BINGHAMTON REVIEW Editor-in-Chief Contents
P.O. BOX 6000 BINGHAMTON, NY 13902-6000 EDITOR@BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
Founded 1987 • Volume XXXIV, Issue VII Matt Gagliano
Managing Editor Madeline Perez Copy Desk Chief Joe Badalamenti
Business Manager Dillon O’Toole
Social Media Shitposter Arthur O’Sullivan
Editor Emeriti
Jake Schweitzer Patrick McAuliffe
Staff Writers
Charles Forman Siddharth Gundapaneni Evelyn Medina
Contributors Julius Apostata Anonymous
Special Thanks To:
Intercollegiate Studies Institute Collegiate Network
BUSTING THE FILIBUSTER: A SHORTSIGHTED DECISION PAGE 8
by Julius Apostata
Editorial by Matt Gagliano Press Watch by Our Staff Advice Column by Madeline Perez Life Above The Rock by Dillon O’Toole On Materialism by Joe Badalamenti Silence by Madeline Perez Jesus’ Size is Je-SUS by Matt Gagliano The Power And Abuse of The Fact-Check by Arthur O’Sullivan 14 The Left Has Education All Wrong by Anonymous 15 Our Record’s in Jeopardy, Baby by Patrick McAuliffe 3 4 6 7 9 10 12 13
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. XXXIV, Issue VII
EDITORIAL Dear Readers,
From the Editor
Help. Brain no work good no more. How write? Help! I not know how write editorial! HELP! No do this since because two months. AHHHHH! Hello everyone! I’m back! Sorry, we’re back. All I needed was a quick kick directly to the temple to restart my brain, and now I remember how to write an editorial. I still hate doing it though. Anyway, it’s been awhile, how are you? How was your break? Did you also forget how to write? Did you also forget how to study? Did you also forget everything you’ve ever learned since birth, basically relegating you to a dumb little baby wallowing in your own vomit and feces? No, just me? Huh. Well, regardless, Binghamton Review is back, and we’re ready to reform those wrinkles on your smooth, winter break brains. We have a lot of “educational” articles in this one, so all that brain rust should fall off in a jiffy. Speaking of education, an anonymous writer has given us their opinion on everything wrong with the education system in their article “The Left Has Education All Wrong” on page 14. Now that you know the faults of the education system, the learning can begin. If you’re looking to brush up on your knowledge of the U.S. government, I’d recommend checking out Julius Apostata’s “Busting The Filibuster: a Shortsighted Decision” on page 8. He discusses what the filibuster is, why it’s a hot debate, and his opinion on the matter, in a way that even someone whose brain is still on winter break can understand. If you need a little math refresher, then my article “Jesus’ Size is Je-SUS” might be more up your alley. That may not sound math related based solely off the title, but trust me, it is. I did more math writing that article than any human ever has specifically about Jesus before. Maybe. Probably not. But I did do a lot of math, so read it or I’ll be sad. If you’re looking for more real world information that you may have missed during the month-long hibernation that we call “winter break,” then you should probably check out Dillon O’Toole’s “Life Above The Rock.” He gives a short, easily digestible recap of recent news events that you may have missed. I say events that you may have missed because there’s no way I would ever miss any of those, and anyone who says otherwise is lying. I know my current events. Kinda. To round out this editorial, I have a bold weather prediction from my grandfather. I’m writing this on Thursday, January 27th, and this weekend (the weekend of January 29th and 30th), there’s supposed to be a lot of snow on Long Island. While talking on the phone with my grandpa earlier, he told me that he predicts that the weather stations are wrong, and that they’re not going to get any snow at all on Long Island this weekend. He told me to publish this prediction in the Review, so here you go. By the time this is released, I guess we’ll already know whether or not he was right.
Sincerely,
Matt 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 “Judicial systems must condemn white vigilantes like Rittenhouse”, By Julie Ha, Pipe Dream, 12/09/21 “In August 2020, Kyle Rittenhouse, who was 17 years old at the time, joined counter-protesters in Kenosha, Wisconsin at a Black Lives Matter protest against police brutality.” Already one sentence into the article and we already have the first signs of misinformation! Rittenhouse was not a counter-protester; Rittenhouse was in Kenosha after previous nights’ destruction when the protests devolved into rioting, where some of the things he actually did include cleaning up graffiti, protecting a business at the request of the owners (although admittedly accounts differ about this), and providing first aid. To state that he was there to “counter-protest” is hardly truthful. “Rittenhouse, hailing from Illinois, was among the group of men who traveled across state lines on the third night of protests, ready to allegedly protect the city’s businesses from rioters.” He TrAvElEd AcRoSs StAtE lInEs! It’s important to note that Rittenhouse had family in Kenosha, with him traveling across state lines regularly from Antioch (which is only 20 miles away from Kenosha) because of this. The rifle had never crossed state lines; it was in Kenosha. Lastly, again, he didn’t “allegedly” protect businesses, but was seen cleaning graffiti, putting out fires, and protecting a business. Another sign of disingenuous framing. “Six minutes later, the footage shows a group of protesters, including Rosenbaum, chasing after Rittenhouse when an unknown gunman fired into the air.” First, you conveniently leave out details such as the fact that Rosenbaum had previously given a death threat
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.
while armed with a chain against Rittenhouse and was very belligerent at the time, according to testimonies from the trial. Second (and this is more of a research error), that “unknown gunman” was identified as Joshua Ziminski. He’s currently facing charges as a result of this, in addition to other crimes. “Rosenbaum is seen lunging at Rittenhouse, who turned toward the gunman [sic] and shot Rosenbaum four times, including a shot to the head. As Rittenhouse fled the scene, a crowd chased after him, shouting, ‘That’s the shooter!’” Rittenhouse “fled the scene” to turn himself into police. You know…turning himself into law enforcement so that the consequences of what happened can go before court. Not exactly textbook vigilantism. Additionally, the crowd shouted a little more than just “That’s the shooter!”. Some notable quotes include “GET HIM!” and “CRANIUM THAT BOY!” Tell me: does this sound like the crowd wanted to simply find the shooter, or perhaps, dare I say it, to enact justice of their own by “getting” and “cranium-ing” Rittenhouse before he could stand trial? Wouldn’t that be an example of “vigilantism”? “At one point, Rittenhouse falls to the ground and fires three [sic] shots into the crowd, shooting Huber in the chest and Grosskreutz in the arm.” Such dishonest framing! No, Ritten-
house didn’t “fire three shots into the crowd.” If you watched the footage, you could see the following sequence of events occurred: as he was running to the police, Rittenhouse was first hit by someone, losing his hat, after which some in the crowd yelled “Get his ass!” From there, he fell and was set upon by three individuals: first, “jump-kick-man,” suspected to be Maurice Freeland, who kicked Rittenhouse in the face, who in response fired two shots, missing him. Next, Huber hit Rittenhouse in the head/ shoulder area with his skateboard twice and tried taking his gun, to which Rittenhouse responded by firing one shot in his chest, killing him. Lastly, Grosskreutz approached Rittenhouse after chasing him, but was NOT shot when he had his hands up when approaching Rittenhouse. However, only when he put his hands down, aimed his gun at Rittenhouse, and advanced towards him did Rittenhouse ever fire one shot into Grosskreutz’s arm, which Grosskreutz even admitted to under oath. Beyond just getting the number of shots-fired wrong, the only people that Rittenhouse shot at in that scenario (and, really, that entire night) were people who posed an imminent threat to his well-being. He
Vol. XXXIV, Issue VII
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM never “fired into the crowd.” “In response to the verdict, CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin tweeted, ‘I wonder what the verdict would be in the #RittenhouseTrial if the defendant were a Black 17-year-old from another state who killed two people with an illegal assault weapon?’ Toobin’s remark sums up many frustrations with the jury’s verdict, as Rittenhouse’s open support for Blue Lives Matter on social media seems to offer him protection, and research continues to prove racial disparities in criminal convictions.” If the circumstances had been exactly the same and the evidence was as clear as this, he would be found innocent. It was not Rittenhouse’s race or support of Blue Lives Matter that “offered him protection,” as you cynically put it, but rather the extraordinary amount of evidence that served to exonerate him. “People following the trial have criticized U.S. Circuit Judge Bruce Schroeder over seemingly sympathizing with Rittenhouse after he called for a break due to Rittenhouse’s emotional breakdown on the stand and for questioning the legitimacy of the prosecution’s video evidence.” Heaven forbid the judge allow a break while the defendant is having an emotional breakdown! Also, the issue with the specific video evidence had to do with the defense not being given the same quality of footage, hence a later motion for mistrial was filed. “In a proceeding about the rules of the trial, Schroeder ruled that prosecutors would not be able to refer to the men fatally shot by Rittenhouse as victims, calling it a ‘loaded, loaded word.’ However, Rittenhouse’s defense attorneys were given permission to refer to the men shot as ‘looters’ and ‘arsonists’ so long as these actions were consistent with the evidence.” He forbade the use of “victim” be-
editor@binghamtonreview.com
PRESSWATCH cause it carries with it a presumption of guilt. He only allowed the use of “looters” and “arsonists” IF the defense could provide evidence for it. “Regardless of whether or not the men shot by Rittenhouse were engaging in violence, the terms ‘looting’ and ‘arsonists’ may incite misconceptions in the jury that Rittenhouse would have inevitably been harmed at the Kenosha Black Lives Matter protest, thus necessitating that Rittenhouse bring his assault rifle for protection.” Translation: even if the evidence suggested that the attackers were “looters” and “arsonists,” the “victims” were “victims” because this would otherwise harm the overall movement. “In deciding to prohibit the use of the term ‘victims,’ Schroeder presupposes that ‘looters’ and ‘arsonists’ who were shot or wounded cannot also be victims of Rittenhouse’s irresponsibility. Establishing mutual exclusivity supports the idea that those who are tired of political games and turn to protests to demand civil protection can not only be killed with impunity but also are undeserving of the jury’s sympathy.” Or… it could be wildly irresponsible to attack a 17 year old with a gun who was simply protecting himself from the specific people that attacked him, not that all protestors can just be killed with impunity. Who on Earth would come away with that message? “Ironically, Rittenhouse was able to victimize and gather sympathy for himself from the jury on national television, as he described fears of his life being in danger while crying on the stand.” I…I don’t even have a response for this one. This is just kinda gross on the part of the writer… “However, looking past the white boy tears, Rittenhouse had no respect for
the rule of law himself. Even if shooting two [sic] men was a case of self-defense, Rittenhouse drove many miles from Illinois to “protect private property” and create order, assuming the role of law enforcement.” “White boy tears.” This writer is gross. To reiterate: he was there to help his community as outlined by both the trial and by us previously, and was attacked by the THREE men he shot (not two). “Rittenhouse, Zimmerman and all three of Arbery’s killers were valorized by the right as heroes acting in the best interest of public safety, despite Arbery and Martin not having committed a crime before their deaths.” While there is a case that there is a bit of idolization going on with Rittenhouse and Zimmerman (which is obviously not okay, and should stop immediately), we have no idea what “valorization” is being given to Arbery’s killers (who were all found guilty, FYI) by the right. Another empty assertion. “Yet, Rittenhouse’s victims were held at different standards of the law than he was, and Biden’s tone-deaf statement proves it.” BECAUSE THE PEOPLE HE SHOT ACTUALLY ATTACKED HIM AND THE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE PROVES IT WAS SELF-DEFENSE! “Unless politicians fix the way the rule of law applies to different populations — in court, policing, prisons, etc. — they need to express the same disdain for white vigilantism as they do for violent protests.” In other words, because Rittenhouse was found innocent due to the evidence, there must be endemic white vigilantism. The only saving grace of this article was that it was at least honest about being an op-ed.
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
5
ADVICE COLUMN
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
Advice Column By Madeline Perez
I
offered to give you all life advice, these were your questions.
“Should I wait until the semester is over to ask out my TA? Asking for a friend.”
“I have been breaking out in hives for almost a month. I don’t want to go to the doctor because it’s not that bad. What do I do?”
No, ask them out now. Embrace the alpha mindset and not only will you get an A, but you’ll get the D as well.
It seems simple enough to me. Just stop keeping bees and surely there will be no more hives. You’re welcome. “Hello, recently my ex-boyfriend’s best friend has been hitting on me over snapchat. I have ghosted him, roasted him, and told him off multiple times and he has still not gotten the hint. The other day he sent me a selfie in the tub, very casually. What should I do?” If he sends a photo in a bathtub, simply send him a picture of a toaster. Hopefully, he’ll get the hint! “Today in my class, my professor told me that E-books were unacceptable to use and that I must purchase physical copies. I have already spent so much on textbooks, including digital versions of these same texts. Should I try to make do, or just suck it up and buy them again?” Your teacher sounds like a real penis–and that means you should NOT suck it up. If he really needs some physical textbook action I would print out some pages of your digital textbook pages and use them for ransom note explaining how you’re holding their family hostage. But let’s be real here, are you even going to read the textbooks in the first place? “Yo. For several years I was in an abusive relationship with what was my best friend. It took away a lot of who I thought I was, and I don’t know who I am anymore. Due to this reason, I suffer from a number of mental problems. I am currently receiving treatment but it’s hard sometimes. So I come to you with the sole question: what should I have for dinner?”
“I have been so swamped with schoolwork that I have not had any opportunity to relax or pursue any of my hobbies. It’s only day 2 of the semester. I wish this was a joke. What do you recommend?” Oh you silly student, do you not see: schoolwork IS your hobby! “I have BPD and I lost a Mario Kart match with my roommate. How do I not explode on them?” By explode, do you mean violently or sexually? The DSM-5 isn’t clarifying. “Hello there, I recently discovered fungus growing in my dorm refrigerator. One of my roommates left tomato sauce in here all over winter break. How do I handle this?” Since your roommate was the culprit who left the sauce out, I think you should surprise them with a special spaghetti snack! If you’d rather not go the poison route, embrace it: nature is healing and has reclaimed your fridge. “My friend really wants to make me watch Euphoria but I really have no interest. What should I say to her? I really can’t stand Zendaya.” Just explain to her how Euphoria portrays kids in highschool as naked adults. There are so many titties, peepees, and unsatifying sex that I normally get confused whether I’m watching an HBO show or your mom.
I think pizza is always a great choice! Cheesy, saucy, and full of happy feelings.
“I was playing Among Us, and I met someone really cool. They got booted from the game and I really miss them. How do you suggest finding them again?”
“The other day I farted in class. I don’t wanna go into too much detail, but it was loud, and certainly disruptive. The professor stopped talking, and everybody looked at me. I feel so terrible. How can I fix my academic career after this devastating blow?”
You can meet many really cool people in real life! You can also come to Binghamton Review and meet new people there, and unlike the hit game Among Us, we do not boot people, no matter how “sus”. Most of the time, that is.
There is no way to quickly recover from an incident as severe as this. At best, you will have to drop out, take a gap year or two, and then, just maybe, you could return to college at a different university. Also, I’ll show you a devastating blow.
Need life advice? Email manager@binghamtonreview.com for more wacky, quirky, and zany responses!
6
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
Vol. XXXIV, Issue VII
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
LIFE ABOVE THE ROCK
Life Above The Rock By Dillon O’Toole
A
t the time of me writing this, January is almost over and thus we are almost one-twelfth of the way through the year already. I hope by now everyone is getting used to writing 22 instead of 21 as the date, as well as adjusting to a new schedule of classes. Speaking of the new semester, with all that goes on with the start of a new semester you may find yourself living under the proverbial rock. That’s okay, I’m here to catch you up on some of the latest big stories. Starting with the most recent news that will be covered in this article, Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer announced that he will be retiring at the end of this term. The timing of Breyer’s retirement comes at an opportune time for Democrats, as they can nominate a replacement prior to the midterms later this year while simultaneously fulfilling President Biden’s campaign promise to nominate a Black woman to the supreme court. According to AP News the current front runners for the position are, U.S. Circuit Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, U.S. District Judge J. Michelle Childs and California Supreme Court Justice Leondra Kruger. Over the course of the year, it will be interesting to see how the nomination process goes, who the eventual nominee will end up being, and how, if at all, this may affect the midterm elections this year. World tensions have seen a spike in recent months, mainly due to Russia’s buildup of military forces on the border of Ukraine. This buildup is estimated to be around 100,000 soldiers, and the Russian demands include
editor@binghamtonreview.com
stopping the expansion of NATO into other former Soviet countries. As of the time of writing, the United States has refused to give in to these demands and is attempting to continue negotiations to ease tensions. Despite the diplomatic efforts, 8,500 U.S. troops have been put on alert for a potential deployment to Europe. Additionally, AP News has reported that a Russian invasion in February could be possible. Moving on from the potential spark of a Third World War, let’s talk about the potential monopolization of the video game industry. I am of course referencing Microsoft’s recent announcement of its intent to purchase Activision-Blizzard. The purchase is valued at 68.7 billion dollars and it would see the creators of the Call of Duty and Warcraft franchises come under the ownership of Microsoft and the Xbox brand. As was the case with Microsoft’s purchase of Zenimax Media, concerns were immediately raised that Microsoft may be creating a monopoly within the video game industry. According to the New York Times, the purchase would make Microsoft the third biggest gaming company, only behind Tencent and Sony, in terms of revenue. This is, of course, reliant on the purchase actually going through. The purchase must be approved by the FTC, which isn’t a surefire thing. The music industry recently saw a shakeup as well, with Neil Young requesting his music to be removed from Spotify as long as Joe Rogan’s podcast remains on the platform. Neil Young requested his music to be removed due to misinformation about Covid-19 vaccines being spread on the podcast. Spotify has since agreed to remove Young’s music. Spotify themselves have an exclusivity contract with Rogan’s podcast worth more than $100 million. In the world of the NFL, the competition to see who will compete in the Super Bowl is heating up. Most notably, the Kansas City Chiefs beat
the Buffalo Bills in overtime, 42-36. The game saw 25 points scored in the last two minutes of the fourth quarter. In overtime, the chiefs scored on their first possession, preventing the Bills from having a chance to respond. Outside of the Chiefs-Bills game, both the Green Bay Packers and the Tampa Bay Buccaneers lost their games, preventing Aaron Rodgers and Tom Brady a shot at the Super bowl. With their loss, both Brady and Rodgers may have played their last games as discussions of their potential retirements occur. The final topic of today is the world of motorsports and the upcoming starts of the various racing series seasons. The first major event of the new year is IMSA’s 24 hours of Daytona, which will have taken place already by the time this article is published as it is being contested on January 29th and 30th. The next major racing series to kick off their season will be NASCAR, with their exhibition race in the L.A. Coliseum taking place on February 6th and the Daytona 500 taking place on February 20th. After NASCAR, Indycar will kick off their season on February 27th, and Formula One will kick off the season on March 20th. Well, that is it for this brief overview of recent news. Hopefully this has helped you emerge from below the rock and into the happenings of the world. Enjoy the start of the new semester and good luck everyone in your new classes.
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
7
BUSTING THE FILIBUSTER: A SHORTSIGHTED DECISION
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
Busting The Filibuster: A Shortsighted Decision By Julius Apostata
T
alk to anyone, and you are bound to find many that hold very abstract ideas about ideal governance: if only we could pass our specific legislation, all of society’s problems would be immediately solved, and that the failure to pass such laws in Congress is only the result of those that do not want what’s best for America (with these Congressmen and Senators being paid off at best, or morally bankrupt and unethical at worst). Given this viewpoint, it would be best to characterize such Manichean statements as vastly oversimplified. Our legislative system was built upon a system of compromise, in which checks and balances prevented abuses of power. It should thus come as somewhat of a surprise as to why the filibuster has been all the talk in the news recently; a recent attempt by Senate Democrats was made to eliminate the current means of filibustering, which ultimately failed. Of course, this prompted the use of reckless rhetoric by President Biden (reckless rhetoric, mind you, that I would expect from former President Trump) that only sows the seeds of division in our country. With all this being said, I wish to argue that the current version of the filibuster is a necessary tool in our Senate. First, it is important to clear up a minor misconception when it comes to the Senate filibuster: it was not written into the Constitution. Rather, the filibuster as we know it has origins several decades after our country’s founding, being first used in 1837. In the Senate, the basic premise of the filibuster works like this: a senator that wishes to either delay or prevent the passing of legislation could invoke the filibuster, in which they could speak for as long as they want on any topic they choose. Later political developments meant that a filibuster doesn’t even need a standing speech, but rather a 60% majority preventing cloture in the Senate, effectively meaning that major legislation requires either a 60% majority or compromise of the
8
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
actual legislation. In the past, this has led to some rather lengthy filibusters, for noble and, at times, not-so-noble reasons. For instance, the filibuster was infamously exploited to delay civil-rights legislation in the past by those such as Strom Thurmond. It was also used more recently, with Senate Democrats using the filibuster 327 times to halt Republican proposals because, in the words of Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-NY), the Senate Republicans were not willing to negotiate changes to legislation in a bipartisan manner. It should also be noted that a filibuster doesn’t automatically kill a piece of legislation, but more often than not filibusters tend to fail. The point I am trying to make with this explanation is that the filibuster is simply a tool within each Senator’s toolkit.
“However, it is important to realize that the filibuster is a necessary legislative tool designed as a safeguard that, while abused in the past, still represents an important mechanism for compromise that attempts to represent the interests of all in a democracy.” With this very brief explanation in mind, many have recently begun to attack the filibuster, arguing that its existence is an impediment to governance. However, it is important to realize that the filibuster is a necessary legislative tool designed as a safeguard that, while abused in the past, still represents an important mechanism for compromise that attempts to represent the interests of all in a democracy. The complete elimination of this safeguard could have unforeseen consequences. Let’s consider, for instance, President Biden’s speech on January 11th, in which a speech about voting rights devolved into an “us-versusthem” polemic, where “Jim Crow 2.0” was promoting voter suppression and
election subversion, and how at such a moment you could either be “Dr. King or George Wallace.” Ignoring the blatantly tribalistic and demagogic nature of this speech, Biden also alludes to the filibuster as being the thing that stands in the way of progress. However, say we enter a future in which the filibuster was scratched for political purposes (as doing so would allow the majority party to have full political power). In this scenario, large states would be able to completely dominate legislative agendas in the House of Representatives, with no input from the minority party. While at first this might not seem like that big of a deal, especially if you belong to that majority party, consider what would happen if, in the next election cycle, the opposition party won the majority, with plans to enact sweeping legislation at the expense of the agenda of the former ruling party and their constituents. There was a reason why Senate Democrats enacted the filibuster 327 times during Trump’s presidency: having it is necessary to reach across party lines and reach some form of compromise that satisfies both parties. It’s understandable that Biden and Senate Democrats are frustrated with the fact that their full agenda has not come to fruition because of the filibuster. Yet eliminating the tool that is meant to reach across party lines would be effectively removing whatever safeguards are left in an increasingly polarized political environment. Even the rhetoric being used by those such as Biden should give one pause in the broader implications that such a removal might have. We should, therefore, keep the filibuster so that we could be able to have a means of reaching across political divisions, of attempting to reach a compromise, and to bring down the temperature in an increasingly partisan environment. Besides, you never know for sure who might be the next party to take power and what their proposed laws will be.
Vol. XXXIV, Issue VII
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
On Materialism
ON MATERIALISM
By Joe Badalamenti
I
t’s become very cliche to talk about “society”. Most people will agree that something is wrong with it, but what is lacking from these discussions is a proper diagnosis of its ailments. Many who speak on these issues are either grifters, or lack information and perspective crucial to understanding reality. Like many large-scale problems, the ailments of “society” boil down to a number of different issues. Though these issues are many, one theme central to almost all of them is the obsession with materialism Now I know that writing about a broad subject like “materialism” is also cliché, but I promise that I will go beyond the standard motivational-speaker talking points. The philosophy of materialism prevails as society encourages its pursuits. Personal lives of celebrities are put on public display in admiration, betting and stock-trading have become common hobbies, I’ve even seen friends ridiculed because they didn’t have the right phone. But why not embrace wealth? It’s clear that material conditions are not only tangible but also have the ability to make positive impacts on many. I doubt many would choose to live without the refrigerator, air conditioning, or any other innovation of this type. Obviously, if you focus on material conditions, you will witness large improvements in living conditions.
“One can attempt to continuously increase their wealth, however, there is no limit, no threshold, no finish line, that when crossed will result in the highest utility.” So then what is the issue with materialism? The problem is in treating it as an end. While improving one’s conditions can, and likely will, make one happier—if only marginally so, as
editor@binghamtonreview.com
there is no way to “win” in this game. One can attempt to continuously increase their wealth, however, there is no limit, no threshold, no finish line, that when crossed will result in the highest utility. In economics, there is a concept known as the law of diminishing marginal utility, which states that the rate of one’s utility will decrease as one’s consumption of goods increases. In layman’s terms, this means that it will take more and more to replicate previous bursts of pleasure. If you’ve been on certain corners of the internet, you’ll recognize the comical internet meme known as the “coomer” or the “consoomer.” As stereotypical as this meme is, the “consoomer” works as a generalization of this concept. For he must “consoom” more and more in order to maintain his licentious lifestyle. By itself, is this not fine? One could theoretically just work harder and harder in order to increase their utility right?
“While there are useful formulas that generally establish correlations with increased utility, this doesn’t change the fact that certain levels of utility may be out of one’s reach barring an unlikely turn of fortune (i.e. winning the lottery)” This brings us to the second issue: most of one’s material conditions are a result of fortune or circumstances that are out of their control. This includes genetic factors, environmental factors, access to accurate information, and more. While there are useful formulas that generally establish correlations with increased utility, this doesn’t change the fact that certain levels of utility may be out of one’s reach barring an unlikely turn of fortune (i.e. winning the lottery). Now when you
combine the diminishing utility with the reality of circumstance, what results is a destructive vision. As one chases after a goal they can never attain he will become disillusioned and nihilistic. Unless he were to step out of the materialism-as-an-end frame of mind, he will be trapped in an endless cycle of agony. It’s similar to chasing perfection: with one becoming increasingly disappointed in their attempt to realize an impossible goal. That being said, there must be some way out of this cycle. Luckily for you, there are several possible solutions. The first option involves an intervention to either put everyone at the same starting point or outcome. Unfortunately, not only is this equality solution impossible, it also maintains the frame of materialism which we are trying to escape. A more useful solution would be to find a minimal condition where all of one’s needs are met. This idea of minimalism not only escapes the trap of “consoomerism” but it also allows one to find happiness through non-material endeavors such as relationships with family and friends. The last solution is to adopt some form of spirituality. Like minimalism, spiritual outlooks also avoid the pitfall of materialism. Christianity in particular provides one with a path to salvation if one is faithful. I could go more in depth, however, that is a topic for another article. Overall, if you choose a framework that rejects the materialism-as-an-end framework, then you might escape the cycle of agony. In the end, the mindset of endless materialism is very tempting. Because it is a strictly physical phenomenon, many are inclined to choose a path that maximizes their physical utility. However, this path often leads to disappointment, depression, and regret. In spite of this, there remains these paths less traveled, which leads out of agony.
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
9
SILENCE
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
Silence By Madeline Perez
I
feel that every moment I need to be productive. Being productive enables me to excuse my own existence– I had a good day if I furthered my education – maybe improved a skill, or made some money. I force myself to read books or play video games that I don’t necessarily feel interested in just so I can get a sense of completing something or having a “worthwhile experience.” I want to culture myself. I want to seem talented. I need to be good at everything I’m interested in because otherwise, I’m wasting my life. I need to be constantly entertaining or insightful to the people around me because otherwise, why would they stay? Aren’t they, too, entitled to constant entertainment? I feel entitled to constant stimulation. When I try to fall asleep, I listen to music or videos so I don’t accidentally waste an hour or two of my life sitting in silence. Quiet makes me anxious, and on bad days I wouldn’t dare expose myself to something as dangerous as silence. I get antsy when I’m bored and I get bored quickly, which is annoying because if I’m going to have a break from doing work it should be the most enjoyable, entertaining break possible. Right when I wake up, I feel the need to engage myself with something. Brushing my teeth and eating breakfast without some sort of noise is boring, and there is something so rewarding about watching something while eating. It’s killing two birds with one stone to free up more time for productivity. If I get relaxing out of the way in the margins of my day, then surely, I can be more focused on things I need to do later.
“Compared to the strides of music, media, and entertainment, my dream Little-house-on-the-prairie-inspired life never had a fighting chance.” 10
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
I want to live simpler. I want to feel like I’m allowed to exist without having to prove I’m worth the space. I want to go back to before all of human information, media, entertainment, and social interactions were in a little rectangular box everyone keeps on them at all times. Back when all the food you could buy was real and not pumped full of shit that will kill you. Back when kids in my neighborhood would run around outside, when now they’re too shy to knock on a door and would rather play video games like Fortnite. Yes, I am aware I sound like a boomer reciting “it’s because of that damn phone!” But honestly—I fully believe it is. Most of this, anyway. I believe that the needs fulfilled by real-life human interaction and community contribution are being replaced with the dopaminergic rush of looking at memes on social media and binge-watching anime alone in your dorm room. And how could it not be? Compared to the strides of music, media, and entertainment, my dream Little-house-on-the-prairie-inspired life never had a fighting chance. I once said that the most pretentious thing a human being could possibly do is reference David Foster Wallace while criticizing some societal issue. I still hold that belief. Anyway, in a 2003 interview with the German television station, ZDF, David Foster Wallace briefly shared some of his beliefs on silence and our growing culture of instant gratification. “When you walk into most public spaces in America it isn’t quiet anymore, they pipe music through… but it seems significant that we don’t want things to be
quiet ever, anymore.” Listening to this interview, I felt very attacked, especially since I was using it for background noise while folding laundry. “Uh oh… he’s talking about me,” I so-bravely thought. It seems true, though. It’s normal to drown yourself in music nowadays. People go about their day listening to podcasts and music and god knows what else technology has to offer. “But before that, it was news paper and book!!” you taunt, outsmarting me. I don’t think so. People can still talk to you when you’re reading, but headphone-wearing has just about become the universal sign for Do Not Disturb.
“If left to their own devices, the rats would keep frantically pushing that lever like an intense game of Galaga until they died of starvation, surrounded by food.” I feel like this topic of constant noise has been exacerbated to include the modern-day never-ending slew of memes and videos thrown at you on apps like Instagram and TikTok, as you scroll on and on… forever. It’s incredibly addicting. I keep going through periods of deleting Instagram because, again, my thing about wasting time, and I find myself unconsciously looking in the place the app used to be, and mindlessly clicking on other random apps hoping for the same breed of satisfaction. “Hmmm… is there anything fun on my period tracker app today?” And that scares me. Why do I do that? A lot of people talk about how their attention span is ruined because of social media, but it’s ruined far more than that. The enjoyment we derive from quality time with friends and engaging in hobbies is being eclipsed by media specifically designed to capture our attention and hold it for hours. Our health and happiness are at stake,
Vol. XXXIV, Issue VII
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
yet memes managed to ruin us. Over the last century, ad companies, corporations, and every other institution controlling us like puppets have gotten better at using our own evolutionary strategies against us. We are designed to seek out sweet, fatty, and salty foods so that our bodies have the caloric power to keep on living and the salt to electrochemically function. BAM. Big Mac and Milkshake. Foods so sweet, fatty, and salty, that you would never in 1000 years be able to reproduce the flavor without chemicals made in a lab. Something that plays into our evolutionary need so well that it can’t possibly be real, but somehow you want it more than the real stuff. A supernormal stimulus is just that: something that is so exaggeratedly appealing to our evolutionary sense that it’s almost irresistible. Think of Jessica Rabbit from Who Framed Roger Rabbit. If a woman had those proportions, she would simply die from lack of internal organs–that is, if she survived the cracking of her spine due to the sheer weight of her breasts. Still, that doesn’t stop her from being wanted by most everyone who sets
“But quick boosts of dopamine taste so good to my brain-mouth!” eyes on her, man, woman, or otherwise. Our evolutionary “neuron activation” that gets triggered when we’re presented with things that remind us of food, sex, and Webkinz is only being used to push us into the arms of corporate America, and we, dear readers, are the product. In 1954, a study aiming to find a biological reward center was per-
editor@binghamtonreview.com
SILENCE formed by James Olds and Peter Milner, published under the name “Pleasure Centers in the Brain.” So basically, they took some electrodes and implanted them in the septal area of some rat brains. I know, riveting, but you have to stay with me. The rats had a lever that, when pushed, would electrically stimulate the nucleus accumbens. This area of the brain plays a critical role in reinforcement, and dopamine release in the nucleus accumbens is the reason why natural reinforcers like sex, food, or being complimented by the math teacher on your last test grade make you feel good. This process is also why certain drugs like heroin, nicotine, or cocaine make you feel good. What was crucial about this study was that the rats began pushing that electrode level incessantly. They pressed it as many as 7,000 times per hour. Subsequent experiments showed that they would ignore food when starved, water when deprived, even sexy lady rats in their area who want to cheat on their rat husbands– all for that sweet, sweet lever press. Rats would stand on electrified floors, continuously stay awake–female rats would ignore their newborns… it wasn’t pretty. If left to their own devices, the rats would keep frantically pushing that lever like an intense game of Galaga until they died of starvation, surrounded by food. Now, “What does that have to do with me? I’m no rat,” you’re thinking, deeply puzzled. Well, when unethically tested on a human in 1972, we saw the same outcome. Surprisingly, this is supposed to relate back to my topic on how obsessive self-gratification and overstimulation are keeping us from leading truly happy, satisfying lives. You see, you are like this rat. Your brain is getting addicted to a constant stream of stuff. Products, especially things on the internet like social media, video games, and porn, that are really really good at being enjoyable are preventing you from spending time doing things that are good for you, mentally. “But quick boosts of dopamine taste so good to my brain-mouth!” you’re shouting at me, basically yelling at this point. I understand. They taste good to me too, but I’m trying to come to terms with the fact that they’re giving
me type two brain diabetes and if I continue I’m probably going to lose a brain foot. Those with chronic dopaminergic deficits, like ADHD or depressive disorders, are more likely to fall prey to these behaviors. More specifically, behaviors that provide a shortterm dopamine increase (including an increased risk for addiction and substance abuse.) While the internet can be a helpful, intense distraction for when the mind is “running wild,” a meta-analysis I wrote on peer-reviewed studies evaluating a link between social media and anxiety/depression found that these sites only worsened side effects in the long term. And the very worst part about spending so much time online? It’s just made up. Like seriously, none of it’s real I swear. So, I said a lot of things here. That much is true. But what to do about these things? What can be done, especially in a society where things like unhealthy foods and excessive screen time are forced upon you? Well, you can try to incorporate more SMART goals in your life–a fun acronym which stands for Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and TimeBound. Goals, that is. But for real, self-discipline is the most important skill you can learn because I truly believe it will set you free. Free to do more things that aren’t based around instant gratification, but will make you more self-satisfied in the long run. You don’t have to fill your life with meaningless noise constantly and no, I am NOT projecting! Learn to accept the silence. Maybe you’ll eventually come to appreciate it. Or don’t listen to me– after all, I am just a bunch of words on a piece of paper.
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
11
JESUS’ SIZE IS JE-SUS
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
Jesus’ Size is Je-SUS By Matt Gagliano
W
elcome back, everyone! I don’t know about the rest of you, but I for one am so relieved to finally be back in Binghamton. Winter break was nice, but after over a month, I was kind of getting sick of doing literally nothing all day, because realistically, what is there left to do after the holidays are over? You just sit at home, thinking about how great Christmas was for several weeks, waiting for the semester to start. Luckily for me, while I was sitting at home thinking about how great Christmas was for several weeks, my mind started to wander, and I was struck with a very intriguing thought. I was raised by a Catholic family, which means for most of my childhood, I went to church on Sunday mornings, and anyone who’s been to a Catholic mass before knows that towards the end they have everyone receive the Eucharist, basically a small circle that has the taste of cardboard, and the texture of cardboard, and disintegrates in your mouth much like cardboard would when it gets wet. Come to think of it, can anyone confirm that these things aren’t actually cardboard? Anyway, before all of the church goers get in line to choke down the Eucharist, the priest holds them up like baby Simba and recites a quote from Jesus himself: “Take this, all of you, and eat of it, this is my body, which will be given up for you.” Kinky. Regardless, it’s that line right there that got the incredibly fucked up gears in my brain turning like a werewolf during a full moon. If those little circles are in fact the body of Christ, and not cardboard, how large would Jesus have to have been to provide Catholics around the world with one every Sunday for 2022 years?
“Therefore, I’m just going to assume that as soon as Ol’ Jeezy Boy died, they immediately started cutting his body into tiny circles for consumption – to preserve freshness, you know? ” First things first, in case it’s unclear, the reason that I’m doing the math over 2022 years is because it is current year, the year of our Lord, 2022. The reason I say “the year of our Lord,” is because it has been 2022 years since people were like “yo, this Jesus guy kinda seems like the son of god to me,” or some shit like that. I wasn’t there, so I don’t know exactly what they said, but I’m sure it was along those lines. According to Wikipedia, the first written account of the Eucharist being consumed was in 55 A.D., however just because this was the first time it was recorded, does not mean that this was the first time that it happened. Therefore, I’m just going to assume that as soon as Ol’ Jeezy Boy died, they immediately started cutting his body into tiny circles for consumption – to preserve freshness, you know? Maybe that’s why they taste so much like cardboard, I would assume human flesh gets a little stale after 2000 years. Anyway, now that we know how long Catholics have been eating the dead body of their savior, we can figure out how many masses have taken place since then. There are 52 weeks in a year, and
12
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
therefore 52 Sundays in a year. Now, I’m well aware that most churches have mass on more days than just Sundays, but most people who go to church do so on Sunday, so I’m only going to take Sunday masses into account. After all, to figure this out, I’m going to have to do a hell of a lot of estimating, so hopefully it all evens out. If you have a problem with that, feel free to send me a strongly worded email at editor@binghamtonreview.com, I really do love receiving emails from all of my “fans.” Typically, churches have 2 or 3 masses on a given Sunday, so I’m just going to go with 3 to even out the masses that I ignored on other days. Also because all of those people who sent me an email without reading the rest of the article look like idiots now, and there’s nothing I enjoy more than making idiots look like idiots (mmm, I’m already getting the warm, fuzzy feelings in my… uh, nevermind). Anyway, 52 Sundays times 3 masses gives us 156 masses in a year, which over 2022 years results in 315,432 masses since the death of Jesus Christ. If you looked at that number and thought it seemed a little low, you’d be correct. That number only takes into account the number of masses for a single church. According to the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (CARA), as of 2018 there are 223,777 Catholic churches in the world. Multiplying this number by the number of masses in a year for a single church gives us 70,586,426,664 total masses. Big number, right? Wait until we factor in the average number of people that receive the Eucharist in a given mass. I think it’s safe to say at this point that Mr. Christ was one beefy boy (in more ways than one ;)), but we should probably do the math, just to be sure. Using the statistics from CARA, and doing way more math than anyone should for a topic as stupid as this, we can determine that on average, each mass has 81 people in attendance. I’d walk you through the exact process, but I don’t want to put you to sleep, that’s what Pipe Dream articles are for. So, if all 81 people want to taste the sweet, sweet flesh of Jesus (who wouldn’t ;)), then there have been approximately 5,717,500,559,784 Jesus Disks consumed since his death. After a quick Google search, I found that you can buy 1000 communion wafers on Amazon. Why Amazon can sell the flesh of a dead person online, but when I do it it’s “illegal” and “creepy that I would even try to do that,” I have no idea, but the product description says that they weigh 9.4 ounces all together. From this we can determine that each Christ Frisbee weighs .0094 ounces, or about 0.0005875 pounds. Finally, we almost have the answer. Multiplying that with the total number of Eucharists consumed since his death gives us the undeniable fact that Jesus would have to have weighed about 3,359,031,578 pounds to supply the Catholic world with his “delicious” god meat for 2022 years, making him the second heaviest person to ever live, right behind your mom.
Vol. XXXIV, Issue VII
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
THE POWER AND ABUSE OF THE FACT-CHECK
The Power And Abuse of The Fact-Check By Arthur O’Sullivan
I
n his pamphlet Common Sense, Thomas Paine once wrote, “do not credulously repeat those things stated, when in reference to falsehoods and conjectures gone unchecked, by those with an air of knowledgeable authority.” To rephrase that in Zoomer vernacular, “don’t believe everything you hear on the internet, even if the guy seems like he knows what he’s talking about.” Such a phrase would seem like common sense—a cliché, even. We nevertheless continue to find ourselves in this rut of credulity for everything we know little about, but hold strong opinions on anyway. This phenomenon is famously known as the Dunning-Kruger Effect, and remains especially pervasive within the online political sphere about many complex subjects, including COVID, foreign policy, economics, populism, fake quotes from famous figures, and postmodernism among others. When confronted with the immense corpus of literature on mere fractions of these subjects, laymen such as myself are frequently intimidated. It becomes easy, then, to outsource one’s thoughts on these subjects: most often by plagiarizing the opinions of “experts,” usually authoritative-sounding pundits, be they John Oliver, Kyle Kulinski, or Ben Shapiro. Having been given simplistic, thought-stopping soundbites from these pundits, the laity can gaily win arguments in their head, and rest assured in the euphoria of enlightenment by their own intelligence. As should be clear, I am among the worst of sinners in this area. I am unmatched in my ability to win an argument in my head. I am good enough that I can even “win” arguments with others, before switching my opinion to their side three months later. It is easy, therefore, to despair at the futility of it all, but there is one ace up the sleeve of legitimate discourse: the power of “debunking.” In right-wing circles, this word has naturally become controversial. Partisan “fact-checker” sites such as Snopes, PolitiFact, and mainstream media outlets have used and abused the word to smear political opponents and provide cover for their allies, such as when Politifact equivocated on the word “arrest” to ‘debunk’ Ted Cruz’s true claim that errant Texas lawmakers could legally be arrested, stating that there is “uncertainty about how this term is to be interpreted.” Similarly, Snopes equivocated on the word “terrorism” to attack the claim that Susan Rosenberg, a left-wing revolutionary associated with bombings of the U.S. Capitol among others and current vice chair of the board of directors for Thousand Currents (a fiscal sponsor of Black Lives Matter) was a terrorist. Even before the era of Trump, these “impartial” fact-checkers have had an empirically-proven left-wing bias: as early as 2011, Mark Hemingway pointed out the severe methodological flaws that caused such major bias against Republicans in PolitiFact’s reporting. Still, these outlets are upheld as authoritative and are used by news and social media in order to squash claims and arguments inimical to the left. Such abuses of the word “debunk” have precipitated the creation of the ‘deboonker’ meme: a variant of the ‘coomer’ meme (fig. 1), which depicts the stereotype of a man addicted to and deranged by porn and
editor@binghamtonreview.com
masturbation. The deboonker (fig. 2) is an intellectual “skeptic,” who crusades against misinformation by credulously citing dubious “fact-checkers” that support his view. From this, it is natural that “debunking” should become a dirty word to many on the right. Still, despite the excesses of those who claim to champion it, there remains value in the “fact-checking” enterprise to everyone, with the obvious exception of those who predicate their positions on lies. If any attempt to correct genuinely false or unsubstantiated right-wing claims should be met with a “deboonker” wojak, then the American right, which has so long claimed to represent the values of Christ, would come to represent those of Pilate. For example, a common narrative on the populist right is that the reason for our current semiconductor shortage is because the U.S., through its “libertarian” economic policy, outsourced production to countries which subsidized semiconductor manufacture, and now that the pandemic has hit the supply line, car prices have skyrocketed. Succinct, simple, and attractive to economic protectionists, there are few who would bother to question this narrative upon hearing it. Unfortunately, it hinges on premises borne on assumptions, not facts. As it happens, the U.S. did not outsource semiconductor manufacturing like with many other industries, but in fact subsidized it, establishing protectionist policies with Japan on the topic. The U.S. currently stands as the world’s leading semiconductor manufacturer, making up over half of the global market share. One could even argue that our lack of free-market policy in this area has caused the semiconductor shortage. One can examine the above paragraphs as potential examples for good and bad fact-checking. The former paragraph concerns factual statements alone; they rely on objective and verifiable measures, allowing them to be easily “fact-checked” and presented to “debunk” a false claim or assumption. The latter paragraph is not a fact, but an argument built on facts. This statement is therefore outside the scope of fact-checkers, and any attempt to cry “pants-on-fire” against it is deserving of the ‘deboonker’ meme. The difference may seem like splitting-hairs, but in order to prevent the “fact-checking” abuses we see currently, the scope must be limited to relevant facts alone, with the reader being trusted to come to his own conclusion based on the facts and arguments presented.
Figure 1: The “Coomer” Wojak/Figure 2: The “Deboonker” Wojak
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
13
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
THE LEFT HAS EDUCATION ALL WRONG
The Left Has Education All Wrong By Anonymous
A
t this point, it has become common knowledge that education systems are essentially a new form of indoctrination. Ranging from colleges to elementary schools, America’s children are being fed bullshit by schools from when they can walk. And I’m here to say, that’s wrong. Not morally, but rather there is a more effective way of achieving this same goal. While children are more susceptible to trusting much of what an authority figure (like a teacher) says, they will still have their own predispositions from the way their family and friends think, along with their own experiences. That means, in spite of what is being taught in schools, there are so many uncontrolled variables that are unaccounted for that diminish the indoctrination attempts through public education. Luckily, I have a solution.
“First, a lot of children must be made. A LOT. The committed couple will be spawning tens, no hundreds of children, and raising them by themselves.” It starts with an ambitious man. Someone who genuinely believes in the message they are trying to spread, by any means necessary. And with every successful man, there must be a woman ready to work just as hard. She must be just as committed to the plan, and even more so ready to use any means necessary for said goal. A lump sum of money is also needed, and a mansion will need to be built. If you’re familiar with the X-Men series and Xavier’s School for Gifted Youngsters, this explanation will make a lot more sense as it draws striking resemblances. First, a lot of children must be made. A LOT. The committed couple will be spawning tens, no hundreds of children, and raising them by themselves. This is to eliminate children
14
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
having predispositions. If they are all being raised by the same people, with little contact to the outside world, they will have nothing to believe besides what their only teachers (their parents) are feeding them! These children will all be raised together, which is why the mansion is necessary to fit everyone in, and they will be taught Chomsky at birth. As they grow older they will read the works of Hegel, Marx, and Engels, and they will have no other system to follow.
“Anyone that demonstrates stark opposition to any teachings will be apart of the post-birth abortion clinic, which will be a side plot of land in close proximity to the mansion.” The following is a list of instructions to ensure the safety and success of whomever eventually follows this. Anyone that demonstrates stark opposition to any teachings will be apart of the post-birth abortion clinic, which will be a side plot of land in close proximity to the mansion. Internet services will not be provided, but there will be a host of books available. For the sake of their well-being, sporting equipment should also be present. Contact to the outside world must be prohibited. That will jeopardize this entire program, and the hard work that went into planning and executing it.
Now you may ask, “Will I have to raise these children forever, even when they’re not children?” And that’s a tough question as it isn’t exactly black or white. This is likely the only room for hell to break loose within this proposal. The two parents must use their own subjective judgment to decide when to release their offspring. If they release them too early, their teachings may be nullified through scum capitalist propaganda in the real world. If the children are released too late, they are more likely to cause problems at home, and act restless and irresponsibly. That can impair the education of the rest of the children. So both costs can be brutal, and it is up to the parents to find the goldilocks equilibrium. This will take time, this will take effort. But this is by far the most peaceful way of staging a revolution. If this is what it takes to overthrow the capitalist regime, so be it. *Disclaimer: This is all satirical. No one in their right mind would teach a moderate like Chomsky to children beginning their education. Instead they will just be given Marx’s Capital to begin.
Vol. XXXIV, Issue VII
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
OUR RECORD’S IN JEOPARDY, BABY
Our Record’s in Jeopardy, Baby By Patrick McAuliffe
I
n a world of game shows filled nauseatingly to the brim with celebrity appearances and singing competitions, Jeopardy! is still going strong in its 38th season this year. The timeless “Wheel of Fortune for smart people,” as the show is commonly known to myself alone, is a staple of evening television that provides an opportunity for ordinary people from around America to strut their smarts for impressive cash prizes (which, admittedly, are massively undervalued from tHe CuRrEnT yEaR’s 7% inflation rate). From the end of season 37 to today, at time of writing, two contestants have entered the Top 4 all-time Jeopardy! leaderboards in earnings and consecutive wins, while others had comparatively smaller but still impressive runs. Their prowess on the buzzer is an honor to the game and a thrilling inspiration to anyone looking to make their mark on Jeopardy! history.
“His boyish charm, nerdy demeanor, and lanky frame grew on me as he won week after week.” The nation reeled at the loss of Alex Trebek a little over a year ago. After a series of guest judges, including my boy Aaron Rodgers, and a tweet scandal from executive producer Mike Richards, the series’ showrunners settled on actress and Ph.D holder Mayim Bialik to host the show. Ken Jennings, the record-holder for the longest Jeopardy! run in history at 74 consecutive wins, would also host for half of season 38. Bialik and Jennings seem to enjoy their time in Trebek’s shoes, and they riff with the contestants as if they had been doing it all their lives. The contestants themselves have been absolutely stellar this season as well. Season 37’s conclusion saw Matt Amodio on a hot winning streak, and that streak continued into Season 38. His boyish charm, nerdy demeanor, and lanky frame grew on me as he won
editor@binghamtonreview.com
week after week. His wins were also quite absolute; he averaged almost $40,000 per day by the end of his run in October 2021. Amodio now holds the third-longest win streak in Jeopardy history, with 38 regular-season wins, and the third-highest earnings in regular-season play, with $1,518,601. He was finally defeated by Jonathan Fisher, who had an impressive 11-day streak as well. This season was already one for the ages by the time 2022 rolled around. The new year brought a new Jeopardy! threat in the form of contestant Amy Schneider. Her run began in mid-November 2021, when her speed and knowledge became quickly apparent. She became known for her bold Daily Double plays, commonly making them true Daily Doubles or a flat $4,000-$5,000 bet, and netted almost $35,000 per game. She made Jeopardy! history on January 24th by reaching 39 consecutive wins, passing Matt Amodio’s record set just a few months earlier and cementing herself behind only Ken Jennings as the holder of the second-longest regular-season winning streak. Schneider was finally defeated on January 26th by Rhone Talsma, reaching 40 consecutive wins
the ability to buzz in quickly and with the correct answers, most contestants work from the easiest clues to the hardest as time goes on. This seems fairly intuitive. Schneider and Amodio loosely followed this trend, but would sometimes start in the middle of the clue board to sniff out the crux of their strategy: the Daily Doubles. The bold wagers that they employed here, bolstered by their impressive bank of knowledge, often set them far ahead of their competitors. Oftentimes, the disparity between their winnings and those of their competitors was so great by the beginning of Double Jeopardy! that the result of the game was obvious even before the Final Jeopardy! question. Jeopardy! has been testing the limits of ordinary people’s knowledge for decades. Watching such historic runs from Schneider and Amodio just a few months apart reminds me of the power of a seemingly simple trivia game show. I applaud the success of season 38’s contestants, and I look forward to watching the next Amy or Matt or Ken on a historic run that pushes those winning streaks even further. Our record’s in Jeopardy!, baby, and it’s never been a better time to be a trivia fan.
“The bold wagers that they employed here, bolstered by their impressive bank of knowledge, often set them far ahead of their competitors. and $1,382,800 in prize money. The key strategy that helped propel Schneider and Amodio to Jeopardy! greatness became apparent as they continued their streaks. Beyond
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
15
