BINGHAMTON REVIEW Editor-in-Chief Contents
P.O. BOX 6000 BINGHAMTON, NY 13902-6000 EDITOR@BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
Founded 1987 • Volume XXX, Issue XIII Patrick McAuliffe Jr. Copy Desk Chief Elizabeth Elliot
Business Manager Jason Caci
Social Media Shitposter Thomas Sheremetta
NON-INTERVENTIONISM VS. NOT HAVING A FOREIGN POLICY
Editor Emeritus
PAGE 8 by Matthew Rosen 7 A Common Sense Opinion on Florida by Victor Skormin
Associate Editors
10 Finally Finding Common Ground by Patrick McAuliffe
Jordan Raitses
Adrienne Vertucci
Staff Writers
Luke Kusick Jordan Jardine Tommy Gagliano Matthew Rosen Jana Todd
Special Thanks To:
Intercollegiate Studies Institute Collegiate Network Binghamton Review was printed by Gary Marsden We Provide the Truth. He Provides the Staples
11 Left-Leaning Catholics Are a Thing by Jordan Jardine 12 Team Trump Takes Massive Blows? by Matthew Rosen 14 Real School Choice
by Jordan Jardine
Departments
3 Editorial 4 Campus Presswatch
Throwbacks
13 I Was Addicted to Liberalism
TELL US WHAT YOU THINK! Direct feedback to editor@binghamtonreview.com 2
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
Vol. XXX, Issue XIII
EDITORIAL Dear Readers,
B
From the Editor
efore anything else, I want to address the tragic events rocking our community these past months. First Haley Anderson, now Joao Souza. Locally, nationally, and internationally, horrifying and sobering events continue to take their toll on us. For anyone that needs them, there are resources for you to take advantage of in dealing with these tragedies. Senseless deaths remind us of the evils humanity is capable of, but we must carry on. Still, nobody says it has to be easy. Wherever you may be right now, whether that’s with the threat of finals looming over your head or the sudden shock of a lost friend or loved one, or any other place, I wish you good fortune in getting through it. It may not seem like a usual place to turn, but my inbox is always open should you need it. Let’s divest from the sobering thoughts briefly and see what we have in this issue. Matt and Jordan, co-hosts of Binghamton Review Live, each bring two articles with them in this issue. Matt outlines a completely new approach to foreign policy and applies it to the current conflict in Syria. He also examines the various Trump administration scandals, claiming that the mainstream media blows things way out of proportion in this regard. Jordan analyzes the large minority of Catholics that identify as left-leaning and their possible motivations for believing what they do. He also looks not just at school choice, but possible choices students could make within a given school system. Meanwhile, I offer my thanks and hopefulness for the future in my article, detailing the ever-warming debate regarding free speech on campus. I express my gratitude that there are a few rational voices out there that find our voice on campus valuable, even if they don’t agree with it. We are also featuring an article by Professor Victor Skormin, Ph.D, where he brings up what he sees as common-sense ways to address the Parkland shooting. Page 14 chronicles our new e-board for next year. I’ll be staying on as Editor-in-Chief, and Kayla will be shifting roles slightly, but otherwise we have a fresh new executive board that’s ready to grow and improve the Review even more. I feel like I say this a lot, but I’m very thrilled about next year’s prospects for the Review. Some of the things I wish for in my article, and the things I’ve heard from the new board members, all excite me for the best year yet. I hope you’ll be sticking around that long, dear reader. Keep an eye out for us at Spring Fling! We’ll have a dunk tank that will let you sink your favorite right-wingers to your heart’s (and your wallet’s) content.
Sincerely,
Our Mission Binghamton Review is a non-partisan, studentrun news magazine of conservative thought at Binghamton University founded in 1987. A true liberal arts education expands a student’s horizons and opens one’s mind to a vast array of divergent perspectives. The mark of true maturity is being able to engage with those divergent perspectives rationally while maintaining one’s own convictions. In that spirit, we seek to promote the free and open exchange of ideas and offer alternative viewpoints not normally found or accepted on our predominately liberal campus. We stand against tyranny in all of 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. It is our duty to expose the warped ideology of political correctness and cultural authoritarianism that dominates this university. Finally, we understand that a moral order is a necessary component of any civilized society. We strive to inform, engage with, and perhaps even amuse our readers in carrying out this mission.
Patrick McAuliffe Jr.
Views expressed by writers do not necessarily represent the views of the publication as a whole. editor@binghamtonreview.com
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
3
CPampus resswatch We know you don’t read the other campus publications, so we read them for you. Original quotes are in regular text, responses are in bold. “Why we need to stop calling President Trump a Nazi” Kristen DiPietra - April 15, 2018 Pipe Dream “Because Trump has espoused racist views, vilified the media and ushered an advent of fake news, it’s not entirely a stretch to make comparisons to Hitler’s rise to power. Trump, however, has never ordered or enacted the eviction and eventual eradication of the Jewish people.” Not entirely a stretch? You literally just acknowledged that Hitler killed millions of people on a quest to make a superior race. How is that comparable to President Trump? Is it because he tries to uphold the law and protect his own citizens? How dare the President of The United States put the citizens of the United States first! How dare the President defend himself from libel, slander and fabricated news about himself! Sure he stands up for gays and transgenders. Sure he improved the quality of life for women and African Americans inside of the US. Sure he tried to get DACA passed in Congress. But somehow he still hates all minorities. But somehow him hurting your feelings still makes him comparable to a man who killed millions. Give me a break. “Referring to Trump as a Nazi not only undermines any legitimate argument against the president, but distracts from the actual concerns of neo-Nazis and their recent prominence.” Calling Trump a Nazi just makes people look stupid and avoids any actual criticism of Trump as a leader and politician. If you want to make it clear that you know literally nothing about him, calling him a Nazi is the right move. Kristen nails it in the first part of this statement... but the second? Not so much. If anything, calling Trump a Nazi reminds people that some Neo-Nazis identify
4
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
Written by our Staff
with Trump and support him in their twisted, anti-semitic logic. Still, it is unlikely that calling Trump a Nazi undermines or distracts people from legitimate threats of Neo-Nazism. “English curriculum lacks diversity” Gabriella Trindiad - April 15, 2018 Prism “‘The English department is very Eurocentric,’ said Khaliq Spruill, a senior majoring in English. ‘It’s rare that we do not read works by white male authors. I understand the contributions of Shakespeare to writing, but there are other authors that professors should be focusing on.’” It’s very likely that writings from prior to the 18th century that are in English and are commonly known/ accessible are written mainly by white men. Throughout most of Western history, a primary source for the study of English literature, authors have been white males. Other groups did not have the same privileges and likely did not write pieces of work that were preserved and passed down through the centuries. This isn’t ideal, but if people are studying British literature, they’re going to have to read the works of white males (shocker). “‘You really have to go out of your way to take African American literature or something cross-listed with another department to study authors of color,’ he said. ‘If there is a female author present in the syllabus, it’s Emily Dickinson. She’s an amazing author, but I do feel that she is the token female author for
the department.’” It really is not that challenging to take courses that study authors of color. My freshman year, first semester, I took an English class titled “We’ll Never be Royals.” This class featured primarily female authors, some of color, and introduced us to a wide range of literature that was female-focused. We read “The Color Purple,” “Written on the Body,” and “Wicked,” to name a few. After a quick search through Fall 2018’s available English classes, it is clear that there are opportunities for students to take classes that studying African American literature, Victorian women poets’; there is even a course titled “Russia’s Defiant Women.” You do not have to go out of your way! “If English majors choose to add a global culture concentration, they are required to take courses in global cultural productions, globalization and culture and so forth. Africana studies courses, Arab American writers’ works, Native American literature and even a course on cultural appropriation are all options students have available to them if they pursue that specific concentration. If one does not choose that concentration, then they are not required to read those texts.”
Vol. XXX, Issue XIII
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM There is another literature focused major that does require students to study works of literature from many perspectives from around the globe: COLI, or Comparative Literature. This major offers more opportunities for students to study a diverse range of literature. I also took a COLI course my freshman year, in which we studied works of literature from various Middle Eastern authors. It can be done people! We’re just complaining to complain at this point smh. “An uneducated opinion is an unnecessary opinion” Brian Deinstadt - April 15, 2018 Pipe Dream “To pretend to have all of the answers, particularly as 20-year-olds, is just foolish. Although it would be hard to find someone with the hubris to claim expertise in all topics political, it would be quite easy to find someone — particularly on this campus — who would express their opinions with an incredible sense of certainty. Vehemence ought not be mistaken for wisdom.” We <3 u Brian. Politics is complicated, and spewing uneducate opinions as fact is toxic (though we’re guilty of that, lol oops). “Why has narrow expertise been widely replaced with shallow knowledge? Possible reasons number in the dozens, but a simple one is the following: Having an opinion is fun, and it is even more fun to have many of them. It is also trendy and can create the appearance that the person who has them is wise and attuned to what is going on” Whoever colloquialized “woke” is to blame for this. Also politics becoming engrained in literally every aspect of life (sports games, awards ceremonies, celebrity social media accounts) plays a major role. Now it is frowned upon if you don’t have political opinions, but people still really don’t actually care. This results in people randomly adopting opinions as their own because they’re trendy, or because Leonardo DiCaprio said it. “Another reason individuals may opt for this route is to create a different appearance — not to look smart, but to
editor@binghamtonreview.com
look like a good person. This is known as “virtue-signaling,” and it is when someone projects a political opinion to illustrate their moral character. An example of this would be a compassionate person who declares there should be free healthcare for everyone, without ever considering the political and financial obstacles involved. Virtue-signaling should be resisted because it is more likely to create confusion than bring about any helpful solution.” This is the most annoying thing. Thank you for pointing out the struggle that is being a conservative. See, a lot of conservative policies is all about fiscal responsibility and acknowledging that not everyone is entitled to things. I am so sick of being called a racist by “virtue-signalers” for believing free healthcare, free college, free welfare, and citizenship for all is not practical. Just because it sounds good, doesn’t mean it is. Good points, now let’s apply it to not believing every realist and fiscally responsible person is an “ist” or “phobe.” “Where the March for Our Lives falls short” Jacob Hanna - April 8, 2018 Pipe Dream “By the time the speeches were done, however, I just wanted to go home.” #Relatable “The ideology contained within the speeches for the Binghamton March For Our Lives in particular and the national movement in general is at best misleading, and at worst actively harmful, ableist and racist.” I can think of a lot of things wrong with the March for Our Lives rhetoric, yet ableist and racist are terms that don’t come to mind. Why are people always attacking other people within their own movements over things that are not even the focus? How can a March for Our Lives be ableist? We’re talking about gun violence? I’m confused. “Any movement focused on gun violence would do well to address the many ways it can manifest itself. That is not what the Binghamton March For Our Lives did; instead, it only focused on mass shootings. This is an incredibly
flawed lens with which to view this crisis. We know that more than two-thirds of gun deaths in the United States each year are suicides, and yet serious proposals for mental health were not discussed — only generalizations were. And often, they were incorrect.” No sh*t it focused on mass shootings - that is what the march was in response to and was intended to be about. Right now, mass shootings are a major concern of Americans. Sure, mental health plays a role in gun violence, but the March for Our Lives was specifically focused on mass shootings. In fact, people often are frustrated when politicians talk about gun violence in relation to mental health instead of in relation to gun regulations. Can y’all make up your minds? “The national March For Our Lives is not blameless either. It has utterly failed to center the voices of black and brown students, and instead crafted “solutions” that would lead to their being overpoliced. Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School students writing for The Guardian have suggested putting more armed officers in schools and relaxing privacy laws to allow mental health providers to communicate with the police — both policies that would give away the rights of black and brown communities by bolstering a surveillance state that already targets them.” How are we supposed to keep people safe when every measure of public safety supposedly unfairly targets the black community? Black students will not be targeted by increased school security! The goal of increased security is to keep everybody safe! Either stop demanding increased regulation and increased security or stop complaining when your demands come true but are actually racist!
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
5
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
Next Year’s Board: Editor-in-Chief: Patrick McAuliffe Jr.
I’ve enjoyed serving the Review this past year as EIC, and I hope to continue making it great. I’m a junior majoring in Philosophy and Political Science. Rochester is the REAL upstate.
Managing Editor: Matt Rosen
I’m a Political Science and Ecomonics double major. I enjoy writing, and I am a professional ninja. I plan on going to law school to eventually become a politician. #Rosen2036
Copy Desk Chief: Yvonne Tyler
Hello! I’m just a junior integrative neuroscience major with a passion for editing and social commentary. When I’m not sleeping, I’m either writing, drawing, or cramming for a test. I can’t wait to give this magazine everything I can offer!
Social Media Shitposter: Tommy Gagliano
I’m a freshman here at Binghamton University. Like pretty much everyone else on this campus, I’m from Long Island. I’m a Political Science major and a Cinema minor, and I plan on going to law school after I graduate from Bing. I’ve enjoyed writing for the Review this past year, and I’m excited to assume the role of Social Media Shitposter in the fall!
Business Manager: Kayla Jimenez
I don’t manage now, I make money moves. I’m a junior majoring in Business Administration with concentrations in MIS and Marketing. I enjoy long walks in the Nature Preserve and taking naps in the Review office. Jason was an iconic BM, but I think I’ll be able to live up to his legacy. 6
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
Vol. XXX, Issue XIII
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
A COMMON SENSE OPINION ON FLORIDA
A Common Sense Opinion on Florida By Victor Skormin
I
t is plain stupid to talk about guns in connection with this tragedy. This, and similar tragedies, are not caused by guns. They are caused by defective-minded people. Nazi criminals and Pol Pot’s commissars are blamed directly, and nobody (yet) blamed guns for their mass murders. Indeed, obesity is not caused by spoons. What stops the authorities from subjecting known mentally ill individuals to psychological evaluation, if necessary, forcefully? It is the concern of violating the civil rights of these few individuals. But it is not logical. Taking guns from millions of law-abiding citizens, despite our Bill of Rights, violates the rights of millions. Do you feel the difference? Psychological evaluation of a few sick people with consequent measures will surely help. Taking guns from millions of law-abiding citizens will NOT help because murderers-to-be will always find ways to obtain guns. The recent Texas murders were not caused by guns – the perpetrator used explosives. Do you feel the difference? Each of these tragedies could be avoided, but authorities are more concerned about the rights of murderers then the rights of the victims. Liberals do not care about the rights of millions of citizens and ex-
editor@binghamtonreview.com
ploit preventable human tragedies to promote their agendas. Too bad. Note that the percentage of the population that kills other people is much less than .01%. The main challenge is to detect the potential murderers BEFORE they committed the murder. In Florida, this opportunity was missed. Fortunately, these outcasts are recognizable and detectable, providing that our authorities are assigned/authorized to act. If this is the case, why are there so many gun control advocates? Because it is easy – the law abiding will comply and submit their guns. It is only the outcasts who will not comply. Why? Because they need guns to kill. And because of this, strict anti-gun measures are destined to fail. They may look good on some politicians’ resumes; perhaps this is the intended purpose of anti-gun laws. In regards to arming school teachers, a friend of mine suggested that she would trust 99% of teachers with guns. Perhaps it is a fair assessment. But the problem is this very special fraction of 1 percent. I do not have statistics, but in the news, we often hear about some teachers and their carnal relationships with students. Imagine some immature teachers shooting their lovers in a fit of jealousy, broken relationships,
love triangles, simple gun accidents, etc. Immaturity is the key word. Israeli teachers are armed, but please keep in mind that most of them have been in the army and are very proficient in handling guns. It is not a good idea to arm teachers. The existing system is good but must be fixed: those who are hired to enforce order in schools must not hide away when, God forbid, shooting erupts. One kind and thoughtful lady recently said: Why do you NRA people refuse to give up just “a little of your rights” to make our lives safer. Please realize that our safety can be assured only by blacklisting (perhaps a local judge must be involved) those few who are mentally unstable (perhaps our lawyers should create a legal procedure). The unstable ones must give much more than “a little”: they must be completely denied access to guns. But applying legal pressure at citizens in general will not work at all. Please realize that “preventing access to guns” is an incomplete childish sentence the complete sentence is “preventing access to guns of sick people.” What happened in Florida is a failure of the national security system. Placing the fault on guns is an escape route that will lead us to a new tragedy.
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
7
NON-INTERVENTIONISM VS. NOT HAVING A FOREIGN POLICY
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
Non-Interventionism vs. Not Having a Foreign Policy By Matthew Rosen
T
he United States just launched missiles into Syria for the second time in two years. As a response to a chemical attack led by Assad on his own people, the coalition of the US, Britain, and France decided to send him a message to not defy our demands. How could a non-interventionist who voted to end America acting as the world police, such as myself, be in favor of the April 13th missile strikes on Syria? Well, this is a multi-variable and a complex answer. The simple answer, which is the cornerstone of my political ideals, is that Non-Interventionism is not the same as not having a foreign policy. According to my political theory, there are certain unique conditions that can allow the United States to become involved with the international stage without it being an interventionist policy. I aim, in this article, to use a political science approach to create a theory of how international actions can be justified, “America First,” and still non-interventionist by nature. This article will also assume that US intelligence is correct, and that the gas attack was not a false flag operation. What are the variables that are necessary for the United States to attack without it being an interventionist policy? What conditions make an attack justified and “America First?” 1. If the United States is directly attacked, such as Japan’s bombing of Pearl Harbor, this can warrant any action all the way up to a war if necessary. 2. If an ally is directly attacked, giving aid to our ally or fighting alongside them (if extremely necessary) to subdue the attacker is justified. Alliances are important and give the United States benefits. So if Japan is ever directly attacked, protecting them is crucial. If an ally is unreasonably threatened, aid without troops may be provided. 3. If the devastation or reach is so
8
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
large that it could hurt the United States, attack can be justified. This would include groups such as ISIS or countries that we believe will attack the United States. Both of these are dangers to the US, so fighting them is America First, rather than interventionist. The more dangerous and iminent the threat is, the more use of power is justified. A crazed dictator who we believe is about to bomb the United States deserves more power, and probably more troops, than a dormant terrorist cell. Either way, both justify attacks, without being interventionist in nature. 4. If the United States’ hands are tied, action can be justified. This is a concept in political science where if a leader says something, they must stick that or else credibility is lost. This includes the fact that promises to help an ally or promises to punish an enemy must be kept. The hands tied criteria DOES NOT justify war or soldiers. Only an attack can justify use of soldiers. Hands tied does justify other means of interacting abroad such as aid, missiles, rhetoric, sanctions, etc. This is because credibility on the world stage is one of the most important aspects of foreign policy. 5. This condition must also guarantee that war will not come as a direct consequence, and there is some sort of reasonable basis. This means that the United States cannot demand that Putin step down or we will fire missile at him, as it is not reasonable. If the United States followed this threat to Putin, it would not only be stupid, but interventionist in nature.
5. If geopolitical loss is iminent, action can be justified. This condition is tricky, because it is not always concrete, but it is definitely a large factor in determining foreign policy. For example, certain trade agreements with Southeast Asian countries have been aimed at combating China’s sphere of influence, and growing the United States’. This is very good foreign policy, as keeping allies and partners, while containing ideas we don’t like, such as authoritarian or anti-American ideas, is important. Notice how I used the word “contain” and not “defeat.” That is the important distinction between non-interventionism and becoming the world police. Making a trade policy with SE Asian countries is aimed to “contain” China’s sphere of influence, while invading China would be aimed to “defeat” China. Sovereignty is one of the most basic and most important ideas on the world stage, which allows China to do whatever they want inside its own country. Defying that would be interventionist; however, policy aimed at containing a dangerous or overpowering anti-American sphere is not interventionist by nature. The geopolitical strategy criteria also DOES NOT justify war or soldiers. Only an attack can justify use of soldiers. Geopolitical strategy does justify other means of interacting abroad such as aid, missiles, rhetoric, sanctions, etc. This condition must also guarantee that war will not come as a direct consequence, and there is some sort of reasonable basis. 6. A non-military international presence is allowed and encouraged no matter what the conditions. Non-threatening rhetoric, trade policy, sanctions, diplomacy, etc will never mean interventionism by themselves, which is why I call this the “never clause.” 7. Certain things are and always will be interventionist by nature and some things are always a bad idea. That is why condition seven is more of a side note, or as I call it, the “always clause.”
Vol. XXX, Issue XIII
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
“Syria and the rest of the Middle East is a huge strategic point for the entire world stage as it has spheres of influence from all over the world. The US has an interest in containing and stabilizing it. A stable Middle East where anti-American actors such as Iran, the Shia Crescent and Russia are balanced by our allies is a reasonable foreign policy.” Neocon ideas such as nation building and forced westernization will always be interventionist policy. Condition 1 is required to declare war and conditions 1-3 can allow troops. Declaring war without condition 1 or prolonged attacks or aid without conditions 1-3 also will always qualify as an interventionist policy. Pulling out of an unstable area is also always a bad idea. Even if you realize you made a mistake in the past, and now you don’t want to be involved in a conflict the you are already in, you should not pull out until it is stable. Vacuums of power are even more dangerous. This is why pulling out of Iraq was a bad idea, and why pulling out of South Korea would also be a bad idea. How does this apply to Syria? In order to make a presence on the world stage, and still be qualified for non-interventionism, the attack must be justified and proven to be America First. As discussed above, if your attack follows those seven conditions, then it is America First and justified. Does President Trump’s attack on Syria qualify? Can you be a non-interventionist, be against the US as the world police, but still believe that this attack was justified and America First? Yes. Condition 1 doesn’t apply, conditions 2-3 could be argued to be met, 4-5 are met, condition 6 is never broken, and it does not violate the “always clause” (condition 7). Condition 2 can be argued to be met because our allies are threatened by the Shia Crescent (Iran, Iraq, Syr-
editor@binghamtonreview.com
NON-INTERVENTIONISM VS. NOT HAVINGA FOREIGN POLICY ia, and Lebanon). Since no attack was made on Israel, Egypt, or Saudi Arabia (our allies), troops aren’t justified. Aid or missiles are justified, however, in order to protect our allies. This condition is weak by itself, as threat would have to be proven. If condition 2 were the only one satisfied, then it would fall to whether you believe our allies are in imminent danger. Condition 3 can also be argued to be met, as the Shia Crescent has threatened the US, is attempting to develop nuclear weapons, and has hurt the US and its allies with refugee problems and more terrorist groups. For conditions 4-5 alone, it is important to remember that the US cannot directly start a war, cannot add troops, and cannot be there for a long period of time. And guess what? The US did not directly start a war, did not add troops, and will not be there for a long period of time. President Trump confirmed this in his addressing of the nation on April 13th. Also remember that this article is assuming that US intelligence is correct, and the gas attack was not a false flag operation. Both conditions 4-5 are also met, where actions without troops is justified and America First. Personally, I believe that the “red line” that President Obama drew (and President Trump kept), is stupid in the first place. The “red line” refers to the US’s threatening rhetoric. It claims that if Syria uses chemical weapons, the US will be forced to act. We never should have drew the red line. Doing that in the first place IS BY ITSELF an inter ventionist policy advocating for the US as the world police. However, at the time of the gas attack, the red line was drawn, and the US’s hands were tied. Credibility in the eyes of Russia, the Shia Crescent, and our allies would
be shot if we did not act. Israel, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia wouldn’t trust our word to have their back, and Russia, Iran, and Syria would learn that they are unchecked and continue to defy us, knowing there are no consequences, thus satisfying condition 4. Syria and the rest of the Middle East is a huge strategic point for the entire world stage as it has spheres of influence from all over the world. The US has an interest in containing and stabilizing it. A stable Middle East where anti-American actors such as Iran, the Shia Crescent and Russia are balanced by our allies is a reasonable foreign policy. In fact, the US has been trying to contain its sphere of influence long before chemical weapons were a problem,. Disabling Syria’s ability to use chemical weapons is definitely a containment policy that is America First, thus satisfying condition 5. Similar attacks on North Korea, Russia, China, Iran, etc would not be “America First and justified,” would not satisfy the conditions, would be interventionist by nature, would be the US as the world police, and I would be against that. If you believe that the missile attack does not satisfy the conditions, then I would even encourage you to be against the strikes. I just gave my quick reasoning on why I believe it does satisfy the conditions. Remember, I too voted for “no more stupid wars.” This is not a war, but a message that I believe follows the conditions of engagement.
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
9
FINALLY FINDING COMMON GROUND
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
Finally Finding Common Ground By Patrick McAuliffe Jr.
I
t’s no secret that we’ve been making waves since our inception in 1987. I remember a comic we published in ‘89 that was especially controversial. You may have seen it in Adam Shamah’s article from our Thanksgiving throwback issue. A man is interviewing for a job, and his interviewer is perusing his resume. He says to the prospect, “I must say, this is a very impressive resume. But you left out your college major.” The prospect replies happily, “Oh, my major was Gay and Lesbian Studies.” In the next panel, the prospect is thrown out of the door, with the interviewer exclaiming as he throws him out, “I’m afraid we don’t have the opening YOU’RE looking for!” Such a joke is incredibly taboo, especially thirty years later. It’s funny, but doesn’t really help invite productive discourse with one’s political opponents that may major in or be the subjects of “Gay and Lesbian Studies.” As someone that has the dual hopes of having such productive discourse and being able to laugh at such jokes, finding a balance between that is sometimes difficult. In my opinion, this happens most completely within conservative and libertarian circles, but I want to extend the discourse to left-wing individuals as well. Maybe some contemporary examples can help illustrate what I mean. A recent panel on the limits of campus speech apparently made a few waves with the students that attended. I could only stay for the first 25 minutes, but from what I heard at the beginning, the position of the panelists was purposefully vague in their support of freedom of speech on campuses. The example that was given at the beginning was how a campus dealt with Richard Spencer coming to their campus. He was apparently allocated to a far-off part of campus, but was still allowed to speak. His talk went off without a hitch, with much less attendance than if he would have talked in a more central campus location. This was held up as a good balance between permit-
10
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
ting even extreme political viewpoints on campuses, but making clear that administrations and colleges did not explicitly condone said ideas. It was smart of the panelists at the end of the event to not engage with what I heard was a shouting match about recent campus speech issues. When I saw a girl walk in with a feminist power fist on her T-shirt, I was nervous that that was how the Q & A was going to go, even though I hoped for respectful dialogue. I appreciate their refusal to take a specific stance on what to do with “deplorable” people (in the general and not pro-Trump way) such as conservative and libertarian students that write and speak about often taboo or problematic topics. Of course, most of the outrage against the Review recently has been about an article we featured in the Sex Issue last February. The article consisted of an author writing under a pseudonym about a documentary exploring a dangerous and unhealthy subset of the homosexual community. The author briefly tried to relate this to a pervasive lack of monogamy among LGBTQ people, which they saw as another moral issue, but did not focus on this as their main point and ended up taking a generalized and sloppy approach to their argument. Outrage among some students ensued, and we issued an apology via Facebook. I recently met with an individual on campus involved with the LGBTQ community. We talked about this article and the most recent satirical article in our April Fools issue, “The Evils of Cis-White-Male America”. The person
“Our ideals are well-founded, and we’ve done the research; all that’s left is to bridge that gap and critically analyze an issue while being sure to target the heart of an issue with no generalization.”
I talked to did not seek to shut us down or censor us. They merely wanted to understand why we print what we do, and to suggest that, at times, our journalistic skills could use some work. We shouldn’t necessarily seek to troll all the time, because if people want to understand our message, we need to seriously explain what we have to say about these issues. To me, this makes sense. Our pace this semester has been breakneck, and I’m proud of every single issue overall that we’ve put out. When reviewing things article by article, however, sometimes we can be sloppier than we should be. Last year, we started including sources in our articles, and I’ve pushed for that into this year. We’ve done our homework (yes, even in “Standard Fuck Parties”), but that’s only half the battle. If this year has taught me anything, it’s that we can always improve. Our ideals are well-founded, and we’ve done the research; all that’s left is to bridge that gap and critically analyze an issue while being sure to target the heart of an issue with no generalization. It’s something I hope to work on even more next year, with a new e-board and a fresh year in front of us. Mostly, I wanted to say thank you. Thank you to those that many would consider opposed to the ideals of the Review yet still see our voice as valuable. Thank you to those wishing for polite political discourse in these formative years of our young lives. As my dad says, there are ways to win arguments without losing a soul. Let’s keep our souls, together.
Vol. XXX, Issue XIII
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
LEFT-LEANING CATHOLICS ARE A THING
Left-Leaning Catholics Are A Thing By Jordan Jardine
A
s someone who identifies as both a left-leaning libertarian and a Catholic, I sometimes think of myself as an oddball. However, after doing some digging, I discovered something; I’m not as much of an anomaly as I originally thought. According to Pew Research, only 37% of American Catholics identify with the Republican Party or lean toward the GOP when voting. Regarding Catholic support of the Democratic Party, 44% of American Catholics identify as Democrats or lean toward the Democrats at the polls. 19% of Catholics in the United States identify as Independents/third party voters or have no particular political leanings in either direction. Though I am currently registered as a Republican, I would honestly put myself in the last category. Apparently 19% of my fellow Catholics feel the same way I do. I don’t blame them. Catholics have a relatively small voice in government. At the federal level, only 24 of our 100 Senators identify as Catholic. Only one president in United States history, John F. Kennedy, has been a Catholic. It is common knowledge that Kennedy was a Democrat, so if he were alive today, he would be included in Pew’s 44% statistic. I used to be part of that 44%, but I’m now part of the 37% and want to be part of the 19%. Though I am liberal on most social issues, I agree with the Catholic Church that abortion is morally reprehensible. I believe it should be allowed only in cases of rape, incest, or when the mother’s life
editor@binghamtonreview.com
is in danger. That’s it. Though I have always supported the right for gay and lesbian couples to marry, I also believe that, since churches are private institutions, they have the right to deny performing marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples without the threat of government interference. Marriages are a church matter, and thus should be handled by the church. The problem with the authoritarian left today is they don’t understand the difference between bigotry and belief in small government. As silly as it is to discriminate against customers based on race, religion or sexuality, I believe private businesses have the right to refuse service to anyone that conflicts with their religious or cultural beliefs. It’s not because I’m a bigot, but rather because I have a principled belief in having a centralized, bureaucratic state that stays as small as possible. Big government should never interfere with religious matters as long as they take place in private institutions. Public institutions are a different matter entirely. For example, I have never supported people like Kim Davis who work in local governments but don’t do their job because it conflicts with their religious beliefs. Davis should have allowed same-sex couples to receive marriage licenses because it is a matter of public service, rather than private service. One of the most influential person breaking the stereotype that Catholics and Christians are stuffy social conservatives is none other than Pope Francis. Pope Francis is similar to me in that there are a few issues on which he leans more to the left, such as gay marriage (to a certain extent), wealth inequality, and environmentalism. Pope Francis has been met with mixed reception since he took over for Pope Benedict XVI in 2013. I, for one, hold a favorable view of
Pope Francis on several issues. I think he is a remarkable man and I wish him nothing but success and prosperity. The great thing about Pope Francis is that he gives Catholics with views like mine a strong and influential voice. Though I have several disagreements with the Pope, he does offer a perspective on a few issues that the Catholic community rarely hears or expresses. I commend him for, as I previously stated, having a more open mind on the issue of gay marriage. Though the majority of the Catholic Church disagrees, I truly believe that God cares more about punishing murderers, rapists, thieves and frauds than punishing two consenting adults of the same sex loving each other and not bothering anybody else. If it is true that God has a plan for each of us, then the vast majority of gays and lesbians were born that way according to God’s individual plans for each of them. The Vatican should definitely recognize this, and Pope Francis is off to a decent start in terms of shifting the Church’s position on gay marriage in a more liberal and libertarian direction. More social liberalism is great for the Catholic Church and could pave the way for the Church being recognized as a more accepting place that does not condemn people for who they choose to sleep with at night. It is our sacred duty as Catholics to offer our teachings and perspectives to as many people as possible. Therefore, if more people feel like they will be accepted by the Church, you may have a new influx of converts that will help the Church grow and prosper. This is not my opinion alone. As I said earlier, at least 44% of Catholics agree with me, so it is possible to have predominantly left-leaning views on social issues and still be a Catholic. No religion should be a one-size-fits-all entity because religions, while emphasizing a collective spirit, are comprised of individuals, so individual perspectives and characteristics should be openly embraced and accepted.
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
11
TEAM TRUMP TAKES MASSIVE BLOWS?
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
Team Trump takes Massive Blows? By Matthew Rosen
I
f you follow mainstream media, you would probably assume that President Trump’s most recent week has been a nightmare. One bad news story after another has been popping up claiming that President Trump is doing nothing but fighting off numerous scandals. Thank God the Binghamton Review is not the mainstream media, because I am here to show you the truth behind the stories. The first story that would have you believe President Trump is having an awful week is from former FBI director, James Comey’s new book: “A Higher Loyalty.” This is a book about how James Comey feels about the big, mean President. But after reading the highlights and apparent “bombshell reports,” there is absolutely nothing of importance in this book. He criticizes President Trump’s hands, his tie length, and his appearance. He describes a moment where Obama tells him how great he is. He talks about how Trump’s current Chief of Staff, John Kelly, calls Trump “dishonorable” for firing him. This comment has been disputed, and also isn’t a “bombshell.” Basically, this book just shows how much James Comey wants to stay relevant by expressing his distaste for Trump for firing him. I also have a newsflash for former director Comey: Trump didn’t do anything illegal, but you did! The President is legally allowed to fire his FBI Director, and in this case, it was especially justified. Comey admitted in front of the country that he did not like the law that stated gross negligence did not require intent. This is the law that would have put Hillary Clinton in jail had he enforced it as written. But as FBI Director, Comey admitted that he did not believe in that portion of the law, and that he couldn’t find Hillary Clinton’s intent, which therefore absolved her of any crimes. So to sum it up, Comey could read Trump’s mind to find his intent for firing him, but couldn’t find Hillary’s intent behind smashing her phones with a hammer, “forgetting” what makes a document classified, and deleting 30,000 of illegal emails. It is unthinkable how Comey somehow finds the nerve to criticize Trump on his morals, but this book is nothing but self-service and will blow over and out of the news cycle within the coming week. Supposed scandal number two is with Trump’s personal lawyer, Michael Cohen. The FBI raided Michael Cohen’s office in an attempt to find something about Stormy Daniels… Or was it the Russia collusion? Or something about obstruction of justice? Or . . . something? Who knows. But the Mueller team passed the investigation to the Southern District of NY prosecutors, and now a taint team, or a group of lawyers, will get to read over the documents that were stolen from Michael Cohen to find out which ones relate to the Stormy-Russia-Obstruction scandal. So Trump and Cohen clearly broke the law, right? Well, no. Actually, the SDNY did. Alan Dershowitz, a prominent liberal lawyer and professor at Harvard, came out and said that attorney-client privilege was violated by the FBI and the possibly taint team, and the targeted raid of President Trump’s lawyer “should worry us all.” Once again, President Trump did
12
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
not break the law, yet those politically motivated and out to get him break the law in order to take him down. After a full year of an illegally overreaching investigation, there it was found that there was no Russia collusion, and no obstruction of justice. Despite this, Comey, Mueller, and others still feel the need to manufacture fake scandals in order to slander him and forcibly lower his approval. One loss that, even I have to admit, is actually is bad for President Trump is the stepping down of Speaker Paul Ryan. He has announced he will not run for Congress again. Speaker Ryan has been a great facilitator of the Trump agenda, and now there is a fear that an anti-Trump congressman or a Democrat Speaker will take his place, like Nancy Pelosi. The final supposed blow to the administration is that Trump’s gem, his glowing nominee, new Supreme Court Justice Gorsuch has officially turned liberal--but not exactly. Justice Gorsuch ruled against the Trump administration and joined the four liberals on the Supreme court, in a 5-4 decision, against a law mandating the deportation of illegal immigrants who commit violent crimes. So how is this not a nightmare for President Trump? He gloats constantly about how great his new judge is, and then he rules against Trump’s immigration agenda, against the court’s conservatives, and with the liberals. It is not that detrimental for two reasons: the court’s decision was legally correct, and it shouldn’t really affect the policy that the law would have enforced anyway. Not only would Antonin Scalia, former prominent conservative Justice, vote the same way Gorsuch did, but Scalia DID vote the same way in a case when he was alive. Both Gorsuch and Scalia voted against laws that punish “violent crimes” as the description “violent crimes” is too vague. Real conservative, strict-constructionist judges would agree with this, as vague laws give all three branches of government power of interpretation that was not given to them by the Constitution. But according to the mainstream media, you’d believe that Trump’s prized judge betrayed him and turned liberal! When in reality he was just being a good conservative judge, and called on Congress to define the phrase “violent crime” before the law could be enforced. This is legally correct. The mainstream media will have you believe that Trump is finally getting cornered and surrounded by scandals that will take him down once and for all, but as always, do not be fooled!
Vol. XXX, Issue XIII
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
This article was originally published in the May 2010 version of the Binghamton Review.
editor@binghamtonreview.com
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
13
REAL SCHOOL CHOICE
Real School Choice
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
By Jordan Jardine
I
n anarcho-capitalist and libertarian-leaning conservative circles, one is bound to hear the point being made that schools should be privatized in order to give students and parents a choice in the matter of what type of education is right for them. Another reason that is often given for wanting to privatize education is that it would allow for a voucher system to pay for education instead of schooling being funded through tax dollars. These are both compelling and attractive ideas. The problem with these proposals isn’t that they go too far; the problem is they don’t go far enough. According to data from Pew Research Center, out of 71 countries surveyed on academics the United States ranks 24th in science and reading, and 38th in mathematics. These statistics come from a 2015 study by the OECD and its Program for International Student Assessment (PISA). No matter if you are on the left, right or center, Americans should all agree that education is failing in this country despite it being a keystone of success and the best pathway to achieving the American Dream. While some of the blame can be put on students and parents, much of the blame should also be shared by teachers. It is obvious that teachers are not inspiring their students or taking enough time and effort to facilitate students’ interests in basic areas of academics like math, science and reading. It’s hard to put all the blame on students. The structure of school as it is today is fundamentally rigid, banal and overly authoritarian. There was a great George Carlin bit about this issue, he says that teachers simply aren’t interested in inspiring their students, but are merely conditioning them to be little more than “obedient workers.” He stresses in the same bit that people with exceptional critical thinking skills are of no interest to the government and corporations because they don’t want to deal with questioning and dissent. He’s 100% right. The first step in solving any problem is recognizing that there indeed is a problem. So what is the solution? The solution is radically reshaping our school system to better reflect the individual needs of each student, rather than having a system in place which is monotonous system that emphasizes conformity like the ones in place now. To clarify, here’s an example of how classes may be structured and improved upon: there should be more teachers with more areas of expertise outside of the realm of the typical school curriculum. In other words, let middle and high school students manage and build their own schedules like colleges do to a large extent. Also, in continuation of the point made above, allow students to take advantage of a teaching staff that is more diverse in their areas of teaching expertise. For instance, students primarily interested in music should benefit from more than just one or two music teachers and have students focus on music and art and don’t force them to take classes in subjects they aren’t interested in. Of course, they can if they so desire, but that decision should be left up to students and parents, not education departments and government bureaucrats. To use another example of a student-managed curriculum, let’s say Student A excels in math
14
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
and science, but doesn’t do so well in areas like music or art. If that’s the case, encourage the student to take math, science and engineering classes that are more tailored to that student’s personal interests and talents. This structure could also help students with disabilities. If a person has a learning disorder such as dyslexia, where complex mathematics can be daunting to master, the student should not be forced by the government or the school to take, for example, algebra or calculus. Another issue at play is homework. While homework can be a useful tool for students to retain certain key concepts, too much homework will end up doing the opposite, especially if, again, students are forced to do a considerable amount of homework for classes they aren’t interested in. A student who wants to be a police officer should not have to worry about passing chemistry and having an F in that class jeopardize their academic and professional future. To return to the political aspect of this issue, there should be no Department of Education at a federal level. A bloated bureaucracy in Washington, D.C. should not make decisions for a school in Des Moines, Iowa. State-level education departments are still a good thing as long as they don’t meddle too much in the affairs of schools in their state. There should also be no standardized testing from the federal government whatsoever, and no standardized testing for middle or high school students from the state governments. Decisions on testing should me made solely by education administrators and boards in conjunction with teachers. These ideas should only apply to middle and high school students, especially the latter, to be clear. It is very important that children have a solid foundation on which to further guide and build their education, but past a certain point (in this case, around middle school ages) students should have a lot more say and control over their learning. These ideas may be considered by some to be revolutionary, and they are, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Oftentimes, the word “revolutionary” has a negative connotation attached to it. Some of that could be a result of schools teaching students to obey authority at all times and avoid association with revolutionaries and revolutionary ideas or actions. Not all revolutions are violent or chaotic. Grassroots structural revolution is what this article is talking about. There needs to be an education revolution now more than ever to ensure America’s viability and prosperity for future generations.
Vol. XXX, Issue XIII
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
For the Politically Active: Want to get involved? Want sane and free political discussion? College Republicans and Libertarians meet every week! Republicans: Mondays, UU108, 8pm Libs: Wednesdays, FA 245, 8pm Hope to see you there! editor@binghamtonreview.com
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
15