BINGHAMTON REVIEW Editor-in-Chief Contents
P.O. BOX 6000 BINGHAMTON, NY 13902-6000 EDITOR@BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
Founded 1987 • Volume XXXIII, Issue X Jake Schweitzer
Managing Editor Matt Gagliano Copy Desk Chief Madeline Perez
Business Manager Joe Badalamenti
Social Media Shitposter Arthur O’Sullivan
Editor Emeritus
Patrick McAuliffe Jr.
Staff Writers
John Lizak, Charles Forman, Dillon O’Toole, Will Anderson, Spencer Haynes
Contributors
Julius Apostata, Johnathan Swift, Sara Traynor
Special Thanks To:
Intercollegiate Studies Institute Collegiate Network Binghamton Review was printed by Gary Marsden We Provide the Truth. He Provides the Staples
BILL 420 BLAZE IT: IS IT DOPE?
PAGE 8
by Julius Apostata
3 Editorial
by Jake Schweitzer
4 Press Watch
by Our Staff
5 Contemporary Arroganceby Johnathan Swift 6 Why I Lack Optimism For Post-COVID America by Arthur O’Sullivan 9 Not A Party For You, SA! by Our Staff 10 Papers, Please!
by Patrick MacAuliffe
12 COVID Insanity
by Joe Badalamenti
14 The Hinman/CIW Proletariat Manifesto by Sara Traynor and Madeline Perez
TELL US WHAT YOU THINK! Direct feedback to editor@binghamtonreview.com 2
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
Vol. XXXIII, Issue X
EDITORIAL Dear Readers,
From the Editor
I
f you don’t want a house built, hide the nails and wood. If you don’t want a man unhappy politically, don’t give him two sides to a question to worry him; give him one. Better yet, give him none. Let him forget there is such a thing as war. If the government is inefficient, top-heavy, and tax-mad, better it be all those than that people worry over it. Peace, Montag. Give the people contests they win by remembering the words to more popular songs or the names of state capitals or how much corn Iowa grew last year. Cram them full of noncombustible data, chock them so damned full of ‘facts’ they feel stuffed, but absolutely ‘brilliant’ with information. Then they’ll feel they’re thinking, they’ll get a sense of motion without moving. And they’ll be happy, because facts of that sort don’t change. — Captain Beatty to Guy Montag, Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury Welcome back to the fourth issue of Binghamton Review! Sadly, you won’t be seeing any more theme issues for the semester—Sexy Baxter and Binghamton Reboot were simply too much to handle—so we’re sticking to our typical format. Additionally, we also decided to add another shelf location for those that are interested in picking up copies. We added it to the Admissions Building, so if you’re around there and want to read a copy, now you can! The issue can be divided into two sections: on-campus content and off campus content. In terms of what’s happening on-campus, our staff decided to investigate the controversy surrounding the SA Elections. After reaching out to the SA, SA candidates, and those close to the situation, we can safely present our findings in an appropriately titled piece that is definitely not a reference to a Miley Cyrus song. With the changing times comes changing attitudes, which can even be observed around campus. However, some, like Johnathan Swift, have criticisms of what they perceive as arrogance. Perhaps you are one of the poor students in Hinman or CIW, living in complete despair while the rich Mountainview and Dickinson students live in luxury. In that case, Sara Traynor and Madeline Perez have teamed up to list these grievances in a manifesto! For things happening off-campus, you may be excited to learn about the legalization of marijuana in New York. Julius Apostata breaks down the good, the bad, and the ugly when it comes to this legislation. With the COVID-19 vaccine out, you may have heard of the recent debate over having vaccine passports. Editor EmeritusPatrick McAuliffedecides to break this down. In other COVID-19 news, Joe Badalamenti reflects on whether the measures taken were truly worth the consequences. Lastly, Arthur O’Sullivan expresses his pessimistic view on what the United States will look like politically post-COVID. Other than that, we truly hope you enjoy this issue. Stay safe, challenge yourself, read some books (and Binghamton Review), and stay healthy! Sincerely,
Jake Schweitzer Binghamton Review is a non-partisan, student-run news magazine of conservative thought founded in 1987 at Binghamton University. A true liberal arts education expands a student’s horizons and opens one’s mind to a vast array of divergent perspectives. The mark of true maturity is being able to engage with these perspectives rationally while maintaining one’s own convictions. In that spirit, we seek to promote the free and open exchange of ideas and offer alternative viewpoints not normally found or accepted on our predominately liberal campus. We stand against tyranny in all of its forms, both on campus and beyond. We believe in the principles set forth in this country’s Declaration of Independence and seek to preserve the fundamental tenets of Western civilization. It is our duty to expose the warped ideology of political correctness and cultural authoritarianism that dominates this university. Finally, we understand that a moral order is a necessary component of any civilized society. We strive to inform, engage with, and perhaps even amuse our readers in carrying out this mission.
Views expressed by writers do not necessarily represent the views of the publication as a whole. editor@binghamtonreview.com
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
3
CPampus resswatch “BU students might want to sign on to Marriage Pact program” Ariel Wajnrajch, Pipe Dream, 04/07/21 “Have you ever made the promise to a friend, “If we’re not married by age 40, I’ll marry you?”” No. Is this a thing normal people do? Seems kind of insulting if you ask me. “Hey, if I get old and no one will marry me, is it cool if I give up and marry you because I have no other options?” Maybe we are missing something here. “What if Binghamton University found the perfect friend with whom you should make that pact?” Then you should ask them out. Look, I’m not an expert when it comes to this kind of stuff, but if you want a future with someone, ask them out, if not, then don’t. This “if we’re both single when we’re 40+” nonsense makes it sound like you don’t really want to marry that person, and if you truly don’t want to marry them, then don’t. Wouldn’t meeting someone naturally and forming a relationship naturally make for a more authentic emotional connection instead of some pact? “When students fill out the marriage pact survey, they answer a series of questions that go into an algorithm that’s meant to determine compatibility.” So, like a dating app? This sounds just like a dating app with extra steps. “I’m 19, and most of the guys my age would be horrified by this question as far as I’m concerned.” I’m not horrified by this question— A 19 year old guy. “Yet, there have been almost 16,000 successful matches made and one actual marriage according to the Marriage Pact website.” 1 in 16000 isn’t exactly a winning records if you are looking for a marriage partner.
4
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
Written by our Staff
We know you don’t read the other campus publications, so we did it for you. Original pieces are in quotes, our responses are in bold.
“I don’t see many of the college men I know seeking their wives at the moment. I’m not the first to say college guys are pretty noncommittal for the most part.” Should I be offended? I feel like I should be offended. “...lots of participants just end up meeting people that are good matches to be friends, in which case you don’t have to wait until you aren’t married by whatever age you choose in order to start any kind of relationship with them.” This is something we can agree with, but realistically, I don’t see how this Marriage Pact program is any different than a dating app. It feeds you “compatible” people based on the information you both gave, then you meet this person and make the decision as to whether or not you want to engage in any kind of relationship with them. Why bother introducing this whole new system, when you could just download a typical dating app? “Gov. Cuomo should be held accountable for sexual assault allegations against him” Kaitlyn Liu, Pipe Dream, 04/07/21 “Six women have now leveled allegations of sexually inappropriate conduct against New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo.” This article is titled “Gov. Cuomo should be held accountable for sexual assault allegations against him”. We will now quote every sentence in which Cuomo is the main subject: “Even Cuomo has downplayed calls
to resign in light of the allegations as simply a part of ‘cancel culture.’ Just a few weeks ago, Gov. Cuomo rejected calls to step down, saying ‘people know the difference between playing politics, bowing to cancel culture and the truth.’ It is important to note that Cuomo has yet to deny touching the women coming forward. Instead he repeatedly claims that if he did touch anyone, it was not inappropriately.” This section is the only chunk that actually discusses Cuomo specifically and the response to the allegations. Together, we can agree that the allegations against Cuomo must be taken seriously, and that his pathetic excuses should be taken cum granum salis. The rest if the article, however, does not pertain to Cuomo, until the conclusion... “Dismissing sexual harassment allegations as ‘cancel culture’ shows how little Cuomo cares about the women he harassed or for correcting his actions.” We really want unity here, Pipe Dream, just like the Joe-Man preaches. And you come SO close; Cuomo must be held accountable for his actions. Yet, this article doesn’t really discuss what occurred with Cuomo. It didn’t give us enough to work with.
Vol. XXXIII, Issue X
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
CONTEMPORARY ARROGANCE
Contemporary Arrogance By Johnathan Swift
I
n recent years, snobbery has become more prevalent in society. These people view themselves as superior because they hold special values and they have qualifications to prove it. The following includes several observations on the arrogant views typically manifested by arrogant people. New Bourgeois Values Bourgeois values are values that are embraced by the middle class. Bourgeois in this case means the values of the enlightened vanguard ideas that are currently in vogue. They often serve as the forefront of new cultural movements, such as the Temperance Movement and Prohibition. There are several new bourgeois values that have been mainstreamed in modern society. The most prevalent one is the Anti-Racism Movement. Recently, students at Binghamton University organized a rally against anti-Asian discrimination. Yet, while a noble goal, most of the participants were reacting to events outside the campus, which the university has little control of. Binghamton University has done nothing that constitutes Asian discrimintation. Ironically, many Anti-Racists ignore a concrete form of institutional racism: affirmative action. For example, according to Harvard, the average admission rate for Asian students in 2013 is 8.1%, while that of White students is 11.1%, Hispanic is 10.6%, and Black is 13.2%. However, of the listed ethnicities, Asian students tend to score higher. Although many universities try to distance themselves from the term “quota”, affirmative action is a de facto quota for ethnicities. Another is the LGBT movement. What was originally a movement to gain tolerance has now become an aggressive crusade against reasonable criticism. Transgenderism is proudly displayed, and any scientific disagreement with it is promptly denounced. The movement is trying to make children have sex changes, even with the absence of parental consent. Although some people are reserved about their sexuality, others are very proud of their attributes and wave it around like a badge of courage. This is exemplified by the existence of the Pride movement; an entire month is now reserved for the celebration of a small population. Large corporations, such as Proctor and Gamble, have prudently embraced the movement to show that they are modern and in fashion. A third value is the adoption of ideology over fact. The typical Binghamton student will be quick to point out anyone who is not masked and verbally insult him. This is in consideration that COVID has a 99.97% survival rate for college aged students. Many students will also continue to wear masks after they have been vaccinated, even if they are off campus. Since the mask serves no viable purpose after vaccination, the students show that they like to wear their masks, since it is enjoyable to show that they have a more advanced set of morals. In all of these cases, having the values indicates that the beholder is a virtuous and moral person. These people take two Victorian philosophers, Sigmund Freud and Friedrich Nietzche, and implement them in daily life. The Nietzschean aspect of the snob is that they are always superior and more
editor@binghamtonreview.com
enlightened. They view the world as a source of power conflict between them and the oppressive establishment. Facts are relative and morally ambiguous. The Freudian aspect involves the belief that everyone has an unconscious self, and what lies underneath needs to be rooted out. People then make conclusions such as the university is unconsciously racist, or not wearing a mask is tantamount to unconciously wanting to kill the elderly. Increased Value of College Thousands of people have struggled their way into college in the hope that they could get at least a middle class status, or retain their current familial stature. As a result, many feel entitled to a college education. Most of the students taking loans take about $6,600 per annum. Many of these students get into financial issues, especially after they learn that some degrees are very poor career choices. Yet a large portion of American students are pushing for debt forgiveness or free college. They fail to recognize that they have created their own problems by unwittingly volunteering into collegiate indentured servitude. Some undergraduate majors, for example an Africana Studies, offer little career prospects. Instead, there are plenty of opportunities in trade schools and in the military. However, many people look down on blue-collar jobs, like plumbing, manufacturing, or construction work. In addition, these jobs all involve tangible value added to society, while an Africana Studies degree does not offer the same practical application. Bearing this in mind, the only attribute making the philosophy degree worthwhile is honor and prestige; it is more honorable to pursue a useless degree than to pursue trade skills essential to society. The Enlightened vs. the Deplorables There is a growing number of people who view themselves as more enlightened than the average population. These people consider themselves to have privileges in contrast to the “basket of deplorables”, as said by Hillary Clinton. If a group has the correct values, the means justify the ends: BLM rioters are met with little resistance and allowed to form no-go zones; public gatherings are dangerous to health unless the “good” political candidate wins; much of the USA is closed for fear of COVID while illegal immigrants are permitted to cross the border in record numbers. Rules no longer apply equally to citizens. Arrogance is a hallmark of modern life. “Enlightened” classes claim to be better than the uncivilized rabble, so they need to advance their agenda everywhere. This is seen in the Anti-Racist and LGBT movements, the triumph of emotion and ideology over fact, the entiltlement to higher education, and the rejection of pragmatism in favor of idealism. If the current paradigm is not altered, then the U.S. may degenerate into an intellectual based caste system, a sort of “Brave New World”.
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
5
WHY I LACK OPTIMISM FOR POST-COVID AMERICA
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
Why I Lack Optimism For PostCOVID America By Arthur O’Sullivan
T
his past Easter, I had the good fortune of being able to come home and celebrate the holiday with my politically-divided family. The men in the family tend to be varying shades of conservative; the women tend to be varying shades of liberal. We get along well despite this, and we had a mostly peaceful Holy Week, with the exception of one day, which saw a rather explosive argument about COVID-19 vaccine passports and their statewide/ national implementation. Though I, being a conservative, hated the concept, the rest of my family were either willing to tolerate it or even support it, so long as it meant being able to go back to “normal”. In the course of the quarrel, my more liberal family members found themselves surprised by how supposedly “right-wing” I had become, and I likewise found myself surprised at how seemingly acquiescent they had become to what I called “creeping authoritarianism.” We traded these harsh words, though they hurt significantly more than they helped our rhetoric. We each left the fight shaken by the deep emotions we stirred, with our beliefs ultimately unchanged. After taking some time to cool off, realize that the day was beautiful, we each apologized to each other
6
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
and decided to respect each other’s positions, and proceeded to have an otherwise pleasant Holy Week. Now, why am I telling you this, dear reader? I’m not just treating you like a stand-in for a Freudian psychoanalyst; I’m telling you this because I believe this story exposes a deep fault-line in American society that developed as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. I believe that the root of my family’s disagreement, and likely much of America’s disagreement, boils down to how each of us answer following question: Is it better for the government to have gone too far in dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic, as opposed to not having gone far enough? In asking that question, many
“I see no clear solution, as the usual way to solve political division is through direct charitable interaction with those of the other side.” things suddenly click into place. One can now see the arguments for both sides much clearer: the left, as of now, seems to prefer that the government should go too far in extending its power, so long as it saves vulnerable lives from a dangerous disease. The right, likewise, seems to prefer that the government be limited, so long as it keeps America from embracing the potential tyranny that results from crises like these. These are broad generalizations, and there are many on the left and the right who are less eloquent in expressing their ideas. My family members and I were exemplars of that lack of eloquence in our own bitter argument. However, this does not negate the fact that there are solid arguments from both views, and that a productive discourse would see both sides engage each other with charity. When I say “charity,” I do not just mean giving
alms to the poor. I mean the virtue of charity, where one assumes the good faith of the other in any interaction, especially a political dialogue. For the left to be charitable in this context, this means not believing that the right is endorsing “killing grandma” when opposing lockdowns. For the right, this means not believing that the left wants to see America adopt an authoritarian regime. It is obvious that charity is foundational to any functional system that involves interaction between people that disagree. Charity, however, is increasingly hard to come by these days. It has become a truism among the remaining political moderates to bemoan the divided state of American discourse, especially on Twitter. As I write, #DeathSantis is trending due to a 60 Minutes hit piece that portrayed Florida’s governor in a very negative light. It’s clear that the left has no interest in dealing with their opponents charitably, rather hoping to feel virtuous by portraying anti-lockdown Republicans as if they are all in a “death cult”, as is apparent in left-wing media (i.e. the Washington Post, the New York Times, CNN, etc.). Though I am a conservative that happens to like Governor DeSantis, I do not want to see people die from COVID. An ounce of charity would make that seem obvious. I also do not dismiss the root of the support for lockdowns and vaccine passports. I believe that the desire to preserve vulnerable life is objectively noble, and I do not doubt that many on the left genuinely think that these things save
Vol. XXXIII, Issue X
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
WHY I LACK OPTIMISM FOR POST-COVID AMERICA
lives. My concern is that this position has been twisted by left-wing cultural institutions into a pervasive belief that the right somehow has no qualms about discarding life in the name of an ill-defined concept of “liberty”. After all, how can one be free when dead? This warped perspective is only generated in absence of charity for the opposite side. A similar lack of charity exists on the right, though it operates in a different manner. While the left sources its
“I fear that the leftwing establishment will continue to ‘combat domestic extremism’...I fear that the right will radicalize in reaction, only furthering the vicious cycle of American division...” vituperative hatred for the right from the dominant cultural, political, and scientific institutions, the right derives its hatred for the left from a skepticism towards these same establishments. To be fair to the right, left-wing ideology undeniably dominates these institutions, with students more likely to encounter leftist values in university, to there being no mainstream media aimed at objective reporting. Not to mention the absurd self-contradictions coming from the scientific establishment about COVID-19 and its spread. Take the bizarre “scientific” apologia for the BLM protests/riots, for instance, where the ScienceTM assured their liberal readers that the riots did not cause the summer spike in cases, but that anti-lockdown or pro-Trump rallies were simultaneously super-spreaders. Alternatively, take Dr. Fauci’s flip-flopping on double masks, oscillating between saying that wearing two masks was “just common sense” to there being “no data to support double-masking,” and then proceeding to say that mixed messaging from the Trump administration caused unnecessary deaths without a
editor@binghamtonreview.com
hint of irony in his voice. Despite fairly legitimate grievances against the establishment, much of the right has lost credibility by swinging too far in the opposite direction. Skepticism towards the dominant cultural beliefs about the pandemic can quickly go from reasonable dissent to unreasonable hatred. Many on the right, likely radicalized in their isolation, shift the narrative from moderate ideas like “lockdowns are ineffective and destructive” to extreme ideas like “lockdowns and their supporters are categorically evil and means for Fauci, Biden, and (((them))) to gain power.” The left-wing establishment can then portray those who propound the former idea as actually dog-whistling for
the latter, which furthers the gulf between moderates on the left and right who might otherwise be able to have a reasonable argument about the pandemic response. This widened gulf manifested itself in my fight with my family: I, a conservative who was concerned about the potential authoritarianism a “vaccine passport” would invite, sounded to the left-wing members of my family like the “anti-maskers and anti-vaxxers” they see on social media. Likewise, my family members sounded to me like people in totalitarian states who would tolerate authoritarianism for the sake of convenience and a feeling of security, as that was the image I had unconsciously formed in my head of people who supported vaccine passports. Fortunately, because we were living under the same roof, with the same blood flowing in our veins, we were able to gain sympathy and respect for each other and our views, despite the depth of our disagreements,
and reconcile quickly and easily. Unfortunately, I can’t say the same for the country, which often lacks the deep familial bonds between red and blue. I see no clear solution, as the usual way to solve political division is through direct charitable interaction with those of the other side. Sadly, the relegation of social interaction to the virtual world in this pandemic has largely closed off that route. With the nature of vaccination itself becoming political as the radical left pushes for essentially mandatory vaccines, and the radical right refuses to even get vaccinated, I’m beginning to fear that hope is lost. I fear that the left-wing establishment will continue to “combat domestic extremism,” that is, suppress the right and the “inconvenient left” (i.e.
anarchists, communists etc.), through institutions such as education, corporate media, federal legislation, and executive orders. I fear that the right will radicalize in reaction, only furthering the vicious cycle of American division while our geopolitical enemies in China, Iran, and Russia muster. Whether this will continue into a civil war or a collapse, I am less sure. America has faced existential crises before and has always managed to rebound as more resilient. I hope that, despite my gloomy outlook, my eighteen-year-old self will be proven wrong and look like an idiot. However, in the short term at least, I do not believe that we will come out of this pandemic stronger.
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
7
BILL 420 BLAZE IT: IS IT DOPE?
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
Bill 420 Blaze It: Is It Dope? By Julius Apostata
H
eeeeyyyy, man! Did you, like, hear the totally awesome news? Of course you have, because, like, it’s just that FAR OUT! Like, you know how we would always have to go to the nature preserve to hit up a blunt? Well, we still probably have to do that to get high anyway, but guess what? WEED HAS OFFICIALLY BEEN LEGALIZED IN NEW YORK! We have officially reached NIRVANA, man! *Ahem*, bad stoner jokes aside, this is actually the case; on March 31st, New York became the sixteenth state to legalize the use of recreational marijuana, with Governor Cuomo signing the legislation to make it law. Naturally, there is a lot to celebrate with this law, yet despite quite a lot of good things to come out of this, there are still some challenges that have arisen that we should consider. So, I plan on breaking down the good, the bad, and the ugly when it comes to this new legislation. What will this law look like in practice, and how will it affect consumers and New York State residents? Although the bill, Senate Bill S854A, was first created on January 6th, 2021, several interactions of the bill have previously existed and have put forward to New York legislation, with the earliest bill (S6005) having first been introduced on December 11th, 2013. In spite of this, and having to go through a series of minor changes, the core tenets of the bill are still the same. Firstly, the use of recreational marijuana is now legalized for use amongst adults aged 21 or older. So long as the person is of legal age, they are permitted to carry up to 3 ounces of marijuana on their person (considerably more compared to other legalized states) as well as a total of 5 pounds kept safely in their place of residence. The bill also makes attempts to treat public consumption of marijuana similar to tobacco; state and local governments have the ability to designate smoking zones for marijuana, while simultaneously levying fines of 25 dollars to those in violation of the
8
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
policy. The law also permits the growing of marijuana plants in one’s home, with someone being able to have up to twelve plants per household. Perhaps most impressively (and admirably) is how this law will affect past criminal records for marijuana-related conduct: such crimes will automatically be expunged from the person’s criminal record. Now that’s what I call far out! Of course, not everything to come from this is necessarily perfect. Obviously, this doesn’t change how marijuana is perceived at the federal level; while New York now allows for recreational marijuana use, that isn’t necessarily true for the federal government (though there are ongoing attempts to change this), meaning you will likely face legal difficulty if trying to bring in marijuana from another state. Another issue is the fact that, although marijuana is now legalized and you will no longer be arrested for possession of a dime bag, that doesn’t necessarily mean that consumers will be able to immediately find it on the market. According to some experts, it will likely take at least a year (optimistically speaking) before you can find a licensed retail dispensary. Compounding this is the fact that, despite permitting the ownership of marijuana plants, New York residents are unable to actually have grown these plants for a total of 18 months. Consequently, we would likely expect New York residents to still rely on going to their local dealer for their weed fix, at least for the
next 12 to 18 months This isn’t even mentioning one of the most obvious benefits for the state government, but not necessarily for New York consumers: taxes. The bill itself purports to create at least 30,000 jobs through the passing of this legislation. However, the addition of both state and local retail taxes could also stifle this job market. At a state level, it is expected that there will be a 9% state tax on marijuana sales, with an additional 4% tax added for local taxes. Additionally, for every 10 milligrams of flower, you would have to pay 5 cents, while also paying 8 and 30 cents for the same amount of THC concentrate and edibles, respectively. While this would net the New York State government an additional $350 million in revenue, these taxes are comparatively higher to other states that have legalized marijuana. Massachusetts, by contrast, levies taxes of 10.75% (depending on the city); Illinois, 10%; in Alaska, there isn’t even a statewide retail tax for weed, although some municipalities, such as Anchorage, may charge as much as 5% in taxes. These additional taxes could present a challenge, especially to those trying to go through the legal process of licensing and setting up shop in New York. Needless to say, the “ugly” here are the taxes we should expect to pay if residents plan on purchasing marijuana at legal vendors. Still, the passing of this legislation presents an overall benefit to our lives; while there may be some issues in the short term and the oh-so-fun experience of having to pay extra for marijuana, it is certainly better than pre-legislation. The expunging of criminal records for non-violent drug offenses related to marijuana as well as the legalization of a relatively harmless drug are all welcome changes for consumers. While there are some immediate complications, the alternative could be worse. Now, if you’ll excuse me, I need to tell the Geology majors that its now alright to...get STONED *dum dum tsss*!
Vol. XXXIII, Issue X
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
Not A Party For You, SA!
NOT A PARTY FOR YOU, SA!
By Our Staff
T
he Student Association (SA) is a student government body founded in 1973 at Binghamton University following the dissolution of a joint student-faculty association meant to oversee student organizations. It is the primary organization responsible for funding hundreds of clubs and associations on campus, while simultaneously providing legal protection to student organizations. Despite regulating many student organizations, the SA is not a part of the University; on their website, they disclose that they are an independent association. Nevertheless, Binghamton University has maintained its relationship with the SA for nearly fifty years. As one would expect, the presence of such a group means that students are able to become actively involved through elections by the student population into important positions in the SA, such as through positions on the Eboard, the SA Congress, and the Judicial Board. Recently, an election was held to determine which students would fill these positions for the upcoming academic year. However, in correspondence with several anonymous witnesses, it would appear that there were certain oversights made by the SA and the Election Committee in regards to the most recent election, including the breaking of SA policy during the election and the filing of grievance reports afterward. The start of this controversy occurred on March 6th, at the start of the SA election. During this early campaign period, many candidates promoted themselves on various social media platforms, such as Insta-
editor@binghamtonreview.com
gram, Snapchat, and Facebook, as well as placing flyers advertising their position. This is a perfectly acceptable practice; according to SA Management Policies, candidates are afforded $54 of SA funds to get the necessary materials for their campaign, such as posters, promotional materials, and flyers. However, it is important that such promotions, be it online or physical posters, are solely of the candidate. If a current member of the student government, such as a person on the Executive Board, were to appear on promotional material for a candidate, this would be an endorsement of the particular candidate. Policy IV, Section 13 of the Management Policies document for SA states, “As bodies themselves the Student Association, the Executive Board, Congress, its committees, and the Judicial Board cannot support a particular candidate.” This policy was put in place to prevent conflicts of interest. Unfortunately, this policy appears to have been broken during the most recent election; Presidential candidate David Hatami and Executive Vice Presidential candidate Sakib Choudoury appear to have cross-endorsed in multiple posters and social media posts. This, however, presents a conflict of interest, as David Hatami was already a member of the Executive Board (as Vice President of Multicultural Affairs) and Sakib Choudoury was the Chief of Staff for VPMA as well Vice Speaker of Congress. According to reports, there are also emails sent to various clubs using the specific titles of their acceptance of the cross-endorsement despite the conflict of interest, violating Policy IX, Section 3 of Management Policies. An anonymous source claims that a grievance report has been filed in conjunction to these possible violations of SA Management Policy. It should be noted, however, that whatever issues may or may not have occurred, SA Congress has nonetheless certified the results of the E-Board election. Further compounding these is-
sues was how the campaigns were handled towards the end of the election cycle. According to an anonymous source, the SA Judicial Board and Election Committee had not responded to a filed grievance report following the above incident, only calling for an official meeting after the Dean of Student Affairs was notified. This resulted in a Student Congress being called, lasting a total of 3 hours. Additional grievance reports have also been filed to the Judicial Board in regard to a sudden policy change preventing students from campaigning, both in-person and online, on the last day before the election. Sources report that this change was made in response to the pandemic. An anonymous BU Council candidate labeled this change as arbitrary, and told us that such a change is unprecedented. In response to this, Congress Speaker Ross Mesnick stated that although many had disagreed with this sudden change in rules, the Election Committee was autonomous in providing their own interpretation of election rules due to the pandemic. We reached out to both the Chief Justice of the Judicial Board, Emily Xu, and Chair of the Elections and Judicial Committee, Megan Fey, regarding the elections, but they declined to comment at the time of writing. Binghamton Review respects the anonymity of its sources and will maintain the confidentiality of these people. Students have a right to know what is going on with their student government and deserve a clear and transparent SA. We hope that the SA will be able to clarify the concerns provided by the anonymous sources.
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
9
PAPERS, PLEASE!
Papers, Please!
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
By Patrick MacAuliffe
As the world begins to reopen from the pandemic and millions of COVID vaccines are being administered to more and more groups of people, a startling trend has started to emerge. Talking heads, people who haven’t left home in a year, and many others in between are calling for legislation to mandate proof of vaccination against COVID in order for a person to return to pre-pandemic participation in society. Restaurants, airports, concert venues, and more would require a “vaccine passport” just to get in. Proportionality bias - the human brain making the irrational deduction that big events must have big causes - may cause one to jump fully off the conspiracy theory deep end about the whole affair. In my view, whether the COVID vaccine is truly safe and effective, or it’s purely experimental gene therapy rotting the brain because of Bill Gates’ microchipping, is irrelevant. The safety of the vaccine, deduced from reputable sources, will be explored in this article. However, at the heart of the issue is the massive affront to liberty and legality that is a “vaccine passport” law. The COVID vaccines most common in the US market at the moment are mRNA vaccines developed by Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson. A typical vaccine uses a weakened or inactive version of the virus it is trying to prevent, allowing for the T-cells in our bodies to learn how to defeat it without the serious side effects of the real virus. mRNA vaccines, however, don’t imitate a virus itself so much as the “spike protein” used to deliver copies of the virus’ RNA into healthy cells (the messenger RNA, hence the name). If the structure of a given virus spike protein is known, replicas of this protein can be used in vaccines to teach white blood cells to attack these mRNA proteins, preventing the virus from replicating upon transmission. According to Harvard Medical School and the CDC, experimentation with mRNA vaccines has been conducted
10
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
for decades, and the appearance of COVID-19 has provided an “exciting” opportunity, as Harvard puts it, to put these experiments to the test. Like many people, I was hesitant to immediately jump on board with a vaccine that was produced and tested in under a year. The FDA takes years to approve any sort of new medical technology, and no new vaccine has been approved in fewer than four years, according to Harvard Medical School. In the case of COVID-19, the reason that this vaccine took such a short amount of time to test, produce, and distribute is that Chinese scientists had a head start on studying and cataloging the structure of the virus. The Annual Review of Virology contains a study on the methods of coronavirus spike protein bonding from September 2016, and Science magazine has another study on the specific structure of COVID-19 from March 2020. This latest study is based on the data from China’s scientists, which may be part of the reason why some QAnon-types claim that COVID was grown in a
“...a vaccination card ...opens the door for other restrictions on the free choices of individuals.” Chinese lab as a biological weapon. For a virus with an approximately 1-2% mortality rate, COVID-19 is a rather poor biological weapon if this was the case. I encourage doing one’s own research from multiple reputable sources to understand how these mRNA vaccines work and why they could be produced so quickly. Growing large amounts of a virus and then working to weaken it enough for use in a traditional vaccine takes exponentially more time than merely replicating a harmless version of a virus’ delivery system. The overview I’ve provided is a very basic explanation of how
the COVID vaccine works, and the scientific intricacies are worth taking the time to fully understand. My skepticism about the process by which the vaccines were produced has been significantly abated through my research. I can say with confidence that the mRNA vaccines will not cause, for most people, adverse long-term side effects. What is not abated, however, is my skepticism about the motives of the large pharmaceutical companies producing the vaccines and the government policies surrounding the mass vaccinations. Pfizer, producer of the most effective COVID vaccine at 95% efficacy, has had a long history of settlement payments and lawsuits, some of which totaled in the billions of dollars. In 1996, Pfizer even conducted an unauthorized clinical trial for its antibiotic Trovan on children in Nigeria, 11 of whom died and dozens more of whom were left disabled, according to drugwatch.com. Both Pfizer and Moderna made millions from selling their companies’ shares in the stock market as news of their vaccines’ effectiveness was released to the public, raising questions from NPR and Forbes about insider trading. Johnson & Johnson, producer of a 65% effective COVID vaccine, had to dispose of 15 million incorrectly produced doses on April 5th. One day later, the New York Times reported that 62 million more doses of J&J’s vaccine would potentially need to be thrown out after checking them for contamination. My reservations about these companies are that they seem to either be purely motivated by crony profit or they are horrendously incompetent. The concern about crony acquisition of money comes to a head as the international debate about mandatory vaccine passports rages. Should proof of vaccination be required to return to a pre-COVID operation of society, this may provide a cover for large pharmaceutical companies to lower their quality control standards. If people have no
Vol. XXXIII, Issue X
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
choice but to take the vaccine (and its inevitable subsequent boosters), and only a few vaccines are authorized by the government for production and distribution, the companies have an incentive to let the safety of their vaccines slide. What can anybody do about it? They have the weight of the federal government behind them, and they’ll keep making their money. This concern, along with several others, will make both mandatory vaccine passports and herd immunity through vaccination very difficult. According to an NPR poll, 1 in 4 Americans say that they would refuse to get the COVID vaccine. This is a diverse group of people, from the QAnon-types to people in rural areas, where COVID transmission is less of a problem, to a large portion of African-American and other minority communities. This last group has valid cause for concern about the mass push to get vaccinated due to the government’s historical bad faith healthcare in their communities. For those unfamiliar, the study commonly referred to as the Tuskegee Experiment took place from 1932 to 1972 in Macon County, Alabama. The horrifically unethical study was conducted by the US Public Health Service to track the progression of syphilis in the African-American community. 600 men, primarily sharecroppers who did not frequently receive medical care, were tricked into the study by members of the PHS. 201 of the men
editor@binghamtonreview.com
PAPERS, PLEASE!
served as the control group for the other 399 that had syphilis. Over the course of the study, the men were only given placebos and very basic medical care, such as aspirin, by the PHS, which was determined to see how syphilis in African-American men would fully manifest. The government discouraged local doctors from providing treatment to the men, hoping to establish a truly controlled experimental setting. PHS conducted an internal investigation into the study in the mid1960s, but as internal investigations tend to go, the study was permitted to continue until July 1972, when the study became public news and mass outcry forced the PHS to end the study. By its end, 128 African-American men had died from syphilis or a related condition, 40 spouses and 19 children contracted the disease, and hundreds more suffered the gruesome side effects of syphilis, including blindness and insanity. For their trouble, survivors of the Tuskegee Experiment and their heirs received a $10 million out-of-court settlement from the US government in 1974, and former President Bill Clinton issued a public apology in 1997. The deep distrust of government-sponsored healthcare among minority communities seems fairly obvious from this atrocity and the long train of atrocities before this. These valid concerns from several demographics of American society make vaccine passports a very problematic nationwide policy. This idea is
nothing like getting a flu shot to participate in sports or to go to a certain school; what is being proposed is a mandate that any sort of public participation at all requires a health decision made, not by the individual, but by the government. Perhaps some people may not need a vaccine if they are at low risk for COVID infection. Perhaps some people live in areas where the healthcare system can adequately support those with the most serious symptoms. Much like blanket lockdowns, where the attitude has become “sick until proven healthy”, vaccine passports are a massive affront to the freedom of people to make decisions about their own health. It could be argued that the right to make these types of decisions for oneself must be suspended when the consequences of one’s actions produce negative externalities for those around them. Governor Cuomo has adopted this mentality, perhaps to its actual extreme: “You’d be killing Grandma,” or put more tactfully, that refusing a vaccine directly places a person or a group of liberty-minded people at the epicenter of putting the most vulnerable populations at risk of infection and possible death. Not only does this mentality rely on the above “sick until proven healthy” axiom, it also discounts the ability of people to make rational choices about infecting others. If someone doesn’t feel well, they will stay home to prevent others from catching what they have; if they see someone who appears sick, they will take measures to keep themselves healthy. This was the assumption about avoiding disease transmission before the pandemic, and it should be the assumption during and after the pandemic. To reduce these choices of individuals to a vaccination card mandated by the government is a dangerous way of thinking that opens the door for other restrictions on the free choices of individuals. The vaccine is scientifically safe to take, and (for now) it is effective at reducing COVID-19 infection and transmission. At the end of the day, however, it is still your right to refuse it, and your responsibility to carry both the freedom and duties of that choice.
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
11
COVID INSANITY
COVID Insanity
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
By Joe Badalamenti
I
n the year 2020, Americans were faced with the biggest crisis in over a decade. COVID-19 went from a regional virus to an uncontrollable pandemic spreading worldwide. The major effects of this pandemic were a national recession and widespread panic amongst American citizens. The challenges that the country faces call for courage and leadership to guide everyone through these troubling times. What we saw was the opposite. To combat the pandemic, we were given lockdowns, social distancing, mask mandates, and other restrictions that have endured in many places as we pass the one-year anniversary. When implementing such drastic changes, one should be confident that what is sacrificed leads to an outcome which is better than the alternative. However, when looking at the effects of the pandemic response, I would confidently say that the measures taken were not worth the consequences. American political institutions, mainly state and local governments, responded to the pandemic consistent with the advice given by public health officials: mask mandates, travel bans, social distancing orders, and more. Events which could not operate according to these guidelines were told to transition to a virtual setting or shut down completely. The main reason was that these measures would flatten the curve or reduce the weekly number of hospitalizations to prevent an overflow
12
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
of the healthcare system. This would also give scientists more time to investigate the risks presented by the virus. This response was reasonable if done voluntarily and exactly as planned. However, as the months went by, these measures were kept in place far past their proposed shelf life. “Two weeks to flatten the curve’’ become months and eventually a full year. Moreover, criticisms against these measures were treated in the media as outright falsehoods or even silenced completely. This wasn’t universal; politicians in states such as Florida and Texas did lessen these restrictions. In response, they were met with harsh criticism. One Florida health official said that the governor was “putting politics in front of lives’’. Other states, such as California, New York, and Pennsylvania, either left these measures in place or only gradually repealed them. This was justified through the classic case of shifting the goalposts. As media and political figures adopted this new stance, arguments became much more hyperbolic and polarized; “Flatten the curve” became “stop the spread”, which then became “if it will save one more life”. Not even an effective vaccine is enough if we were to go by the current presidential administration’s guidelines. This may be a side effect of the partisan divide, often intensified during presidential election years, within American politics and the hyper-polarization of social me-
dia. As with other things in society, when anything controversial happens, it is either paraded as heroic or commended as evil with little room for nuance in these performative circles. For instance, someone like New York Governor Cuomo, who implemented some of the worst policies, was given a book deal, an Emmy, and was paraded as a hero by his left wing tribe. While the measures taken were not as draconian as an authoritarian nation such as China, they still lead to poor outcomes within civil society. The results of these prolonged lockdown measures were consistent… ly bad. As common sense would dictate, when the government restricts the movements of society, the economy will suffer greatly. Since the first quarter of 2020, unemployment has skyrocketed and has still not dropped to pre-pandemic levels. The economy is not just the “economy”, but the stability of many incomes and the health of many businesses and start-ups, as well as the average life of a citizen. When an economy goes into a downturn, businesses fail and incomes diminish, leading to a lower standard of living for many. Sure, you can spend trillions of dollars, excluding funds spent on earmarks or other unnecessary spending, on stimulus packages to attempt to revive the economy, yet these efforts often extend recessions and lead to an increase in inflation. The economy wasn’t the only thing which suffered as a result of the pandemic, as the mental health of an already suffering generation went into a downward spiral. Mandatory quarantines have intensified this despair through forced isolation. This occurred as many lost their hobbies and livelihoods only for them to be replaced by poorly-suited virtual alternatives. For instance, while virtual education may work if designed correctly, the efforts of many virtual transitions were poor and riddled with technical errors and “zoom bombing”. Additionally, students lost out on many benefits of in-person ed-
Vol. XXXIII, Issue X
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM ucation such as social interaction and hands on experience. As one statistical indicator of this decay states, a crisis mental health hotline saw an increase of 891%. The Foundation of Economic Education (FEE) also reports that emergency room mental health visits for children aged 5 to 11 and 12 to 17 have increased by 24% and 31% respectively. Finally there’s the impact on the ill and disabled. Because of both the lockdown restrictions and the shift in priorities to COVID patients, many are losing out on diagnoses and treatments. Removing important early medical testing for diseases as a result of the pandemic has hindered one of the best approaches to a patient’s healthcare: early prevention. It’s a shame that many of these consequences have been generally ignored to focus on a singular virus. As economists tend to show, if you focus all your attention on one group or thing, other groups will suffer accordingly. There were other harms of the pandemic response, including a rise in domestic violence, a rise in drug abuse, an increase in poverty, and even the loss of liberal democracy in some countries. While there may be other harms brought about by the response, the ones mentioned have been the most harmful. It would be unfair if I were to ignore the benefits proposed by those in favor of the prolonged measures. As many have suggested, the reason why the lockdowns have been prolonged is to reduce the number of cases/deaths from COVID. The issue with this claim is that there is scarce evidence to back it up. A recent National Review article, where per capita cases for different states are plotted against each other, shows nearly identical graphs despite the contrast on COVID restrictions. This is even ignoring cover ups of data such as the misreporting of COVID related nursing home deaths in New York. While it may be strange to take in the data presented, there are a few explanations for these trends. First of all, some of the COVID measures are not being applied with their intended uses. For instance, the purpose of lockdowns is to delay the amount of cases contracted in order to prevent an over-
editor@binghamtonreview.com
COVID INSANITY flow of hospitalizations, not prevent the spread of the virus entirely. Masks, on the other hand, have many criteria which must be met to be effective; for instance, the presence of facial hair makes masks ineffective. According to ABC News, too much facial hair will break the seal on certain masks such as N95 masks, reducing their efficacy. Within common guidelines, however, no one seems to be asking men to shave their beards. Some face masks that are made with graphene may have the potential to cause lung cancer. The other explanation is that the guidelines are either arbitrary, or difficult to follow. This applies to the social distancing guidelines as well as restrictions against mass gatherings. Recently, the CDC released their revised educational guidelines where they recommend social distancing of only three feet. At the same time, they still recommend six feet social distancing for all other gatherings. At this point, the sheer inconsistency makes the CDC appear as though they are pulling numbers and recommendations out of their ass. Moving on to restrictions on large gatherings, this was one of the more reasonable guidelines as part of the COVID restrictions. The only problem is when this guideline became…well, let’s just say, politically inconvenient as the summer’s protest-filled whirlwind went by. The fact that this was treated as “following the science” tells me that those spreading these claims have a false notion of what science actually is. Science is supposed to encompass the discovery of new knowledge based on highly scrutinized studies, not just blindly following whatever the “experts’’ are saying. While the Milgram experiment may show a general trend of obedience to authority, the COVID experiment goes even further to say that people will act righteous in their obedience to authority no matter their cruelty so long as their actions are framed as morally or scientifically correct. The fact that this behavior is not only widespread but also common in universities is a very pessimistic sign for the future, as well as the current state of universities. Overall, it seems as though the purpose of the COVID restrictions is not to deal with the pan-
demic but rather to make an already incompetent generation feel like they have accomplished something. At this point, you may be asking what should have been done. After all, these measures were unanimously agreed upon by public health officials. However, there was another approach to the pandemic which received little attention from mainstream media outlets. This approach is known as Focused Protection and is outlined in The Great Barrington Declaration. According to the document, the focus of COVID measures should be to protect those who are at the greatest risk of harm from the virus, such as the elderly and immunocompromised. The document also proposes multiple controls when dealing with interactions between those with a high COVID risk. Others considered to be low risk should be free to resume their lives as before the pandemic. As of now, the document has over 750,000 signatures worldwide, including over 50,000 signatures from both medical practitioners and public health scientists. While this was only written in October, the document presents a comprehensive plan which could have prevented months of harm in the following months before the vaccine was released. Given the failure of lockdowns and other current COVID measures to produce any significant results, it appears that the US would have been better off if it had followed the plan outlined within The Great Barrington Declaration. All in all, the COVID pandemic was a public tragedy. However, much of the damage was caused not by the virus but in our response to it. If you would like to know more about the case against the COVID lockdowns, I would recommend checking out REASON magazine, The Foundation for Economic Education, and the podcast The Tom Woods Show, each of which have provided a myriad of details and evidence against the restrictions. If you have have been negatively affected by the incompetent response to the pandemic, I would remember this event in order to prevent future abuses of power.
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
13
THE HINMAN/CIW PROLETARIAT MANIFESTO
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
The Hinman/CIW Proletariat Manifesto By Sara Traynor and Madeline Perez
F
ive students went missing after meeting with Harvey Stenger and other Binghamton administrative forces over the past three weeks. Three were from Hinman, two from CIW. After an (honestly half-assed) investigation conducted by UPD, their bodies were discovered in a shiny new Mountainview suite, their body parts stuffed and placed in glass cases as trophies. No, this story isn’t real. But you believed it for a second, didn’t you? Many incoming students unacquainted with the spoils of the rich choose the cheaper, more modest options of Hinman and CIW. What they don’t know is that these communities are intensely oppressed by Harvey and
“It is the CIW and Hinman proletariat, spurned by its own university, that must now turn inward for survival.” the rest of the cold-blooded, beadyeyed, lizard people running the university. You know, the monsters trying to suck both your life force and life savings, just so they can bathe in clawfoot bathtubs full of your money. It’s clear these Big Dogs have been pulling the Binghamton strings in favor of the Dickinson/Mountainview/Newing bourgeoisie ever since their conception, and by sitting back and letting this favor wash over them, those “higher-classed housing” buggers are complacent. Since everyone in these communities is accustomed to living with dining halls and air conditioning, we, Madeline Perez and Sara Traynor, are going to knock them down a peg or two. The revolution starts here. Tearing Mountainview a New Ass Speaking of complacency, let’s take a look at the Mountainview yup-
14
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
pies up in their ivory towers. Disgusting. At any moment I’m prepared for these students to ball their fists, pout their lips, and say something akin to “Daddy, I want a squirrel.” “A Community Above the Rest,” my ass. What, you think you’re better than us because you got cartons of fresh berries in your dining hall before everyone else? I guess that’s the reward you get when you suck on Harvey Stenger’s cold lizard toes. Sellouts, all of you. The fact that the Mountainview dorms are physically higher than the other communities is reflected in their metaphorical “higher society” mindsets. They don’t even have the decency to be subtle about it. The barriers between the rich and poor communities are physical as well as social. The location of the Mountainview towers was conveniently placed far enough away from the CIW tenements so as to protect the wealthy from the stench of the dirty, weed-smoking working class. Sometimes, when I’m tossing and turning in my bed at night, unable to sleep because of the injustices I, a CIW resident, have faced, I hear the faint sound of spitting in the distance. I’ve grown accustomed to looking out my window to find Mountainview students spitting on my building for fun.
Putting the “Dick” in Dickinson With a community with “dick” in the name and a building called “Johnson,” you may already have a clear idea about the types of people we’re dealing with. These mind-numbing, hotel-looking buildings are chock-full of even more neutered, brain-washed babies still teething on daddy’s dollar. They’re just like Mountainview students, with all of the snobbery and none of the individuality (if that’s what you want to call it). The circle-like building architecture was made to insulate Dickinson residents from outsiders and keep them mingling with their own kind. They’re in a little container. Laughing at us. Nobody goes in, nobody comes out. Sometimes, I wonder if people in Dickinson actually experience the same range of emotions that regular humans do. Everything in their insulated community is the same… I wonder who they’ll choose as the Giver next? You would never see such isolation from the friendly haphazardly placed buildings of Hinman and CIW, which are inclusive to all who wish to enter. Of course, this also means that they’re more exposed to those infected with Covid, which I don’t think is a coincidence. Newing (yucky) Are you looking for a community that can replicate the distinct aura that emanates from a dirty, creepy frat house basement, while somehow managing to look like a Holiday Inn? Well, I’ve got news for you! Newing perfectly fits the bill. Don’t worry: we haven’t forgotten you in the inevitable threepronged attack that the oppressed CIW/Hinman communities will soon unleash. Honestly, we don’t have much to say about Newing. We just want you guys to know that we really dislike your rancid “Vineyard Vines coke addict” vibes, and we’re glad you’re so far away. Oppression of CIW and Hinman Ever since the shutting down of
Vol. XXXIII, Issue X
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM the CIW dining hall to CIW residents and the prolonged closure of the Hinman dining hall, these students have been left to starve. They’re so hungry; just look at them. Despite this, they have been provided NO FINANCIAL REIMBURSEMENT FOR THEIR LIKELY PURCHASED EXPENSIVE-ASS DINING PLANS. (edit: the CIW dining hall is now reopened but still refuses to sell unbottled water. Curious.) I (Sara) lived in Hinman my freshman year. I know that the buildings are old, and maybe that can’t be helped, but it would have been nice to not have your sole water source be a leaky water fountain from the 60s with water so cloudy it was practically white.
“No more we say. NO MORE! The CIW and Hinman proletariat will no longer be forced to endure these injustices.” When I moved to CIW last semester, I was ecstatic. My building is great (not that close to a tenement belonging to a Triangle Shirtwaist Factory worker), and I don’t have to drink unfiltered tap water and worry about subsequent lead poisoning. Also, there was a dining hall. Like, a real-life dining hall that I didn’t have to walk up a hill in a blizzard to get to. It was insane. Needless to say, I enjoyed it for one semester before it was taken away, ripped out from under me. Now, I (and everyone else in both CIW and Hinman) get to have a Starbucks truck as a consolation prize. Sorry that food isn’t as accessible — here’s overpriced coffee! I mean, am I lining up almost every day to get a chai latte? Yes. Would I like my fucking dining hall back? Also yes. These changes would never affect the rich and powerful. C4 or APP would never close because Big Daddy Harvey would never do that to his favorite, lizard toe-sucking kids. It is the CIW and Hinman proletariat, spurned by its own university, that must now turn inward for survival. Let’s talk about another thing.
editor@binghamtonreview.com
THE HINMAN/CIW PROLETARIAT MANIFESTO Lamps. More specifically, the many lamps present in Oneida (the most intimidating of the CIW buildings) and every dorm in Hinman. Now, there is a specific reason for this multitude of lamps. These dorms lack a little thing called OVERHEAD LIGHTING. You know, the very thing that made lamps obsolete back in the 1700s. Are we just supposed to sit here and accept that these students don’t even have light switches (or buttons as is Binghamton’s forte)? If Stevie Wonder can play the keyboard as well as he does despite being blind, then I’m sure we can find a way to install minimalist overhead lights into the distasteful popcorn ceilings. Speaking of lights, can mine stop turning off after 30 minutes? I find it insulting that my needing to see is too much of a cost to Binghamton’s electricity bill when I’m paying my weight in gold to live here. Nothing is more dehumanizing than having to get up on the half-hour to, for the fifth time tonight, turn my lights back on. Except for maybe chasing after a ping pong ball. I (Madeline) would like to now take a minute aside to talk intimately with you, dear reader, about my own personal experiences. I have spent the better part of the last two months taking lukewarm/cold showers due to the lack of hot water in my suite. This wouldn’t have been such a big issue if not for two reasons. One, it was the middle of fucking winter in Binghamton, which as many of you probably know, is slightly chilly. Secondly, I have extremely poor circulation, meaning that this slight chill and my body’s inability to generate enough heat to warm clothing/blankets left me very sad. :(. (This is also ignoring the fact that the water quality is kinda shit and makes me smell like a public pool but we’ll get to that later.) Another thing--my dorm room is infested with ladybugs any day that it’s over 60 degrees. While I would not normally mind given that ladybugs are just silly little creatures and I enjoy vibing with them, dozens of their corpses line my windowsills and it serves as a cruel reminder that the windows of the CIW buildings are neither clean nor secure from outside threat. No, I do not feel
comfortable disturbing the bodies. Besides the fact that this college is surely starving CIW and Hinman residents to make us weaker than our rich counterparts, there is another problem in our midst. Water. Like many of you, I like water and my greedy little goblin body craves it so intensely I can’t go a day without it. Sadly, I find that the water fountains in my building have a bit of an issue. When I drink water, I like to not be bombarded with heavy chemically, chlorine-y smells that attack my nose. I am also used to a life of luxury and tasty clear water, but sadly my fridge is too small to fit my Britta water filter and I don’t want to waste my dwindling dining hall dollars on more water bottles. So now I must drink cloudy coom water that has most definitely not been poisoned by the higher-ups. No more we say. NO MORE! The CIW and Hinman proletariat will no longer be forced to endure these injustices. We will no longer suffer in silence. We must join together to rise up and defeat the greater evil. When Mountainview is leveled, when the soil in Dickinson’s quad is salted, when Newing is obliterated… only then will we know true equality. And no, we haven’t forgotten Harvey and his army of lizard men. We’re coming for them, too. We’ve got lizard death balls stockpiled and ready to go.* So, rise up, my Hinman and CIW brethren. We’ll defeat the bourgeoisie and tear them a new one.
*Lizard death balls are coffee powder and tobacco powder rolled up into small balls, normally stuck on toothpicks or matchsticks, used to poison lizards.
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
15
