened by the experience, as he stated in his IM? This next point is relatively trivial, but I cannot let it escape my criticism: Eisenberg believes that the funds raised by Birthright would be better served combating AIDS across the globe. Is he smoking hashish? Apparently, this self-hating mutt would rather finance corrupt governments than allow young students to explore their religious heritage. The bottom line is that Israel, even in the United States, does not enjoy unconditional support from the media; the truth is quite the contrary. It is true that at this point in time Democrats and Republicans, at the national level, appear to favor the Jewish state. However, it cannot be understated that this support is not shared by the American media. Far from being relegated to the fringes academia, the American media is replete with pundits willing to criticize Israel. Outside the pages of the National Review and perhaps The Wall Street Journal, most American opinion writers are anxious to find fault in Israeli policy. To quote the genie from Aladdin: “Wake up and smell the humus” Mr. Galante-Eisenberg. P.S. Real men do not hyphenate. -Nathaniel Sugarman is Business Manager of Binghamton Review.

Election 2008

The Hunt is On Checking in With the 2008 Presidential Hopefuls by Gil Auslander

ith less then 630 days to go before the 2008 elections the political arena is abuzz with numerous politicians from all ends of the political spectrum declaring their candidacy for the highest office in the United States. In what is set to become one of, if not the, most expensive, competitive and nastiest election in the country’s history, front runners have already emerged from both the Republican and Democratic Party. The deep polarization of American politics, Dick Cheney’s refusal as vice-president to seek the top job himself (a first since 1928), the change in Congressional leadership in the past mid-year election, and finally the numerous critical issues plaguing our country offer justification as to what will make this presidential election even more divisive, competitive, and bitter then the last presidential election. Simply, the direction and general policy of the country both domestically and internationally is up for grabs. The question remains which party will be able to win enough votes and capture the trust of the majority of Americans in order to prevail in their vision for America. In short, if anyone thought the 2004 presidential election was dramatic, this com-

ing presidential election should be even more entertaining. Though the actual election is quite a ways away, the first caucuses are near and analysts are predicting that for a candidate to truly have

...the pace and intensity of the election will have increased as both parties will have chosen their final candidate more than half a year before Election Day. a “serious” chance at wining the nominations from either of the two main parties, it would be necessary for the candidate to raise a staggering one-hundred million dollars before the primary/caucus season begins. Federal Election Commissioner Binghamton Review, February 2007

Michael Toner in a quote to the New York Daily News, described it as a, “$100 million entry fee.” Considering that election season for Democrats and Republicans begins on January 14, 2008 and January 21, respectively and by February 12, 2008 more the twenty percent of the states from both parties will already have held their primary/caucuses. Such a situation significantly hurts lesser known candidates while making the battle among the front-runners in both parties much more competitive. In retrospect, unlike previous years the pace and intensity of the election will have increased as both parties will have chosen their final candidate more then half a year before Election Day. Henceforth, due to the election schedule being moved almost into 2007, candidates who truly want a chance at winning their party’s nomination will need to assume the necessary political capital, funding, national recognition, and set up a national campaign in 2007. As a result of this new timeline, the 2008 “general” election will be longer and likely more draining on the American electorate. In examining the latest polls, the data that emerges paints quite an interesting image with regard to the candidates who

stand a chance at obtaining the nomination from their party. It is conceded that while a lot may change between now and the primaries/caucuses, the reality is that because most states having their primaries/caucuses early and the need to raise such a substantial amount of money it is quite likely that the front runners that exist at present will remain so as the 2008 election picks up pace. This premise is based primarily on the logic that a viable and probable candidate is unlikely to gain the necessary funding, organization, political capital and national name recognition in so short a time while battling current candidates who already have such credentials. On the Republican side of the aisle, the four frontrunners are Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Mitt Rommey, and Newt Gingrich (although he has not declared, most pollsters count him as a potential candidate). Short of anything overly scandalous or a need for them to officially drop out, these are the four Republicans who considering the variables previously mentioned stand a realistic chance at winning the Republican nomination. On the other hand, with regard to the Democrats, the four front runners include, Hillary Rodham Clinton, John Edwards, Barack Obama and, to some extent, Al Gore (although he has not declared, most pollsters count him as a potential candidate). Again, these are the four Democrats who, considering the

variables previously, mentioned stand a realistic chance at winning the Democratic nomination. In the latest USA Today/Gallup Poll, dated February 9-11, 2007 only two Republican “front runners” polled in double digits while for Democrats only the four “front runners” polled in double digits. As reported Rudy Giuliani 40%, John McCain 24%, Newt Gingrich 9%, and Mitt Romney 5%; all other potential [minor] candidates, polled below 5% which, by and large makes them unviable candidates. For Democrats the same poll placed Hillary Rodham Clinton 40%, Barack Obama 21%, Al Gore 14%, and John Edwards 13%; all other potential [minor] candidates polled in single digits which to a large extent makes them unviable candidates. Furthermore, in three other polls the Rasmussen Reports Poll, Fox News, and Time Poll dated January 29February 3, 2007; January 3031, 2007, and January, 22- 23, 2007 respectively, the ranking remained nearly unchanged. As calculated by the results of these three polls respectively, Rudy Giuliani 27%, 34%, 30%; John McCain 19%, 22%, 30%; Newt Gingrich 13%, 15%, 14%; and Mitt Romney 9%, 3%, 5%. Further, the data for the Democratic side respectively stands, Hillary Clinton 34%, 43%, 40%; Barack Obama 18%, 15%, 21%; John Edwards 10%, 12%, 11%; and Al Gore 10%, 11%, 9%. Binghamton Review, February 2007

Though American politics tends to change like the weather, as it stands now, based upon the timeline and the factors framing the 2008 election, in addition to the current polling numbers, only the front runners from both parties stand a realistic chance at obtaining their party’s nominations. In regard to the Republicans, although Newt Gingrich is polling in fourth place despite not officially declaring his candidacy, the strength of Giuliani and McCain, and all previously mentioned variables make it unlikely that he could obtain the Republican nomination. The same may be said of Mitt Romney, his serious lack of national name recognition, the framework/timeline of the elections, and the current strength of Giuliani and McCain make his being crowned the Republican nominee unlikely. These assertions perhaps explain why only two Republican candidates are polling in double digits: Giuliani and McCain. At present though, it seems quite possible that Giuliani may be able to continue to steal the thunder from McCain and go on to win the nomination. Firstly, although both share much strength, McCain has many political weaknesses that Giuliani does not possess. McCain possesses an extensive Senate record, which may easily be used against him, he is to some extent tied and affiliated with the unpopular Bush Administration, and lastly he is quite old. Giuliani on the

other hand while not possessing a national political record, which obviously is a handicap, has in fact a potential advantage in the primary/caucus season. A lack of national record make Giuliani’s political positions more malleable among the Republican electorate. Additionally, Giuliani is not a Washington insider and with an electorate unhappy with outgoing Bush Administration, he offers fresh blood to the Washington landscape. Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, is the polling of how each is viewed by the potential electorate as favorable and unfavorable. Giuliani is ahead of McCain for favorability as polled by Gallup 73%, 55% respectively. Giuliani is still viewed in a less unfavorable light than McCain, 25%, 41% respectively. The key is simply that in having greater support and less opposition to his nomination, Giuliani will be in a greater position to appeal to the entire Republican spectrum as opposed to McCain who has many supporters but also many who deeply oppose it. The Democratic side is without a doubt more complicated and difficult to analyze. With four front runners, Clinton, Obama, Gore (potentially), and Edwards

the field is much wider and more difficult to determine. In the interests of attempting to remain evenhanded in this analysis at present it is simply not possible to truly predict which front-runner will obtain the nomination. Further, complicating the process is the fact that Clinton represents the first female candidate with a viable possibility and Obama represents the first minority candidate with a viable possibility. It remains to be seen how the electorate and Democratic sponsors will react to them. Nonetheless, it can be cautiously predicted that Clinton may likely obtain the Democratic nomination owing to her strong double digit lead over her opponents among the general Democratic electorate and based upon various polls among the fifty states that have Clinton winning twenty-four of the state Democratic primaries/ caucuses the only candidate to have won an amount of primaries/caucuses in the double digits. This, coupled with other previously mentioned variables, does reveal Clinton to be the likely Democratic nominee, the reality is that at present and even with an earlier primary season, it is to difficult to determine the

Democratic candidate. The 2008 election, although still many hundred days away is slowly picking up pace and the way things stand New York might be center stage for the most competitive, significant, and expensive campaign in the country’s history. Should both Giuliani and Clinton obtain the respective nominations from their parties, an already interesting and decisive election will become every and even more competitive, as the two candidate from New York will battle for New York’s electoral votes and for the votes of the general American electorate. Judging by the current data it is quite possible that Republican nominee for the presidency will be Rudy Giuliani and the Democratic nominee for the presidency will be Hillary Rodham Clinton, truly making the 2008 election unprecedented but all the while entertaining. Only time will tell if this unique scenario will come to pass. -Gil Auslander is a Junior at Binghamton University.

Footnotes: 1. Kennedy, Helen. “Wanna be Prez? First get $100M”, New York Daily News, January 14, 2007. 2. http://www.usatoday.com/news/polls/tables/live/2007-02-13-2008-poll.htm 3. http://rasmussenreports.com/Political%20Tracking/Republican%20Primary/GOPPrimary20070206.htm 4. http://www.pollingreport.com/WH08dem.htm, http://www.pollingreport.com/WH08dem.htm 5. http://www.usatoday.com/news/polls/tables/live/2007-02-13-2008-poll.htm 6. http://rasmussenreports.com/Political%20Tracking/Republican%20Primary/GOPPrimary20070206.htm 7. http://www.pollingreport.com/WH08dem.htm 8. http://www.galluppoll.com/ Binghamton Review, February 2007

Binghamton Review, February 2007

Freshman Students, Forced to Park in Hillside, Attempt the Journey Back to CIW

Binghamton Review

Binghamton University P.O. Box 6000 Binghamton, N.Y. 13902-6000

Binghamton Review, February 2007

Nonprofit Org. U.S. Postage PAID Permit 61 Binghamton, NY