september 2012 - binghamton review

BINGHAMTONREVIEW

SEPTEMBER 2012TRUTH AND TWO STAPLES

How Professor’s political biases

violate the principles of education

Straight from the Donkey’s Mouth (pg.8)

College

Massacre

Unfounded Hazing Allegations Plague Greek Life (pg. 6)

INSIDER INFO: a former RA’s account of ResLife (pg. 11)

The 1 Year Anniversary of the Occupy Movement (pg. 14)

***Harpo The Donkey: Harpur College’s Original Mascot

Binghamton Review FOUNDED 1987 • VOLUME XXVI NUMBER 1 • SEPTEMBER 2012

P.O. BOX 6000BINGHAMTON, NY 13902-6000

[email protected]

General Staff Meetings: Every Thursday at 6:00pm in UUW-B05

Contents

6 Sound the Alarm, We Have Greek Life by Eric Fitchett

8 Harpur College Massacre by Nicholas Fondacaro

11 ResLife: Doortags and Power Trips by The Wolf 2.0

14 The Misdirected Anger of the 99% by Jake Hayutin

Departments3 EDITORIAL4 CAMPUS PRESSWATCH5 WHAT YOU MISSED

EDITOR-IN-CHIEFJacob L. Hayutin

Managing EditorDaniel Milyavsky

Copy Desk ChiefWilliam Obilisundar

Associate EditorsSamuel P. Bondy

Nicholas FondacaroBridgette Cook

Editor EmeritusAaron M. Ricks

ContributorsDaniel Rudder, Eric Fitchett, Joshua

May, Thomas Armstrong, Zach Greenberg, Vincent Piazza

Patriarchs of the ReviewLouis W. Leonini

Adam Shamah

Friends of the ReviewDr. Aldo S. BernardoThe Leonini Family

Mr. Bob Soltis WA2VCSThe Shamah Family

The Grynheim FamilyThe Menje FamilyThe Leeds Family

The Lombardi FamilyThe Packer Family

Mr. Michael O’Connell

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

staples.

Standing Up for Free Speech

PAGE 7

The 1st Amendment is No Joke

3www.binghamtonreview.com

Binghamton Review is a non-partisan, student-run periodical of conservative thought 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. In that spirit, we seek to promote the free exchange of ideas and offer an alternative viewpoint not normally found on our predominately liberal campus. It is our duty to expose the warped ideology of political correctness that dominates this university. We stand against tyranny in all 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. Finally, we understand that a moral order is a necessary component of any civilized society. We strive to inform, engage, and perhaps even amuse our readers in carrying out this mission.

Our Mission

EDITORIAL

From the Editor...

Welcome back students of Binghamton University. To those of you who are new to our wonderful campus, we’re sorry that you

either couldn’t afford or got rejected from your first choice school. As you have probably noticed we are in year eight of a century long campus renovation process. If you change your major enough times or become a townie, you might get the chance to see what the campus looks like without asbestos tents and CATERPILLAR equipment. Aside from being New York’s “Public Ivy” as acclaimed by the admissions department, Binghamton is known for having an incredibly long and dark winter season. In fact our humble town has ranked in the top five most depressing cities in the country for nearly a century.

But, It’s not all bad. After all, we are all American college students. Our demographic is one of the most fortunate in the world. We have the luxury of getting a top notch subsidized education and of course, unlimited access to the many fine establishments on State Street.

This is my first year as Editor-in-Chief of the Review. I am a senior double major in Philosophy, Politics & Law Traditions Western Government and History. I can most generally categorize myself as a conservative libertarian with Anti-Federalist leanings. I got involved with the Review

last year after having a couple ridiculously unprofessional encounters with a few of my professors.

I have come to learn and respect the accomplishments of the Review and hope to significantly contribute to its legacy. This year, I want to put an emphasis on reviewing Binghamton. As part of this focus, starting next month I will include a book review featuring my analysis of a particular political philosopher’s work that has influenced my thinking. Spoiler Alert! Thinkers will likely include; John Stossel, Pascal Bruckner and Thomas Sowell.

Finally, I would like to thank my predecessor Aaron Ricks for helping me assimilate to the Review’s creative process. - Jacob L. Hayutin

B

WANT TO GET INVOLVED WITH BINGHAMTON’S MOST LOVED AND HATED PUBLICATION ON CAMPUS??Direct letters to [email protected].

4 BINGHAMTON REVIEW SEPTEMBER 2012

Campus presswatCh

Pipe Dream“Adding Insult to Injury”

September 21, 2012

A better title would have been, “Adding Stupidity to an Irrelevant Publication.”

“Investigators believe that the film was the final provocation that led to the terrible killings...”

How about you focus your anger and condemnations upon those that committed an act of murder rather than an obscure film-maker.

“It is disappointing that in the democratic nation we live in, people take advantage of our freedoms.”

What the hell is the point of having a freedom if you don’t use it? You need to take a good, long look at your priorities if you believe that exercising one’s right of free speech justify the death of four people.

“(Jerome Paillard speaking about the film, ‘The Anti-Semite’) ‘Our general conditions ban the presence of all films threatening public order or religious convictions.’ If only YouTube followed those standards as well.”

You have to be kidding. You are basically proposing that YouTube ban all material that anyone in the world might find offensive? This is your solution?

“Unfortunately, removing ‘Innocence of Muslims’ trailer will not appease all in the Middle East... But why even wave a red flag at the bull?”

Your article wreaks of appeasement of murderous barbarians. Instead of trying empathize with these people, we should make it known that their behavior is completely intolerable. Sacrificing free speech is not an acceptable solution.

Pipe Dream“Celebration or Honor: Religious Holidays and the Constitution”

September 21, 2012

“When it comes to religious holidays, we can accommodate all by having none.”

Why punish the more than 90% of people in America that are Christians or Jews in the name of fairness? It seems like a great policy that if everyone can’t have fun, no one can have fun.

“What is the mission of the State University of New York, and does it include the preferential treatment of Jewish holidays?”

No. All schools in the SUNY system choose their own schedules. Binghamton happens to know that a large portion of its students and wealthy donors happen to be Jewish. It’s pretty much as simple as that.

“Many would argue it is mainstream acceptance, not fairness, that keeps Christianity and Judaism prominent in public education.”

Obviously. It is mainstream acceptance.

by The Editors

What is fair about preventing 90% of America from celebrating its own religious holidays?

Pipe Dream“Dehumanizing Candidates”

September 4, 2012

Former Review Editor-in-Chief, Aaron Ricks, pulls a Benedict Arnold and writes a guest article for the Review’s enemy number one, Pipe Dream.

We have to admit that the article is well written, so instead of making fun of the substance, we are just going to make fun of him.

You see, Mr. Ricks read a Pipe Dream opinion piece attacking Mitt Romney, and was enraged. We don’t understand why he was so angry, Pipe Dream articles are always ridiculously stupid.

Mr. Ricks proceeded to request Pipe Dream’s editors to allow him to write a rebuttal to the article. Again, this confuses us. Mr. Ricks’ reaction only validated the existence of Pipe Dream.

To be honest, we really think that Mr. Ricks’ anger was inspired by his endless need to defend fellow Mormons, including Mitt Romney.

**insert generic Mormon joke.***


Who We Are

Truth and Two Staples since 1987

Check us out on Facebook at www.facebook.com/binghamtonreview


HAZING

Sound the Alarm

by Eric Fitchett

Sound the alarm Binghamton, our campus is out of control! Heinous acts such as staying up late on

school nights, scraping of elbows and hands, shaving of heads, eating disgusting mixtures of food, and more are being committed among us. And no, your rebellious little brother is not the culprit- it’s your fellow classmates. GASP! That is right; this semester around 3% of our peers (a low number for a University this size) will voluntarily subject themselves to this age old, hallowed, and possibly immature tradition known as “hazing,”… my instinct is to whisper the word.How did we gain access to such startling

mind-boggling original information? It seems that those least likely to show concern and tattle have opened their mouths after all. Thanks to a September 18th New York Times article about hazing at Binghamton we now know that a number of concerned girlfriends, mommies and daddies have courageously come forward to share the eye-opening truth: … hazing… exists. If you have not caught onto my facetious tone yet, let me clear the air and say that I find this annual uproar over guys and girls essentially daring their classmates to accomplish silly tasks at their own risk to be totally and utterly ridiculous.Let’s examine four of the many issues the

New York Times article failed to point out regarding Greek Life at Binghamton. First, the philanthropic contribution of

Greek life to our campus and community is overwhelmingly positive. Without the many blood drives, charitable contributions and off campus parties, the demographic here in Binghamton would be composed primarily of pale, poor, frequent attendees of Late Night Binghamton. All can agree

this would be a dismal fate. Second, the actual reported number of

serious injuries due to hazing is minuscule at best. It is wrong for people to react disproportionately to the existing hazing violations by pointing to extreme cases at other institutions. And let’s not forget that Mr. Solomon, quoted in the New York Times as saying, “My entire tenure from start to finish, I was scared to death that someone was going to die” was fired for being universally hated by every member of Greek Life. Perhaps Mr. Solomon should have devoted his time to building a safer Greek life environment, instead of aimlessly worrying about the possibility of student deaths.Third, those who partake in the hazing

process are voluntarily doing so. They do this with the knowledge that performing these mindless tasks and sacrificing their time (and sometimes bodies) will prove their willingness and worthiness to contribute to the greater good of their organization. Fraternities and sororities offer life-changing scholarships and future career opportunities, if a student makes the conscious decision to enter such organizations, knowing full well the price of entry, should we stand in their way?Fourth, there is no way to stop hazing, it

will, and does, happen no matter what at all colleges with Greek Life organizations. Articles are written every year that attempt to bring awareness and new deterrents to hazing practices, and they have all been in vain. The fact remains that stricter regulation will only serve to further weaken the entirety of the Greek Life system with little to no effect on hazing practices. It is time to re-evaluate the current

approach. The current strategy leads officials to first lament for the safety of students, and then look at a holistic band-aid solution for the problems. Instead, let’s advocate new system where specific individuals who take hazing to criminal levels are prosecuted. This would stop the rare bad apples from spoiling the thriving apple tree. Let’s recognize the independence that society expects of collegiate students and allow them to make their own decisions, and pay for the consequences. If we are old enough to own credit cards and pay taxes, deciding to drink hot sauce sundaes should not be out of the question. B

We Have Greek Life

Former Directed of Greek life Sunni Soloman (center)


FREE SPEECH

Standing Up For Free Speech in the Face of Adversity by Thomas Armstrong

Throughout the course of the recent weeks political rhetoric has been slung back and forth by the

Obama Administration and the Romney Campaign concerning the recent attacks and protests on US embassies around the world. Was this simply a reaction to a recent Anti-Islamic video created by a filmmaker in the US or a larger issue of continuing Islamic extremism? Is the Obama Administration acting appropriately in the treatment of attacks against US embassies and protecting American freedoms at home and abroad?

In the world today, religious satires and mockeries are around us everyday from comic cartoonists to artistic designs to television shows like South Park and Family Guy each taking shots and critiquing traditional values and infuriating people of all cultures. These satires however, are a symbol of the rights every person should be entitled to in a free and democratic society. The rights of free expression and free speech, the right to question and criticize that which you do not agree with, without fear of aggression and governments silencing your speech. The latest satire involved an Anti-Islamic Video, the Innocence of Muslims targeted at criticizing the prophet Mohammad and condemning the Islamic faith is said to be the cause worldwide uproar in Islamic states. Violent protests at US Embassies in: Yemen, Pakistan, Indonesia and attacks on Embassies in Egypt have attracted world attention. In Libya, Militants caused the death of four American officials including the US Ambassador to Libya Christopher Hill (Anti-Islam Protests, CNN). Secretary of State Hillary Clinton commented on the tragedy calling the Libyan Militants a “small and savage group” and suggesting

that the Anti-Islamic film played a role in the attacks (Libya Consulate Attacks, ABC News).

Is this simply a “small and savage” group as Secretary Clinton suggests or the product of continued Islamic extremist reaction to satire aimed at Islam? Previous examples would suggest the latter. In 2004, filmmaker Theo Van Gough and politician Ayaan Hirsi Ali created a film that portrayed violence against women in Islamic society. Van Gough received death threats and was eventually murdered due to this film, which also caused worldwide protest, by followers of Islam (BBC News). In 2005 and Early 2006, a Danish newspaper’s released cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammad causing violent protests around the world including the burning of Embassies, and churches and fighting with riot police causing the deaths at least 200 people (Danish Cartoons, New York Times). Islamic Extremist reactions to these satires have been a reoccurring pattern caused by many groups spanning over time. These actions are predictable and widespread. The question remains: How does the United States and the President deal with these attacks?

Freedom of Speech and Expression is a fundamental right of Americans and democracies around the world. As the President of the United States it should be President Obama’s job to stand up and represent these principles. We achieve this not by aggression and a policy of forcing other nations to abide by these standards when the people do not accept them, but by standing up for the rights of expression and speech for our citizens and by protecting US territories including US embassies and condemning the actions of those would who seek to silence our citizens. President

Obama shouldn’t be criticizing the filmmakers, and apologizing for US action. It is time to put aside the pluralism of trying to appease those who would seek to silence free speech. President Obama should not be making calls to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Dempsey asking pastors to withdraw their support for the film and labeling the filmmaker as a ‘shadowy character’ on national television (People Wires, Miami Herald). President Obama needs to set an example that America will stand up for the principles that made this country great.

Simply put this is an issue of repeated Islamic extremist reaction to free expression in democracies around the world. President Obama and the United States should be pursuing of policy of standing up for the values of freedom of speech and freedom of expression and expecting a civility at US Embassies around the world. This includes setting an example to Islamic extremists that we will not silence the rights of our citizens and we will not tolerate action against US interests at home or abroad and doing whatever it takes to protect our interests in other states. Benjamin Franklin once said: “Without freedom of thought, there can be no such thing as wisdom; and no such thing as public liberty, without freedom of speech.” Freedom of Speech is essential to a democratic society, as the President of the United States, President Obama is required to stand up for this right more than all. B

LIBERAL ARTS


To put it bluntly, I blame liberals for destroying the liberal arts. The

liberal arts are meant to help facilitate the marketplace of ideas. They’re meant to be a place where we can have honest discussions about, among other things, philosophy and real world applications of our studies, but liberals have turned their backs on that ideal. Professors demonize, condemn, and lie about conservative arguments, and actively assault and diminish conservative thought. College conservatives are forced to supplicate to their professors for fear of retribution in the form of poor grades. What liberals have done to the liberal arts is disgusting, turning them into the liberal art of indoctrination.

This is my fifth year here at Binghamton, and never in my distinguished academic career have I ever witnessed ferocious assaults on conservative students like I have recently. Perhaps it is the tension caused by the election season or maybe they sense the rest of America turning away from their failing ideology. But what I do know is that what they are doing is wrong. Not only have I been on the receiving end of attacks by my professors, but so have many of my conservative friends. The language used against me and my fellow conservatives by our professors is vile and has no place in an institution of higher education.

by Nicholas Fondacaro

The Assault on Conservatives at BU

I am writing this to help tell our story.

Recently, a liberal friend of mine told me the story of a professor that verbally assaulted a conservative student during class. Apparently, the professor made an inquiry to the class wondering what campus organization was responsible for the annual 9/11 Memorial Flag Garden. One of the few conservative students in the class raised their hand and said it was the College Republicans. The professor proceeded to rant about how the event was insulting to the memories of the victims, and chastised conservatives for what she believed was a disgraceful use of individual American flags to represent the roughly 3,000 Americans that died during the attacks of 9/11/01. According to her, it was insulting to use flags because those that died in the 9/11 attacks were not soldiers and subsequently did not actually die for their country. The professor insisted that if the memorial garden’s organizers wanted to use flags then they should write the names of victims on them.

The student correctly responded by reminding the professor that the College Republicans always conduct a lengthy name-reading ceremony in front of the flag garden each year. Despite the absurdity of the professor’s argument and the mounting evidence that the College Republicans go to great length

to remember every individual that died in the attacks, the verbal assault on conservatives did not stop there. Like sharks that smell blood in the water, the professor and the liberal students proceeded to let loose their unbridled left-wing, anti-American bigotry for the rest of the class to endure in horror.

The professor and some students said it was wrong that the garden was put up to honor the death of Americans. They said flags should be put up, and names should be read, for non-American victims of 9/11. Like a high schooler that had just read Noam Chomsky for the first time, the professor yelled at the student that 9/11 was not an attack on America but an attack on the world. Even my liberal friend was shaken up, not only by the verbal abuse that this conservative student took in front of the class, but also by the absurdity of the textbook, far-left arguments that spat on all common sense and logic.

As I mentioned earlier, conservative students are always hesitant to speak out for fear that their grades and future will suffer because of professors that cannot distinguish between personal disagreements and honest academic work. Because of this, I will be keeping names, dates, and certain events confidential to protect those students that want their story told in the Review. However, I want to make clear that I am not intimidated by my

Destruction of the Liberal Arts


professors; I will be exposing them for the hateful leftists they are.

This semester I am enrolled in a class called “Comparative Politics of Healthcare.” The class is taught by Professor Olga Shvetsova, who claims that her class is designed to foster a healthy debate and discussion about the different aspects and philosophies surrounding the healthcare issue. I quickly came to understand that by “debate” and “discussion” she meant “accept that the things I tell you are facts.” This claim is backed up by a statement she made in class on September 20th, in which she informed us that she would be working to make us think the way she thinks.

This is how I recall the events of our second class, while we were discussing the services provided by medical professionals and insurance companies:Student: “Insurance companies have no interest in letting people know about other companies that will provide them better, cheaper

services.”Me: “You’re right, if you look at Congressman Paul Ryan’s ‘Path to Prosperity,’ the plan will give people who are looking for insurance a list of insurance companies that would cover them.”Prof. Shvetsova: (aggressively) “What would happen if no companies would cover those people?”Me: “The plan would give the person the best options available to them.”Prof. Shvetsova: (even more aggressive) “What if the person still could not afford the insurance?”Me: “Well then…”Prof. Shvetsova: (aggressively interrupted and then preceded to change the subject and moved the class along)

At first I was shocked by her yelling, but then I realized she simply did not like what I was saying, and could not react professionally.

The suppression of my conservative thoughts did not stop there. Later that class period we spoke about the

LIBERAL ARTS

nature of charity. The discussion proceeded to turn towards what charity really was:

Prof. Shvetsova: “When people pay taxes, that is a form of charity.”

Me: (disturbed) “I think charity is when someone voluntarily chooses to give their money away, while paying taxes is when the government forces people to give their money away.”

Prof. Shvetsova: (raising her voice) “People do willingly pay taxes.”

Me: “No, the government makes people pay taxes, they don’t have a choice.”

She raised her voice again, and a back and forth ensued. Each time she would speak her tone of voice was louder. It got to the point where she was literally screaming at me and a fellow conservative in the class. As I began to respond to something she said, she yelled over me:

Prof. Shvetsova: “You are going to stop speaking, because I am speaking now!”

Me: “but I was speaking first…”Prof. Shvetsova: “You were, but


now I am.”My fellow conservative and I looked

at each other in complete disbelief of what just transpired. The way she acted, after claiming to want a healthy discussion and debate, is not only unnecessary but completely unprofessional and wrong. After this brief exchange, the professor could clearly see that I was in disbelief about how our debate had transpired. She told me that if I didn’t like it, I should write about it. I was all too happy to oblige.

Her disdain for conservatives did not stop there. The following week we discussed the reasons healthcare costs are so high in the United States. I quoted a CBS article about a recent report issued by the Institute of Medicine covering the cost of healthcare. The report found that in 2009 $750 billion went towards unnecessary services, administrative costs, and fraud. The

report was released the morning of our class discussion and, judging by her response, she had not read it. She latched on to the “unnecessary services” part, and used that against me, putting words in my mouth to claim that I do not care about preventative care and women’s health. She said “people like Nick do not view breast cancer screenings as necessary.” She made this statement when all I did was quote CBS, saying nothing about preventative care or women’s health. Her method of assault was to ignore the substance of my statement, and attack me and conservatives. No professor should be doing what she is doing, and this kind of assault goes way beyond the classroom.

Students should be able to expect that their university will be a place where they can safely express their beliefs. Students expect that they will not be persecuted or assaulted for those beliefs, and especially not

LIBERAL ARTS

from professors. As a member of a political and ideological minority on campus I expect to have respectful debates and discussions with my professors, and to have mature discussions without being talked down to or screamed at. It is also expected that professors in the liberal arts would try to preserve what the liberal arts stands for, and foster a marketplace of ideas. It has become painfully clear that our professors here at Binghamton University have no such intentions for the liberal arts. These professors are actively suppressing conservatives on campus and making a mockery of the liberal arts. B

Noam Chomsky: The Gold-Standard of Liberal College Professors


RESLIFE

To be fair, my time as a Resident Assistant (RA) was not all bad.

The people on my RA staff were great, the free room and board was a nice perk, and helping residents with their problems was periodically a satisfying experience. However, whatever benefits I derived from my job were overwhelmingly outweighed by the soul crushing nature of Residential Life (ResLife), the department that oversees RAs and maintains the University’s housing policies. I have cobbled together a few aspects of ResLife that I maintain a particular dislike for, and present them for your amusement.

The Cogs in the MachineResLife’s professional staff, an

army of dolts and gossips, rules over the dorms and communities as if they were members of some inept petty nobility; jealously guarding their power by means of inane policies and byzantine rules. The fact that these people possess the gall to refer to themselves as professionals showcases how out of touch with reality they are.

Like all low level functionaries, Assistant Directors (ADs) and Resident Director (RDs) believe that what they do truly matters. In fact, they are tasked with fewer responsibilities than that of the landlord of a poor-quality motel; as long as they prevent their building from burning down, or their community from rising in revolt, they have succeeded.

by The Wolf 2.0

Doortags, Power Trips, and Idiots: Residential Life and the RA Experience

Not content to obey their job descriptions, ADs and RDs act like God’s gifts to students, marketing themselves as invaluable resources to enhance the college experiences of all residents. Unfortunately for any student foolish enough to believe the propaganda and goes to these officials for help or advice, will quickly find themselves lodged in a web of bureaucratic sludge deployed by their AD or RD. Worse still, any student unfortunate enough to get caught making a rookie mistake, like drinking or smoking in their hall, will soon become the target of all the vitriolic hatred their AD or RD can muster. These people are too lazy to actually help students, and enjoy nothing more than unleashing their limited power to ruin a student’s college career. Break one of their precious rules, and they will throw you to the wolves faster than you can imagine.

Rules? Not for RDResLife apparatchiks are also

among the most hypocritical lot I have ever had the displeasure of serving. They are in love with throwing around terms like “social justice” to hide behind, and claim to love equality and diversity. Meanwhile, a former CIW RD once accused an RA of being a homosexual, and harassed his female staff members on a daily basis, all, apparently, in the name of social justice. Showing up late for meetings, texting during ice breaker games, and losing office keys are things that would normally get an RA reprimanded, or fired after repeated infractions. However, RDs can commit such heinous crimes with impunity, as the upper echelons of ResLife completely ignore any abuses their dear foot soldiers are accused of by lowly students. Take for example an RD from Mountainview, who last year fired an RA from her staff for breaking a few minor rules. The RA staff reacted to this by carefully cataloguing every infraction the RD went on to commit for the rest of the year (all of which were equal to or greater

Residential Life


will use to hunt down all non-believers and punish them for living. And at one point or another you and I signed it. Maybe we were drunk, or maybe we treated it the same way we treat iTunes update agreements, but in signing the housing license, we bound ourselves to a year under the power of ResLife’s clownocracy.

Please break every single rule in the license (within reason; don’t start fires). Play indoor sports, drink gallons of terrible malt liquor, buy dozens of multi-headed lamps, and fill your room with livestock, but do so carefully. The reason ResLife treats students so poorly is because they simply don’t respect us, they think we’re a bunch of simple, aggravating children, so don’t prove them right by getting caught doing

stupid things. This starts by knowing what you can and can’t do, all of which is contained in the housing license. I encourage you to read the housing license. Read it, understand it, and use it as your shield before ResLife can make it their weapon. And if you are going to smoke inside, do me a favor, and use copies of the housing license as rolling paper; they say every time a bell rings, an angel gets its wings, I say every time a housing license is defamed, an RD shits their pants, it is the only thing supporting Broome county’s dry cleaners.

Door Tags: The Cure to CancerI will begin my rant against door

tags and bulletin boards with a disclaimer: please do not rip down your doortag or defame an RA’s bulletin board, RAs were forced to make these by their RDs, the Sith

Lords of ResLife.The strictness with which RDs

police RA doortags and bulletin boards endow these hallways accoutrements with a gravitas usually reserved for superheroes and clergymen; to hear an RD explain it, one would think doortags and boards are the only things preventing the apocalypse. In reality, the production of these crafts is a form of penance RAs must do to show their superiors that they are capable of utterly and completely wasting their time. Either make doortags, or dig a pit to China in the basement of Cayuga; trust me, I’ve seen the shovels. Doortags and boards that stand out as uniquely creative are noted by ResLife underlings, who scuttle to report the findings to their overlords. The RAs who made of these tags and boards are hailed as potential future RDs

RESLIFE


RESLIFE

and ADs, while their less crafty peers are shamed, and forced to dig in the pit.

Tags and boards represent the stupidity of ResLife’s worldview, which holds that the broken-windows- theory applies to the inside of residence halls. The theory claims that people will treat an area with more respect if it appears visually appealing; thus, if door tags and bulletin boards are beautiful and inventive, residents will lose the desire to damage property. Essentially, ResLife thinks you are easily distracted, stupid, and that you can be bought off with hallways filled with a dizzying array of colors, shapes, paper butterflies, and sex tips. Let me assure you that their theory is complete crap. People will draw crude penises on the nicest of boards, and will drunkenly rip down door tags of any quality. The newly constructed Broome Hall was among the most visually appealing buildings on campus when it opened, but that didn’t stop people from vandalizing it ruthlessly for a semester. All the door tags in the world won’t prevent a few assholes from ruining things for everyone else.

***Brief rant against the broken windows theory in general: vandals don’t avoid visually appealing, maintained areas because they respect them. They avoid them because those areas are well policed, and the chances of getting caught are high. This theory is social engineering gone wrong, which is true of most social engineering.***

Ice Breakers: an Idiot’s ParadiseThe lifeblood of the ResLife

indoctrination method are ice breaker games, stupid little tasks designed to foster unity among

RA staffs. ResLife lore will tell you that these games allow supervisors to peer into the souls of their staff members, to see who is really a team player, and who is a threatening independent thinker.

By the second week I was an RA, I had lost hope in humanity, as I was subjected to a never ending conveyor belt of ice breakers. The amount of ice we had broken could easily sink a fleet of ocean liners, and we had only begun. It became apparent that these games were designed to humiliate and shame anyone not deranged enough to enjoy them; it was like the Hunger Games, with my RD demanding a periodic sacrifice of my dignity to feed his vanity for another week. If I ever protested, I was lectured about my lack of staff spirit at our next weekly meeting, until eventually I stopped protesting and sold my soul every week to ResLife, playing 21 questions, clapping my hands in some ridiculous paddy-cake variant, or figuring out how to lift up an egg with only four pieces of string.

The worst part was watching members of my staff who I respected fall victim to the allure of these games. People who were capable of prolonged intellectual discourse would suddenly become filled with a paranormal desire to play red-light green-light. During one such game I contemplated performing an amateur exorcism on one of my peers, in an attempt to capture the essence of whatever demon spirits ResLife pumps its RAs with. However, as I was thinking, my RD sensed that I was engaged in original thought, and quickly volunteered me for the next round of the game. He had sensed sedition in his ranks.

If you like ice breakers and are scandalized by what I’m writing,

do me a favor: go to a mirror, look into it long and hard, and then punch your reflection. While you are waiting in the ER, with glass fragments sticking out of your fist, think about how much of an idiot you are, and resolve to stop wasting your life.

The Takeaway

It is possible that I exaggerated at some points here, although ice breaker games really are instruments of Satan. Nevertheless, ResLife is a ridiculous laughing stock. ADs and RDs really don’t do anything, besides abusing their student employees and harassing their residents. The difficulty is coming to terms with the fact that we can’t really do anything to make ResLife better, as an organization it is impervious to any criticism. My suggestion is that we as a student body just annoy ResLife employees as much as possible. Question everything your RD or AD says, maybe ask them about how much of their day they spend on meaningless minutia, as opposed to actual work. Remember, you are paying their salaries; all these dozens of employees are part of the ever expanding leviathan that is our university’s bureaucracy. B


MISDIRECTED ANGER

In celebration of the one-year anniversary of the Occupy Wall Street movement, I see it

fitting for The Review to honor their defiance. Despite the political polarity that distinguishes this publication from the Occupy movement, it is important to acknowledge that protest is essential to the proper function of a civilized democracy. Despite the boorish nature of these particular protestors I cannot help myself from admiring their spirit. I believe that many of these protesters are right in being angry at the nefarious dominance of cronyism in American Capitalism. But, a year of pragmatic impotency suggests that the movements understanding of this problem is far too abstract. Let us begin on a note we all can agree on:

“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute

power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.” Lord Acton, British Historian (1834-1902)

This human proclivity was

popularized in a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton in 1887, referring to the political immorality of monarchies at that time. Most students understand this conception as another inconvenient truth of the human condition. Whether it’s an underpaid campus cop issuing a trivial speeding ticket or a professor who disagrees with your political position, most of us have encountered fools who succumb to the thrill of misusing their power. Bad men in these instances are easy to identify, much like the aristocrats Lord Acton denounces. But, what happens when an incredibly large and opaque institution is set up in such a way that it becomes impossible to place responsibility?

Public corporations are required by law to make their financial statements accessible to the public. The way they make and spend their money is free knowledge for anyone who wishes to acquire it. Citizens who disagree with the methods of a particular business have the choice of investment and consumption. The State, on the other hand maintains the privileges of coercion and opacity.

Modern governments can only be described with reference to their proceeding forums. I do believe in the old adage that claims we have the worst form of government in the world, except for all the others that came before it. The modern advancements of technology, communication and theatrical political sensationalism have progressively obscured the

dynamics of American politics. Furthermore, the history of United States legislation has proven; it will almost always vote to increase the scope of its power and seldom to decrease it. For example, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act contains over twenty new federal taxes.

Kyklos, is the ancient Greek term that describes the political cycles of government over centuries. Plato explained the dynamics of Greek government from monarchy to democracy simply as structural evolution, catalyzed by power struggles. The individuals, who were able to best rationalize the need for their specific brand of progressivism, won these power struggles and directed the course of western civilization. There are countless examples throughout history that fit this model, one of the most famous being the rise of Napoleon out of the French Revolution.

Plato explained that monarchy came out of anarchy because it is the simplest way to govern. The structure of government adapts to the clear-cut corruption and continues to dilute power via aristocracy and eventually democracy. Ultimately, he believed this progression leads to the rise of ochlocracy, or mob rule. The distinctive features of this government are that it is curiously both, tyrannous and majoritarian. This morbid combination undermines its own legitimacy and eventually dissolves back into anarchy.

The Misdirected Anger of the 99% Jacob L. Hayutin


In 1776, we began our unique attempt at democracy and now in 2012 it seems that analysts representing all perspectives of political penumbra, agree on the fact that our government is controlled by crony capitalism. This institution has most certainly proven itself to be a modern evolution of ochlocracy.

This crony criticism has existed since the early 1960’s and was recently rebranded in the Occupy Wall Street movement that began in September 2011. The anti-corporate sentiment is essentially an envious expression of influence. This envy comes from liberal egalitarian principles that do not distinguish between creating an environment that promotes the opportunity for

equality and equality itself, in an abstract sense.

Despite the fact that there are many corrupted corporate fat cats that lead immoral professional lives, I am a capitalist who believes that the private sector should be minimally regulated by the federal government. I believe this to be true because the relationship of the federal government and private enterprise operates only in one direction. While money has the freedom to move between the two, the laws that regulate those transactions travel down a one-way street. It is this interaction that has allowed for the exponential expansion of the federal bureaucracy that began in 1980’s, along with

the legislative trend discussed earlier. Furthermore, the limitations of the private sector’s influence on the government necessitate active skepticism on the part of the citizen. If we want to make use of the political efficacy that we have, we must first acknowledge the discrepancy of transparency between the private and public sectors. Our incredible freedom gives us the leisure to take no part however; it is that decadence that the powerful and corrupt seek to capitalize on. Do not be fooled by the sensational rhetoric of the media, the government has always been and will always be, our most powerful and corrupted adversary. B

MISDIRECTED ANGER

Binghamton Review is a monthly, independent journal of news, analysis, commentary, and controversy. Students at Binghamton University receive one copy of the Review free of charge (non-transferable). 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 submission become property of the Review. The Review reserves the right to edit and print any submission. Copyright © 1987-2011 Binghamton Review. All rights reserved. Binghamton Review is distributed 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.

Past Editors of Binghamton Review: John Guardiano, Yan Rusanovsky, Kethryn 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, Robert E. Menje, Adam Shamah, Rachel Gordon, Mike Lombardi, Aaron M. Ricks

The Vice Presidential Search ProcessHow Mitt Romney Navigated the Field...

Picking a controversial millionaire birther can’t end badly, right?

Donald Trump - Dave has not been answering my calls...

David Patraeus -

Having a black running mate to try and beat the first black president might not play well.

Condoleezza Rice -

Thank you Dan Savage for taking this name off the table forever.

Rick Santorum-

No. Just no.

Sarah Palin -

Maybe we’ll hold off putting another token woman on the ticket until 2016.

Nikki Haley -

There is something strange about an Indian American with a Louisiana accent.

Bobby Jindal -

Young, intelligent, inexperienced, and from a minority background... reminds me of someone.

Marco Rubio -

Females andHispanics? Thisis the goldenticket right here!

Susana Martinez -

Maybe now we can shut up all the Ron Paul fanatics.

Rand Paul -

‘Jeb’ is the name of your alcoholic Southern cousin, not a Vice President.

Jeb Bush -

Who?

Kelly Ayotte -

He takes “large and in charge” to a whole new level.

Chris Christie -

Sorry T-Paw, not this time.

Tim Pawlenty -

There is only room for one moderate, soft spoken, old white guy on this ticket.

Rob Portman -I’ll just pick a VP who will scare my key demographic, old people, with his Medicare plans.

Paul Ryan -

Now I need to satisfy the base...

Let’s start with our celebrity possibilities...

Time to pander to women and minorities...

Have to pretend to care about the Tea Party...

Finally, some real choices...

Pick a safe choice? Not Mitt Romney...

september 2012 - binghamton review

Documents