March 2008 - Binghamton Review

The Student Journal at Binghamton University

The Student Journal at Binghamton University

March 2008

Truth and two staples

Binghamton Review

*Tribute to Bill Buckley*Fear of Islam*The Future of the Review*The Return of Campus Presswatch ...and much more!

In this Issue:

www.binghamtonreview.com

Plus BR’s Coveted SA Endorsements!

Under New Management

Binghamton Review, March 2008

Binghamton ReviewThe Student Journal at Binghamton University

Founded 1987 o Volume XXI Number 6 o March 2008

Past Editors of Binghamton Review: John Guardiano, Yan Rusanovsky, Kathryn Doherty, Ephriam Bernstein, Michael Malloy, Paul Schnier, Adam Bromberg, Bernadette Malone, Michael Darcy, Nathan Wurtzel, Amy Gardner, John Carney, Paul Torres, Jason Kovacs, Robert Zoch, Matthew Pecorino, Michael O’Connell, Louis W. Leonini, Joseph Carlone, Christopher Powell, Nathaniel Sugarman

Binghamton Review is a monthly, independent journal of news, analysis, com-mentary, and controversy. Students at Binghamton University receive two copies of the Review free of charge (non-transferrable). Additional copies cost $1 each. Letters to the Editor are welcome; they must be accompanied by the author’s current address and phone number. All submissions become the property of the Review. The Review reserves the right to edit and print any submission. Copyright © 2008 Binghamton Review. All rights reserved. Binghamton Review is distrib-uted on campus under the authority of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Binghamton Review is a member of the Collegiate Network and is a Student Association-chartered organization. Binghamton University is not responsible for the content of the Review; the Review is not responsible for the content of Binghamton University. Binghamton Review thanks the Intercollegiate Studies Institute.

Features

3 Editorial: Robert E. Menje begins his reign as Editor

4 Letters: A reader disagrees with the all knowing Binghamton Review

6 The return of Campus Presswatch

7 BR pays tribute to William F. Buckley Jr.

12 The Review presents its SA Endorsements

articles

8 Adam Shamah on Conservatism and our founding

principles.

10 Nehemia Stern tackles “Islamophobia.”

15 Dan Rabinowitz hates liberals who can’t debate.

“Before all else, be armed.” -Niccolo Machiavelli

Editor-in-ChiefRobert Edward Menje

Managing EditorAdam Shamah

Editor EmeritusChristopher Powell

Business ManagerMichael Lombardi

TreasurerMichael Calabrese

Publicity DirectorMichael Alliance

Marketing DirectorEdward Aller

Staff Writers Gil Auslander, Donna Lee Cohen. Ryan Dunham, Evan Engel, Paul Liggieri, Robert E. Menje, James

Novak, Christopher Powell, Adam Shamah, Thomas Shannon, Nehemia

Stern

Friends of the ReviewDr. Aldo S. BernardoMr. Michael J. HayesThe Kaufman FamilyMr. Robert LarnerdThe Leonini Family

Mr. Michael O’ConnellMr. Tony PotochniakThe Powell FamilyMr. Conrad Ross

The Shannon FamilyMr. Bob Soltis WA2CVS

The Sugarman FamilyThe Menje Family

The Shamah Family

Binghamton Review is printed by Our Press, in Chenango Bridge. We provide the truth; they provide the

staples.

Binghamton ReviewBinghamton University

PO Box 6000Binghamton, NY 13902-6000

[email protected]

www.binghamtonreview.com

�


The Future/Bill Buckleyt is official. What is official you may ask? I,

Robert Edward Menje now run this publica-

tion. That’s right, I’m the head honcho. With

our last major editor graduating and his replacement

taking the semester off after one issue, this publication

has fallen into my lap. I feel as if this could not have

happened at a better time. The direction that this jour-

nal has been going in over the last semester and a half

is appalling. You, our loyal readers, put in the effort

to bend over monthly to pick this up off the ground

because you expect to read about controversial top-

ics that you will either agree with or which will drive

you to burn effigies of the staff because you disagree.

Over the past few issues, I have noticed that there has

been a significant increase of articles

about nothingness. In a Menje run

magazine, you will not read reviews

about the latest video games to come

out. I will leave that to other pub-

lications on campus. Also, Adam

Shamah is the new Managing Editor.

He certainly smells better than previ-

ous editors so at least the office will

be a more work friendly environ-

ment. Our new Business Manager

is Michael Lombardi. In true Jewish

fashion, he will manage our money better than my

Catholic ass ever could (we aren’t exactly known for

our accounting skills). Our articles will go back to

the roots in which this magazine was founded. They

will be political and conservative/libertarian by nature.

We’re going to return to covering campus issues that

matter to students. There will never be another article

about body hair printed in the Binghamton Review.

This issue will be the last issue that will have been

“slapped together”. I literally got the keys to the

office a few days ago and had to rush to get this issue

together. The next issue will feature a new design, new

layout, and a return to our roots. So look out for it in

April. Coming to a lecture hall floor near you.

Halfway through writing this, I heard the news

that William F. Buckley, Jr. had died. I feel his con-

tribution to the movement is noteworthy and that he

deserves to have at least half of this editorial dedicated

to his achievements. Buckley founded the National

Review over 50 years ago. At the time, Conservatism

as an American political philosophy was in shambles,

and New Deal policies were in full stride. At National

Review, Buckley brought together the

best and brightest conservative minds

in this country, and laid the ground-

work for what would become the

dominant political philosophy of the

modern era. Because of this history

the Review was the first magazine

that I purchased for home delivery

when I was 14. I remember checking

my mailbox bi-monthly for the next

issue. I became interested in writing

political commentary mainly because

of Buckley and Rich Lowry (the current Editor of the

National Review). There are only a few people who I

can actually say have impacted my life in a meaning-

ful way. Bill Buckley is one such person. He will

always be remembered and his great legacy will live

on through all those whom he has touched.

-Robert Edward Menje, Editor-in-Chief

I

Editorial

In a Menje run

magazine, you

will not read

reviews about

the latest video

games to come

out.


I don’t know if you guys re-ally take letters to your publication too seriously (see article about Women’s Rights coupled with ad for Gentlemen Club) but I thought I’d give a shot at trying to promote the free speech and discourse Mike Lombardi champions. Binghamton Review is right in valuing discourse over all else. However, I find it odd that Lombardi is quick to pi-geonhole the Experimental Media Organization (E.M.O.) as a group whose objective is to “sti-fle and silence those with a different opinion.” It is my understanding that Daniel Pipes still said his piece after the walkout and his voice was not sti-fled, this being a credit to his tenacity in what he believes in. To me though, there seems to be some sort of double standard happening here. Why is it that a planned walkout and protest cannot be an act and proponent of free speech and discourse? There are obviously many who agree with Pipes’ theories (to wit: an entire magazine), so how could introducing alternative thoughts do anything but encourage discourse? I guess I should have some sort of de-fense of the protest here or something. The Coalition Against Hate (C.A.H.), to my understanding, was trying to or-ganize the dissenters towards Pipes’ rhetoric and spread awareness on cam-pus of the debate around this issue, just as you guys attempted to do the same. However, the main difference to me was the methods with which both groups attempted this. BR tried to create a lecture setting, in which one person speaks and everyone else listens and digests the information to the best of their ability. Of course, this is pretty standard although I guess it’s

possible to argue that this in itself is stifling. C.A.H. (in which, to my un-derstanding, also consisted of many multicultural organizations, E.M.O.

members were actually a minority) saw this structure as insufficient and

decided to create their own space outside and at the same time speak their mind about Pipes’ views. Rather than seeing this as disruptive towards

Pipes’ agenda (its not like he’s not used to protests), I saw it as a creative way to allow those who were not al-lowed to speak during Pipes’ lecture to

express themselves. In both situations, different types of speech and ways to stim-ulate discourse were occur-ring. Thus it is both irrele-vant and childish to attempt to defame E.M.O. in order to promote your own agen-da against them, especially under the guise that they are

hurting this university, when it seems clear that the opposite is occurring. I completely agree that debate and discourse is necessary in situations like this. But to regulate the meth-ods with which to accomplish this so that they fit to your standards is, to me, an act of repression, some-thing I’m sure Lombardi does not approve of. I like that you guys care enough about things to write about them, even though I think some of your views are misguided. I hope you don’t take this as an attack on your publication: I don’t mean it that way.

Love, Brian Ma Sophomore

Mike Lombardi Responds:

Mr. Ma makes the argument that I have “pigeonholed” E.M.O. and that discourse was not at all pre-vented during Dr. Pipes’ speech. While I have to agree that a com-ponent of free speech is the ability to protest, the actions that day went above and beyond what is acceptable. First, by occupying seats in the lec-ture hall, and preventing those who

...I do feel that even fig-ures as con-troversial as Pipes have an unalien-able right to speech.

HatE Mail

Letter to the EditorNot everyone seems to get that we are always right.

4

For some, the distraction continued,

as the C.A.H. spent the remainder of

the event making loud noises outside.

Binghamton Review, March 2008 Binghamton Review, March 2008

�

actually wanted to listen to Pipes from taking those seats, members of C.A.H. were indeed prevent-ing discourse. This is undeniable. Second, the “walkout” was clearly not an act of peaceful protest. It was deliberately disruptive; the goal of its organizers was to distract students from Pipes’ speech. They were successful, as many of us were not able to concentrate on Dr. Pipes’ words until after the “protesters” left the lecture hall. For some, the distrac-tion continued, as the C.A.H. spent the remainder of the event making loud noises outside, in what appeared to most members of the audience as an attempt to break their concentration. Mr. Ma is also mistaken when he states that this entire magazine abso-lutely agrees with all of Pipes’ views. I can speak for myself when I say there are many things Pipes believes in that I just cannot buy into. However I do feel that even figures as controversial as Pipes have an unalienable right to speech. I have never been the type to let people make decisions for me, and I feel the best way to form an opinion is to hear every possible side of an is-sue. I guess that is one of the ways I am different from members of E.M.O. I am not a proponent of, as Mr. Ma sug-gests, regulating methods of discourse. I am only stating that the members of this “protest” did indeed tried to pre-vent speech from occurring. I hope this serves as a clarification and response to this letter that I received and proves to you that we at the Review do in fact take our readers’ letters seriously.

Send in your nominees for our annual “Best and Worst Professors” awards.

All submissions should be sent to:[email protected]

Include a brief explanation of why he or she deserves to win.


KEEping an EyE out 6

Pipe Dream February 22. 2008

“...the benefit of Clinton’s race is that she holds both the promise of progress

and the advantage of knowing what she stands for...”

Really? The advantage of knowing what she stands for? We at the Review would like to be clued in. For example, we’d like to know her position on Iraq. Our understanding is that she wants to end the war immediately, but at the same time maintain high troop levels there for the next few years. At a recent debate, Hillary told us that she, “stands for ending the war in Iraq, bringing our troops home.” In that very same debate, she also said, “We’re going to have troops there, guarding our embassy, we may have a continuing training mission, and we may have a mission against al-Qaida in Iraq.” Based on this, even Hillary does not know what she stands for, let alone the Pipe Dream. The only thing we can be sure of is that she wants to take our money and steal our liberty.

EMO ZineFebruary 2008

“Psychologically, the 2010 Winter

Olympic Games only intends to further the brainwashing corporate agenda of

the Entertainment Industrial Complex.”

It has been almost a year since BR last published an edition of Campus Presswatch. In the past, this section was used to police the left-wing campus media. We’re happy to an-nounce that it is back and here to stay.

Campus Presswatch:by the Editors

Policing the left wing campus media

We always

thought the

Olympics was

about bring-

ing together the

nations and cul-

tures of the world

for two-weeks

to showcase the

brotherhood of

man.

The Olympics is about some evil corporate agenda? That’s news to us. We always thought the Olympics was about bring-ing together the nations and cultures of the world for two-weeks to showcase the brotherhood of man. It’s a time when citi-zens of warring nations can live together in the Olympic Village and put aside their conflicts, even if it’s just for a short while.

ProspectFebruary 2008

“Yet a tiny percentage of biologists still believe in creationism, but they lack the credibility, and are often more associ-ated with Christian groups than with

the scinetific community.”

Intelligent Design, as a scien-tific theory, has been absent from the scientific community not because there aren’t scientists who reject Darwinism in favor of Intelligent Design, but because these scientists are being censored by the politically correct academic estab-lishment. Ben Stein, though not a sci-entist, is a very intelligent man. We think all of our readers, and even those nuts over at Prospect, would agree. This Spring he plans to release his new film, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, about the effort by left wing academics to silence those who ques-tion Darwinism. We, the Editors of the Review, were given the privilege of see-ing an early screening of the film, and recommend that our viewers go see it as soon as it hits theaters. The evidence provided in the film is overwhelming, and reveals to us that there are indeed scientists who don’t toe the line of Darwinian Evolution.


�

WILLIAM F. BUCKLEY, JR. In Memoriam

1925 - 2008

William F. “Bill” Buckley, Jr. was an American political commentator and author. Buckley’s primary intellectual achievement was to fuse traditional American political conservatism with libertarianism, laying the groundwork for the modern American conservatism of U.S. Presi-dential candidate Barry Goldwater and U.S. President Ronald Reagan. In 19��, He founded the National Review, the publication from which the Binghamton Review gets its namesake. Buck-ley has been the most prominent voice in the conservative movement for over five decades. His death is a great loss to the conservative movement but his ideas will live on forever. His pub-lication is in good hands and the movement, which he helped propel, is stronger than ever.

“Conservatives in this country...are non-licensed nonconformists; and this is a dangerous busi-

ness in a Liberal world.” -WFB

8


common talking point that has been tossed around this election sea-son is that “Conserva-

tism is dead” or that it must “mod-ernize.” This is something that has been proclaimed by the usual liberal hacks on television, Hillary Clinton, Barack Hussein Obama, and even some members of the Republican establishment. The truth is that Conser-vatism is still the ideal politi-cal philosophy and its ideas can never become outdated. That is because conservative principles are derived from the very nature of God’s universe and mankind. In Conscience of a Conservative, Barry Goldwater eloquently states that “[t]he laws of God, and of na-ture, have no dateline. The prin-ciples on which the Conservative political position is based have been established by a process that has nothing to do with the social, economic and political landscape that changes from decade to de-cade and from century to century. These principles are derived from the nature of man, and from the truths that God has revealed about his creation. Circumstances do change. So do the problems that are shaped by circumstances. But the principles that govern the so-lution of the problems do not.” Those who disagree do not under-stand what Conservatism is. Conservatism, simply put, is the political philosophy that founded this great nation; the be-lief that when government ex-pands, liberty is lost. It is more than just an economic and social theory; it is a philosophy of life itself. Government programs are

at odds with Conservatism not because they are inefficient and ineffective, though they are, but because they turn free people into wards of the state. Conservatives’ support for a low income tax is de-rived not from the economic ben-efits of such a tax policy, but from the belief that government should not be in the business of stealing property from the people. We sup-port the peoples’ right to bear arms not just because there are rapists and murderers out there looking for victims, but because the people should not be dependent solely on their government for protection. So can someone tell me

how something as basic and fun-damental as freedom can become outdated? Do people just wake up one day and decide they do not want to be free anymore? The an-

swer, of course, is no. When can-didates run as conservatives, they win, and they do so overwhelm-ingly. Reagan proved this to be true three decades ago, Gingrich reinforced it in 1994, and Bobby Jindal reminded us, when he was elected last fall as Governor of Louisiana, that it still hold true today. Jindal ran a genuinely con-servative campaign that attracted people from both parties. That is how he was able to get elected in a state that has consistently voted for Democrats for the better part of the past 100 years. Politicians can take con-servative positions on issues, but when candidates speak about Con-servatism as a way of life, they appeal to far more people. When they argue their positions from a philosophical standpoint, rather than only from an economic one, they win. This country may be split in half when we are speaking in terms of Democrats and Repub-licans, but the split is not 50-50 when we are talking about liberals and conservatives. This is still a conservative country, and I believe it will remain that way far into the future.

-Adam Shamah is a freshmen at BU. He is also the new Managing Editor of the Review. He thought he would get out of having a blurb, but he’s not that lucky. He can usu-ally be found listening to Britney Spears songs on loop all day and night in the BR office. Stop by and serenade him some “...Baby One More Time.”

When can-didates run as conserva-tives, they win, and they do so overwhelm-ingly.

Don’t Listen to Those Liberal Liarsby Adam Shamah

Conservatism 101

Conservatism is Alive and Well

A


9

BU COLLEGE REPUBLICANS

present:

DINESH D’SOUZA

Details Coming Soon...Wednesday, April 16th at 8:00 pm in

the UU-Mandela RoomSponsored by Harpur College Dean’s Office and the Young America’s Foundation

SA Chartered

Politically Incorrect

10


islaM: a dynaMitE rEligion

or as long as I can re-member, I have suffered from an exaggerated, inexplicable, and irra-tional fear of heights. I

do not like them, I can not stand them, and I try to stay as low to the ground as humanly possible. Now call me a sissy, but that’s not the only thing that I am afraid of. I am also plagued by an il-logical fear of government and religion. I am heartened though in the knowledge that I ‘suffer’ with some of the greatest indi-viduals of the modern era. Men the likes of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison all feared government and religion (they might have been Acropho-bic as well). They feared these concepts to such an extent that for the better part of a decade they risked death in their attempts to separate and limit the two. It is with this thought in mind that I am perplexed by the ac-tions of a misguided liberal co-hort, who for the sake of a po-litical agenda, place the name of a religion (in this case Islam) as a prefix to the word ‘phobia’. I am doubly perplexed when I fail to see any substantive dis-sent to the use of this linguistic anomaly. The term Islamopho-bia conjures up connotations of bigotry and hatred. It brings to mind fearful images of a manic majority persecuting a fright-ened and horror-stricken minor-ity. Moreover, in recent years, this term has acquired a political currency. It is used to libelously

besmirch the reputations of indi-viduals who just happen to pos-sess conservative viewpoints. Because the term ‘Islamaphobia’ is used so often, and to such ef-fect, it would be beneficial to spend a few moments decon-structing and analyzing the term.The Runnymede Trust, a Brit-ish anti-discrimination think tank defined Islamophobia as a “dread or hatred of Islam and

therefore, to the fear and dislike of all Muslims.” Perhaps ow-ing to my Talmudic background in hermeneutic and dialectical thinking, I cannot help but take apart the above sentence. First-ly, following in the well-trod-den tracks of Merriam-Webster, Islamophobia should simply reference the inexplicable and illogical fear of Islam. Fear of a particular religion should not imply hatred of that religion.

Secondly, it does not necessarily follow that ones personal fears vis-à-vis Islam should translate into hatred towards the practi-tioners of Islam (in all their quo-tidian forms). Simply put, since when is it wrong to fear religion? Allow me to be absolutely clear. I believe bigotry and hatred di-rected towards individuals (as well as groups) who happen to practice a particular religion (in this case Islam) is absolutely and categorically abhorrent. At the same time, I am arguing that an inexplicable and reaction-ary response towards any reli-gion is not only legitimate and justified, but also praiseworthy. The world has earned the right to fear religion, just as the world has earned the right to fear big government. To be sure, belief along with the practice of that belief has the potential to per-form a great deal of good in the world. It offers comfort along with a certain sense of ‘tran-scendental order’. Yet at the same time, left unchecked these institutions have proven their true potential in their ability to cause an innumerable amount of harm. A healthy reactionary fear of Islam is just as legitimate as a fear of the Catholic Church, or indeed of any rabbinic leg-islative body. Left to their own devices these institutions pos-ses the inordinate ability to hurt people. The founding fathers of this country acknowledged re-ligion’s potential for harm, and codified this healthy fear into the

Simply put, since when is it wrong to fear reli-gion?

A Second Look at Islamophobiaby Nehemia Stern

The Liberal Hijacking of the English Language

F


11

first amendment to the Constitu-tion. Moreover, they associated their limitations of religion to the inalienable civic freedoms of speech, the press, and assembly. A healthy fear of religion is not only legitimate and praisewor-thy, but it is also codified within the founding documents of this country. On the other hand, fear of those who practice religion has (and should have) no place with-in a free and thriving democracy. The latter though, does not - and should not - follow the former. Thus, fear of Islam as a religion is a legitimate reaction, a fear of Muslims (individuals or groups who practice Islam in all its myr-iad forms) most certainly is not. The same logic applies to any re-ligion, as (like government) they all have the potential to cause destruction and ruin. The multi-farious theologies of Christianity and Judaism should all be feared and critiqued. The practitioners of these religions (providing they do not cause physical harm

or negate the rights of others to practice as they see fit) should be respected and valued for their virtuous and worthy deeds. The term Islamophobia obfus-cates this necessary distinction. The term coalesces and blurs the boundary between the justifiable fear of religion and the unreason-able fear of religious practitio-ners. Even worse, it does so for the sake of political gain. Any westerner who critiques a theol-ogy of Islam is suddenly equated to a hateful bigot. Islamophobia is used as a catch all phrase to vilify--to the point of capital pun-ishment--a cartoonist who draws a picture of Mohammed. In the unfortunate wake of this libelous classification, necessary argu-ments and discussions that must occur are stifled. This is categor-ically wrong, for in the end, the term Islamophobia itself causes misunderstandings that are cen-tered on discourses of hatred. I implore the individuals on this campus who seem to care

so passionately about the sensi-bilities and sensitivities of eth-nic and religious minorities to create a new term. Such a term must abjure the fear of individu-als based solely upon religious beliefs. At the same time, such a term must respect and protect the rightly earned privilege of individuals to fear and openly critique theology and religious practice. At the end of the day, we should remember that while religion can do a great deal of good, we have a deserved right to be fearful of its other potential.

-Nehemia Stern is a BU Grad student. He is also afraid of open spaces, spiders, and Mel Gibson.

Words of Wisdom:“i don’t like being called ‘neW

right’; i’m an old, old son-of-a-bitch. i’m a conservative.”

-barry goldWater

12


BR’s Coveted SA Endorsementsby the BR Staff

CaMpus ElECtions

SA President Our Editor-In-Chief is running so it would be disingenuous of us to endorse any candidate. But if we were to endorse a candidate, it would probably be him.

Executive Vice-President: Boris “For Us” TadchievBorat was wrong; not all people from Uzbekistan are assholes—Boris certainly is not. He is the only one of the EVP candidates with an actual plan to deal with the lack of programming space student groups will be faced with next year. His platform calls for more freedom and autonomy for student groups. And as you all know, BR prides itself on our love for freedom. Boris is clearly the most qualified of the EVP candidates as he has be involved with the SA for three years and currently chairs the Rules Committee, which is the legislative equivalent of the EVP. He also works in the office of the current EVP, Joe Danko.

Vice-President for Academic Affairs: Peter X. SpaetHillary Clinton isn’t the only Hillary who BR won’t be endorsing anytime soon. Peter Spaet has shown, through his work in the Student Assembly, that he is willing to fight for student interests. Other candidates talk about dealing with the programming space problem, but only Peter (and Boris Tadchiev) have taken steps to do anything about it. Both are authors of an SA resolution that would direct the FVP to withdraw money from the Student Association’s retained earnings account for use in renting off campus programming space next year. We like his ideas regarding pass/fail classes and textbook exchange,and believe he is one of the few members of the SA who will put students’ interests above his own.

Remember to Vote on Wednesday, March 5th or Thursday, March 6th

Vice-President for Programming: Daniel Y. LevinWe know we will confuse our readers when we mention that Dan Levin is Editor-In-Chief of Prospect Magazine. That is because no one has ever read Prospect Magazine. Nevertheless, he has used his leadership positions on several student groups to plan several very successful programs this year. These include last week’s Rock The Vote concert and last semester’s Col-lege Democrat versus College Republican debate, which was a landslide victory for the College Republicans. We hope he can continue to provide the school with excellent programming next year, as your Vice-President for Programming.

Endorsements Continue on Page 14

1�

Binghamton Review, March 2008Binghamton Review, March 2008


14

Vice-President for Multiculural Affairs: Randal Z. MeyerWe like the fact that Randy is an outsider with regards to cultural groups on this campus. An impor-tant aspect of the VPMA position is managing the affairs of cultural groups, and we feel that Randy will be the most impartial in any situations that might arise. As of right now, the VPMA’s office is wasteful and is essentially useless, and we believe that Randy is the best candidate to change that.

Vice-President for FinanceWe have chosen to not endorse a VPF because we believe that both candidates would do a superb job. Alice Liou is more qualified in the realm of SA finance, but we feel that Jon would work better with student groups. We wish we could mold the two into one can-didate, and hope that whoever loses continues his or her work on the Student Association.

sa EndorsEMEnts ContinuE

Binghamton Review:We already control campus. Soon it will be the world.

Join us before it’s too late.Weekly Meetings: Thursdays, 7:30 P.M. in our office, WB05 (basement of the New

Union below the food court).

E-mail: [email protected]: www.binghamtonreview.com

Remember to Vote on Wednesday, March 5th or Thursday, March 6th in your dining hall. Off-Campus and Dickinson vote in the Old Union.


1�

The Jew Corner:Daniel S. Rabinowitz on Debating Liberals

f you have ever roomed with a person who is delusional then you and I certainly have

something in common. I am not referring to rooming with your common drug abuser, but rather with a crazy liberal. I have post-ers of Ronald Reagan on my wall and a copy of Conscience of a Conservative by Barry Goldwater in my desk drawer. I listen to Rush Limbaugh daily, and use the New York Times as toilet paper, so you can imag-ine what it must be like for me to live with such a person. Liberals come in all shapes, sizes, and sexual orien-tations, but few of them are ac-tually able to win an argument. For the past month, I have been arguing with my roommate over a variety of political is-sues. Throughout this upset-ting and frustrating process, I have come to notice that liber-als lack the skills needed to win a debate. Their Forrest Gump IQ can explain this phenom-enon. So can the fact that they have grown reliant on playing the race card and just calling conservatives “mean.” Either way, liberals as a whole tend to not concentrate on the issues. All they need are two deceiv-ing words that have become the base of the Democratic Party: hope, and change. If all else fails, they can always call their conservative opponent a racist.

No person exemplifies this ability to bull shit his or her way through an argument more than Barack Hussein Obama. B. Hussein Obama is a candidate who refuses to pick a position

on any issue. He is for everyone. Whether you are a white male living in Greenwich Village, a terrorist living in Pakistan, or an EMO/SAC member planning to blow up the Binghamton Re-view office, Obama is for you. What will he do for you, you

may ask? We don’t know, but we do know that he is for “change.” Eventually, B. Hussein Obama will have to face John McCain in a presidential debate. If McCain calls him out on the fact that he says nothing, how will he respond? Probably by do-ing what he usually does; he will give a very nice speech about how America needs change, and the TV audiences will salivate. But how will Obama change this country? What policies is he going to implement that oth-ers have not attempted? The fact is, no one knows. McCain must capitalize on this opportunity to show the world that Obama is merely another liberal. He is a more eloquent, less clown-ish version of Al Sharpton. When it comes down to it, debating a liberal is no dif-ferent than trying to talk to a crack addict. They repeat the same statement over and over again. But instead of saying “sucky sucky five dollars,” which many liberals probably do use anyway, they use words like “hope,” and “progress,” over and over again. Liberals live by the principle that states, “We know nothing, do noth-ing, but somehow we will still manage to steal your money.”

-Daniel S. Rabinowitz is a Freshmen Engineering ma-jor. In his spare time, he can usually be found beating up

[Obama] is a more el-oquent, less clownish version of Al Sharp-ton.

I


Binghamton ReviewBinghamton UniversityP.O. Box 6000Binghamton, N.Y. 13902-6000

[email protected]

Nonprofit Org.U.S. Postage

PAIDPermit 61

Binghamton, NY

Embrace Global Warming

Binghamton, NY March 20�0

Who needs to save up for Spring Break when you can take a $� dollar cab to SportsBar, where you can enjoy their world famous Mai Tai (with those little umbrellas) at their new beachfront location, still at 8� State St.

If you would like to make this a reality, we encourage you to drive an SUV, leave your lights on day and night, and waste as much paper as humanly possible. If we all work together, we can leave a better world for the future students of Binghamton University.

Documents

March 2008 - Binghamton Review