BINGHAMTON REVIEW
P.O. BOX 6000 BINGHAMTON, NY 13902-6000 EDITOR@BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
Founded 1987 • Volume XXXI, Issue XI
Editor-in-Chief
Patrick McAuliffe Jr. Managing Editor Matt Rosen Copy Desk Chief Yvonne Tyler
Business Manager Mac Chasman
Social Media Shitposter
SHAKEEL KHAN & STUDENT SAFETY
Tommy Gagliano
PAGE 10
by Patrick McAuliffe
Editor Emeritus
3 Editorial
by Patrick McAuliffe
4 Press Watch
by Our Staff
Jordan Raitses
Associate Editors Adrienne Vertucci
Staff Writers
Jordan Jardine Sarah Waters John Restuccia Brian Murray
Contributors
Josephi Krakowski
Special Thanks To:
Intercollegiate Studies Institute Collegiate Network Binghamton Review was printed by Gary Marsden We Provide the Truth. He Provides the Staples
6 New York’s Gas Problem by John Restuccia 8 I’m Not With Joe, But...
by Matt Rosen
9 An Anarchist’s Case for Brexit by Jordan Jardine 12 One Thousand Four Hundred and Five Legislators by Matt Rosen 14 Libtard Guerrilla Warfare by Josephi Krakowski 15 Liberty Weekend!
by College Libertarians
TELL US WHAT YOU THINK! Direct feedback to editor@binghamtonreview.com 2
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
Vol. XXXI, Issue XI
EDITORIAL Dear Readers,
From the Editor
A
pril Fools has come and gone, and we’re back to being all business with our penultimate issue of the 2018-2019 year. Our featured story is an analysis of the recent Johnson City shooting of Halal Bites owner Shakeel Khan. Our publication sends our thoughts and prayers to Khan’s family and the Muslim community of our area, both students and residents. I hope my dissection of solutions proposed and actions taken by students and the administration is fair and helpful to finding a way forward for all of us. In addition to this latest issue facing our community, our writers took up other pressing problems both locally, nationally, and across the sea. John writes about New York’s impending gas problem; he argues that we’ll need natural gas through fracking, not just a few antacids! Josephi resurrects himself like the ghost of Karl Marx with every incoming freshman class. He discusses the “libtard sniping” problem facing young college-age conservatives and how best to fight back, picking apart the methods and means of the elusive “libtard.” We move beyond New York and home sweet Binghamton to national and international issues. Matt’s forte has always been federal politics, and his work this issue is spot-on as always. He first defends Joe Biden - gasp! Say it isn’t so! Yes, Matt defends Joe Biden and sets the record straight on his (mostly) harmless habit of making people uncomfortable, saying that we need to look at his policies before we condemn him in the court of public opinion. He also argues that President Trump’s agenda has been so bogged down by the personnel of the other two branches - 535 real legislators and 870 judges acting as their own legislators - that the executive has been completely neutered by the legislative and judicial branches. Finally, Jordan, in true anarchist fashion, expresses his support for Brexit’s continuing efforts, rallying against the bureaucratic and restrictive policies of the EU. I’m particularly proud of our Press Watch in this issue. Still, it gets pretty easy when Pipe Dream releases an opinion piece titled “Recognizing the benefits of socialism”. This fruit hung so low that another Press Watch piece, “Real environmentalists are vegan”, would probably tell us to eat it! I encourage you all to spend some time checking it out if you normally don’t. Look for us at Liberty Weekend (page 15); I’ll be giving a talk on Sunday evening alongside other heavy hitters over the course of the weekend like Larry Sharpe, Kevin McCullough, Jim Rosenbeck, Michael Vasquez, and our very own local Giovanni Scaringi. Stay tuned for more details, and scan the QR code on the flyer! Come celebrate liberty with us and our guests!
Sincerely,
Patrick McAuliffe Jr. Binghamton Review is a non-partisan, student-run news magazine of conservative thought founded in 1987 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. The mark of true maturity is being able to engage with these 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.
Views expressed by writers do not necessarily represent the views of the publication as a whole. editor@binghamtonreview.com
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
3
CPampus resswatch “Recognizing the benefits of socialism” David Hatami, April 10, 2019, Pipe Dream “As a result, words such as ‘communism’ and ‘socialism’ were met with animosity within the United States to such an extreme extent that the ungrounded accusations against many alleged ‘commies’ led them to be blacklisted and lose their jobs.” Now, accusations of being right-ofcenter leads people to be blacklisted and lose their jobs, on college campuses at the very least. We’ve come so far! “While many Americans may claim that the idea is inherently opposed to the concept of American capitalism and financial freedom, nearly half of millennial Democrats say they identify as socialists or Democratic socialists, according to a 2018 poll.” The latter statement does not dispute the former. There’s no connection there. “Since the 1980s, college tuition has more than doubled, with more than 44 million Americans currently burdened with debt from their student loans, contributing to an astounding national total of $1.5 trillion.” If fewer people went to $70,000-peryear private schools to get useless degrees in Sociology or Art History, and were willing to go into trades or other careers, that number would be much lower. “This, alongside the current extreme costs of health care and subsequent wealth inequality, prove that young adults today are living in a nation very different from what their parents grew up in.” Healthcare is certainly not cheap in America, but it’s worth noting that the last plan to start socializing healthcare, the ACA, drastically increased premium costs. Putting government’s tentacles into sectors where it doesn’t belong does much more harm than good.
4
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
Written by our Staff
We know you don’t read the other campus publications, so we did it for you. Original pieces are in quotes, our responses are in bold.
“Contrary to the beliefs of many contemporary critics, the United States would most definitely benefit from some socialist influences in government.” No. “However, socialist nations incorporate greater public enterprise than the United States, such as the inclusion of free college education, free health care and in some cases, free state-sponsored day cares.” Yeah. “Free.” Through insanely high redistributive taxes. “A socialism that allows for more personal freedoms can be superior to a capitalism that permits the pursuit of profit by an elite, manipulating public policy.” Because nothing says “more personal freedoms” like the government stealing 80% of your money and not giving you a say in what it is spent on! Which, by the way, is usually to line the pockets of “hard-working” bureaucrats. “While American capitalism boasts complete financial freedom and independence, socialism is far superior in telling us that a member of the electorate is being left behind and that a gap in the wealth distribution is potentially widening.” See, that’s the thing. If someone is poor or “being left behind” in a socialist system, it is because the government is making them poor. If they are poor in a capitalist system, it is because of their own choices and actions. Capitalism gives everyone the
freedom to work and earn a living for themselves. Socialism does not. “Democratic leadership should embrace more progressive views” Seth Gully, April 3, 2019, Pipe Dream Subtitle: “Simply being anti-Trump is not a substitute for policy” Thank you! We’ve been saying this for at least three years. “Just because there’s a (D) next to one’s name doesn’t automatically mean they are good or respectable.” You’re on a roll today! “While McConnell and Ryan were arguing for massive tax cuts and various conservative legislation, what were Pelosi and Schumer in favor of? In my opinion, not much...Various mainstream Democratic proposals include things such as ‘Medicare for All,’ tuition-free four-year public universities, legalization of marijuana and so on. However, Pelosi and Schumer do not appear to be in favor of these.” “Mainstream” may be a little strong. Democrat demagogues may be pushing for progressive policies to bolster their presidential chances, but most Democrats off of a college campus are
Vol. XXXI, Issue XI
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
PRESS WATCH
more in the Pelosi-Schumer camp. Who needs free college when you’re a Democrat in a stable white-collar job?
“Can you be in a sorority and still be a feminist?” Grace Kent, April 3, 2019, Pipe Dream
“Real environmentalists are vegan” Nicholas Walker, March 3, 2019, Pipe Dream
“Why is the Democratic party just the ‘Not Trump’ or ‘Not Republican’ Party? It should be pushing progressive legislation and dragging the Overton window back to something more reasonable.” Good joke; progressive legislation being “reasonable.” I thought Pipe Bomb already came out a few weeks ago.
“Pledging is just a singular example; sororities are full of unattractive stereotypes. The leading (and, frankly, hurtful) consensus believes these women to be disingenuous and shallow, fueled by the toxic culture of binge drinking and hookups. This, in my opinion, is ultimately systemic from the rampant and unchecked expressions of internalized misogyny throughout sorority culture.” I can’t wait to see how rambunctious partying girls and an addiction to social media can be brought back to the evil male and his damned creations.
“The environmental movement has rightly focused on climate change, but its solutions are insufficient. People are not willing to significantly change their lifestyles and become vegan to save the planet.” You heard it here first, folks - the vegans think they’re gonna save the planet now…Pull up a bean bag, light up a blunt, and let’s see what they have in mind.
“Joe Crowley, who was a central establishment figure in Washington, was unseated by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez who, agree with her or not, is pulling that Overton window to the left by discussing a Green New Deal among other policies. This kind of reform of the party is necessary, because leadership does not represent the Democratic viewers.” New York City wanted AOC, and a highly liberal city doesn’t speak for all of America’s Democrats. A good 40% of American voters are usually on the fence during election season; too much of a progressive agenda by Democrats would not only drive the American economy into the ground, but would also fail to appeal to a majority of voters. By all means, though, drive moderates further into the arms of Republicans.
“Internalized misogyny is the use of learned sexist behaviors and attitudes toward people of your own gender, and includes but is not limited to acts of body shaming, slut shaming and reinforcing gender norms.” ...So it’s just a fancy way of saying that sorority girls are petty assholes to other women? I don’t disagree, but I think this applies to a lot of women, not just to sororities. “Therefore, as a self-proclaimed feminist, should I be embarrassed to be a part of a sorority?” No, but you should be embarrassed to be a self-proclaimed feminist.
“Does the taste of a hamburger outweigh the environmental destruction and animal suffering caused by its production? Obviously, nothing else tastes like a hamburger. You got me there. Nothing else tastes like a clementine or an almond either. Besides, there are plenty of companies making meat substitutes that taste pretty darn close to the real thing.” So wait, which is it? Does nothing else taste like a good hamburger, or are there substitutes that taste pretty darn close? We here at the Review are going to have to agree with the former. Nothin’ replaces a good ol’ American burger. You should try one sometime! Nowhere else can you get such flavor and such protein-packed goodness. “Animal agriculture is responsible for 14.5 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, with 65 percent of that coming from cattle.” Wonderful! If we cut off all animal agriculture immediately we’ll be left with just a measly 85% of the world’s greenhouse gasses! Veganism surely will save the planet after all! Those cow farts have got to go. “It’s easy and cheap to cut animal products from our diet. Dinner can be as simple as rice and beans or lentils and broth.” Ok, we’ll have to concede that if dinner every night was as bland and pathetic as rice, beans, and lentil soup, we might start to go crazy and think an extreme dietary cult can save the planet too...
editor@binghamtonreview.com
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
5
NEW YORK’S GAS PROBLEM
New York’s Gas Problem
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
By John Restuccia
A
ntacids won’t stop this one! New York State is in quite a pickle, one that the Democrats and environmental tree-huggers have gotten themselves into. New York is about to face a natural gas shortage. Westchester County (a place where many Binghamton University students live) has already begun to feel the effects, as natural gas companies have been turning down any new clients due to the shortage. Many people do not realize the importance of this resource, and there are many myths regarding the process of obtaining natural gas and how natural gas is transported. The reason for these myths being spread may be due to all of the anti-fracking activists who make it seem as if fracking will poison you immediately and kill you in minutes. Obviously, this is not the case. My goal is to dispel these myths and give a compelling argument on why New
“Natural gas is the way of our country’s future. It is more environmentally friendly than coal, and could lead the United States to be independent with regards to energy.”
6
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
York State should embrace fracking, as well as pipelines. For starters, one must understand the importance of natural gas. Natural gas is important for a number of reasons. Natural gas helps cook food on our stoves, heats our water, and supplies energy to our homes. About half of all houses in the United States use natural gas for those purposes. According to the U.S. Energy Information Association, 34% of natural gas goes to electrical power, 35% goes to the United States industries, and 16% goes to residential areas. So as you can see, this natural gas shortage will affect our lives drastically. The question then becomes, how do we obtain natural gas? The answer is hydrofracking. Hydrofracking is considered very controversial, for good reason. The amount of misinformation by overcautious environmental lobbies and disinformation campaigns have had a tremendous negative impact on public opinion. New York State decided to turn down fracking despite every opportunity to welcome the practice. New York State Democrats have repeatedly voted down all matters on the subject. Additionally, our Governor, Andrew Cuomo, has blocked and delayed the building of all pipe-
“Pipelines are incredibly important and possibly one of the most “controversial” parts of the process. This is because many people do not realize what pipelines are, and tend to believe that they cause significant harm to the environment. In fact, pipelines actually help the environment greatly...This is the safest and most environmentally friendly way to transport resources.” lines. Many critics think that it hurts the environment and will poison our drinking water, but that is simply not the case. Before one can discuss fracking, one must understand what hydrofracking is as well as what pipelines actually are and what role they play in the process of fracking. Hydrofracking itself is the practice of obtaining natural gas. This is done by a fracking rig which pushes what is known as fracking fluid (mostly water mixed with sand) into the ground through the use of high pressure. This fracking fluid breaks up deep rocks and makes gaps so that natural gas can flow out of the ground much easier, allowing us to obtain much more natural gas than we could obtain otherwise. When the high pressure is removed, the sand in the fracking fluid holds open the cracks created by the rigs, and allows the natural gas to flow much easier through the ground. This is an extremely simplified version of what happens. It is estimated that the United States has enough natural gas to last us 90 years with the current fracking technology being used. Once the gas is obtained throughout the ground, that is when pipelines come into play. Pipelines are incredibly important and possibly one of the most “con-
Vol. XXXI, Issue XI
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
NEW YORK’S GAS PROBLEM
troversial” parts of the process. This is because many people do not realize what pipelines are, and tend to believe that they cause significant harm to the environment. In fact, pipelines actually help the environment greatly. Pipelines simply transport natural gas from one location to another. The natural gas travels down the pipe, pretty self-explanatory. This is the safest and most environmentally friendly way to transport resources. The alternative method of transportation is by using trucks. Trucks can break down and cause accidents, potentially resulting in an incredibly large environmental
“Still not convinced that drilling natural gas is safe? Consider the fact that the Obama Administration, which is considered to be one of the strictest with regards to environmental regulations, agreed that drilling should be pursued. Even in his State of the Union Address back in 2013, Obama stated, “We produce more natural gas than ever before – and nearly everyone’s energy bill is lower because of it.” ” disaster. Pipelines are the safest method. If there is a problem with the pipeline itself, there are many protocols in place including control rooms constantly being monitored and stopping the flow of gas quickly. These safety measures cannot occur in the other forms of transportation. Oftentimes these pipelines link up to specific businesses and houses themselves. Another common concern with pipelines is noise pollution, however these pipelines are soundproof and insulated. As time has gone on, pipelines have continued to become safer, with natural gas utilities spending 22 billion dollars annually to continue increasing safety. Now I will be debunking one of the biggest myths around fracking. You may have seen videos of people setting their water on fire due to fracking. These videos are inaccurate. They are real, people are setting their tap water on the fire, but fracking is not the cause of it. This all became popular
editor@binghamtonreview.com
with the anti-fracking “documentary” (I use that term loosely as it is just anti-fracking propaganda scare tactics) when a Colorado man set his tap water on fire. However, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission decided to send scientists to investigate the claims. They found that, due to these houses being in high natural gas areas and deposits, natural gas was seeping into their wells naturally! It was not due to drilling or fracking, but rather a common occurrence due to the location of the home. If anything, the original well builders are at fault for not building the wells properly. Still not convinced that drilling natural gas is safe? Consider the fact that the Obama Administration, which is considered to be one of the strictest with regards to environmental regulations, agreed that drilling should be pursued. Even in his State of the Union Address back in 2013, Obama stated, “We produce more natural gas than ever before – and nearly everyone’s energy bill is lower because of it.” I could not have made the point better myself. Natural gas is the way of our country’s future. It is more environmentally friendly than coal, and could
lead the United States to be independent with regards to energy. With the United States becoming energy independent, we could avoid deals with shady hostile governments that hold much of the world’s oil supplies. Foreign policy of the United States would drastically change for the better. Despite the practice becoming even more safe with advancements being made every year, New York State refuses to adopt what is the way of the future, even though our neighboring state of Pennsylvania has decided to reap the benefits of natural gas. New York Democrats claim to be the party of science, but this decision demonstrates the opposite. They claim to be the party of the working class, yet they do not want to lower our energy bill. In fact, New York’s energy prices are the eighth-highest in the nation according to USA Today. The cost will only continue to rise as time goes on unless changes are made. New York State is on the verge of crisis, and until the party in charge of all three branches of our state government embraces fracking and pipelines, we are in trouble in regards to gas. Gas problems that an antacid cannot solve!
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
7
I’M NOT WITH JOE, BUT...
I’m Not With Joe, But...
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
By Matt Rosen
I
f I am looking at the Democratic primaries with the mindset of trying to figure out how they would fare against President Trump, then I would prefer almost any candidate win the nomination over Joe Biden. That is because Joe Biden has the biggest appeal in the Rust Belt states out of any of the actual Democratic contenders. Assuming Trump wins Florida (which I would predict that he will), then it really all comes down the Rust Belt swing states. Ohio has trended red and has become pretty reliable for Republicans over the past couple years, so as of today, I think it is safe to say President Trump should still win Ohio. The same goes for Indiana and Iowa, which have all moved from swing state, to leaning Republican. That leaves Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Assuming President Trump wins all of the solid red states, manages to win the leaning red states (Ohio, Iowa, Indiana), and wins Florida, all he would need is one of the three Rust Belt swing states: Wisconsin (possible to win, but trended blue in 2018), Pennsylvania (which is Joe Biden’s home state), and Michigan. If any of the Democrats could block President Trump from winning any of the Rust Belt swing states, it’s Joe Biden. A lot of traditional and blue collar Democrats live in those states, and Donald Trump’s appeal to blue collar workers really helped push him over the edge in those three states. That being said, Joe Biden fares very well with
“Am I going to sit here and defend Joe Biden’s behavior? No, of course not. Joe Biden acts a little creepy and doesn’t totally understand personal space. But does that disqualify him from being President? Honestly, no. My disagreement with him on policy is what really matters.” 8
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
that segment of the Democratic party which makes him really scary to face in a general election. That leads me to the point of writing this article. I am NOT with Joe Biden, so it pains me to have to correct the recent attacks on him. The people who don’t care about the facts, or the people who are solely interested in political strategy and have no actual political philosophy have decided to attack Joe Biden on his recent “inappropriate behavior.” For those of you who don’t know, a couple women have come out recently saying that Joe Biden put his hands on their shoulders, touched their hair, and other similar stuff. While it is certainly weird, I just have to say, this should not be the primary attack on Joe Biden. Unfortunately, for over a week, people have been slamming Joe Biden from both sides. This is simply because the right doesn’t like Joe Biden because he is a Democrat, and the “new” left doesn’t like Joe Biden because he is too moderate, too white, and male. That left him wide open for these attacks, as the right doesn’t want him as President, and the left doesn’t want him because they think he isn’t far left enough, and would prefer Bernie, Beto, or Kamala win the nomination. Am I going to sit here and defend Joe Biden’s behavior? No, of course not. Joe Biden acts a little creepy and doesn’t totally understand personal space. But does that disqualify him from being President? Honestly, no. My disagreement with him on policy is what really matters. I’ve argued that I don’t care about Trump’s personal life, I’ve argued that I don’t care about Bill Clinton’s personal life, and the same argument most likely applies to many Presidents before them. I do not look to my political leaders as moral or social guides. Making personal life choices that I wouldn’t have made doesn’t mean they can’t implement good or, even the best policies. If Biden, or any other previous President or candidate did something illegal, or heinous,
then that is a different story. But did Joe Biden hurt these women who are accusing him? Did he sexually assault them? No, he acted old and creepy by being in their personal space… which let me be clear, is wrong. No person should have to feel uncomfortable, but that doesn’t mean he had bad intent. Let’s pretend that we remove the political part of Joe Biden’s life and pretend that he is just someone’s 76 year old grandpa. In that situation, this type of behavior would be attributed to old age, and not understanding social norms; so why is it that when you add politics we automatically attribute malice? Especially if you are on the right, you should know better. For almost four years we have watched as people attribute malice to President Trump when there wasn’t any just because they disagreed with him. Let’s not stoop that low and assume Joe Biden is acting maliciously when he most likely isn’t. I am not asking anybody to like Joe Biden, I am not asking anybody to support him, or help him, or even to presume that he isn’t acting creepily (because I am not doing any of that either), just that we don’t try to ruin his life in the same manner that the Democrats tried to ruin Justice Kavanaugh’s life months ago. If you want to attack him and argue that he shouldn’t be President, do it based on his bad policy. I think that assuming the worst in our leaders and citizens of the opposite party is a bad habit to get into, and it’s going to tear this country apart.
Vol. XXXI, Issue XI
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
AN ANARCHIST’S CASE FOR BREXIT
An Anarchist’s Case for Brexit By Jordan Jardine
B
rexit has been a hot topic over the past few years and particularly in the past month or two. The Brexit phenomenon began in 2016 with a referendum in Britain on whether to leave the European Union (hence the “exit” part of Brexit) or remain a part of the institution, of which it has been a member since 1973. According to the BBC, Britain’s current prime minister, Theresa May of the Conservative Party, was initially opposed to Brexit. However, due to the fact that a majority of the country (almost 54%) is pro-Brexit, May has since felt political pressure to try and get Brexit accomplished. Throughout this process, May has faced staunch opposition to Brexit from Members of Parliament. As a result, Brexit has been delayed. The BBC states that Brexit was supposed to take place on March 29th, but parliamentary pressures forced May and the EU to negotiate postponing Brexit to April 12th. May, reportedly, is currently attempting to stall Brexit even further until June 30th. The main point of contention is whether Britain should leave the EU outright without making a deal with the EU for a gradual transition to Britain’s economic independence or to strike some sort of deal with the EU in which Britain would still have ties with the EU but would no longer be officially recognized as part of the organization. If Britain leaves the EU without making any sort of deal, it will surely spell disaster for the UK’s economy. Ordinary working people and corporate executives alike are projected to suffer major economic blows if no deal is reached. The UK is in an incredibly delicate and precarious situation at the moment, to say the least. While I am personally in favor of Brexit, I also believe it is in Britain’s best interest to go about leaving the EU in an intelligent, careful and practical manner. Working class and poor Brits should not have to pay the price for their government’s inability to negotiate a deal with the EU. Above are the background information and facts about Brexit. Now, I will provide my personal opinion on Brexit and why I believe anarchists should be in favor of Brexit. This is an
editor@binghamtonreview.com
interesting debate I’ve had with some of my fellow anarchists on social media. They have correctly pointed out that some people’s (voters and politicians) motivations for supporting Brexit are rooted in racism and xenophobia, and it is unfortunate that those were factors in some people’s decisions. However, not everyone who is pro-Brexit is racist. For instance, as I have made clear to my fellow anarchists, I support Brexit for economic and institutional/political reasons, not because of racism brought on by the EU’s loose border policies. The main reason why anarchists should support Brexit is because of the way the European Union functions. Binghamton University offers a class called Politics of the European Union, and I was fortunate enough to take that class last semester, so I have a fairly in-depth understanding of how the EU works. The European Union currently consists of 28 countries who send bureaucrats to Brussels (the capital of Belgium) to make decisions, including the passing of various regulations (applies to all member-states) and directives (self-directed). This presents a crucial question: why should bureaucrats from Spain or Italy or France be allowed to dictate policy decisions for Britain or Germany or Poland (and vice versa)? To put it in the context of the United States, if we decided to politically unite with Mexico and Canada, then bureaucrats from those countries could be able to directly influence our policies. That would be unacceptable to most Americans. Also, who are we to make decisions for Canada or Mexico? The EU’s design is terrible and no anarchist should be in favor of the institution and should support any country who wishes to leave it, regardless of the motivations behind the exit. Anarchists are, by definition, supposed to oppose any authority or hierarchy which fails to provide a legitimate reason for it to exist. While it is an admirable and positive outcome that since the EU first took shape in the late 1950s there have been no military conflicts between the member states, the institutional structure of the EU is inherently bureaucratic and authoritarian, though it claims to be a “democratic” organization. Organizations such as the European Union set a very dangerous precedent because while only 28 countries are members, there is a possibility that some collections of countries could come together and establish a one-world government. Sometimes, we socialists get straw manned as wanting a one-world government, but I and my socialist friends and intellectual influences (Chomsky, Kropotkin, Bakunin) are vehemently opposed to such a system. We support free associations of workers who own and control the means of production in a non-hierarchical system. This is a very different concept than one involving a one-world government. Here is the bottom line: Brexit is a complicated issue, but anarchists should support Brexit and should also support any subsequent states that wish to sever ties with the European Union. The less bureaucracy and authoritarianism, the better off all of us are. Control over people’s lives needs to be given back to individuals, not institutions or governments.
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
9
SHAKEEL KHAN AND STUDENT SAFETY
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
Shakeel Khan and Student Safety By Patrick McAuliffe
O
n March 30th, Johnson City business owner Shakeel Khan was shot outside his restaurant, Halal Bites, by an unknown attacker. He died later that night while receiving medical care. Since the killing, students have demanded that the university administration and Harvey Stenger take action to better alert students (specifically off-campus) in potentially dangerous situations like this and condemn the murder as a hate crime, among other measures. The open letter containing all demands by concerned student organizations can be found on Decol A’s Facebook page. Decol A, as described on their Facebook page, is an organization for “Pan-Asian and Pacific Islander Diasporic Activism @ Binghamton University”. Similarly activism-minded organizations cosigned the letter, such as the Frances Beal Society, the Black Student Union, College Progressives, and NYPIRG, among others. While I never patronized Halal Bites myself, I do not doubt the influence it has had on students on and off campus, especially Muslim students. I hope to analyze the situation and the responses from various voices as impartially and completely as I can.
10
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
“Students received an alert on April 10th about shots in Johnson City with specific streets and corners, which may have been a nuisance for unaffected students but a great comfort for nearby residents.” Stenger’s April 5th letter to the university, in which he promised Binghamton’s commitment to student safety and the Johnson City police’s “around-the-clock” investigation into the case, was very vanilla and typical of the generic, condoling statements many administrations issue after a student outcry. However, the letter was truthful as to the details that everyone knew at the time; as of April 11th, no news articles have been updated as to the shooter’s motives or identity, making a “hate crime” motivation a long shot. To jump to this conclusion merely because of Khan’s name, religion, or the color of his skin is at best a misreading of the situation and at worst potentially racist. Most students know after any time on the West Side or downtown that the Binghamton area is plagued with much more crime, usually gang-related, than many other college towns. The origin of this crime is for a more broad discussion at another time, but based on everything that the police (and the administration) know so far, Khan’s death was a random act of violence. After laying out all of the facts as concisely as I can, I want to look at the student response - what they are justified in being angry about, and what they may have gone too far on. Decol A and its undersigned organizations, in their open letter, make a good point as to the killing’s proximity to Binghamton’s Health Scienc-
es Campus in Johnson City (about a mile away). One of their demands is an expansion of the Safe Ride program to off-campus BU locations, such as this one in JC and the UDC in downtown Binghamton. Normally, the Safe Ride program is an on-campus escort for students that want to get to their cars or dorms safely but feel nervous walking alone at night. Some sort of adaptation of the program to off-campus implant locations, with a central drop-off point close to a majority of off-campus student homes or a student living community, would definitely fall within the university’s purview of keeping students safe. A B-Alert would also have been a good idea, although in situations that occur off-campus, the alert should be very clear as to the location and gravity of the situation. Students received an alert on April 10th about shots in Johnson City with specific streets and corners, which may have been a nuisance for unaffected students but a great comfort for nearby residents. These are concrete, attainable, and just demands that Decol A’s letter lists. However, some of the letter’s demands and frustrations seem misplaced or unnecessary. The letter frequently references the administration’s and Stenger’s apathy to the violence in a community that they “tokenize.” One of the demands calls for a town hall with administration, students, and community members to discuss the situation as a way to “salvage” the university’s relationship with the community. Additionally, the letter calls
“Once steps were taken to protect students on campus, the administration believed they had adequately fulfilled their promise. It took this outcry from students to wake them from complacency and focus on off-campus safety as well.” Vol. XXXI, Issue XI
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM for a public apology from Stenger to the student body for failing to notify them about the incident. To me, these demands seem more irrelevant to the situation than if another student was killed or someone was assaulted while
“With very little information about the killer’s motive and identity, the administration also did not prematurely call Khan’s killing a hate crime, another of the letter’s demands. Again, as of this writing, no other attacks on Muslims, whether students or community members, have been reported since the March 30th killing.” walking in Johnson City. Khan was not affiliated with nor worked for the university; the fact that students frequented his restaurant doesn’t necessarily bring his murder (which occurred as he was closing his store for the night, with little to no chance of students being around) into the university’s purview of keeping its students safe. If an incident was happening close to student residences, the university should do what they did on April 10th with their B-Alert about shots being fired in Johnson City. As Stenger’s letter explains, “there was never any immediate threat to students” in this case. Pipe Dream, which is undersigned on Decol A’s letter, points out in their April 11th editorial on the incident that the university, after expanding into Johnson City, should most likely have “close communication with the Johnson City Police Department and emergency responders.” With the knowledge about the facts of the case, including the time of the murder and the victim, the administration correctly saw that students were not the target of this attack. With very little information about the killer’s motive and identity, the administration also did not prematurely call Khan’s killing a hate crime, another of the letter’s demands. Again, as of this writing, no other attacks on Muslims, whether students or community members, have been reported since the March 30th killing. (For possible
editor@binghamtonreview.com
SHAKEEL KHAN AND STUDENT SAFETY developments in the situation, I will be updating this article on binghamtonreview.com.) To call for the university administration to denounce this murder as a hate crime is misguided and factually incorrect with everything we know so far. It remains to be seen what the Johnson City police department can discover about the killer, and only then can we find a motive. One demand calls for secure transportation to Muslim religious buildings during the beginning of Ramadan; without both proof of a hate crime motive and similar accomodations made for members of other religions during their holidays, the administration has no reason to oblige this demand. Decol A’s letter, in an exasperated tone, reads that “[o]nce again, the onus has been placed on the student body to hand-hold the university in responding to events that affect marginalized communities.” Meanwhile, the administration maintains a commitment to securing student safety. Stenger’s April 5th letter and the B-Alert on April 10th are signs that the administration has snapped to attention when the safety of its students is potentially at risk. This comes in the wake of the two student deaths last spring, one from off-campus and one on campus, when Stenger again reinforced his commitment to student security. New cameras were installed
in various buildings around campus to better monitor public spaces. Once steps were taken to protect students on campus, the administration believed they had adequately fulfilled their promise. It took this outcry from students to wake them from complacency and focus on off-campus safety as well. Within a few days after Stenger’s letter, the university showed through B-Alert that it was willing to take reasonable steps to notify and protect students. The situation within the Muslim community is a tragic one. The Islamic Organization of the Southern Tier has started a GoFundMe for Khan’s family, and Muslims have been showing an outpouring of support for each other on social media. Our hearts go out to the Muslim community in their time of loss. I acknowledge the mistakes that the university has made, both in this situation and others, but they have responded to appropriate student demands and acted accordingly to show that student safety is once again at the forefront of their minds. If they mess up again in a situation that will clearly impact members of the student body, I’d be putting my name right at the bottom of the letter with the other students. Otherwise, we need to take a deep breath, swallow our fear, and make sense of tragic events by analyzing all of the details before jumping to unreasonable or misplaced demands.
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
11
ONE THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED AND FIVE LEGISLATORS
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
One Thousand Four Hundred and Five Legislators By Matt Rosen
B
REAKING NEWS: Sources tell me that we’ve just gotten rid of the position of President of the United States and replaced our system with 1,405 legislators instead, which will make up the new three branches of the US government: The House, The Senate, and The Judiciary. The House is made up of 435 Representatives, the Senate is made up of 100 Senators, and the judiciary is made up of 870 Judges. In this new system, there will be two different ways to pass a law. The first way will be that it can get through both the House and the Senate with majority votes, and the second way is that a couple of the judges can get together and just say something. Regardless of whether it’s a written bill that slowly works its way through two chambers, or the couple judges deciding to say something, it will become US law. At this point, we might as well be actually doing this, right? That’s how it’s essentially functioning. President Trump gets elected largely on his promises to fix the immigration system, and then every attempt to actually fix it, the courts block him. This is what keeps happening, and it’s cornering the President into being unable to stop illegals from entering and staying in the country. To me, it seems like a large portion of the US population and US government needs a lesson on separation of powers. For the purposes of this article specifically, there are only two things that need to be made clear. First, the President has the authority to control immigration regulations as long as it doesn’t directly contradict a current US law. Second, the courts do not have supremacy over the other branches. This second point is extremely important, as the courts cannot create their own laws, policies, or regulations, only interpret the laws that are currently on the books. So how did the courts mess up their constitutional duties this time? They essentially passed their own set of immigration rules that have no basis in federal law or the Constitution.
12
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
These became rules simply because a handful of judges said so. That’s all. Because of this, Trump cannot do anything at all besides letting illegal immigrants into the country. Let me quickly explain how. One of the hot button topics of Trump’s presidency is the separation of children from their parents at the border. To be clear, this is not a good policy. I will get back to the policy itself later on, but for right now there is a bigger point to be made: This hot button issue is actually becoming a backdoor way to allow more illegal immigration. The way this works is that a few judges are unilaterally making the decisions to prevent kids from staying with their parents, and prevent these families from being taken care of by the Mexican government until their hearings are scheduled. What option is there left... Releasing both the parents and the kids into the country. This is coming up now because Judge Richard Seeborg dropped a bomb on the Trump administration just this last week. In order to understand why Judge Seeborg’s decision had such a big impact, we first have to look at two different appointed federal judges (Judge Dolly Gee and Judge Dana Sabraw) and decisions they made in the past. Judge Gee made the
“There is no way a judge should be able to unilaterally allow everyone into the country, and then be released into the public without either the President’s or Congress’s approval. The President is constitutionally allowed to stop all people from entering the country if he chooses.” decision to uphold something called the Flores Settlement, which basically states that children cannot be held at the border, and must be released to a family member in the country or a safe area in the country within 20
days. Next, Judge Dana Sabraw ruled that children and parents cannot be separated from each other, despite the fact that it’s not his job to make policy like that. From there, we can make the logical jump to the conclusion that if children must be released to the general public, and parents must go with them, then we are just essentially letting any family who comes to the border into the country. Next, a noticeable percentage these families that were just caught and released into the country end up skipping their court hearing, just like hundreds of thousands do every decade. These court rulings seemingly left President Trump with no good options on how to stop the flow of illegal immigrants. The Trump administration would not quit. They had an idea on how to make sure that children wouldn’t stay detained at the border, parents wouldn’t be separated from their kids, and we wouldn’t have to release them into the country. The Trump administration instead tried to implement a policy called the Migrant Protection Protocols which states that “certain aliens attempting to enter the U.S. illegally or without documentation… will no longer be released into the country, where they often fail to file an asylum application and/or disappear before an immigration judge can determine the merits of any claim. Instead, these aliens… will be returned to Mexico until their hearing date” (Department of Homeland Security). Unfortunately, another judge who thinks he is a legislator, Judge Richard Seeborg, decided to overturn the ruling based on… uh, I’m not sure. There is no way a judge should be able to unilaterally allow everyone into the country, and then be released into the public without either the President’s or Congress’s approval. The President is constitutionally allowed to stop all people from entering the country if he chooses. The only legal way around that would be an amendment to the Constitution, or a bill passed by Congress and signed
Vol. XXXI, Issue XI
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
“How do they think the founders intended for federal judges to have the power to do this? How do they think that the Constitution allows for this? Judicial supremacy does not exist! It’s not legal, only judicial review is. There is a difference.” into law by the President (or overridden by ⅔ of Congress). Besides those, there is no other option to overturn a constitutionally legal policy implemented by a President, not even the court’s personal opinions can do this. They are not legislators, so they cannot make laws. So at this point, the judges have made their own immigation policy consisting of taking in people trying to enter the country, keeping them at the border, releasing the kids into the country, releasing the parents with the kids to keep them together, and then hoping that they show up for their court hearings. How do they think the founders intended for federal judges to have the power to do this? How do they think that the Constitution allows for this? Judicial supremacy does not exist! It’s not legal, only judicial review is. There is a difference. Judicial review is the concept that judges can interpret the Constitution and the rule of law as it is written on the books. Judicial supremacy is the idea that judges can overrule the other branches. Federal 78, written by Alexander Hamilton explains this. He writes, “The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.” This idea comes back numerous time later in the paper, where Alexander Hamilton makes it clear that the court shall only exercise “judgement” and never “will”. This honestly means that, just as President
editor@binghamtonreview.com
ARTICLE TITLE Obama has done numerous times, President Trump should ignore or challenge these decisions, as they were not decided legally. They never had the power or authority to do this in the first place. So where does that leave President Trump now? It leaves him with: - No way to implement policy meant to stop illegal immigration thanks to those three judges, - Incentives for people to try and come here illegally AND bring their kids - A stubborn Congress who is unwilling to compromise for border security (see my article “Shutdown and Dance With Me” from earlier in the year), - A Congress unwilling to pay for better border conditions (such as beds), further forcing the releasing of illegal immigrants into the country, - A media that blames Trump for the separation policy that was started years ago and enforced by other Presidents as well, including President Obama, - And numerous other judges who think they are legislators (such as Judge William Aslup, Judge Edward Chen, and Judge Jon Tigar) who have dictated the President’s hand with no legal basis. Now President Trump is trying to work around these ridiculous over-
reaching judges once again by trying to implement a policy called “binary choice.” This policy would not allow the parents to get released into the general public, but then give the parents a choice on whether they want to keep their children detained with them, or released and separated from them by bringing them to another relative or safe area. This policy, just like the other policies talked about in this article, is legal and should be allowed to be implemented, and is certainly a better option than just universal child separation. Honestly, I would even be okay with a third option that gives them the choice to wait together in Mexico for their hearing. Now we give the parents an extremely generous amount of choice, and we don’t have to catch and release all of these people into the country. Judicial legislating and judicial overreach are two of the things that drive me crazy in American politics. If we continue to let judges act this way and try to dictate policies that the President has legitimate constitutional authority over, then we will effectively have 1,405 legislators in this country. We need Presidents who will appoint judges who know their place among the three branches and who will not overstep. This practice needs to end for proper separation of powers to be restored.
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
13
LIBTARD GUERRILLA WARFARE
Libtard Guerrilla Warfare
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
By Josephi Krakowski
T
here is a new method of attack libtards are using against conservatives on campus. As I, Josephi Krawoski, see more and more libtards invade our education, I have observed that their ways of striking against the conservative and libertarian minority have changed greatly. Upon discovering that they cannot win on the basis of facts and logic, the libtards have decided to change tactics. First, they attempted to protest and censor any and all conservative speakers. No good! Donald Trump shutdown that idea with his recent free speech executive order. Their vandalism of conservative posters and newspapers also did not work as they realized there were cameras watching their pathetic and criminal mischief. Thus, the libtards have been pushed into a corner. Their old strategies have failed. Their only option of late has been to resort to back-of-the-room libtard sniping. This guerilla warfare tactic is their newest tool with which they try to bully conservatives off of campus. Now you may be asking: “But Josephi, what is libtard sniping?” Well, in my country we have a different name for it, but in America you can call it libtard sniping. Libtard sniping is a simple practice. Whenever someone says something even slightly right leaning, the attacking libtard immediately peeks out from behind their laptop adorned with Bernie Sanders stickers and posts by Occupy-Democrats, and utters a really dickhead comment. Once they do, the conservative or libertarian instinctively turns their head to see who this individual is. After all, they need to be destroyed with facts and logic. However, the libtard tends to retreat at this point in the engagement, hiding behind their laptop screen filled with Young Turks videos. More and more in classes I find this cowardly tactic becoming the norm. Don’t get me wrong, I am not angry at what they say. I’m not a snowflake. What I am mad about is how they refuse to actually confront you. This isn’t the internet. Square up libtard. Hit me up on Xbox Live, 1v1 me, Modern Warfare 2, quickscopes only, on Rust, be sure to only use the Intervention. Face me in an actual conversation. Don’t just pick apart my appearance or religion or face from your coward corner. First off, listen, I know I look like shit. That’s a fair point to be made. I will happily take that into consideration; I’ll plop it into my suggestions box. Second, it is rude to insult my religion. Jediism is a valid form of worship, and all who insult it are clearly Sith lords attempting to destroy the Jedi Order. All hail the Supreme Jedi Council and may the Republic live on in our hearts. It is important, however, to think about how to combat this tactic. Well
14
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
I have thought of several ways to combat this meek new maneuver. The first is challenging the offending libtard to a fight, bare fists. This is definitely a classic choice as college libtards tend to have never been in a fight before. Also, these libtards tend to have never held a job in their life. On the other hand, I, Josephi Krawoski, worked stealing copper piping from abandoned houses in my home country. The only issue with this strategy is that they might run away upon realizing that you want to put up ye ole dukes. The second way to fight libtard sniping is to challenge them to a traditional duel with single shot derringers from the 1700s. You must, of course, follow the rules and properly duel from 20 paces away. Studies have shown libtards tend to pull an Alexander Hamilton and shoot up in the air, preferring their ‘honor’ to the sweet taste of victory and the potential for a first degree murder charge. That is when you, as an epic conservative, must pull an Aaron Burr and actually duel before running off to try to create an independent country. The only downside to this method is that you may perhaps be convicted of treason or murder in the process. The third method involves beating libtards with their own medicine by being a snitch like they often are, running to the nearest professor whenever they feel triggered. This method should only be a last resort as most professors will call you a bully for being right leaning. That is when you have to challenge the professor to a Black Ops match on Nuketown. Be sure to grenade spam too as they will not be able to respawn fast enough to counter such a strategy. The fourth and final method is to make fun of Steven Universe. As you surely know, the SJWs’ only religion is the worship of shitty Cartoon Network shows that push their own Kool Aid on an audience of 16-year-old girls who think that they are edgy for having color in their hair just because their mom said no to getting her ears pierced at Hot Topic where they bought all their My Chemical Romance shirts and blame all their problems on either their parents or the patriarchy. So next time you see this libtard sniping in the field, do something about it. Put Mentos in their Diet Coke when they are not looking. Paint a portrait of President Nixon over their sticker-ridden laptops. Throw old copies of Binghamton Review at them, or unsold copies of National Treasure on Blu Ray. After all, you know what they say in my country: “Titi typpið pene, pidyn guska.” Good luck, fellow epic conservatives.
Vol. XXXI, Issue XI
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
editor@binghamtonreview.com
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
15