BINGHAMTON REVIEW Editor-in-Chief Contents
P.O. BOX 6000 BINGHAMTON, NY 13902-6000 EDITOR@BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
Founded 1987 • Volume XXXII, Issue X Tommy Gagliano
Managing Editor Brian Murray Copy Desk Chief Matt Gagliano
Business Manager Joe Badalamenti
Social Media Shitposters Lacey Kestecher, Sebastian Roman
Editor Emeritus
Patrick McAuliffe Jr.
Staff Writers
Bryn Lauer, Harold Rook, Joe Dorn, Kevin Vorrath, Madeline Perez, Jon Lizak, Dillon O’Toole, Spencer Haynes
Contributors Will Anderson
Special Thanks To:
Intercollegiate Studies Institute Collegiate Network
WHO LET THE VIRUS OUT?
PAGE 6 3 4 5 8 9 10 12 14 15
by Harold Rook
Editorial by Tommy Gagliano Press Watch by Our Staff Bing Review by Will Anderson Binghamton Review Staff Political Compass by Our Staff Binghamton Review Fan Bingo by Our Staff Conservatism Won’t Save Anyone From the Coronavirus by Bryn Lauer No More Mr. Nice Simp by Patrick McAuliffe 2020 Sucks (But at Least the Music is Good) by Dillon O’Toole The Problem With Modern Political Rhetoric by Joe Badalamenti
Binghamton Review was printed by Gary Marsden We Provide the Truth. He Provides the Staples
TELL US WHAT YOU THINK! Direct feedback to editor@binghamtonreview.com 2
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
Vol. XXXII, Issue X
EDITORIAL Dear Readers,
From the Editor
I
t’s been one hundred and eighty two days since I’ve seen the Sun. It feels like that at least, I don’t know, I’ve lost count. Emperor Cuomo is holding strong on his efforts to control the people of New York, extending his “New York on Pause” mandate for another month, including counties in upstate New York that haven’t had a single new case in weeks. This is likely because he’s unaware that people actually live north of Westchester. Businesses continue to be shut down. People are out of work. Things are as bleak as can be. Yet, a light begins to appear at the end of the tunnel. It’s getting closer and closer. Is it the end of the coronavirus pandemic? Is it the return to freedom we’ve all been craving? No, it’s something even better—a new issue of Binghamton Review! Welcome to the second online edition of Binghamton Review—or as we like to call them, the “lost issues.” (Just kidding, no one calls them that, I just made that up right now because I thought it sounded cool. It wouldn’t make a lot of sense since they’re still available to anyone with access to the Internet.) We’re doing the best we can given the circumstances; hopefully this issue will provide at least a little entertainment while you’re stuck at home. Since COVID-19 is all anyone is talking about right now, our writers were split into two camps—those that wanted to write about the most topical event, and those that wanted to write about literally anything else because they are so sick of hearing about the virus. Because of this, we have a decent variety of content for you to enjoy. Harold Rook and Bryn Lauer fell into the first camp. Despite discussing a topic that has been covered to death, they both managed to tackle it from a direction that is new and fresh. Harold disects the controversy surrounding the World Health Organization, while Bryn crticizes the actions and statements of certain prominent conservative figures in relation to the pandemic. In the other camp, Patrick McAuliffe, Joe Badalamenti, Dillon O’Toole, Will Anderson, chose to discuss pop culture, political rhetoric, search engines, and other non-COVID topics. Yes, I said search engines. Will Anderson did what I call “pulling a Bing BUTT.” He thought of a somewhat funny headline, but had no actual content to back it up. At least at first, he did a much better job of improvising than the BUTT does. Additionally, our staff worked collaboratively on a few fun things that can be found in the centerfold. Hope you’re all doing well. Stay home, wash your hands, etc etc. Most importantly, try to remain optmisitic. For me personally, the “bright side” is that I may finally have the time to play through Super Mario Odyssey and Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild. Try to find your own bright side. We will get through this. We will be ok. See you all again soon.
Sincerely,
Tommy Gagliano 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 “Older generations in power are leaving hardship for younger generations to deal with” Nicholas Walker, Pipe Dream, 4/6/20 “Even clean coal has been touted as greater than green energy alternatives by people like President Donald Trump. It seems no one on the right wants to be bothered by trying to fix climate change, a problem we all have been contributing to, whether we eat animals, drive a car or buy unnecessary stuff that only adds to our carbon footprint.” The issue with climate change solutions is that advocates have yet to provide an effective solution that isn’t extremely radical. Proposed plans like the Green New Deal are way too invasive and authoritarian. It’s not that people on the right don’t want to be bothered with trying to fix the problem, it’s that people on the right don’t want to give the government significantly increased control over their lives. Let’s explore nuclear energy and other such solutions, rather than giving the government the power to tell us what we are and are not allowed to do. “The United States has notoriously low voting numbers compared to other countries, and though our choice is null for this election with only white septuagenarians left, it doesn’t have to be that way.” Oh, you don’t like old white people? Then I’m guessing you supported Tulsi Gabbard, a young woman of color, over Bernie Sanders, a “white septuagenarian” man, in the Democratic primaries, right? Or do age and race only matter when you disagree with someone? “To enact the societal change necessary to combat climate change and this pandemic, lives will be negatively impacted and jobs will be lost.” And you’ve done it. Instead of finding an effective middle ground, you state that radical societal change is necessary, yet you still wonder why con-
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.
servatives won’t get on board? This is how you end up like China. The end goal for radical societal change may be different but the outcome will be the same. “United States’ involvement in Iran continues to be dishonest and damaging” Seth Gully, Pipe Dream, 1/30/20 “In relation to the Pentagon’s statement [of 50 soldiers suffering concussions], I fear these claims are justifying military action. I’m not claiming no one was injured in the Iranian airstrikes. However, the U.S. government has lied in the past to justify offensive invasions and we must be vigilant to prevent it from happening again.” Firstly, for further context, a pro-Iranian group, under the direction of Iranian General Qasem Suleimani, had attempted to storm an American Embassy in Baghdad. When a foreign government knowingly engages in hostile behavior and violence against your country, does that justify military action? Secondly, if the U.S. government did want to justify military action, wouldn’t it be more beneficial to exaggerate the casualties to be more devastating, such as including deaths? Also, Trump downplaying the injuries suggests attempts to lessen public tensions more so than an attempt to justify military action. “One piece of context often left out of discourse is the history of U.S. aggression. When the prime minister of Iran, Mohammed Mossadegh, intended to nationalize the Anglo-Iranian Oil
Company, Great Britain and U.S. governments orchestrated a coup to empower Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, who would arguably be friendlier to Western companies. Pahlavi’s dictatorial rule led to the Iranian people overthrowing the monarchy under their new leader, Ayatollah Khomeini, who rallied against the Iranian government and its dependence on the United States.” You’re right! Context is important! Kinda like how important it is that immediately following the Iranian Revolution fifty-two innocent Americans were held as hostages, the immediate energy crisis to follow, and then the establishment of an Islamic theocracy. “How can we scold the Iranian government for being brutal to its people when we are blocking humanitarian aid, such as food and medicine?” How can we scold the Iranian government for recently killing 1,500 protestors, outlawing and hanging homosexuals, storming US Embassies, and publically beating women for not wearing a hijab? Obviously we can’t, because we’re truly the bad guys for not giving them our support.
Vol. XXXII, Issue X
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
BING REVIEW
Bing Review By Will Anderson
I
n 2009 (the year of our lord) Microsoft rebranded their seminal search engine, Window Live Search, as Bing. David Webster, the marketing strategist at Microsoft, originally proposed the name “Bang” for the search engine, but it was rejected by Microsoft because “Bang” could not be used as a verb for describing the use of a search engine, similar to how people would say “just Google it.” Many were dissatisfied by the idea of having to say “just Bang it,” so the name Bing was chosen. Things were looking good for Microsoft early on; in 2009 (the year of our lord) they struck a deal with Yahoo in which Bing would acquire Yahoo’s user interface in exchange for 88% of search advertising revenue accrued in the first five years of operation. But you’re not reading this to find out what companies Microsoft partnered with to make Bing such a massive success, you’re reading this to find out if Bing is a good search engine, and I’m happy to announce that it is. The experience of using the Bing search engine is so cathartic words cannot accurately describe how it feels. Have you ever had a question and wondered if someone online knows the answer? Well, now you don’t have to wonder. By typing your question into the Bing search engine and pressing the enter key on your keyboard, Microsoft will personally find the answer to your question and present it to you on your computer screen. It’s so convenient! I tried it the
editor@binghamtonreview.com
other day on my neighbor’s Google Chromebook and shockingly even the Google Chromebook can operate the Bing search engine. So, what kind of questions can you type into the Bing search engine? I decided to find out myself, so I went to Bing dot com and typed “How is the weather in my home town today?” Bing told me that it was currently 40 degrees Fahrenheit! I was shocked to find out that the humidity in my hometown was 65 percent. I was pretty confident in my ability to Bing (not Bang) my questions after finding out the weather, so I decided to try something a little more advanced. I asked Bing, “Can I send emails with Bing?” The first link Bing provided me was a website that allowed me to email Bing’s customer service department, but nothing on how to send emails using the Bing search engine. I am left to assume that it is impossible to use Bing to send emails. Now that we’ve established that you can Bing (not Bang) questions, but you cannot Bing (not Bang) emails, you might be wondering what else you can use Bing for. To answer this question, I typed “What can Bing do?” into the Bing search engine. According to cbsnews dot com, you can search for specific file types using Bing by typing “contains:filetype” and the file type you are searching for in the search bar. So for example if you are looking for a specific .pdf file on the Internet, you will be able to find it by including contains:.pdf in your search, though
I can’t verify if this will work because the cbsnews article was published in 2010 (the year of our lord) and Bing may have updated their search settings by then. I am also not an experienced enough Binger (not Banger) to test it myself. Bing is available in 38 different languages, which is a great resource for anyone trying to learn a new language, but I have to warn you, even though Bing can display its search results in Latin, it cannot actually search for specific Latin phrases. Bing’s primary source of revenue comes from advertisements, which means that anyone with a connection to the Internet can use the Bing search engine for free and it’s still profitable to Microsoft and its shareholders. Unfortunately, Bing isn’t perfect. Bing has come under some criticism for censoring certain search results in order to comply with censorship laws imposed by the Chinese government. According to a 2014 article by The Economist, Bing has in the past censored search results containing certain simplified Chinese characters regardless of where in the world they were searched from. Within mainland China, Bing has skewed search results to prioritize articles published by government-run news outlets. Overall, Bing is a worthwhile search engine, but it has come under valid criticism regarding unnecessary censorship. I would recommend Bing to friends and I look forward to Binging (not Banging) in the future.
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
5
WHO LET THE VIRUS OUT?
WHO Let the Virus Out?
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
By Harold Rook
A
s I’m sure we are all aware of by now, the novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19/Chinese Virus/CCP Virus/whatever you’d like to call it) has grinded the nation to a halt. Outside of making venturing outdoors feel like you are in a vacant post-apocalyptic dystopia ala Mad Max, the officially declared pandemic has almost the entire population in quarantine, with new public guidelines such as facemasks and social distancing becoming the norm. The effects of the outbreak can be felt in virtually all areas of life; the stock market has experienced extreme volatility, swinging from downturn to recovery; public universities have been closed and switched to online learning; the healthcare sector has swelled with patients and is stretched incredibly thin. In uncertain times such as this, citizens need a leader or organization that could take decisive action. Naturally, many people have turned to the World Health Organization (WHO) to assist us in such dire times, given that they are the perceived arbitars of public health. So, when President Donald Trump announced he was withholding funds to the WHO, many scratched their heads. Why would he do this? Surely, the WHO is an impeccable organization that adequately uses their funds and resources against health-threats across the world? Is this an ego-trip for Trump, playing with the lives of millions of Americans? Or is something else at work?
6
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
As with much of Trump’s focus on international trade and politics, the driving force behind this announcement is a culprit that was also the origin of the pandemic: China. Calling the organization very “China-centric”, Trump leveled that the WHO was operating in a manner that makes it seem as though the international body was deferring to China. Pointing to the disparity in funding between the United States and China, Trump argued that an investigation into the WHO’s China dealings was in order, and raised the question of whether US funding should halt funds. Ignoring the fact that the president doesn’t have complete authority as to decide where government funds are used (Congress does, although he can freeze funds) and that in January Trump had praised China for its handling of the outbreak, the Director-General of the WHO, Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, responded to the threat of cutting funding, stating that, in a time of crisis, “politicalization” of the issue would only exacerbate the pandemic. This was followed up with other world leaders noting the essential role that the WHO plays in solving this crisis, with figures such as French President Emmanuel Macron, United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, and the African Union’s chairman Moussa Faki Mahamat emphasizing their backing of Ghebreyesus and the WHO. This leads us to ask two essential questions: what is the relationship between the WHO and China, and how are funds used by this organization? Let’s start with the first point; is the WHO actually “China-centric,” or is there no bias at play in this situation? As we all know, the novel coronavirus first started in Wuhan, China, with the first reported case occurring some time in late November 2019. Later actions taken by China included attempts to suppress news of the outbreak, claiming the virus doesn’t spread from human-to-human, de-
claring a “people’s war,” and closing off entire provinces, while taking measures that many would call “draconian.” This didn’t stop Dr. Ghebreyesus from praising China for its openness and “transparency.” As I noted previously in “Cracking Open a Case of Corona,” Dr. Ghebreyesus is quite the shady character; not only is he a member of a Marxist-Leninist Party in Ethiopia, but China and Ethiopia are partnered in the Belt and Road Initiative, which may lead many to question if Ghebreyesus has an ulterior agenda. However, there are other connections that I neglected to mention about Ghebreyesus; following his election to Director-General in 2017, Dr. Ghebreyesus attempted to have Robert Mugabe, the former socialist leader of Zimbabwe, positioned as Goodwill Ambassador, with China being one of the most ardent supporters of this motion. What’s more, Chinese funding to the WHO increased significantly following his ascension to Director-General, going up by as much as $15 million by 2019. And here’s the absolute worst part about Dr. Ghebreyesus...he has NEVER been a medical doctor! Gasp! How scandalous! All of this, among other things, has many calling for his resignation, with a petition gaining as much as 750,000 signatures.
Vol. XXXII, Issue X
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM Beyond the connection that Ghebreyesus seems to have with China, there also seems to be a willingness on part of the WHO to exclude Taiwan from the global health discussion, in line with China’s “one state” policy. To briefly summarize, China views Taiwan as a province under its control, often denoting it to being Chinese Taipei. Functionally, however, this isn’t the case; Taiwan is a fully independent country, complete with its own democratic government that had fled to the island following the conclusion of the Chinese Civil War, and is a key American ally in the region. Nevertheless, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) refuses to recognize Taiwanese sovereignty, and has often advocated for international bodies and other governments to follow suit. Nowhere is this clearer than with how the WHO has treated Taiwan throughout the pandemic; following the initial outbreak in China, the WHO believed initial reports from the CCP that the virus wasn’t capable of spreading from human-to-human on January 14th. However, Taiwan, having also begun to experience several outbreaks, determined that, by the contrary, the coronavirus spread through human-to-human, and warned the WHO of the severity of the situation a full two weeks before taking in China’s reports. How does the WHO respond to such valuable information? It covers its ears, closes its eyes, and shouts “LA LA LA LA LA, I’M NOT LISTENING!” In addition, Taiwan was also denied access to important intel from the WHO regarding COVID-19. When questioned about this stonewalling of Taiwan by a Hong Kong reporter, assistant Director-General Bruce Aylward, in what can only be described as the most surreal and blatant attempt to obey his CCP overlords, at first pretends not to hear the question, before hanging up when it is repeated. Needless to say, he was removed from the WHO website following this stunt. Most impressively, Dr. Ghebreyesus, in a recent announcement, accused the Taiwan government of leading an online campaign to harass him with death threats and racism. Sounds perfectly plausible to me, and not some attempt to justify
editor@binghamtonreview.com
WHO LET THE VIRUS OUT? keeping Taiwan in the dark at the behest of China. To say that the WHO is “China-centric” may be a slight overstatement, but it is far from wrong. There is also the question as to how the WHO is utilizing its budget, and what role the United States plays in financing the organization. The WHO itself is funded through a combination of charity, NGOs, individual donation, and member-state contributions, with the United States accounting for approximately 15% of its total budget. According to Reuters, the United States contributes as much as $400 million to the WHO, while being committed to providing the health organization $893 million in a two year period. This amount is over two times the amount of money provided by the next largest donor, making the United States one of the most important funders for the WHO. Many proponents for the WHO argue that its $4.4 billion budget is necessary, stating that this is already a measly amount of funds for the tasks it must address. It should be noted, however, that the WHO has had a history of allocating these funds for purposes that don’t necessarily benefit global health. During the ebola outbreak in Africa between 2014 to 2016, the WHO was one of the leading organizations to tackle the issue. However, to the shock of many, the Associated Press found that, of the budget raised, $200 million went into luxury travel expenses and accommodations, surpassing the funds used for fighting AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria COMBINED! But don’t worry, because this was before Dr. Ghebreyesus was elected, and he promised that corruption and misuse of funds would significantly decrease. Kinda a weird flex for a campaign promise, acknowledging your own organization’s corruption, but ok I guess. So did the budget get used appropriately during his leadership? As of the most recent findings by the Associated Press, expenses for luxury travel fell to $192 million. So, no. And this does not include off-the-books expenses that many countries provide to WHO officials, often to curry favor. I wonder who may be behind that. *Cough*China*Cough*.
When Trump froze the United States’ funds to the WHO, he claimed that the WHO is “China-centric,” continuingly kowtowing to the pleasure of Beijing at the expense of the global population. There is certainly truth to this; the WHO has repeatedly backed China and followed their interests carefully, the exclusion of Taiwan from the global pandemic discussion being a prime example. There is also much to be said about the seniority that is running the WHO, with figures such as Dr. Ghebreyesus and Aylward bending over backwards for China, in spite of its role in perpetuating the crisis. This says nothing about the overt corruption that WHO officials seem to be engaging in; why spend so much of the budget on luxury travel expenses when the funds could be better allocated to the health crises they claim to be fighting? As a global institution, it would be ideal for the WHO to be active in the current fight against the coronavirus pandemic. Yet Trump’s assessment isn’t inaccurate; reluctance to fund an organization with a history of abuses does not seem unthinkable. Regardless, the WHO is still going to play an active role in the fight against the coronavirus, even if it is going to help by booking tropical vacations so it can suck off Xi Jinping while constantly reminding him that he doesn’t look like Winnie the Pooh at all. It just means that the United States will have to pick up the slack.
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
7
BINGHAMTON REVIEW STAFF POLITICAL COMPASS
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
Binghamton Review Staff Political Compass In every issue of Binghamton Review, there is a disclaimer at the bottom of page 2 that if often overlooked: “Views expressed by writers do not necessarily reflect the views of the publication as a whole.” The logic behind this is simple— Binghamton Review’s staff is made up of individuals with their own thoughts and opinions, and Binghamton Review does not discriminate or filter which thoughts or opinions writers are allowed to express. To demonstrate this, we had all of our staff members (that were willing to do so) take a political compass test. The results show that the majority of our staff align with the libertarian right (as expected), but it is far from the only ideology represented. In fact, each of the four quadrants is represented by at least one member of our staff.
8
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
Vol. XXXII, Issue X
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
BINGHAMTON REVIEW FAN BINGO
Binghamton Review Fan Bing(o)
With Bingo boards containting things you may have done being all the rage on social media, we decided to make one for our most dedicated fans! While I’m sure many of you will be able to cross off a few boxes, only our biggest “stans”—those that give us more attention that anyone else—will be able to get five in a row. In other words, this Bingo game will test your level of obsession with Binghamton Review. We have caught Binghamton University students doing all of these things before (yes, even the fourth one in the “B” column), so we know five in a row is achievable. If you would like to share your results with us, tag us on Twitter (@bingreview), or I suppose you could just subtweet us like you always do. Have fun and good luck!
editor@binghamtonreview.com
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
9
CONSERVATISM WON’T SAVE ANYONE FROM THE CORONAVIRUS
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
Conservatism Won’t Save Anyone From the Coronavirus By Bryn Lauer
P
olitical parties define themselves with blanket statements. For Democrats, these statements are often paired with increased government, whereas Republicans will not let you leave a conversation without having the government sworn away as one of society’s most imminent threats. It pains me to see both parties try to apply their political philosophies over a wide array of subjects, expecting an outcome that holds true to their idealized worlds. There is a disconnect between philosophizing about the world and living in it, and it is much more sound to evaluate issues along the lines of relativism, where context is so vital and complex that general beliefs hardly touch the surface. This has been especially true with the onslaught of the coronavirus. Captives to their laissez-faire, liberty reigns beliefs, certain Republican voices have used this pandemic to supplant their political agendas by crying foul to every move of expansion the government makes. As an officer for the College Republicans, this may come as a surprise, but I cannot watch idly as self-righteous members of the GOP preach from their soapboxes in a moment where their policies do more harm than good. One truth, in particular, cannot be ignored. At first, conservatives downplayed the virus. Rush Limbaugh, a regular on Fox, made the claim that the media was hyping the virus for more than it was, citing it to be no worse than a common flu. Sean Hannity, who at first downplayed the virus and then later changed course, implied that Democrats were making the virus a political smear against the President. Tomi Lahren claimed that she was more concerned with stepping on a “used heroin needle” than contracting it. Hell, even our President himself claimed the virus was a hoax in late February at a South Carolina rally. Save for Tucker Carlson, who saw the threat of the virus for what it was in February, the amount of faith that
10
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
“The sooner we can get out of this, the sooner the free market can get to work. But if left to our own devices, we will never get there, which will invoke further government intervention down the line.”
conservatives have put into their President, and subsequently the government they swear against, has caused them to discredit facts that don’t align with their worldview. Granted, some liberal outlets and even the CDC were not adamant early on about the dangers of the virus, but nonetheless, the focus on its politicization was immediate and shortsighted. Most people are accustomed to living cozily in America where we are privileged beyond our needs, and watching helplessly as an external threat brings the country to its knees in a matter of weeks should be a wake-up call—but political beliefs get in the way. For certain Republicans, it was easier to ignore the virus than it was to forfeit— even temporarily—the idea that our beloved country, the touted unstoppable superpower with modern technology and vast swaths of wealth, is vulnerable and unequipped for a crisis. Considering the military relayed information to the Trump Administration in 2017 that we lacked a pandemic response plan, the lack of preventative action was a harsh sting. The Department of Health and Human Services ran a simulation last year and found, similarly, we were never prepared to handle a pandemic. Rather than use government for its intentions, their services were blatantly ignored. Our country is mortal and has many flaws that cannot necessarily be blamed on the size of our government. Size will never matter unless we first focus on government effectiveness, and until this is achieved, we must realize that we will never truly be secure in our country.
Conservatives love the idea that people reap what they sow, dismissing poverty and racial inequality as the fault of individuals in an otherwise well-functioning society. In the case of the virus, however, no one deserves infection nor brings it on willingly. The only ones who do are those who ignore social distancing efforts. It is frightening to think conservatives will forgo the potential of saving their fellow American’s life for the sake of putting oneself first to the likes of Ayn Rand’s rational self-interest. Forget collectivism versus individualism; someone who fails to stay quarantined in these times has the potential to harm and kill other people. Yet conservative media is pushing back against prolonged social distancing efforts. The uncomfortable truth is that government-mandated social distancing is necessary for saving lives, even if it means we must give up our liberties for a period of time. Looking at the facts, San Francisco, which began a shelter-in-place order on March 17th, is experiencing half the rate of infections as the rest of California. What’s more, the decline in cases appeared nine days after the order, consistent with the anticipated delay. New York City is finding social distancing to be working so well that the projected numbers of cases have been lowered, even if they still are the hotspot in the country. Austria, Denmark, and the Czech Republic, all of which implemented some of the earliest and strictest lockdowns in Europe, are looking to reopen certain businesses and ease travel restrictions throughout mid-April. Rather than resolve the incompatibility of conservative belief and government mandates, conservatives are sticking with what they know. They especially falter when the economy is at stake, watching as GOP lawmakers approve billions in stimulus even as the market tanks. Trump has claimed on Twitter and in public hearings that social distancing is more harmful than
Vol. XXXII, Issue X
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM stalling the economy. Dennis Prager remarked, “...That attitude, that the only value is saving a life … it leads to cowardice.” Candace Owens claims that there should be no end to freedom when you are scared, calling those who social distance people who live in a “media reality.” Owens does not realize that her right to freedom might be the end of another’s life. Of course, there will be no economy to save if all of our workers are in the ICU, suffering from the long-term health consequences associated with respiratory illnesses, or dead. The burden on the economy will be devastating, but the healthcare system may altogether collapse, exacerbating the time we must wait to reenter the markets. Easing on social distancing orders overwhelms hospitals and prevents people from treatment by life-saving ventilators and equipment they would otherwise receive. It is not even a guarantee that people will want to go outside and engage with businesses, even if there are no governmental consequences. Government and the private sector will be more intricately intertwined for the rest of the year, and conservatives need to embrace this. Rather than fight it, they ought to stand guard for the welfare of the free market. We do not want a similar outcome as experienced during and after the previous SARS and MERS outbreaks, where pharmaceuticals, lacking incentives, failed to release new drugs despite the outpouring of public information from private labs. There was no market
editor@binghamtonreview.com
CONSERVATISM WON’T SAVE ANYONE FROM THE CORONAVIRUS to invest in, no long-term assistance from any governments, and entrepreneurs lost interest. Today, legislation such as the proposed Prescription Drug Pricing Reduction Act threatens to leverage price controls and taxes on pharmaceutical companies that, in 2018, devoted $80 billion to research. We are at a critical moment, where companies in the private sector ranging from well-established businesses, such as Amazon to 3D printing companies, are stepping up by pioneering dozens of potential vaccines and life-saving equipment. Rather than belittle the government for stifling pharmaceutical growth, conservatives ought to do the unthinkable and lobby for government incentives for the broadening of innovation. We cannot let the private sector be burdened with taxes and overbearing controls, at least not long-term. We can use the government for our advantage while holding it accountable at the same time. For instance, the plight of conservatives and others who have exposed federal regulations that have slowed private drug companies and doctors from studying cures has led to a faster clearance process over these past months. Since 2004, laboratories have needed to request permission from the FDA for diagnostic tests and medical treatments, but now laboratories can use tests without clearance. This is a step in the right direction, but conservatives have to be careful in how they proceed this year with the relationship between the public and private sectors.
Government intervention is necessary in this global crisis, but we need a smart government. The fight between slashing governmental services and shoveling taxpayer dollars into every nook and cranny has been a distraction against a more prominent issue that is clearer than ever before. The systems that have been put in place to protect us from a pandemic such as this have vastly underperformed. Money is not always an indication of performance; if we are paying for services, we might as well get our money’s worth. Had the government taken the warning signs of the military and DHHS seriously, perhaps so many would not have been lost. If the CDC and FDA were better managed—not funded, as they are bloated enough—maybe we would have more test kits and equipment. Had the government mandated a lockdown early on, we might already be on a downward trend and ready to open again for business. If we had not outsourced our manufacturers to foreign countries, we would not be so reliant on the courtesy of others. In the meantime, the stimulus checks, paid family leave, and bailouts, are quick fixes. The sooner we can get out of this, the sooner the free market can get to work. But if left to our own devices, we will never get there, which will invoke further government intervention down the line. Conservatives, do not be afraid to call out your leaders. When Trump promises that every American can get tested if they want, and when that does not happen, say so. When Candace Owens claims that hospitals report inflated COVID-19 deaths for the purposes of funding, call her out. As right-wing groups such as those in Idaho begin to hold public meetings in direct defiance of social distancing, get mad. We do this so that no American is disregarded, so that nurses and doctors like my father do not have to watch any more people die who could have otherwise been saved. Don’t fall prey to party loyalty, the world is so much more than that. When all goes back to normal, end the bickering over the quantity of our government, and focus instead on its quality. And remember, we can do hard things.
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
11
NO MORE MR. NICE SIMP
No More Mr. Nice Simp
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
By Patrick McAuliffe
P
ornography is pervasive in our world, both that which is free and that which one pays to consume. As access to porn has increased, so too has the tolerance and acceptance of sex work. Whether you believe it is morally good or bad depends on your intuitions and education. Those that support sex work champion its benefits, such as a steady income for the sex worker (usually women), the destigmatizing of nudity and sexuality, and the provision of pleasure that porn consumers seek. Those against sex work and pornography usually come from some sort of religious background, claiming it causes harm through the cheapening of intimacy, a tolerance for sexuality usually reserved for a monogamous relationship, and the negative consequences it can cause in current and future relationships. The decision about the morality of sex work lies with you, the potential consumer or producer of pornography, but is it possible that one can morally oppose sex work, yet acknowledge the rights of consumers to engage in its market? How does being in a monogamous relationship morally factor into a sex worker’s life? Popular YouTuber iDubbbzTV, or Ian Carter, found himself having to confront this second question recently, and, suffice it to say, he defended himself poorly in the court of public opinion. On March 9th, iDubbbz’s girlfriend, cosplayer and fellow YouTuber Anisa Jomha, announced on Twitter that she would be starting an OnlyFans account. OnlyFans is a website for users to upload and sell access to amateur pornography, or as Ian puts it in his March 28th video on the topic, “anything from double penetration to lewd cosplay, and everything in between.” Many fans of iDubbbz were outraged at his seeming passivity over this announcement, branding him with the new Internet term for a subservient man hoping for a crumb of coochie (“simp”) with impunity. Ian played along with the outrage for
12
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
a while, even uploading a sarcastically angry picture of himself to Twitter with the same caption as this article’s title, but on March 28th, he uploaded “sex workers – iDubbbz complains [sic]” as his response to his fans and to set the record straight on his opinion of Anisa’s choices. He is definitive with the statement: “I think all of it is cool.” Much of the backlash from his fans comes from Ian’s perceived denouncement of sex work in the past and, in apparent hypocrisy, his tolerance of his own girlfriend’s current participation in it. In his response video, Ian shows several clips of himself from past videos saying “skank” and “slut” but ends the montage with a clip from his very early YouTube days acknowledging the market for sex work and not necessarily condemning or sanctioning it. Dismissing the derogatory language as “flavor” for his videos and claiming that he’ll “probably say skank and slut again.” Ian plays a dangerous game by including the short clips of “skank” and “slut;” the context for each instance is lost in favor of preemptively showing the supposed hypocrisy his critics would bring up against him.
Ian then shows some clips of Atozy, another YouTuber, drawing up a pros and cons list of becoming an OnlyFans creator. Many of his criticisms are older arguments related to impulsively posting pornography on the Internet – it’s a “forever archive,” images can’t be deleted easily, etc. The criticism that is most worth our attention, however, is “everyone can see what he sees for a few $ [sic].” Ian doesn’t believe this to be an argument of any importance, claiming that “it’s just a pussy” and that if nudity cheapens a body, then his would be worthless. This is accompanied by a series of shirtless pictures of himself from years past. This statement is most worth dissection because it gets at the heart of many people’s opposition to sex work, especially sex work done by a romantic partner. To start, Ian makes a false comparison between shirtless men and female sexual organs. Each type of nudity carries different social taboos and stigmas. Even shirtless women do not have the same social expectations as shirtless men; many social media sites remove photos with women’s nipples in them, but do not do the same for shirtless men (how an algorithm can determine the difference in a gender’s nipple is a question for another time). In advertising, shirtless, muscular men are used constantly to sell products appealing to masculinity. Shirtless women have their place in
Vol. XXXII, Issue X
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
advertising as well, but their audience is given a vastly different ideal. From fragrances to lingerie, advertisers usually only whip out a shirtless woman to give almost a sense of beautiful exclusivity; their product will make you the object of men’s desire, but you are a queen that must be pursued and won over. It’s a strange twist on the conservative expectation of a woman’s purity until marriage, but both social taboos on shirtless women would not agree with a woman’s shirtless pictures being as widespread on the Internet as a man’s. In more crass and colloquial language, many people would call that woman a “skank” and “slut”, but with more meaning than flavor. To spread intimate photos widely when such intimacy is reserved for one’s partner is a thought that does not sit well with many people’s intuitions on sexuality. In this vein of thought, I’ve seen many threads from Facebook to Reddit where defenders of iDubbbz’s choice argue that seeing someone’s nudes does not make them their boyfriend or girlfriend. They are correct when saying this, but it points to another issue to wrestle with, as well as a response to Ian’s claim that “it’s just a pussy.” If a man and woman (or two men or women) are in a monogamous, romantic relationship, it is, by defi-
editor@binghamtonreview.com
NO MORE MR. NICE SIMP
nition, to the exclusion of all others. Romantic partners are more intimate with each other than their friends, both physically and emotionally. They have chosen to be together and to give up their lives as free individuals to share their life with another person. This doesn’t just happen at marriage; dating relationships are the test run to see if a life with that other person is something that one would enjoy. Choice is the key here: being with one’s romantic partner is more preferable to one than being alone or jumping from person to person, filling voids of sadness with one-night stands and the warped satisfaction of flitting in and out of someone’s life like a ghost. Seeing someone’s nudes may not make them the viewer’s romantic partner, but disseminating them, whether for free or a fee, is a violation of the exclusivity that one chose when one entered a monogamous relationship. That pussy that’s “just a pussy” matters a lot more to one’s partner than to someone looking for a quick thrill. This does not get the viewer of pornography off the hook, however. They have pledged themselves to their partner as well, and to seek intimacy normally found in a relationship from pictures, videos, or literature is also a violation of the promise that they made to their partner. From time to time, monogamous partners will agree amongst themselves to allow their partner to consume pornography, and this is on a case-by-case basis. Even when the partners have no problem with it, permission still needs to be granted implicitly, because most people have the intuition that their partner is devoted to them to the exclusion of all others. Despite the permission, a relationship does not follow its essential nature if it is not to the exclusion
of all others. From Catholicism (where pornography consumption or production is a sin), I would compare this situation to mortal and venial sins, or grave and less serious breaks in one’s relationship with God. The mortal sin of a monogamous relationship would be cheating of any kind – sleeping around, emotional intimacy with another person, etc. The venial sin would be consuming or producing pornography – while the break in trust is never fully completed, since your window to sexual or romantic intimacy stops at the screen, it is still a break in the promise of excluding all others from sharing in the intimacy that one’s partner enjoys with them. By these criteria, is iDubbbz a simp? Does he “allow” Anisa to open an OnlyFans in the hopes of winning her favor? Not quite, although he is not acting in a way that will optimize their relationship. Ian may be permitting her to share her intimacy with her subscribers, so that “everyone sees what he sees for a few $,” but the fact that permission was required for this violation of exclusionary intimacy is what has riled up his fans so fervently. PewDiePie notes in his March 29th video of “Pew News” on the topic that many people who enjoy iDubbbz’s type of humor are more right-wing. To see someone so anti-PC and edgy seemingly “stoop” to this decision didn’t sit right with many iDubbbz fans. I hope that, by dissecting what has happened with such an icon of the YouTube community, people will think twice about the future of sex work and pornography consumption. It may be permitted, sure. There are tangible benefits to it and the choice is made freely. But is it moral, especially when already in a romantic relationship that excludes all others?
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
13
2020 SUCKS (BUT AT LEAST THE MUSIC IS GOOD)
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
2020 Sucks (But at Least the Music is Good) By Dillon O’Toole
2
020 has not been a very good year so far. I don’t think I need to elaborate on why that is. That being said, one of the positives of this year has been the music. As a fan of most genres within rock and metal, as well as a general interest in various other genres, 2020 has seen the release of a lot of great music, and there is even more on the way. Return of the 90s alternative scene: If you love to reminisce on how good the rock music of the 90s was, then 2020 should really make you happy. Several bands from this time have already released albums this year. Pearl Jam released their album Gigaton on March 27th, Stone Temple Pilots released their album Perdida on February 7th, and Local H released LIFERS on April 10th. If that wasn’t good enough, there is still plenty of more music from 90s bands set to be released later in the year. Weezer is releasing a new album on May 15th and the lead single, “The End of the Game,” seems to suggest that they are changing their focus from pop back to rock. In addition to Weezer, Alanis Morissette is releasing her album Such Pretty Forks in the Road on May 1st. If you prefered the British bands of the 90s, there is good news on that front as well. Bush has a new album coming in July called The Kingdom. To top off the revival of 90s alternative, Nine Inch Nails released two instrumental albums for free on their website. Modern metal: Now I will admit, I’m not a huge fan of many of the more extreme genres of metal,
14
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
but that doesn’t mean I can’t recommend music for those of you who like heavier music. I’m going to start off by recommending my favorite album of the year so far, The Death of Me by Polaris. Polaris did a great job on this album, with “Masochist,” “Landmines,” “Martyr (Waves),” and “All of This Is Fleeting” being the tracks that stand out most to me. Even if you are not a big fan of metal music I would recommend listening to the songs “Masochist” and “Martyr (Waves)” as they are both similar enough to modern hard rock to have crossover appeal. Other albums within the genre of metal that I would recommend checking out are Dead Matter by the band By the Thousands, Guardians by August Burns Red, Fracture by Bleed From Within, and What the Dead Men Say by Trivium. Recommendations I don’t feel like categorizing: For simplicity’s sake, the rest of the music I’ll be discussing fits into this “other” category. The first recommendation I will give is relevant to all the Linkin Park fans out there. The band Grey Daze features the late Linkin Park singer Chester Bennington on vocals for their album Amends. The current release date is scheduled to be June 26th. The next artist whose new music I would recommend looking into has been performing for around 50 years now. Ozzy Osbourne returned this year with a new solo album called Ordinary Man. The title track features Elton John and demonstrates exactly why Ozzy has had staying power in the music industry. Deep
Purple is another classic band coming out with new music this year, with their album Whoosh. The lead single “Throw My Bones” should please any fan of classic rock, and the full album is expected to release in early August. If you are the type of person who likes music that is long, 2020 has albums for you. The progressive rock band Elder is releasing their album Omen on April 24th. Long songs are the norm for this band as the shortest of the five songs on this album is still over 9 minutes in length. Maybe you like your songs with slow tempos. If so, check out the album Lightless by the doom metal (a genre derived from the song of early Black Sabbath) band Loviatar. Alternatively, you may be looking for a more blues based band. If so, check out KALEO and their upcoming album Surface Sounds. If you don’t like rock and instead want something more folk based, Jonathon Hultén and Myrkur released the albums Chants From Another Place and Folkesange respectively. As a way to wrap up, I would like to point out that there is plenty of good music outside of the limited selection I have mentioned. I personally don’t listen to a lot of rap so I chose to ignore recommending music that fits into that category. Finally, I would like to mention undoubtedly the best song to be released this year: “Pipe Down: Pipe Dream Diss Track.” While released on Binghamton Review’s YouTube channel in October of last year, its official release on streaming services such as Spotify and Apple Music was January 1st, 2020. The official release of “Pipe Down: Pipe Dream Diss Track” kicked off the great year of music we are currently seeing.
Vol. XXXII, Issue X
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
THE PROBLEM WITH MODERN POLITICAL RHETORIC
The Problem With Modern Political Rhetoric By Joe Badalamenti
E
verything has become chaotic and centered around “the Chinese Coronavirus” recently, so I thought I’d write about something completely unrelated: modern political rhetoric. A good example of this rhetoric in action would be Charlie Kirk. Charlie Kirk is a public figure most known for founding Turning Point USA, a group that seeks to teach and support college conservatives. TPUSA has grown very rapidly over several years due to his effort. As a result, TPUSA evolved into a national organization with connections to many powerful figures including the President of the United States.
When your argument boils down to ‘this side is evil and corrupt therefore they will doom us all if given power,’ there is an obvious problem.” So then, what’s the problem with Charlie Kirk? Though he has much in common with a typical modern conservative, the issue with Charlie Kirk is his use of Gaslighting. Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation through a presentation of a false reality. If you came into this with the idea that Charlie Kirk was an evil racist, then congrats, you’ve likely fallen victim to gaslighting, albeit by his political opposition. Kirk’s gaslighting is primarily found on Twitter (as is a lot of other madness) as well as many other media sites. For example in one tweet, Kirk complains that “liberals never march” when illegal immigration cause problems in our country, “yet they march for illegals.” When your argument boils down to “this side is evil and corrupt therefore they will doom us all if given power,” there is an obvious problem.
editor@binghamtonreview.com
Another bad faith argument that Charlie Kirk types will employ is cherry picking. Cherry picking occurs when someone picks a specific occurrence or event in order to apply one piece to the whole. A common example is the argument that because a member of the KKK endorsed Trump, this means that all Republicans are racist. This is a bad argument because it relies on the assumption that all 33 million registered Republicans hold the same beliefs as a typical member of the KKK, which is obviously false. The aforementioned Charlie Kirk tweet is also a good example of cherry picking. While some progressives may hold the views that illegal immigrants are more important than American citizens, the fact is that progressives are part of a small fringe subset of the Democratic Party that failed twice to have their candidate win against two unlikable opponents in the presidential primaries. This means that there is very likely a group of individuals on the left who support border security to some degree. While it may be inaccurate at times, polling seems to be the best way to accurately identify support for
certain issues. According to a recent Gallup poll in 2020, less than 10% of respondents say that a single progressive issue such as climate change or racism is the most important issue. This type of objective reasoning along with sound logical arguments are the best ways to discuss current problems. However, despite these facts, gaslighting and illogical arguments persevere. Why is this the case? While there are several causes, the main reason for this is because it’s effective at triggering an emotional response. When you see an argument such as the one above, your first instinct is not to fact check the argument, but rather to mentally lash out against the other side. It can happen to anyone, even a high IQ Binghamton Review writer such as myself. The results of these arguments are twofold. Firstly, political rhetoric becomes overrun by these arguments. This is especially bad for those who have less experience with political rhetoric, such as the majority of American youth. In addition, it causes the emergence of demagogues, or those who gain power off of populism, rather than genuine policy solutions. It’s not like this is hidden either. On Twitter, many people seem to support candidates such as Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren, rather than a more rational candidate such as Tulsi Gabbard. Hopefully one day we’ll see the transition to rational and logical arguments. If this happens, then maybe the Binghamton Review won’t have to be the Last Refuge of Scholars.
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
15