November 2010 - Binghamton Review

Truth and Two Staples

NOVEMBER 2010

Binghamton Review

BACKING UP THE TRUCK Broadus Makes Off With A Cool $1.2 Million

INSIDE: Why LIBERALS HATE ProspecT, TOO

FRACKING, Let’s Get it on!

AND MUCH MORE

Binghamton Review

P.O. Box 6000 BinghamTOn, NY 13902-6000

editor@binghamtonreview.com

Founded 1987 • Volume XXIV Number 2 • NOVEMBER 2010 EditorS-in-Chief Michael M. Lombardi Rachel Gordon

Contents

Editor Emeritus Adam Shamah Managing Editor Nick Valiando Associate Editors R. John Meyer Elahd Bar-Shai Ethan Day Justin Utegg

9

Copy Editors William Obilisundar Brian Parente Layout Editor Elahd Bar-Shai Business Manager Elahd Bar-Shai Secretary Marissa Beldock Contributors Ethan Day, Nick Valiando, Adam Shamah, Ashleigh Hruz, Taylor Arluck, Kate Flatley, Will Griffin, Joseph Aguiar, Nick Fondacaro Godfather of the Review Louis W. Leonini Friends of the Review Dr. Aldo S. Bernardo The Leonini Family Mr. Bob Soltis WA2VCS The Shamah Family The Grynheim Family The Menje Family The Leeds Family The Lombardi Family The Packer Family Mr. Michael O’Connell Binghamton Review is printed by Our Press in Chenango Bridge, NY. We provide the truth; they provide the staples.

Broadus’ Big payday

by Ethan Day

5

Tirade by Kate Flatley

6

The Healthcare Bomb by Nick Valiando

A Liberal’s Letter on Prospect

The Gutting of Binghamton University’s Arabic Department

9

He Wants to Celebrate... by Ethan Day

12

Two Years Later by Adam Shamah

14 15

What the Frack Happened? by Ashleigh Hruz God and Law by Taylor Arluck

Broadus makes off with $1.2 million Andre Massena Strikes Back

Departments 3 4 8

EDITORIAL CAMPUS PRESSWATCH Ronald Reagan

Tell us what you think!

Direct letters to editor@binghamtonreview.com.

EDITORIAL

Dear Readers

W

elcome to the Binghamton Review. My name is Michael M. Lombardi and along with Rachel the incoming Editor in Chief. I know the beginning of this semester has been a bit slow and unusual for the Review.

However we are back with a renewed focus and vision to head into the future. This is a vision of where we have always stood, at the forefront of campus issues giving insightful, daring and even controversial commentary. For twenty-three years we have been unafraid to address any and all issues while providing a forum for those to complement, critique and even disparage our views. We make no apologies for who we are and what we stand for; a journal of conservative and libertarian thought.

However this does not make us afraid of the other side, as discourse is what makes our society great. So send us your thoughts and opinions positive or negative. Fresh new ideas are the lifeblood of a publication. Rigidity and stagnation its mortal enemy. When I accepted the position of Editor I did so fully recognizing the long and important history of the Review and I pledge to our readers to continue on the work of my predecessors. To create something of which we can all be proud and continue to carry the torch of our long history into the future.

P.S. Recently our great nation went to the polls to vote in the 2010 midterm elections. During this election not only did the Republican party capture the House of Representatives and make large gains in the Senate, but a great deal of true

conservatives were elected. Individuals such as newly elected Senators Marco Rubio and Rand Paul are at the front of this new conservative wave. It is my great hope that the men and women who will form the 112th Congress will help derail the radical, fiscally destructive Obama agenda. This election has given the Republicans a fresh new chance to prove themselves to the American people. However the electoral drubbing absorbed by the Democrats this year was predominantly due to extreme voter discontent with current elected officials and extremely poor approval ratings of Congressional Democrats.

The Republicans have not yet earned any sort of mandate to govern. It will be up to the Republican party to make good on their promises during these next two years; staying true to their beliefs and opposing President Obama. I have great hope that the new House leadership will accomplish this task and the future is beginning to look very bright for conservatives everywhere.

P.P.S. As this issue will be going to press before our contributors can give their thoughts on this recent and monumental election, a special elections issue of the Review will be coming out in between this issue and our regularly scheduled December release. So stay tuned to for these two upcoming releases to close out the semester.

Sincerely, Michael M. Lombardi

Tell us what you think!

Direct letters to editor@binghamtonreview.com.

Our Mission Binghamton Review is a non-partisan, student-run periodical of conservative thought at Binghamton University. A true liberal arts education expands a student’s horizons and opens one’s mind to a vast array of divergent perspectives.

In that spirit, we seek to promote the free exchange of ideas and offer an alternative viewpoint not normally found on our predominately liberal campus. It is our duty to expose the warped ideology of political correctness that dominates this university.

We stand against tyranny in all its forms, both on campus and beyond. We believe in the principles set forth in this country’s Declaration of Independence and seek to preserve the fundamental tenets of Western civilization. Finally, we understand that a moral order is a necessary component of any civilized society. We strive to inform, engage, and perhaps even amuse our readers in carrying out this mission. www.binghamtonreview.com

3

CPampus resswatch Pipe Dream Special Recently, Pipe Dream distributed a survey to Binghamton students intended to improve the publication. We guess they have nowhere to go but up. Here are the responses to this survey as compiled by the editors here at Review.

1.

What is your Gender?

Male, of course, we’re Review!

2.

What is your academic year?

Well, the choices range from freshman to graduate student. Our layout editor, however, can’t submit an accurate

answer. Where’s your love for the thirteenth semester senior?

3. In what school is your major?

With our level of arrogance, it’s got to be SOM, baby!

4. If you live off campus, how do you commute to campus each day?

Cars, preferably the biggest gas guzzlers we can find.

5. How often do you read Pipe Dream?

Often, comedy is vital to life.

6.

Where do you usually pick up your copy of Pipe Dream?

From the large stacks collecting dust around campus.

7.

Which sections of Pipe Dream do you most often read?

Campus news. We love reading about ourselves and our great accomplishments.

8. During the school year, what does Pipe Dream provide as a primary news source?

Sluts on Para—err, Weekend Warriors.

9.

Please list any other news sources you use during the school year.

Oh, we don’t know: The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times—hell even the National Enquirer. You syndicate

most of their aricles, anyway.

10. How do you spend the majority of your disposable income?

Our disposable income?! Psh, you mean daddy’s American Express?

11. Have you ever visited our website?

See answer to question 7. Our narcissism never ends.

12. Finally, tell us what you like most and least about Pipe Dream and what would you like to see changed.

Other than some actual journalism, nothing. Really, we just love seeing our names in lights.

4

Binghamton Review

NOVEMBER 2010

A Liberal’s Letter on Prospect

by Kate Flatley I am a registered Democrat. I have an 8 x 10 of Bill Clinton hanging above my desk and I sobbed tears of joy on the Washington Mall during President Obama’s inauguration. I have been known to say, “We should all live a little more simply so that others can simply live” when prompted about the alternative minimum tax or universal health care. I am what my friends here at the Review would (lovingly) refer to as a “dirty liberal.”

Needless to say, I seldom agree with much—or anything—of what they have to say. That said, there is one publication on this campus that drives me so insane that I am embarrassed that they refer to themselves as liberal.

Prospect is by far the most disturbing and disgusting publication on this campus. I could start of by pointing out their typos or factual inaccuracies (In your Top 50 Most Influential Student list: Elahd Bar-Shai was not a junior during the Spring of 2010, but was in his 12th semester, and in case you haven’t noticed, Randal Meyer is the Assembly Speaker, an elected office), but the Editors have reminded me that I have space for one article, not an entire issue, so I digress. Additionally, I would love to address the lack of common sense in most of their articles—of course we cannot pay a University President the same amount he was getting in 1974… there is this little concept called inflation. I’ll explain it to you when you’re older. But again, I do not have the entire issue, so allow me to continue.

Let me start by saying how thoroughly I enjoyed Prospect’s assessment of Jared Kirschenbaum, our SA President. I am a little perplexed as to how their opinion changed from referring to him as “the next Rahm Emmanuel” to asserting that they “don’t expect much from him” and that he would actually have to “kill a hooker” to compare to the allegedly disgraced Adam Amit. (The hooker comment did actually make me smirk for a few seconds, but I assure you this was the only instance for the issue.) I don’t believe Amit’s legacy can be compared to murdering a prostitute. While he had his faults, he is directly responsible for the continued existence of OCCT. I care about the needs of those students who may not be able to afford a car and rely upon SA-sponsored transportation. However, this is where I differ from Prospect; I am an actual liberal, and therefore, I am not an elitist.

Another element of Prospect I find highly comical are the photographs of their writers found at the conclusion of each article.

I begged the editors here at Review to sponsor a biographical photo shoot for this article, however, I was told that the Review doesn’t have the budget for a wind machine and unfortunately, they have to fill their pages with actual journalism.

www.binghamtonreview.com

Speaking of actual journalism, let me tell you that nothing fills my heart with joy and my head with philosophical pondering more than opening up a political magazine to find articles on Spanish “biddies”, a biography on an artist we have all known since we were in elementary school, and a “Fall Fashion Bulletin”. Where would I be if I weren’t reminded that an umbrella and hoodie are necessities for Binghamton students during the autumn months? Thank you, Prospect, for continuing to enlighten me and expanding my academic horizons.

Further, I love knowing I can count on Prospect to always be on the cusp of exciting and groundbreaking news stories. Three year old jokes about Randal Meyer’s housing situation and a rundown of the one year old Binghamton basketball scandal? It sure is a good thing Prospect is here to keep those students who resided under a boulder for the last academic year abreast of campus news.

Last, but certainly not least, I would love to mention the lovely shout-outs made in Prospect’s last issue to the Binghamton Review executive board. First of all, I would like to compliment Prospect on their flagrant use of ad hominem attacks. (Don’t worry, I’ll explain that one to you when you’re older, as well.) Prospect editors are stupid! (There—don’t I sound smart and sophisticated?!) Additionally, I would love to express my disgust with your condescending remarks towards the “bagger” at Wegman’s. Rachel Gordon, Review’s Editorin-Chief, is not a bagger; she works at the deli. Furthermore, in some of the harshest economic times this country has ever faced, Prospect is mocking the fortunate few who are employed. This, to me, is deplorable. Additionally, I am not exactly a connoisseur on narcotics, but I am sure that most drug dealers don’t accept PayPal, making it unlikely that Review staffers use their “Daddys’ credit cards” to purchase drugs. And while we’re on the topic, don’t you mean “Daddy and mommys’ credit cards?” Be careful not to be TOO misogynistic.

That would make you just as bad as, wait a second—THE REVIEW! Finally, I would like to leave you with this final thought: journalism seeks to both inform and entertain. That being said, Prospect does neither. I am certainly not informed and—let me be clear about this—I am rarely, if ever, entertained by them. If you are going to devote an issue—oh hell, an entire publication—to slamming Binghamton Review, it is best not to imitate the sarcastic and satirical style that have made them infamous since 1987. Furthermore, if you are going to attempt to imitate the Binghamton Review’s style, it is best you do it well. Until then, please remove your fingers from your keyboards and save all of us actual liberals headache, heartache, and a bad name.

5

CENSORSHIP

Two Years Later

Andre Massena Sues University, City, and Scumbags

by Adam Shamah

A

nother day, another scandal. Binghamton University is being sued by former student Andre Massena for violations of his civil liberties, citing the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the US Constitution. Though it took a lawsuit to awaken Pipe Dream and the Press and Sun to Massena’s situation, it is by no means breaking news.

Long-time Review readers might remember that Massena was nearly expelled in 2008 for posting fliers critical of the College of Community and Public Affairs’ masters of social work department. As we reported in December 2008: “Andre was an intern at Opportunities for Broome. In August, one of his clients was evicted from public housing by the BHA, headed by David Tanenhaus [who had just been hired by the University’s social work department]. Later that month, Massena began posting flyers on campus and in the community under the pseudonym “Justicespeaks.” The poster displayed photos of the evicted family, explained the situation, and asked people to “call the Social Work department at the university to let them know what you think.” One week after putting up the posters, Andre received a document called the “Written Plan for Andre Massena” which outlined a series of actions the department demanded Andre take. One, he would have to immediately withdraw from all of his courses with no guarantee of reinstatement. “The satisfactory completion of this written plan does not guarantee his continuance in the program in the future, but, rather, makes it possible for him to be eligible for continuance [with departmental approval].”

In addition to being suspended, Andre would be required to do several other things in accordance with the “written plan.” The plan demanded that he write a formal apology to all parties concerned...He would also be forced to write a written retraction and “will acknowledge verbally to Dr. Bronstein and Dr. Wiener that he understands that he is entitled to his opinions, and that taking responsibility for the harm that his actions have and may have caused is not the same as having these opinions.” In plain English, as FIRE so eloquently put, “While we can’t actually force you to think the way we want, we can certainly force you to pretend that you do and to act accordingly.” The plan also mandated that Andre make “every effort possible and will inform Profs. Bronstein and Wiener of his efforts to end the process whereby students, service 6

Binghamton Review

providers and community members approach the Dept. of Social Work in an effort to alleviate ‘wrong’ they may see as occurring at the Binghamton Housing Authority.” Not only did the department try to squash Andre’s resistance, they tried to use him to squash the voices of the people with whom Andre was allied. Freedom of conscience is just as important a right as freedom of speech.”

When Andre tried to appeal, department chair Laura Bronstein pulled out of thin air fifty pages of new charges, most having to do with the political content of Andre’s poster. Only after FIRE intervened and made the case public did the University drop its charges. Despite retaliation from the department, Massena later graduated with a masters

NOVEMBER 2010

in social work. For the full story and an explanation of the constitutional violations, see the Review’s online archives.

Students in similar situations at other universities have been successful in federal lawsuits. According to FIRE, T. Hayden Barnes, of Valdosta State University “peacefully protested [university president] Zaccari’s plan to spend $30 million of student fee money to construct two parking garages on campus. By posting flyers and sending e-mails to Zaccari, student and faculty governing bodies, and the Board of Regents, Barnes expressed his concerns and proposed what he saw as environmentally friendly alternatives. Barnes also penned a letter to the editor of the VSU student newspaper about the proposed parking garage plans and wrote to Zaccari to ask for an exemption from the mandatory student fee designated for funding the construction.” President Zaccari ordered that Barnes be “administratively withdrawn” from VSU. Barnes filed suit, and in September the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia ruled that the University did not follow due process and held the president personally

liable for damages. The court further “held that the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia breached its contract with Barnes by failing to follow the procedures for student discipline established in VSU’s student handbook.”

Other schools have settled free speech claims out of court. For instance, San Francisco State University settled a suit by, and paid damages to, several members of their College Republican chapter after charging them with “sexual harassment” for expressing their political views on homosexuality. Other schools, such as SUNY Brockport, Shippensburg University, Texas Tech, and Citrus College have been involved in free speech litigation recently.

The state of free speech on college campuses is dire. Every year FIRE evaluates the student codes of over 300 major universities, and in 2010 found that over 70% of universities maintain policies that restrict the speech of their students.

Check out www.thefire.org for hundreds of specific cases.

Binghamton Review will continue covering Massena’s lawsuit as it develops. B

Are you not ethnic enough?

Do you think diversity should be used to manage your stock portfolio, not a university?

Then join Binghamton Review Meetings Every Thursday at 7:00 p.m.

New Union B05 Email editor@binghamtonreview.com 7

We're Back

JACKPOT!

“He Wants to Celebrate the Day With His Wife” Kevin Broadus’ $1.2 million Settlement Leaves Students, Faculty, and Taxpayers Little Cause for Celebration

by Ethan Day

A

s you pick up this paper today, you may contemplate where next semester’s tuition money is coming from, how to stretch that paycheck from your part time job, or how you wish you’d done better on that midterm a couple weeks ago.

What is former men’s basketball coach Kevin Broadus thinking about? How to spend the $1.2 million dollar parting gift he just got – courtesy of you, your parents, and New York taxpayers. It is important to note that your generosity was not forthcoming, however. It took a $913,000 investigation into the athletics department, a new no-show job that paid $223,426, and the threat of a ludicrous discrimination suit to finally convince you to hand over Broadus’ own little golden parachute.

“He wants to celebrate the day with his wife” was the statement from Broadus’ attorney, Linda Kenney Baden, immediately after the settlement was announced. She goes on to happily say that “the threat of a federal lawsuit and the NCAA’s investigation being closed likely prompted the settlement on the part of Binghamton University.”

Months ago, Baden told the press that October 28th would be the day she would officially file the lawsuit alleging racial discrimination against her client. In March, Broadus filed a complaint with the New York Division of Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, adamantly claiming his suspension was racially motivated; this from a man who openly admitted to breaking NCAA rules, making illegal contact with recruits, www.binghamtonreview.com

Broadus’ Contract Negotiator

and leading a sports team fraught with criminal and ethical dilemmas.

The sheer audacity of Kevin Broadus is astounding. Just the idea that he would even consider blaming his selforchestrated mess on race is revolting, and an embarrassment to all those in the Black and other minority communities who work hard with honesty and integrity. It cannot be ignored that racial discrimination in the workplace still occurs today. Such activities are shameful, and those involved should face severe consequences. However when morally compromised individuals like Kevin Broadus fail miserably at their jobs, and pursue bogus discrimination claims rather than own up to their failures, the pursuit

of equality takes one giant step backward.

The real losers when this happens are all other honest, hard working people who just happen to share the same skin color as the one who couldn’t be bothered with right and wrong. It’s fair to assume that most individuals would like to get a job, do it well, and leave with dignity, all without race making any difference. It is important to recognize that when Broadus “pulled the race card,” he was trampling over the hard work and strides made by many to build fairness and equality for people of all racial backgrounds.

Binghamton University’s response to this ongoing muddle was also very disappointing. Administrators were right to suspend Kevin Broadus and 9

right to ultimately get his resignation.

But they were very wrong to meet him halfway, and wrong to leave any lingering doubt that race had anything to do with his removal. Binghamton and the SUNY system has once again ended up as the victim of their own liberal guilt, which leads them to make irrational decisions in anything that even remotely suggests racial bias. We all know that it was a basketball team of unscrupulous recruits and NCAA rules violations, not race, that got Broadus suspended. So why then, do University officials allow Broadus to blather on about the terrible racial injustice he has suffered? BU spokeswoman Gail Glover made this statement when announcing the settlement; “...Coach Broadus and the University worked very closely together to arrive at a mutually satisfactory resolution so that each party can move forward. Coach Broadus was fully cooperative with the NCAA and SUNY appreciated his professionalism. We wish Coach

Broadus continued success in any future men’s basketball coaching position.” Had I been our college’s spokesperson, the press release would’ve read something like this: “Binghamton University highly resents the baseless allegations of racial prejudice on the part of former Coach Kevin Broadus.

Our university prides itself on its fairness and equal opportunity in all regards, especially employment. We have an entire affirmative action office devoted to creating and maintaining a discrimination-free environment.

Mr. Broadus will receive no further compensation from Binghamton University or SUNY. In light of the national embarrassment this institution has incurred at Mr. Broadus’ hands, he should count himself lucky we are relieving him of his contractual duties, and overlooking the libelous statements he has made against this university.”

Perhaps the most infuriating part of this story is that the bad guy won. Immediately following

the negotiations and resulting settlement, Kevin Broadus left for Maryland where his wife and children have already relocated. He walked out of the Cooper Administration building with a $1.2 million check. $819,115.89 of this amount was paid by Binghamton University and $380,884.11 from the SUNY system (you and me). Coupled with what he already received from his $223,426 salary, it was a great financial year for Broadus, and he even learned the valuable lesson that lying, cheating, and racial exploitation really does pay. Binghamton University should have fought hard to avoid paying anything to this man. One would think a coaching contract should be void under such egregious circumstances. Racial equality is very important, but the University was tremendously misguided in its attempt to right a wrong that didn’t exist, and look where that “brought us.” B

Want to know the secret to great sex?

Hear it from Dr. Ruth, in person

Osterhout Theater, Thursday, December 2 at 8pm Tickets on Sale at SA INK Monday, November 15. $3!

10

Binghamton Review

NOVEMBER 2010

Former Foes: Your Google Search Results Just Got A Lot Dirtier

Binghamton Review’s Digital Archives Are Online http://issuu.com/binghamtonreview

Currently Hosting 1991-Present, 1987-1991 Coming Soon www.binghamtonreview.com

11

OBAMACARE

The Healthcare Bomb

Bloated Government Spending at It’s Finest

by Nick Valiando

I

n March of 2010, the Democrats took a gamble.

They bet their congressional supermajority on the misconception that the American people wanted “Obamacare,” their bloated, bureaucratic healthcare reform package. The Democrats remembered the disaster that followed the election of Bill Clinton in 1992 and the subsequent attempts to pass a health care bill which, failed miserably.

Many Democrats blamed the failure to pass a healthcare bill for the Republican landslide in the 1994 midterm elections.

In 2009, the new Democratic majority promised themselves that this would not happen again. Democrats had the necessary majorities to pass any legislation they wanted. Consequently, Democrats were able to shut Republicans out of the negotiations. (So much for the bipartisanship/postpartisanship that Obama and his Democrats had run on in 2008)!

The hyper-liberal, congressional leadership proceeded to craft a health care bill. This bill was their Waterloo. Without any Republican input, the bill became bloated and huge - threatening to radically transform one fifth of the American economy. It was a bill which (contrary to Obama’s campaign promises), would raise taxes on those earning under $250,000 a year and would institute a mandate which requires people to purchase health insurance.

When the opposing Republicans called on them to start over on a genuinely bipartisan health care reform bill, the Democrats, believing that passing any health care bill was better than passing nothing, forced an unpopular bill through congress.

Now, many months later, the Democrats are reaping the rewards for their service: namely mass unemployment.

The signs were there from the beginning.

Even though the President’s party controlled an insurmountable supermajority in congress, they had trouble getting enough votes to pass Obamacare

12

Binghamton Review

absent any Republican support. This was because many moderate Democrats knew how voters in their districts felt about the bill. It is ironic that the only thing bipartisan about the health care bill, was outspoken opposition to it. At the time of passage, the American people opposed Obamacare 54%-36% according to a Quinnipiac poll. People saw that the Democrats were willing to pass Obamacare - no matter the was the will of the American people.

Senator Michael Bennet (D – CO), when asked on CNN if, “every piece of evidence tells you if you support the bill you will lose your job, would you cast the vote and lose your job?,” bluntly replied, “yes.” So much for the concept of a representative democracy. Members of congress are elected to represent their constituents, not to impose their own agenda on the American people.

With the effects of Obamacare becoming apparent nationwide, the American people’s distaste for Obamacare is still as strong as ever. According to a Wall Street Journal survey, only 16% felt strongly that the law was a good idea and 49% felt strongly that it was a bad idea. The effects of Obamacare anti-business regulations are creeping into the public eye. Many insurance companies are finding that they will have to raise customer’s premiums or be forced to close shop.

Unlike the government, American businesses know that a plethora of new taxes on insurance, drugs, medical devices and investment as well as, mountains of regulation and IRS paperwork, will hike their costs considerably.

Additionally, 47% of employees will lose their “grandfathered” status that allows people to keep health insurance plans they had before Obamacare.

This stands in contrast to Obama’s statement that people will be able to keep plans they like. The failure of Obamacare to fix the Medicare physician payment formula and Obamacare’s shift of almost 20 million more people onto Medicare, means that doctors will be forced to deal with an estimated 23% NOVEMBER 2010

reduction in pay on top of dealing with emergency room overcrowding and a litany of new bureaucratic hoops to jump through.

The American taxpayer will pay the brunt of the costs for Obamacare. Though the President promised that those making under $250,000 a year would be safe from new taxes, bearing the new costs created by Obamacare, estimated at $500 Billion over the next decade, will will be a burden for the middle class. The final lesson of Obamacare is that many people will lose the coverage they have, entire companies will be forced to pull out of markets, costs will go up, there will be less competition, and no one will be better off.

Now karma is coming back as many Democrats who voted in favor of the health care bill find themselves in deep trouble on their way to a crushing defeat in the

www.binghamtonreview.com

2010 election. Many political analysts, from Cook to Real Clear Politics, suggest that Republicans will capture at least 50 seats in the House, easily enough to become the majority, and even have an outside chance of taking the Senate. Take for instance the situation in which Congressman Scott Murphy (D – NY20) finds himself. After gaining office in a 2009 special election, Congressman Murphy voted for Obamacare. Now he finds himself trailing his challenger, Republican Chris Gibson, by 9 points.

President Obama himself, once a campaigning wonder child, now finds himself to be toxic in any district where a Democrat is in trouble. It seems that his namesake health care reform may prove to be the end of what Democratic strategist James Carville declared would be 40 years of Democratic rule. B

13

DIRTY WORDS

What the Frack Happened to Mark Ruffalo?

by Ashleigh Hruz

O

n September 27 Binghamton University held a panel on hydraulic fracturing, more commonly known as “hydrofracking,” or “fracking.” “What the Frack?” panel residents included environmental specialist and owner of Toxics Targeting, Walter Hang, activist Julia Walsh, and Hollywood actor Mark Ruffalo. While advertising for the event did not pronounce that it was an “anti-fracking panel,” it was implied since Experimental Media Organization, Campus Climate Challenge, SUNY VINES and NYPIRG sponsored the event.

14

Binghamton Review

Hydrofracking is a form of natural gas drilling. The technique utilizes millions of gallons of water mixed with lubricants and sand under high pressure to extract natural gas.

To hydrofrack oil companies sign leases with landowners to extract gas.

Hang, the first speaker and owner of Toxics Targeting, is an environmentalist specializing in obtaining environmental data and using that data to map toxic sites.

Hang prides himself on publicizing an anti-fracking video depicting flammable drinking water. Hang stated that the video is popular in Hong Kong, Israel and India; places close to home that can come together and unite in the Southern Tier against demonized oil companies.

Hang also said that the Marcellus Shale is the biggest gas reserve in the world, labeling it with an appraisal of two trillion dollars.

Walsh, an activist for Frack Action, was the most passionate panel speaker. She criticized the Federal Energy Policy Act of 2005, which “tucked fracking in,” and “stripped the Federal Environmental Protection Agency of the clean air act, clean water, and safe drinking water act…” Walsh seemed to forget that Obama and 35 other democrats voted to pass the act in the Senate.

Using phrases like “rape and pillage our land,” and accusing oil companies of wanting more “fat fucking yachts,” proved to be rallying points for Walsh, garnering many cheers.

According to Walsh the event was designed to be a voter registration

drive. The drive is set to continue until Election Day in November.

But surely the main reason that over 400 hundred people attended the event was because of the final speaker, movie star Mark Ruffalo.

Ruffalo has been in movies such as Shutter Island, The Kids Are All Right, and 13 Going on 30.

Unfortunately for the giddy girls sitting next to me, Ruffalo did not have much to say, and what he did say was not all too cohesive.

From my observation Ruffalo just seemed out of it throughout the conference.

The three speakers were blatantly against fracking. They used examples of pollution from Pennsylvania to argue their beliefs.

While the possible harm caused by fracking is terrifying, New York State already has some of the most stringent environmental standards.

Walsh asked attendees to vote Democrat Maurice Hinchey into congress again so he could go ahead with his FRAC Act. Hinchey’s FRAC Act would pull the Federal Government into New York to regulate fracking. If such legislation is passed, the process will be delayed by years.

Safe and responsible hydrofracking can happen now without the involvement of the Federal Government.

In conclusion, the attendees of “What the Frack?” rallied around propaganda. By the way, Maurice Hinchey has gone on record saying he wants to socialize- oh sorry, I mean, “nationalize”- the oil industry. B NOVEMBER 2010

ISLAM

God and Law

Commentary on the Ground Zero Mosque Controversy

by Taylor Arluck

A

s this article is being written our country lingers forward from the ninth anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Nine years having passed, it still remains a festering scab at the heart of the American conscience. Given the subsisting pain and remorse, it is understandable that Americans would remain emotionally charged at the prospect of a Muslim community center being constructed within the vicinity of “Ground Zero.” Indeed, plans for constructing tributes and sanctuaries by the practitioners of Islam are confronting increasing opposition across the American geopolitical spectrum. Liberal critics of the construction levy that the Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is insensitive towards those who suffered losses on September 11th 2001; discretion, this imam seems not to understand, is the better part of valor. Meanwhile conservative opponents charge that Islamic nations have refused to reciprocate to their Christian and Judaic counterparts the rights to construct their respective temples of worship on Muslim soil. Thus, mitigating the supposed objective of “interfaith understanding” as fundamental to this planned center.

Man, stripped of his necessities and amenities, remains a feral creature of emotion whose wanton passions often surmount the best of his intentions and actions. We have before us a controversy that pierces the very heart of the divide between passion and logic.

Passionate though we may be of crimes wrongfully committed towards us in years past, our indignation must remain towards the enigmas that struck us and our laws defensive of those who have not. If justice be blind, then she must be ignorant towards the faith of the accused. Our laws represent the codification of an idea that citizens of this land are judged by their peers irrespective of their defining traits. Let it be clear, there is no exception for sensitivity in the American concept of justice. Our moral compass and public policy are not and should not be comparable to that of a Saudi dictatorship. What we represent is the coronation of a dream philosophers cradled at the birth of the American republic.

I ask now, where are the successors to those dreamers? Where are the liberal activists that remain stoic defenders of religious tolerance and integration?

Where are conservative champions of property rights www.binghamtonreview.com

and individual liberty? Lastly, where are the Americans of faith who understand that the true mission of God’s servants, from all tenets of practice, is to spread the gospel of truth and reconciliation?

For those seeking to vindicate the honor of the fallen, let them be reminded that those heroes were not concerned with the faith or national origin of the helpless. Their unwavering resolve in braving the smoke and fire should be a model for advocates of American liberty and equality in face of fierce opposition. The brave men and women that fearlessly charged into the twin towers as others fled from it did so for community and country. What better way to honor them than to uphold the traditions, values and customs that they so valiantly fought and died for?

Freedom is not free; tolerance of the accused is its price. The liberty our Muslim brethren have is not debatable. As Alexander Hamilton once proudly proclaimed, “The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for among old parchments or musty records. They are written, as with a sunbeam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself; and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power.” We risk undermining all that we stand for in the assault of those we call our own. If our enemies truly hate us for our freedom, then why would we strip it from our own? The moral fortitude America commands abroad is weakened when her principles erode at home. America cannot lead the world by example if it cannot live up to its own standard.

Make no mistake, this debate is not centered on the fate of some derelict coat factory in lower Manhattan, it is found within the national archives where our constitution rests. We risk mollifying nothing short of the rule of law, the very cornerstone of our glorious republic. To say nothing of the liberty we rob ourselves of currently, think of the precedent it will establish in the time to come. The disservice we would bequeath to our posterity would cast immeasurable shame on our generation as we idled by while our fellow citizens suffered gross disenfranchisement. Our liberty is in our own hands, for, as Justice Learned Hand once said, “Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it.” B 15

The Do-It-Yourself

IMPOSTOR STUDENT KIT You too can take classes for NO CREDIT! Facial Cream

Legal Aid

Hoodie

Guaranteed to take ten years off your age. Who cares if you lived through Watergate?

Your first three rape cases are FREE!

For the college of your choice!

CALL NOW and get a one month supply of roofies AT NO EXTRA CHARGE!

$37

All this for just 4 easy payments of

(607)

37 + S&H

777-2022