Nov 15 2018 (Vol. XXXI, Is. V) - Binghamton Review

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

P.O. BOX 6000 BINGHAMTON, NY 13902-6000 EDITOR@BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM

Founded 1987 • Volume XXXI, Issue V

Editor-in-Chief

Patrick McAuliffe Jr. Managing Editor Matt Rosen Copy Desk Chief Yvonne Tyler

Business Manager Kayla Jimenez

Social Media Shitposter

ELECTION REFLECTIONS

Tommy Gagliano

PAGE 8

by Matt Rosen

Editor Emeritus

3 Editorial 4 Press Watch

by Patrick McAuliffe

Jordan Raitses

Associate Editors Adrienne Vertucci

Staff Writers

Jordan Jardine Sarah Waters Mason Carteri Jonathon Mecomber John Restuccia

by Our Staff

5 Expanding the American Way

by Mason Carteri 6 Anarchism vs. Authoritarian Leftism

by Jordan Jardine 7 Voting is Not a Civic Duty

by Jonathon Mecomber

Contributors

10 Steven Crowder and Dialecticism

by Patrick McAuliffe

Special Thanks To:

11 The Case for Home Economics in Modern Society

by Rebecca Goldstein

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

He Provides the Staples

12 The New York Mets and Politics

by John Restuccia 14 Alien Pond Scum and Abortion

by Patrick McAuliffe

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

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

Vol. XXXI, Issue V

EDITORIAL Dear Readers,

From the Editor

H

appy Indigenous Peoples Day II, Electric Boogaloo! It’s that time of year where you hit your knees, bow your head, and pray to your non-specific religious deity that you get to once again peruse a copy of Binghamton Review. This is our second-to-last issue of the semester, so naturally that means there are cute dogs on the horizon.

If we can just make it to finals…

We have lots of excellent content in this issue, with lots of provoked thoughts in your immediate future. Matt breaks down the recent midterm election results, analyzing how both Democrats and Republicans can be pleased and disappointed with the results. Jonathon critiques the American culture of voting and looks at how voters can make more of a real political impact by educating themselves thoroughly on the issues. John draws parallels from contemporary American politics to the recent struggles of the New York Mets, hopeful in both spheres for eventual improvement. I take a look at Steven Crowder’s claim of using the Socratic method in his “Change My Mind” videos, arguing that he doesn’t seek truth with his opponents and instead wants views on his videos of epic liberal takedowns. Jordan makes a clear differentiation between the authoritarianism of some modern liberals and the ideology of anarcho-socialists, the true “left.”

Mason writes a piece that is so patriotic, your freedom levels will max out and all of your America-hating friends will be absolutely owned. I jest; he instead praises America’s superior culture that led to our world dominance and argues that this culture should be spread, but not through our current ineffective methods. Rebecca advocates for the reinstatement of home economics classes in schools, claiming that cries of sexism against home ec don’t do students any good for preparing them in life skills. Finally, I get around to writing the follow-up to my article “Space Columbus and Pond Scum” from Vol. XXXI, Is. II, and analyze how moving to an alien planet can have parallels for the morality of abortion.

If you aren’t subscribed to our YouTube channel, be sure to check it out. Our episodes of Binghamton Review Live are posted there, as well as random fun videos we post every once in a while. My personal favorite is the Mean Tweets video we did recently, where we react to the same four or five people calling us virgins and racists online (how will we ever recover?!). It’s never too late to get involved with the Review; send inquiries to editor@binghamtonreview.com. We’ll be seeing you around!

Sincerely,

Patrick McAuliffe Jr. 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 Various Articles About Racial Identity Marina Stern, Danielle Rosenkilde, Nikita Narsingh Free Press, “The Homecoming Issue” Narsingh: “Have you ever anxiously looked down at your food because you didn’t know how to explain it to other people?

It’s not a common struggle, but I got acquainted with it early on in my life.

Being a West-indian girl in a primarily white neighborhood, eating ethnic food became weird for me once I was assigned my first food journal project in the first grade. I came into class all excited because my mom had made my favorite, duck curry and roti, but I soon realized that my dinner was incredibly different than everybody else’s.”

Agreed, it’s not a common struggle But not because it isn’t common for different cultures to prepare different foods from the “norm” in the US, instead because all you have to say is “Hey this is Indian food” and people get it.

Rosenkilde: “My mom and I unload the cart of groceries onto the conveyor belt… The cashier, in his habitual manner, takes a divider from his side of the conveyor belt and places it directly in front of my mother’s place in line, dividing her from me.

This divider - though it’s just a simple piece of plastic - was a physical reminder to the outside world that we are viewed as separate. The cashier saw a small brown women with a different accent and a light-skinned “white talking” girl. My identity was compartmentalized like a pile of groceries.”

Racism! Racism! Racism!... It’s not like this is a somewhat common occurrence where a cashier makes a mistake by assuming that a young adult and an older person are two separate shoppers or anything...

Stern: “I am half white and half Taiwanese… Sometimes I’m seen as both, but more often I’m seen as neither. I’m incomplete. I’m not really Asian, but i’m not really white either. I’m too dark

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.

to be white, and too wide-eyed to be Asian. More often I’m hispanic, indian, hawaiian, and so many other guesses.

I’m questioned so often… But my identity is not something to guess at and question like a game.”

Why is it that so many people are obsessed with racial identity anyways?

Your race is literally one of the least important things to anyone when considering who you are in your soul.

Seems kinda, dare we say, RACIST to fixate on such an unimportant and immutable quality...

“A Beginner’s Guide to Crystals” Helena Ojarovsky Free Press, “The Homecoming Issue” “I’m gonna list some crystals and their qualities. Get ready.”

Buckle your seatbelts everyone, colored rocks with superstitions attached to them are heading right for you. Before we go any further, crystal powers are bullshit. Let’s continue.

“Sodalite: Nicknamed “the harmony stone” after Harmony Korine...”

Is that supposed to mean something?

He’s a movie director and writer; is there some connection he has to crystals?

“Blue lace agate: The truth serum! Rub it on your friends when you want their real opinion on your outfit....”

I’m just imagining rubbing my friends with a rock when we compare outfits for a night out and trying not to die laughing. Try rubbing your friends with an issue of Binghamton Review when you want them to tell

you honestly if you’re spouting nonsense.

“Cornelian: Nicknamed the Creative Inner Child!...It can give you a boost of power when you are in a creativity block. Just what this article needs.”

Hey, you said it, not us. The news writes itself, right?

“Politically correct language is polite language” Hannah Gulko Pipe Dream, 11/7/18 “Or is [PC culture] just a formal way of asking society to please grow up, and, for the sake of the thousands of dollars we’re sure you spent on your education, to learn some respect?”

Maybe if we speak your language we can point out some problems with PC culture. Most of the time (including this time), PC culture is about white people getting offended for other groups of people. They bite the bullet before certain groups feel too demeaned (despite the constant demonization of conservatives by the same crowd). There is a big difference between polite conversation and PC culture, and worrying about “ignorance and arrogance” leaves you out of that genuine human connection.

Vol. XXXI, Issue V

BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM

EXPANDING THE AMERICAN WAY

Expanding the American Way

By Mason Carteri

T

he American Way - individual freedom, capitalism, democracy, constitutionally restrained government, and equality before the law - has built the strongest, most prosperous, and most advanced country in history. It provides the individual a unique and extremely broad array of freedoms and rights found almost nowhere else in history. It combines thousands of years of philosophy, from the Greeks to Montesquieu, into a government, limited by law and designed to serve the people. This system doesn’t just ensure a degree of personal freedom unparalleled throughout most of history, it also produces remarkable economic and social growth. In just a few hundred years, the United States grew from a small collection of backwater colonies to an economic powerhouse and the undisputed cultural center of the modern world.

Of course, it makes sense how such a free and just society could incubate such cultural and economic development. Artists thrive without an oppressive government censor breathing down their necks and watching their every move. Individuals free to start their own enterprises and assured of the stability of the system are more likely to produce new technologies and innovative business practices. Businesses unbridled by excessive state regulation and control produce more, creating wealth, jobs, and in-demand goods. Of course, our system has had its troubles over the years, but none so far have proved to be anything we can’t handle, nor anything that could place a shadow over its towering success.

It’s not a new idea that this exceptional tradition ought to be spread to the rest of the world; our leaders have been trying to do so since the 19th century, and perhaps even before. In some ways they have succeeded. Various countries have emulated or attempted to emulate the American tradition in the last century, including most of Europe and a variety of other nations worldwide. In some, the American tradition was brought by force of arms, while in others, merely its shining exemplary nature served as enough to induce a change towards the American Way. The vast majority of the world however, remains locked in either objective tyranny or corrupt and unstable attempts at a constitutional republic. Even among the most successful emulators, none appear to be operating completely within the purviews of the American Way. Canada has their oppressive speech laws, and the UK lacks a written constitution altogether. It would seem that a lot of work remains to be done to bring our tradition to the rest of the world; but before we can act to further our Way, we must first understand how to properly do so.

When the US shifted from the quiet isolationism of our nascent years to our current position as a global superpower, it didn’t take long for intervention through military force to become a dominant tool in attempts to spread the American Way. By the current century, it was almost formulaic - invade a despotic third world country, depose its tyrannical regime, and found a democratic republic in its place. It seemed simple enough and we had everything we needed, from a moral calling

editor@binghamtonreview.com

to the awe-inspiring power of our military. The only problem was, it didn’t work. Most recently, both Iraq and Afghanistan became failed states taken over by savage infighting, political corruption, more despotism, and radical bands of anti-western and anti-democracy terrorists just moments after the new democracies were meant to start up.

Our ideas may be among the most enlightened mankind can design, but all that means very little when forced upon a people by the point of a gun, especially when our way clashes so strongly with the established religious and political traditions of the individuals at gunpoint. Invasion and the threat of violence do very little to convince a people of the virtues of your message. Furthermore, existing traditions do not erode easily, and people don’t like change. The sudden cultural “shock therapy” administered by the US did not consider either of these factors in our latest bout of regime change, and thus was doomed to fail.

These failures, do not however, suggest that the United States should give up on spreading our wonderful American tradition throughout the world. Rather, they indicate that a change in strategy is necessary.

American influences abroad must be peaceful, and carefully tailored to avoid making the rest of mankind feel as though our ideas are being forced upon them, to the detriment of their own cultures and ways of doing things. There are many more functional approaches to spreading freedom and democratic republicanism, some of which require no government action at all. By increasing trade and peaceful relations between the US and other nations, we can provide further avenues for the diffusion of our principles into their societies, and speed up the process of their adoption by increasing foreign opinions of the US. Additionally, through our cultural output, especially film and literature, we can provide windows into the virtues of the American Way. However, these processes are all already underway, and have been for decades, hamstrung by our many foreign interventions that place the United States in a bad light in the very locations we are trying to bring into our fold. Really, the most important action we can take to further the spread of our way is simply to avoid unnecessary military actions and overbearing intrusions into the matters of sovereign states.

The American Way is effective, fair, and morally sound.

We need only give the rest of the world ample opportunity to discover that for themselves.

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

5

ANARCHISM VS. AUTHORITARIAN LEFTISM

BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM

Anarchism vs. Authoritarian Leftism

By Jordan Jardine

If you listen to the mainstream media or conservative pundits, you probably have heard them make generalizations about “the left.” For instance, one can often hear someone like Ben Shapiro refer to “the folks on the left… “ No nuance, no gray area. Also, mainstream conservative commentators like Tucker Carlson can also over-generalize about “the left.” Usually, when commentators such as the ones mentioned above make these generalized statements, they apply them to the Democratic Party or Antifa or politically correct morons on college campuses. Hollywood is another favorite target of conservative ire.

Several conservatives have complained about Hollywood being “left-wing,” but most of these people supported Hillary Clinton and not the true left-wing (at least in the context of the American political spectrum) Democratic candidate, Bernie Sanders.

Most of Hollywood pays lip service to progressive social causes, but they most likely got behind Hillary because they knew she wouldn’t raise their taxes very much, if at all. Anyway, the point here is that not everyone to the left of the Republicans thinks exactly the same, contrary to what people like Candace Owens would like to have people believe.

You can have several disagreements with people on “the left” and still consider yourself to be on “the left.” For instance, as an anarchist, I personally disagree with censoring or banning any political speech whatsoever. Had I been a student at a college like UC Berkeley, I would have defended the right of Milo Yiannopoulos to speak, as well as Ben Shapiro. I am on the left and I don’t agree that there are a billion different genders and that people should be forced by the state to use certain phrases or pronouns. I have many conservative friends, including many of my Binghamton Review colleagues. If people who are left-leaning have a problem with that, that is their issue and theirs alone. I will still consider myself a part of the left wing because those people cannot tell me otherwise.

“There absolutely is a staggeringly growing problem of authoritarian leftist behavior in America and some other countries, but leftism is not inherently authoritarian and does not require “groupthink.” ” Leftism is not a cult. You can be a libertarian leftist or an authoritarian leftist. The authoritarian left is the real problem on college campuses and elsewhere. There are plenty of anarchists on the left, and our voice is never heard. The squeaky wheel of the authoritarian left has gotten almost all of the grease from mainstream and conservative media sources alike.

However, this is not the whole of “the left.” On what I would call the American Left, there are social democrats such as Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (they are not democratic socialists, though they both keep using this term to describe their ideology). Further to the left are actual democratic socialists, Marxists, Leninists, Maoists and Communists. On the libertarian left, there are also several schools of thought.

6

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

There are libertarian socialists (or anarcho-communists), anarcho-syndicalists, anarcho-primitivists, collectivist anarchists, social anarchists, anarcho-feminists (yes, they exist) and more.

Conservatives do their audience a massive disservice when they generalize about people on the other side of the aisle. This kind of rhetoric only increases and exacerbates the pandemic of division in this country.

Though many anarchists agree with the authoritarian left on certain issues that concern them, we anarchists do not believe in using the state apparatus to enforce particular views or behaviors on the entire population. Conservatives must understand that anarchists or left-libertarians are not the enemy.

Though we may disagree on several issues, especially economics, both of us agree that the state should play as little a role in the lives of everyday people as possible. Please stop lumping us in with authoritarian, snowflake liberals who are only concerned with getting attention, not with actually changing the world for the better, which is what anarchists seek to do. As previously pointed out, though we are economically opposed, the libertarian left and the libertarian right agree that individuals should be free to pursue their own interests and enjoy a maximum level of freedom as long as they don’t use that right to infringe upon the rights of others or so harm to others. Furthermore, anarchists do not believe in the “forced sharing” caricature of “socialism” as adopted by countries such as the Soviet Union, Maoist China and North Korea. While it is technically true that anarchists do not believe in private property, we believe there is an important distinction to be made between private property and personal property. When anarchists talk about “private property,” we are usually referring to capital accumulation. We do not believe the state nor individuals have any right to steal a person’s car or bed or house, etc. These items fall under the category of personal property, which nearly all anarchists are in favor of. This brings up another crucial point: historically, anarchism was viewed as an ultra left-wing ideology. On the right, there are anarcho-capitalists, but leftist anarchists generally don’t consider anarcho-capitalists to actually be anarchists because, historically, capitalism has virtually always required a state and hierarchies to protect the private property/ capital of the capitalist class (bosses, CEOs, elites, etc.) from the workers. These are the complexities within left-wing thought that rarely get discussed in mainstream political discourse.

There absolutely is a staggeringly growing problem of authoritarian leftist behavior in America and some other countries, but leftism is not inherently authoritarian and does not require “groupthink.” I genuinely would love to appear on Ben Shapiro’s show or Tucker Carlson’s show or any other prominent conservative commentator’s show and talk to them about the ideas and concepts that I believe in. I want to show them that not all lefties think alike. There is plenty of diversity of thought on the left. The problem is that the “groupthink” authoritarians are currently much, much louder than the anarchists and that needs to change.

Vol. XXXI, Issue V

BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM

VOTING IS NOT A CIVIC DUTY

Voting is Not a Civic Duty

By Jonathon Mecomber

W

e’ve all heard it: “Voting is your civic duty.” This is not only false, but it is also a dangerous idea. In 2015, Barack Obama told the City Club of Cleveland that America should consider mandatory voting.

He said, “It would be transformative if everybody voted -- that would counteract money more than anything.”

Admittedly, this actually did seem like a good point to me at first. If everyone voted, then corrupt politicians and big business donors would have to listen to us, right? Wrong. Although I do believe that Obama was coming from a place of good intentions, there are big problems with this argument: mandatory voting changes nothing about how well-informed said voters are, and may actually encourage manipulation by certain interests if the people know they have no other choice than to vote.

The proponents of voter turnout will try to pedal their favorite slogans: “Get out and vote! Voting matters! Exercise your rights!” Spoiler alert: this is nothing more than a power grab mostly on behalf of the Democrats, but occasionally on behalf of the Republicans as well. The Democrats don’t actually care about your right to vote. They care about encouraging younger voters to turn up on election day as they are more likely to vote Democrat. It’s one of the reasons Brindisi swung this district; college kids registered in Broome

editor@binghamtonreview.com

County put him above Claudia Tenney 55-45%. But the Republicans are far from innocent. The so-called “voter ID laws” which are present in a handful of Republican controlled states are seen as an effort to keep the most likely Democratic voters (racial minorities and the urban poor) from getting access to the polls. Georgia’s GOP has also closed polling places and purged voter records ahead of the midterms, according to the Mother Jones journalist Ari Berman. Both parties are guilty and should be ashamed.

As of the writing of this article, the City Council of Washington D.C. is preparing to vote on a bill that would lower the voting age to 16 for city residents. Yes, that’s right: sixteen. And what was their defense? According to U.S. News, councilman Charles Allen said that the bill would “enfranchise the District’s young people and bring their voices into the political process.”

You know what I believed when I was 16? I genuinely believed that Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin were right and that Communism was the future.

In my high school history class, we would have ‘mock elections’ to see who our classes (composed mostly of 16 year olds) would elect. The results -- unsurprisingly -- were almost always strongly in favor of the Democratic candidate. Though there are exceptions, 16 year olds either don’t

know or don’t care about politics at all. Even if they did care about politics, children are likely to align with the views of their parents. This is supported by a Gallup poll from 2005 which found that 71% of the teens surveyed believed that their political and social views were “about the same” as their parents.

Another common defense for voting is the belief that it will preserve our democracy. False. One hundred percent, undeniably false. Many authoritarian regimes of both past and present mandated voting in order to appear legitimate. Granted, these are often not proper “free and fair elections,” but the point remains. Voting, in and of itself, is not an adequate barrier to totalitarianism. Rather, voting has been and continues to be used as a tool by repressive governments.

This brings me to my argument that ballots should include a “none of the above.” As it stands now, voting only shows us for certain how many of the electorate desired that particular candidate. It does not show us in any way how many didn’t desire that candidate. For example, if I was someone that lived upstate (i.e. above Westchester) and I hated Andrew Cuomo but didn’t think any of the other candidates were adequate replacements, this “none of the above” option serves both as an approval rating and a sign that I went to do my civic duty with even more of an opinion than someone that votes down the party line or falls for the manipulative attack ads played incessantly before an election.

If you haven’t researched the candidates enough to know which one aligns with your views, then the best thing that you can possibly do is to not vote. It’s also entirely fine to leave portions of your ballot blank. You are under no obligation to cast a vote for each position. Voting in and of itself is not a civic duty; educated, informed voting is. That responsibility lies not with a corporation or politician or “get out and vote” campaign, but with you.

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

7

ELECTION REFLECTIONS

Election Reflections

BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM

By Matt Rosen

T

uesday night was the much anticipated 2018 midterm elections.

Democrats and Republicans stayed up all night to watch the results pour in.

Turnout this election cycle was also very high considering how many people usually vote in midterm elections.

Republicans celebrate their gain of three seats in the Senate, and Democrats celebrate winning the House back, flipping around 34 seats. I believe the midterms were a mixed bag, where both the Republicans and the Democrats have something to celebrate and something to fear.

The case for the Republicans winning the midterms There is a case to be made that the Republicans won the midterm elections. Gaining those three seats in the Senate was huge, especially Mike Braun and Rick Scott in Indiana and Florida, respectively. Some have argued that the Trump agenda at this point should value holding the Senate more than worry about losing the House. The reason for this is that Trump can still get his judges and cabinet members confirmed, as well as still working on deregulating the economy.

The Republicans have also proved that President Trump does have coat tails as he certainly pulled many candidates over the finish line by visiting their state and holding rallies. Some of these candidates include Braun, Scott, Hawley, DeSantis, and others.

Some of these candidates are also helping Trump get a solid foothold in

“If you are a Democrat, gaining back the House is huge.

For Democrats, it honestly doesn’t matter if they flipped 60 seats, 34 seats, or the minimum amount they needed to get, 23 seats… All that matters is Nancy Pelosi has the power to stop President Trump’s tax cut/border security/repeal Obamacare agenda.”

8

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

some battleground states like Florida.

The fact that turnout was high, even for Republicans, despite the fact that Trump wasn’t actually on the ballot is also a good sign. We already know that President Trump has a unique ability to fire up his supporters. With high Republican turnout without even having Trump on the ballot, we should see an even higher jump in general election turnout once President Trump gets on the campaign trail for himself.

Another really convincing argument for why Tuesday night is that President Trump actually performs better when he has someone to be against. With Nancy Pelosi presumably being the next Speaker of the House, we should expect to see baseless investigations, unjustified attacks, and possibly even impeachment papers come up in the House. These will all act as punching bags for the President, which will show how unreasonable the Democrats are and fire up Trump’s base in 2020. And finally, of course, the Republicans did in fact fight off a “Blue Wave,” as it was more like a “Blue Splash.”

The case for the Republicans losing the midterms While there are good signs out there for Republicans, there are certainly some very troubling outcomes that do not bode well for 2020. One big fear that the Republicans should have is that many key states for Trump to hold onto skewed towards the Democrats during this midterm election. For example, Wisconsin and Michigan not only skewed towards Democrats, but the Republicans lost their governors in these states. One of these governors was popular Governor Scott Walker.

Pennsylvania also seemed to skew towards the Democrats in this election.

These three were the surprise wins for President Trump in 2016 that pushed him to victory. Without these three in 2020, Trump probably won’t be reelected. This should scare Republicans, and they should begin their work to hold

onto those states. Of course we do have to keep in mind that Trump wasn’t actually on the ballot, and these three could remain red simply for Trump. A similar effect happened with Obama where he lost key governorships in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania his first midterm election, yet still won all three states in 2012.

The other big concern that Republicans should have is how poorly they performed in suburban areas. In nearly every toss up district in a suburban area, the Democrat won. President Trump’s Republican party has done a great job at maintaining rural voters and suburban voters in areas that were already red, but the toss up suburban districts turned heavily towards Democrats in 2018. Again, President Trump was not on the ballot, so this could very well be much different in 2020... but even still, the Republican Party needs to worry about this trend for the long term benefit of the party.

The Republicans cannot lose the suburban vote.

The case for the Democrats winning the midterms Of course there is a case that the Democrats won the midterms. It is simply that they won the House back!

Now they get to check the President, stop his agenda, and they gain powers such as investigative and impeachment powers. If you are a Democrat, gaining back the House is huge. For Democrats, it honestly doesn’t matter if they flipped 60 seats, 34 seats, or the minimum amount they needed to get, 23 seats… All that matters is Nancy Pelosi has the power to stop President Trump’s tax cut/border security/repeal Obamacare agenda.

Vol. XXXI, Issue V

BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM

ARTICLE TITLE

“The Democrats celebrated the victory of progressivism and far left democratic-socialism as a result of the election.

What they fail to realize is that it was mainly moderate Democrats in suburban areas that pulled them over the finish line in the House.”

Democrat seats up for reelection, 10 of those in Trump states. This is opposed to only 9 Republican seats that were up for reelection. It was certainly possible for Republicans to grab more seats than they did, considering a map this incredibly favorable for Republicans, but Democrats could easily argue that holding the Republicans to only four flips is a win for them.

We can’t ignore the small win that Democrats had when the flipped Nevada’s Senate seat, which Republicans should have been able to hold onto.

Democrat Jacky Rosen did beat Dean Heller, which kept Republicans from having their 55th seat. Also, similar to the argument that Republicans won the midterms since turnout was high even without Trump on the ballot, the opposite could be said about the Democrats. Democrat turnout was also extremely high. Just like Trump has a unique ability to fire up his supporters, he also has the unique ability to trigger everyone who disagrees with him.

With that logic, Democrats should also turn out in high numbers in 2020 once Trump is actually on the ballot.

I guess we will have to wait and see which effect is bigger.

Another possible argument for why the Democrats won the midterm elections is that President Trump may actually take their side with some things. Obviously not on the big issues, but with some smaller stuff. As a businessman and deal maker, President Trump seemed willing to work across the aisle in a unique way during his first year in office. If smart, the Democrats could use that to their advantage. While I personally don’t think reaching across the aisle in general is a bad thing, I do worry about which of Nancy Pelosi’s policies Trump could be sympathetic towards. Just a warning to President Trump, I am willing to call you out if you sign any bills that I think are bad policy.

And finally, just as the Republicans holding off a “Blue Wave” in the House is a win for them, the Democrats holding off a “Red Wave” in the Senate is a win for them as well. The Senate map was incredibly favorable for Republicans this year, with 26

The case for the Democrats losing the midterms Of course the flipping of 4 Democratic Senate seats is a huge loss for Democrats. This is especially true in Indiana and Florida where they were expected to win. Two of the Democratic Party’s rising superstars also suffered tragic losses: Robert (Beto) Francis O’Rourke and Andrew Gillum.

Another case for the Democrats losing the midterms is their response afterwards. The Democrats celebrated the victory of progressivism and far left democratic-socialism as a result of the election. What they fail to realize is that it was mainly moderate Democrats in suburban areas that pulled them over the finish line in the House.

Just as Republicans CANNOT give up the moderate suburban vote in the name of Freedom Caucus/Trumpian style Republicanism, it would be a huge mistake for the Democrats to give up the moderate suburban vote in the name of far-left/progressive/ socialist style Democrats. People will reject radical progressivism, and the fact that the Democrats don’t see that will hurt them in 2020, unless they realize it soon. All the Democrats will be doing, if they don’t realize this, is producing radical policies and baseless investigations that the general public will not support. These policies and investigations will be perfect for Trump to use as a punching bag to get his base fired up.

And finally, the most important reason why the Democrats lost the midterms is because there was NO “Blue Wave.” It is normal for the party in power to lose the House during the midterms, it almost always happens.

If the Republicans kept the House it would have shown that the Republicans are miracle workers. The Demo-

editor@binghamtonreview.com

crats gaining 34 seats is not outside the margins of a normal midterm election results. And if the midterms happened a couple weeks ago (right after the Kavanaugh hearing), Democrats would have gained even less. Republicans were extremely united, fired up, and ready to vote right after that performance from the Democrats.

If you want to see a “wave,” look at Bill Clinton’s first midterm election in 1994, where Democrats lost 53 seats in the House, and 9 seats in the Senate. If you compare that to losing only 34 in the House and gaining 3 in the Senate under Trump, I would call this a good result for Republicans. Similarly, you should look at Obama’s first midterm election, where Democrats lost 63 House seats, and 6 Senate seats.

2010 was a Red Wave, 2018 is nothing… it’s average.

Conclusion This was a very exciting midterm election cycle indeed. In the end, there was no wave on either side, but rather, Republicans and Democrats walked away with things they can celebrate, and things they should fear. I guess it’s up to you, the voters, to decide whether you feel good or bad about your party’s performance. Either way, the 2020 campaign does informally start today, and it is time to see which party actually learns from these midterms, and which party doesn’t. Personally, I am a Freedom Caucus/Trumpian style conservative, but still want to appeal to moderates and independents. I plead with the Republicans and with President Trump to please learn something from these midterms, and start working to preserve and expand the states, the districts, and the demographics that were won in 2016.

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

9

STEVEN CROWDER AND DIALECTICISM

BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM

Steven Crowder and Dialecticism

By Patrick McAuliffe

S

teven Crowder is a Canadian conservative YouTube personality that posts videos such as “Why Generation Z is So Conservative” and “Top 5 Reasons Elizabeth Warren’s a RACIST FRAUD!” What most people know him from is the “Change My Mind” meme, sparked from a picture of him at his table for his “Male Privilege is a Myth: Change My Mind” video. The premise of these videos is that he goes onto college campuses with controversial topics like that one or “there are only 2 genders” or “socialism is evil” and asks to have conversations with people about why they might disagree and whether or not they can change his mind. I have no issue with him doing these videos, and sometimes minds can even be changed for the better. However, his claims about his methods don’t quite line up with what he actually does in his debates.

Crowder covers some of his more belligerent videos, such as confronting leftists calling for violence at their place of work or even the premise behind his “Change My Mind” videos, with the claim that he is engaging in the Socratic method of argument. This method goes all the way back to its namesake in Ancient Greece, when Socrates would systematically dismantle people’s beliefs merely by “asking a few questions.” Socrates does not

“Even if you don’t actually win the argument or no conclusion is reached (a common ending to some Socratic dialogues), you haven’t turned them off from your position or those that hold similar positions to you.” posit any ideas of his own for much of the time he talks to his opponent, instead asking questions and making sure their beliefs are ideologically and rationally consistent. Socrates is by no means perfect in achieving this; he will sometimes ask questions just to make his opponents look stupid or, in dialogues written with more of Plato’s influence, to argue from the theory of

10

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

Forms. Even Socrates did not perfectly use the Socratic method! Nevertheless, starting from the humble position of not knowing anything and working together with one’s opponent is much more conducive to actually discovering the truth than seeking to win an argument.

Steven Crowder doesn’t do this.

While “Change My Mind” videos can start off this way, and he is less combative with people just seeking to get more information on his position, the discussions usually descend into cringey attacks with no minds changed and nobody learning anything. Neither Crowder nor his college student opponents are concerned with either finding solutions or discovering the truth (is socialism actually evil? Is male privilege actually real? Is abortion actually murder?). This is a heuristic form of arguing, while the true Socratic method is more along the lines of a dialectic discussion. (For another, broader look at this difference, see Mason Carteri’s article “Debate vs. Discussion”).

Which method leads to more productive discussion? As Mason says, debates are usually not to convince one’s opponent of a particular position but to appear more thoroughly prepared to an audience. Discussions are among friends, or at least people that have the common goal of finding a particular truth. Each type has its usefulness in a certain setting, depending on what you’re trying to accomplish.

I personally try to engage with people in a dialectic discussion more than trying to debate them. My father told me about “winning an argument without losing a soul”, or being willing to listen to someone’s positions and trying to find common ground. Even if you don’t actually win the argument or no conclusion is reached (a common ending to some Socratic dialogues), you haven’t turned them off from your position or those that hold similar positions to you. In a religious context, you have preserved your chances of eventually converting them and haven’t “lost their soul”.

All of this brings us back to Steven Crowder. His “Change My Mind”s have the common description “...taking to the streets to have real conversations with real people...”. He pitches these videos as working towards finding truth with everyday people, not politicians or philosophers. However, watching any one of these clearly shows his claim to using the Socratic method is a cover for his audience.

They can look beyond these criticisms of his methods by citing his asking questions and confounding his opponents as fulfilling his continuation of the Socratic tradition. In fact, this is a dishonest claim. Crowder is first and foremost a comedian, and epic smackdowns of college liberals sell better than honest conversations. If members of his audience want real conversations with real people, they need to look to have them naturally. For example, the College Republicans, Libertarians, and Democrats (who dropped out) had a debate on immigration and gun control last month. Despite the similarities between the Republican and Libertarian positions, we had a very good conversation with both each other and our audience. Everyone wanted solutions to real problems, not to hide behind an ideology for its own sake. Crowder does this despite his “Socratic method.” I enjoy his channel and his political analyses, but he needs to be more intellectually honest in his methods.

Vol. XXXI, Issue V

BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM

THE CASE FOR HOME ECONOMICS IN MODERN SOCIETY

The Case for Home Economics in Modern Society

By Rebecca Goldstein

W

hen you hear the term “home economics,” what do you think of? I personally think of a bunch of young girls from the 1950’s, learning how to sew and cook for their future husbands. What about shop class? I think of shitty birdhouses and a creepy one-eyed, three-fingered teacher. Honestly, this is probably exactly what these classes were like in the 1950’s.

However, times have changed and the content of these classes have changed to cater to the needs of each generation-- learning how to cook eggs 9 different ways “because you never know how your future husband will enjoy them cooked” is a thing of the past, and instead a student is now more likely to learn about the nutritional value of the egg, because your husband is expected to cook his own damn eggs (feminism, am I right?).

However, despite the fact that home economics classes are being revamped to cater to this generation’s needs and become less sexist and gender-coded, they are still being phased out of schools due to budget cuts and the longstanding notion that the classes are still for “raising housewives.” Even schools that still have these classes offer them as electives, not mandatory classes, and enrollment is at what is potentially an all-time low- again, due to the outdated ideas of sexism. The widespread, yet false, belief that home economics classes are sexist is detrimental to students, who are now lacking fundamental life skills.

Home economics classes started in the late 1800’s and their inception is credited to a woman named Ellen Swallow Richards, who was an instructor and chemist at MIT. Ms. Richards operated under the philosophy that running the home as smoothly as possible would allow more time for education -- her ideas were very progressive for the time. However, even before Ms. Richards’ classes and philosophy became popular, the Morrill Act of 1862 established land-grant colleges in every state. These colleges had “domestic science” courses geared specifically towards women. One absolutely wild thing that happened in these classes is that there were “practice homes” with “practice babies,” and these babies were live humans from orphanages! Thank God that stopped and animatronic babies or flour sacks began to be used after child welfare concerns in 1954 (guess the government didn’t want to raise a bunch of sociopaths). The point is that these classes went hard with attempting to teach young women how to “adult” properly and

editor@binghamtonreview.com

run a smoothly functioning household-- a lost art, and a skill that I personally would love to learn. As a young woman who intends to have children and a spouse, whether it be a man or a woman, I’d love to have a functioning home. Hell, I’ll even cook my wife eggs for breakfast -- all 9 different ways.

The loss of these classes in our schools is absolutely disastrous (almost as disastrous as my cooking). If you took a survey of your peers, it’s highly likely that at least half of them don’t know how to sew a button on a shirt or balance a checkbook.

Few millennials know how to change a tire, much preferring to call AAA, and Lord knows nobody knows how to fold a fitted sheet. While many people joke that they “burn water” when they try to cook, it’s a frightening reality for some. There are “Life Skills Classes” geared towards young adults aged 18-26 to teach us what we didn’t learn as kids, because we didn’t have the classes in school to teach us, and our parents either didn’t have the time or they left it up to the school. Schools phased out “sexist” or “useless” classes on things that are necessary for daily life and put more emphasis on standardized tests and academia.

Thanks to this, we all know that mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell, but what is the powerhouse of the home? Certainly not any of us since we have no skills!

While yes, home economics was certainly geared towards women and shop was geared towards men, they weren’t unnecessary classes at all. Objectively, everyone needs to know how taxes work, how to make basic meals, and how to change a tire among other things. If shop and home economics were combined and made more gender neutral, we would be set -- the issue of sexism and gearing each class towards a specific gender would be solved! Educators could add a modern spin, such as teaching about nutrition or how to build credit. Take a poll at the beginning of the school year about what students think they need to know. Hell, maybe high schoolers won’t retain the info or they’ll be bored if it won’t pertain to them at that very moment. To solve that problem, make it a general education requirement at liberal arts colleges! There are millions of electives at both the high school and college levels -- take away that bullshit underwater basket weaving course and add in a course that teaches you how to be a functioning adult. Does the name still seem sort of sexist? Good thing it’s not called home economics very often anymore; it goes by Family and Consumer Science (which is still a crappy name, but beggars can’t be choosers).

“Requiring schools to teach cooking as part of health education was supported by 64 percent of the public, and mandatory home economics courses focused on teaching how to cook and shop for health food were supported by 67 percent of respondents in the study [at the University of Michigan.]”

Even the public supports this course being brought back. With a modern update, this class could help so many people. School budgets are low everywhere and kids, especially in the inner cities, are fucked. I don’t know the next steps on how to bring this class back but we totally should. Come on everyone, we can’t bring our laundry home to mommy forever, can we?

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

11

THE NEW YORK METS AND POLITICS

BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM

The New York Mets and Politics

By John Restuccia

P

olitics has become one of the most disappointing aspects of life in the last 11 years. It seems as though no matter what happens, everyone loses and gets upset. We break major boundaries by electing our first African American president; that’s awesome! He implements policies like Obamacare and drone strikes that have killed over 100 civilians; not good. We elect a man who is considered an outsider to the political system with a dark horse win; that’s also breaking the political norm!

He raises the national debt even more with a supposed “fiscally responsible” Republican Congress; not good. Looking at these disappointments reminds me as a baseball fan of my favorite team that continues to disappoint: The New York Mets.

The New York Mets might just be the perfect representation of politics in the United States in every aspect, starting with the Mets pitching. The Mets current lineup for pitching has some of the greatest starting pitchers in the entire MLB. We have the norse god Noah Syndergaard (as known as Thor) who can pitch a slider at 91 mph (super impressive to do); Zach Wheeler with a very solid ERA of 3.31 (an ERA is means of runs given up by a pitcher for all you non-baseball fans); and Jacob DeGrom who is considered the best pitcher in the entire league at the moment. I compare these people to the

12

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

high ranking Senators and Congressmen on both sides of the aisle. These include superstars such as Paul Ryan, who has managed to keep the entire Republican party held together in the House; Mitch McConnell, who is considered the suavest US senator with common sense proposals as Senate Majority leader; and Chuck Schumer, who has remained a staple in the Senate with a plethora of political experience after 19 years in office.

However, despite the good starting pitching and leadership in the legislature, something will always come along to kaibosh the progress being done. The season will then begin to crash and burn hard every year. For the Mets, it is the offense and the relief pitchers. The Mets do not have a single real batter. Brandon Nimmo,

Amed Rosario, and Michael Conforto are awesome for offense, but that’s all the Mets are really boasting as far as hitters. The team traded away Asdrubal Cabrera during the middle of the season, a great hitter who lead the team this season in RBI’s (runs batted in), which could have greatly helped the season. This doesn’t help the amazing pitchers at all. If the Mets scored had scored 3 more runs whenever the pitcher Jacob DeGrom started, he’d have 26 wins and 1 loss. If they had scored 2, he’d be 21 wins and 6 losses. Instead Jacob DeGrom has 10 wins and 9 losses. As far as the relief pitching, the team is a hot mess. The relief pitching blew game after game this past season. Only 2 out of 5 of the relief pitchers having a positive win-loss record. Looking at the relief pitching is like watching a Amy Schumer movie: unfunny and hard to watch.

For the legislature, it is the ideological radical members of Congress and the large amount of executive orders being passed that are dragging everything down. The radicals in Congress are the members that make you wish that they wouldn’t open their mouth, as it makes your party look even worse. For the Democrats, it is the people like Maxine Waters who say crazy stuff and turn away the more moderate voters. For the Republicans, a perfect example is Senator Jim Inhofe, who threw a snowball in a session to disprove global warming.

Even I, who believes in natural climate change but am extremely skeptical on global warming predictions, thought that this was dumb and was just a stunt that further divided the country. As far as executive orders go, the last 3 presidents have used over 200 of them each.

They goes above Congress’s head, making the legislature absolutely useless. It’s like DeGrom putting his heart and soul into the opening innings but the hard work being crushed by the lack of relief pitching.

One more big similarity this year in both the New York Mets and

Vol. XXXI, Issue V

BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM

“We have had some terrible politicians and presidents in our history but every year we all find ourselves looking forward and not backward.”

Congress was the loss of a key player in both. David Wright, captain of the New York Mets, retired this season in an emotional final game with respect given from both teams to a man who has given his entire baseball career of 14 years to the New York Mets. Watching that final game with David Wright, who had been injured for most of 2018, was a tragic one with many Mets fans giving a sad farewell to the captain who had rallied and inspired the team for many years. Similarly the United States lost a true political legend in Senator John McCain. John McCain was loved on both sides of the aisle, reaching across to cosponsor many bipartisan bills. He always had a certain class to him that made him many friends among both Republicans and Democrats. Tragically, he spent 2018 battling cancer and eventually lost, leaving behind a great legacy of being a real leader in the Senate.

Despite the setbacks, tragic losses, and even losing legendary figures, Mets fans and American citizens of both parties share another similarity: hope. Even though the Mets went 77 and 85, a awful record, Mets fans are looking toward the next seasons with eagerness. We say the NY on our Mets gear stands for next year! We look eagerly to opening season to see our favorite players give it their all with a new sense of hope! Similarly, even if the party you voted for lost in some way in the midterms, most Americans know that everything is going to be ok (although cable news might tell you otherwise). We have had some terrible politicians and presidents in our history but every year we all find ourselves looking forward and not backward. So next year, I hope that the New York Mets will do better and I hope that the divisive political climate dies down.

Because no matter what seems to happen, there’s always another season and another election.

editor@binghamtonreview.com

ELECTION RESULTS

Election Results!

Republicans gain 4 seats in the Senate, cementing their power in this chamber

Democrats gain 34 seats in the House, granting them control of the Speakership and investigative power over the executive BINGHAMTON REVIEW

13

ALIEN POND SCUM AND ABORTION

BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM

Alien Pond Scum and Abortion

By Patrick McAuliffe

T

his is going to be a real throwback to our second issue of the year, where I discussed the morality of humans leaving our planet and colonizing a new one, essentially killing any (likely simple) life that lived there. The professor in my class on the epistemic limits of science brought this up to the students, and I struggled with it in my first article. Is it moral to choose the extinction of an actual life (or many lives) for the sake of a potential life (or lives)? What about the reverse? Maybe proposing some common pro-life and pro-choice arguments will help us flush out why my professor advocates so strongly for alien pond scum over humans fleeing a dying planet.

You may personally believe in the subjectivity of morality, but as a baseline, some things are not subjective.

Murder, for instance, is morally wrong in all cultures and religions. (This is separate from killing, which gets a bit more broad and is tolerated or allowed in some instances, such as Aztec human sacrifice). From this baseline, our culture has viciously feuded over what constitutes a human life, specifically in pregnancy. Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court case upholding the constitutionality of abortion, claimed that no state could prohibit it under the Fourteenth Amendment. The portion of the Amendment that the justices were referring to is as follows: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive

any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” An assumed immunity or privilege according to the Supreme Court is the right to privacy, and regulation of a woman’s abortion is an infringement of her privacy. It is no business of the state’s to interfere in a woman’s reproductive functions.

Theoretically speaking, the justices’ reasoning would be correct if the fetus being aborted is just a part of the woman and not something new and independent (morally speaking).

People are very touchy on this topic in particular because of the unique moral questions that it brings. I will try to lay everything out as best as I can without going into cases such as rape or incest, because we need to understand why abortion is generally morally permissible or not before we understand why it would or wouldn’t be in specific cases.

A common pro-choice argument, posited by Judith Jarvis Thomson in her 1971 work A Defense of Abortion, is referred to as the “violinist argument”. In this thought experiment, you awake one day to find yourself bedridden and hooked up to a machine. This machine is hooked up to a famous vio-

linist, who has contributed enormously to classical music and art culture in general. You obviously have your own life to live, but if you choose to leave the bed and detach from the machine connecting you with the violinist, he will die. Being hooked up to the machine will only last nine months, but you will be trapped in a situation you did not consent to for that time.

Should you have the choice to leave the bed? Thomson responds with a vehement yes. Even though the violinist has the right to life just as you do, the right to life cannot equal the right to the means of sustaining life. Nobody gave the violinist the right to use your body, including you, so it would not be immoral to take from him what he had no right to in the first place.

The major issue at stake in the violinist argument is consent, primarily for the person that awakes to find

“They had no say in being attached to the violinist; women who do not want to be pregnant do. So that you don’t find yourself hooked up to a tiny, grape-sized violinist inside you, insist on condom usage or birth control.”

“There seem to be two major considerations in the abortion debate: consent and potential, i.e. how far the consent of the mother goes, and whether the potential of the fetus is sufficient reason for killing it. Both of these combined will help guide us to why moving into an alien planet may be immoral.”

14

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

Vol. XXXI, Issue V

BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM themselves attached to a violinist they had no intention of saving. The problem with this analogy that doesn’t quite carry over to abortion is that, by having unprotected sex, a woman exposes herself to the possibility of getting pregnant. Whether she wanted to or not, such an action is implicit consent to a possible pregnancy. Knowing the risks and how to prevent them yet refusing anyway is not a valid excuse for killing a possible human being for your convenience (to be examined later). To bring it back to the violinist argument, the person hooked up to the machine didn’t somehow offer themselves to the violinist to be used as life support in a dire situation. They had no say in being attached to the violinist; women who do not want to be pregnant do. So that you don’t find yourself hooked up to a tiny, grape-sized violinist inside you, insist on condom usage or birth control.

The pro-life argument beyond a religious one that I find most convincing is the “future like ours” argument, posited by Donald Marquis in the Journal of Philosophy. It holds that

“People with autism or Downs syndrome should not be aborted, as per this argument, because they have the ability to lead fulfilling lives similar to non-disabled people.” the future experiences and values of the fetus will resemble a fully formed person’s or child’s life experiences and values. Since this is one of the main reasons we do not kill fully formed people or children, we should also not kill the fetus before it is born, as this would rob them of the values and experiences they will one day have. This does not rule out all abortion, however; if the fetus will certainly be born with deformities so great as to make their post-birth life nothing but pain, the experiences they will have will not be like ours and the fetus can be aborted. People with autism or Downs syndrome should not be aborted, as per this argument, because they have the ability to lead fulfilling lives similar to

editor@binghamtonreview.com

ALIEN POND SCUM AND ABORTION non-disabled people. A boy in my Boy Scout troop made his Eagle Scout rank the same year or a year after me, and I had known him from when we were Cub Scouts together; he has Downs syndrome. Sometimes, but not always, mentally disabled people will not lead the lives the rest of us have, but for the sake of the others that do, one cannot say that they should all be aborted.

Much like the violinist argument, the counterargument to this position rests on what we consider rights.

Again, the right to life does not equal the right to the means of sustaining life. M. T. Brown writes in the Journal of Medical Ethics specifically about the “future of value” section of the FLO argument. The potential for value, just like for fully formed people, does not bestow a right to the means of fulfilling that potential. He also writes that “the right not to be killed does not confer upon the fetus or anyone else the right to another person’s body.” Here I would use my counterargument listed above for the violinist argument in that there is a degree of risk in unprotected sex and the implicit consent that goes along with knowing the dangers of it yet engaging in it anyway.

There seem to be two major considerations in the abortion debate: consent and potential, i.e. how far the consent of the mother goes, and whether the potential of the fetus is sufficient reason for killing it. Both of these combined will help guide us to why moving into an alien planet may be immoral.

First, we assume that we are leaving our planet for a reason. That reason is most likely climate change, which humans have some part in accelerating. We know the risks in not using protection with our planet, yet we continue down our destructive path.

Therefore, we logically have some responsibility for the situation we are in.

Let’s assume our responsibility in our downfall, because it gets much trickier (and closer to a rape analogy) if the reason we are leaving is through no fault of our own. Second, we assume that the pond scum on the other planet will one day, if it follows a similar path as our own evolutionary development, become as intelligent or more intelli-

gent than the human race has been up to the point of our discovering them.

We have the whole of our knowledge and technological advancements behind us as we flee our dying Earth; they have primitive photosynthesis.

Which deserves to live more?

What’s difficult in this analogy is that there is no third option like there is in pregnancy. Humans cannot choose to coexist with the alien pond scum because their ecosystem is too fragile to support such a large foreign injection. Meanwhile, a pregnancy can end how it has for thousands and thousands of years: with a baby to be cared for by parents, the potential and the actual uniting. Still, I will argue, from the premises we drew above, that I eventually agree with my professor. If we have destroyed our planet by our own doing, we should lie in the fiery bed that we made and not at the expense of simple life that could indeed have a future like ours. I urge you to consider these arguments and more when you think about abortion or playing Space Columbus or anything else in between. These questions keep you thinking about the nature of what it means to be human, what rights are, and even what possible dignity life can have, even if it is just pond scum.

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

15