BINGHAMTON REVIEW
Business
Dear Readers,
From the Editor
Ihad imagined that this issue would be a light one, beyond our meme-y front and back covers. Most of our Halloween issues are. I might have been happy with another course of articles on silly “horrors of Binghamton life,” with this editorial being no exception.
But things can’t always be trivial. We can’t always face playful stories of the horrors hidden in the night. Sometimes, the real-world’s evil glares so brilliantly that it hurts to even look at, much less comprehend. Saturday before last, the terrorist group Hamas surprise-attacked Israel, killing more Jewish people in one day than any other since the Holocaust. As I write this, over 1,200 people have died as a result of this new war.
Binghamton University, having no shortage of Jewish and Israeli students, is uniquely affected by this horror. Last Monday’s rally saw plaintive stories of friends, relatives, and neighbors lost. Even worse were the stories of anxiety: the student who couldn’t reach his brother, or the mother who could not return to her children. As I listened, I had that awful gut-feeling when you see history—of its worst kind—playing out before you.
Although I’ve always been staunchly pro-Israel, there are others who are better equipped to treat this issue. I reached out to BUZO, on short notice, asking for an article. As the Review is non-partisan, I likewise reached out to Students for Justice in Palestine for their perspective. Assuming each passed editing and fact-checking, both voices could be heard. Of the two, only BUZO responded. You can find Dafna Horowitz’ article, explaining everything you should know about this war on page 9.
Still, there’s a topic in this war that I think easily falls to the wayside: Western academia’s excuse-making for crimes like these. If you want to hear my scream of rage at this, turn to pages 10 and 11.
Beyond the War in Israel, our campus still faces intense political strife. For Logan Blakeslee’s response to a Pipe Dream op-ed on the Abortion protest three weeks ago, turn to pages 12 and 13. In it, he gives context to Pipe Dream’s apparent hypocrisy on this campus’ free speech.
For some levity in this otherwise heavy issue, read Darina Keshtova’s about economic insights gained from studying children’s Halloween habits on page 5. Likewise, read Madeline Perez’ piece on vampires, and why we still need them, on page 6.
In international politics, consult Shayne O’Loughlin’s overview of Javier Millei, the firebrand libertarian in the upcoming Argentinian election, on page 8. For a liberal’s reflection on the most recent tumult in Congress, there’s no better than Marco Flores’ piece on Kevin McCarthy on page 14. In local politics, I’ve written up my endorsements for the D.A. and City Council races in Binghamton on page 15. Having interviewed numerous candidates for Happy Medium as the token conservative, I feel motivated to share my opinion with you.
That’s all I have for this issue. Be well, and hug your family close.
Sincerely,
Arthur O’Sullivan
Our Mission
Binghamton Review is a non-partisan, student-run news magazine 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 on campus. We stand against dogma in all of its forms, both on campus and beyond. We believe in the tenents of free expression and believe all sudents should have a voice on campus to convey their thoughts. Finally, we understand that mutual respect is a necessary component of any prosperous 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.
Advice Column
I offered to give you all life advice. These were your questions.
How do I balance midterms, writing for the world’s best magazine, and rizzing up more dames than Genghis Khan all in one week?
I don’t know. If you find a solution, tell me because I’m swimming in it.
What’s the best Halloween costume to wear on Halloweekend? Oh, youngling, I used to be an adventurer like you, and then I took an arrow in the knee (Skyrim reference I think). When I say arrow to the knee, I mean a stumble down the stairs in a frat house, hurting my ankle, during Halloween. Anyway… to answer your question, the best possible costume to drunkenly stubble around the crummy streets of Binghamton on a crisp Halloweekend is to dress like Baxter the Bearcat. Easily recognizable, sleek, sexy, and sure to get you beat up by the townies panhandling on the street.
Should I check my son’s candy for razor blades? Razor Blades?! You think that’s the issue nowadays? It’s even worse! They’re lacing your son’s mini Snickers bars with fentanyl! Just like Kim Jong Un’s personal bodyguards, you’re going to have to fall on the sword and try a piece for yourself to see if it does contain fentanyl. Also, don’t forget to see if your son’s candy contains any microchips! It happened to me, and now I’m attracted to men!
How come I always get the least candy when trick or treating? I would assume it’s the same reason that you finish last in everything besides the sex that you don’t have. It’s a skill issue.
What happened to all the fun pagan rituals?
I was not aware that we stopped ritual sacrifice… Some people have a surplus of livestock and deities to worship. I got the altar all set up.
Is it considered cheating if I was in costume? (I commit to the bit)
Only if the character you’re dressed up as is/was a dawg like that. If you’re dressed up as Mario, you may not cheat - in fact you should be sure to have your girlfriend cheat on you with a massive turtle (we all know that Peach was diggin it :( ) If you’re dressed up as McJagger, you are actually obligated to cheat.
How come the IRA didn’t have a more delicious sounding name?
Not sure. Drink an Irish Car Bomb this halloween.
Pro-Israel and Pro-Palestine protesters are fighting in the streets of New York City and it needs to stop. Any solutions? Get a Pepsi can in Kendal Jenner’s hand and deploy her into
Written by our Staff
Times Square. Like Obi Wan Kenobi from Avatar, she’s our only hope.
What’s the best way to get around downtown Binghamton during Halloweekend?
DO NOT STOP AT CROSSWALKS!
What’s the best music to play during a Halloween party? Creed’s greatest hits album “With Arms Wide Open: A Retrospective”
Tracklist:
1. My Own Prison
2. Torn
3. What’s This Life For 4. One 5. What If 6. Higher
7. With Arms Wide Open
8. Are You Ready
9. My Sacrifice 10. Bullets
11. One Last Breat
My friend is a Nihilist, how do I fix him?
There is nothing left to fix. Your friend is a shell of his past self. It’s funny you even consider him a friend. Finish the job and kill the man. It’s what he wants. Take the plastic spork you got from Taco Bell and OJ Simpson his ass! Then he turned into a ghost!
How do I not get gaslighted by a stupid friend? I am the stupid friend.
Continue to be gaslighted until you become mentally disturbed enough to listen to that tracklist up above?
How to make a pumpkin helmet?
Go to walmart then pick up pumpkins and a carving set both can be bought together for about $10. Then go to olive garden and eat the $15 unlimited pasta and soup for as much as you can and then go back to your room and start carving the pumpkin first, circle the bottom with a marker and carefully carve the bottom out and throw it away as you will be wearing it. Remove the innards and then clean the inside, then put it on your head.
Need life advice? Email manager@binghamtonreview.com for more wacky, quirky, and zany responses.
Halloween Economics
By Darina Keshtova
Every year, millions of people in the United States have fun on Halloween. This month is special not only for children and their parents, but also for economists who study trends in the consumer goods market. Preparing for this holiday is a high priority for many, and in the run-up to All Saints’ Day, people purchase themed costumes, decorations, gifts, and—of course— candy, all to organize themed events for themselves and their friends. Thanks to the variety of experiments conducted by researchers, I can share how Halloween can be used to study economic behaviors.
A particularly convenient factor in these experiments is the sincerity of children, who are often not subject to external influences in such situations. Through them, researchers have drawn many conclusions. For example, they have partially uncovered why people sometimes make irrational decisions, why free things are so tempting to purchase, in what situations people are ready to make a choice towards something new or unknown, and in what environment people can change their preferences and views.
About a century ago, during Halloween, two scientists, Daniel Reed and George Loewenstein, conducted a Halloween-themed experiment, with children as their subjects. They wanted to understand how people select products when they need to purchase many things at once, and they have the means to do so. It turned out that when children had the opportunity to choose only one thing, they usually took the candy they liked best. But if they could take more treats, they often chose different types, even if it wasn’t always their exact favorite.
This case demonstrates “naive diversification,” the concept or strategy which involves the investor simply investing in a range of different assets, hoping that thanks to the dispersion of resources, the risks decrease. Even though the experiment was done with candy, the results were analogized
to investing. Sometimes, investors randomly allocate their investments among different stocks, before reconsidering their picks and making more economically sound choices. Thus, the “naive diversification” affects the committing person more at the time of purchase than in the future, when they see the consequences of their actions and can change their course.
These could be used to analyze financial behavior. Children, when choosing two treats at once, put both of them into one bag without considering their qualities. This demonstrates the importance of not only the selection of assets, but also the composition of the portfolio. American economists Richard Thaler and Shlomo Benartzi noticed similar behavioral tendencies to the process of decision-making of private investors and examined them in their study “Naive diversification strategies in defined contribution savings plans.” Similar to “trick-or-treat”ing children, investors, when they buy several different types of stocks in one day, often do so without rigorous calculation, usually purchasing each share in equal quantities. What’s interesting is that this “naive diversification” effect occurs primarily at the moment a purchase is made. Later, people reconsider their choices, distributing their assets more wisely. It’s important to remember that when we decide how to allocate our resources, whether it’s Halloween candy or stocks, we sometimes don’t act very logically. The effect of “naive diversification” has an impact on us, especially at the moment of decision-making.
Another interesting Halloween study was described in the 2008 book Predictably Irrational. In it, Dan Ariely, a Professor of Behavioral Economics at Duke University, studied how differently people perceive things they receive for free. It turns out that when we obtain something at no cost, we begin to consider it especially valuable, even if other options are more profitable and beneficial. In this
Halloween experiment, children were given three Hershey’s Kisses and then were invited to participate in a game where they could trade them. In the first group of children, they could receive a small Snickers bar in exchange for two candies, and a large Snickers bar in exchange for three candies. Almost all the group members chose the larger Snickers, which made economic sense: the latter contained more chocolate by volume. But in the second group, the children could get a small Snickers completely free, in addition to their three candies, or take a large Snickers. And what did they choose? The vast majority of children preferred the small “free” Snickers, even though the large one still had objectively more candy.
This behavior has also been observed in adults, whose actions while participating in similar studies led to the same conclusions. If both options cost money, people usually make a logical choice and choose whichever is better, but when one of the options is free, everything changes. The magic of the word “free” makes people overestimate the value of the offer; it generates such strong emotions that they are willing to overpay—or even refuse a “better” option—just for the feeling of getting something for free. In other words, offers like these make us irrational due to our lust for “free” things.
The experiments and their results once again demonstrate how taking a unique perspective on something ordinary and familiar, such as “trick-ortreating” during Halloween, helps us discover connections that contribute to our understanding of economics and its agents. Just like kids navigating their way through the neighborhood in search of the sweetest candy, investors often venture into the financial landscape with the same sense of adventure and a bag full of “naive” intentions. Such an approach makes studying economics not only informative but entertaining and, consequently, more wide-spread and accessible.
Why We Need to Bring Back Vampires
By Madeline Perez
When
I was 7, I wrote and illustrated a “book” about vampires. I know this because I was so proud of my book. In the post-coital haze of my creation, I thought other people would not believe a 7-year-old could possibly have written it, so I put my full name and age on the front in colored pencil. I love vampires. I love their cool teeth. I love vague Catholic gesturing. But this article isn’t about what I love. It’s about what I hate, and I hate what we as a culture have done to the vampire archetype: used and abused for decades, wrung this way and that, only to be discarded in disgust like when you sneeze into a tissue and you realize you must be sick because green came out (and yes, it did dance because you put a little boogie in it).
We have witnessed the rise and fall of many in the horror subtype empire. Think back to the Zombie Craze (an apocalypse, if you will) from the late 2000s to the early 2010s… which is a fancy way of saying 7 solid years of virologist representation and 14-year-old girls fangirling over Norman Reedus’s “Daryl” even though he didn’t exist in the comics and is literally a Mary Sue (JK don’t send me death threats). All at once we had World War Z, I am Legend, and who could forget The Walking Dead and the communal experience we all felt watching something amazing die very, very slowly over the course of 12 years. (Dear 28 Days Later, you don’t fit into my time frame generalization, but you’re my favorite child.)
of? Um, I don’t know, maybe the fact that the first iPhone just came out and there was an underlying discomfort that the youth would forgo autonomy in lieu of becoming mindless drones who can’t stop playing Flappy Bird? Also, consumerism. Also, the fear of an upcoming global pandemic that would propel us into “unprecedented times,” which was a little too ‘on the money’ for my tastes. (I would be remiss not to mention the Planet of the Apes Reboot, Rise of the Planet of the Apes, which also played on collective fears of a viral pandemic during the same period the zombie movies were peaking. This is reminiscent of how the original 1968 Planet of the Apes played on collective fears of nuclear annihilation, a conflict respectively relevant to that decade.
(YOU MANIACS! YOU BLEW IT UP! God damn you. GOD DAMN YOU ALL TO HELL!) But I’m not actually here to talk about zombies, though my Walking Dead Comic Analysis will eventually be written on the subway walls (and tenement halls). Let’s get back to the program.
There are tons of movies I haven’t seen that I’m sure you’re screaming at me through this article, but frankly, I can’t hear you. What’s important is that, like how zombies were used to reflect fears of losing one’s intellectual identity, vampires have been historically used to reflect fears of losing one’s humanity and giving in to “overindulgence.” For those of you who haven’t gotten it yet, that’s why vampires hate the sign of the cross, charity, and Joan Osborne’s sentiment, “What if God were one of us?” This also explains why Vampires going from “scary” to being “smexy” (comparative: smexier, superlative smexiest) (colloquial, slang) was not only trendy, it was the natural progression of their character.
“I
want to so bad… but I can’t, or else God will be mad at me… does this make me a monster?”
You have to ask, when we feared zombies, what were we really scared
Okay, so what the hell does any of this mean? Long story short, if you want to know what a country fears, look into their horror; the plot of Godzilla doesn’t just walk out of the ocean, it drops on you like some sort of nuclear bomb. Vampires used to carry much more cultural weight and I’d argue that we saw our most popular “vampires as horror” movies during the late 80’s, early 90’s, with The Lost Boys, Bram Stoker’s Dracula, and, of course, Interview with a Vampire
I can’t begin to highlight all the similarities. Struggling to resist biting (penetrating) someone’s neck(...) and risking releasing your “venom,” which would lead to some permanent consequence that would simply be disastrous for the bitee.
Speaking of vampires being smexy, let’s unpack the Twilight series. In 2008, the first movie hit theaters and there was a huge cultural shift resulting in the deaths of millions, I think. Very quickly, vampires as a concept were not taken seriously at all. This is often a trend when preteen girls commit the crime of “liking things.” Not even a year later, The
Vampire Diaries premiered and, while not nearly as influential as Twilight, still gets props for jumping on that bandwagon. The “overindulgence” of vampires, so long a wealth and class allegory, was now the perfect template for a strained premarital sex metaphor: “I want to so bad… but I can’t, or else God will be mad at me… does this make me a monster?” I can’t begin to highlight all the similarities. Struggling to resist biting (penetrating) someone’s neck(...) and risking releasing your “venom,” which would lead to some permanent consequence that would simply be disastrous for the bitee. But that risk is exciting, isn’t it? (I’m sincerely asking, I was too busy re-reading Twilight to do any normal teenage shit). (Also, biting necks is already a sexual thing, sorry if I’m the first person to tell you.) Sooo… that brings us to around the mid-2010s. Vampires are now widely hated for being sparkly and having brooding teenage horny angst. And what do you do when something is widely hated…? That’s right, you make fun of it. And this was during some of the golden age of parody content, mind you. (Do you have any idea just how many Call Me Maybe parody songs were on YouTube in 2012? DO YOU??) Parody movies came out, books were published, MAD was going HAM with Twigh School Musical and The Big Fang Theory, and “still a
When the victims of your movie are hateable rich people, it stops being scary and is instead satisfying, which is just great for the black comedy genre,
better love story than Twilight” was captioned in impact font on every picture of OJ Simpson and his exwife. Finally, in 2014, the What We Do in the Shadows mockumentary was released and really solidified the idea that vampires were no longer scary or sexy, they were now a joke. Even years later, when Morbius kept trying to come out of the serious-vampire-movie closet, everyone kept taunting “It’s Morbin’ time,” until the movie was delayed 6 times! Shame on you! (This may be false information as reviewed by many fact-checkers.) In one last ball-check to the vampire genre, the horror-comedy Renfield came out half a year ago and was neither a horror nor comedy. It just was. With no more monsters to be taken seriously, where has that left the horror and thriller genres? Well, it’s suffering, to say the least. And let me be clear, I am talking mainly about horror that’s been popular in America, as a lot of Asian horror remains at the top of the game even in recent years, with Incantation and The Call to name a few goodies. Sure, there are good movies that come out here and there, but where is the cultural shifter? The most wellknown horror movies of the last decade do not deal with monsters, they deal with concepts instead. The Babadook is a metaphor for dealing with grief and depression. (Also, he’s gay?) It Follows is a metaphor for dealing with sexual assault. And those are both almost 10 years old at this point. The best recent horror movie I can think of was Smile, and again, another monster made from a thinly-veiled metaphor for mental illness. (Not that there’s anything wrong with that. Right now society would like to talk about mental health instead of creating a monster that’s scary in its own sense.) Get Out is probably the most popular recent psychological horror I can name. Again, the “monster” is a concept, but this time the concept is more nuanced than just “dealing with mental illness is scary.” Themes
of racism, control, and manipulation under the veil of benevolence were explored in just an incredible way. Faster than you can say “class conflict”, social issues were at the forefront of horror once again as Parasite became intensely popular. One pandemic later, and we cannot stop the flow of horror movies whose main concern is to satirize the rich, but there is one huge problem. When the victims of your movie are hateable rich people, it stops being scary and is instead satisfying, which is just great for the black comedy genre, I’m happy for her, but isn’t really adding anything to help the horror genre grow. How am I seriously supposed to identify with the terror of The Menu when I don’t even have a yacht? If only there was a way to combine class struggle and horror!!
That’s right! Full circle babey!! There IS a way to combine class struggle and horror! Think of those overindulgent yuppies doing coke off their Teslas, literally sucking the life out of the lower class. Those self-image-obsessed women with their small, rat-like dogs, seemingly only concerned with preserving their youth. Think of those huge, castle-like mansions–the men, rotting away doing no labor, hoarding their wealth! Old money! Pale skin! The abuse of virgins! (That one is a little too real.) For centuries, the vampire was a metaphor for injustice and exploitation, and now, in the POSTCOVID SOCIAL RIPTIDE that is capitalism critique, no one wants to talk about vampires! Except me, right now!
Who is Javier Milei?
By Shayne O’Loughlin
On August 13th, 2023, Argentines across the country attended their nearest polling station to vote in their primary elections. These primaries narrow down candidates on the ballot to those with over 1.5% of the vote in the general election to take place October 22nd. Among the candidates were showings of the establishment coalitions: on the left, the Peronist “Unión por la Patria,” and on the right, the “Juntos por el Cambio”. Uniquely, this election also featured a showing from one of the many young coalitions occupying the spirits of dissatisfied Argentines, “La Libertad Avanza”. Their candidate, 52-year-old Javier Milei, made waves when he won 30% of the popular vote, outperforming each establishment candidate by millions (UP received 21.4% and JxC 17%). Who is this dark horse of Argentinian politics, and what does he advocate?
Under the affectionate nickname el Peluca (“The Wig”), economist Javier Milei seems like a character in all aspects of his life. As a young adult, he played soccer at a semi-professional level as goalkeeper and was a musician in a Rolling Stones cover band. He is a devout Catholic and a former tantric sex instructor who preaches “free love”. He even cloned his deceased English Mastiff, Conan, into six separate dogs, whom he refers to as his “sons’’. He named four of the six dogs after some of his favorite economists like Milton Friedman and Murray Rothbard. He claims that he and Conan met 2,000 years ago in the Colosseum in Rome, him as a gladiator and Conan as a lion. He believes he can communicate with the dead, and has apparently had dialogues with the likes of his dearly departed Conan, Ayn Rand, Rothbard, and God. Needless to say, his eccentricities give Milei a sort of cult of personality among his fans, and an easy means of derision among his enemies.
Milei stands as the leader of both the Argentinian Libertarian Party and its greater coalition “La Libertad Avanza”. In 2021, he became the first member of the coalition to break into Congress as a Deputy representing the city of Buenos Aires. As per his political promise, since his victory, he has refused to vote for any tax increases on the Congress floor.
To describe his beliefs, Javier Milei has used many terms in the past that basically refer to the same general political philosophy. These terms include “libertarian liberal” or “classical liberal” (as opposed to liberalism’s use in modern American parlance), “philosophical market anarchist”, “philosophical anarcho-capitalist”, or “paleolibertarian” but with the distinction of being a “short-term minarchist”. For the uninitiated, these terms sound like an indigestible stew, but essentially they’re all synonymous with each other: above all else, Javier Milei believes that everyone deserves equal respect for their “project of life,” free from government coercion to its fullest extent. As such, he advocates for the “Non-Aggression Principle,” a libertarian concept which proscribes the use of force against others and their property.
In practice, Milei supports massive privatization of industries, “dollarizing” the economy, extensive tax cuts, legalizing drugs and prostitution, giving citizens the right to bear arms or
sell their organs legally, and reducing corruption by minimizing government bureaucracy. He has expressed his interest in immediately closing down the Ministry of Women, Genders, and Diversity, which he called a “Cultural Marxist administration.” Some criticism has been levied against Milei among libertarians over his fervency to ban abortion completely within Argentina. This ties into Milei’s belief in life as a binary continuum from conception to death, to which he calls all premature cessation at the hands of another “murder.” Despite his identification as Catholic, he has been critical of the current Pope for abetting Communist regimes, which he regards as unchristian and evil.
A major part of Milei’s meteoric rise has been his abundant his interviews and debates on public television. While few of these segments have aired in English, various YouTube channels like “Milei in English” have uploaded clips of Milei’s thoughts on topics such as socialism, cultural degradation, and taxation with English subtitles. It’s easy to see why his iconoclastic takes have garnered him a large following among young people, as well. These clips display Milei not only making arguments against his detractors, but also imbuing it with his own brand of pathos. This appeal to the average citizen has made him become labeled as a “populist” and “far-right” “ultra-conservative” in a similar vein to Trump and Bolsonaro by the English-speaking media, who otherwise seems unsure of what to make of him.
Milei’s prominence in the English-speaking world only grows over time, however. His interview with Tucker Carlson has been viewed over 420 million times on X as of the writing of this article, with 300 million of those views happening within the first 24 hours of its release. This makes it Carlson’s most successful episode yet.
Milei’s victory in the October 22nd general election may seem imminent, but it won’t be without its challenges. Despite recent polling data suggesting that “La Libertad Avanza” is 8 points ahead of their competition, this likely won’t be enough to ensure victory in the first round. Argentinian general elections work so that if a candidate cannot secure at least 45% of the vote or 40% of the vote with a 10% lead in the first round, then a second round will take place with the top two candidates. If this were to happen, the runoff election would take place on November 19th. While chances look promising for Milei, remember that in politics, the situation can change very quickly. The influence of Javier Milei on global politics and the efficacy of his policies may cause a shockwave, particularly among the Latin American world. If his policies of liberalization and dollarization are unsuccessful, they may doom libertarian politics in Latin America for years, even decades. Remember that no matter the quality of a policy on paper, its implementation is just as important, and much easier to blunder. However, if they are successful, it may encourage a new wave of libertarian politicians to throw their hat in the ring in response to the seemingly endless wave of failed socialist policies that have been plaguing Latin America for well over a century.
Denouncing Terrorism is The Bare Minimum
On October 7th 2023, the internationally recognized terrorist group Hamas, invaded Israel, brutally attacking homes, families, individuals and IDF military bases. Among those who have been murdered or taken as hostages include citizens of the United States, Ukraine, Russia, France, Britain, Ireland, Austria, Germany, Thailand, Tanzania, Nepal, Peru, Philippines, Argentina, Paraguay, Colombia, Mexico, China, Canada, Brazil, Italy, Cambodia, and Sri Lanka.
Hamas has publicized these atrocities as a means of propaganda and psychological warfare. This means that every person who has seen an image or a video publicized or filmed by Hamas has been terrorized by this war.
Hamas attacked Israel on Simchat Torah. A very joyous Jewish holiday, it is the Jewish celebration of finishing the cycle of Torah readings. 50 years and one day before this invasion, Egypt similarly attacked Israel. This was on Yom Kippur, another important Jewish holiday.
Unfortunately, Israel has faced attacks like this since the UN declared approval of the proposed two state solution in 1948. Palestinians did not approve of sharing the land with Israel, and attacked. This resulted in Israel winning the Independence Day War. Yet Israel was unprepared for this invasion, perhaps due to the current Israeli government’s focus on territories in the West Bank and other internal affairs, and their lack of focus on Gaza. This attack is seen as a failure of the Israeli government and the Israeli Defence Force.
As a Jewish Israeli-American, I can say that this war has shaken me to my core. I never expected to witness such heinous attacks on the Israeli people in my lifetime. However, I can’t say that I am surprised. I can not say that I’m shocked that Hamas can be so evil. I grew up understanding that the Jewish people have never been safe. No matter if they were in Israel, America, Libya, Morocco, Germany, Russia; no matter if it was the twenty-first century or 586 BC. However, this is the first time I have seen so many news outlets stand with Israel. This is the first time I have seen so many people fight against organizations, and college students who have denounced Israel. However, it’s not enough.
It’s not enough to denounce Hamas and their terrorism. To do this is the bare minimum. I believe that the world needs to start supporting Israel in a way we have never seen before.
On Thursday, October 12, there was an SJP protest against Israel on the Binghamton campus. There was a call to denounce terrorism, followed by a call to support and bring about an Intifada in Israel. This saw cheers and applause. I question how many students on campus know what an “Intifada” means for Israel. It would mean hundreds and thousands of people in Israel murdered by stabbings and shootings and bombings. It means aiding Hamas to terrorize the state of Israel, and everyone within it. It means that once they’re done terrorizing and killing everyone in Israel they will want to terrorize and murder everyone around the world.
Hamas did not check the nationalities of the people they murdered and took hostage. They do not care that their own peo-
By Dafna Horowitz
ple have died. This attack has harmed the lives of innocent Palestinians. This, again, is not surprising. I remember the first time I learned that Hamas uses schools and children as human shields. I pictured thousands of little kids just like me being put on the roof of my school, waiting for a bomb to hit them. Many like to deny this fact, or try to talk around it. However, the UN has confirmed this to be true: Palestinian authorities use schools and hospitals as human shields. They ensure that civilians are unsafe and to postpone attacks from the IDF. The IDF tries to avoid hitting schools and hospitals, and they warn civilians of their attacks in order to save them. Hamas, meanwhile, encourages Palestinian civilians to stay within Gaza and not escape. When Israel sends ambulances into Gaza they are sent back out. Hamas doesn’t care about the wellbeing of their people. Hamas doesn’t care about the wellbeing of anyone.
Regardless of anyone’s opinions of Israel there is no justifying or excusing the terrorism that occurred this past weekend. This is not the time to advocate against Israel or advocate for “decolonization.” In the SJP protest on Thursday there was a motion supporting resistance “by any means necessary.” There is no excuse for supporting any form of violence on this level. This war is not an excuse to advocate for anti-Zionist ideals. By agreeing with, or excusing this violence and blaming Israel for this war, you are aiding and supporting Hamas.
This war is about real people. On Monday night, all the Jewish organizations on campus came together to hold a vigil in honor of those who have been murdered, gone missing, and those fighting to protect everyone under attack. The vigil included an open forum in which students were able to share anything they wanted with the support of the community. An Israeli mother approached the stage. She explained to the crowd that she had come to Binghamton before the weekend to visit her father. She looked out on the crowd and told them of her three children she had left with her husband, who was redrafted into the army. She left her children behind. Three kids who don’t know when they will see their mother again. If they will see their father again. And that is only one story.
This war has been so heartbreaking because of the sheer loss of innocent lives: both Palestinian and Israeli. The amount of people quick to denounce terrorism while aiding the perpetuation of a terrorist organization—the perpetuation of ignorance is likewise heartbreaking.
I only hope that this will lead people to understand that Israel is in need of support. Innocent lives of all peoples are threatened. Israel will need to strike back against Hamas decisively in order to protect these innocent lives. The way to support those who have died, and those in danger is to support Israel as they fight Hamas. The right thing is to support and stand with Israel. Understand that Israel is the country fighting to protect innocent lives. Please have compassion for anyone upset by the situation and come together in support of one another, and in support of Israel.
Western Academia On Israel: What Could Go Wrong?
Hamas’ assault on Israel is a gut-wrenching historical turn. There can be no excuse, no equivocation, and certainly no euphemism for it. The sentence “The most Jews have been killed in a single day since the end of the Holocaust.” should not spark anything other than rage in the one reading it. Only the worst specimens of our fallen human race would defend—or worse— celebrate the massacres of the past two weeks. Still, that’s what we see. But surely, in this trying time, there is a light of hope to which mankind can look, and guide us through the darkness. No not the hope of two thousand years: to be a free people in the land of Zion. That’s silly. Our only real hope can be found in the western academic.
Academics, you have to understand, are so much smarter and better than we are. These brilliant minds have made profound breakthroughs in the world of postmodern ethics, “decolonization studies,” and all manner of relevant inquiries into the hardest issues facing our world. Surely academics, in their infinite wisdom, will lead the way in condemning the slaughter of innocents, understanding why it happened, and how to prevent this ever happening again, right?
Let me just open Twitter and see what they’re say- OH MY GOODNESS!
Laurence Tribe, Professor Emeritus of Law at Harvard University, accuses Prime Minister Netanyahu of instigating the war for political purposes.
Alqasiya, author of “Decolonial Queering in Palestine” and a Marie Curie Global Fellow at Ca’ Foscari University of Ven-
By Arthur O’Sullivan
ice, Columbia University, and the London School of Economics, euphemizes Hamas’ assault on Israel as “decolonization.”
Bikrum Gill, Assistant Professor of Political Science at Virginia Tech, describes news reporting on Hamas as “racist dehumanizing propaganda,” intended for “genocide.”
academics for their
Uahikea Malie, an Assistant Professor of Indigenous Politics at the University of Toronto, exhorts his fellow “Lāhui” to support “decolonization” in Palestine.
Walaa
Cinthya Martinez, a postdoctoral fellow at UC Santa Cruz, calls out fellow
“hypocrisy” on U.S. Immigration and Palestine.
Zareena Grewal, an Assistant Professor of American Studies and Religious Studies at Yale, makes the “not hard” distinction between the murder of civilians and of “settlers.”
Twenty-seven “Harvard Palestine Solidarity Groups” entirely blame Israel’s “apartheid regime” for Hamas’ terror attacks, calling on Harvard to “stop the ongoing annihilation of Palestinians.” The nature and scope of Hamas’ murders go completely unmentioned.
Nothing to see here, I guess. Academia’s just “batting a thousand” like it always does. Surely you wouldn’t want to be a rube, and question these Ivy Leaguers and P. H. D.s on the basis of common sense? You couldn’t just say “murdering and raping civilians is wrong.” Are you stupid or something? Just let these smart people—these self-proclaimed “experts”—do the hard thinking for you. After all, haven’t you considered that Israel did bad things too?!
Have I made my point yet? These are the people who take every opportunity to assert their intellectual and moral superiority over you. These are the vanguard of the view—popular among the left, especially on Twitter—that the only evil in the world comes from power differentials. Therefore, when the weaker party does something unjust to the stronger, it is still (somehow) the stronger’s fault. Thus, the western academic is ever able to write these tweets, posts, and articles in good conscience. I would call them lunatics, but people bellowing obscenities at the moon would probably have more credibility than these tweeters.
Every day ending in “y,” professors like these attempt to inculcate this deranged worldview in their students, some of whom lap it up like dogs. Whether it’s through snide non-sequiturs, epistemological assaults on reality (sorry, “alternative ‘ways of knowing’”), or an overbearing culture of nonsense jargon about “decolonization,” “equity,” “positionality” et fucking cetera, these armchair revolutionaries never stop muddying the waters of our “discourse.” Where does this lead us? Evidently, it’s “postcolonial” professors justifying moral atrocities, if not outright ignoring them.
What’s going to happen to these professors? I sincerely want to know. I know that the semi-anonymous “Harvard Pal-
estine Solidarity” group leaders face possible blacklisting, but is that fair? I typically disagree with ostracizing or firing people over political views, but do these same people care? I likewise believe that Hamas’ invasion goes beyond just “political views,” but this line of reasoning has been abused before. Myriad articles, in this publication and beyond, have detailed unfair restrictions on freedom of expression in academia, often launched by professors and student-radicals in departments like these. Yet why have these specific ‘intellectuals’ received a free pass? Why do they feel secure in euphemizing atrocity while so many other students and professors self-censor their (likely far less radical) views?
It should be clear that academia has a problem, especially when it comes to Israel. Whether it’s rank anti-semitism, a positive feedback loop of leftism, or some other deranging factor causing this is up for debate. Yet so long as these academics and elite students are nestled in high positions like Harvard, Yale, D.C. think-tanks and beyond, it will be difficult to address the problem fairly. There are no good solutions that get rid of these insane agitators, while alleviating self-censorship, and still respecting free speech. The goals seem to conflict with one other.
As I see it, there are two options for a fair system:
1. Do not ‘cancel’ these professors and students. Let them express their views, however insane they are, while only reacting with civility. At the same time, allow all other insane ideas—left and right—to similarly pervade academia, in the name of free speech.
2. Fire these professors (or put them on extended leave), and blacklist these student-radicals, same as for other expressions of controversial ideas. Declare a semi-arbitrary limit to “free speech,” and apply it equally to all faculty and students. The cost to freedom will be counterbalanced by increasing respect and trust for the academy.
Neither of these sit well with me, though “gun-to-my-head,” I’m a little more inclined to the latter (though this could be my anger speaking). I will expand more on this in a future article about “Academic Freedom,” its abuses, and how we ended up here.
As things stand, however, contemporary academic culture has allowed for these unconscionable ideas and rhetoric to flourish, without any appropriate checks. Both systems which I proposed are imperfect, but “fair.” The rules are, in principle, applied equally. If you have a better idea for a fair system—one that allows freedom of speech while disincentivizing these insane ideas—please let me know, or write for us in the next article.
All this to say: for right now, these academics could be ostracized or even fired, and I wouldn’t lose a wink of sleep over it.
You might call the atrocity-justifying students and professors “bad apples,” but this only evinces the problem. “One bad apple spoils the bunch,” after all, and this “bunch” looks pretty spoiled. I call on every “pro-Palestine” activist, whether academic or lay, to look hard at themselves and their movement, and set a firm boundary for what is acceptable and not. Without it, they will always suffer situations like these.
“Baxter Devouring His Son”
By Logan Blakeslee
Much has been spoken and written about the clash between pro-life and pro-choice students at Binghamton University on September 18, 2023. It was the first big campus controversy of the semester and one that will be remembered for a terrible, disgusting reason. I will address that reason shortly. Before that, I will say that Binghamton University cannot claim that it is sending its best and brightest out into the world when its students condone illegal behavior in response to speech with which they disagree. Second, the Pyrrhic victory claimed by the Binghamton Abortion Advocacy Coalition has exposed everything that is wrong with political “activism” at colleges all over the United States.
I have reserved more verbal venom for the leading editors of Pipe Dream than I could ever inflict on the protesters who stole and swallowed silicone fetal development model(s) from Students for Life and College Republicans. I find it easier to forgive, or at least comprehend, radical action taken by people who have been conditioned to carry it out. Those who stand on the sidelines and cheer it on are more deserving of criticism, having neither the temerity to stand up for their convictions nor the empathy to recognize the plight of crime victims whose only flaw was their opinion.
The recent editorial article “Protest is a right, abortion should be too” which was published on October 5 is full of logical inconsistencies and it skirts around the core issue completely; Pipe Dream throws itself behind student demonstrations when they align with the greater interests of the Democratic Party, but never offer the same consideration to right-leaning students.
For example, let’s rewind the clock to another op-ed piece from October 25, 2022. “Hateful rhetoric has no place on college campuses,” reads the headline. It was all well and good to hold former B.U. College Republicans president Jon Lizak accountable for his actions on January 6, 2021, but the article described progun signs and imagery as “inflammatory” and “offensive” and offered us this gem of a sentence: “Along with the College Republicans, TPUSA had held a joint tabling event in which the line between free speech and hate speech was brought into question.” In what world is pro-Second Amendment imagery considered hate speech?
In Pipe Dream’s world, the meaning of hate speech boils down to whatever ideological progressives find objectionable. This raises the question, can hate speech exist without attacking a demographic of people? The pro-gun posters and fliers that were referenced in the article never alluded to racial/ethnic groups, gender identities, sexual orientations, nor any other category to which a person can belong. Those with common sense are quick to recognize that people of all colors and creeds have their own respective gun ownership associations across the country. Our Bill of Rights is not a document of hatred.
The same article proves
A pro-choice protester consumes a silicone fetus (artistic recreation).
similarly thoughtless in its description of former B.U. Professor Ana Candela’s policy of “progressive stacking.” In it, students who were deemed “less marginalized” had an unequal ability to speak in class. The publication’s critique of Campus Reform for exposing political bias in academia serves as a smokescreen which protects the bad behavior of professors and TAs who enforce unlawful educational policies. It is hardly “unprofessional” to share the names and publicly-available information of university faculty when they violate rules that the rest of us are expected to follow, especially when it pertains to Title IX. Prof. Candela certainly had good intentions with her syllabus, more than enough to pave the way to perdition, yet benevolence does not excuse discrimination.
I actually agree in part with another old opinion piece from Pipe Dream, which is titled “Free speech should not be used to push a political agenda,” from October 15, 2020. There is a good snippet that, in principle, no conservative would find problematic. It reads: “We often overlook the reality that with freedom comes the responsibility of how we use our freedoms, and the associated consequences of our actions. Thus, whenever we express ourselves, particularly when expressing unpopular opinions, we must likewise be prepared to own up to the consequences of our actions.” This statement is wise and true, but it’s quickly subverted by the following sentence: “So when these student groups chose to continue displaying their signs, even after hearing there was a mass shooting and were well aware that these images may provoke a passionate reaction, they shouldn’t be surprised, or even complain, when other students respond to them — even in a group of 200.”
Those who stand on the sidelines and cheer it on are more deserving of criticism, having neither the temerity to stand up for their convictions nor the empathy to recognize the plight of crime victims whose only flaw was their opinion
It should be briefly noted that College Republicans and TPUSA were completely unaware of the shooting which took place on the same day as their 2019 tabling event, nor did they realize it until hours afterwards. It was never a choice of continuing to dis-
play pro-gun materials in light of such tragic events, although knowledge of a tragic event does not justify stealing or destroying private property.
At no point did conservative students take issue with the mere presence of liberal protesters on campus. The issue is that
Even worse, the noise levels in the library from the Coalition members distracted students in nearby classes. This puts the protesters and the professor directly in opposition to Bethel School District v. Fraser (1986), which prohibits disruptive speech in an educational setting.
liberal protesters on college campuses often find it acceptable to steal, obscure, or destroy advertising materials, prevent guest speakers from speaking (just take a look at Ann Coulter during her visit to Cornell University in 2022), blockade lecture halls, and, on rare occasions, physically attack other individuals. College Republicans lost its club charter in 2019 for tabling on the university spine without approval, but students and clubs that stifle free speech rarely face the consequences for more egregious actions.
Once again, I will give credit to the author of this article for acknowledging that the protesters from the 2019 tabling incident “went too far” and that the ensuing disruption at the Arthur Laffer lecture was “unacceptable.” This begrudging acceptance that what transpired against College Republicans and TPUSA was wrong is a case of Pipe Dream listening to its better angels. Lately, however, the student newspaper’s conscience has fallen silent.
That brings us back to “Protest is a right, abortion should be too”. Putting aside the blatant immorality of abortion itself, I will take the time to pick apart the most absurd claims in the op-ed, and nitpick the rest, starting with my annoyance that “anti-choice” is the frequent term used to describe students who adhere to the pro-life philosophy. Pipe Dream commended the protesters who shouted down College Republicans and Students for Life on September 18, 2023, without making any distinction against those who stole the silicone fetal models, harassed prolife students online, and violated Binghamton University’s policy on student demonstrations.
As they would say, silence equals consent.
For those who may not be aware, a student demonstration requires pre-approval at least four days in advance. This rule originates from the student handbook. College Republicans, meanwhile, had a legitimate tabling reservation in the Bartle Library on Sept. 18. The Binghamton Abortion Advocacy Coalition, by contrast, never bothered to follow this rule… because they were sicced on pro-life students by a professor. Even worse, the noise levels in the library from the Coalition members distracted students in nearby classes. This puts the protesters and the professor directly in opposition to Bethel School District v. Fraser (1986), which prohibits disruptive speech in an educational setting.
The insane suggestion from Pipe Dream’s editors that speaking with a pro-life person “can feel as if they are directly
violating your autonomy” is absurd upon remembering that New York is the most pro-choice state in the country. Those of us who believe in the sanctity of life in the womb are utterly powerless on the legislative level. Where is the direct violation? What power do we have in our words? I assume that these editors hold the notion that people are easy to persuade, and that the danger in sharing conservative opinions is that others might agree.
As for the suggestion that my statement given to the Students for Life blog was “hypocritical,” note the continued silence towards the theft of multiple fetal models from the table. When I said that the protesters acted in a way that was graphic and illegal, I was explicitly referring to this sort of behavior. The act of protesters inserting the models into their mouths was the more graphic part, a gesture that was both unnecessary and unsanitary. What did it accomplish besides property damage and potential health problems?
Furthermore, how can the editors of Pipe Dream argue with a straight face that human life beginning at conception is a misogynistic idea? This is the mainstream scientific opinion among biologists, with about 96% affirming it, according to the National Library of Medicine. The editors appear to have given preference to a minority scientific opinion, or at least one that obfuscates the reality of when life begins. An unborn child is just as alive in the womb as they are outside of it, and suggesting otherwise is essentially determining someone’s intrinsic value by their location. Pipe Dream claims that Students for Life spread misinformation, but had their own supply of it on hand and zero reluctance to share it.
While the divide between College Republicans, Students for Life, and BAAC will likely exist for the foreseeable future, the collaboration succeeded in its goal of changing the minds of a handful of students, which is a good start. The attempted stifling of pro-life viewpoints has only invigorated our side, and it won’t be very long until Students for Life becomes a chartered club at Binghamton University. The need for the organization to be present on campus has only grown because of this incident.
While the supporters of the protest claim that they were “forcing the hate out of our community” (according to the Pipe Dream article “Anti-abortion table draws backlash, student protest” from Oct. 1, 2023) they fail to recognize that force is the completely wrong method to express dissent in American society. They will likewise fail in their effort to “push them [Students for Life] right back out,” upon our return to campus. Our aim is to spread a new, more sincere appreciation of mothers and children, not hate. This guiding virtue is why we will ultimately succeed. Overturning Roe v. Wade was just the first step.
Kevin McCarthy Ousted! What’s next for the GOP?
On October 3rd, the United States House of Representatives voted 216-210 to oust Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) as Speaker of the House, marking the first time a sitting Speaker was ever voted out. Florida Republican Congressman Matt Gaetz introduced a motion to vacate on October 2nd, forcing a vote on McCarthy’s removal within two legislative days, citing that the speaker failed at his job and keeping the promises he made to conservative hardliners. Without a speaker, the House is now paralyzed and the House GOP is left in complete chaos.
The question is: What happens now? With a government shutdown looming and demand for aid to Ukraine and Israel putting pressure on the US government, House Republicans need to get their act together and quickly elect a new speaker. That’s easier said than done, however. Increasing tensions between factions threaten to tear the Republican party apar
Even though Republicans won back control of the House, they severely underperformed in the 2022 House elections, only managing to flip 9 seats (just barely enough to win the majority). Because House Republicans only had a 222-213 majority, McCarthy’s path to Speakership wasn’t going to be easy: he needed to win the support of the far-right members. On January 7th, McCarthy finally won the speakership after going through 15 votes in a span of 4 days, negotiating a deal that made a number of concessions to win over enough support from the Freedom Caucus, a hardline congressional caucus of 45 members. The final House vote was 216-212 in favor of McCarthy, with 6 GOP dissenters voting “present”. However, those concessions involved McCarthy essentially giving up his powers to appease the far-right members. This effectively made McCarthy a Speaker in name only (SPINO), while the hardliners were the ones running the show. One concession McCarthy made was allowing just one member to call for the motion to vacate the Speakership, something that’s come back to haunt him. The next couple of months would prove to be a nightmare for McCarthy and his loyal House members.
In May 2023, McCarthy and President Joe Biden negotiated a deal to resolve a debt-ceiling crisis and avoid an imminent debt default. However, this move angered the hardliners like Gaetz, who wanted a more conservative deal. They responded by killing a bill aimed at protecting gas stoves from being targeted by federal regulations. McCarthy was left dealing with increased mutiny from his party as he was backed into a corner, trying to decide whether to pass legislation with broad bipartisan support by working with Democrats, or pass legislation with the hardliners that have no chance at passing the Democratic-controlled Senate. These tensions would explode by October.
However, in September, the House GOP was tasked with a series of appropriations bills to avert a government shutdown. But like the debt-ceiling crisis, they struggled to pass anything. With House Republicans unable to pass these bills, it seemed that a government shutdown was inevitable. The Freedom Cau-
By Marco Flores
cus threatened to oust McCarthy if he worked with Democrats to pass a compromise bill. On September 30th, just hours before the shutdown was supposed to happen, the House passed a bipartisan continuing resolution to fund the government through November 17, with the final vote being 335-91. The resolution was passed in the Senate and signed by President Biden, temporarily averting a shutdown. McCarthy’s reliance on Democratic votes to pass the continuing resolution proved the final straw for Gaetz, who soon thereafter announced his plans to oust McCarthy during an interview on CNN.
McCarthy responded to Gaetz’s threats by posting on X (formerly known as Twitter) with one bold message: “Bring it on.” Tom Cole, chairman of the House Rules Committee and an ally of McCarthy, unsuccessfully tried to remove the motion from consideration. Following an hour of debate between Cole and Gaetz, the motion passed: McCarthy was officially removed as Speaker. All Democrats voted with 8 Republicans to oust McCarthy.
The question is: Why didn’t House Democrats vote to save McCarthy? Their reasoning is that they simply couldn’t trust him. McCarthy threw House Democrats under the bus by going on live television and blaming them for steering America into a potential government shutdown, despite Democrats being the ones who worked with him to keep the government open. McCarthy had also refused to negotiate with Democrats into supporting him. Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries released a statement prior to the motion, stating that House Democrats would not attempt to save him, arguing that this was McCarthy and House Republicans’ mess to clean. Because Democrats refused to support McCarthy, his fate was sealed.
Following McCarthy’s ouster, North Carolina Representative Patrick McHenry, a close ally of McCarthy, was appointed as his temporary replacement as speaker pro tempore of the House. The moment when McHenry angrily slammed the gavel went viral. During a press conference, McCarthy said that he would not seek the speakership again, triggering an election to fill the role. Most House Republicans were furious at Gaetz and the seven Republicans for ousting the speaker and called for them to be punished. Mike Lawler, a NY freshman Republican Congressman and one of McCarthy’s most loyal supporters, called for Gaetz to be expelled from Congress.
The removal of Kevin McCarthy from his speakership was entirely on him. Because he was a weak leader who couldn’t get his party together, McCarthy’s time as speaker proved to be his nightmare. By contrast, the 117th Congress saw Democrats with a 222-213 majority in the House. Yet Speaker Pelosi and Democrats were still able to work together and pass critical pieces of legislation despite this narrow majority. This is not the case for House Republicans. They’ve shown that they are too busy fighting amongst themselves to get their act together. In short, McCarthy made the mistake of trying to please everyone in his party instead of being a leader.
Endorsements for Local Elections
By Arthur O’Sullivan
Since September, I have been interviewing candidates for local elections in Broome County. Happy Medium, the hip new magazine organizing these interviews, needed a Republican writer to balance perspectives on the race. Since there are no Republicans in Happy Medium (yet), I was drafted to take on the job. You should be seeing the fruits of our labor on October 27. It was a great opportunity, and I’m grateful to Happy Medium’s display of bipartisanship in inviting me onto this project.
One problem, however, was that most local Republican candidates refused to even respond to our interview requests, while most Democrats jumped at the chance. Thus, I was forced to listen to these Dems drone on and on while I could have been doing something more productive, like heroin. I’m being facetious, of course. Many of these candidates, Republican or Democrat, gave very interesting perspectives on Binghamton and its problems.
Being so local, there was generally little room for ideology to make things boring and repetitive. The obvious exception to this was the repetitious mantra “I’m not a partisan candidate. I listen to everyone.” But at the very least, each candidate gave unique answers to our questions. Over the course of these interviews, I started to develop opinions about these candidates.
Of course, I wouldn’t let that color my reporting in Happy Medium. Even if you were concerned about my bias, Democrats like Jenna Vallone and Jonathan Maestre are there to counterbalance my perspective.
Finally, remember that my opinions are my own, and not that of Binghamton Review. This is a non-partisan magazine, and would lose its funding if I didn’t write something like this. Without further yapping, the following are my endorsements for each race. (N.B. I excluded those races whose candidates I knew nothing about.)
District Attorney: Matt Ryan (D)
Heavens to Betsy! Arthur endorsed a Democrat?! Yes it’s true. I like this guy. First of all: Ryan, unlike Battisti, agreed to interview with us. That gives him a boost in my book. (Expect this to recur throughout the article.)
Second, I’m not too fond of Paul Battisti. I thought Michael Korchak was the much better candidate. Unlike the other two, Korchak had experience and electability as the incumbent DA. If the Broome GOP has a good explanation for not supporting him, I’d like to know. Oh wait! They won’t talk to anyone from B.U., not even Republicans.
Finally, I like Matt Ryan because of his character, experience in public office, and clear plans. I may not agree with all his views, but he expresses them well. If he wins, and Broome turns into a crime-ridden hellhole, I’ll admit I’m wrong. Until then, I believe in Matt Ryan.
District 2: Both
Unlike district 1, I’m familiar with the candidates of this
race.
I met Sophia Resciniti last year, as she was campaigning for State Assembly. Though I was to her right, politically, she seemed like a good candidate and person. I was sad to hear that she lost to Donna Lupardo that year, and annoyed to hear that the Broome County GOP allegedly tanked her campaign.
Afterwards, however, she wouldn’t respond to my attempts to contact, despite repeated attempts. Nevertheless, she is the incumbent Republican, so that naturally biases towards her.
Kinya Middleton did agree to an interview with us, however. She did well, though I didn’t find much political agreement with her. Despite this, I believe she is a good candidate. For these reasons, I’ll be happy to see either win.
District 4: Brian Nayor (R)
FINALLY! A Republican whom I can endorse in good conscience. Not only did Nayor agree to interview with us, he was on the ball! He had boundless energy when coordinating the interview, not to mention during the interview itself. It’s clear that he’s very knowledgeable on issues, and is willing to work well with others to solve them.
Nate Hotchkiss, his Democratic opponent, was a fair candidate. But in my opinion, Nayor blows him out of the water in terms of energy and political know-how. I’d be interested to see how the race shapes up.
District 5: Hadassah Mativetsky (D)
Running unopposed and agreeing to interview with us makes this easy. A BU alum, I’ll be interested to see how Hadassah balances the interest of students and locals in the city.
District 6: Neither
Although Rebecca Rathmell (D) agreed to interview with us, and the incumbent Philip Strawn (R) didn’t, I can’t get enthusiastic about either. In our interview, Rathmell didn’t seem to have original ideas about the city’s problems. Meanwhile, Strawn has the advantage of being the incumbent Republican. To these ends, I’m suspending judgment.
Mayor of Endicott: Linda Jackson (E)
This is hardly relevant to students, but what the Hell? The Broome GOP tried to kill her campaign, and she’s fighting back with her ‘Endicotters’ party. But won’t this split the vote? If so, it means her good friend, the moderate Democrat Larry Coppola, wins. She seems to have a good track record as the incumbent, and I want to see how she continues her leadership. Moreover, Logan Blakeslee works for her, and any friend of Logan’s is a friend of mine.
As you can see, I could only endorse one Republican in these races. For this, I blame the Broome County GOP. I’ll be interested to see if their Tokugawa-style seclusion strategy will work out in November. Until then, I won’t hold my breath.
