November 2007 - Binghamton Review by Binghamton Review

Binghamton Review November 2007

The Student Journal at Binghamton University

Binghamton Celebrates Halloween!

-Liberal Hypocrisy -The Jena 6 -Freedom of Speech

In this Issue:

-Life Lessons -Romance and Heartbreak -Darwin, Rush, Ahmadinejad & more! Truth and two staples

Binghamton Review The Student Journal at Binghamton University Founded 1987 o Volume XXI Number 3 o November 2007

Editor-in-Chief Nathaniel Sugarman Managing Editor Thomas Shannon Editor Emeritus Christopher Powell Business Manager Adam Zabary

Editorial: Nate Sugarman shows some empathy.

Letters:

Centerfold: Paul Liggieri teaches some life lessons.

Treasurer Michael Calabrese Publicity Director Michael Alliance Marketing Director Edward Aller Graphics James Novak Staff Writers Gil Auslander, Ryan Dunham, Evan Engel, Paul Liggieri, Jonathan Lustig, James Novak, Christopher Powell, Adam Shamah, Thomas Shannon, Ashley Spierer, Adam Zabary Contributors Donna Lee Cohen, Rachel Daddezio, Robert E. Menje, Nehemia Stern, Annie Zaken Friends of the Review Dr. Aldo S. Bernardo Mr. Michael J. Hayes The Kaufman Family Mr. Robert Larnerd The Leonini Family Mr. Michael O’Connell Mr. Tony Potochniak The Powell Family Mr. Conrad Ross The Shannon Family Mr. Bob Soltis WA2CVS The Sugarman Family Binghamton Review is printed by Our Press, in Chenango Bridge. We provide the truth; they provide the staples. Binghamton Review Binghamton University PO Box 6000 Binghamton, NY 13902-6000 binghamtonreview@gmail.com

Features

Our readers: They love us and they hate us.

Contents

Annie Zaken is through playing games.

Rob Menje decides not to coddle the criminals.

Adam Shamah identifies liberal hypocrisy.

Ryan Dunham seals his fate in the preisthood.

Nehemia Stern gives us a much needed history lesson.

Rachel Daddezio expresses acrimony about parking at BU.

Tom Shannon muses about the coming of the JC Walmart.

Donna Lee Cohen shows us what love is all about. Cover designs by James Novak

Binghamton Review is a monthly, independent journal of news, analysis, commentary, and controversy. Students at Binghamton University receive two copies of the Review free of charge (non-transferrable). Additional copies cost $1 each. Letters to the Editor are welcome; they must be accompanied by the author’s current address and phone number. All submissions become the property of the Review. The Review reserves the right to edit and print any submission. Copyright © 2007 Binghamton Review. All rights reserved. Binghamton Review is distributed on campus under the authority of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Binghamton Review is a member of the Collegiate Network and is a Student Association-chartered organization. Binghamton University is not responsible for the content of the Review; the Review is not responsible for the content of Binghamton University. Binghamton Review thanks the Intercollegiate Studies Institute.

“Before all else, be armed.” -Niccolo Machiavelli

Past Editors of Binghamton Review : John Guardiano, Yan Rusanovsky, Kathryn Doherty, Ephriam Bernstein, Michael Malloy, Paul Schnier, Adam Bromberg, Bernadette Malone, Michael Darcy, Nathan Wurtzel, Amy Gardner, John Carney, Paul Torres, Jason Kovacs, Robert Zoch, Matthew Pecorino, Michael O’Connell, Louis W. Leonini, Joseph Carlone, Christopher Powell

Binghamton Review, November 2007

Editorial

Frankly Sir, I am Appalled!

hat am I appalled at, you may ask? Well, what concerns me is anti-intellectualism in the name of Political Correctness. In other words, I am concerned with folks who would attempt to silence facts that they simply don’t wish to be true. I’ll refer to this as intellectual fascism. This is what has been going on regarding former Harvard president Lawrence Summers, and his now famous comments about women in academia. Davis ecology Professor Maureen Stanton and others have used the word appalled to describe their reaction to Summers speaking at their university. MIT biologist Nancy Hopkins claims to have “almost fainted” and become “physically ill” when hearing from him that men and women could actually be different from one another. Please. How can an academician, someone who is supposedly pursuing knowledge as a career, spout this nonsense and still expect to be taken seriously? Christina Hoff Sommers, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, in an Op-Ed for the Wall Street Journal, rightly points out that the scientific literature on why men and women differ in their areas of study is “legitimate, robust, complex and fascinating.” For example, Simon Baron-Cohen, a notable Cambridge University professor and leading authority on autism suggests that autism is a representation of the extreme male brain. He believes that by studying this disorder, many of the mysteries surrounding the mental differences between men and women may be solved. He may be mistaken, but his research should never be silenced because some may find the results “appalling.” Indeed, dismissing legitimate literature and research because you think it sounds ‘unfair’ or ‘mean’ is ridiculous. Women and men are represented disproportionately in differing areas of study.

This is a fact, not an opinion. Examining why this is so is important, and falling back on chants of ‘discrimination’ is anti-intellectual and academically regressive. James Watson, the Nobel Prize winning expert on DNA faced similar treatment to Summers. He recently made the controversial statement that blacks are less intelligent than whites. In addition, he claims that stupidity can be cured and beauty can be manufactured. The 1990 Trust, a black human rights group, has insisted that he is a racist and there are “grounds for legal action.” In other words, they think he should be sued or arrested for expressing his (expert) opinion. Now, Dr. Watson may indeed be mistaken, but we have to recognize that this isn’t some grisly old character from Deliverance going on a rant about ‘coloreds’ taking o’er the neigborhood; this is someone who won a Nobel Prize in the field of DNA. He knows a lot more about this stuff than you or me, and definitely more than these idiotic ‘anti-racism’ groups. Instead of using science to gain knowledge, these groups are stifling science to force their opinion on others. This is something that hits close to home. We at Binghamton Review are often criticized for our mean and hateful arguments. Mr. Summers, Dr. Watson—we feel your pain. Do me a favor—you want to argue? You want to debate? Great! Write us a letter. Come to a meeting. But calling us mean doesn’t get anybody anywhere, and attempting to silence us because you don’t agree is intellectual fascism. So take a deep breath, gather your thoughts, and get ready for a serious discussion. If you are appalled, or happen to faint in the process, that’s your problem, not ours. -Nate Sugarman,

Nate Sugarman

Research should never be silenced because some may find the results “appalling.”

Binghamton Review, November 2007

Editor-in-Chief

Pro-Cock agenda

Let the Man Work!

Speaking out against the ‘Cock-Block’ by Annie Zaken

everal weeks ago, a good friend of mine was putting all the moves on a girl who he’d been crushing on for a while. He was thrilled. The two had been eyeing each other for months and finally he was able to have some “alone time” with her. Living off campus, he had an opportunity to bring her back to his own room with his luxurious full sized bed. The ambiance was romantic; he lit vanilla scented candles--it seemed as if nothing could go wrong. As the two were lying in bed, about to kiss, a drunken piercing voice rang out from just beyond his bedroom door. It was his housemates. “Dave, are you home from the bars yet?” The annoying voice inquired. Frustrated, as he was just about to make his move on this girl, he answered, “Yea man, leave me alone!” Thinking that his friend understood the situation, Dave continued cuddling with the girl. “Next thing I know, three of the guys just walk

into my room without even knocking and basically pushed me and the girl off the bed,” Dave said, as he was recounting the situation that had just occurred a few days ago. After hearing this

“Next thing I know, three of the guys just walk into my room without even knocking and basically pushed me and the girl off the bed...” story I couldn’t help but wonder if this was a situation that occurred often. Dave explained to me that for college guys these circumstances occur more frequently than desired. “I’ve been a victim of the ‘cockblock’ one too many times,” Binghamton Review, November 2007

he said. In all seriousness, the “cock-block” is an issue that begs to be addressed. Attempting to seal the deal is hard enough in college, but what’s a guy to do when someone ruins his “game” by literally blocking the attempted goal of the evening? After asking many men about this topic, I got the basic idea about how the “blockers” vary in many different ways. Imagine you’re at a bar and you see this attractive girl sitting beside you. You approach her confidently, introduce yourself, and ask to buy her a drink. You make her laugh, she flips her hair, and overall you think she’s having a great time. You keep buying her drinks and round after round interesting conversation flies by. You look at your watch and realize its 2:45AM, only 15 minutes before you can ask her to come “chill” by your place. All of the sudden, the girl you spent so much time and money on is talking to a guy friend. You know that he’s better looking (even

though you consider yourself one of the best looking in this school,) and at this point the girl is hugging him because she hasn’t seen him in so long. ( a whole day!) She thanks you for the drinks, and leaves with the guy. He stole your girl. The audacity of this guy is unmatched; a night is wasted because of the “robber”. The “accident” could just as easily have ruined your night. In this situation, the “accident” is one of your closest friends, and he is unknowingly ruining your game. You don’t know if he’s stupid or just doing it on purpose. When you’re at a bar, he’s the guy who stands on the side while you and your prospective girl for the evening are conversing. Dave said, “Your friend should never cock-block you, it’s the most frustrating thing when your guy friend has no idea what is going on.” The “accident” always tries to put his comments into the conversation, and possibly

makes you look bad while doing so. The “third-wheel” is yet another annoyance. The subject wants to come back

The “thirdwheel” is yet another annoyance. The subject wants to come back to your place to “blaze” but only if you can find a friend for her friend. to your place to “blaze” but only if you can find a friend for her friend. Dave told me that this is when the “take one for the team,” mantra comes into play. He explained to me that sometimes the friend is so bad looking that it is impossible

to find a buddy for her. Once you get back to your place with the two girls, you realize your chances are shot because her friend is busted and none of your friends are going for it. Although the cockblock is annoying, Dave explained to me that eventually you are able to “achieve your goal.” He said, “If your game is good enough, you can avoid a cock-block or prevent it from happening.” These situations are a reality of dating. As you can see, both men and women are affected by this phenomenon. In all these cases, friends were not thinking or acting like a real friend should. This is something we should attempt to change on this campus, and anywhere else we can. -Annie Zaken is a Junior at Binghamton University. Go ahead and poke her (on facebook)...she doesn’t play games.

www.binghamtonreview.com Binghamton Review, November 2007

Letters

Letters to the Editor: Eric Katz pens a Tome, and BR Responds

Let’s Set the Record Straight I generally find editions of Binghamton Review to be humorous, articulate, and steeped in classic paleo-conservative logic. Even though I’m more of a progressive than Ralph Nader, I don’t mind such conservative thought. I think it’s very healthy to have a minority view in government of tax cutters and libertarians (though when they’re actually running the government, all bets are off). Binghamton Review has an essential place on this campus, and I’d hate to see Binghamton without them. But sometimes, in an effort to appeal to new readers or flex their intellectual muscle, writers of the Binghamton Review go off the deep end. In these situations, it’s the duty of logical progressives, moderates, or realists to write to the and put these misguided writers in their place. I’ve written in the Review several times before, and I’m here to correct the record on some of the more ridiculous points in the last edition. Women and Conservatives: Nate Sugarman’s lead editorial focused on women voters and their voting tendencies. His overall point was that women should vote for Republicans, because Democratic policies aren’t really helpful to women. What policies, exactly, aren’t working? First, it’s apparently the progressive tax code that hurts women’s wages. Funny, I didn’t realize the salaries that companies offer or the salaries reported to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (the people who measure this type of data) were adjusted for taxes. As far

as the gap itself, the disparity for starting wages in 2004 was close to 15,000 dollars. Although the gap in inequality has fallen significantly in recent terms, that’s only because starting wags have drastically fallen (all according to the Economic Policy Institute). -Eric Katz Here’s the policy that isn’t working—the Democrats don’t have a policy. It’s not like they have affirmative action programs for women that are successful. The Democrats have nothing to offer women. They talk. They talk about women’s rights, discrimination, and so on, but their beating a 40 year old drum. Eric, the 60s are over. Women can work in virtually any area of employment that they wish. In addition, a Reuters study states that women under 30 earn substantially more than men. Perhaps when they get married, they take a pay cut (because they work fewer hours). They often choose to work in different fields then men, but hey, I don’t want to get into that—I learned a lesson from Lawrence Summers. -Nate Sugarman Nate’s point on abortion is likewise misguided. Yes, Rudy is moderately pro-choice. But does Rudy represent the party? Considering the rumors that evangelical Christians, who make up at least 1/3rd of the Republican Party, would support a third candidate if Rudy won the nomination, I think this argument is a bit tenuous. The pro-choice wing of the party is not at all dominant. In fact, the GOP is still controlled by anti-choice radicals who place Binghamton Review, November 2007

religious absolutes over individual rights. -EK Voters will always support a candidate who they believe can win in the general election. True, many, if not most American Republicans are pro-life, but what is really important to them in 2008 is beating Hillary. Giuliani is still the frontrunner in the polls and will likely be the nominee, regardless of his stance on abortion. And he’s not “moderately” pro-choice, he’s pro-choice, period. The fact that he can be pro-choice and be a frontrunner is significant—it is a departure from the way things were the last few decades. -NS One final point: Nate’s entire point was that Republicans are now acting in strokes of equality. Yet look at his coverage of the interview with the Army Sergeant. Does he title his piece “Interview with One of America’s Finest?” No, it’s an interview with an “army hottie.” Regardless of its intention as humor, he’s immediately defined the soldier in terms of gender. Further, he talks about his “intimate” conversation, sexualizing the entire matter. That may inspire people to pick up the paper, but it doesn’t inspire conceptions of equality towards women. Think of it this way; do you think the Prospect would have used the same title and sexualized jokes? -EK Listen, Eric. Let’s call a spade a spade here. She’s a hottie. To deny a woman the right

to be both a US Military officer and attractive is discriminatory on your part. And Katz, you’re right—the Prospect wouldn’t print any of this. And there’s a reason people read us and nobody reads the damn Prospect. -NS Log Cabin Republicans: James Novak’s article was certainly interesting but again, another misguided ridiculous exercise in absurdity. His point, that homosexual Americans should vote Republican, is definitely a novel argument. Hey, he might feel that way personally, but I doubt his logic holds for most homosexual Americans. He talks about gun rights as a reason to vote Republican. Gun rights? Are you kidding me? You want people to defend themselves from bigotry and state discrimination with guns?! More importantly, the difference on gun rights is almost DEAD between the two parties. The NRA supported a Democratic bill written by gun-control crusader Carolyn McCarthy and supported by Chuck Schumer this summer. James also shows a consistent Republican bias on most policies, which really nulls his general point. In many ways his article reads more of a why people should vote for Republicans, as opposed to advocating specifically on voting reasons for homosexual Americans. He speaks of economics, the scaaaary possibility of socialized medicine, or Democratic “cut and run” philosophy (you know, the one endorsed by a large majority of the country). I don’t feel the need to specifically argue against these poorly thought out ideas, as they don’t specifically apply to homosexuals over anyone else. My point is that there will always be “Log-Cabin Republicans” as they call themselves, and

Gun Laws?” Showed that 54% of Americans supported stricter gun laws. Only 47% of Americans think that owning a gun makes a home safer according to an poll conducted by Gallup on October 20th, 2006. Do you think that legislators are really ceasing to represent the political philosophy of their constituents? To point to one piece of legislation supported by the Democrats as well as the NRA, and declare the gun debate between the parties over is misguided. Pointing to my, “Republican bias,” (which should be beyond obvious to any reader who actually realizes what opinion journal is publishing my work, let alone anyone who read the first paragraph of my last column) doesn’t really null the arguments that I made. When I said, “Withdrawing from Iraq might hurt I would like to thank you everyone regardless of sexuality, for sending an email about your concerns about my opinion piece socialized medicine might disenfranchise gays and lesbians, and in our last issue. I would like to start out by saying to you that the the right to a self defense is critical to homosexuals,” I was ex23% of homosexuals who voted pressing an out of the box point of for President Bush in the 2004 view comparing and contrasting election probably would agree liberal and conservative policies, with what I said. That’s clearly a substantial portion of the gay and and assessing how they really affected people like me. lesbian population. At this point I will re On the issue of gun rights, spond to your mention of state exercising freedom under the discrimination and your thoughts Second Amendment is an excelabout why gays should only vote lent way to defend ones’ self Democrat. The only way pro-gay against bigotry. I’m reminded legislation is going to pass is if of the quote, “Abe Lincoln may both parties are brought into the have freed all men, but Sam Colt debate. There are two ways the made them equal.” While it may Republican Party can be changed not settle the issue of state discrimination, it’s an excellent way on this issue--firstly by making the rights of homosexuals count the of making sure a homophobic criminal doesn’t cave my skull in. way the Log Cabin Republicans Being able to own a gun protects have in this recent election by creating attack ads against Mitt my right to life. Also, if you were a going to assault me, would you Romney, effectively making their think twice perpetuating a violent votes count. Secondly, interacting with others within the party will attack if you knew that I had a bring about change. There is no Beretta? The gun issue isn’t all chance in persuading some one to but dead. The 2004 Gallup Poll, “Americans Softening on Tougher take your position unless there is Binghamton Review, November 2007 that’s fine. That doesn’t mean that non-ideological homosexuals should vote Republican. James’s article really is self defeating in the end, as he talks of the need for promoting tolerance and changing the Republican Party. I fully agree. However, we clearly disagree on the means to this end. While James thinks homosexuals should join the GOP, I think homosexuals and other tolerant individuals should work with the party that actually supports their right to get married and adopt children and enact these policies. Once enacted, the GOP can either accept these policies or continue to argue outside the mainstream. Either way, there’s no need to “change” an intolerant party when there’s already a tolerant one legislating equality.

Letters some kind of a debate. It is also political reality that the Democrats at the state and federal level simply don’t have enough votes on their own to make a change. If you happen think supporting Supreme Court Justices who are going to change the law is going to win people over, you’re dead wrong. Roe v. Wade never ended the abortion debate in this country, and the Republicans have rather effectively rolled back the gains made by that legislation in the past 34 years through a gradualist legal strategy. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg criticized the legal approach in that case as having done nothing other than to polarize both sides and not really settle the issue. Republicans will probably do the same thing in regard to gay rights if legalized by our Justices. The best way to get support for these laws is to get both parties on board. -James Novak Tunnel Vision and Ron Paul: Phil Fraietta’s article wasn’t nearly as off the mark, but I feel the need to correct him and other individuals on this similar subject. There’s an underlying sentiment amongst rational conservatives that Ron Paul is their guy. I’ve heard it on WHRW, I’ve seen it in Binghamton Review, and you can find it all over the internet. Ron Paul sounds like a rational, stalwart conservative who will shrink government in all the right ways. Quite frankly there was a pretty long time that I even flirted with Ron Paul’s candidacy, during the heyday of his original burst in the polls. He’s absolutely correct on Iraq and his knowledge on blowback is quite refreshing for a politician. There’s just one gaping problem with the candidacy of Ron Paul; he’s somewhat of a racist. Let me give you some ex-

amples of his more…enlightening quotes: “If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be.” “Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the ‘criminal justice system,’ I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal,” “We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers.” Yikes. Now I’m not going to say that Ron Paul is a bad man. He’s in his 70’s, so he’s a bit oldschool. Furthermore I understand that some might find these comments a bit misconstrued, but it’s really beside the point. America has come a long way in racial struggles, but it’s a disservice to our country to elect someone to the Presidency with such a sketchy past and a clear line of thought that may not be as welcoming as we need our President to be. I’m not saying that Ron Paul should get out of DC or stop being a Congressman, but I think quotes like these should disqualify him from heavy consideration for the Presidency. Furthermore, Ron Paul’s anti-government crusade is out of the mainstream entirely. Face it, Binghamton Review. Most people want government. Most people see a value in a centralized organization pooling a collective sum of money to do such things as building roads, maintaining schools, providing baseline regulations of the economy, and giving people general national security and safety. Its part of the social contract and it’s the reason

Binghamton Review, November 2007

for the viability of democratic government. Talking about small government is one thing, but Ron Paul wants to roll back almost all aspects of government. That’s simply against the wishes of most Americans. -EK The nice thing about the Review is that our many staffers have their own diverse opinions. I, for one, think Ron Paul is an idiot—not because of his opinions on the size of government, which are reasonable, but his failure to recognize the threat of Iran and radical Islam. Because we encourage diversity of opinion, unlike some other publications on this campus, we happily published the article. Hey, we even let you rant for, jeez, almost three pages! -NS Overall, Binghamton Review isn’t so bad. A lot of articles are well written and interesting reads, especially articles by Tom Shannon. Sometimes, though, the writers go a little beyond rationality. In those instances, it’s up to you and I, rational liberal readers, to write into the paper and correct the record. I did it, and so can you. -Eric Katz Eric, I’m glad you spent so much time reading BR and writing to us about it, really I am. You have to start thinking outside the box though. Just because Democrats say that they’re the tolerant party doesn’t make it so. Nor do most gays voting Democrat prove that Republicans are anti-gay. Also, it’s not chauvinistic to refer to women as hotties and to make sexual references… it’s just outwardly heterosexual. Chill out and have some fun, that’s what college is all about— even for intellectuals. Give it a try, you might enjoy yourself. -Nate Sugarman

Binghamton Review presents

Daniel Pipes “Radical Islam: Vanquishing the Islamist Enemy” Tuesday, December 4th at 8:30 pm in Lecture Hall 001 Let us know if you’re coming by RSVPing to the event on facebook.com Binghamton Review, November 2007

Letters

Letters to the Editor, cont.

In response to “Top 5 Reasons Gays Should Vote Republican:” I wanted to reply to James Novak’s quotation, “just imagine what the price of clothing would be at Express Jeans if everything was made by American labor unions.” American Apparel sells clothing for much cheaper prices than Express but does business in a much different way. American Apparel clothes are manufactured in California and they pay their workers a $12 an hour average (gasp!). The company also offers their employees affordable health insurance, English lessons, subsidized meals, and free parking. American Apparel founder Dov Charney states

that in no way is he doing business this way just to be nice. Having factories local allows him complete control over all stages of production and allows him to react quicker to the fashion market than if he were using overseas labor. Charney states, “I believe in capitalism and self-interest. Self-interest can involve being generous with others.” Simply put, corporations can work in a more just and fair way that in no way conflicts with being profitable. Thanks, Jon McIntosh Jon, Pointing to American Apparel is to commit the

fallacy of the red herring. It doesn’t undercut my point that goods that are made overseas cost less, nor does it disprove that all Express Jeans clothing would cost less if it were made by labor unions. It’s a fact that businesses are producing overseas in order to sell their products at a lower cost. I suggest that you take Econ 101 and read up on another much more successful businessman named Sam Walton. In the case of Dov Charney’s company, he’d probably be making a lot more money and spreading into the market much more quickly had he not been practically treating his workers like they’re unionized. -James Novak

Agree with us? Disagree with us? Write us a letter to the editor and send it to binghamtonreview@gmail.com

Letters may be submitted at any time and must be limited to 600 words Binghamton Review, November 2007

State of Alabama vs. Menje

The Jena 6:

Think before you defend criminals by Robert E. Menje

efore a college student begins to fight for a cause, he should do a little research and look at the facts. After hearing tales of some grave injustice in Jena, Louisiana from some liberal, a tale which made six AfricanAmerican students look like saints and a bunch of white rednecks sound like monsters, I decided to research the story to its core. One of the biggest problems regarding this story is that the media has gotten most of its information from internet blogs and from the “Jena 6” themselves. It is despicable that the media has decided to post myths as facts and only give credence to one side of the issue. This is one of the biggest gaffes in the history of professional journalism. The story that everyone hears is as follows: Six black students are in jail and could possibly be sentenced to life in prison for beating up a white student after that white individual and his friends hung nooses on a tree the day after the black students asked the principal if they could sit under it. These white kids were then suspended from school. Shortly after, the “Jena 6” beat up one of these white students (Justin Barker). First things first, what many fail to realize is that these six students beat up Justin Barker four full months after the nooses were hung from the trees. This wasn’t simply a retaliatory crime and even if it was, there is no justification for assaulting and hospitalizing someone. Didn’t these kids’ mothers ever teach them that sticks and stones will break their

bones but words will never hurt them? Clearly this is not the case. Another common misconception is that these six boys are still in jail. Five of the six involved were released on bail that was set relatively low for the crime that was committed. Only one of the perpetrators, Mychal Bell, is still in jail. His bail was

crime and deserves to be in jail accordingly. The other five guys are sleeping at home in their beds because they had no previous criminal records. This sounds like justice to me. Meanwhile, while thousands of dollars are pouring into Mychal Bell’s defense fund, there have been reports that his mother was recently spotted driving a new Jaguar. I guess when suckers donate money to frivolous causes, the money gets squandered. This criminal is getting legal defense pro-bono from some of the top civil rights law groups in the nation. He doesn’t need a single penny--although his mother might in order to fill up the gas tank of that new Jaguar. Don’t forget Ms. Bell, that car needs premium. The point I am trying to make is, before you start protesting in front of the library tower, research the facts. Do not listen to only one side of the story. Dig deeper to find out what is really going on. Before you spend your time and effort to support a felon, maybe you should put things in perspective. Join in the fight for a truly noble cause like feeding the set higher. Many wonder why starving children of the world, or this individual had a much higher finding cures for diseases such as bail set than the rest of his friends. cancer. And remember, you don’t What many fail to realize is that look cool with your picket sign. this individual was on proba (Editors note: check out tion for not one but four previous thejenatimes.net for more info convictions including two for about the case.) battery (assault). That is the way probation works. You get to stay -Rob Menje is a freshman out of jail as long as you promat Binghamton University. He ise to fulfill your probationary can usually be found chilling by requirements which include not his tree in the nature preserve. committing more crime. Clearly Come blaze with him...he doesn’t this criminal committed more discriminate. Binghamton Review, November 2007

Before you start protesting in front of the library tower, research the facts.

Pro-Choice

Liberals Oppose the Right to Choose! ...Your Political Affiliation by Adam Shamah

ow many of you reading this article have seen one or more flyers around campus regarding The College Republicans’ weekly meetings? Not too many probably. It’s not because hundreds of them haven’t been put up by their extremely dedicated Publicity Director (who also writes for Binghamton Review). It is because the same liberals who call themselves “tolerant defenders of free speech,” have been ripping them down with a level of enthusiasm that most liberals usually reserve for desecrating war memorials. In most cases, the flyers were taken down within just two or three hours of them being put up. However, I suppose it’s better that liberals at Binghamton spend their time staking out the lecture hall for Conservatives looking to advertise, rather than spending it the way liberals at other schools do—violently attacking conservative speakers or throwing rocks at military recruiters. Liberals trying to crush opposing viewpoints is nothing new. They love free speech as long as they’re the only ones who can use it. In their world the first amendment applies only to flag burners and child pornographers. Last year, at Columbia

University, liberal students stormed the stage during a presentation that was being given by Minutemen founder

zones for military recruiters, who have become used to encountering hostile and sometimes even violent students who wish to disrupt their peaceful recruitment. To be sure, Liberal intolerance isn’t confined to the ignorant young ones on campus. Some Democrats in Congress are planning to try to reinstitute “The Fairness Doctrine,” which Jim Gilchrist, sabotaging the requires broadcasters to event. At The University of present both points of view Arizona, Ann Coulter was at- in regard to public matters. tacked by liberals armed with The Fairness Doctrine was around from 1949 to 1987, and according to Bill Ruder, a member of the Kennedy Administration, was used to “challenge and harass rightwing broadcasters and hope that the challenges would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to continue.” The stunning success of conservative talk radio in America is what is prompting them to do this. In the past decade, talk show hosts such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean HanGet it Straight: out of them every day while nity, and Mark Levin have beA response to John Blatchmost students are comfortably come very influential andthe their ford’s September article on resting at home. During huge audience and fan base is Women’s Sports at BU school year, every weekday threatening to liberals. First, they have practice and weightpies. This sort of thing hapthe left tried to challenge them Before I begin, let me just lifting on top of classes, and pens all over the country at in a responsible way. They point out that student-athletes sometimes up to 10-hour long many campuses where Concreated a Marxist radio stahave to stay on campus bus on“Air the weekends. servatives wish to speak.over tion trips called America.” So breaks and during the summer Mr. Blatchford, for some reaSome university campuses It tanked—not because they to getbecome the living daylightswarbeat son, hethe deserves have dangerous werebelieves forced off air, buttobe-

Adam Shamah

The Stalinist left took Rush’s comments to mean that he called any soldier who disagreed with George Bush’s foreign policy a “phony soldier.”

Binghamton Review, November 2007

cause nobody listened to them. Now that Plan A has failed, Liberals have decided to use the power of the state to silence their opposition. However, they’ll have to wait until a Democrat is in the White House to have a chance at imposing this Stalinist Doctrine upon us. In the meantime, liberals have conspired to silence Rush Limbaugh in another way. First, left-wing front groups like Media Matters created a phony controversy regarding Rush and the term “phony soldiers.” Rush was talking about certain soldiers like Jesse Macbeth, who became a hero of the left when he claimed to have served in Iraq and to have taken part in brutal killings at the request of his commanding officers. It was soon discovered that he had never even been to Iraq and he was sentenced to five months in prison for his lies. In other words, he was a “phony soldier.” The Stalinist left took Rush’s comments to mean that he called any soldier who disagreed with George Bush’s foreign policy a “phony soldier.” They launched a media campaign against his “smear” and his “hatred of our servicemen and women.” Yes, the same liberals who carry signs at protests that say “We support the troops…when they shoot their commanding officers” actually accused Rush Limbaugh of hating the troops. The Senate attempted to censure Rush, a private citi-

zen, and when it became clear that the public wasn’t buying their lies, Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid and forty one senators sent a letter to the company that owns Rush’s show. This letter served no other purpose but to intimidate the corporation into canceling Rush’s program. These attempts of course failed and Rush emerged from this “controversy” stronger and with more listeners than ever. That

Whether they are annoying college students or U.S. Senators, the liberal mantra is the same: opposition must be silenced.

doesn’t diminish the fact liberals literally tried to use the power of the government to destroy a private citizen who disagreed with their views. In the midst of this “controversy,” former DemoBinghamton Review, November 2007

cratic Presidential Primary candidate Wesley Clark suggested that Congress “rate” political discourse. I shudder to think what kind of “ratings system” a Congress run by the loathsome duo of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi would generate. You get an “A” if your speech contains two or more of the following terms in conjunction with the word “Bush”: Satan, Hitler, War Monger, Jesus-freak, Imperialist, Fascist, Monkey, Criminal, Racist. If your speech speaks negatively of Islamofascism or Communism, you are given a “C” and put on “speech probation,” meaning that all future public speech must be approved of beforehand by one of the following groups:, Moveon.org, The PLO, The Communist Party of America, or its affiliate, The Democratic National Committee. If you criticize a Clinton by name, you are given an “F” and then, sadly, only God can help you. Nevertheless, the Democrats have been given credit by the media as the party of tolerance. When liberals claim to be tolerant, they mean they are tolerant of those whose viewpoints are identical to their own. Whether they are annoying college students or U.S. Senators, the liberal mantra is the same: opposition must be silenced. -Adam Shamah is a freshman at Binghamton University. Harry Reid has suggested that Adam cease with the ‘hate speech.‘

Humility Training

Centerfold: Just Shut Up

A word to the braggers, overachievers, and hypocrites on campus By Paul Liggieri

ou know what really grinds my gears? Kids who complain to professors after receiving a B or A- instead of an A. Now I fully understand this argument if a teaching assistant grades your paper; this is because more often than not, T.A’s have no idea what they’re talking about. Most undergraduate students who have an average intellectual capability could definitely grade the same way as a T.A’s if not better. But rather than go on another rant about teaching assistants, and believe me, there’s plenty of negativity to rant about; I prefer to speak about the students who complain after a professor grades their exam or quiz. Now I’m not talking about the kid with a C or D, who needs a B to keep up his or her good grades; that of course is a formidable argument deserving attention. I am specifically talking about the complaints over B’s. Here is a message to all of you: Stop bitching. The kids who consistently get A’s over and over again are more likely than not your quintessential bookworms. It is a good thing to study, don’t get me wrong, but you must find a happy medium between studying and

a social life. By combining the

ate with straight A’s. These guys and gals were well rounded, and if it meant a B here and there, than so be it. I would rather be the kid with a B, who is involved in various aspects of the community, university, and social scene; in proportion to the kid with an A, who spends his two you allow yourself to beor her life in the library, never come more of a well-rounded going on out weekends. Here’s positive news for you B and C students, you’re probably going to land jobs interacting with other people, and moving your way up the ranks for being more well rounded, while all the people who live in the library will be working for you, or at least in a cubicle, because they never learned social value. Life and college is an experience, and I deem it expedient for every student to study hard and earn good grades, but if you got that C, B, or A- instead of an A, don’t fret because it’s not the end of the world. Who knows, maybe you could be the next George W. Bush. Even C students can be President. I’ll tell you what else really grinds my gears—these individual. I don’t have every kids who talk about how much statistic in front of me, but money they have. A word of common knowledge of politics advice: People with class never tells you that most big politidiscuss their money in public. cians and leaders did not gradu- Stop telling me about your new

Paul Liggieri

If you got that C, B, or A- instead of an A, don’t fret because it’s not the end of the world...even C students can be President.

Binghamton Review, November 2007

blackberry, BMW’s, or your Ed Hardy apparel. Chances are that the kids who are under 21 rocking these items, did not pay for them themselves, so what makes them so goddam righteous? Another word of advice: When all you speak about is material good, you become those goods. You are no longer John or Jane, but rather you are Mr. Blackberry or Ms. BMW. I do not begrudge people who have money, and while I grew up middle class, my father worked hard and we earned our way onto the North Shore of Nassau County. But because my father grew up with nothing, and had to work, he instilled those values in me. So guess what, yeah, I wear Ed Hardy, I rock expensive shit, but I worked for it, and I firmly believe that makes you appreciate it more. Growing up with money is a privilege not to be taken for granted. If you have money, appreciate it and use it as a tool in life, because that’s all money really is—a tool. Money cannot buy you the happiness that your friends, family, and loved ones can. Money can bring you that short term happiness but in the long run if that’s all you have, you’re screwed. So a word to the wise, if you got it, I respect it, just don’t flaunt it and make it the topic of your conversations, because that’s a representation of just how intellectual you are. If your conversation starts off with the item of the day and what you purchased, than maybe you need some life les-

sons. Here is another group of people who should be sent to a deserted island—all these kids who think their going to be lawyers. I sit in class with many students who believe they would make great attorneys. Yet as we sit in class and as the Professor would like to know what the highest court in the land is, there are many blank stares. The world has too

When all you speak about is material good, you become those goods. You are no longer John or Jane, but rather you are Mr. Blackberry or Ms. BMW.

many lawyers—not enough good ones, but too many lawyers nonetheless. Just because you like to argue or because mommy and daddy told you that you could be an attorney, doesn’t mean you should be, or doesn’t mean you will be. There are various high paying Binghamton Review, November 2007

professions offered throughout our great nation, and not all of them consist of lawyer and doctor. At this point it’s probably even better to go out and become a fake doctor, like a chiropractor. The bottom line is that while I respect all students who have dreams to attend law school, please re-think it before you take an LSAT or apply to law school. Don’t just limit yourself to one particular test or goal; broaden your horizons. If your focus is in math or science, please don’t take the LSAT. I know, I know it’s a blanket statement, but I don’t care, because your trying to jump on the bandwagon with all the kids who are in Political Science and P.P.L, and already knew they wanted to go to law school before you decided one day that you have nothing better to do, so you’ll study hard, take an LSAT, and beat out some kid who maybe didn’t have as good as a grade, but would still make a better attorney. The last cause of the grinding of my gears comes from the immaturity of a few who spoil it for the bunch. There can always be disagreements with certain ideologies and methodologies, but there is always a diplomatic way to deal with confrontation. This relates specifically to organizations at Binghamton University. If the way you show disagreement is by throwing someone else’s Greek letters into a pool, than you need to see a psychiatrist. If the way you disagree

with an organization is by leaving a dead deer in front of another fraternity’s house in order to frame another organization, than you also need to see a psychiatrist. If the only way the College Republicans and College Democrats can disagree is through swear words and talking behind each others backs, than you need to check what you stand for. I write this paragraph not to call out one organization or any one person; I write it because I believe in general that students can handle confrontation and disagreements amongst each other a lot better. If you disagree with an idea, hate the idea, not the person. For instance, if I’m a Republican and you’re a Democrat, I should be able to disagree with your position in a diplomatic manner, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to talk shit about John or Jane from the Democrats just because I disagree with their party affiliation. I guess what really

grinds my gears is just the general lack of respect that people show for each other these days. You know its funny, very often we are asked who are role

We as students and as youth must ask ourselves how much we’re really living by what our role models and our parents taught us.

models are. We are asked why they’re our role models, and the general response is because they came from nothing and became something, they worked hard, and they respect-

ed others. We as students and as youth must ask ourselves how much we’re really living by what our role models and our parents taught us. Ask yourself that every time you talk behind somebody else’s back after you’ve smiled in their face. Ask yourselves that every time you talk about how much money you have, without even realizing how hard somebody may have worked to give you those luxuries. Ask yourself that every time you get into a fight down town, or hold grudges. So here’s the deal folks, if you have a role model in your life, than I implore you to start living like them. I wake up every day, and ask myself, am I practicing what I preach? I’ll leave you with this quote: “Do onto others, as you would have done onto you.” -Paul Liggieri is a Junior at Binghamton University. Congratulations to Pauly and his wife on their new clutch.

Binghamton Review:

We already control campus. Soon it will be the world. Join us before it’s too late. Weekly Meetings: Thursdays, 9 P.M. in our office, WB05 (basement of the New Union below the food court).

E-mail: binghamtonreview@gmail.com Website: www.binghamtonreview.com Binghamton Review, November 2007

Binghamton Review, November 2007

Make me a sandwich, dammit!

Darwin Says:

Women should stay in the Bedroom by Ryan Dunham

harles Darwin, a great mind we all evolved from, noticed human beings aren’t much different from monkeys. He analyzed the sex roles for the male and female and concluded one thing: women should stay in the bedroom. It is no longer something to be argued. Psychology is now evolutionary psychology. Literary Theory is now Literary Darwinism. And pornography is still for men, objectifying women for the sake of mankind. Currently, women refuse to accept their role in the human race and it is destroying the world. The gender roles work like this. Males need to screw a lot of females. Females need to let them. That way, babies can happen. Darwin explains that females must

raise the child because she’s explains most social relathe one dumb enough to get tions. Usually, unless the pregnant. The male is alfemale refuses to wax her upper lip, there’s a male out their willing to tap her (if he’s had enough beer). Unfortunately, God had too much to drink one night and gave females free will when Adam was trying to hook up with Eve. Females coyly claim men lowed to help if he wants, but it is really better for the abuse power but they abuse it by cock-blocking and human race if he screws therefore, blight the proganother, younger, female. ress of man as he is preoccupied with the sex she is suppose to be providing him with. Men need to compete to be the best at something so women will spread their legs for them. This is why men are funny, rich, smart, athletic, and moral, and women are not. It is women’s own fault the only thing they can do better than men is give blow Darwin’s Theory, which henceforth should be jobs; although most men are gay because they prefer called Darwin’s Fact, also

Mike Ryan Rose Dunham

www.binghamtonreview.com Binghamton Review, November 2007

men, and women are lesbian because they hate men. So one would not be incorrect to conclude men are probably better at blowjobs too. Come to think of it, no pun intended, men would be better with vaginas as well. Men would figure out a way to avoid menstruation. I have asked time and time again: What is the greatest accomplishment by a woman? Men have Einstein, Franklin, Shakespeare, Mozart, forty-three presidents, T.S. Eliot, Murdoch, and Gilbert Godfrey. Every great piece of art, political move, comedian, and scientific breakthrough has been the brainchild of a man. It was Vince McMahon who ended the circus that was professional wrestling, and replaced it with half-naked women, violence, foul language, and debauchery. He made millions because he was a man. In return to my inquiry, I have received the same answer to my question time and time again—stutters as recipients of my question

try to think of an answer. There have only been two

ing. She doesn’t get credit for the postmodern world’s inability to read anymore. Dostoevsky knew how to write. But you don’t “real” responses, if you can see too many reading Dostoevsky nowadays. Only a call them that. One response was Amelia Earhart. woman could destroy what little literal intellect we had left. When women step out of the bedroom, they disrupt the progress of man. Women, men will come to you when they are ready. It is your scientific duty to stay in the bedroom and raise any child you might have. But if you find yourself suffering from cabin fever, men need to eat to survive, so there is always the kitchen to relieve your stress. -Ryan Dunham is a Junior at Binghamton University. He has also devoted himself to the ideWay to go women, fly a plane someone else already als of chastity--by default. did (and built) only to die in And ladies...if you feel like a plane crash a decade later you have to throw a brick because you’re a bad pilot. through someone’s window, make it Ryans, not BR’s. The other was J.K Rowl-

The gender roles work like this. Males need to screw a lot of females. Females need to let them.

Binghamton Review, November 2007

Middle East

“I

“No War on Iran:”

What the World doesn’t seem to Understand by Nehemia Stern

solemnly declare that all the rumors that are being spread of a planned German invasion or an attack on American territory are crude tricks or outright lies” –Adolf Hitler. Now isn’t that an interesting quote? Just switch the word ‘German’ for the word ‘Iranian’ and you suddenly have one of Ahmadinejad’s classic lines of deception. It was with this burden of history that I was confronted with one of the most recent slogans at the weekly anti-war rally here in Binghamton University. “NO WAR ON IRAN” the signs read. Apparently convicted cop-killer Mumia Abu Jamal wants us to believe that Iran along with their pseudo-nuclear weapons are just the most recent victims of America’s war of aggression. I read these signs, I listened to the ‘peaceful’ rhetoric, and I wondered, how such intelligent, interesting, and truly well meaning individuals can be so terribly naïve and misguided. Have they not learned history? Are they so blinded by Ahmadinejad’s charisma, and (perhaps a deserved) mistrust of American foreign policy, that they cannot see terror, aggression, bigotry, and hatred for what they truly are? I look into the eyes of individuals for whom I have such professional respect, and

I wonder why they refuse to take a moral stand against a man who openly calls for the political and social destruction of the State of Israel. I search for reasons, I confront, I question, but in the end all I can conclude is that very little has actually changed since the

human inferno that was the Second World War. For him ‘the War’ (as my grandfather would call it) has nothing to do with current events. Indeed his classical line seems to be “if this event – the Holocaust – happened, what does it have to do with the Palestinian people?” Of course this explanation is stated over and over again by Ahmadinejad’s supporters and apologists here in America (and in Binghamton). It is truly a wonder how the radical left here on campus can so self righteously claim, “oh he doesn’t really deny the Holocaust he’s simply questioning it’s relation to current events.” When I hear these lines (either one of them) my heart grows heavy and I become very afraid. Either Ahmadinejad does not know how terribly bigoted and awfully insensitive his words are, or he knows all too well the pain and the fear that he is inspiring. Either way I am frightened. This equation is equally valid for the very well-meaning ‘NO WAR ON IRAN’ protesters in Binghamton Get it Straight: out of themhere every day while University. Either they don’t A response to John Blatchmost students are comfortably understand they danger ford’s September article on resting at home. DuringAhthe madinejad represents and the 1930’s. Women’s Sports at BU school year, every weekday The world is as tired of fear that he motivates or they they andall weightknowhave and practice understand to war today as it was 70 years Before I begin, let me just lifting on top of classes, and well. Again, either way I am ago. Sadly this means, the point out thatasstudent-athletes sometimes frightened. up to 10-hour long world is just blind today have to stay on campus over bus trips Leton methe beweekends. clear. I amSo as it was 70 years ago. Ahbreaks and during the summer Mr. Blatchford, for reamadinejad himself ridicules not afraid of Iran assome a nuclear to get the living believes deserves to power per-se.he And I am not the lessons learntdaylights out of thebeat son,

It is truly a wonder how the radical left here on campus can so self righteously claim, “oh he doesn’t really deny the Holocaust he’s simply questioning it’s relation to current events.”

Binghamton Review, November 2007

afraid of worldwide Antisemitism (that ‘A’ word that seems to be so unfashionable these days) per-se. I am fearful because both Ahmadinejad and his supporters abroad just don’t seem to understand the fire that they are playing with. The rhetoric coming from Tehran and the rhetoric here on campus is liable to bring humanity into the grips of a Third World War faster and more directly then any nuclear attack, or preemptive strike could ever hope to achieve. That which Ahmadinejad questions - the Holocaust - has been the overwhelming historical trope of contemporary Judaism in both America and in Israel. For better or for worse it is through the Holocaust, and through the lessons learned from that tragedy, that American Jews in general (and the State of Israel in particular) tend to interpret and make meaningful the social and political occurrences that surround them. One theme and one central fear tend to pervade this overall trope of Holocaust awareness. It is a fear that is historically borne out of the hopeless feeling of being trapped within an oppressively belligerent political and social system whose only escape is through a chimney. I do not mean to be crass but the point needs to be clearly understood. The particular nightmare of the ‘choice-less choice’ has shaped contemporary Judaism’s encounter with a silent world more so then any other event this century. From the Jewish (both the cultural and political) perspec-

tive, by ridiculing this nightmare Ahmadinejad is in reality simply bringing it closer to fruition. Allow me to elaborate by way of a personal anecdote. I distinctly recall the 1989 presidential election. At the young age of six or seven I remember David Duke, the former head of the KKK (and a recent invitee at Ahmadinejad’s Holocaust symposium), winning a small primary in

If we desire “peace for our time” let us not commit once again the bitter mistakes of the previous century.

Louisiana. I remember my mother frantically looking for her and my dad’s passports. Afterwards I recall my mother imploring my father to order passports for the kids. I asked my mother, what is this idea of a passport and why do Binghamton Review, November 2007

we need one so badly? My mother responded with such a determined and assuring response that I will never forget her words. “If David Duke manages to win the presidential election, we are moving to Israel the very next day”. My mother wasn’t exaggerating either; within a month the entire family had passports in hand, and to this day we all know when our individual passports will expire (mine in 2010). At the age of six or seven I went to bed assured that my family would not be ‘stuck’ within the confines of a ‘choice-less choice’. Come what may, there would be a safe haven to go to. I went to bed feeling safe and secure, but that night I had my first memorable nightmare. While not everyone has had that particular experience, I believe many Jews, in some way, fear the same themes that are brought out by that anecdote. And though not all will admit it, I think many Jews share that same sense of assurance and security that I felt as a six year old boy. There seems to be a peculiar duality that exits within the social fabric of contemporary American Judaism. The ‘nightmare’ of the choice-less choice, and the ‘dream’ of having a safe haven for which to escape (Israel) is a paradigm that is intimately embedded within the ethnic psyche of contemporary Judaism (both in America and in Israel). Either Ahmadinejad in Tehran, or those who apologize for him here in Binghamton, don’t understand this

paradigm, or they understand it all to well. Either way I am frightened because Israel, and American Jewry will do anything to stave off that ‘choiceless choice’. When Ahmadinejad threatens the existence of the State of Israel, and in the very next sentence questions the historical veracity of the Holocaust, he is hitting at the rawest nerve of contemporary Judaism. By doing so he is risking the desperate actions of a desperate people. If Israel decides to attack Iran, (if American Jews decide to overwhelmingly support an

American attack on Iran) it won’t be out of a sense of aggression, or even out of a sense of strategic superiority. The decision in favor of martial action will ultimately stem from a fundamental feeling of desperation. The protests that so adroitly declare “NO WAR ON IRAN” starkly portray how the world has yet to learn the horrific lessons of the Second World War. Yet more then that it shows how the protesters simply don’t understand this feeling of desperation, nor does it seem like they are willing to listen.

If we desire “peace for our time” let us not commit once again the bitter mistakes of the previous century. Let us deny bigotry and oppression a place among the nations. We must honestly look aggression, hatred, and Islamic Fundamentalism square in the eye and with a firm voice and a steady hand declare “not this time”. -Nehemia Stern is a graduate student at Binghamton University. Ahmadinejad likes 12 Jews; Nehemia isn’t one of them.

Want to live in University Plaza? A BR staff member is subletting his apartment. If interested in renting for the Spring 2008 semester, email binghamtonreview@gmail.com

Binghamton Review.

The campus paper people actually read.

www.binghamtonreview.com Binghamton Review, November 2007

Unsafe at any speed

Finding a Parking Spot is Your Problem

...Not Mine! by Rachel Daddezio

t’s 11 am at Binghamton University and the game has already begun. Walking down to class every morning reminds me of playing dodgeball as a kid. There are so many vehicles swarming around M lot that I seriously fear for my life. The hunting commuters have no problem sideswiping a timid pedestrian in order to secure themselves the first 10” of parking space that they see. Squeezing your car into these spots is not the answer, tough guy. Today I was walking to class and as I shuffled through the rows of the lot I happened to see the same car reappear three times, hovering around looking for a space. The idiot could have saved a lot of time just parking in the back of the lot, where one finds spaces like hay in a haystack. As I prepared to cross in his path one more time, he screamed, window down, “Get in there f***er!” This outburst certainly took me by surprise and even a few seconds to understand what he meant. Lo and behold, my friends, he was not talking to me. He was talking to another approaching bird of prey. The other vehicle quickly drove

off, apparently scared by this guy’s big monster of an asian sports car (btw, the guy was as white as this paper). That’s right, tough guy found a space and believe me, gunshots would have been heard had he not gotten

That’s right, tough guy found a space and believe me, gunshots would have been heard had he not gotten it.

it. Later this afternoon, I was walking through the same forsaken parking lot on my way back to my room. I heard a car approaching slowly, so I moved my path

Binghamton Review, November 2007

over to the side of some cars. After a few more paces the car had not passed me and I realized what he was doing. This guy would have followed me to high heaven had I let him. Luckily for him, I’m a little nicer than that, and I kindly informed him that I was walking up the hill. Pissed, he sped off and tried to find his next victim to crouch behind. While events like this are probably not completely uncommon, it hit me in the face this morning: finding a parking spot is a game of survival of the fittest. Some must race around until they find a spot and then duke it out with an opponent: the bigger and better car gets the spot, while others will resort to creepily following us poor pedestrians as we wonder what the hell the asshole wants. Whatever your method, commuters, it would be a lot easier for you if you just saved yourself the half an hour to find a closer spot and parked in the back and walked an extra 2 minutes. -Rachel Daddezio is a sophomore at Binghamton University. Apparently women aren’t very skilled pedestrians either.

Tom’s Choice

Walton City

Walmart arrives in Johnson City amidst Controversy by Tom Shannon

fforts to locate a new Wal-Mart on a former EndicottJohnson industrial site in Johnson City have conjured the usual zeal on both sides. Out in force has been the Coalition for Positive Revitalization, a seemingly left-wing front group, and also the Walton family shills. Apparently, Wal-Mart and its proponents claim that their current location in Vestal’s Town Square Mall is too swamped and thus a second location is necessary. Town Square Mall is, indeed, a zoo, but so are Wegmans, the Oakdale Mall, Target’s plaza, Rocket Center, the corner of Berwick Av. and Court St., and many other commercial dynamos around the Southern Tier. What those locations all have in common is a major four lane highway providing access to them. The proposed Wal-Mart site in Johnson City has Airport Rd., Lester Av., and the indentured craggitude that is Main St. Those are virtually bike paths compared to the mighty Vestal Deathtrap. If you’re disgusted by how difficult it is to find a parking spot in the Town Square Mall, I hope you’ll enjoy your parking

spot in the middle of Main St. waiting to get into Johnson City’s Wal-Mart. How could anyone

Tom Shannon blame the longtime Johnson City residents who think out issues such as the proposed

My recommendation is not to look at the new Wal-Mart as Progress or the Anti-Christ. Instead, look at it as yet another place to buy Chinese stuff.

Wal-Mart with a mixture of nostalgia for the halcyon days of E-J and cynicism Binghamton Review, November 2007

over the fact that those days are gone, with no hope of return? The new Wal-Mart would be on the pollution drenched site of a now demolished E-J factory. George F. Johnson, longtime owner of E-J, and his descendants were paragons of welfare capitalism, handing out free shoes to every kid in town, etcetera, etcetera, we all know the story. That glowing tale never fully matched reality. But it is being employed by some Wal-Mart foes who compare E-J, a symbol of American manufacturing, with WalMart, that great champion of Chinese manufacturing. Marc Newman, who heads the development company that would build the new Wal-Mart, punched the obvious hole in the E-J myth. He asked rhetorically whether EJ was all it was cracked up to be, considering that E-J left the site vacant and polluted (and the village in shambles) – the way it still is today. To be sure, there’s no escaping the Iron Laws of Life, one of which is: “yesterday’s Progress is today’s brownfield.” The proposed Wal-Mart will be in a neighborhood poor enough that it would qualify for brownfield

redevelopment tax credits from New York State. A certain newspaper from the local area jumped on that gravy train last year and only recently stopped congratulating itself for its public service, environmental virtue, and good corporate citizen-ness. Whether these brownfield tax credits flow to Newman or the Waltons isn’t particularly relevant. What these credits do, however, is call into question the argument that another Wal-Mart will brink in hordes of tax revenue to the local area. Surely there will be an uptick in sales tax revenue for Johnson City and Broome County, but this has to be balanced against the brownfield credits paid for by state taxpayers

and the increased maintenance costs and probably reconfiguration of the nearby streets. Any non-cynics out there? That turns us to WalMart’s greatest weakness – aesthetics. Wal-Mart’s traditional blue and gray rectangle, which looks like something that would make Jeremy Bentham’s bones rattle with glee inside their display case, won’t be appearing in Johnson City. Instead, it will have a “brick look,” according to Newman. Is it just me or is the faux brick movement starting to look a little chintzy? Whatever you might think about it, don’t doubt for a minute that this new Wal-Mart will be built. It

won’t last forever – just like E-J didn’t last forever. Who says irony is dead? As WalMart easily jumps through every hoop put in front of it, we get closer to the day when a monument to globalism, outsourcing, and Godawful aesthetics sits where American industry used to. We’re all cashiers now. My recommendation is not to look at the new Wal-Mart as Progress or the Anti-Christ. Instead, look at it as yet another place to buy Chinese stuff. -Tom Shannon is Managing Editor of Binghamton Review. He usually imports his groceries in bulk via barge.

Words of Wisdom:

“Violence is my last option.” -Chuck Norris Binghamton Review, November 2007

Born Again

Soul:

Romance and Heartbreak in the Southern Tier by Donna Lee Cohen

ome of you will disregard my words after reading this. Others might identify or disagree or momentarily pause to deliberate on what I write. But regardless of which category you find yourself in I want to share my story with you. It’s not a sad story or a happy one but rather it’s a story about soul. This will probably make you pause: soul you say- in the Binghamton Review? Yes that’s right, soul. In order to make you understand all this babble about soul I will begin my story by telling you more about myself. I am 21 years old, a Harpur College senior, and terrified that my last fall semester here at Binghamton is already approaching its end. On a more personal level I am an Aries, my favorite beer is a Rolling Rock, and I have faith in the concepts of integrity, dignity, and honor. As far as relationships go however I do not consider myself the type to be in one simply for the sake of having a boyfriend. I prefer romance. And precisely just when I had given up on finding it in Binghamton is when I met a guy. He was not just any guy; he was ‘the library guy.’ Before we met I would spot him in the PODS rocking his New Balance sneakers and black North Face jacket; and when I

was lucky enough to I would always grab the seat next him. So you can imagine when the opportunity to introduce myself came about one Saturday night (even if it was at Sports Bar) I seized it. He asked for my number and after two weeks of waiting he called me on the first day of our Easter break for a real date.

driving out to Montauk to sit on the rocks outside the lighthouse. By the third, he was making me CDs with tracks like ‘Hey There Delilah.’ He took me to my first BU Mets game where I ate hot dogs (my favorite) and bought me my first bubble tea. We played pool at Dave and Busters and watched surfer movies like the Endless Summer. We took long walks on warm days, drank pinot grigio, and danced the night away together at the Rat along with all the other “freshman bitches.” The truth was however he was ‘playin’ me. Although I was unaware of his ‘playa’ status, I broke it off after Bar Crawl because something didn’t feel right. When I confronted him about it he told me I was crazy. Hearing that only served to make me more frustrated as I couldn’t shake my uneasiness or prove it. So I did what I could to protect myself: I stubbornly refused to see or speak to him anymore. De On our first real date spite my outward conviction, he took me out to Starbucks inwardly I was always unsure and then a bookstore across of this decision since I had no the street where, at one point, real basis except a hunch for he lightly smacked my ass in doing what I did. response to a funny comment I Time passed and by the had made about finance books. end of the summer I couldn’t Needless to say he was nerremember why I had been so vous, yet that light-love-tapafraid to go with the flow and on-my-behind was all I needed trust him. My forgetfulness to fall head-over-heels for him. and self-doubt allowed me By our second date we were to make the mistake of let-

Needless to say he was nervous, yet that lightlove-tap-onmy-behind was all I needed to fall head-overheels for him.

Binghamton Review, November 2007

ting him back into my life. We started dating again, except this time, round two knocked me out for good. Like a scene from a movie, life was picture perfect. The world was exactly how it should be when he took me by my hand and the night I wore my favorite blue dress I told him I loved him and he responded I love you, too. Although he had sworn to me that he had been single and missing me this summer in reality he had been dating his ex, sleeping with other girls and somewhere in-between calling me. Upon accidentally discovering the lies and promiscuity, I was furious at him first for lying to me and then for what he lied about. Somehow though, through the argument and my tears, he flipped the situation around and I ended up feeling like the asshole. What did I expect him to be, a saint? We weren’t even speaking! And what did the past matter or even have to do with me if I was his present and future girl? By the following day I was devastated that I screwed up perfection by my persistence. Unfortunately the timing of the argument was also terrible as I was returning to school in two days and he wasn’t. After work he came to my house reluctantly to say goodbye and as he hugged me he promised that I shouldn’t worry, it’ll all work out, it was just...not right. What happened next is still a particularly sore subject for me: less than two hours later he boarded a flight to

California for a two-week vacation with his ex-girlfriend. Of coarse I did not know it at the time; yet the truth always has a funny way of coming out. While he was on vacation I was putting the pieces of the puzzle together (yes, he was with other girls on Bar Crawl and my gut feeling was right) until the whole story- California and all surfaced. My father always told me you learn more about yourself and what you need from heartbreak than you do

Like any tough, unplanned situation I have a choice: hate (which is oh-so easy) or forgive (which is difficult but right).

while in love. I never wanted to admit it before but he was right. I have completely reevaluated not only what I want but what I need from this experience. You see, I learned about soul during those two weeks. Soul is doing what is right in the face of doing what is easy. Getting on the plane was easy. Telling me the truth when I asked was right. I can Binghamton Review, November 2007

best describe soul for you as that funny, something’s-off, uncomfortable feeling you can’t shake. It drove me to ask questions instead of taking the easy way out and ignoring what’s right. Before this I assumed everyone when placed in a universally clear moral situation would do what’s right naturally. Idealistic, I know, but I choose to believe the best in people. When I realized my assumption was faulty after this relationship, is when I took a step back to examine what I was made of. What I learned is this: regardless of whatever moral conundrum I might find myself in I will always try to the best of my abilities to do what is right. I don’t just want soul—I need soul in my life. And directly due to his lack of it, I realized how coveted a possession soul is—something I never again will be ashamed of. Looking back at the experience I don’t have any regrets about the time I spent with him because on my part the feelings were real. What he did to me hurt badly, but just like any tough, unplanned situation I have a choice: hate (which is oh-so easy) or forgive (which is difficult but right). For myself I am choosing to forgive because bottom line is, I know now I got soul. -Donna Lee Cohen is a Junior at Binghamton University. She’s a very deep, caring person, but if you grab her hand at Sports Bar, she’ll probably dance with you.

Binghamton Review

Binghamton University P.O. Box 6000 Binghamton, N.Y. 13902-6000 binghamtonreview@gmail.com www.binghamtonreview.com

Binghamton Review, November 2007

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