BINGHAMTON REVIEW
P.O. BOX 6000 BINGHAMTON, NY 13902-6000 EDITOR@BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
Founded 1987 • Volume XXX, Issue VIII
Editor-in-Chief
Patrick McAuliffe Jr. Managing Editor Kayla Jimenez Copy Desk Chief Elizabeth Elliot
Business Manager Jason Caci
Social Media Shitposter Aditi Roy
Associate Editors
DOGS!
PAGE 8
by Our Staff
Adrienne Vertucci, Colin Gilmartin
5 If You Say “Happy Holidays,” You’re A Bigot by Tommy Gagliano
Editor Emeritus
6 Hocus Pocahontas
Jordan Raitses
Staff Writers
Luke Kusick, Chris DeMarco, Jordan Jardine, Tommy Gagliano, Thomas Sheremetta, Matthew Rosen
Contributors
Mayer Amschel, Pino Che
Special Thanks To:
Intercollegiate Studies Institute Collegiate Network Binghamton Review was printed by Gary Marsden We Provide the Truth. He Provides the Staples
by Jordan Jardine
7 Meet Me in the AIPAC Lobby by Mayer Amschel 10 Nine Ways My Generation Grinds My Gears by Thomas Sheremetta 11 Israel, Africa, and Poles? Oh My! by Pino Che 12 Congressional Republicans: Adapt or Perish by Max Newman 14 The Curious Case of Feminist Philosophy by Patrick McAuliffe
Departments
3 Editorial 4 Campus Presswatch
TELL US WHAT YOU THINK! Direct feedback to editor@binghamtonreview.com 2
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
Vol. XXX, Issue VIII
EDITORIAL Dear Readers,
H
From the Editor
owdy, howdy, boys and girls, better buckle up cuz this is our last issue of the semester. Time flies when you’re having fun! (And having to constantly replace your stacks from the recycling bin, but I digress.) We here at the Binghamton Review know how stressful finals can get, so to ease the slow descent into madness we’re offering our second annual Dog Issue! That’s right, we’ve got two whole pages of some wonderful puppers and floofers of our own! And, ya know, some lovely political thought and satire to go with it. If you’re just here for the dogs, though, we understand. We got some heckin’ good ones this year. I figure I should tell you what you’re in for before you go off for your fifth coffee of the day or a semi-conscious stress nap. Tom (lovingly) shits on some things wrong with our generation, and is hopefully encouraging enough to get some of y’all to change your behavior. Do it for him. Tommy turns on the satire with some alternative ways to wish someone “Happy Holidays” (shit, now I’m a bigot!). Jordan covers the Elizabeth “Pocahontas” Warren affair, and has a mixed reaction to Trump’s comments on Warren’s ancestry. Mayer Amschel exposes the vast Israel lobby with a tight grip on the American Congress, arguing that Israel has not been the most favorable American ally in return. After a long absence, Pino Che returns to writing and expresses his support for the nationalist movements in Poland, while condemning the deportations by Israel of non-racially pure Jews to African nations. I throw my hat into the ring, commenting on a recently discovered phenomenon called feminist philosophy and critiquing a feminist philosopher who argues against Rawls’ liberal egalitarianism. Finally, Max focuses on the policies of a weak and ineffective Republican Congress and hopes for them to hop on the Trump train soon, before it (and their base) leaves the station. Of course, one of the best parts of this issue is the dogs. You’ll find those on pages 8 and 9, if you didn’t stop to read the Table of Contents and instead jumped right over to the Editorial. (Aww, I’m flattered!) As we contend with our fall semester coming to a close, I want to wish a fond farewell to our Social Media Shitposter Aditi Roy. She wrote for the Review back in her freshman year of college, and jumped back on the bandwagon last year. She’ll be graduating this December, and hopes to move on to dental school. I could make a stupid joke or pull up a dank meme (she’s got great taste in memes, the best, yuge, believe me), but in seriousness the work she has done here has been invaluable to the success of the Review. You will be sorely missed, Aditi. Never gonna give you up. Never gonna let you down. And best of luck to you, dear reader, as the semester and the year comes to a close. I and the Review staff wish you the best in the coming year.
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.
Sincerely,
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
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
Written by our Staff
We know you don’t read the other campus publications, so we do it for you. Original quotes are in regular text, our responses are in bold.
“The United States Should Invest in Public Health Worldwide” Michael Harel, Pipe Dream November 29th, 2017
“Deportation Fears Lead to Tragedy” By Kara Brown, Prism November 27, 2017
“It is vital that we support public health initiatives globally in order to help those who are less fortunate than we are in the United States.” Vital? Says who? It is not our responsibility to do so. Over 100 U.S. based NGOs exist for a reason. The U.S. government has its own public health epidemics (*cough cough* the Opioid crisis) to deal with. U.S. funding needs to be domestically focused that’s vital. “It predicts that by the end of 2019, another 14 million lives will be saved, reaching a total of 36 million people — about the current population of Canada…. Trump’s proposed budget plan would actually cut funds to the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief by 17 percent, from $4.6 billion to $3.8 billion.” With all of the success of the funding, it seems less funding is needed to sustain the already established efforts. The funds will still consist of billions of dollars, and can continue to save many lives. “How can we sit idly by and worry about our finals when people are dying throughout the world from diseases that could have been prevented by the United States?” America shouldn’t have to be a global doctor for those countries incapable of providing their citizens with proper disease relief. In a perfect world, I’d love to see people around the world AIDS, HIV, and malaria-free, but that is currently u n att a i n a b l e . Therefore, I don’t see the need for taxpayer money to support taking
This article excuses a mother killing her own children… The author parallels the story of a slave and her family attempting to escape slavery to a woman and her family dealing with green card renewal. Escaping slavery and risking one’s life is in no way comparable to renewing one’s green card. “Garner… was born into slavery. In January 1856, 22-year-old Garner, her husband and their four children attempted to escape. After enjoying a couple hours of freedom, they were found by federal marshals… The idea of returning her children to bondage was more than Garner could bear. She decided to kill them instead.” Although killing one’s children can never truly be justified, one can feel sympathy for this enslaved woman and her struggles. The author goes on to explain that Kula Pelima, a “mother from Liberia who was afraid of being deported, was arrested on first-degree murder charges connected to the deaths of her 3-month-old son and her 5-year-old step son.” She excuses Pelima’s unforgivable actions by attributing them to her deportation fears: “What we do know is that she was afraid of being deported… The fear of deportation is real.” Not only was Pelima assured hours prior to the murder that she was not at stake of losing her green card, and needed only to call a hotline to find further information, but her children were born in the U.S.; they’re U.S. citizens and were far from deportation! This unstable, heartless woman killed her own baby, and there is no way Kara can dismiss this as a mother trying to protect her child. Her child would have been fine, Kara urges, “her story is a testament to the fear of deportation that agonizes immigrants daily.” Her story is no such thing.
4
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
care of others outside of the United States, so I support the funding cut in question. It’s not too far-fetched for students to be worried about finals instead of someone halfway across the globe needing help, and I don’t see you hopping on a plane going over there to treat the afflicted. “Editorial: Bus blues” By The Editorial Board, Pipe Dream November 20, 2017 “Although the Editorial Board acknowledges that this will make the buses safer when transporting students back to campus after they have spent time drinking on State Street, we are concerned for the students who will be left behind both in Downtown Binghamton and on the West Side when there isn’t enough space for everyone to board the buses. Currently, OCCT said they have no plans to run additional buses to compensate.” So they are making the buses safer for students? Great! Sounds like a good plan to me. “These students will be forced to either wait for the next bus, or find another way back to campus, which usually involves some sort of monetary expense. Of course, cabs might be available, along with ride-hailing services like Uber and Lyft, but these services should not be required.” Forced?? Required?? No one is forcing students to go downtown, get drunk, and stay out late at The Rat. It is a privilege to go downtown, and we should be grateful the school provides us with the “free” late night transportation we receive. Don’t want to wait in line for a bus? Don’t want to pay for a cab? Then don’t go downtown! It’s that simple. “Students rely on this service in terms of safety and convenience, and hundreds of students who are trying to get back to campus will need to find other ways of doing so.” :( poor babies :( “It is the University’s responsibility to transport as many students back to campus as it brings Downtown.” Umm, last time I checked, the University’s responsibility is to prove us with an education and a foundation for our future successes, not a ride home.
Vol. XXX, Issue VIII
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
IF YOU SAY “HAPPY HOLIDAYS,” YOU’RE A BIGOT
If You Say “Happy Holidays,” You’re A Bigot By Tommy Gagliano
I
t is now December, and that means the most problematic time of the year is upon us. Everything turns red and green, Christmas songs dominate the radio, and everyone assaults each other in an attempt to get the last Nintendo Switch at Walmart as the world’s largest display of Christian privilege approaches. Thankfully, the highly offensive and exclusionary phrase “Merry Christmas” has been discarded, at least by most retailers. The phrase that has replaced it, however, is just as discriminatory. If you say “Happy Holidays,” you’re a bigot, plain and simple. When you say “Happy Holidays” to someone, you are assuming their religion, which is extremely problematic. There are plenty of people out there that do not celebrate any winter holidays, and by saying “Happy Holidays” you are completely ignoring their existence and discriminating against them. Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, atheism, Sikhism, Confucianism, Scientology, Pastafarianism, Klingon religion, and fire worship are just a few faiths that do not celebrate a holiday in late December, and therefore could (and should) be offended by that phrase. The popularity that “Happy Holidays” has gained is further proof of the disgusting white privilege that is omnipresent throughout the world. It is no surprise that the phrases we use cater to Christianity and Judaism, the two whitest religions. Who cares that Christians and Jews combine to make up 72.5% of the United States population?1 It is unacceptable to feed into white privilege. We should instead focus on phrases that revolve around religions comprised primarily of people of color, such as Islam. It does not matter that Muslims make up less than 1% of the US population1. We need to actively fight against the oppression they have to deal with because of our racist, Islamophobic system.
http://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/ 1
editor@binghamtonreview.com
I have come up with a few politically correct alternatives to “Happy Holidays” to make the world a more tolerant place. First alternative: “Happy Winter.” The seasons are something that affect everyone, regardless of religion. Winter is pretty depressing because of how cold and dark it is. Because of this, “Happy Winter” is a great phrase to cheer people up, especially those that do not have to look forward to a winter holiday. Wait a minute… actually, a phrase revolving around weather and seasons may not be the best idea. I forgot that weather is racist and global warming has a greater effect on black people, and therefore they could be triggered by this phrase. Also, “Happy Winter” is discriminatory against people that live in the southern hemisphere, since December is summer for them! Oh my flying spaghetti monster, how could I be so inconsiderate? Second alternative: “Happy Day.” Instead of focusing on exclusionary holidays, why don’t we just wish everyone a happy day? It is something that applies to everyone… except the
people that live in the arctic circle! They get little-to-no sunlight in the winter. They do not experience “day” this time of year, but rather only night. Wishing them a happy day is very rude and offensive while at the same time could remind them of how depressing it is to live in darkness. Third alternative: “Happy.” Just “Happy.” Anything following “Happy” could be deemed problematic or exclusionary, so it is best to just leave it at “Happy.” But wait, what about people with extreme chronic depression that cannot feel happy? Not only could the word “happy” trigger them, you are also asking them to do something that they are incapable of doing, and that is extremely ableist. I guess we will have to throw this one away as well. Fourth alternative: “Praise Allah.” This is the perfect phrase to use to counteract the Christian and Jewish privilege that I discussed earlier. The “Christmas season” is the best time to use this phrase because it provides representation to the Muslims that are forgotten during this time of year. The other 99% of the population may be upset by this, but who cares? After all, they are privileged. Their opinions do not matter. Fifth alternative: Nothing. Just don’t say anything. When anything you say could offend someone, it is probably best to just keep your privileged mouth shut. Actually, this can go beyond December greetings as well. If we want to create a more inclusive world, we should just stop talking, that way we cannot say anything that might be considered offensive. I hope you will take this into consideration as we inch closer and closer to Christmas and Hannukah. You may feel tempted to say “Happy Holidays” to someone and think it is the polite thing to do, but remember that every time you say “Happy Holidays” you are oppressing everyone that does not celebrate a winter holiday. Don’t be a bigot.
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
5
HOCUS POCAHONTAS
Hocus Pocahontas
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
By Jordan Jardine
P
resident Trump inadvertently caused quite a stir on Monday while honoring three Native American veterans that served as “code talkers” in World War II who sent clandestine messages using obscure languages to lessen the possibility of decipherment. During a speech in which he referred to these veterans as “very, very special people,” Trump also used his speech as a platform to take an understandable and well-deserved jab at Massachusetts Democratic Senator, Elizabeth Warren. Warren is well-documented as having exploited (nonexistent) Native American ancestry in order to obtain a job and tenure as a professor at Harvard Law School prior to her political career. As it turns out, Warren’s claim of Native roots was just as phony and pretentious as her policy rhetoric has been at various points throughout her time in Washington. Donald Trump sarcastically referred to Senator Warren as “Pocahontas” in the past, but this instance was particularly notable for a few reasons. First, as I stated earlier, Trump was surrounded by three Native American war veterans. Unfortunately, Trump’s podium was placed directly under Andrew Jackson’s portrait hanging in the White House. Jackson, of course, infamously signed the Indian Removal Act in 1830, leading to the equally controversial and tragic Trail of Tears. Senator Warren’s response was exactly what one who follows news and politics with even a modicum of consistency would expect. All too predictably, Warren pulled the race card and claimed Trump was using a “racial slur” at what was intended to be a nice and special ceremony honoring war veterans. Trump has been in office for 10 months now and has barely behaved in any “presidential” way whatsoever. Why are people expecting anything different? If he hasn’t been willing to change his behavior by now, I don’t think it is reasonable or realistic to assume that he will abruptly change course and begin acting more profes-
6
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
sional, prim and proper. It’s not going to happen, especially when you consider that President Trump is the type of person who will act even less “presidential” the more the media and a majority of Congressmen on both sides of the aisle criticize him for doing so. All that aside, allow me to offer some perspective into this conversation. On one hand, there is Elizabeth Warren, who exploited a stereotype of Native American cheekbones to claim Native American ancestry in order to advance her academic career. On the other hand, there is Donald Trump, who is AGREEING with several members of the Native American community who do find it offensive that Elizabeth Warren stereotyped Native American facial features to obtain employment and tenure as a “minority” at an esteemed educational institution. In all honesty, the reaction to Trump’s faux pas from the general Native American community has been mixed, but at least some Natives actually support Trump’s comments and understand where he is coming from. My opinion on this is also mixed. One part of me understands what Trump was trying to say and I completely agree with his sentiment, which is that Elizabeth Warren is a fraud and used racism to her advantage as she has made an entire political career out of crying crocodile tears at every so-called “racist” remark made by Republicans. To be fair, Warren’s outrage has been merited in some cases of legitimate Republican racism, but oftentimes, her tearful theatrics come across as little more than a narcissistic, bitter old woman taking advantage of the American cultural trend of victimhood for political and personal gain. The other part of me acknowledges that Trump’s behavior and remarks were in poor taste, but there was at least a grain of truth and accuracy in what the president was saying. Yes, it was not the appropriate avenue for Trump to express his contempt for Warren’s past exploits, but Donald Trump is not Barack Obama.
Our Halloween costume called it! In other words, even when taking a jab at a political adversary, Obama managed to do so in a fairly eloquent and professional manner. Trump simply is not capable of demonstrating professionalism, which, for a majority of his base, is part of his overall appeal. On this specific issue, I don’t think Trump was intentionally trying to offend any Native Americans at all. I think, in his own way, he was trying to voice his disdain for Elizabeth Warren’s reckless, vile and ridiculous actions. In my humble opinion, what Senator Warren did was just as bad if not worse than the president’s comments. My reasoning is simple: I care more about actions than words, and I care about intent. Elizabeth Warren intentionally gamed the system, masquerading as a minority in order to gain employment and reap the benefits thereof at Harvard. Trump thought that Warren’s actions were disgusting, so he was trying to express his sympathy for the Native American community for being stereotyped and taken advantage of by a sitting Democratic senator. Actions speak louder than words, and Warren’s egregious and fraudulent actions are a giant scream compared to the relatively calm whisper of Trump’s ill-timed, yet unintentionally, “offensive” words. Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/27/us/ politics/trump-elizabeth-warren-pocahontas-navajo.html
Vol. XXX, Issue VIII
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
MEET ME IN THE AIPAC LOBBY
Meet Me in the AIPAC Lobby By Mayer Amschel
I
n today’s toxic political climate, it seems that everything has to be partisan. We cannot seem to agree on anything, from how many genders there are, to whether or not traps are gay (they are). According to Pew Research Center, the average political partisan gap has increased by twenty-one percentage points since 1994. Democrats and Republicans will split hairs on everything from tax reform to Civil War statues, but there is one issue that has managed to remain bipartisan through decades of polarizing presidents: the United States’ unequivocal support for Israel. Israel has been the largest recipient of U.S. foreign and economic aid since 1976, receiving over $140 billion throughout its alliance with the U.S., and continues to receive nearly one fifth of our military budget annually. It is the only U.S. aid recipient that is not held accountable for its expenses, which becomes especially problematic when it acts against U.S. interests. We have provided them with top notch military weapons despite the fact that they are the only country in the Middle East with nuclear weapons (which they have conveniently not declared). The United States’ generosity towards Israel is unmatched, but is it justified? How has Israel returned the favor? It has become our biggest liability in the War on Terror because of the myth that both the U.S. and Israel share the same terrorism interests. However, last I checked, the U.S. was not the one building illegal settlements in Palestine and Hamas was not aiming rockets at New York. Our unconditional support for Israel increases anti-Americanism in the Arab world and is a contributing factor towards terrorism against us; Israel doesn’t get attacked solely because it is an American ally. In fact, the Israelis have a history of false flag terror operations against the U.S., like the well documented Lavon affair and the sinking of the U.S.S. Liberty. The Lavon affair was a failed Israeli operation where Egyp-
editor@binghamtonreview.com
tian Jews were recruited by the Israelis to plant bombs inside civilian targets to be blamed on the Muslim Brotherhood and Egyptian Communists. The goal of this was to convince the British government to retain its troops in the Suez Canal. Luckily, that operation failed, but the sinking of the U.S.S. Liberty by the Israeli Air Force during the Six Day War resulted in the death of 34 American crew members and injured over 171 others. This was supposed to be blamed on the Egyptians to give the U.S. a reason to enter the war against Egypt, but the evidence overwhelmingly pointed towards Israel. On top of our greatest ally killing our own citizens, Israel routinely ignores requests from the U.S. to stop assassinations of Palestinian leaders and construction of illegal settlements. Out of any other ally, Israel has conducted the most aggressive espionage acts against the U.S. As recently as December 2013, Israel slyly passed over secret U.S. military technology to China. This technology had the possibility of being passed on to Iran, which bought military equipment from China the previous year. During the Cold War, Israel received large amounts of classified information which it passed on to the Soviet Union in exchange for Soviet Jews getting more exit visas.
“The United States’ generosity towards Israel is unmatched, but is it justified?” Given the ceaseless list of reasons for why unconditional support for Israel provides no benefit, how does the the U.S. get looped into supporting foreign policy decisions that benefit only Israel? The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is one of the most powerful lobbies in Congress. Every single presidential candidate last year with the exception of Bernie Sanders pandered to AIPAC as if they were running for office in the
Jewish state itself. Anyone running for office that goes against its interests can be guaranteed that AIPAC will heavily fund their opposition pro-Israel candidate. AIPAC’s severe stranglehold on Congress runs so deep that it’s not uncommon for Congress members to consult them for information before the Library of Congress. The lobby runs counter to American values and interests by silencing criticism with unwarranted labels of anti-semitism and lobbying for legislation that infringes on American’s rights’ to control their purchasing power. There are now seventeen states that have passed anti-BDS legislation condemning or outlawing these states from doing business with companies that boycott Israel. This went so far as to the city of Dickinson, Texas, where applicants for Hurricane Harvey relief funds had to put in writing that they would not participate in boycotts against Israel. Not only is this a flagrant violation of free speech rights, but also hurricane relief has nothing to do with boycotting Israel. AIPAC is essentially a foreign agent with a strong stranglehold on our government. Why does two thirds of Congress lobby on behalf of a foreign government? Would you be comfortable if Russia or Mexico or any other country had that much power over our politicians? Sure, other countries have lobbies, but none have ever been as powerful as AIPAC. If we continue to prioritize the interests of foreign nations above our own, we will never put America first. References:
http://www.people-press.org/2017/10/05/ the-partisan-divide-on-political-values-grows-even-wider/ https://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/john-mearsheimer/the-israel-lobby https://www.defensetech.org/2013/12/24/ report-israel-passes-u-s-military-technology-to-china/ http://www.jewishvirtuallibrar y.org/anti-bds-legislation https://www.aclu.org/news/texas-city-tellspeople-no-hurricane-harvey-aid-unless-theypromise-not-boycott-israel
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
7
DOGS!
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
Finals got you feeling down?
Impending gloom of the real world keeping you up at night?
Fear not! We are here to spread some holiday cheer! We at the Review, contrary to popular belief, understand and take note of the sensitivites of those around us. In this tough and tiring time of year, it is essential to take a step back and remember what truly matters in life. With that in mind, we bring you our second annual dog issue, an issue for the people (and the dogs). Enjoy these li’l cuties, some of our own, and some we found on Google Images. Take a deep breath and relax before continuing on to the rest of this issue... it’s a doozy!
8
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
Vol. XXX, Issue VIII
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
editor@binghamtonreview.com
DOGS!
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
9
NINE WAYS MY GENERATION GRINDS MY GEARS
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
Nine Ways My Generation Grinds My Gears By Thomas Sheremetta
1
Not walking in an efficient manner Firstly, I am a bit biased because I live near the city, where you walk fast or face the anger of other pedestrians. With that said, I just love when a bunch of friends walk side by side together, blocking the entire pathway for everyone else. You think these slow asses would understand the frustration they’re causing, as humans veer off the sidewalk to get past them, but the message never enters their brains. It is great when a congested area becomes a gridlock because Becky just had to stop right in the middle of the path to talk to Bobby about their math class. I know they say multi-tasking is not beneficial for us, but I think you can pull off the walk-and-talk. Finally, similarly with driving, stay on the right side of the pathway. This is not a rebellious, smashing the norm thing. Just follow what everyone else is doing you imbecile, and we can all make it to class on time. Not saying thank you We should all be grateful for the things we receive. I truly believe we all forget how lucky we are to be in such a situation as students at Binghamton or in the United States in general. Even if you disagree with this, saying thank you for things can go a long way. It not only shows that you’re appreciative of what others are doing for you, but it also shows that you are not a stuck-up leech. Becoming an animal in the bathrooms I cannot comprehend how dickish men can be in bathrooms. The bathroom should be a simple mechanism for us, do your business, flush the toilet, and wash your hands. Instead, I walk into the bathroom, and I see someone left a nasty surprise for me in the toilet. No one can tell me that they don’t have the time to flush the toilet; this must be why we have automatic flushing systems now. But, seriously, wash your hands too, no one wants your disgusting ass germs.
2
3
10
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
4
People who “don’t care” about politics These people frustrate me on a whole other level. They get angry at me for speaking my mind on politics, but then share political memes, thinking that they’re suddenly “woke” about politics. These same people also say that they are not Republican or Democrat, but down the middle. You’re not down the middle, you either lack information on politics or have no backbone to voice your true opinions. To all those who “do not care” about politics, do not make a trip to a voting center till you actually have a clue of American politics, we do not need your mindless votes. People who should stop talking but don’t Don’t get me wrong, I love to talk as much as the next guy, but there is a limit to everything. We should strive to be informative but concise, especially in discussions of topics. When you explain things for ten straight minutes no one cares about, people will be less inclined to talk to you. Do not get upset when people start to cut you off and spend their attention span somewhere else because you’re a bore, our generation already has a bad enough attention span to begin with. People who are full of themselves Confidence is important, but do not be a show-off. Believe it or not, you are not the center of the universe. In fact, any achievement that you’re boasting about, there is someone that does it better than you. Instead of acting like your shit doesn’t stink, be humble about your accomplishments. Sure, you may have friends who are as insecure as you are on the inside, but those friendships are as transparent as your need to overcompensate. No one wants to be around that. People who have backstabbing as a hobby First of all, you are a shitty friend if you are like this. I do not care how you try to justify that
5
6
your mouthing off is okay. It is not. If you have a problem with someone, grow a pair and confront them on it. Nothing will be settled by complaining about the same friends that have your back when you need it. If you find the need to talk ill of those you are supposed to create positive vibes with, then you do not deserve friends. People who unjustly disrespect their parents I totally understand if you have bad parents. I have had my fair share of that. This is why I become infuriated by those who use their parents as a punching bag who dispenses cash. Not everyone has the pleasure of having parents that want to see their children succeed, so embrace what you have. Cherish a caring family because someday you will be on your own and without the help of those who were there for you for your entire life. People who complain about all their problems constantly There is a time and place for everything. One of the main functions of being friends is the ability to listen to each other and help them through to a solution. However, these talks should happen in the correct setting. If you are the person that runs away to the corner at every social event because you are upset and expect your friends to rush over like paramedics, then you are surely mistaken. Friends can help you, but they cannot hold your hand 24/7. After all, they have other friends to deal with as well as themselves.
8
9
7
Vol. XXX, Issue VIII
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
ISRAEL, AFRICA, AND POLES? OH MY!
Israel, Africa, and Poles? Oh My! By Pino Che
A
ccording to the Times of Israel, [1] the Israeli foreign ministry spokesman Emmanuel Nahshon expressed outrage over the recent nationalist march in Poland, where 60,000 patriotic Poles took to the streets of Warsaw, vastly outnumbering the pitiful turnout of their Antifa counter-rally, to celebrate Polish Independence Day. The march, which had men holding up anti-nazi and anti-communist symbols and demanding that Poland be for God, was seen as both anti-Semitic and racist by the Israeli government which strongly condemned the march. It is interesting how this beautiful display of Nationalism on the part of the Polish people, a people decimated by both the National Socialists German Workers Party and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, is condemned by a country who exerts nationalism all of the time. Currently, Israel is the only nation that is an ethno-state. Israel’s policy has for the longest time tried to keep Israel as a Jewish nation for Jews. One can argue that Israel is trying to create a safe place for religious Jews rather than ethnic Jews; however, Netanyahu’s regime currently only gives lip service to allowing Ethiopian Jews into Israel. Yet countless Ethiopian Jews are denied citizenship which, according to Israeli law, they are entitled to. While we can only speculate on why Netanyahu and Israel denies countless Ethiopian Jews citizenship into Israel, one idea, which makes the most sense to Pino Che, is that Ethiopian Jews are African, not racial Jews. Israel wants to remain a safe haven for racial Jews, and many Jews in Israel, especially the ultra-orthodox, do not consider Ethiopian Jews as Jewish because they are African. Now how does this tie in? Does this rant about Israel being an ethno-state who breaks its own rules about citizenship for its citizens have anything to do with Poland? Israel claiming that nationalism in Poland is inherently anti-Semitic is hypocritical to say the least. Israel
editor@binghamtonreview.com
is an incredibly nationalistic nation. Jews from across the world serve in the Israeli army, wave Israeli flags and essentially pilgrimage, read: Birthright, to Israel. Israel is quite possibly the most nationalist nation on the planet. The idea that any other nation, Poland nonetheless, who has faced the evils of both communism and national socialism, having a nationalist rally is a threat to Israel is laughable. Is Israeli and Jewish nationalism a threat to all other nations? Should Polish members of the government be quick to condemn Israel whenever a rally is held there or whenever Jews around the world decide to go on Birthright to bathe in Zionism? Of course not! However, if Israel does not realize its own nonsense, nations like Poland should begin to call out Israel on its hypocrisy. Now, there is a little more to this hypocrisy. The Poles in Poland and the Polish government are very right wing; however, they are not deporting any individuals, do not have walls built to keep people out, and do not have any of the “racist and anti-Semitic” policies that Donald Trump advocates for. When we look at Israel and all of the policies that Jewish lobby groups such as the ADL rally against in America and Europe, we cannot say the same. Recently ol’ Bebe was in the news again when he stated that it is time to deport Africans. What’s even worse is that rather than sending the Africans back to their native countries, ol’ Bebe has decided to deport them to Rwanda. Luckily, they have a choice, indefinite prison sentences or deportation to Rwanda.[2] This rather harsh policy is something not even the “evil, fascist racist Donald Drumpf ” supports for illegal aliens in the United States! Yet Israel is going to decide to
get on their high horse when a nation like Poland, a heavily Catholic nation, simply wants a nation for the Poles to be Catholic and be Polish proudly. Hell, the Poles have suffered a lot as well. They went from five years of Nazi occupation to decades of Soviet control. These people were denied their religion, placed in concentration camps, starved, killed, raped and now they have pride in being who they are. They are a nation and a people that deserve to be proud. A people who even though they have gone through countless atrocities by the most evil governments ever established continued to exist and still continue to be proud of who they are. Please Israel, you of all nations should realize that it is okay to exist! Let Poles be proud of themselves and be proud of their Independence Day. Let the Poles be who they are without feeling threatened and feeling the need to attack them. The world allows Israel to be Jewish and have its Zionist nationalism, let every other nation have its own nationalism. In all honesty, it’s really not that much to ask for. Do not be hypocrites. If you do not want Poland to have nationalistic pride, why not make the first move and destroy Zionist pride? Open your borders, end birthright, and end citizenship to Jews on the basis of being Jews and become a cosmopolitan society. References:
[1] https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-protests-after-polish-nationalist-rally-calls-forjews-to-leave/ [2] http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/11/ israel-pushes-deport-asylum-seekers-rwanda-171121125548203.html
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
11
CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS: ADAPT OR PERISH
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
Congressional Republicans: Adapt or Perish By Max Newman
A
s of writing this, it has been 387 days since President Trump was elected president, and 313 days since Donald Trump was inaugurated as president. And yet, it seems like absolutely nothing has changed in today’s dumpster fire of a Republican Party. Sure, President Trump was elected on a surge of working class fury and ordinary American rage at everything Washington D.C. represents, and interestingly enough, some Democrats have finally seen the light and realize why Trump was elected. Sadly, almost all congressional Republicans still haven’t woken up to the policies, principles and reasons why 62 million Americans and 14 million Trump primary voters voted to elect Donald Trump in 2016. The Republican Party largely is still stuck in the domestic and worldview of the past, and this policy view has led candidates like John McCain, Mitt Romney, Kelly Ayotte, Mark Kirk and Ed Gillespie to failure. It is time that Republican politicians and specifically Congressional Republicans, across the country wake up and listen to the Trump wing of the Republican Party soon or else there will be dozens of pink slips handed out to congressional Republicans on Election Day 2018. When Donald Trump was inaugurated President, I still had a little sense of hope that congressional Republicans would have learned from the past election that the George Bush era of Republican politics was over. That sense of hope is now fading, and thankfully soon to be irrelevant figures like Jeb Bush, Gov. John Kasich, Gov. Susana Martinez, Rep. Carlos Curbelo, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Senator Jeff Flake and Senator Bob Corker. I had hoped that the aforementioned people would have realized that their Republican Party as they knew it was crumbling, and the Republican Party of Donald Trump, Steve Bannon, and Jeff Sessions was just beginning. Unfortunately, I was wrong.
12
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
The election of Donald Trump, even after the primaries, should have been a clear wakeup call to both the out of touch GOP establishment and the failed constitutional conservative wing of the party that populist nationalism is the future of the Republican Party electorate. Fourteen million primary voters elected an outsider who argued passionately for putting America first. He championed an ideology that emphasized strong borders, opposition to reckless free trade, putting sovereignty and independence of all nation states first, toughness against radical Islamism, and the prioritization of America above all else. President Trump’s campaign, and to a relative degree his presidency, has espoused nationalism. Trump has pledged to help “The Forgotten Men and Women of America”the working class in Middle America who have been neglected by the political establishment for far too long. It is the same Republican establishment that still foolishly believes in military interventionism to “spread democracy,” advocate for more disastrous free trade deals and outsourcing when needed and more legal immigration and more foreign workers to compete for American jobs. Repeats lines like “diversity is our strength” are like a broken record and call for even more military strength abroad. But virtue signaling politicians like Sen. Jeff Flake and turncoat Sen. Bob Corker, along with other out of touch Senators John McCain, Pat Toomey and Lindsey Graham simply don’t believe in the America First Agenda that fourteen million primary voters, the most in GOP presidential primary history, voted for. There are numerous examples that the Republican held Senate are perhaps the biggest obstructors of the America First Agenda, as it is not just Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi who deserve the blame for the lack of legislative accomplishments in 2017. Senator John McCain
in October of 2017 slammed Trump’s “half baked nationalism” and passionately defended an activist American leadership abroad, saying “We have a moral obligation to continue in our just cause, and we would bring more than shame on ourselves if we don’t. We are the custodians of those ideals at home and their champion abroad. We will not thrive in a world where our leadership and ideals are absent.” McCain said in his speech that Trump’s “half baked nationalism” belongs in the ash bin of history, but the McCain-Bush foreign policy of sending more American troops abroad simply to “spread democratic values” and act as the world’s policeman like we did in Iraq and Libya is a belief system that truly belongs in the trash bin of history. Fortunately, an increasing number of Americans now disagree with Senator McCain that America should continue to be the world’s police officer, a role that our country has filled for decades, often with disastrous consequences. Senator Jeff Flake, a continuous virtue signaler, slammed the America First Agenda that helps the Forgotten American as “backward looking, resentful and angry”. In late October, Flake also said, “It is clear at this moment that a traditional conservative, who believes in free markets, is devoted to free trade, is pro-immigration, has a narrower path to nomination in the Republican party”. Flake’s cluelessness to even think that traditional right wing candidates run on being openly pro immigration shows Flake’s coming retirement will thankfully make him, and his lemmings, has beens in the new GOP. Senator Pat Toomey on November 29, 2017, defended a DREAMer amnesty proposal to offer a path to citizenship over one million illegal immigrants, despite Toomey admitting his proposal would “lead to a flood of new illegal immigrants and their families”.
Vol. XXX, Issue VIII
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM Senator Lindsey Graham, who dared South Carolinians to vote against him because he believes in outsourcing American jobs and amnesty for up to three million illegal immigrants, is also clueless on the “America First” agenda. Not only has it been words, but it has also been actions in the Senate that have imperiled the Trump agenda. Two common sense border security bills, Kate’s Law and No Sanctuary for Criminals Act, are sitting in a dark room, collecting dust as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell refuses to schedule a hearing or vote on either bill. Both of the bills were passed in July 2017. It was McConnell who told Trump after his November 2016 election that he “didn’t want to hear anymore talk of Draining the Swamp.” This evidence shows that the Senate is clueless. Unfortunately, most of the House Republican Caucus is not much better. On the other hand, some bills have been passed by Republicans in the House of Representatives, such as the Agricultural Guestworker Act, where Republican representatives in the House Judiciary Committee makeup actually had the nerve to argue for more foreign workers. Prominent Rep. Darrell Issa defended the bill, while Democrats forcefully opposed the Agricultural Guestworker Act in committee. It was the congressional Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee instead of the Republicans who slammed the bill as “destroying American jobs,” “insulting to American workers” and warning that the bill “would flood the country with cheap labor.” Conversely, it was the Republicans who defended the need for more foreigners to come to America and work in the agriculture industry as cheap migrant labor. The October 23rd hearing showed numer-
editor@binghamtonreview.com
CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS: ADAPT OR PERISH ous Republican congressmen as being absolutely clueless to what tens of millions of Americans voted for. We deplorables did not vote for more cheap migrant labor flooding our shores so corporations can increase their bottom line and not have to pay native, American born workers. We deplorables in Middle America also did not vote for most of the Senate GOP to vote to cut Medicare for the coal miners and laid off factory workers along with Medicaid for unemployed seniors who rely on such programs corporate shill Paul Ryan wants. That is not exactly putting the Forgotten Man and Woman of Middle America first, Speaker Ryan. Very few House Republicans truly understand and advocate for the Trump agenda in every fiber of their being, and figures such as Lou Barletta, Louie Gohmert, Steve King, Mo Brooks and Marsha Blackburn are four examples of those few House Republicans who do understand Trump’s policies. Senator Mike Lee is one of the few Republican senators who realizes that Trump truly does have a strong appeal to the working class of America, who have been forgotten for decades. He also stated that the GOP needs to do more to address their needs. When President Trump summed up the movement he was leading at the 2017 Conservative Political Action Conference, he declared, “The forgotten men and women of America will be forgotten no longer. That is
the heart of this new movement and the future of the Republican Party. Global cooperation is good. But there is no such thing as a global anthem, a global currency, or a global flag. This is the United States of America that I’m representing, not the globe. There is one allegiance that unites us all, and that is to America. No matter our background, or income, or geography, we are all citizens of this blessed land. And no matter our color, or the blood, the color of the blood we bleed, it’s the same red blood of patriots.” This, in essence, is the beating heart of the Trump agenda. Trump laid out an agenda that puts America first and it is one that was voted for by 14 million people. Congressional Republicans must know that under Trump’s America First agenda the days of Bush era interventionism to “spread democracy” and police the world, the days of a Reagan era amnesty to four million illegal immigrants, and the days of George H.W. Bush’s policy of blindly putting faith in the United Nations are all over. It is time Congressional Republicans wake up and get on board not just with Trump, but more importantly with the agenda that he espouses. It is time for congressional Republicans to realize that if they do not adapt to the changing GOP, as numerous polls show “America First” policies are taking root with the Republican electorate, then those same out of touch, milquetoast Republican establishment members in Congress will need to be fired en masse and replaced. Therefore, after a disappointing first year with President Trump’s relations with Congress, it is vital that Republicans in Congress actually behave like they sit in the majority and pass an America First Agenda that voters instead of big donors want.
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
13
THE CURIOUS CASE OF FEMINIST PHILOSOPHY
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
The Curious Case of Feminist Philosophy By Author
I
never knew that such a thing existed, but this semester I was introduced to feminist philosophy. When my Introduction to Philosophy class was assigned our first feminist philosopher, Linda Alcoff, her work began with a brief defense of the necessity for feminist philosophy that Alcoff gave at a conference at Boston University in 1998. Apparently, former President of BU (heh) John Silber criticized feminist, Marxist, and postmodern philosophers for their overtly political agendas. Alcoff responded, saying that this criticism is itself a political objection to feminist philosophy instead of a philosophically grounded criticism of it. So far, at every stage in philosophy, we have examined at least one feminist philosopher to contrast with the classic ones you may find in a Philosophy 101 class. While looking at Plato, Descartes, and Hume for their epistemology (how humans gain knowledge), Alcoff added the consideration of testimonial knowledge, which allows for members of certain groups to be “epistemic authorities” in certain matters. When examining questions of morality with Mill, Singer, and Kant, Margaret Urban Walker asks metaethical questions about what counts as morality, stuck between anti-naturalism (“is” becomes what “ought” to be) and a morality that only exists in social relations between power imbalances. We discussed political theories and the meaning of justice from Hobbes, Locke, and Rawls, but Eva Feder Kittay examines the assumption of completely self-interested, unattached rational beings from the point of view of an average household and the other dependencies that exist beyond family life. Despite my silence up to this point and my attempt to understand where these given feminist philosophers are coming from, I was motivated to comment on Kittay’s critique of Rawls’ theory of justice and his assumptions about cooperation. (I will be paraphrasing and quoting from Kittay’s essay in Hypatia, vol. 10, no. 1, “Taking Dependency Seriously: The Family Medical Leave Act Considered in Light of the Social Organization of Dependency Work and Gender Equality”.) Kittay mainly seeks to argue against liberal egalitarianism - the idea that all people are equally able to make rational choices for their self-betterment (this differs from straight egalitarianism, where everyone is equal in every moral and social way). She offers a few criticisms that feminists have given, whether it is a “difference critique” (liberal egalitarianism is often measured by white middle-class men and not considerate of other races, classes, and genders) or a “dominance critique” (men have entrenched social dominance over women and can therefore ignore concerns that affect them directly). Her main critique, however, is one from dependency. She writes that “by construing society as an association of equals...equally situated in the competition for the benefits of social cooperation, one disregards the inevitable dependencies of the human condition, thereby neglecting the condition both of dependents and those who care for dependents” (10-11). And, because dependency work is often disproportionately done by women, they are au-
14
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
tomatically put at a disadvantage and cannot compete with autonomous, purely self-interested individuals. I’ve included two graphics contrasting the Rawlsian notion of liberal egalitarianism with Kittay’s critique of his assumptions about the equality of individuals. Kittay distinguish-
es between two types of dependencies: primary and secondary. Primary dependencies are necessary for some people, namely children or the very elderly. Even developmentally disabled adults can fit into this category, because they are dependent on dependency workers for survival, whether that role of caregiver is filled by a family member or by some organization. Kittay has no issue with this dependency and sees it as a necessary fact. This is contrasted with secondary dependencies, where an otherwise rationally self-interested, autonomous human being (usually a woman) fills the role of dependency worker and must therefore become dependent themselves (herself) on someone else, usually the head of a household (which is usually a man). This therefore illustrates for Kittay an oversight of dependency work, especially gendered dependency work, and the dependents whom are cared for. (This essay was published in Winter 1995, but in class we looked at some more recent data pertaining to the Second Shift; in households where the man and woman both work full-time jobs, the women consistently report spending more time on childcare and housekeeping
Vol. XXX, Issue VIII
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM activities while the men report more leisure time. Women have less time, as the data suggests, to pursue activities they actually want to do, and spend more time on familial and work-related duties than their husbands, putting themselves in a more dependent relationship to the head of the household.) Kittay’s solution is a social and political change in familial structure, with more emphasis on an equal share of household duties. And, while this change is coming to fruition (or if it does not), public support should be given to dependents and dependency workers to attempt to equalize them with their rationally self-interested, autonomous societal counterparts. I give Kittay credit for pointing out relationships grounded in reality and not a theoretical abstraction of egalitarianism. It is true that some people choose to engage in dependency work, and everyone has certain responsibilities to the people in their lives. However, when I first heard the term “feminist philosophy,” I was skeptical that these women would fall into the toxic Marxist thinking of dividing people into monolithic groups with vast differences at best and clear reasons for conflict at worst. For some of it, I was right. However, like Alcoff says, I want to critique Kittay’s philosophy and not just start off on “#feminismiscancer” like the politically-entrenched right are wont to do. Kittay mainly argues from the premise that John Rawls, famous Harvard deontologist, himself has a flawed premise in assuming the egalitarian structure that so clearly does not exist in real society. I see your premise and raise you another flawed premise (yo dawg, I heard you like premises, so we raised a premise to your premise... whatever, it’s ok. I laughed). Rawls’ assumptions are made when people within a society are in the original position, behind the veil of ignorance. Crash course on that real fast: Rawls offers a thought experiment in his book A Theory of Justice, in which he considers what people would choose for their society’s rules if they were concerned with equality and fairness. He puts the people in that society behind a “veil of ignorance,” where they
editor@binghamtonreview.com
THE CURIOUS CASE OF FEMINIST PHILOSOPHY have no recollection of who they are, what race, gender, class, or any other group they belong to, or even whether they will have a family (dependents) when coming back out from behind the veil. This is the “original position.” Rawls would then have them draft a constitution to maximize fairness in the society when the veil is lifted. He argues that, based on reciprocity in the negotiations, a fair society would choose two principles as its governing rules. 1. Everyone would have the basic liberties that anyone else would have. 2. Social and economic inequalities are permissible if (a) they are to the greatest benefit for the least advantaged, and (b) attached to offices and positions available to all under fair equality of opportunity. (Fair equali-
“If the woman in a household is in a secondary dependency with her husband..., doesn’t that turn him into his own version of a dependency worker? Doesn’t he choose that life in the first place, to be able to provide for the dependencies of his future children? Is that a bad or unjust thing, especially if his wife chooses to join him in that life?” ty of opportunity differs from formal equality of opportunity in that it seeks to give opportunities to previously marginalized groups in order to make up for past wrongdoing, while formal equality is the principle that nobody should be barred from a position or office because of factors that do not affect merit, such as race, gender, class, orientation, religion, etc.) Back to the argument at hand, now that you’re R-all(s) caught up (I’m sorry). Rawls does not assume that people are perfectly egalitarian beings before going into the original position. All of those factors that are wiped away by the veil of ignorance go into making up the inequalities and even the dependencies that Kittay is focused on. Dependents and dependency workers would not know that they were involved in dependency, but that is part of the thought experiment.
If they were not involved in dependency when they came from behind the veil, they would not care about concerns that affect those people. However, if they did come from behind the veil and found themselves involved in dependency, and if they were rationally self-interested, they would want to make sure they were taken care of. That uncertainty with regards to one’s societal position is what makes Rawls’ arguments effective. Nobody would know whether they will be in the bottom when they return from the original position, or whether they will be unable to be autonomous and self-interested, so they will want to provide for themselves if they end up part of “the least advantaged.” This divide between what happens behind the veil of ignorance and how societal resources will be actually arranged is something Kittay does not seem to notice. My graphics are resembling the ones I saw in class, and my final point is addressing Kittay’s notion of dependency based on these graphics. If the woman in a household is in a secondary dependency with her husband (partner, boyfriend, lover, whatever the kids are calling it these days), doesn’t that turn him into his own version of a dependency worker? Doesn’t he choose that life in the first place, to be able to provide for the dependencies of his future children? Is that a bad or unjust thing, especially if his wife chooses to join him in that life? One can make the argument that single mothers, or gay/lesbian couples, or any sort of non-heterosexual, two-parent household complicates that picture. Maybe this is falling right into the hands of Kittay’s “difference critique,” but a two-parent, heterosexual household with traditional gender roles has existed in human society for thousands of years; hence why they’re called “traditional” gender roles. The biology behind motherhood and care is another matter altogether, and can be addressed later. I honestly never thought I would be philosophically defending Rawls, but before offering a critique based on unequal distributions of power and autonomy of persons, one must make sure one has all of the opponent’s premises straight.
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
15