BINGHAMTON REVIEW Editor-in-Chief Contents
P.O. BOX 6000 BINGHAMTON, NY 13902-6000 EDITOR@BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
Founded 1987 • Volume XXXI, Issue IV Patrick McAuliffe Jr. Managing Editor Matt Rosen Copy Desk Chief Yvonne Tyler
Business Manager Kayla Jimenez
Social Media Shitposter Tommy Gagliano
Editor Emeritus Jordan Raitses
Associate Editors Adrienne Vertucci
Staff Writers
Jordan Jardine Mason Carteri Jonathon Mecomber Sarah Waters John Restuccia
Contributors
Christie Hansen, Bob Kingsley, Faisal Garand
Special Thanks To:
Intercollegiate Studies Institute Collegiate Network Binghamton Review was printed by Gary Marsden We Provide the Truth. He Provides the Staples
HALLOWEEN COSTUME IDEAS
PAGE 8
by Our Staff
3 Editorial by Patrick McAuliffe 4 Press Watch by Our Staff 5 Who Really Runs Our Legislation? by Christie Hansen 6 Dirty Harry, The Ultimate Centrist by John Restuccia 9 America Re-Calibrated by Bob Kingsley 10 MAGA - Muslim And Going Armed by Faisal Garand 11 Abandoned Housing, Abandoned People by Jordan Jardine 12 Your Monthly Life Skill: Changing a Tire by Jonathon Mecomber 14 Terminate the Abysmal US-Saudi Alliance by Mason Carteri 15 Maintain the Crucial US-Saudi Alliance by Matt Rosen
TELL US WHAT YOU THINK! Direct feedback to editor@binghamtonreview.com 2
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
Vol. XXXI, Issue IV
EDITORIAL Dear Readers,
From the Editor
H
old onto your dookie, it’s about to get spooky! It’s Halloween time, which means we’re bringing the strong skeltal bones and treats full of tricks back to campus. From your friends at the Binghamton Review, we know that you got this semester by the horns. Keep on keeping on. Right now, however, this issue is jam-packed with new faces and fresh ideas, so let’s jump right in and see how spoopy we can get. We’re glad to welcome the contributions of three new writers for this issue, and I greatly enjoyed reading each of their articles. Bob comments on the waning education of and engagement with federalist principles in schools, and hopes that the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh will start to reverse that trend. Christie covers the political drama around the passage of Lavern’s Law, a New York bill that would deal a serious blow to Big Pharma. Faisal shares his experience with racism and fear, which only served to solidify his commitment to his Second Amendment right. We also have a few articles covering more general and non-political topics for those of you who want a break as midterm season approaches (more than just your academic ones). John analyzes the classic Clint Eastwood “Dirty Harry” movies, arguing that Harry doesn’t choose either the right or the left in his cinematic journeys. Jonathon begins a monthly (or triweekly) advice column, this time choosing to focus on the procedure for changing your flat tire. Now you don’t have an excuse to not keep a copy of the Review in your car at all times! Jordan continues his trend of tackling often niche social and political issues, calling for reforms that allow the homeless to get their human right to shelter from unused houses and properties. Finally, Mason and Matt go head-to-head in a Middle East showdown, arguing over our precarious alliance with Saudi Arabia. Mason urges the United States to denounce the Saudis over their human rights abuses and suppression of their citizens. Matt argues the opposite, claiming that Saudi Arabia’s influence in the quagmire that is the Middle East is vital to maintaining control in the region. Who is more compelling? Decide for yourself, dear reader. This is our last issue before election day. Normally, “get out the vote” campaigns try to get as many people registered as possible (let’s be honest, just so they can hopefully vote Democrat). Even though the deadline to register is past, I’d encourage you to do some research into what you’ll be voting for on November 6th. Don’t blindly vote straight ticket, but don’t vote Vermin Supreme, either. Those smear ads you see are mostly made up, so seek to understand the truths from their source. Use your conscience, get informed, and get out there.
Sincerely,
Patrick McAuliffe Jr. Binghamton Review is a non-partisan, student-run news magazine of conservative thought founded in 1987 at Binghamton University. A true liberal arts education expands a student’s horizons and opens one’s mind to a vast array of divergent perspectives. The mark of true maturity is being able to engage with these perspectives rationally while maintaining one’s own convictions. In that spirit, we seek to promote the free and open exchange of ideas and offer alternative viewpoints not normally found or accepted on our predominately liberal campus. We stand against tyranny in all of its forms, both on campus and beyond. We believe in the principles set forth in this country’s Declaration of Independence and seek to preserve the fundamental tenets of Western civilization. It is our duty to expose the warped ideology of political correctness and cultural authoritarianism that dominates this university. Finally, we understand that a moral order is a necessary component of any civilized society. We strive to inform, engage with, and perhaps even amuse our readers in carrying out this mission.
Views expressed by writers do not necessarily represent the views of the publication as a whole. editor@binghamtonreview.com
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
3
CPampus resswatch “Comedy shows that rely on offending others aren’t funny” Elizabeth Short, Pipe Dream, 10/18 “While groups that have been the targets of jokes such as these have spoken out against this type of humor on television, these shows remain widely successful.” Yeah. Because they’re funny. “The arguments in favor of these shows? ‘Humor that makes people uncomfortable sells.’ ‘Offending the ‘other’ leads to increases in viewers.’ ‘They’re just saying what others are thinking!’” No. The argument in favor of these shows is that they’re funny. “On more than one occasion, ‘Family Guy’ has made me uncomfortable with jokes about sexual assault, and as a woman who’s considering pursuing a career in academics and science, I know I wouldn’t want to be treated like the female characters in ‘The Big Bang Theory.’” Good for you. Don’t watch them, then you won’t be uncomfortable. Problem solved. “Good television isn’t just about shock value humor; it’s about telling stories that matter and make us care.”
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
Written by our Staff
We know you don’t read the other campus publications, so we did it for you. Original pieces are in quotes, our responses are in bold.
Humor, especially “shock value” humor, both helps people cope with something they may find repulsive and shed a light on something that others may see as a problem. To denounce it outright because of your subjective sensitivities is not very open-minded. “Frankly, I’m of the mindset (for all media) that if your humor relies on shock and insensitivity as a crutch, your humor probably couldn’t stand well on its own to begin with.” Oh damn, she has the monopoly on humor in ALL forms of media now?! “Professors should promote female students’ participation” Emily Houston, Pipe Dream, 10/14 “There’s something troubling I’ve noticed as I struggle (and fail) to stay awake through each of my classes here at Binghamton University, and I’m sure it’s something you’ve observed in some of your classes too: Girls participate less than the boys.” Nope, I actually haven’t noticed that at all. What I have noticed is that in every class, there’s always a select few students that always have something to say about everything, but it has no correlation to gender. “Particularly in science classes, but common in “softer” subjects as well…” “‘Softer’ subjects?” I’ll have you know that my schedule is no “softer” than your Watson schedule just because it’s loaded with sociology and gender studies courses. “This lack of female participation stems from the environment in primary, middle and high school in which teachers seemingly interact with male students at a higher rate than their female counterparts.” Interesting that you say that, because there have been numerous studies, including from University of Georgia and Columbia University, that suggest that the modern American education system favors girls.
4
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
“It’s 2018, which means it’s time to fight this disparity.” “iT’s ThE cUrREnT yEaR!!!1!1!” “By no means do I think that instructors on this campus make a specific effort to favor men, but doing it unknowingly can cause just as much harm.” At least you aren’t doing the whole “everyone is sexist!” routine. Respect for that. “Kavanaugh’s appointment a slap in the face for sexual assault survivors” Elizabeth Short, Pipe Dream, 10/7 “Ford is the first of multiple women to come forward and accuse Kavanaugh of sexual assault during his high school years.” First of three, and the only one that was even remotely credible. “Kavanaugh was visibly angry and on more than one occasion, on the verge of tears.” I can’t imagine why anyone that was being accused of sexual assault without evidence, and on the verge of having their life ruined, would be angry. Don’t understand it at all. “His fury reached an apex when he stated that he felt this was an attack led by Democrats to keep him from the position.” It was. “Where Kavanaugh was teary and filled with anger, Ford was polite, respectful and powerful as she quietly offered information.” That’s what happens when one side has nothing to lose, and the other has everything to lose. “I believe her, and I spent much of the weekend hoping the rest of the nation did as well.” Why did you believe her? Was it the complete lack of evidence that convinced you? Or was it the fact that not a single witness could corroborate her story? Dismissing women outright is plain wrong, but evidence matters.
Vol. XXXI, Issue IV
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
WHO REALLY RUNS OUR LEGISLATURE?
Who Really Runs Our Legislature? By Christie Hansen
H
ere’s a story about a man named Fred, whose prescribed pharma nearly left the man dead.” This is a simple example of the protective shield provided to the pharmaceutical industry courtesy of the NY Legislature, and how our legislators are all bought and paid for courtesy of the “health” industry. In recent years it has become increasingly apparent, the extent of abuses that have occurred around big pharma, the legal system, and the protective legislation schemes that serve to protect big pharma. This shameless abuse has left people injured, broke, dead and alone, while our elected officials and lawyers ignore the plight of the millions harmed by pharmaceutical and medical malpractice. People are losing their legal cases due to outdated and overly dissected malpractice bills and laws in New York. Not to mention that these very laws are voted on by politicians and legislative houses who receive some of their largest campaign and lobbying contributions from the very same pharmaceutical companies who are causing need for legal recourse. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, in the past three years Congress has received some of their highest political contributions in the past 20 years. Everybody has their hands in the cookie jar, making conflicts of interest their highest ever. The question is, can officials who receive such large contributions care about the patient’s healthcare legislation when re-election is right around the corner? A law that could have helped millions of lives including the case I will cite, may have been subversively influenced by political contributions. Lavern’s Law was originally submitted in 2015 and was intended to help all victims of medical malpractice who were past their ‘statute’ of a mere 2.5 years—one of the shortest in the country. This bill
editor@binghamtonreview.com
“Are they signing and amending bills in our best interest when they are running for re-election so often? During re-election, the potential for campaign contributors to push their monetary ‘weight’ around is extremely likely.” was kicked around the NY Legislature for over three years as people lost everything during the relaxed reading and enacting of this bill. Changes were made, and what was originally intended to help the many, would only help the limited few while protecting those who are responsible for the damage done to the public. In the many amendments it underwent, all medical issues were changed to only ‘cancer cases,’ and the latest amendment was signed into law—by Senate Majority Leader John Flanagan and Governor Cuomo—on January 31, 2018. They ended the ‘new’ bill by stripping it of everything that made it applicable to the masses: limiting the ability to retroactive recourse, limiting who it applies to and eliminating the longer seven-year statute of limitations. While Lavern’s Law was being re-evaluated in state legislature, pharmaceutical companies were hitting
some of their highest lobbying numbers with two very common campaign donors, AbbVie and Pfizer; AbbVie also being a donor to Senator John Flanagan’s campaign. At least one citizen of Flanagan’s hometown is suffering because Flanagan chose pharma over his constituents’ well-being. I am in touch with this citizen in his hometown of Northport, NY who is a probable victim of a ‘catch and kill’ case by an upstate attorney, as the bill that would have helped this person and many others, was going through the assembly. Three years since Lavern’s Law was introduced, not only is this citizen still suffering, but he has also been robbed of his right to take legal action against big pharma, doctors and lawyers. Politicians and lawmakers like Senator Flanagan have perpetuated severe suffering and hopelessness because of the last minute rewriting of the bill in committee.
“Only after years of the FDA being aware and ignoring the crisis, last summer they acknowledged the severity and magnitude of the lives affected and the tens of thousands of families destroyed.” While this case was evolving in Northport and the bill was being rewritten, a lawyer told this person that, “there is enough to file a case”. Suddenly, the lawyer found he was too busy with a ‘bait and switch’ with an expert witness and ran out the victim’s statute of limitations. Coincidentally, this occurred around the same time Lavern’s Law was being obliterated into something unrecognizable. So, I ask you, with pharmaceutical companies being the highest contributors to campaigns and lobbying efforts, can we really trust not only Fla-
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
5
DIRTY HARRY, THE ULTIMATE CENTRIST nagan but any NYS politicians? Are they signing and amending bills in our best interest when they are running for re-election so often? During re-election, the potential for campaign contributors to push their monetary ‘weight’ around is extremely likely. In a news update on January 29, 2018 (two days before the bill was signed into law) the Greater New York Hospital Association (GNYHA)—an obvious disruptor of the original purpose of Lavern’s Law—wrote, “GNYHA was deeply involved in discussions with Governor’s [Cuomo] counsel on amendments to minimize the significant financial impact the bill would have.” They had severe concerns with the prior bill and were obviously pleased that there a reduction of liability. Political teamwork! If Lavern’s Law was kept as originally intended, it would have protected many injured parties. It had the potential to motivate doctors to more carefully consider patients’ concerns and warning signs when prescribing two medications that cause adverse
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM reactions, and further proceeding to ignore all complaints from the patient and other medical officials. Only after years of the FDA being aware and ignoring the crisis, last summer they acknowledged the severity and magnitude of the lives affected and the tens of thousands of families destroyed. We witnessed the resulting fallout in NY State and across the na-
tion for many years as the opioid crisis exploded. The case I am citing with appropriate due diligence completed, demonstrates the conflicts of interest that dominate NY State politics. This case study does not directly address the opioid crisis, however you can draw your own conclusion of why it was imperative to deploy a protective shield last summer; Lavern’s Law was the NY State legislature’s effort to hold back the ‘tsunami of pharmaceutical lawsuits’ that was about to be unleashed—as harmed citizens were seeking relief against pharmaceutical, medical and legal abuses. There is a distinct possibility that data and evidence presented in a medical malpractice suit, filed last summer and discovered by this author, was “caught and killed” within the system subsequently ‘helping’ to reshape the outcome of pending legislation to benefit the antagonists by limiting medical liability. For more about a man named Fred, feel free to contact this author: Chansen4@binghamton.edu
Dirty Harry, The Ultimate Centrist By John Restuccia
D
irty Harry is one of the most iconic movie of the 70s, and how could it not be?! The movie came out in 1971, a time in American history where tensions were hitting their peak and our country was becoming divided. The decade before began with the assassination of president John F. Kennedy, the declaration of the Vietnam war after the Gulf of Tonkin, and the rise of crime in America. Vietnam protesters were clashing with those who supported the war. America was divided. Conservatives called all the far left liberals of those times Communists. On the other end, Liberals called the Conservatives of the time a bunch of fascists. Sounds familiar, doesn’t it? The people needed a hero in this divided nation, one who knew what was right and wrong, one who did not care where your politics resided. That hero just so happened to be a fictional cop
6
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
named Inspector Callahan. For those who have not seen the Dirty Harry film released in 1971, here’s a quick plot synopsis. Clint Eastwood plays a police inspector who doesn’t play by the police bureaucracy rules. He constantly goes against protocol to stop crime whenever rules pop up that bog his investigation down. Eventually, a psycho killer goes on the loose, resembling the zodiac killer of the time (no not Ted Cruz) and must stop his murderous rampage. The gun Inspector Callahan carries is even big-
“Not many people can own up to their mistakes, but Harry does. It’s incredible little scenes like that with a wealth of character growth that make this movie above many others from the same genre.”
ger than his personality, a Smith and Wesson .44 magnum handgun, at the time the most powerful handgun in the world. When looking from a first glance at the first film in the series, it is very easy to simply write off the character of Harry as a fascist who thinks due process is for nerds and that cops should take the law into their own hands. This perspective doesn’t really hold up when watching the movie with a closer eye. Yes, Harry thinks that the system we have in place is cumbersome and lets too many criminals get away, but he never says that the system is inherently wrong. In fact, in the second movie, Magnum Force, which I will talk about a little later, he defends the system, stating that while the system has flaws, it’s the only system we have so we have to follow it. Also, never once in the movie does Harry act un-
Vol. XXXI, Issue IV
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
less a crime is in progress. He never specifically goes after individuals who he deems wrong. Instead, he first sees them doing the act then blows them away if arrest doesn’t work. Another complaint is that Harry is racist due to the scene where a character tells his new Hispanic police partner that he hates everyone equally and lists off every single race using a derogatory term. While this scene is certainly shocking and disgusting, Harry himself never says he hates these people. Instead, another character does. Not to mention Harry changes throughout the movie to learn to love his partner whom he says he hates the race of. In the beginning, Harry hates even the idea of a partner but feels remorse for causing his partner to become injured and even visits him in the hospital to give an apology. This scene shows character growth in the fact that Harry admits he was
“Each of his movies bounce from left wing villain to right wing villain to show Harry doesn’t fit into any of these ideologies perfectly. He shares ideas with the right, such as being pro Second Amendment. He also has left wing ideas on the subject of vigilante justice and using deadly force against those not engaged in a crime as morally wrong even if the person is a bad person.” editor@binghamtonreview.com
DIRTY HARRY, THE ULTIMATE CENTRIST
wrong to judge his partner and shows that even if he was racist, he saw the error of his ways. Not many people can own up to their mistakes, but Harry does. It’s incredible little scenes like that with a wealth of character growth that make this movie above many others from the same genre. We should all try to rise above racism to just like Inspector Callahan because racism sucks and racists are idiots. This leads into the second movie which never is discussed as much but has a even more significant impact on those who view it, “Magnum Force” released in 1973. This films deals with a group of cops who start blowing away anyone who them deem criminals even if they haven’t been caught doing a crime in progress. Harry of course sees this going against his moral code and takes on this rogue police force, eventually bring them to justice with his .44 magnum. The cops of course represent a far right fascist ideology, ignoring the system completely and taking justice in their own hands. The costumes of these police are clearly a nod to Mussolini’s police force with them black shirts, black leather boots, and black motorcycle cop outfits. The symbolism is as obvious as it can get. The next film would be “The Enforcer” released in 1976, switches back to Inspector Callahan facing off against a left
wing villain. That being the “People’s Revolutionary Strike Force”, a clear reference to the real live case of Patty Hearst, a girl who was kidnapped and joined a far left militia group called the Symbionese Liberation Army. The final film that matters in the franchise is “Sudden impact” released 7 years later in 1983 and features a old Inspector Callahan going after a female vigilante who is killing for the vengeance of her sister. She is seen as a more right wing villain due to the vigilante justice perspective given by her character. Dirty Harry is the ultimate centrist. Each of his movies bounce from left wing villain to right wing villain to show Harry doesn’t fit into any of these ideologies perfectly. He shares ideas with the right, such as being pro Second Amendment. He also has left wing ideas on the subject of vigilante justice and using deadly force against those not engaged in a crime as morally wrong even if the person is a bad person. He clearly has strict beliefs and convictions, never changing them to fit the situation or scenario thrown his way. He sees flaws in both sides of the aisle and actively speaks out against them. Harry was created in a political climate that was incredibly polizaring and represented the common moderate who knew what they believed and did not conform to one ideology. Now that we’re facing a very similar today, we can learn a lot from Harry. Most importantly we can learn that we don’t have to pick a side, we can have beliefs in both camps. A lesson that is not taught as people stay within their conservative and liberal camps.
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
7
SIX EPIC HALLOWEEN COSTUMES
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
Six Epic Halloween Costumes By Our Staff
It’s the time of year where crazy drunk college kids can lose themselves in the garb of someone else (and not just for you crossdressing folks, either). If you’re out of ideas for this year’s spooktacular evening of tricks and treats, not to worry! Your friends at Binghamton Review have you covered with ideas that are sure to make you stand out at your Halloween party. Keep on reading and choose your favorite! If you decide to give them a try, tweet at us (@bingreview) with the hashtag #CostumeReview in your costume and we’ll give you our take. Whether it’s one of ours or your very own, send them our way. Happy costuming!
Stormy “Horseface” Daniels Ladies, you’ll hit the ground running with this eye-catching costume. Be sure your breasts are plenty exposed like a professional pornstar, and all you need to complete the outfit is a rubber horse mask. You’ll be capturing the true essence of America’s (and Drumpf ’s) newest and most over-the-hill darling! Slutty Nazi Any sexy army brat costume with a red arm band will work. This one pairs well with the slutty Anne Frank costume we recommended last year (but you can’t find anywhere on the Internet anymore...). Don’t try it if you aren’t at least a nein out of ten! Safe Space Protect yourself from hurtful words or offensive jokes (see the previous costume) in a thick layer of bubble wrap. Nothing gets past your barrier of comfort. One day you might leave and join the real world. Then again, Halloween is only one night; why not trick and treat in safety? Binghamton Review Fan These folx probably pick up our issues the most out of anyone from sheer anger. Black clothing and masks, chants of “Fuck 12”, and an inordinate amount of either dyed hair or piercings will help you fit right into this winning crowd. We predict the outcome of your sociology major...it’s on a tarot card on the front cover... 8
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
Vol. XXXI, Issue IV
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
Kavanaugh in College Swagger around in a shirt and tie with this recently-confirmed hit costume. You can be like a regular frat guy and proclaim your propensity for beer openly to anyone that will listen. For good measure, shotgun a few! Remember, you’re a virgin at the time of your Halloween party, scheduled neatly on your pocket calendar.
AMERICA RE-CALIBRATED
“I’m Not Like Other Girls” Girl Also known as the “Han Solo aesthetic,” these girls come in the same vein as the NPC. They’ll definitely make you miss grabbing their butt and eating pizza with them, a completely unique pastime to them.
America Re-Calibrated By Bob Kingsley
F
inally, the US Supreme Court has been re-calibrated to accurately and properly reflect the values, traditions and true character of America. The United States “Court of Last Resort” has for too long been the tool of liberal ideologies conjuring credence in agendas not reflecting the will of the people, and has instead sought the friendly confines of sympathetic, left-leaning courts, circumventing the legislative process by judicial fiat. Failure of our schools to teach civics has allowed ignorance to prevail and consequently, many don’t understand the most basic of ideals regarding issues of constitutionality, due process or the rule of law. This lack of understanding has fostered ill-conceived and bastardized concepts of how America actually works, created in part by the left-leaning media. The concept of individual states and federalist delegation of responsibilities, instead of overarching federal control and oversight, is a novel idea in governance, widely misunderstood and underappreciated in today’s mainstream zeitgeist. This very concept defines at least in part, American Exceptionalism, resulting in the creation of a form of governance that had never been tried before or since. The Founders intended the states to possess more power than the federal government, overseeing and controlling federal power, which by constitutional definition was to be very narrow, well defined and limited. The 10th Amendment and the “Commerce Clause,” (Article 1, Section 8, clause 3) spell this out by defining the “enumerated powers” listed in the Constitution. Over the years, activist courts have exploited the meaning of interstate commerce, which has grossly and unfairly increased the expansion of federal powers as an erosive force
editor@binghamtonreview.com
against states rights. Adding to this degeneration of state’s rights, the passage of the 17th amendment in 1913 further undermined state authority by making senatorial selection a popular vote. The original Constitution called for each state legislature to send senators elected from their own state ranks. By making the Senate selection a popularity contest, it erases the connection to the governance of their respective state legislatures, and lessens the consequences from their actions as Senators. Widespread ignorance of these bedrock, American principles do not negate their importance and control of our society in any way. However, Thomas Jefferson did warn us, as far back as 1815, when he said, “An enlightened citizenry is indispensable for the proper functioning of a republic. Self-government is not possible unless the citizens are educated sufficiently to enable them to exercise oversight. It is therefore imperative that the nation see to it that a suitable education be provided for all its citizens...” Even to the least informed amongst us, the embarrassing national debacle we saw during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing for the Honorable Brett Kavanaugh should give us pause. The deplorable actions and behaviors we all witnessed are the direct result of an uneducated and uninformed citizenry elevating these buffoons to power. Jefferson, again, over 200 years ago: “Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves, therefore, are its only safe depositories. And to render even them safe, their minds must be improved to a certain degree.”
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
9
MAGA - MUSLIM AND GOING ARMED
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
MAGA - Muslim And Going Armed By Faisal Garand
Y
ou’re only good dead.” “I hate you.” “I can’t wait for you to be placed in a camp.” “Someday we’ll get you.” “I’ll kill you first.” These are things my fellow Americans say to me. But why? Did I strangle a baby? Did I sell secrets to North Korea? Did I burn 2,000 puppies alive in a shipping container? No, nothing like that. My great sin? Being a Muslim. These are just a tenth of one percent all the hateful things I have been told, either in person or online, due to my religious conviction. If you are Muslim like me, Chapel Hill made you feel fearful. Three Muslims were murdered on February 10, 2015, allegedly over a parking or noise dispute, but a quick look into the killer revealed he had a burning hatred of Muslims. Did you know that just this past March, two Muslims were gunned down in broad daylight in New York City for their faith? You must have heard about the Indian man killed in a bar by someone who thought he was Muslim and wanted to kill himself a terrorist like a true patriotic hero. Then there was the man who shot up the Baitul Aman Masjid in 2015. Then the attack in Canada in 2017. Then there was the ramming attack in the United Kingdom just last year… Before anything else, this isn’t unprecedented, and Islam is not under attack; Islam will survive unscathed. Not even the Meccans and their army could slay Mohammed and his beleaguered one hundred believers. If Islam were meant to die in blood, that would have been the day. There is no need to fear genocide or extermination, but we Muslims are a targeted group. Our concern should be in the immediate future: how do we protect ourselves, not even as believers, but as human beings with a right to life? The answer is with the most effective method: the right to keep and bear arms. I have no compunctions about this. I am an American, I am a Mus-
10
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
lim, and I exercise my Second Amendment right. We Muslims in America can actually do something more than thoughts and (daily) prayers. Why not just rely on the police? It has been ruled many times that their job is the investigation of crimes and recommendation of charges; they have no obligation to protect us. But we have the right to actually defend ourselves. We should use it. Twenty-two states have Affirmative Defense Laws; with nuances particular to each, you are allowed to defend yourself against attack without fear. This means if you are walking from your job to get lunch and you are attacked with reasonable fear for your life, you may defend yourself until the danger ceases. These laws do not give license to provoke an encounter or to cover your tracks in commission of a crime. You can’t initiate fisticuffs with someone then “stand your ground”
“To be brief: do not seek fights, try to defuse fights, only apply force when first subjected to force, do not kill those who flee or surrender. God is with the righteous.” when you start losing. Far fewer states have Duty to Retreat, which is exactly as it says on the tin. But, does civilian self-defense work? Is it common? Well, as always, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics. Detractors, like the Violence Policy Center, will try to spin the data as “X gun deaths (not distinguishing homicide, suicide, justified shootings) versus Y justifiable homicides (only taken from ruled court verdicts, a small minority of all defensive shootings),” therefore, defensive gun use is a myth, you Rambo Redneck McWan-
nabe!” The DOJ will cite about 70,000 defensive gun uses per year. This is just times it made it into the police reports or a survey. However, the CDC, and criminologist Gary Kleck, have done their own studies with much more data and actual statistical methods. The results are strikingly different. In Kleck’s 1997 study, Armed Resistance to Crime, he postulated that at least one million defensive gun uses happen in the U.S. annually, with a potential cap between two and three million. He found that most uses are not reported, primarily because, in ninety percent of defensive incidents, the weapon is never fired. It is shown or threatened, and that makes the brigand flee. Even when shots are fired, the end result is usually victory for the defender. The CDC found very similar results when they looked into it, and in a 2013 statement, they affirmed that gun ownership and use are effective crime deterrents. Moreover, in surveys of convicted felons, a near universal top fear was an armed victim, with such encounters being common. So now it is established that defensive gun use is legal, common, and effective; what does that mean for a Muslim in the USA? Well, it means that we should follow the teachings of Islam for defending ourselves. To be brief: do not seek fights, try to defuse fights, only apply force when first subjected to force, do not kill those who flee or surrender. God is with the righteous. We are also not to target noncombatants nor to preemptively assail. Remember, Allah will hold us accountable for our actions. By probability, very few of us will ever need to defend ourselves. However, it is essential to remember to behave; we are not terrorists. Inshallah, may I never need my gun, but wallahi, should I, I will use it best. Because every human being has the right to protect themselves, and that includes us. So arm yourself, train, study, and carry. Nobody but you can guarantee your safety.
Vol. XXXI, Issue IV
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
ABANDONED HOUSING, ABANDONED PEOPLE
Abandoned Housing, Abandoned People By Jordan Jardine
T
here is an overlooked epidemic in this country, and it has nothing to do with physical or mental diseases. It has to do with people being denied shelter, a basic human right. What is this epidemic? Abandoned homes and properties somehow exist simultaneously with a growing homeless population. The first problem to address is vacant homes (abandoned, rented, vacation homes, etc.). As of 2016, according to census data, there are at least 5.8 million homes which are either occupied seasonally, not currently on the housing market, or put on hold for use in the future. Vacant lots are also a growing problem in various cities according to Curbed, a real estate blog. Though squatting laws vary from state to state, homeless people should be allowed to occupy houses and land put on hold for rent as long as no one ends up claiming said property. Everyone in every state, from New York to Ohio and Indiana to Alaska, deserves to have shelter, preferably free of charge and free of government oversight. That’s a big difference from public housing projects in urban areas. These projects are riddled with government oversight, something that should be discouraged not only in housing but in almost every aspect of life. While no exact metric exists to accurately represent the scale of the problem of abandoned homes, the
editor@binghamtonreview.com
number of abandoned homes is estimated to outnumber the American homeless population 6 to 1, according to Mint Press News, as of 2015. The same Mint Press News article states that (again, as of 2015), there are more than 77,000 empty government buildings that could be redesigned and repurposed into housing facilities that could house the homeless free of charge. Extracting rent payments from those who are already vulnerable is nonsensical and morally repugnant. The libertarian socialist/anarchist position on rent is that it is a form of theft. There is a surplus of people in this country that already have to worry about paying for utilities, food, health care, and education for their children, which is why libertarian socialists believe that rent is an immoral form of exploitation from the capitalist class against the poor and working classes. According to data from the National Alliance to End Homelessness, over 553,000 Americans were classified as homeless. Some people within this figure are living in transitional housing and homeless shelters, but 34% of homeless people were classified as living in places not intended for inhabiting (streets, parks or abandoned buildings, which may or may not be in bad condition). An even more troubling statistic is that, as of 2017, there are at least 40,000 homeless veterans in this country. Both the Republicans and the Democrats claim to hold the lives of veterans in high regard. “Support the troops” is a staple slogan particularly among Republicans, but some Democrats spew this empty rhetoric as well. American politicians claim to support our troops, but why aren’t they providing shelter to those 40,000 veterans they claim to
“The anarchist position is simply advocating for the complete legality of occupying housing and land not in use by homeowners or the government.”
value? These veterans survived combat in deserts and jungles and watched their friends and enemies alike die on a daily basis in order to carry out the interests of the United States government. The least the government could do is make sure that each veteran, regardless of their ability to pay, is properly sheltered, clothed and fed. This brings up an important point: there is no profit in helping homeless people, so the government won’t do much to help them because the money-driven corporations to which the government is subservient don’t want the problem to be solved. If there is no profit to be made, corporations won’t do it, and neither will their paid off shills in the government. To be perfectly clear, the anarchist position on housing is NOT to infringe upon another’s right to shelter. In other words, it is not acceptable for a homeless person to occupy housing already occupied and in use by the owner. The homeless person also cannot take possession of the house, thus stealing property from another individual. This is not the anarchist position. The anarchist position is simply advocating for the complete legality of occupying housing and land not in use by homeowners or the government. While homeless people should also be allowed to occupy vacation homes, they should only do so if some form of compensation is given to the owner, particularly if the homeless person inflicts any damage on the home or the land on which it sits. This analysis of the homeless problem is focused on granting and fulfilling rights, not taking away the rights of someone else. Shelter is a universal human right that should be enjoyed by all, not just some.
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
11
YOUR MONTHLY LIFE SKILL: CHANGING A FLAT TIRE
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
Your Monthly Life Skill: Changing a Flat Tire By Jonathon Mecomber
T
he car: if there’s one thing that’s more American than sugar, fast food, or baseball, then it would probably be the car. Yes, when we aren’t stuck in traffic, we Americans are deeply in love with our vehicles. Whether we own them for business or for pleasure, our auto addiction certainly isn’t showing any signs of going away anytime soon. Despite our infatuation with these heavy pieces of steel, glass, and rubber, a 2016 survey by cheapcarinsurance.net found that 40.8% of the over 2,000 respondents were either “clueless” or “not very confident” with their ability to change a flat tire. Keep in mind that this figure includes all different age groups ranging from Baby Boomers to Millennials. Though I haven’t conducted a formal study among Binghamton University students pertaining to their automotive knowledge, I would suspect that this number may be even higher based off of what I have heard from my friends and acquaintances. So what are you to do if you fall into this category? Well fear not, fellow motorist. By the time that you are done reading this article, you’ll be changing tires quicker than the pit crews at the Indy 500. First things first: before you happen to find yourself in the unfortunate situation of having a flat tire on the side of the road, it would be wise to ensure that you have the proper tools to complete the job. Fortunately, most cars come with all of the things that you will need. This includes a spare tire, a scissor jack, and a lug nut wrench. Most cars will either have the spare in the trunk underneath the carpet or underneath the vehicle itself. Occasionally, the spare tire may also be mounted to the rear or the vehicle. Regardless of where it is located, it’s a good idea to check the pressure of the spare at least every few months in order to ensure that it will be ready when you call it into action. The lug nut wrench and scissor jack will usually be located somewhere near the spare.
12
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
“...a 2016 survey by cheapcarinsurance.net found that 40.8% of the over 2,000 respondents were either “clueless” or “not very confident” with their ability to change a flat tire... Though I haven’t conducted a formal study among Binghamton University students pertaining to their automotive knowledge, I would suspect that this number may be even higher based off of what I have heard from my friends and acquaintances.”
Also (and this is very important), if you have wheel locks in place of lug nuts, make sure that you know where the key is. Otherwise, you are going to have a very hard time removing your wheel. Okay, so after you have made sure that your car is equipped with all of the right tools and that your spare is properly inflated, we can begin the tire changing process. Step 1: Park your car in the safest possible location. Ideally, this would be on sturdy, level ground with plenty of distance between yourself and oncoming traffic. Step 2: Locate the scissor jack and lug nut wrench. As mentioned before, this should be somewhere near the spare or in a storage compartment in the trunk. Step 3: Retrieve your spare tire. Again, the spare is most commonly located underneath the trunk carpet, underneath the car itself, or mounted on the rear. Step 4: Using your lug nut wrench, loosen (but don’t remove) each lug nut on the wheel. We loosen the lug nuts while the tire is still on the
ground as we may not be able to do so once it’s in the air without the tire spinning. Also, it’s not uncommon for the lug nuts to be fastened onto the wheel tightly. If you are having difficulty loosening the nuts, position the handle of the wrench parallel to the ground and use your foot and body weight to push the handle. Step 5: Place the scissor jack underneath the proper lift point on your vehicle that is closest to the tire which needs to be changed. Most vehicles have designated lift points directly behind the front wheels and directly in front of the rear wheels along the lower side of the rocker panels. However, if you aren’t sure where your car’s lift points are, the owner’s manual should have a detailed depiction of where you can find them. Step 6: Raise the scissor jack until the flat tire is off of the ground. Depending on the style of your particular jack, some may use the lug nut wrench as a handle to raise the jack. Others may have their own handles included. Step 7: Fully remove the lug nuts and remove the wheel from the hub. If you are having trouble taking the tire off, place each hand on opposite sides of the tire and wiggle it off. Also make sure to put the lug nuts in a safe place where you won’t lose them. Step 8: Take the spare tire and mount it onto the hub. This step can be difficult with large or heavy tires. One way to make
Vol. XXXI, Issue IV
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM this easier is by sitting on the ground and using your hands and feet to lift the tire onto the hub. Step 9: Fasten the lug nuts back onto the wheel by hand. Since the tire is off of the ground, you won’t be able to completely tighten them down just yet. We’ll take care of that later. Step 10: Lower the scissor jack completely and remove it from underneath the car. Just like step 6, but in reverse. Step 11: Using the lug nut wrench, tighten down the lug nuts until snug. Since this is only temporary, you don’t have to worry about torque specifications. As long as the lug nuts are tightened down snug to the hub, your spare won’t be going anywhere. Step 12: Put away your tools and the flat tire. It’s always a pity to lose tools. Make sure that they are accounted for. Congratulations! You have successfully changed a flat tire. Now, some caveats: the spare tire is not intended to be used for long distance travel or high speeds. As soon as you can, either have your flat tire repaired or replaced and put it back onto the car. Until then, it’s best to keep your speed under 50 miles per hour and to only travel as far as necessary. But hey, by this point, the hard work is already over. See you in the pits!
“Before you happen to find yourself in the unfortunate situation of having a flat tire on the side of the road, it would be wise to ensure that you have the proper tools to complete the job. Fortunately, most cars come with all of the things that you will need. This includes a spare tire, a scissor jack, and a lug nut wrench.”
YOUR MONTHLY LIFE SKILL: CHANGING A FLAT TIRE
The spookiest part of this issue... ...is that you aren’t subscribed to our YouTube channel yet! Be sure to tune in for a frighteningly good discussion on Binghamton Review Live! (Weds, 6-6:30pm)
If you’re unsure on what these are, Google them! editor@binghamtonreview.com
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
13
TERMINATE THE ABYSMAL US-SAUDI ALLIANCE
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
Terminate the Abysmal US-Saudi Alliance By Mason Carteri
T
he recent disappearance and suspected execution of Saudi journalist and dissident Jamal Khashoggi in the Saudi Arabian Consulate of Istanbul is simply one more tally on the desert nation’s long list of tyrannical abuses of power and violations of human rights. Reports from the Wall Street Journal indicate that the journalist was murdered by Saudi agents soon after entering the Consulate. Khashoggi served as an unofficial voice of the Saud dynasty for much of his media career before changing tune and moving to the US following the rise to power of the increasingly autocratic Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. By now the extrajudicial execution of a political dissident by the Saudi regime is almost no surprise at all when considered in the broader context of the desert kingdom’s abuses. According to Human Rights Watch, the Saudi government has consistently repressed and detained broad swaths of dissidents, religious minorities, and human rights activists, continues to allow capital punishment for homosexuality and adultery, and continues to permit corporal punishments for crimes as described in the Sharia (Islamic Law). Women and girls are legally mandated to cover themselves in public and are still forced to seek the approval of male “guardians” to travel abroad, obtain a passport, marry, or be discharged from prison. Saudi Arabia is a hereditary, theocratic dictatorship where human rights go almost completely unconsidered and the people have little to no influence in government. It is, perhaps, almost a perfect antithesis to the United States. Additionally, the Saudi government has been, and even remains, a sponsor of enemy terrorist groups including the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. And yet, the autocratic regime has enjoyed the support of the United States for decades and through multiple presidencies. In the past decade, both presidents Obama and Trump have visited the Saudi capital and treated the murderous tyrants of their royal family with uncanny friendliness. Politicians and pundits alike will argue that the US-Saudi alliance is important because of its rich economic and strategic benefits – Saudi Arabia is among the world’s largest oil producing nations and remains a staunch geopolitical foe of Iran, arguably one of the most significant thorns in America’s side today. America clearly reaps significant benefits from our uncouth alliance with the Saud family, but are those benefits really worth our continued support of one of the worst tyrannies of the modern world? No, they are not. By supporting Saudi Arabia militarily, politically, and economically, America is supporting one of the worst enemies of freedom the modern world knows. It is because we support them with our unquestionable military might that the Saud family is able to conduct hostile foreign and domestic policy throughout the Middle East without serious fear of repercussion or blowback. By supporting our “ally” so vigorously, we are enabling some of the very same evils that our founders fought to escape, and then some more. This is utterly immoral, and beneath who we should be
14
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
as a nation. The United States is meant to be the “shining city on the hill” that leads the rest of the world towards the same enlightened freedoms we as Americans enjoy. By supporting the Saudi Arabian government, we are instead making it even harder for millions of Saudi citizens to climb up that hill from the lowly bog of tyranny. Economically, the US-Saudi alliance is at least somewhat beneficial for America at this time. The US imports roughly one million barrels of petroleum a day from Saudi Arabia, accounting for around 10% of total American petroleum imports according to the Energy Information Administration. This keeps US gas prices relatively low. However, the actual value of Saudi Arabia’s million barrels a day is often overestimated. The United States produces around 9.3 million barrels of oil per day on our own, and imports around 9.2 million additional barrels a day from other countries. Additionally, many alternative forms of energy are quickly becoming available to Americans, from natural gas to solar harvesting, and while these may not eliminate our petroleum needs anytime soon, they will certainly decrease them. With this understood, it is clear that the US could get along just fine without Saudi oil. Militarily, the US uses Saudi soil to host several large overseas bases, and of course the Saudis are considered the main regional opposition to Iran. However, the US retains many other military bases throughout the region, especially in Israel, and the fact remains that without American support, the Iran-Saudi conflict would likely continue regardless – the Sunni-Shia clash and the numerous political issues stemming from it will likely not fade away any time soon, and thus the Saudi Kingdom would likely remain a check against Iran regardless of American support. Furthermore, with or without the Saudis America remains strong enough on our own, or with our less objectionable allies, to ward off the Iranian threat. So, it would seem that the Saudis need us a lot more than we need them. With or without them, the United States will be able to protect and maintain our national and economic interests. Therefore, the American government need not maintain this alliance for the good of our own people. In fact, it might even be against our own national interest to continue propping up the regime. They are, at best, a flakey ally at the moment, and they remain a nation whose core principles are completely opposed to our own. In the future, this radical islamist government could become an enemy, and the more we feed them and insulate them from foreign threats, the more dangerous of a foe they could grow to be. The United States thus has both moral and political interests in severing our alliance with this murderous, oppressive, and truly evil regime. We must stop protecting and propping-up the Saud dynasty. With our enabling, they will continue to oppress and malign their own people unopposed, all while they continue to build up their own ability to threaten and terrorize the free world.
Vol. XXXI, Issue IV
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
MAINTAIN THE CRUCIAL US-SAUDI ALLIANCE
Maintain the Crucial US-Saudi Alliance By Matthew Rosen
M
ason Carteri, one of my fellow Binghamton Review writers, has written an article this week criticizing the alliance between the US and Saudi Arabia, calling for its end. Similar to GOP senators Rand Paul and Marco Rubio, he believes that we should withdraw from our alliance with Saudi Arabia due to their brutal dictatorship, their opposition to freedom, and of course, the murder of Jamal Khashoggi. For those of you who don’t know, Khashoggi was supposedly killed in a Saudi consulate in Turkey by 15 men tied to the Saudi government. Khashoggi was a citizen of Saudi Arabia, but a resident of the US who wrote for the Washington Post. Sorry to disagree with you Mason, but despite that, this is a crucial alliance to keep. As for the brutal dictatorship of Saudi Arabia, I can’t say it’s a reason to withdraw from our alliance. I am not exactly a follower of the George W. Bush way of thinking about dictatorships. President Bush believed in a foreign policy where he wouldn’t negotiate with the “Axis of Evil.” I personally believe that a country’s internal affairs should not influence who we do and don’t negotiate with. Of course I am heavily in favor of democracy and individual liberties, but I also believe in sovereignty. It is not the US’s job to fix dictatorships, and if allying with one is beneficial to the US’s national interest, then I am for it. Now don’t get me wrong, this isn’t an easy decision. In fact, I believe it is the toughest foreign policy decision that the Trump administration has had to face. With the situation that the Saudis put us in, we are stuck between a rock and a hard place. I certainly understand the credibility, and specifically our credibility on human rights, that we will lose if we do nothing. I am not suggesting we do nothing. I would be in favor of a temporary economic sanction on Saudi Arabia until they give explanations, and agree to certain reforms. This decision is not as easy as the title of my article makes it sound. This is a delicate situation, and if we respond too lightly, we are giving the green light for countries like Saudi Arabia to do whatever they want internationally. If you have read some of my past articles, you would know that I believe credibility is one of the most important aspects of the US foreign policy. So that being said, I am not in favor of giving up credibility to let our ally off of the hook. It seems to me that a condemnation of the behavior and demands for certain reforms under threat of economic sanctions would send the message we need to send, without losing one of our crucial allies. So why is it that Saudi Arabia is such a crucial ally? While the economic ties are real, I don’t think that is a good enough reason to label their alliance crucial. Well to answer that, we need to focus in on the Middle East and call it for what it is, a Cold War. It’s two big regional powers with opposing ideals battling in proxy wars, but never declaring direct war on each other. On one side of this Cold War, there is a country who hates America, wants to destroy all of our allies in the Middle East (including Israel), wants nuclear weapons, is heavily backed by one of the US’s biggest geopolitical enemies, and is
editor@binghamtonreview.com
the instigator of these conflicts. That side is Iran, backed by the Shia Crescent and pushed heavily by Russia. On the other side, is the country that internationally works with America, is more status quo, has recognized Israel’s right to exist, and suggested a coalition to check Iran’s power and aggression. That side is Saudi Arabia, backed by the Sunni nations, Palestine, loosely Israel (in the sense that they support Saudi Arabia over Iran), and the US. Most people don’t tend to think of the struggle in the Middle East as a Cold War, but it really is. Saudi Arabia was the status quo country until Iran started to Export their Revolution to Saudi Arabia. Giving up the alliance with Saudi Arabia can tip the balance towards Iran and its allies, giving them an advantage in their proxy wars. A bipolar system (a system with exactly two powers) is the most stable type of system. Tipping the balance of power towards one side will blow it up, especially in this case where Saudi Arabia would lose its superpower ally, while Iran would keep its world power ally. An action so extreme like pulling out US support for Saudi Arabia will no doubt be disastrous to the balance of power, and therefore disastrous for the region and for US interests. The ramifications of this could lead to the geographical, or political expansion of Iran, Iranian victory in proxy wars, and possibly even a full scale war between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Mason points out that the conflict between these two regional powers will go on even if the US pulls its support of Saudi Arabia. While true, that doesn’t mean the US withdrawing wouldn’t immensely benefit Iran. Loss of this effective stalemate is detrimental to our important allies, to our efforts in lessening Iranian threat against America, and to our informal rivalry against Russia. Russia cannot be allowed to have that much of a sphere of influence in the Middle East. Of course I agree with Mason’s claims that the Saudi government is immoral and extremely dictatorial, but the fundamental idea of sovereignty is important to uphold. It is not the US’s job to fix dictatorships, especially when it could lead to Iran’s expansion in the Middle East. But from a geopolitical/ realist perspective on foreign policy, keeping Saudi Arabia as our ally is crucial. Handing over the opportunity to control the Middle East to Iran, the Shia Crescent, and Russia is way too dangerous to consider. On the other side of the coin, of course their needs to be some response that maintains the US credibility and sends the message that behavior like that isn’t tolerated.
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
15