BINGHAMTON REVIEW Editor-in-Chief Contents
P.O. BOX 6000 BINGHAMTON, NY 13902-6000 EDITOR@BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
Founded 1987 • Volume XXXIII, Issue VI Tommy Gagliano
Managing Editor Matt Gagliano Copy Desk Chief Madeline Perez, Harold Rook
Business Manager Joe Badalamenti
Social Media Shitposter Sebastian Roman
Editor Emeritus
Patrick McAuliffe Jr.
Staff Writers
Jon Lizak, Dillon O’Toole, Will Anderson, Spencer Haynes, Arthur O’Sullivan
Contributors
Laura DeLuca, Murder O. Crows
Special Thanks To:
PUBLIC ENEMIES NO. 45
PAGE 6 3 4 5 8 9 10 12 13 14
by Patrick McAuliffe
Editorial by Tommy Gagliano Press Watch by Our Staff A Winter Reading List by Harold Rook Dogs! by Our Staff The Death of Alex Trebek is the Last Straw by Laura DeLuca Farewell by Tommy Gagliano The Greatest Arbiter of Human Rights! by Murder O. Crows A Federalist Solution by Joe Badalamenti How to Have the Biggest Brain by Patrick McAuliffe
Intercollegiate Studies Institute Collegiate Network 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. XXXIII, Issue VI
EDITORIAL Dear Readers,
From the Editor
I
’ve gotten pretty good at banging these editorials out over the past year and a half, but for the first time in a long time, I find myself struggling to find the right words. As this is our last issue of the semester, it is also the last time I will ever write one of these editorials, and the last time I will speak to you as Editor-in-Chief. I reflect on my college experience and my time with the Review in much more detail later in this issue, but I’d just like to take a few lines here to say something I didn’t say in that piece: Thank you. To everyone that has read Binghamton Review, or watched us on YouTube, or defended our right to exit on campus when arguing with your crazy progressive friend, or contributed to our publication in any way during my tenure: Thank you. Now let’s take a look back to August shall we? Thanksgiving break is right around the corner, and Binghamton is still allowing in-person classes. I believe that means I win, with my prediction that we would be able to make it through a full semester up here without being sent home. Suck it, losers. As has become tradition, this final issue of the Fall semester is our dog issue. Feeling stressed with finals coming up? Flip to the centerfold and take a look at all the good doggos that are part of the families of our staff. We wanted to continue with our Midterm Report Card this year as well, but every publication not named Binghamton Review or Binghamton Law Quarterly would have received an F for not printing a single thing all semester. The BUTT would have gotten an F- for coming up with some of the least funny shit I’ve ever read, and struggling to get a single Facebook like on a good portion of their articles (despite existing almost exclusively for Facebook lols). I would also like to point out that we were removed from our office in the Union last year presumably to give more room to Free Press and Ellipsis. We were banished to Old Rafuse instead, which we haven’t been able to access since March. Since the office change, we’ve printed eighteen issues. Free Press and Ellipsis have printed two issues COMBINED. Great job SA Space Allocation Committee. You guys really know what you’re doing over there. In addition to the dogs and my farewell piece, we also have contributions from Harold Rook, Joe Badalamenti, Laura DeLuca, Patrick McAuliffe (times two), and a collaborative effort from our staff. I want to wish everyone the best of luck with finals. I hope you all have a great Thanksgiving, Christmas (or Hanukkah, or whatever the hell Muslims do in the winter), and winter break. Again, thank you to all of our readers. It’s been a pleasure producing content for you over the past year and a half. I am confident that Binghamton Review will continue to thrive under my successor, Jake Schweitzer.
Sincerely,
Tommy Gagliano Binghamton Review is a non-partisan, student-run news magazine of conservative thought founded in 1987 at Binghamton University. A true liberal arts education expands a student’s horizons and opens one’s mind to a vast array of divergent perspectives. The mark of true maturity is being able to engage with these perspectives rationally while maintaining one’s own convictions. In that spirit, we seek to promote the free and open exchange of ideas and offer alternative viewpoints not normally found or accepted on our predominately liberal campus. We stand against tyranny in all of its forms, both on campus and beyond. We believe in the principles set forth in this country’s Declaration of Independence and seek to preserve the fundamental tenets of Western civilization. It is our duty to expose the warped ideology of political correctness and cultural authoritarianism that dominates this university. Finally, we understand that a moral order is a necessary component of any civilized society. We strive to inform, engage with, and perhaps even amuse our readers in carrying out this mission.
Views expressed by writers do not necessarily represent the views of the publication as a whole. editor@binghamtonreview.com
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
3
CPampus resswatch “Following diverse TikTok creators can expand limited worldviews” Ariel Wajnrajch, Pipe Dream, 11/12/20 “I know this is going to sound stupid, but hear me out: TikTok has given me a glimpse into diversity from my very sheltered and ethnically homogenous background.” You’re right, it does sound stupid. “I went to a private Jewish day school from kindergarten all the way through to the end of high school. I did Jewish youth group, went to Jewish camps, the works.” Did those “Jewish camps” help you with your concentration? “These videos, for me at least, on top of their humor, are another way to become familiar with the way Black children wear their hair and with the way many of them speak, which is also known as Ebonics.” Firstly, humor and TikTok go together like oil and water, or like Pipe Dream and the Oxford comma. Secondly, becoming “familiar with the way black children wear their hair” sounds creepy as hell. Also, as per your comment on how racism comes from unfamiliarity, are you suggesting that being familiar with black people’s hairstyles makes you less racist? “It knows my sense of humor and my political opinions, to an extent, based on the videos to which I’ve responded.” So then where’s the diversity? If the algorithm knows exactly what your opinions are, and only shows you content that agrees with those opinions, then how are you being “exposed to perspectives different from your own?” “If a BIPOC creator creates content with my kind of humor, my ‘For you’ page will show me that, not because I asked for more diversity, but because I like that humor.” Obviously you didn’t ask for more diversity; you are actively feeding the
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.
algorithm in such a way that it doesn’t show you diverse content. You are destroying your own argument the more you go on about the “For you” page—a page that was specifically designed to show you content similar to the content you’ve previously viewed. In other words, the exact opposite of diversity. “Unfortunately, many BIPOC content creators are often shadow banned, which means that, among other forms of suppression, they are being put on the ‘For you’ pages of users less frequently without their knowledge or intention. Because this often happens to minority individuals, this creates a lack of diversity, similar to areas such as my hometown that are mostly white.” I…uh…what? Did you just give an example of how TikTok suppresses diversity, you know, the exact opposite of the thing you’ve been saying this entire time? I…I’m baffled. In two sentences you’ve invalidated your entire argument by arguing against yourself, and I’m actually baffled as to why the hell you would do that. “Logic can clear up the murkiness surrounding political choices” May Braaten, Pipe Dream, 11/2/20 “I’m taking a course in logic this semester — an intro course so I’m by no means an expert.” I like how you start off by admitting you have no idea what you’re talking about. “But logic itself is but an impartial means one can use to answer questions, solve problems or draw conclusions...” I’m sure that you won’t completely disregard this later by imparting your biases into it. “Premise 1: ‘If you support a racist person, you’re racist, too.’ Premise 2: ‘Donald Trump is racist.’ Thus our conclusion is ‘Therefore, if you support Donald Trump, you are racist.’” This should be good.
“Recently, [Trump has]... implied a peaceful Black Lives Matter (BLM) protester deserved getting beaten because his actions were ‘absolutely disgusting’ and perhaps most infamously, told the Proud Boys... to ‘stand by’ during the 2020 election.” Firstly, I don’t know the specific circumstances involving the BLM protester, and a Google search of your description turned up zero results, but I would say that burning and looting cities, as BLM has repeatedly done over the past few months, is “absolutely disgusting.” Do I believe that someone should be beaten for this? No, yet I also don’t see how this makes Trump racist, considering the criticism was about the individual’s behavior, not his race. Secondly, he told the Proud Boys to “stand down,” right after responding “sure” when asked if he was willing to condemn white supremacy. “... there are some who insist nonetheless that Trump isn’t racist.” Probably because there is no evidence to suggest that he is. It’s a shame that you did such a poor job defending the statement that the entire rest of your argument depends on.
Vol. XXXIII, Issue VI
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
A Winter Reading List
A WINTER READING LIST
By Harold Rook
H
ey, you there! Yeah, you! Do you spend all your time gaming and watching movies? Do you hate hearing from different perspectives? Do you hardly ever read? Well, then you better get ready, because I’m about to introduce something that will blow your mind! Introducing: reading! Something nobody ever really seems to do anymore! In all seriousness, however, it does seem like there aren’t that many people that are reading books for fun; only 36.3% of Generation Z consider themselves to be avid readers, according to Library Journal, with Millennials being slightly higher at 47.9%. Although this may sound melodramatic, it seems incredibly distressing that much of our generation isn’t really reading as much as they should be. Reading, in my opinion, is such a unique medium for conveying ideas and can really push readers to think critically about the world around them in an intellectual way. To not be reading constantly and encountering new perspectives is detrimental to one’s intellectual development. So, I figure since this is ‘The Last Refuge of Scholars,” I may as well come down and give you guys my personal recommendation as to what you should read (a list, as some may call it). Besides, for what it’s worth, it could keep your mind off the complete disaster that is 2020. Without further ado, here are Harry Rook’s personal reading recommendations for 2020: 1. “The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting Up A Generation For Failure” By Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt. There’s been a lot of buzz within the last few years regarding the political and social climate surrounding college campuses. Whereas in preceding decades controversy around ideas of free speech and political intolerance have been relatively contained, it seems there has been a sudden ex-
editor@binghamtonreview.com
plosion in shutting down political discourse in universities. So what is going on? In this book, Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt analyze the rise of political polarization and social trends on college campuses. At it’s thesis, the book points to the rise in ideas of “safetyism” not just on college campuses, but throughout many aspects of Millennials’ and Generation Z’s early lives. Lukianoff and Haidt argue that, though “helicopter” parenting and other measures were designed to protect children growing up, there have been unintentional consequences, such as a coddled generation seeking protection from things that aren’t an actual threat, and could be contributing to increased levels of depression and anxiety in recent generations. This, in conjunction with the rise of social media, political extremism from both the alt-right and radical left, and “untruths” has led to a generation that is focused on its own fragility. Lukianoff and Haidt really outdid themselves in their breakdown of these issues, and I can’t recommend this book more for people that want a deeper understanding of the underlying causes for what is happening. 2. “How to Fight,” “How to Relax,” and “How to Love,” all by Thich Nhat Hanh This one is technically cheating, as I am listing multiple books, but I’d be remiss if I didn’t include these neat little books by this great peace activist. A Vietnamese Buddhist monk, Hanh, wrote these books to give readers a chance to reflect on the human feelings that sometimes dwell within our souls; his writings give reflections on how to adequately express what we think and feel that are productive to not only ourselves but the world around us. Although I myself am not a follower of Zen Buddhism, there is a lot to admire about what Hanh teaches. Sometimes, it is about how to appreciate the world around us and be at harmony with ourselves, as he writes
in “How to Relax.” Sometimes, it’s about how to reconcile one’s own anger and suffering with compassion and love, as “How to Fight” teaches. And sometimes, it’s about how to cultivate a strong and meaningful relationship with those around you, as expressed in “How to Love.” 3. “Meditations” by Marcus Aurelius Ancient Rome was an interesting place. Sure, you had the constant wars of expansion, gladiatorial combat that has been overly romanticized as fights to the death, and social divisions—and yeah, some of the emperors of Ancient Rome were quite literally insane or tyrannical (looking at you, Caligula and Caracalla). But then you come across the works of Marcus Aurelius. The “Philosopher King,” Aurelius was one of the last figures preceding Rome’s eventual collapse into strife and discord. Before his death, he wrote a series of writings that were meant to be short reminders, often serving as a personal guide for himself. For those that may have heard the philosophy of “stoicism” before, this is where it comes from. At the end of the day, this book is about being the better person. But don’t take my word for it! Here is the Philosopher King himself: “What is your profession? Being a good man. But this can only come about through philosophic concepts - concepts of the nature of the Whole, and concepts of the specific constitution of man.” Truly, a book of class that everyone should at least glance at. Anyway, there is a whole medium just waiting to be explored. Although these are some of my personal favorites, I can mention even more books and authors that just deserve a read. Ayn Rand, Robert Nozick, George Orwell, Arthur Miller, and Jonah Goldberg are all worth at least glancing over if you have the time. Either way, there is a whole world of books open to you. You just gotta turn the page.
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
5
PUBLIC ENEMIES NO. 45
Public Enemies No. 45
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
By Patrick McAuliffe
W
e’re almost through the madness that is 2020. The presidential election has come and gone, and while Trump will have his day(s) in court to dispute the results, Joe Biden is most likely cemented as the incoming 46th US President. All signs point to a messy transition, and we will need to see how Biden plans to govern America. Hopefully, his tweets about “coming for” gun manufacturers and national mask mandates are pure hyperbole for his base and not policy positions he plans to put through Congress. In all likelihood, we will probably be swearing in President Harris within a year or two, if Biden’s age and declining mental state are any indication of his longevity (Google “Joe Biden Corn Pop”, it’s the funniest thing I’ve seen in a long time).
“It’s hard to say which side first started slinging mud, but making lists of one’s ideological enemies certainly ramps up the animosity.” The one thing that scares me more than the post-election celebrations containing hordes of people (which definitely wasn’t a super spreader event, guys, and by the way, don’t have more than 10 people at Thanksgiving) is the reaction from media outlets and high-profile personalities once their candidate won the top office in the land. Three worrisome blips on the radar of political discourse share a common thread: exposing publicly anyone who has contributed to, worked for, or associated with Donald Trump and his administration. From Senate Republicans all the way down to those in your local neighborhood who have given so much as $5 to Trump’s reelection, these people are now assembled in various places on the Internet with the potential to expose them to public shame, ridicule, and discrimination.
6
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
The first and, arguably, pettiest public list appeared on CNN a few days after Biden was projected to win the presidency. Senate Republicans have largely been quiet on the issue of Trump’s legal challenges; only Mitt Romney (UT) and Lisa Murkowski (AK) have specifically congratulated Biden, while Senators like Mitch McConnell (KY), Lindsay Graham (SC), and Ted Cruz (TX) have echoed Trump’s claims of voter fraud and supported his legal efforts to review the results of the election. All other Republican Senators have said very little on the issue, most likely as a way to see which way the wind is blowing for the President and act accordingly when the battles in court have nearly finished playing out. It should come as no surprise to anyone that CNN has a liberal bias, and after milking the news cycle dry for days as states continued to slowly report vote counts, they most likely thought a scrolling list of silent Senators would be enough to keep the emotions high. It should also come as no surprise that a good portion of the GOP has not fully signed on to Trumpism, especially when it appears to be on its last legs in the White House. The rubber-kneed pragmatism of the silent Senators is despicable but expected; do they dare play to the Romney-esque conservatives or the Trump supporters? They may still be indecisive, but
CNN’s goal to smear them as complicit in Trump’s denials through their silence is decisively clear.
“The list-makers don’t know the convictions and beliefs of the individuals who donated to or worked for Trump, and to paint them all with such a wide brush merely because of the character of their boss is dangerous and outrageous.” The second public shaming of anything and anyone in Trump’s orbit comes from the Lincoln Project, founded in 2019 by former Republicans aiming to defeat Trump and Trumpism. Their website declares that “electing Democrats who support the Constitution over Republicans who do not is a worthy effort”, and the super PAC raised $39 million in the third quarter of 2020 according to OpenSecrets.org. Their major overstep came on November 10th, when they tweeted the handles of two law firms hired by the Trump administration to represent them in the legal battles challenging the results of the election, calling them “the law firms architecting Donald Trump’s unwarranted and
Vol. XXXIII, Issue VI
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
dangerous attacks on our democracy”. In the tweet, they linked a New York Times article containing the anonymous worries of some employees from both firms, with one lawyer claiming to have resigned in protest. Porter Wright has no tweets and no statements on the matter on their website, but Jones Day’s statement (linked on Twitter and posted on their website) claims that they are not representing the Trump administration at all; instead, they are representing the Pennsylvania Republican and Democratic Parties in private lawsuits from April and August 2020, respectively. Despite Jones Day’s wish that “the media will correct the numerous false reports given the facts set forth above, all of which were readily verifiable in the public record”, the Lincoln Project has not deleted their tweet, nor offered a more recent correction.
editor@binghamtonreview.com
PUBLIC ENEMIES NO. 45 The November 10th Lincoln Project tweet was retweeted by the third and most worrisome organization exposing members of Trump’s administration: the Trump Accountability Project. Their website (which, I should mention, is quite far down on the list of recommended searches on Google for “trump accountability project”) doesn’t contain much. One is first met with a picture of detained illegal immigrants behind a fence and the words “Remember what they did.” A short few paragraphs containing claims of our democracy’s destruction at the hands of Orange Man follow, headed by “We must never forget those who furthered the Trump agenda”. The paragraphs contain a hyperlink to a ProPublica website titled “Trump Town”, which was last updated October 15, 2019. “Trump Town” is a database for members and staff of the Trump administration, who can be searched “by name, former employer and agency” (the lack of Oxford comma is even more jarring than when Pipe Dream doesn’t use it). The database contains over 3,800 appointees, with several hundred already highlighted as former lobbyists, members of conservative think tanks, and Trump campaign group staff. If a future employer wants to know whether their candidate has been involved with the Trump administration (at least by October 2019), they would simply need to plug their name into the database and see what their role was or what they were doing in government before Trump. The Trump Accountability Project has been advertised online by several high-ranking Democrats, including former Democratic National Committee press secretary Hari Sevugan, usually in response to a November 6th tweet from Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D, NY-14) calling for “archiving these Trump sycophants” that may “try to downplay or deny their complicity in the future”. There is no doubt that polarization in the United States has taken a nasty turn over the last few years. It’s hard to say which side first started slinging mud, but making lists of one’s ideological enemies certainly ramps up the animosity. As President-elect
Biden repeats his hollow claims that this is a “time to heal”, members and supporters of his own party are compiling databases of 45’s supporters and staffers. Many liberals pretend that they’ve defeated fascism with a single election and some are encouraging the tactics carried out by actual fascists. Rep. Ocasio-Cortez explains away her November 6th tweet with the reply, “Lol at the “party of personal responsibility” being upset at the idea of being responsible for their behavior over [the] last four years [sic]”. Not only is this the talk of a thirsty authoritarian, it is impossible to say, in some instances, who in the Trump administration was responsible for what policy that led to some harm or other. Some members of his staff may have objected to Trump’s actions or the actions of other administration members but did not or could not leave for whatever reason. The list-makers don’t know the convictions and beliefs of the individuals who donated to or worked for Trump, and to paint them all with such a wide brush merely because of the character of their boss is dangerous and outrageous. Biden, as he often claims, wants to be an “American” president, not beholden to any one ideological camp or another; members of his party and his sycophants in the media should heed his words and shut down these registries of Trump associates, or it’s off to the gulags for more than 71 million American people.
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
7
DOGS!
Dogs!
8
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
Vol. XXXIII, Issue VI
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
THE DEATH OF ALEX TREBEK IS THE LAST STRAW
The Death of Alex Trebek is the Last Straw By Laura DeLuca
O
n Sunday morning, we lost a legend. An iconographic symbol of American television game shows. Arguably the best game show host in history. A bold statement, but I’d make a case for it. He was the most intelligible and quick-witted eighty-year-old man that I had ever come across. He had all of his marbles, which is more than what most people have. Especially at that age. Yes, it’s true—we lost Alex Trebek. The news broke to me via the official “Jeopardy!” Instagram account on Sunday. According to their website, he lost to his battle with pancreatic cancer, which he was diagnosed with in March of 2019. Despite this diagnosis, he continued to host “Jeopardy!” for the next 18 months. And he did it with a positive attitude and an infectious smile. Alex Trebek was alive during the tail end of World War II. He was alive when 9/11 happened. He lived to see the internet boom in popularity and got to see iPhones take over our lives. He lived to see a terrifying global pandemic. And, he was just able to see who became President-elect in what is arguably the most controversial election in the past two decades. Not to mention, the first Black and South Asian woman was deemed Vice President-elect. Alex Trebek lived through so many important historical moments and prevailed victor of them all. As a “Jeopardy!” superfan, I am crushed. Alex Trebek was so bright, charming, and funny. I, as well as many other Americans, associate him with family dinners growing up. “Jeop-
editor@binghamtonreview.com
ardy!” brought families together for a fun game night for years. I’m not sure I can stomach it and continue watching if a new host is selected and the show continues. I do not think the same dynamic of the show would be preserved. The game just wouldn’t be the same. The “Jeopardy!” website states that the remaining episodes filmed will air, which takes us through Christmas of this year. I cannot fathom how eerie it is going to feel to watch Alex Trebek do what he did best for the last handful of times. But, it is stated that this is what he would have wanted. He would have wanted us to see the last times he hosted for us. For that reason alone, I am going to watch them. It just feels right. As of last year, I became obsessed with “Jeopardy!” I binge-watched seasons and fell back in love with the show. A tiny part of me even dreamed of being on it someday. Without any serious training, I began to get fairly good at answering the questions quickly and accurately. I imagined myself making it on the show, and meeting Alex Trebek. I even just wanted to be in the audience. Knowing I will never even get the chance to meet him is awful. According to the “Jeopardy” website, Alex Trebek holds a Guinness World Record for hosting the most
episodes of one game show; he hosted over 8,200 episodes of “Jeopardy!”. Imagine the dedication that takes? Or how boring many would find it to host a trivia game show over and over again, with little change regarding the format over its 37 seasons? Many would find it monotonous and painful to sit through. But Alex Trebek came to it with a contagious sense of humor and a true kindness in heart. His love for learning and spreading new information about the most minute topics shone through in every episode. In 2020, we have seen a global pandemic that has changed our lives drastically. We have seen extreme political unrest which has made the division of the country painfully clear. Wildfires have blazed California, and fear has run prevalent through most of America. I hate to just hop on the bandwagon that 2020 has seemed to be a universally awful year, but I can’t help it. It’s been brutal. 2021, please be good to us. Although Alex Trebek lived a relatively long life, it still feels unfair. He was a part of so many Americans’ childhoods and adult lives. He inspired so many, including myself. Rest in peace Alex Trebek, a true legend in the world of television game shows.
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
9
FAREWELL
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
Farewell By Tommy Gagliano
O
n March 18, 2017, I announced what college I would be attending the following August on Instagram, stating “Officially going to Binghamton I guess. Meh.” I was obviously very enthusiastic and excited to be a Bearcat. Sarcasm aside, I wanted to go to the real BU—Boston University—and I felt that being relegated to Binghamton with a 1520 SAT score was insulting. As a straight white male, applicants that checked off one or more “diversity” boxes had the edge on me, and considering the middle class income of my parents, I was left with three options: go on the Boston College waitlist and potentially have the opportunity to pay $70,000 per year to go there, pay $60,000 per year to go to Northeastern University ($10,000 scholarship, wow, so helpful), or go to Binghamton and pay only for living expenses. I made the financially responsible decision, and quickly realized upon arriving here that many students were in the same boat as me. My first order of business after getting settled in was to track down the Republican club. Politics had become a huge part of my life and my identity in high school. I frequently wore political attire and engaged in debates in classes and on social media, and felt confident doing so, as a resident of a significantly right-leaning town. I definitely made some enemies, and looking back I do regret how I went about certain things. That being said, I came into college with the same fire I had in high school, and at U Fest I sought out the College Republicans’ table and added my name and email address to their Listserv. Before I left, a student at the table semi-coherently mentioned something about a free speech ball that I should check out. I traveled in the direction he pointed and found a giant beach ball in the center of the walkway by the Admissions Center. Although I did not know his name at the time, Patrick McAuliffe was standing next to the ball with an Expo marker and a stack of issues. I
10
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
wasn’t particularly interested in the magazine, but after writing something about there only being two genders on the ball, I politely accepted a copy when Patrick offered it to me. I almost threw it out along with the other junk I had accumulated at U Fest, but I decided to hang on to it, and flipped through it later that day. I was an instant fan. The mix of college humor and unapologetic right-wing opinions was right up my alley, and suddenly I had a second general interest meeting to add to my schedule.
“...now I can appreciate that people have different perspectives, mindsets, and priorities.” I bailed on College Republicans after a meeting or two, but stuck with the Review. Being the socially anxious person I am, I didn’t say much of anything at meetings my entire freshman year. Patrick once told me that he thought I was definitely not coming back after how silent and intimidated I was at the GIM, but I kept showing up. I became even more involved my sophomore year, as I took over as the Social Media Shitposter (yes, that was my official title) and began attending production nights. Binghamton Review was huge for me that year. It was by far the worst year of my college career. After being the odd man out in the housing situation with my suitemates from freshman year, who were my closest friends at Binghamton at the time, I spent a majority of the year feeling alone and unhappy. After finding out that I was getting screwed over with housing I actually considered transferring to Stony Brook and moving back home. I made a whole spreadsheet weighing the pros and cons, and ultimately, Binghamton Review was one of the biggest factors that kept me in Broome County. Along with Poker Club, which I had joined at the start of my sophomore year, Binghamton
Review was one of the few places I felt like I had friends, and I felt like I belonged. Detractors have claimed that the Review makes students feel uncomfortable or unwelcome at Binghamton, but I’m a student too, and it did the exact opposite for me. During my three and a half years here, a myriad of insults and accusations have been hurled at Binghamton Review and its staff from leftist students and organizations. The most common of these claim that the Review is either racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, or some combination of the four. Ironically, the strongest proof against these claims (other than the actual content of the articles we publish, which do not fit the description of those terms in any way) is the actions those very same students and organizations have taken against us: throwing away or removing issues from our racks so students are unable to obtain a copy, vandalizing and destroying our bulletin boards, calling for us (and even creating petitions, in some cases) to have our SA charter stripped or be banned from campus, the list goes on. All of these actions have one thing in common: the end goal is to silence us. If we were truly racist, homophobic, or any of the other buzzwords leftist students claim we are, then why attempt to hide what we have to say? Why not let us expose ourselves, and ruin our own credibility, as well as the credibility of conservative college students in general? There is no reason to take down an enemy that will defeat themselves if left alone. Leftist students and organizations do not want to take us down because we’re bigots, they want to take us down because we disrupt their echochamber. As long as Binghamton Review exists there will be a place for conservative, libertarian, and other non-mainstream voices at Binghamton University, and that challenges the left-wing student body. As I reflect on my college experience more generally, I can say that I am definitely a different person now than
Vol. XXXIII, Issue VI
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM I was when I started three and a half years ago. I used to be arrogant and assumed that people that disagreed with me were dumb or misinformed, but now I can appreciate that people have different perspectives, mindsets, and priorities. Similarly, I used to attack people and look for a debate or argument among my peers wherever I could find one, but now I tend to avoid confrontation. I’m unsure if this is a positive or negative, as part of the reasoning for this is that conservative students at Binghamton University (and in colleges across the country) get verbally and sometimes physically attacked for daring to say something that goes against the status quo. Politically, I’ve shifted more towards the center, as I’ve changed my mind about drugs, the death penalty, the transgender bathroom debate, and a few other issues. I’m still shy and anxious about everything, but I do think my three and a half years here have helped with that a tiny bit. The question, of course, is how much of this transformation of my character can be attributed to my experience at Binghamton University and how much of it is simply due to increasing maturity as I get older, and to that I have no answer. I still believe that college is a massive scam, and that it boils down to paying an absurd amount of money to waste four years of your life and then get a piece of paper that may or may not help you find a job, but I have learned a few things during my time here. Not from my classes, of course, that would be silly. Rather, I learned from other students that come from different backgrounds and have different experiences. For example, I learned pretty early my freshman year that many people from New York City have no idea what life is like outside of the city. I’ve met a number of students from the city that don’t understand why having a car is essentially a necessity, not a privilege. It’s mind blowing to them that, for the rest of the country, the closest grocery store is three miles away, and there is no bus or subway that will take you there. For them, being exposed to people from suburban and rural areas was probably even more enlightening. I also
editor@binghamtonreview.com
FAREWELL learned more about the understanding of race in black communities from one of my freshman year suitemates. At the beginning of the semester, while the other five of us (three white guys, one Asian guy, and a guy from India) would go places or do things together, he would spend most of his time with other people. He eventually started to spend more and more time with us as the year progressed, and when we asked him why he avoided us early on, he said something to the effect of “I just thought that since I’m black we wouldn’t really get along.” I’m unsure of his exact wording, but the implication was that he didn’t think a bunch of white guys would be interested in being friends with him, and that really had an impact on me. I never really considered that this attitude might exist in black communities, and I think we both learned from living with each other. While classes are pretty much useless (depending on major, I suppose), college is effective in promoting learning and growth outside of the classroom.
In a similar vein, I was also exposed to a lot of leftists students and instructors, which was quite a drastic difference from my high school. The claims that colleges are infested with people promoting “the liberal agenda” is absolutely true; however, the problem with extreme left-wing bias on college campuses is not that conservatives are exposed to left-wing ideas. A common narrative on the right is that colleges should be entirely neutral so that students aren’t “brainwashed” by left-wing institutions. This is stupid, and people that make this argument care more about winning elections than having an informed and open-minded populace. Being exposed to different perspectives and having to think about them on a deep level is a great thing; it gives students a fuller understanding of issues and
better equips them to make informed decisions. The problem is that liberal students are not exposed to rightwing ideas. The consequence of this is that, while conservative students are forced to learn about and understand left-wing perspectives, liberal students never have to think about the reasoning behind right-wing opinions. Conservatives often leave college with a deeper understanding of the logic behind both sides of the political spectrum, and an increased level of respect for the people they called “libtards” in high school. On the other hand, liberals leave college having learned nothing about conservative ideology, and are just as willing to write off conservatives as being racist or bigoted as they were when they were fifteen. I’m not going to offer any specific parting advice as I prepare to move on from this unremarkable university and the dreary city it is located in (or, more accurately, adjacent to). I’ve been inundated with people (professors, fellow students, people on social media) telling me what to think and do over the past three and a half years, and I’m not going to do the same to others. Instead, I’m going to declare my hopes for the future. I hope that all people, but especially college students and young people, learn to appreciate intellectual diversity, and seek to understand the reasoning behind different thoughts and opinions. I hope that people stop determining “good” and “bad” people based on which party or candidate they vote for. More generally, I hope that people stop assigning value to any type of identifier—whether it be political affiliation, race, gender, religion, or anything else—as if those characteristics have anything at all to do with a person’s merit or character. Finally, I hope that Binghamton Review continues to thrive and support underrepresented voices. So, then, why is this article titled “Why Don’t All Lives Matter?” It isn’t. That’s an inside joke, designed for those that my final remarks are especially written for. To the Binghamton Review team, thank you, and good luck. For those on the outside, maybe you should consider joining the Review. It’s a good time.
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
11
THE GREATEST ARBITER OF HUMAN RIGHTS!
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
United Nations: The Greatest Arbiter of Human Rights! By Murder O. Crows
H
ear ye, hear ye! Today, we, the most legitimate and fair council of the United Nations, begin the legal proceedings regarding none other than the greatest dictatorial power to ever walk the face of the Earth: The United States! Yes, the United States, that great world policeman whose feats of bringing about freedoms and democracy across the globe have come at a cost. Such a cost, in fact, that it’s time that we, the fair United Nations Human Rights Council, take the United States to task for its failings. Of course, when it actually comes to its failings, who can we get to criticize this great power? Who can we elevate to the floor to discuss the United States’ obvious crimes? Who would be worthy of addressing the systemic racism that constitutes the very foundation of the United States? Well, fear not! We arranged a stellar line up to be the judge, jury, and executioner for this case. Presenting, the bastions of human rights: North Korea, China, and Iran! What’s that, you say? These are no crusaders of human rights? Ridiculous! Why, this trio of countries are all examples of proper treatment of human rights! I know this cause the United Nations said so! Here, I’ll go through each of these countries and explain their exemplar record! Let’s start with North Korea; the Hermit Kingdom is a safe haven for those seeking protection of their basic human rights (unless you disagree with the Glorious Kim Jong-Un). Sure, you may hear stories from defectors such as Yeonmi Park, who describes the human rights situation in North Korea as a “modern-day holocaust”. But defectors like him are simply evil counterrevolutionaries paid off by the big corporations to defame North Korea! When North Korea states that it is genuinely concerned about the United States’s human rights record, they are definitely not deflecting from their own human rights violations! After all, Pyongyang’s representative for the
12
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
Human Rights Council, Han Tae Song, gave a fantastic analysis regarding the United States’s detention centers for illegal immigrants, and stated that the only solution in line with human rights is to “close illegal U.S. secret detention facilities”. Why, such amazing advice! Imagine if some state was so hypocritical as to operate literal concentration camps that held political dissidents against their regime? Imagine being a monstrous communist dictatorship that actively violates human rights daily? Certainly not North Korea! And who else should join North Korea then everyone’s favorite human rights savior then China! What’s that, you say? China isn’t the beacon of light to lecture the United States on human rights? Preposterous! Why, China has all the best recommendations for improving human rights in the United States! Leave it to the Chinese representative for the Human Rights Council, Juang Duan, to give us some pointers! In an online speech for the council, Duan laid out his nine recommendations, including rooting out systemic racism against Africans and Asian Americans, combating religious intolerance, and “urg[ing] politicians to respect peoples’ right to life and health…”. Couldn’t have said it better myself! After all, China has never violated the rights of Africans living in Guangzhou or placed Uyghurs into concentration camps. Nor has China
ever done anything wrong in Tibet that may be akin to ethnic cleansing! And of course, China obviously respects people’s right to health! In fact, I was recently arrested in China, and only had one kidney removed! Perfectly respectful in terms of human rights, and clearly not a cynical attempt at political posturing. And who could forget the great Iran? If you want to hear from a country that shows the greatest respect for human rights, look no further than the dictatorial theocracy that is Iran! In a show of solidarity with the other benevolent protectors of human rights, Iran’s Mohammad Sadati Nejad took the United States to task over its criminal killings overseas. Specifically, in a dramatic show of remembrance, Nejad made his speech while a picture of the recently deceased General Qasem Soleimani was placed in the background. Nejad even went so far as to call Soleimani an “anti-terrorism hero”, and condemn the United States violent intervention. Sure, Soleimani was the head of the Qud forces, which helped promulgate terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah. And yes, Iran is an Islamic theocracy that follows Sharia Law to the letter. And yes, this does include hanging homosexuals from cranes, actively restricting the freedom of women, and punishing all who dare stray from religious law. But trust us guys, this criticism is legit! With these three guardians of basic rights, the United States barely has a leg to stand on! This country, in comparison to its prosecutors, is a dictatorship of unimaginable proportions! The Human Rights Council is more credible than ever before; North Korea, China, and Iran leading the charge against the United States over its clear human rights violations is incredibly true and definitely not hypocritical. With this, the United Nations can only see its prestige increase! Now that our prosecutors have been introduced, let this kangaroo court begin!
Vol. XXXIII, Issue VI
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
The Federalist Solution
THE FEDERALIST SOLUTION
By Joe Badalamenti
T
he past four years have been a wild ride, to say the least. While the current election has produced many uncertainties, one thing which I can say for certain is that the American people are divided. This polarization did not come out of nowhere; it has been growing in the last decade and amplified by multiple bad actors, such as politicians and the mainstream media. If not checked properly, this growing polarization will lead to more severe internal conflicts in the United States. It is in the common interests of US citizens that we overcome these divisions. One path would be to adopt a federalist approach of taking into account local concerns with national concerns. There have been plenty of signs which point to the growing polarization of America. A recent YouGov poll found that the growing openness to political violence among both Democrats and Republicans has increased greatly from 8% in 2017 to 33-36% this year. The possibility that more and more people are considering violence as a solution to political problems should be very concerning. This partisan divide can also be seen in the outcome and reactions to the recent 2020 election. This election had record turnout, with Biden and Trump receiving around 77 and 72 million votes, respectively. While it may seem odd that Joe Biden could outperform Barack Obama, given the apparent enthusiasm gap, if you consider voters who are only motivated to remove Donald Trump, then the results make more sense. This also explains the unexpected performance of Republicans in Congress. Speaking of the right, most viral responses either cast doubt on the election process or imply cheating from the other side. While this election had an unprecedented amount of mail-in votes, most states took measures to prevent massive election fraud. It’s very disappointing to see all these likely false rumors spread. Meanwhile, many on the left are disappointed that anyone would vote for President Trump. Some, such as the execrable AOC, suggested that people should archive the names of Trump supporters. For someone who is the supposed future of the DNC, she appears to get into controversy almost as often as the current President. It’s clear that things have been progressing in a negative direction and that something needs to change. America needs to find a way out of the downward spiral of polarization. One way to do so is to use the federalism approach. Federalism is the idea that more power should be concentrated into local and municipal governments as opposed to the federal government. In other words, most problems should be addressed and solved by local governments. This is simply because local politicians have a better idea of the needs of their constituents than the federal government in DC. A great way to understand federalism is to see it applied to current issues. The current pandemic is a great example to showcase the failures of the federal and state governments. Not only were scarce resources mismanaged, but lockdowns were heavy-handedly enacted for prolonged periods, resulting in massive economic downturn for many local counties. In a system more influenced by federalism, local officials can communicate with institutions
editor@binghamtonreview.com
to ensure proper measures are taken without completely shutting down. Another avenue where federalism can be applied is in law enforcement. If communities can organize events in which police can interact with their citizens, then it is less likely that incidents of police brutality will occur. As communities begin to focus on local issues using a federalist approach then many will see their lives improve. While federalism comes with many benefits, there have been several hurdles that enabled many to abandon its principles. One obstacle has been the growth of the internet. The World Wide Web has allowed people to connect with distant friends and strangers at a moment’s notice. One consequence of this has been a growing focus on national issues. In today’s world, many seem to think of the United States as an invariable place with only certain problems. In reality, life in New York or California is much different than life in Arkansas or Wyoming. Living your life on the internet would make you believe that healthcare and climate change are the biggest problems in America. Another obstacle is the exponential increase in federal power. Ever since the Progressive Era, the federal government has gained more and more power. Moreover, much of this power has been concentrated within the executive branch as well as smaller bureaucracies. This has given many the impression that either the government can just legislate away our problems, or worse, that a president or governor can just fix our problems via executive order. In reality, these solutions either turn out to be ineffective or cause some unrelated problem from the interference of the national government. While the idea of federalism has been around for centuries, the massive growth of the federal state, in addition to the power of the internet to bridge distance barriers, have enabled many to abandon federalism in order to seek change in the national government, mainly through an overreaching executive branch. As national issues continue to occupy a large segment of popular concern, Americans will continue to stay divided and stride further towards conflict. While this is a complex issue with no clear solution, a federalist or local approach would allow many to see solutions that are not obvious, given a national approach. Given the climate of current affairs, some sort of solution is urgently needed.
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
13
HOW TO HAVE THE BIGGEST BRAIN
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
How to Have the Biggest Brain By Patrick McAuliffe
T
he cooperative online game Among Us took the world by storm a few months ago, effectively killing off Fall Guys and cementing its place as the latest virtual COVID-era obsession. Everyone from PewDiePie to Alpharad to even AOC has played and streamed it, and the servers are still packed to this day. I am by no means the best Among Us player, but I hope to share some big-brain tips and tricks that can help you in this game of strategy and intrigue. First released by Innersloth in 2018, Among Us is a Mafia-style game where a portion of the players try to kill or cast suspicion on the other players. Each player is a cute astronaut of a different color, dropped into one of three locations, and instructed to perform a set number of tasks in order to repair the given location. A few of these players are “impostors” that must try to sabotage or kill the “crewmates” and avoid suspicion when someone turns up dead. In group meetings, called when a body is discovered or when the emergency button is pressed, players usually describe who they were with or what they were doing and try to find a suspect in the dead player’s bloody murder through elimination. Gameplay is greatly enhanced when playing with one’s friends in a voice chat through Discord, but jumping online into random games can also be fun (there is a manual text chat available for group meetings and dead people). With the basic premises out of the way, we’ll first look at prime crewmate strategies.
14
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
Crewmates must have two objectives in mind throughout the game. Finishing tasks is important, as the crew can win if the impostor(s) cannot kill them all before they are finished, but detective work is also a valuable crewmate strategy. 1. Take note of what color player accompanies another color player, or which two players enter a room together in case only one comes out. 2. Listen attentively in group meetings for players that aren’t volunteering information on their location during the round, or players that cast suspicion on other players by volunteering too much information and deflecting from themselves. 3. Unless others can verify any suspicious activity you may have seen, it’s best not to be too aggressive in denouncing another player, as “casting sus” without verification can itself be considered “sus” and your crew will lose a valuable vote in future rounds if they elect to eject you. 4. If a sabotage is called on a side of the map where not many people are, most of the crew will rush to fix it; this is your opportunity to sweep the now-empty side of the map for stragglers and potential dead bodies (although this could backfire, as you did not go to fix the sabotage with others and they cannot clear you, thus making you “sus”). 5. Knowing the people you play with is another factor in determining impostors, as people will often have certain tells in their voice when they lie. For example, I know my little brother’s voice gets deeper and more monotone when he lies, so if I were to directly confront him about where he was when a body was discovered, I can usually tell if he’s trying to avoid suspicion. 6. Never do tasks in Electrical on the Skeld alone! It’s a death trap that allows impostors to kill you in the dark or in a shadowed corner and vent away to safety before anyone finds your body.
7. For that matter, try and buddy up with at least one other player, and make yourselves visible in high-traffic areas so other players know who you’re with. If one or the other dies, you’ll be able to eliminate the safe guesses. 8. When playing with two impostors, do not vote someone off when there are only seven players remaining. If six players remain, two of them impostors, the impostors only need a double kill to win the game (since they then cannot be voted off if the crewmate-impostor ratio is 2:2). When four players remain, one of them an impostor, do not vote someone off, because the impostor will need just one kill to win if another crewmate is ejected. Instead, stick together for the last few tasks, and you can either finish them all or the impostor will kill and outnumber themselves in the final vote. 9. If you have high suspicions of someone’s guilt, offer yourself as a second ejection during a meeting if your guess turns out to be incorrect. There are several risks and caveats to this strategy, however. Sometimes, the person you “sus” will offer the same strategy and the other players are left with a dilemma of “he said-she said.” When player count is too low, your vote will become invaluable and the other players may not want to risk losing several votes in a row. This will also only work when the game allows Confirm Ejects,
Vol. XXXIII, Issue VI
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM meaning that the players will be notified if their vote ejected an impostor or not. If other players cannot tell who they voted off, the impostors would be happy to use this strategy to kick off suspicious crewmates with impunity. Put simply, a crewmate’s job may seem easy at first, but there is much that goes into detective work, strategizing, and critical analysis of the testimonies of other players. I believe an impostor’s job is the inverse of this; it may seem nerve-wracking to try to take down the crewmates outnumbering you and your partner four to one, but once you learn how certain people tick, you can easily exploit their confusion and division to bring them down. 1. The first and most important rule of being an impostor is to never self-report a body if nobody else is around. It may seem like a good idea to shield yourself from suspicion, but if nobody can verify you except that you were last seen with the dead player, you will be quickly ejected. 2. The same goes for reporting a body your partner impostor killed; if nobody is around and you stumble upon it, it’s best to walk away and pretend you saw nothing. Reporting a body you didn’t kill can open both of you up to suspicion if your partner was last seen walking away from the area where the body was. 3. Vents spread out across the map can help mitigate this damage, as they allow for a quick impostor escape after a murder. Vents also allow you to get back under the crew’s radar, as you can kill near a vent and join up with a group of crewmates in another portion
editor@binghamtonreview.com
HOW TO HAVE THE BIGGEST BRAIN
of the map, allowing them to vouch for you. 4. Be wary of security cameras when killing or venting; two of the three maps in Among Us have them, and acting suspicious or downright performing impostor functions in front of one when they’re on is a oneway ticket out of the game. For Mira HQ, be wary of venting to different sides of the map too often; the door logs at each end of the Y-shaped hallway catalog when each player steps through them, and the crew can read them to see that you just walked through a door you physically couldn’t have gone through were you innocent. 5. Sabotages are great for keeping crew members on their toes. Not only will certain sabotages like “Reactor” and “O2” win you the game if the crewmates aren’t fast enough in fixing them, they are good for getting other players divided or distracted long enough to kill a straggler or two. Sabotages of lights and doors to certain rooms may not create a victory condition, but if the crewmates are unable to see or approach you as you go in for the kill, you may escape the encounter unscathed and unsuspected. 6. Besides not acting “sus” on the map, you need to be careful to not act “sus” in group meetings. Having an alibi is an easy fix. People that you saw even momentarily will vouch for you if you gently but firmly persuade them that you saw each other at some point during the round, reducing the chance that the crew will gang up on you. You and your impostor partner can clear each other in early rounds, but as you keep getting away with murder, public opinion can quickly shift on both of you. It’s best to have a blend of being around both crewmates and your partner impostor during the rounds to
muddy the waters of who is truly innocent. 7. Participate in meetings like you would if you were a crewmate. Whether you normally don’t talk much and only say what you need to or you control the conversation by inquiring of all other players first, you need to avoid meta-suspicion by being consistent. You shouldn’t suddenly fall silent, nor should you start by casting suspicion willy-nilly. 8. If someone starts “sussing” you and you don’t have an alibi, simply respond by saying they’re full of bullshit. Unless their own alibi is airtight, the other crewmates won’t know who to vote off and will probably end up skipping. 9. Speaking of skipping, never be the first to quickly suggest a skip, especially as more players are killed. This is a lesson I learned online in random games. Impostors survive primarily by keeping a low profile, and suggesting that nobody is punished for a player’s murder will set off small alarm bells in the crewmates’ heads. Only after the group seems to have truly hit a wall in their investigation should you suggest a skip, usually followed up by asserting that there is not enough information to find a culprit. If there’s a reason behind your avoidance, the crewmates’ alarms should not go off. Half the battle of playing a good impostor is knowing how the other players tick. Analyzing their movements and mannerisms, and acting swiftly to kill or sow discord (not the voice chat app), will be the key to your impostor victory. There’s much more to say about how best to play Among Us. I recommend checking out Game Theory’s YouTube videos on the subject if you want to learn more, or watching a favorite streamer of yours to see what works for them. In the end, Among Us is about having fun with friends—even if you can’t trust them quite the same way afterwards—and working towards a common goal—even if that goal is cold-blooded murder or patching up wires for the seventeenth time after you die. I hope this guide helps you consider your gameplay in a new light. Don’t be “sus!”
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
15