December 2015 - Binghamton Review

BINGHAMTON REVIEW Founded 1987 • December 2015

Managing Editor Jordan Raitses

Copydesk Editor Thomas Casey

Newsdesk Chief Raymond Page

6 7 8

New-Media Editor

9 10

Treasurer

11

Associate Editor Antonia Mallozzi

12 13 14 16

Haim Engelman Yuval Hananya

Staff Writers

Alex Carros, Howard Hecht, David Keptsi, Luke Kusick, Patrick McAuliffe

Contributors

Laura Grasso, Joseph Gunderson, David Izsak, Max Newman

Special Thanks To:

Intercollegiate Studies Institute Collegiate Network Binghamton Review was printed by Gary Marsden We Provide the Truth.

He Provides the Staples

EDITOR@BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM

Contents

Editor-in-Chief Sean M. Glendon

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

18 20 21 22 23

Debunking New-Age Western Feminism

by Laura Grasso Center for Civic Enragement

by Alex Carros Million Student March Hits Home

by Raymond Page Free College

by Thomas Casey My Awkward Sodexual Encounter

by Patrick McAuliffe A Musician’s Dream Nearing Fruition

by Patrick McAuliffe Misery in Missouri

by David Keptsi The Phony Express

by Luke Kusick Shit Buzzfeed Says Act 3 by Howard Hecht A Frightening French Future

by Max Newman Poll Dancing

by Joseph Gunderson Put up that Fence

by David Izsak The Greatest Show on TV by Sean Glendon Lobbying for Dummies by Haim Engelman A Binghamton Review Review

by Jordan Raitses

Departments

3 4 5

EDITORIAL CAMPUS PRESSWATCH What you missed

TELL US WHAT YOU THINK! Direct letter to editor@binghamtonreview.com 2

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

December 2015

0 0

M

5

EDITORIAL

From the Editor

Dear Readers, Finals are among us, unfortunately. Best of luck to you readers, and thank you for taking the time out of your busy schedule to pick up this issue of Binghamton Review. I hope you enjoy it. As you may have noticed, this issue is thicker than previous issues this semester has been. Throughout this semester, The Review has grown in size, and we have received many fresh faces interested in writing. As a result, sixteen pages were not enough to fit all of the content. Luckily for you, you get 50% extra Binghamton Review this month… think of it as a late Black Friday deal. This issue we have a whopping FIVE first time contributors - Laura Grasso, Raymond Page, Max Newman, Joseph Gunderson, and David Izsak. Laura is on a mission to debunk portions of the feminist movement, Ray has began to focus on a news-based approach and reported on the Million Student March, Max looks at the future of France in the wake of the terrorist attacks that occurred on November 13th, Joe investigates flaws in the polling system that ranks candidates, and David discusses border options in Europe and the parallels to America that are being faced.

This issue also features a wide variety of content from our normal contributors. Alex attended a Center for Civic Engagement event and has a strong opinion about what he saw. Tom responds to the belief that college should be free, and also added a comic to this issue! Patrick continues on his exploration of Sodexo, this time in CIW and also covers a nonprofit that one of his favorite Sodexo employees, CJ, is involved with. David discusses racism at the University of Missouri and the demands of Concerned Student 1950. Luke criticizes Bernie Sanders and his desire to

combine the Post Office and banking system. Howard continues his journey through the depths of hell, or Buzzfeed as some like to call it. I examine the current format of the primary debate system, and how the rules for qualification have essentially made it a glorified reality show. Haim discusses the concept of lobbying, and explains how it can actually be beneficial. Finally, Jordan tries to extend an olive branch by giving an overview of some alternative publications that are created on campus.

Overall, I couldn’t be happier with this semester.

I work with a wonderful staff that consistently meets deadlines and attends meetings. I set the goal for this semester to be publishing four sixteen page issues and that goal was exceeded. With that being said, going forward there is always room for improvement and I will strive to set and reach higher goals next semester. If you’ve enjoyed reading us, I would highly recommend getting involved. I joined Binghamton Review my first semester at Binghamton University, and it has been the most rewarding experience I’ve had throughout college. If you are looking to get involved, email me at editor@binghamtonreview.com with your area of interest and we will find a way for you to get involved!

Also, this month’s cover is clearly in reference to the Starbucks Red Cup Scandal of 2015.With that being said, Merry Christmas Happy Holidays, Binghamton University!

Sincerely,

Sean Glendon

Our Mission 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 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. 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. editor@binghamtonreview.com

Binghamtonreview.com

3

CPampus resswatch “We cannot criticize ISIS without being ignorant” Anita Raychawdhuri Pipe Dream November 17, 2015 “An article on the Paris attacks is indebted to careful navigation of terms.

How can we criticize the Islamic State without accidentally revealing our ignorance or hatred of Islam? How do we balance showing strength with common sense? ” Your article is titled “We cannot criticize ISIS without being ignorant.”

Sure we can. ISIS is a group of radical terrorists that has killed many innocent people and hurt even more. ISIS burned 45 people to death in Iraq.

They recruit children, pose a protection tax, kidnap people for ransom, and brutally behead people. They need to be stopped. There. Mission accomplished. It is unfortunate that some people are ignorant, but there are many people who are against ISIS without being Islamophobic or ignorant.

“This Parisian attack is purposefully exacerbating the social battle between poor whites and immigrants. This myth that the immigrants are stealing resources, jobs and security from whites is central to why events like Paris have such an impact and plays into why Paris has a Facebook filter and a “safe” button rather than Beirut.”

Is this specifically a poor white vs. immigrant issue? According to the myth are immigrants stealing from white people and only white people?

It seems a bit *ignorant* to frame an article about ignorance by simplifying an issue down to white vs. immigrant.

“Is your makeup formulating sexist conclusions on female capacity?”

Sophia San Filippo Pipe Dream November 10, 2015 “Recently, while out in public, I overheard one of the most discriminatory and sexist remarks I have ever heard in my life. It went a little something like this: ‘Hilary Clinton is a joke. How can a 4

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

woman expect to take on the duties as head chief of America like a man can if she’s probably too busy applying makeup and worrying about her figure? I mean, come on. No one can take her seriously.’”

I am sorry that you had to overhear this. Hillary Clinton’s incompetence has nothing to do with the fact that she is a woman, and if this person was trying to make a joke, he or she clearly failed. Hillary Clinton is a joke. I agree there. But Hillary Clinton is a joke solely because of her failed policies and constant flip flopping, not because she is a woman. Also, you spelled “Hillary” wrong.

“Furthermore, when was the last time you saw Obama take the podium before an audience with a strong five o’clock shadow or some three-day stubble poking through? Try to look it up; I dare you. He is always clean-shaven and ready-to-go at any political or diplomatic citing. Now this, of course, serves very little magnitude to surmise anything about his extent of leadership competence.”

I did look it up, since you dared. And while pictures of Obama with facial hair don’t exist, it doesn’t seem to be a matter of leadership competence it has more to do with genetics. According to a 2006 interview, Barack Obama told Betsy Rothstein: “I can’t grow facial hair… I get whiskers.” It’s hard to find a picture of something that doesn’t exist, but I tried.

“On the web, look up images of Obama getting his makeup done; I can assure you these photos are present.”

After multiple search queries, and

BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM

Written by our Staff

multiple pages of web browsing, I managed to find one image of Barack Obama getting his makeup done and two images of a wax figure of Barack Obama getting touched up.

“Feminism isn’t a fad; ‘trendy’ mindset limits abilities of activist goals” Sarah Saad Pipe Dream October 30, 2015 “One shirt that reads, “This is What a Feminist Looks Like,” sells for $50 and is made by predominately female migrant workers in a factory. If that shirt were true, it would mean that a feminist was an individual who had the financial freedom to spend more on a T-shirt than some make in a few hours.”

The real issue here is the price of the T-shirt! Who the hell would $50 for a T-shirt?! A quick search for the T-shirt found it available for $22.50 on feminist.org. The shirt is listed as “Made in the USA, Sweat-shop Free.”

This doesn’t have any mention of migrant workers, but sounds like a safer purchase than many other clothing purchase options available. Nobody is forcing a feminist to purchase a shirt like that, but wouldn’t she inherently be exercising her financial freedom by buying the T-shirt in question?

December 2015

BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM

WHAT you missed On November 13th, a series of coordinated terrorist attacks including mass shootings, suicide bombings, and hostage situations took place in Paris, France.

130 victims were killed, with hundreds of others injured. ISIL claimed responsibility for the attacks.

least $14 per hour based on past performance, and menu prices will be increasing between 12% and 15%. CEO Ray Blanchette believes that this new policy will reduce turnover, increase the quality of service, and lower overall prices paid by normally generous tippers.

Internet hacktivist group Anonymous declared war against ISIL. They have already deleted thousands of pro-ISIL Twitter accounts and have published the names and addresses of some of the organization’s recruiters.

Members of the European Parliament narrowly voted for European Union states to “drop any criminal charges against Edward Snowden, grant him protection and consequently prevent extradition or rendition by third parties, in recognition of his status as whistle-blower and international human rights defender.”

In response to the Paris attacks, The Dalai Lama said, “We cannot solve this problem only through prayers. I am a Buddhist and I believe in praying. But humans have created this problem, and now we are asking God to solve it. It is illogical. God would say, solve it yourself because you created it in the first place.”

The University of Missouri sparked nationwide headlines after protests by students against racism began on campus. A graduate student, Jonathan Butler, started a hunger strike and black football players joined in.

This led to the resignation of University President Tim Wolfe.

The protests spread to other campuses around the nation and became a polarizing topic.

Joe’s Crab Shack became the first national full-service restaurant chain to implement a no tipping policy. Servers will be paid at editor@binghamtonreview.com

Airport security in the Philippines has apparently been placing bullets in the luggage of unsuspecting travellers, and then extorting money from these passengers.

The Allahabad High Court of India ruled that a child born out of rape has inheritance rights over the property of the assaulter and biological father. The court went on to say that this would not be the case if the child is given away for adoption.

Ireland plans on decriminalizing small amounts of drugs including marijuana, heroin, and cocaine in an attempt to shift the nation’s culture and how it handles substance abuse.

In another example of government inefficiency, it was revealed

that the Department of Defense spent $42.7 million on a gas station in Afghanistan. It was determined that the cost of the gas station should have been around $500,000, meaning taxpayers may have overpaid by well over 10,000%.

The one child policy introduced in China in 1979 has come to an end. The policy is estimated to have prevented 400 million births, but with an aging population, the nation ended the policy. While rules began to relax in recent years, Chinese couples will now be allowed to have two (and no more than two) children across the board!

The Canadian federal election resulted in a victory for the Liberal Party, led by new Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. The Liberal Party’s increase of 148 seats from the last election was the largest numerical increase in the country’s history. Trudeau made his cabinet the first gender balanced cabinet, with 15 men and 15 women, “because it’s 2015.”

November 3rd was Election Day. At the local level Fred Akshar absolutely destroyed Barbara Fiala to become the next state senator for our district. Kentucky, Louisiana, and Mississippi held gubernatorial elections: Republican Phil Bryant won reelection in Mississippi, Republican Matt Bevin won in Kentucky, and Democrat John Bel Edwards replaced term-limited Bobby Jindal in Louisiana.

Binghamtonreview.com

5

Debunking New-Age Western Feminism

BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM

Debunking New-Age Western Feminism: An Introduction Written By Laura Grasso

T

he Tumblr-spawn’s whines have made the “feminist” movement louder. They have, regrettably, grabbed far too much of my attention.

The main discourse on third-wave feminism revolves around three main points: the misunderstood wage gap, the so-called glass ceiling, and the patriarchy (read: boogeyman).

Feminist.org describes the “glass ceiling” as “a barrier that is so subtle that it is transparent, yet so strong that it prevents women from moving up the corporate hierarchy. From their vantage point on the corporate ladder, women can see the high-level corporate positions but are kept from reaching the top.” It is “not simply a barrier for an individual, based on the person’s inability to handle a higher-level job. Rather, the glass ceiling applies to women as a group who are kept from advancing higher because they are women.” The culprit behind this belief, according to feminists, is “the patriarchy”– the belief that we live in a society that is male-dominated, in which only men hold positions of leadership, are socially privileged, and hold moral authority. The logic goes as follows: more men than women hold positions of power, those men continue to hire more men than women because they see men as being more capable, thus only a small percentage of women manage to reach high levels of power, so women as a whole can’t reach those positions that are above the “glass ceiling.”

I almost believed it. I almost did.

Until I realized that there are laws that prevent discrimination against gender. Implemented by men. Who elected those men? Glad you asked– women. The Washington Post records that ever since 1980, more women have been voting than men. Anyway, since there is no legal issue in regards to hiring, feminists must be approaching this from a standpoint that merely ASSUMES that men in power choose not to hire women because they prefer men. But first, I have questions. How did men arise to those positions of

6

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

power? By stepping on women to get to the top? Or did they exert the aggression, knowledge, and leadership skills necessary to get there?

In the late 20th and early 21st century, as women increasingly seek higher education and attain degrees (The Pew Research center has also recorded that since 1992, more women than men have been attaining fouryear degrees, and the gap between male and female graduation rates is continuing to expand) it is more than ridiculous to argue that women with the proper academic qualifications aren’t being hired because men, on the whole, are sexist and think that a male could do the job better. In fact, that is the opposite of what’s happening: researchers at the Cornell Institute for Women in Science have found that in the STEM field, women enjoy a 2:1 hiring ratio over men who are just as qualified for the position. What is likely the ugly truth is that the vast majority of women lack the assertiveness, confidence, and determination to further themselves in their careers.

You will find that men who lack assertiveness and drive will also find themselves in lower positions of power. It is less an issue with gender than it is with personality. For example, if you’re familiar with the Myers-Briggs type indicator, you know that ENTJ types (extroversion, intuition, thinking, judgment) are more likely to be top executives, lawyers, entrepreneurs, and organization builders.

Conversely, ISFJs (introverting, sensing, feeling, judging) are more likely to be decorators, social workers, child care providers, and assistants. The jobs that ENTJs are most likely to hold pay higher than the ISFJ jobs. This helps explain the wage gap: most women are nurturers, more likely to be ISFJ types.

The wage gap is calculated by dividing the median annual earnings for women by the median annual earnings for men. As follows, women get paid less on average because the jobs that they are most likely to hold don’t offer as high of a salary– NOT because women are being paid less for the same job.

That is not a thing that’s happening in America. I can’t believe I just had to say that.

Alas, I can’t blame everything on the third-wave feminists; I have to concede that they are a product of their social environment. Millennials, by and large, have the tendency to assign blame to others before themselves. We also like to complain about the way things are, when only a few of us are gifted with the motivation to change it. We have been conditioned to view things as unfair and unjust when we have failed to win. Women, my advice to you is to remember that nothing restrains us– it is the thirdwave feminist movement that is fooling us into thinking that we can’t do everything. We can, as long as we keep our noses to the grindstone and stop wasting the time and energy on the bitching.

December 2015

BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM

Center for Civic Enragement

Center for Civic Enragement Written By Alex Carros

Before stating my opinion proper, I think it’s important to preface by saying that the first part of the Center for Civic Engagement’s event was fairly good. It was respectful, polite, and allowed for polite disagreement; this is more than what can be said for Yale or the University of Missouri. The message, that men are suffering from rigid societal expectations, seems balanced and fair, and I think we can all agree that promoting the freedom of choice for anybody (within reason) is a good thing.

But this is where my praise for the event stops. The panel, like many others regarding gender equality, suffered from the rather standard amount of misleading or discredited academic studies, particularly those pertaining to women somehow being an oppressed class. So, while the general message was good, we cannot let these important details and assertions go undisputed, as they will undoubtedly play a large part in whatever misguided solutions these people plan to put forward.

The first and most glaring issue was the notion of men being a privileged class in the United States, along with women being a subservient one. The host of the panel, Professor Meriweather, started the discussion with the widely discredited “1 in 5 women will be victims of sexual assault in college” study by the Association of American Universities. This study, along with others like it, has been debunked for having a small sample size, a non-representative population, and overly broad definitions.

The most accurate rate of sexual violence, according the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ “Rape and Sexual Assault Victimization among College-Age Females, 1995–2013,” is around 0.61%. And before any of you go spouting the comically unsubstantiated “90% of rapes go undocumented” that would still bring you to only ~1 in 17, dramatically far from the 1:5 that still gets tossed around.

What troubled me most about Meriweather’s use of the statistics was how unmarked it was; it was taken for the truth without any sort of debate or discussion. This, in turn, set a tone of culpability and guilt that would permeate throughout the rest of the event: men would have to change, not for their own well-being, but so they could be less of a threat towards women. The program even said that the panel was to “[explore] the facts surrounding and solutions for ending violence against women…”

They later changed this to include the phrase, “and other men” as a token gesture of egalitarianism. Never mind the fact that the majority of victims in violent crime are men, accounting for 76.8% of homicide victims according to Bureau of Justice Statistics. Nope, we’re only interested in how evil and toxic masculinity threatens the virtuous, pure, unspoiled perfection of mother Gaia and femininity.

Another conspicuous absence in the panel was how societal perceptions of masculinity benefit women, specifically in custody hearings (women receive custody 85% of the time), prison sentencing (women are given 12% shorter sentences for the same crime), and domestic violence. As I stated before, male victimhood in violence was never brought up by anyone in the discussion, even though the whole supposed point was to discuss how men are treated unfairly. Domestic violence, for those editor@binghamtonreview.com

of you who are unaware, is not a gendered issue, with men making up 43% of total victims. Despite this, less than 1% of those helped in shelters and clinics were men. In fact, the 1995 Home Office Research Study 191 for England and Wales found that in 12% of cases where the man called the police, he himself was arrested. This hasn’t happened in any of the cases for women.

In addition, according to a 2007 study by Daniel J. Whitaker et al., men make up 53% of all victims in non-reciprocal violence (which is roughly half of all domestic violence), and women make up more than 70% of the perpetrators. In other words, in cases where only one partner is being mistreated (which is half), chances are the victim is a man and the aggressor is a woman.

It’s important to distinguish, however, that women are no more or less guilty of this sort of thing. Being a violent asshole isn’t monopolized by one sex; unlike those hosting the event, I’m not trying to convince you that half the population is dangerous and needs to reform for the greater good.

This is the overarching problem that these events, along with third-wave feminism as a whole, tend to perpetuate: it is entirely gynocentric, even when it swears it isn’t. So, even if you go to a discussion on how men are being held to unreasonable societal standards, you’re only going to hear the tired old assertion that women are a “marginalized” class in the United States.

You’ll find that it’s rather hard to defend this, though, when men are the majority of suicides (78%), the unemployed, the homeless (61%), the drug-addicted (up to 59%), the incarcerated (90%), high school and college drop-outs (54%), and workplace deaths (93%). Oh, and women live longer, graduate more often from college with better grades, have the majority of consumer spending power (70% - 80%), and are the majority of voters (65.7%). But women are totally the victims in all this, right?

The panel had its heart in the right place, it really did, but it was bogged down by so much of the same nonsense that I’ve sadly come to expect from this sort of “gender equality” event.

I won’t speak on the second half of the event, because I did not attend, but I will conclude that the first part spouted the same worn-out, discredited assertions and took them all as factual.

This, in turn, led to an atmosphere of abject guilt in manhood, and abject victimhood in femininity. How are we to bridge the supposed gap between the sexes when we keep telling boys that they are flawed for who they are, and that girls need to fear or reform them for their own safety? How are we to help young men when we won’t even acknowledge areas in which they’re victims?

Binghamtonreview.com

7

Million Student March

BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM

Million Student March Hits Home Written By Raymond Page

Binghamton Review has not had much in the way of campus news in the past. This month, a new member, Raymond Page, has sought to change that. We hope you will all enjoy his new style of reporting alongside your regular Binghamton Review content.

O

n November 12th, Binghamton University students gathered in protest to participate in what is being referred to as The Million Student March.

In a display of national camaraderie, students from over 100 college and university campuses across the nation marched in solidarity; declaring in one audible voice, their collective demands for livable working wages, free public education, and loan forgiveness.

Jonathan Taubes, a member of the Executive Board for Binghamton College Progressives says that $15 per hour is not too much to ask for.

“If minimum wage in this country kept up with the pace of inflation, it would be even higher than that.”

There is currently a national grassroots movement called Fight For $15. According to Taubes the result of this political activism has led to both Seattle and Los Angeles raising their minimum wage to $15 per hour.

“The Million Student March is a nationally organized event,” says Sara Hobler, double major in history and sociology and President of the College Progressives organization.

“There is immense pressure for people to go to college. You need a bachelor’s degree for basically everything these days, but for highly coveted jobs—you need a master’s or in some cases even a doctorate,” she says.

Chanting phrases such as, “the students united will never be defeated” and “no ifs no buts, no more education cuts,” Hobler led the impassioned crowd of frustrated students as they picketed and rebelliously rallied for their collective cause.

But not all students agree with these demands. Although the cause is considered by many to be a worthy endeavor, jumping from minimum wage to a staggering $15 per hour may be a bit extreme.

“They are asking for too much,” says junior graphic design major, Evan Bavarsky.

“None of this stuff can happen overnight. They need to try and go for a reasonable goal and then bit-by-bit, work their way up to a bigger goal,” he says.

“To ask for an immediate change is definitely an extremist thing.”

Math and chemistry major, John Voigt believes that complete debt forgiveness is excessive. He feels that it would certainly help a select demographic, but not without creating negative consequences as well.

“There might need to be some changes in the way the government allocates funding in order to subsidize such a drastic debt forgiveness program. Certain things would need to be cut to make increases possible in other areas.”

Although, plans have been proposed, none of them have come to fruition.

8

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

One plan in particular would place higher taxes on speculative trading on Wall Street. This is a way to penalize high-risk traders, while simultaneously generating much needed revenue in the process. The thinking here is as follows: if they are going to profit by engaging in risky behavior, some of those earnings should fall into the lap of the educational system.

Hobler and Taubes are resolute in their convictions.

“We will not stop until our demands are met,” says Taubes.

“We are just getting started.”

Hobler, a native of Buffalo, was awarded a high school scholarship to Binghamton University. Due to extremely low graduation rates among her academic peers, Buffalo school district encourages graduating students to pursue college level education by providing funds for students to be used at any SUNY campus of their choosing.

Buffalo’s Say Yes to Education program is a non-profit organization geared toward sending economically disadvantaged students to college.

“I want others to have the same opportunity that I did,” says Hobbler.

“My dad works in the labor union and I’ve been going on strikes since I was 3 years old. Growing up in a world surrounded by low-wage workers was eye opening and I’ve seen the impact that giving these people opportunities has had.”

“We’re all humans and we all deserve a chance,” she says.

Offering a variant perspective, tax-paying resident of Binghamton, Cora King has a few choice words for these protestors.

“It’s all about greed and nothing in this world is free. I had $142 taken out of my paycheck weekly to pay off my debt. I scrambled, I saved and I busted ass. They need to pay too.”

King feels that the burden will invariably land on taxpayers.

“I’m not paying out the nose for these kids that don’t want to pay their bills. It’s just not fair.”

Even Taubes agrees that any drastic change in minimum wage could spell economic disaster.

“Do I think this should happen tomorrow? No! It has to be phased in. Doing this overnight would be a massive shock to the economy. It needs to be done over a term of several years.”

But this does not mean that the conversation should be forgotten.

“Student debt is often spoken about as a future crisis,” says Taubes. “Many economists speak about a student-debt-bubble that will ‘someday’ explode. But we are feeling this right now.

Let’s reverse this trend. Let’s invest in education and stop screwing over the middle class.”

Whether or not you sympathize with the plight of local students is immaterial. The fight is not tomorrow or the day after; it’s here and it’s today.

Students of the Binghamton University progressive movement remain vigilant and unwavering in their convictions.

“We are not going anywhere,” says Hobler.

“Our voices must be heard and we will not stop until our demands are met.”

December 2015

BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM

Free COllege

Free College* Written By Thomas Casey

Free college is a misnomer. Unless, of course, someone has unjustly slapped bars around Binghamton University, “Free college! Free it now! It did nothing wrong!” But, college did do something wrong. College imposed $1.2 trillion of debt on its graduates. College inflicted examination anxiety and unceasing stress. College made 19-year-olds memorize the periodic table while subsisting on inedible dinners. “Jail college! Lock it away!”

That’s an offbeat rallying cry. Strangely, predominant student organizations like Million Student March (MSM), are calling for more people to join the overtly criminal organization of higher education. These groups are marching to combat burgeoning student debt, declaring that the government should pay for college and absolve all money owed. MSM won over the hearts, minds, and wallets of college-attending or college-bound kids everywhere with the promise of a 1,460/day 1,459/night, all-expenses paid trip to university. The fine print of its proposal is a significantly less sexy message. The organizers of the march push for the federal government to pay tuition at all public universities. Funding will either stem from higher marginal tax rates in the highest income brackets or a $0.05 tax levied on stock trades over $100. The harsh truth: free college is a misnomer. The tuition only proposal is a far cry from the idealistic, debt free experience. Amazingly, this shortsighted effort won’t do much in terms of swelling college enrollment. In fact, the policy proposal behind Million Student March is excessively selfish.

Buy None Get One Free

We’re down to the gritty dollar details in our academia battlefield. Let’s use a microcosm to sharpen the perspective.

Binghamton University costs $200,000 for an in-state, four year undergraduate education. I understand the checks we write out each year are about $20,000, but that only covers Binghamton’s explicit costs. Lost wages, or the salary a high school graduate could earn working full-time, cost $27,000 a year in New York State. Coupled with additional fees and conditional living expenses, a year roleplaying as a Bearcat runs up to $50,000. MSM presents its proposal as a panacea. However, the organization calls for only the subsidization of tuition. Time to burst some balloons. Tuition, and strictly tuition, the component MSM will graciously gift to every college hopeful, is $6,470. That’s 12.94% off Binghamton’s total bill. Sounds like a pretty lackluster coupon to me. Unless the demand for State U is more elastic than Flubber, we won’t be opening many more opportunities. MSM’s tuition-only proposal isn’t enough to bring forward less fortunate highschoolers. Books, fees, room, board, and lost wages blast away any long-term benefits. Destitute, financially overwhelmed New Yorkers can’t commit to Binghamton with only 12% to ride on. MSM’s offer is simply not progressive enough.

So why the hullabaloo? Why do self-titled progressives stride in lockstep boasting the tuition paid policy? Most support stems from misguidedness. Again, the unofficial slogan “free college” is a heckuva misnomer. However, be it a modicum or a mountain, greed’s waltzing right along with ‘em. MSM is not progressive enough in their ambitions; they’re about 60% away from a tangential difference (you need at least a C- for it to count). Why editor@binghamtonreview.com

keep at this failure of a movement? Because it will help them.

Gimme Gimme Gimme!

You’ve done it. You’ve forgone your potential job as a truck driver or freelance coder to attend Binghamton University. You have the financial stability to either comfortably take out loans or dip into your parents’ savings. There’s a movement going around, calling for Baxter to hand back the $6,470 you mailed him in August. If you succeed, college will be cheaper! Move into a shack on the Westside, and SUNY-B will practically be free! Dab a coat of inclusivity on your crusade and ride the social reform wave all the way to M&T Bank. MSM can claim everyone under the lackluster Binghamton sun as its benefactors.

Ultimately, the real shareholders are the organizers themselves.

MSM’s movement is not about opening up college to the less fortunate. MSM wants someone else to foot a small part of a bill they could’ve paid just as well themselves. Imagine college as a fancy dinner. “Hey all, let’s have Wall Street buy us appetizers!

Say, why aren’t all those people outside coming into the steakhouse? J.P. Morgan’s covering the post-dinner mints!” Gimme, gimme, gimme free tuition. But hey, it’s not just for me.

Who Gets the Bill?

Mark the 19-year-old waiter. Lauren the 20 year old entrepreneur. Sally, 22, unemployed. While the members of MSM slip more spending money into their pockets, the very people MSM purports to represent foot the cost. Mark, Lauren, and Sally didn’t even notice the difference when Binghamton went on sale for 88% MSRP. These people had to work to survive right out of high school, and now they’re paying extra because some rich kids wanted free stuff. Even by targeting the wealthy, MSM’s payment proposals will devastate the bottom bracket. The owner of Mark’s restaurant shuts down when her marginal tax rate skyrockets. She doesn’t see a point of staying open when the government takes 90% of every dollar she makes for the rest of the year. Lauren and Sally watch their meager retirement savings plummet when stock activity falls. Even a $0.05 tax will cause a problem. There’s a reason that the MSM’s campaign happens exclusively on college campuses. MSM only uplifts the people who are fortunate enough to attend college in the first place.

A Solemn Conclusion

While MSM’s intentions may be unclear, the organization’s policy of subsidized tuition is unabashedly selfish. Entitled current university students want someone else to pay a small percentage of the true costs of college. Subsidized tuition would put extra spending money in the pockets of those who definitely don’t need it. The policy steals away from the underprivileged Americans MSM claims to help. Stop begging for more advantages. Start considering the effects your unsound demands have.

And, ultimately, if you’re serious about getting, true-blue, real deal, free college education, well. . .

THE RESERVE OFFICERS’ TRAINING CORPS (ROTC) IS IN LIBRARY NORTH Quit your whining and give ‘em a chance!

Binghamtonreview.com

9

A Trip Through The Woods

BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM

My Awkward Sodexual Encounters: A Trip Through the Woods Written By Patrick McAuliffe

H

ere we go, making our way around the Brain, sampling the local cuisine. I’ve grown to enjoy this because it gets me out there, seeing the sights of campus. Granted, I dread the many trips up to Mountainview next month. In the winter, too! The things I do for you, Binghamton Review.

This month, I frequented College-in-the-Woods’ dining hall. It was rather convenient because it was close to my classes in the Engineering Building. (Weird that I’m not even an engineering major. Farthest from it, in fact.) All the trails through the woods to get there were also mildly exciting.

Brought me back to my Boy Scout days.

Anyways, the actual place. The hours seem a bit inconvenient. The whole thing closes at 7:00pm, and until Night Owl opens, the Woods Diner is just an extremely overpriced convenience store. Actually, it still is during Night Owl. Opening at 7:00am is definitely good for weekdays to give us time for breakfast, but on weekends they just assume that everybody will sleep in super late, opening at 11:30am. The sun has nearly set by that time!

Because my schedule doesn’t

coincide with these hours, I’ve never visited CIW for breakfast, although I have heard legends of their chocolate chip pancakes. However, I have formed an opinion on the other meal times. The selection at first seems like there is a wide variety to choose from, but with both food allergies and a refined taste to worry about, I didn’t end up visiting many of the stations.

The flatbread pizza just looks unappetizing, and everything else has either an insufferable line (tl;dw) or consists of vegetables and salad. In the words of Ron Swanson, when asked if he wanted salad by Chris Traeger, “Since I am not a rabbit, no I do not.” But hey, if greens are your nourishment of choice, CIW may be for you.

The best station at CIW is, in this writer’s humble opinion, the Grill. My go-to meal there is Mac and Cheese (which is literally the ambrosia of the gods), baked beans (which have grown on me, largely with CIW’s help), and sometimes, if I feel like getting sauce stuck in my mustache, some chicken wings. Totally worth it, though. Those are damn good wings.

On to dining accessories. Something that bothers me about this dining hall is that there are no lids for

the fountain drink cups. Maybe I just couldn’t find them. If they, in fact, do not exist, however, I would like to formally request them. They are much needed. The silverware and trays should be in a more central location instead of right at one of the entrances to the food stations. I forget and walk past them every time. They just sneak up on you.

My final summary of CIW dining hall: On your first visit, the layout of the dining hall might disorient you and you may not see where everything is. A must-have delicacy of theirs is the Mac and Cheese, and pretty much anything at the Grill, but there are plenty of options if you feel like giving your colon and arteries a break.

The cashiers, depending on the day, are slightly cheerier than the average cashier, but none stand out. The eating area is nicely self-contained, although it may be a bit too cozy for maneuvering with large backpacks and other such things.

Next month, I’ll be making the trek up to Mountainview. I haven’t been there often so far this year, but I don’t have high hopes for the Deli; it was an unpleasant Sodexual encounter.

Do you want to write, report, edit, brainstorm, photograph, draw, design, photoshop, post on twitter, make videos, or do anything else for Binghamton Review?

What a coincidence: we want you to do that for us too! Come join us at one of our meetings, Wednesdays at 7pm in UUW B05 (under the marketplace, near WHRW) or send an email to: editor@binghamtonreview.com 10

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

December 2015

BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM

A Musician’s Dream Nearing Fruition

Encouraging the Arts in the Binghamton Area: A Musician’s Dream Nearing Fruition Written By Patrick McAuliffe

L

ast month, I gave a shout-out in my dining hall review series to a swell C4 cashier named CJ Wachter. I was later paying for my food and struck up a conversation with him about the article. He told me that his motivation for being a “lunch lady” is much more than simply seeing all of our beaming faces every day. For four years, he has been working to get a musical nonprofit organization off the ground to improve the artistic community in his hometown area of Binghamton, NY. And he’s nearly there.

The 607 area code covers a large chunk of New York, and is home to thousands of under-the-radar, struggling musicians and artists. Without

directly from artists’ stores at the top of their web page. CJ told me, “There is music with integrity out there not typical of the music industry today that showcases true musicianship, but doesn’t have a proper vehicle for exposure. There are countless cases where wonderful artists get mucked over by record labels and are screwed out of their royalties throughout the entire 20th century. When you buy music from 607 artists, you’ll know that every dollar you spend goes directly to those artists and won’t get chopped up by record labels and distributors.”

“We are NOT a record label, and we’re not just a radio station. We want artists to be their own business owners.” proper publicity and encouragement, they will likely never achieve their dreams of having a viable career in the entertainment industry. With no sustainable workforce in sight, the struggling musicians will only perpetuate the spiral of poverty that we all see around us. CJ is working on creating a nonprofit company named “What’s Real?! 607” that can change the lives of local musicians. The organization seeks to set up a commercial-free internet radio station, which allows artists from the 607 to be heard worldwide.

With the right connections, the nonprofit can land high profile interviews with entertainment professionals. The professionals will appear on the station to talk about the work they do and their own humble beginnings.

They can expose their own fans to 607 music by proxy. Listeners are encouraged to purchase 607 artists’ music editor@binghamtonreview.com

Ambitious musicians and artists in Binghamton and the 607 area around it will be able to come to “What’s Real?! 607” for assistance in pursuing their dreams.

For CJ, this allocation of profits is very important. “It’s a vehicle to get these artists exposed,” he said. “We are not a record label, and we’re not just a radio station. We want artists to be their own business owners.”

I enjoy great music as much as the next person, but, sometimes, unfortunately, money is a major concern in providing this art. “What’s Real?!

607’s proposal is all drawn up, and as a nonprofit company they will charge

businesses who choose to advertise with them on their web page the same advertising space they give the artists free of charge. This is an estimated value of about $50,000 a year.

100% of station profits go into the nonprofit fund which is then distributed via nonprofit board members’ determination to area schools to supplement music and art programs. The nonprofit will also have opportunities for artists who are no longer in school as well. All that’s needed is enough cash to get it off the ground (about $2,000); CJ has considered approaching the city of Binghamton directly for a grant, and a gofundme.com page is now active if you decide that this is a valuable organization to contribute to.

CJ’s dream to improve Binghamton goes beyond “What’s Real?! 607”.

With enough student interest, he will petition the SA for an official community outreach program next semester.

This organization, tentatively called Binghamton’s We Are The Scene” will work in conjunction with “What’s Real?! 607” to advocate for the importance of music and arts in the classroom and promote Binghamton University to local middle and high schools. They will offer scholarships and grants to up-and-coming talent and help schools that need to keep their arts programs, while focusing on cross promotion between university artists and Binghamton native artists, even co-sponsoring events with Late Nite Binghamton. With the student group’s community outreach, the artistic culture of the 607 area will continue to thrive for many more years.

I personally encourage you all to seriously consider the positive effect that CJ’s efforts will bring to our local area. As he told me, “The only thing better than being a rockstar is bringing everyone in town with you!”

If you want to learn more and are considering contributing in any way please search for “What’s Real?! 607” Binghamton on Facebook and/or visit Gofundme.com/WhatsReal607 Binghamtonreview.com

11

mISERY IN mISSOURI

BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM

Misery in Missouri: How do we Fight Racism?

Written By By David Keptsi

I

stand in solidarity with victims of racism in Missouri. However based on the information available to me, I can not stand with their student group “Concerned Student 1950.” The events that occurred in the University of Missouri drew national media attention and a series of sympathetic “hashtagtivist” posts all across social media. It was impossible to miss, and as a naturally skeptic individual who doesn’t trust the circus that modern news media has become, I decided to look into the reports surrounding the events in order to form my own opinion about the matter. For those unaware of exactly what happened, I will summarize the events now and expand upon them later as I go along.

There was a series of reported racially charged incidents on campus and several Black student organizations demanded a response from the university in order for them to feel safer from such discrimination on campus. Perceiving little to no action from the university officials, a series of nonviolent protests started to occur against the university establishment. Once the media picked up the protests it all turned into a shitshow(as things typically do when the entertainment news industry gets involved) and two university officials were forced to step down.

I began my examination of the issue by looking at the actual list of demands that the Concerned Student 1950 group had made. Looking at the demands of the group was quite eye opening as they largely revolved around hiring more Black faculty and accepting more Black students in addition to a racial awareness curriculum overseen by students and staff of color.

My issue had become apparent. It’s hard to deny that institutional racism is a real issue in this country. African Americans in the U.S. are more likely to be arrested for the same crimes as White people. White migration to the suburbs during the baby boomer generation created poor urban ethnic communities with low funding for education. Welfare systems have reduced incentives to move up along the socioeconomic ladder. I can only try to understand the conditions they face but I’ll never truly be able to understand them as I have not experienced them myself. That is my White privilege and that is why I write this from a position of sympathy.

My issues with these demands lie in that I don’t see how they would actually stop racism on the campus, particularly the incidents that have been reported as having occurred.. Affirmative action and racial quota policies address symptoms, but not the causes of racism. Sure you’re increasing the number of people of color accepted at a university or employed at a job through such programs, but you’re not fixing the reason that they weren’t hired or accepted in the first place. It is undoubtedly wrong for a qualified person to not be selected as a result of a superficial characteristic such as race, that is a statement that most equitable human beings would agree with. But, by that logic wouldn’t the programs suggested by this group be the same? I see them as programs that politicians put in place to appease the white guilt of their constituents rather than to solve any real institutional problems.

12

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

As for these racial awareness programs... For one, there is definitely going to be bias if the people running the program are all people of color. While they may understand the issues better having been victims themselves, the very fact that they were victims induces a bias against the people they are meant to educate. The board should be diverse, although this is a minor qualm. Furthermore, to deny non people of color a position on this board (if they were qualified in other aspects) would be discriminatory and hypocritical. Furthermore, to assume such education would suddenly cure racism severely underestimates how stubborn a racist can be and how easy it is for one to coast through these classes without taking anything learned to heart.

In addition, such policies may even incur racist pushback from students who find themselves taking or paying for yet another class in order to graduate. That is the breadth of my issue with the student group that started these protests.

Next comes the issue of the university’s response. Accusations of verbal racism are just that, accusations. It is very difficult to prove who said what, and without proof it is quite difficult to punish any instances involving this hearsay. As for racially charged acts or hate crimes? When perpetrators are caught they are punished, and that’s as much as can be expected. If school officials were actively working against the pursuit of those criminals then that would be a real issue. However, as it says nothing about that in the list of demands, I’ll assume it’s not happening.

And as for an official statement being made? The university had made online diversity training a requirement for freshman students and I suggest anyone doubting the existence of an official statement to look at the statement made by the University of Missouri Office of the Chancellor (one of the people forced to resign in wake of protests) which I have read and it seems quite compassionate and equitable to me.

From what I can gather, the Mizzou officials only truly failed in playing politics, and having their side told in the media.

Furthermore, to all the liberals who want to blame the university for the actions of a select few people who may or may not have been students, is that really any different from blaming Muslims for the actions of a few extremists? Sadly it seems that as long as people continue to be different, xenophobia will continue to exist. If we truly want to minimize its effects, we should aim to fix the institutions that prevent the advancement of the disadvantaged. I truly do feel for victims of racism in Missouri, but the methods used here and the demands made do not advance their cause.

I strongly doubt the people I’ve seen making posts of solidarity on Facebook have looked into the events to this depth. As such, I view their actions as either outright ignorant or attention seeking declarations of “look at me, I care!” That being said, the information available to me was not perfect and I’ve formulated my opinion based on what I had. I encourage anyone who disagrees to show me why he or she believes I’m wrong. My opinion may change, and I believe such open dialogue is necessary for the advancement of the well being of our society.

December 2015

Phony Express

BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM

The Phony Express Written By Luke Kusick

A

t this point in the election season, everyone knows the self-described socialist who has made his career screaming angrily at Wall Street, the banks, and even capitalism in general. The left wing, social justice warrior, college liberal loves him for being a “radical” and a “socialist” when in all actuality his plans are not much different from the status quo. The clearest example of his non-radical plans can be seen in his new way to fix the banking system.

Bernie Sanders back in early November proposed his solution to fix the banking system. His plan involves modifying the Post Office to serve as a banking system. Under Bernie’s plan, people could deposit money into their local Post Offices. The intent of this plan is to help low-income residents in areas where banks are not as common so that they can have a place to store their money. According to Bernie, the plan will also help save the failing Post Office.

Let’s make one point absolutely clear: this plan is not radical in any sense of the word. Trying to increase the powers and extent of a government agency isn’t some giant step forward to radical change. Rather, it is a progression of what has been going on in this country since its inception.

This plan at the most is just modifying the status quo. The United States Post office, a government agency that is prone to bankruptcy and corruption, will cause a lot of problems for anyone who risks storing their money in it. For example, how will people be certain that their money will be stored safely and not spent on the bankrupt agency itself? The lockbox idea is obviously a myth that the government has used since the days of Social Security to garner the trust of the masses. And, just like Social Security, there will probably be no lockbox in the Post Offices. The problem with the United States Post Office is that it holds a monopoly of control on the delivery of mail. The second problem editor@binghamtonreview.com

lies in the actual utility that granting the Post Office banking power would do to serve the American people.

Nothing. Granting a federal agency the ability to keep people’s money safe is not a real change at all. The real change would come from ending the Federal Reserve or true deregulation of the banks. Bernie Sanders has said, “It is time to break up the largest financial institutions in this country!”

To that I say, “Great! Let’s end the Federal Reserve, the largest financial institution in this country that is systematically impoverishing Americans, devaluing the currency, and allowing the whole too big to fail system to exist!” However, my pleas fall on deaf ears as Sanders gutted the “Audit the Fed Bill” that Ron Paul worked on for months. If Bernie Sanders were a real radical, he would not increase the control and power of the United States Post Office. Instead, Bernie would defund it, deregulate it, and open it up to competition while simultaneously ending the Federal Reserve.

Real radical reform is nowhere to be found in this new Post Office idea.

Instead let us learn from history with a real “socialist,” 19th century American Anarchist Lysander Spooner. In 1844, Spooner opened up the American Letter Mail Company in order to compete against the high prices of the Post Office. His goal was to lower prices, which he was able to do as com-

petition forces monopolies to now compete against other market forces.

Although the government shut down his business in 1851, Lysander proved that one individual, one market actor, could effectively lower the prices of a monopoly. This is real radicalism at its finest. Bernie should listen to the “socialist” ideas of Spooner and talk about ideas such as the abolishment of the government control of the Post Office, and the abolishment of the government control of pretty much every market operation. Spooner died before the Federal Reserve was established, but he too certainly would have seen it as oppressive an institution as he saw the government granted monopoly of the Post Office.

The young progressives on our college campus are drawn to the ideas of Bernie because they are economically illiterate and they want to appear“radical.” In the same way as it was cool to be a leftist in the 1960s, it is now fashionable to be seen as a “radical” or “socialist.” However, all of Bernie’s inexcusable and economically misguided reforms are not radical at all. Real radical reforms come from the deregulation of the economy, the ending of government control over spheres of the economy, and the adoption of a proper approach to capitalism. A real radical approach does not involve expanding government power of the market, but dissolving it.

Binghamtonreview.com

13

Shtt Buzzfeed Says

BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM

Shit BuzzFeed Says Act III: A Contemplation Written By Howard Hecht

Trigger Warning: This Article was Indeed Written by a Heterosexual, White Male hose reading this serial may have realized I’ve contradicted myself.

Though I once stated people who enjoy BuzzFeed aren’t “degenerates,” I recently went as far as to call them: “infantile adults.” That was rather “savage” of me, as BuzzFeed would say. It was never my intention to judge those with interests that differ from mine, and instead, only to expose BuzzFeed for its self-serving perversion of journalistic integrity. In that way, I’ve failed my original purpose.

And yet, here I am again, ready to take my stand upon a soap box, with a tinfoil hat soldered right onto my goddamn skull.

Directly criticizing those who enjoy BuzzFeed bothers me most because, if BuzzFeed can be trusted, they boast a “global audience of more than 200M.” That’s a lot of people. That’s like, the current population of Brazil.

Try to imagine if this serial was written to exclusively make fun of Brazilians. I’m sure the Binghamton Review would shut me down immediately, unless my articles were totally focused on arguing against Brazil’s complete ban on cannabis.

I shouldn’t try to generalize an entire population of people, and so neither should I pretend BuzzFeed’s entire audience is dead inside. I’ve come to this conclusion not just because, logically, it makes the most sense, but also because I too am a part of BuzzFeed’s 200M. Regardless of whether I want to or not, I’ve given BuzzFeed a small amount of traffic every time I’ve written one of these articles. My investigation of their worth is at once both a harsh critique and a type of advertisement. It wouldn’t be a stretch to say that I rely on BuzzFeed more than most people. Without it, this serial wouldn’t exist.

I recognize that I’m not the first to identify this kind of contradiction

T

14

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

in purpose, nor do I share these sentiments with you, my kindly reader, in an attempt to appear intellectual in any capacity. I’m writing about BuzzFeed, for fuck’s sake. This is the same website that published an article titled “26 Men Who’ll Make You Pregnant Without Even Touching You.” Thanks, Ellie Woodward, by the way, for letting me know just how “dangerously perfect” these handsome celebrities really are. I think the last thing I’d ever want to do as a male is give birth to a child I didn’t even conceive through intercourse. That’d be, like, totally awkward, if nothing else.

And so, even if I don’t want to be, I must consider myself one of BuzzFeed’s 200M by consequence of viewing the website at all. As Kenneth Bainbridge, Director of the Manhattan Project’s Trinity nuclear test, said after witnessing the explosion: “Now we are all sons of bitches.” At the time of writing, I’m not exactly sure what the consequences are of identifying my apparent reliance on BuzzFeed.

Maybe, in time, I’ll be inspired to make my own grandiose statement concerning BuzzFeed’s existence on this earth.

If that came off as a bit extreme, here’s an alternative for you – in the words of Kanye West: “Nothing in life is promised except death.” Damn right. Thank you, Kanye.

Though I may be overstepping my bounds, I now feel that it’s appropriate for me to share a story of sorts.

I don’t want to come off as if I’m targeting a single individual, or to seem as if I’m shaming said individual for what she was doing. But my totally innocent, not creepy or strange, observations of her are completely relevant to what I’ve written thus far.

Before I’m crucified for looking at someone else’s laptop, I want to point out that I know every single one of you does the same exact type of thing. Don’t pretend you’ve never taken your boyfriend’s phone and read through his texts, just to discover

that all he talks about with his friends are video games and food, you sick hypocrites. Oh, and as if you haven’t ever had the urge to look through all of your friends’ messages when they forget to logout of their social media accounts on your computer. You’re all narcissistic, self-righteous, and probably even a little bit, dare I say it, privileged.

Just kidding. That’d be fucked up if I really meant all that. But it doesn’t feel so good to read, does it?

Anyway, to get back to the point at hand, before I was about to be ruthlessly judged – a few weeks ago, I encountered a fellow member of BuzzFeed’s 200M. I was struck with a kind of morbid curiosity when I saw what website this person was looking at, and though I tried not to pay it any attention, I quickly gave up. I won’t pretend that I tried very hard, or dramatically insist I didn’t want to watch. That sort of denial, in my mind, would be a sign I actually like BuzzFeed.

My encounter with this person, who I’ve chosen not to identify, took place in a classroom that seats around fifty people. Students are only meant to use laptops for taking notes, but this particular student, like everyone else in the room, was doing something completely different. I was positioned beside, and slightly behind this person, watching as she half-heartedly clicked through articles on her MacBook Pro. The expression on her face was one of complete passivity – a total, horrible calm. There wasn’t a single identifiable emotion in her dead, little face, as she stared into the abyss.

While I observed this person exhibit motor function during what appeared to be a waking coma, I quickly realized she wasn’t actually reading anything in its entirety. She would move from article to article, perhaps looking at their titles, and little else.

Some might say this is a rather smart thing to do, because instead of wasting time reading what you might not enDecember 2015

Shtt Buzzfeed Says

BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM

Baby Machine

joy, you’re skimming for a worthwhile piece. I would argue this is not the case, and that there are only two explanations for this person’s behavior.

If I were giving BuzzFeed the benefit of the doubt, I would say it’s entirely possible, though unlikely, that this person may have believed she was getting enough information out of each article by just reading their titles.

As I look at BuzzFeed now, the first thing I see is “SO EASY. SO YUMMY. 7 Healthy Eating Tricks To Try This Week.” Unless clickbait is going through a fundamental change in its attention grabbing tactics, this first option is impossible.

That leaves only one, slightly comforting, explanation: the articles themselves, for whatever reason, weren’t interesting enough to keep this person’s attention. With that in mind, I think I understand why she may have been looking at BuzzFeed in the first place.

BuzzFeed doesn’t exist because 200M Brazilians enjoy its content. As was observable for me, BuzzFeed articles can only really produce a type of dissatisfaction that promotes continual viewership. It’s this sort of modern, editor@binghamtonreview.com

clickbait induced ennui that drives BuzzFeed’s existence.

With titles that immediately catch the eye, clickbait provides a spark of interest in learning whatever information is being teased. This phenomenon, partnered with dissatisfying, trivial content within the article itself, could explain why this person I observed appeared as if she were just barely holding it together.

It was apparent to me that, regardless of what this person was looking for in BuzzFeed’s articles, she wasn’t able to find it. I would go as far as to state that, if you’re looking at BuzzFeed for extended periods of time, you probably don’t even know what you want. Will knowing why “We Need To Talk About Guys Wearing Basketball Shorts” make you a happier person? Will it satisfy you in any sense of the word? If you’re me, the answer is no, probably not. But I am slightly curious. And I would imagine most people feel the same way. Click.

I won’t exaggerate and call us all victims of BuzzFeed’s influence. People are fully capable of avoiding the website altogether. As I reflect on my

own experience with BuzzFeed however, I see that, while I may criticize those who enjoy it, those people can’t, and hopefully don’t, exist in the way I’ve been envisioning them. It would seem illogical to me that anyone could actually enjoy BuzzFeed for extended periods of time, or feel fulfilled by what it has to offer.

Now, before some of you try and tell me I’m wrong about labeling BuzzFeed as pure clickbait, let me make it clear that I agree. I do recognize, despite my bias, a type of BuzzFeed news that does actually hold value.

This “news” section of the website was opened when, according to Wikipedia (That’s right, what’re you gonna do about it?), “in late 2011, Ben Smith of Politico was hired as Editor-in-Chief, in a move to expand the site into serious journalism, long-form and reportage while maintaining its popular fun and entertainment-oriented content.”

My limited experience with this segment of the site was actually rather pleasant, but I still think it’s important to remember that what BuzzFeed promotes on its homepage and through its various Facebook profiles is how it wants to be viewed. If I were to kick a puppy in front of someone, and then try to save face by saying “I run an animal shelter,” I don’t think that would go over very well. The damage has been done, and no real effort to reform has been made. Though BuzzFeed may have a real news section, they’re still predominantly clickbait.

With this in mind, I stand resolute.

BuzzFeed, despite its benign, news oriented growth, remains rotten to the core.

Rather than continue to tease BuzzFeed for being “The Media Company for the Social Age,” I would like to offer a different approach. They don’t deserve that title, and I propose that we, as individuals in their 200M traffic statistics, take it back from them. I will no longer stand by and simply write about BuzzFeed’s journalistic sins. This is war in a very real sense, and I will begin my attack with a single goal in mind: The complete dismantling of BuzzFeed.com.

Binghamtonreview.com

15

A Frightening French Future

BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM

A Frightening French Future Written By Max Newman

On November 13, 2015, the city of Paris as well as the nation of France was changed forever. Barbaric and well coordinated terrorist attacks hit the French capital, as ISIS jihadists rampaged through a soccer stadium, a lively nightlife district and the Bataclan concert hall. The latest terrorist attacks to hit France were not just shocking, but took an even darker turn than the two attacks that took place just eleven months ago. The terrorism that struck Paris on November 13th will not just go down in history, but could very well be the opening salvo of the clash of civilizations that could split a country apart.

It seemed like a normal, vibrant Friday night on the streets of the City of Lights. Parisians were enjoying a soccer match between France and Germany, eating at restaurants and attending music concerts. In short, Parisians were living life by the French phrase of joie de vivre (the joy of life).

However, at 9:20 pm local time, explosions ripped through the air near the Stade de France. Suicide bombers affiliated with the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) detonated explosives, 16

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

killing one person. Throughout the night, a series of coordinated terrorist attacks in the name of jihad were committed on the lively streets of the 11th arrondisement and at the Bataclan concert hall, with bars being shot at and pedestrians being massacred by machine guns. The worst attack took place at the Bataclan concert hall, when Islamist terrorists killed 89 people and took hostages for over two hours. When the attackers were neutralized, 129 were killed and over 400 were injured in the deadliest terrorist attack in French history. France is still beginning to come to grips with what happened on November 13th, and while the attack only occurred on one horrific night, the seeds of radicalization have been stemming for years.

Furthermore, the implications and ramifications of what happened in Paris are long lasting and will continue to have an effect for years to come.

The latest Islamist terrorist attacks to hit France are horrific and shocking, but are unfortunately becoming the new normal. From the Toulouse shootings to the Charlie Hebdo attacks, Islamist terrorist at-

tacks on French soil are nothing new, and unfortunately, Islamist terrorist attacks are increasing as time goes on.

From 2010 to 2013, only two Islamist terrorist attacks took place. However, from December 2014 up until now, ten terrorist attacks have taken place in France perpetrated by jihadists.

While the majority of the ten terrorist attacks have caused very few casualties since December of last year, either way, Islamist terrorism is on the rise. The increase in terrorist attacks in France highlights an unfortunate reality.

The November 13th terrorist attacks in Paris are just the latest event to rock France, as already deep divisions between the native French and Muslim immigrants continue to grow wider. Of course, not all Muslims are terrorists. In fact, it is quite the contrary, as most French Muslims are peaceful.

However, surprising poll numbers from the ICM Research Group, which found that 15% of Frenchmen support ISIS, are extremely worrying.

France has had difficulty assimilating its Muslim community, currently numbering at about six million, into December 2015

BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM

society for decades. Unfortunately, the lack of Muslim assimilation in France has only grown worse over the years.

A large number of French Muslims live in poor, crumbling neighborhoods on the outskirts of large cities such as Paris. These impoverished, segregated housing projects are also known as banlieue, as Omar Ismail Mostefai, one of the Paris attackers, came from the southern suburb of Courcouronnes.

The growing Muslim alienation and building anger in the often dangerous banlieue reached its boiling point in October 2005, as massive riots started in northeastern Paris, but spread to other disadvantaged banlieues is in the following days. Three weeks of intense rioting occurred throughout France, as mainly Muslim rioters clashed with native French police. Tensions between the native French and Muslim immigrants have only became worse since then, as the lack of Muslim assimilation in France as well as the recent Islamist terrorist attacks have made the situation in France into a powderkeg. With tensions in France continuing to rise, a new reality emerges in that France is unfortunately not a united country right now. In the banlieues, many of these areas have become “no go zones”, as these lawless areas are now places where the native French and tourists largely do not dare to enter. This contrast is seen not just in the impoverished and dangerous banlieues, but

editor@binghamtonreview.com

A Frightening French Future

in other facets of society. In a soccer match between France and Algeria in October of 2001, hundreds of French Muslims of Algerian descent invaded the field chanting “Bin Laden, Bin Laden!”, cancelling the match. Events such as this one as well as the October 2005 riots have caused tensions to continue to skyrocket.

Long running tensions between the native French and the Muslim immigrants as well as native French Muslims have added to rising poll numbers for the National Front, a right wing conservative party led by the charismatic Marine Le Pen. The National Front feels that mass immigration from North Africa and the Middle East is changing French society, and not in a good way. Their views come at a time when over 850,000 migrants from the Middle East and Africa have illegally migrated to Europe, with many of them being Syrian refugees. With hundreds of thousands of migrants pouring into Europe, Frenchmen are already on edge. To add to the migrant crisis sweeping Europe, the shocking news that at least one of the Paris attackers posed as a refugee to enter Europe in October has native Frenchmen turning to the conservative National Front Party.

The growing anxieties of the native French have the National Front as the leading party in the polls to win the French presidential election in 2017.

These anxieties are also expressed in eyebrow raising poll numbers. In a

poll taken by the infamous French newspaper Le Monde after the Charlie Hebdo attacks, 74% of respondents agreed that “Islam is incompatible with French society.” With rising poll numbers for the National Front, and the continuous poverty that has plagued the predominantly immigrant banlieues for decades, the future for France looks as uncertain as ever.

“To add to the migrant crisis sweeping Europe, the shocking news that at least one of the Paris attackers posed as a refugee to enter Europe in October has native Frenchmen turning to the conservative National Front Party.”

The dangerous scenario with a rising conservative, anti-immigration party, coupled with the failed assimilation and subsequent radicalization of many French Muslims has led to an unstable and frightening future for the French Republic. France will need to toughen up and clamp down on radical Islamism that threatens not just banlieues such as Clichy sus Bois and Saint Denis, but France as a whole. France faces a two pronged threat from radical Islamists, in that the enemy is not just entering Europe illegally through Greece, but also that the enemy is already inside the gates.

France will need to make difficult and tough decisions now in order to avoid absolute chaos and bedlam later. A great way for France to fight and end the decades old problem is for the French people to elect the conservative National Front in order to replace the spineless leaders of their current socialist government. If France does not toughen up to fight radical Islam both abroad and especially at home, then the quintessential French values of Liberté, égalité, fraternité (Liberty, Equality, Fraternity) may truly be at risk.

Binghamtonreview.com

17

Poll Dancing

BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM

Poll Dancing Written By Joseph Gunderson

I

t’s no secret that nearly everyone seeking election for public office relies on polls. In the 2012 presidential election, Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and US Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin secured the Republican Party nomination, but failed to defeat incumbent President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden, winning only 206 electoral votes to Obama’s 359. In an interview following the election, Governor Romney admitted that his campaign strategy on election day was flawed, in that he withheld “getout-to-vote” campaign activity in two key swing states, Florida and Ohio.

He mentioned that polling in those states showed that he was comfortably ahead of Obama going into the election, yet he ended up losing both states, losing by over four percent in Ohio. Although winning in Ohio and Florida would not have given Romney the 270 electoral votes needed to win, Romney’s campaign relied on polling data that influenced their election day-strategy. The 2012 election revealed an important attribute about polls: they aren’t always accurate.

The seemingly low polling integrity displayed in 2012, however, has not affected polls’ relevance in the 2016 election set to begin on Tuesday, November 8, 2016. Starting an unprecedented series of crossfire and “politically incorrect” rhetoric since his announcement speech on June 16, 2015, businessman Donald J. Trump took less than a month to oust former Florida Governor Jeb Bush and Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker from the top spots to claim the front-runner position in the race for the Republican Party nomination, according to multiple national polls. By the end of July, to the apparent surprise of nearly all news media outlets, Trump sat atop the GOP field, polling 20.8 percent support according to the Real Clear Politics average of select national polls. His nearest contender, Scott Walker, was a full 7 points behind.

Trump’s rise to the top of the

18

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

polls became an instant hot topic; given comments he made at his announcement speech regarding illegal immigration, as well as multiple attacks on Senator John McCain of Arizona and his opponents in the race including, but not limited to Jeb Bush, Rick Perry, Hillary Clinton, and Lindsey Graham, the media erupted in utter shock with the release of each successive national poll. Polls including The Economist and Reuters showed Trump garnering twice, if not more than twice the support of his nearest contender in the GOP nomination race, and spurred discussion and analysis from nearly every news network.

Following a questionable performance at the first GOP debate hosted

by Fox News, the news media reacted similarly when new national polls not only showed that Trump wasn’t losing support, but actually gaining support, polling above 30 percent in multiple national polls. Trump’s record-setting crowd size at campaign events complimented his massive lead in the key early-voting states of Iowa, South Carolina, and New Hampshire.

Many anticipated that Trump’s poll numbers would fade en masse after coming under fire for his inflammatory comments about fellow GOP candidate Carly Fiorina, coupled with retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson’s recent rise in national polls following the second GOP debate. Sooner or later, news of Trump’s domination got old, and subsequent headlines replaced news of Trump’s rise with polls showing Carson catching up to Trump, even though said polls bore high margins of error and surveyed very few people.

As a general rule, reliable national polls survey a minimum of 800 people via phone interviews, and have a margin of error of five percent or less. Polls conducted by The Economist, Reuters, and FOX News usually meet these general characteristics, surveying as many as 2000 people at times, and even asking those surveyed to name a second-choice candidate in

addition to their first-choice. Reliable polls conducted at the state level generally survey a minimum of 450-500 people via telephone interviews and have a margin of error of five percent or less. While less reliable, polls that do not meet the general requirements sometimes make their way into the Real Clear Politics average of national polls, their releases do not go unnoticed by news media networks, and often make for greater publicity since their smaller sample sizes are more easily influenced by isolated inconsistencies that favor a single candidate over another.

To no surprise, such polls were repeatedly used to highlight Trump’s decline as the front-runner, a trend consistent with the medial value placed on Carson’s rise. In mid-October, the news media erupted when Trump lost his lead in Iowa to Carson, which was the first time in over a

“This is not to say that Trump is the deserving front-runner of the election for the GOP nomination, but merely to suggest that polls are used more often to entertain a story or shared belief, as opposed to strategic campaign purposes.” hundred days that Donald Trump had not taken the front-runner position in any state-wide poll. Every media outlet soon joined in on the bandwagon when a poll released by CBS News on October 27, 2015 showed Carson at 26% and Trump at 22%. While the poll surveyed less than 600 likely GOP voters, and had a margin of error of 6 percent, the media followed it closely.

From sun up to sun down the numbers 26 and 22 under their respective portraits dominated the imagery on TV. December 2015

BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM

Just days later, an IBD poll released showed Trump at 23 and Carson at 28, which made headlines once more, with NBC News taking the opportunity to resurface claims Trump had made about Ford a few weeks earlier to imply a causation for Trump’s seeming poll slip. Interestingly, reporters hardly mentioned the poll’s small sample size of 402 likely Republican voters and high margin of error. More polls making headlines that week included a CBS News poll, showing Carson leading Trump 29 to 23, and a McClatchy poll, with Carson leading Trump 24 to 23. All of these polls, despite their small sample sizes and high margins of error, were included in the RCP average, and spurred more excitement when the average of the week’s polls showed Carson leading Trump 24.8 to 24.6, making him the “official” front-runner in what became a monumental end to Trump’s reign at the top.

Interestingly, Reuters released a poll the same day that the CBS poll made headlines, and sampled over 900 registered Republican voters, and showed Trump leading the GOP field at 35.7% support, over 15 points above Carson. Later that same week, The Economist released a poll that sampled nearly 2000 GOP voters which showed Trump’s support safely above 30%. None of these polls made headlines nor were they included in the RCP average. This is not to say that Trump is the deserving front-runner of the election for the GOP nomination, but merely to suggest that polls are used more often to entertain a story or shared belief, as opposed for strategic campaign purposes.

What is most striking about the brief slip in Trump’s polling is that the CBS poll was not the first poll to show that Carson was the front-runner. In fact as early as October 1, an IBD poll was released, showing Carson leading Trump 24 to 17 percent. While this poll was by no means accurate, surveying just over 300 likely voters, the news media did not purport it, likely because it still made for profitable media to marvel at Trump’s success amid his brash comments.

While Carson’s lead in the RCP editor@binghamtonreview.com

Poll Dancing

averages lasted only a few days, almost no polls were released following the first week of November, keeping Trump and Carson locked in a fragile tie, separated by 0.4 percent.

However, the tragic terrorist attacks on Paris on November 13 changed everything. Ann Coulter declared the next day that “Last night, Donald Trump became the President of the United States,” sounding off a brief era of Trump’s rise amid an increased desire for the wall he has promised to build at the southern border should he secure the nomination and win the general election. The accuracy of this sentiment is unknown, but after a two-week respite in poll releases, a series of polls, Bloomberg, PPP, and ABC/Wash Post showed

“With Super Tuesday just around the corner, and a series of debates approaching, the polls will likely come under increased scrutiny as voters begin to make their decisions as to who they want to be the next President of the United States.”

Trump as the clear favorite among Republican voters. Most notable was the Fox News poll released on November 19, showing Trump leading the GOP field at 28 percent support, ten points ahead of Carson.

While the polls that show Trump on top are all more reliable than those that were used to actualize Carson’s dominance in terms of sample size and margin of error, the sequence in which they were portrayed brings about another defining characteristic regarding polls. Accuracy does not assure a wider release by the media. The public accessibility of polls is largely due to what will make the most headlines or draw the most viewer interest.

While current polls show that Trump has regained a healthy lead over Carson in nearly every state, these polls are signaling the rise of an-

other candidate who has largely gone under the radar: Texas Senator Ted Cruz. Many Republicans have come under fire from President Obama for their calls for a stronger strategy to combat ISIS and more cautionary measures on the intake of Syrian refugees. It would come as no surprise if a Cruz surge became the new mainstream talk of polls, given that he has claimed second place in a CBS poll conducted among likely Republican voters in Iowa. Although the poll has a hefty 6.2% margin of error, its mainstream attention could signal the arrival of a Cruz-favoring polling era.

With the election close to a year away, the polls so far have seemingly served little purpose other than making for profitable headlines. However, with Super Tuesday just around the corner, and a series of debates approaching, the polls will likely come under increased scrutiny as voters begin to make their decisions as to who they want to be the next President of the United States. Because polls also determine debate placement, added attention as to which polls are used becomes a responsibility of the news network hosting the debate. At the recent GOP debate hosted by Fox Business Network, Governor Mike Huckabee of Arkansas and Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey were disqualified from the main debate stage because of low polling numbers.

Trump still took center-stage despite Carson’s recent takeover as the official frontrunner.

Although many polls are put out there for publicity’s sake, their relevance is taken into consideration in the context of more serious matters.

As Iowa is set to caucus on Monday, February 1, 2016, many of the polls to come will place some candidates over another, and will ultimately influence campaign decisions as they did back in 2012. A 500-person sample does not accurately reflect the views of millions of people in every state. Small polls do not ensure that the sampled people will actually make the effort to vote. Yet, polls do matter, and they will very likely determine campaign strategy despite their inherent inaccuracies.

Binghamtonreview.com

19

Put Up That Fence

BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM

Mr. Orban, Put up that Fence Written By David Iksak

O

ver the past summer, the growth and spread of ISIS led to the displacement of countless Syrians forced to flee their homeland. The surrounding countries in the Middle East refused to help take these refugees in, leading to waves of Syrians overwhelming Europe, a region in which almost all nations allow the fluid movement of people across their borders. But many of these nations realized that taking in and relocating all these people would strain their welfare systems, lead to less living space in communities, create even more ethnic and religious enclaves, and even threaten the security of their citizens. Hungary is one such nation.

Hungary was originally supposed to allow Syrian refugees in and relocate them, but the Hungarian people vehemently protested against these plans, showing their fervent opposition to Syrians being placed in their communities. Prime Minister Viktor Orban listened and constructed a razor wire border fence along stretches of the Hungarian border. The border fence was met with fierce criticism from western European leaders.

French President Francois Hollande compared the Hungarian government to that of the Nazis and claimed that Hungary’s membership in the European Union should be reconsidered.

20

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

The fence went up anyway.

The border fence actually ended up being successful. Before the fence was completed, thousands of Syrians entered into Hungary each day, but in the week after it was finished, only twenty nine people were able to cross Hungary’s border. The day after the fence went up twelve Syrians made their way into Hungary, the day after that it was only seven, the day after that the number dropped to only four.

During the weeks following, there was virtually no movement of Syrians into Hungary.

After Hungary’s defiance in the face of the European Union, other countries were emboldened to make their anti-refugee feelings known. Poland was originally allotted by the EU to take in one thousand refugees this year. The Polish government instead intends to allow in one hundred refugees into their country over the course of four years from 2016 to 2020. Two thirds of Polish people oppose any refugees being placed in their country and other nations are following in that sentiment. Slovakia announced that it would only take in 200 refugees and they would have to be Christian Syrians. An Interior Ministry spokesperson for Slovakia claimed that “Slovakia has no mosques, we only want to choose Christians.” The Danish gov-

ernment went so far as to pay for ads in Middle Eastern media telling Syrian refugees to stay out of Denmark, warning them that they wouldn’t find refuge there. Slovenia has been totally overwhelmed with refugees trying to get to the west, which isn’t sitting well with the government there. The Prime Minister of Slovenia, Miro Cedar claims that “If necessary, we are prepared to put up the fence tomorrow”, flirting with the idea of following in Hungary’s footsteps and building a border fence. Slovenia’s strategy currently is to funnel all Syrians into Austria. Austria and Croatia, countries which are trying to pick up the slack, are failing miserably in their efforts to shelter the refugees. The Syrians in their camps are being described like animals penned in and living in squalor, but yet they continue to welcome these refugees. If the Austrians can’t effectively take in all the refugees, the Slovenians might actually go through with their fence idea.

If I were Trump I’d be paying attention to this situation in Europe.

Hungary’s success is an example of a secured border keeping out unwanted migrants that goes to show Trump might not be as crazy as people think.

His talk of a “wall” is often mocked and his name for it, “the great wall of Trump” didn’t help his image as a serious candidate, but if he went into detail with his plan it might actually be taken seriously. The barbed wire fencing along areas of the American border that are close to major cities on both sides of the border are credited with keeping illegal immigration numbers lower than they otherwise would be. More barbed wire or razor wire fencing along parts of the border that are easily crossed would do a lot to bring the number of people entering the country down. The anti-refugee fervor also mirrors the massive support Trump has enjoyed on our side of the pond. Trump’s numbers have always been high and part of the reason is that his message resonates so deeply with so many people.

December 2015

BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM

Greatest Show on TV

The Greatest Show on TV Written By Sean Glendon

T

he winner of Survivor receives $1,000,000. The winner of American Idol receives a record deal and management contract. The Apprentice offered the winner a $250,000 contract to run a Trump company. While some reality shows offer no competitive aspects and no prize money, the focus here is not on that sub-genre. This is about the prize-bearing shows, not about Keeping up with the Kardashians.

While many reality shows offer cash prizes, the incentives to compete do vary from show to show. Reality shows can bring fame and job opportunities, even to the losers, but they can also provide a source of haunting embarrassment for the rest of a competitor’s life.

Reality shows exist because they are cheap to produce and offer networks a huge return on investment and high ratings.

Cost savings exist because fewer writers are required, and paying stipends to a cast of random members of society is way cheaper than paying legitimate actors for scripted shows. Another huge financial benefit of reality television is the ability for companies to sponsor specific events and implement product placement on a grander scale, meaning more revenue for the show.

“If you’re going to spend your time watching reality television, this is the show you should be watching.”

While varying from show to show, advancement by contestants on reality shows tend to occur in one of four methods, based on a combination of performance and personality: 1) internal competitors vote out another member (think Survivor), 2) judges eliminate competitors (think The Apprentice), 3) performance indicates who advances (think The Amazing Race) or 4) external viewers vote for who advances (this is rare to find in its pure form, but Big Brother season 1 took this format). There are exceptions, and there are often hybrid formats - American Idol begins with judges eliminating competitors before switching to external viewers voting as the competition narrows down - but generally a competitive reality show follows one or two of these formats.

To summarize - contestants compete against each other on national television, and eliminations occur until the last man standing receives a grand prize. When thinking of traditional reality shows, Survivor’s $1,000,000 is likely viewed as the top prize. However, let’s make a comparison here: Survivor can be pitched as “a group of strangers, split into two tribes, must provide food, water, fire, and shelter for themselves. These strangers compete in challenges to earn rewards, or immunity from elimination from the competition. Votes occur each episode, with the elimination of a competitor. Eventually, the two tribes merge and individuals compete against each other. The last few competitors face a jury of more recently eliminated players. After interrogation, there is a vote for the winner editor@binghamtonreview.com

of the game, the title of Sole Survivor and a million dollar prize.”

Now another pitch: “a group of individuals under constant public scrutiny that must defend their past actions while sharing a vision and building support from viewers. The contestants are in one of two parties that participate in a series of televised debates, where a small sample of viewers voting in polls determine rankings and who is allowed to compete in the next debate. The winner of each party then chooses a partner, and after a few more episodes of televised debates, viewers over the age of 18 vote for the winner of the game, the title of President of the United States, a $400,00 salary, and four years of living in the White House.”

The American Presidential Election system is a reality show. This holds especially true for the Republican primary system in the 2016 cycle. The Democratic Party started with only a handful of candidates, which meant that those with enough money to survive could do so temporarily, as is the general standard with presidential races. However, the Republican Party featured 17 contestants to begin, which coincidentally was the same amount of contestants that were featured in the most recent season of Big Brother.

Having 17 candidates on stage at once would be an absolutely unproductive mess, so a new system was created. While specifics have differed, there have been two debates set up, with different thresholds to participate. In general, anyone polling decent numbers (usually around 2.5%) gets to participate in the top-tier debate, while those polling lower but still in conversation (>1%) get to participate in the lower-tier debate. This offers upward mobility, which Carly Fiorina achieved by moving up to the main debate after a polling increase following an undercard debate performance. This system also offers downward mobility, with Chris Christie and Mike Huckabee falling to what has been deemed the “junior varsity” debate in the most recent set of debates. After lackluster performances, George Pataki, Lindsay Graham, and Jim Gilmore have failed to qualify for the last debates at all. Polls directly determine who competes in debates, which indirectly determines who will receive funding, which in turn determines who will be able to continue participating in the reality show that is our political system.

How is Donald Trump performing so well and maintaining his frontrunner status while being viewed as a candidate that isn’t serious? This is a reality show, and Donald Trump has hosted a reality show before. He knows what garners ratings and he is treating the primaries like a reality show moreso than any other candidate is, by far.

In what is the largest reality show, with more money going into production and advertising than any other reality show, by far, the American people are in for a treat. Initially there were 17 contestants in this show, and 3 have failed. Rick Perry, Scott Walker and Bobby Jindal have been eliminated from contention.

While there were initially 17 candidates, the competitive field still stands strong at 14. This show only airs every four years, and with good reason. If you’re going to spend your time watching reality television, this is the show you should be watching.

Binghamtonreview.com

21

Lobbying For Dummies

BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM

Lobbying for Dummies Written By Haim Engelman

M

any popular media sources have done a fantastic job portraying lobbyists as unethical legislative assassins used by big business and evil special interests. While it is often fun and easy to blame boogiemen and vaguely defined entities for the world’s problems, this image is far from the truth.

Using Congress’ own definition, “Lobbying is the practice of trying to persuade legislators to propose, pass, or defeat legislation or to change existing laws.” Lobbyists represent non-forprofits, businesses, small municipalities, and citizen interest groups of all stripes. It is strikingly odd that the act of citizens coming together as a group to attempt to change legislation to what they view as a positive outcome has been so thoroughly demonized.

What do Boeing, The American Diabetes Association, Binghamton University, and your local microbrewery all have in common? The answer is that they are all involved in legislative efforts; they all lobby. Groups of citizens who share similar interests and ideals come together and ask the government for what they want.

They publish reports, ad campaigns, and days of advocacy when mobs of well-intentioned folks “storm the Hill” to harass the hell out of their representatives’ staffs. This is lobbying, and it’s not that terrifying after all.

Another element of the influence

22

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

of lobbies that people overlook is the reason that many companies are so well off to begin with. Do you find yourself at odds with a “Big-Something” lobby? Perhaps you should stop funding it! Yes, it may be time to stop complaining about how mega-chains are putting mom and pop shops out of business if you have never bought from a mom and pop shop in your life.

Think large agri-business is poisoning the world’s population? Maybe it’s time you stop purchasing their products. It is easy to complain about boogiemen. It’s a bit more difficult to alter your lifestyle to combat the specific targets of your complaints. If you despise child labor, maybe the solution is to no longer purchase products made by children. You see, your dollars fund the legislative pushes that companies and large groups pursue. If you didn’t fund the venture you find yourself opposing, it would not be as strong.

The preceding paragraph only deals with business though. What about all of the advocacy groups that you disagree with, why are they so strong? They are strong because sometimes, people disagree with us.

Just like we may be happy when a group we identify with wins a legislative victory, we must also understand that there will be times when those who disagree with us have their day.

This is part of being a member of a so-

ciety in which the freedoms to speak your mind, have your own opinions, and petition the government are guarenteed.

It is also a mistake to say that one party or one group has a corner on the influence market. Lobbies and influence groups exist in all shapes and sizes, representing all political angles.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with citizens asking for their interests to be represented in the laws of the land, to the contrary, this is the type of thing that occurs in an environment where citizens can voice their opinions to the government in an open, free manner.

You may find yourself disagreeing with the positions of many lobbies and interest groups. That is to be expected, you cannot agree with everyone. If that is what bothers you about lobbying then perhaps your greatest problem with the system is that you cannot handle those with viewpoints that differ from your own. It should be understood that the purpose served by lobbies and activists is a vital one.

They act as a pipeline between groups of concerned citizens, corporations, and trade associations and the government. Our government is a large, bureaucratic maze; it is not surprising that it takes a professional to navigate its complex system of regulations, relationships, and inner workings.

December 2015

BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM

A Binghamton Review Review

A Binghamton Review Review Written By Jordan Raitses

T

he Binghamton Review does not exist in a vacuum. We realize that our readers (that’s you) have many things to read, and we appreciate that you choose our magazine out of the many on campus. But this isn’t an editorial and I won’t write at length about how much work goes into each issue.

Instead, I am using this space to promote our fellow magazines on campus. You read that right: I am actually encouraging you to read other magazines (but don’t forget to keep reading us too). We produce top quality content and we decide how we’re doing by (favorably) comparing ourselves to the other magazines on campus. That’s not an easy task as they’re all so different, so here’s a short summary of each:

A

Free Press

T

he Binghamton Free Press is a free format magazine with opinion and literary pieces from a mostly liberal bent. They have published twice as of this writing and I actually had something to do with their second publication--but more on that in a bit. It seems they have combined with another magazine, Impact, to produce one full issue every month. Their content is fairly similar, so it’s easy to see why they would choose to work together. It can be difficult to produce enough content to fill these pages every month, after all.

Asian Outlook

subsidiary of the Asian Student Union, this magazine is different from the others on this list in that it has a unifying purpose: to represent Asian and Asian American ideas and diversity in the mainstream. Contrary to what you might first think, it is actually meant to be read by everyone.

The mission statement describes it as a window into Asian and minority concerns for everyone else. Being dedicated to the concerns of minorities, it sometimes takes a liberal bent, but I find it is one of the better-written magazines on campus because of the unity of purpose across its articles. editor@binghamtonreview.com

Their cool way of flipping pages halfway through is courtesy of yours truly and our Editor-in-Chief, Sean Glendon. You may recall the flipped page idea from our April Fool’s edition where the reverse side was the Binghamton Preview. Free Press / Impact’s first issue of the semester had some serious layout issues, so I assisted and gave them that idea as well. Impact itself is an arts/media commentary magazine, writing reviews on new movies, songs, albums, etc. It seems they have some literary magazine components too. Like Free Press, it is fairly liberal, but it tries to stay more focused on arts/media reviews.

L

A

Impact

s I was mentioning, the Free Press and Impact are fused together.

Prospect

ess artistic, Prospect is more focused on being a literary journal. It has only published once this semester (read: they just put out a hand-printed booklet right before Thanksgiving break). It seems as though they may be struggling to get sufficiently committed staff and consistent contributions to produce a true monthly publication. Since there is only one issue out this year, it’s hard to evaluate them. They used to be a highly liberal magazine, and their back cover / mission statement indicates that they have a focus on social justice. Who knows, maybe we have a big rival coming back from the past.

Binghamtonreview.com

23