BINGHAMTON REVIEW Editor-in-Chief Contents
P.O. BOX 6000 BINGHAMTON, NY 13902-6000 EDITOR@BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
Founded 1987 • Volume XXXII, Issue III Tommy Gagliano
Managing Editor Brian Murray Copy Desk Chief Matt Gagliano
Business Manager John Restuccia
Social Media Shitposter Lacey Kestecher
Editor Emeritus
Patrick McAuliffe Jr.
Graphic Designers
Sam Kaplan, Sebastian Roman
Staff Writers
Joe Badalamenti, Brendan Casey, Joe Dorn, Nial Parmanan, Barbara Zavala, Kevin Vorrath, Madeline Perez
Contributors
Musclini, Harley Stinger, Nerdicus Maximus
Special Thanks To:
Intercollegiate Studies Institute Collegiate Network Binghamton Review was printed by Gary Marsden We Provide the Truth. He Provides the Staples
MO MONEY MO PROBLEMS
PAGE 6 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 12 13 13 14 15
by Bryn Lauer
Editorial by Tommy Gagliano Press Watch by Our Staff Climate in Crisis? by Kevin Vorrath TikTok: Manic Episodes for Clout by Patrick McAuliffe In Memoriam by Our Staff Impeachment Within Reach by Joe Badalamenti NO NEGOTIATIONS by Musclini The Drinking Bird: A Brief Explanation by Madeline Perez Baxter Accused of Sexual Misconduct by Harley Stinger Ms. Monopoly, Where Everyone Loses! by Brendan Casey The College Progressives & Privilege by Nerdicus Maximus The Firearms That Shaped America, Part 2 by John Restuccia
TELL US WHAT YOU THINK! Direct feedback to editor@binghamtonreview.com 2
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
Vol. XXXII, Issue III
EDITORIAL Dear Readers,
From the Editor
A
h shit, here we go again. Welcome to the third issue of the thirty-second volume of Binghamton Review. I appreciate you picking up this paper from its shelf or clicking on it online, and I appreciate you taking the time to read this boring message from me even more. While this section isn’t very interesting, the meat of this issue certainly is. Here’s what’s in store this time around. I’m sure by this point you’re well aware of the ongoing battle over climate change, with 16-year-old Greta Thunberg finding herself at the head of the “Climate Strike.” I’m sure you have some opinions about it, as does Kevin Vorrath, who shares his on page 5. Also chiming in on current national news is Joe Badalamenti, who discusses the Donald Trump impeachment case. Bryn Lauer chooses to focus on local issues in her first Binghamton Review piece, titled “Mo Money Mo Problems.” She outlines the problems with the terrible Binghamton City School District, and provides a possible solution. Nerdicus Maximus gets even more local by writing about a topic that takes place on this very campus. He analyzes the practices of College Progressives, and points out some flaws with their reasoning about “privilege.” Another first time contributor, Musclini, makes his voice heard on pages 10 and 11. He takes an aggressive stance on talking politics in his opinion piece “NO NEGOTIATIONS.” Editor Emeritus Patrick McAuliffe returns again with a follow-up to his previous article “Area 51 and Weaponized Depression.” This time around he focuses on the culture of anxiety and mania memes on TikTok. Speaking of Sequels, John Restuccia is back with the second part of his “Firearms That Shaped America Series.” I’m not going to tell you what weapon he discusses this time; you’ll have to turn to page 15 to find out. Did you know that Baxter the Bearcat is currently on the verge of being ousted due to a major scandal? Harley Stinger has the scoop, and you can check it out on page 13. Also on page 13, Brendan Casey expresses his feelings about the great new “Ms. Monopoly” board game. You know those drinking bird things? The ones that move up and down in a never-ending cycle? Ever wonder why the bird keeps drinking? Madeline Perez has the answer. Check it out on page 12. Finally, we’d like to take a moment to remember the tragic loss of one of our own. You can read the heartfelt and super serious obituary on page 8. As always, please feel free to direct any feedback to editor@binghamtonreview.com. I’d love to hear what you have to say, whether it is positive or negative. Hope you enjoy this issue!
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 “The Nature Preserve Stands in the way of parking” Sahar Akhlaq, Pipe Dream, 9/16/19 While we won’t comment on the content of this opinion piece, we just want to say that the amount of abuse this girl has gotten is appalling, uncalled for, and disgusting. The endless hate comments and memes (especially ones including pictures of her face) were sickening to see. Shame on you all. “Watching a movie is not a substitute for reading a book” Nicholas Walker, Pipe Dream, 9/16/19 Shut up, nerd. “‘Voluntourism’ doesn’t help those in need” Kate Turrell, Pipe Dream , 9/23/19 “This community service usually consists of unskilled labor, as most volunteers have no training, and only lasts for the duration of the vacation, usually one or two weeks.” Yeah, unskilled labour such as building houses or constructing water irrigation systems, that shit is so easy. They would have definitely been better off staying home over their summer break. All those non-profit organizations are just wasting their time. “Highlighting just how lucrative voluntourism has become, some tourists are willing to pay thousands for the opportunity to volunteer abroad.” People are willing to pay out of pocket for the opportunity to help others? The horror! Next, they’ll be donating their organs and curing lethal diseases. Those monsters. “It is a fact that voluntourism would not exist and would not continue to exist without the global force of neoliberalism.” Oh, now I get it! Neoliberalism bad! I should have know that was where this was going.
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.
“Neoliberalism, a political-economic dogma that endorses limited regulation and little state intervention, has a huge role in contemporary global inequalities.” That’s right! Limited government allows people to be charitable anywhere in the world. Limited regulation of commerce has allowed wealthy people to share prosperity with people in need. All of the technological advancements of the past 3 centuries were only possible thanks to neoliberalism. “An article in the Journal of Sociology by Nichole Georgeou and Colleen McGloin describes this phenomenon by writing, ‘Indeed, while globalized neoliberal capitalism continues to produce growing inequality, there will be increased ‘opportunities’ for voluntourism.’” So what you are saying is that a study in a field that indoctrinates people against capitalism says that capitalism is bad? Wow, what a shocker. “Samantha Nutt, in a documentary by NowThis News on volunteer tourism…” Ha. Her name is Nutt. “It would be much more worthwhile to spend the money and energy toward dismantling neoliberalism and its enmeshed inequalities. Beyond this, we need to hold our friends and family members accountable for the ways they may be shaping these very global inequalities.” So instead of spending money on improving the lives of the less fortunate, you’re suggesting that we spend the money to elect politicians who will drive this country into debt all for the sake of “equality”? *Snap* You’ve just made my cringe compilation. Could state-funded public education incentivize a better college experience? Michael Levinstein, Pipe Dream, 9/26/19
“In our stressed-out, capitalist world, the only thing that we and our parents care about is getting a job after college.” In a relaxed, socialist world, the only thing that we and our parents care about is arriving early to the bread line. “Once you’re here, you’re more than likely to stay. So why should the University reinvest tuition dollars in you if you’re bound to stay anyway?” We are bound to stay because the University reinvests tuition dollars. If we did not see our tuition dollars at play, why the hell would any of us stay? Moreover, our money is given back to us via the professors, who also would not work here if they were not paid adequately. “In this economy, every university’s only job is to make money by enrolling new students. At the end of the day, they don’t care about our lives once we are here, they just want a high job placement rate to entice new applicants. “ Colleges are for education, not hand-holding. Our tuition pays for the education, education leads to job placement, and job placement is invaluable for achieving stability in life.
Vol. XXXII, Issue III
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
Climate in Crisis?
CLIMATE IN CRISIS?
By Kevin Vorrath
U
nless you’ve been living under a rock for the past few weeks you’ve likely heard of the climate strikes being organized around the country and the world, as well as right here in Binghamton. Large crowds of people are out demanding dramatic action be taken to “save” the environment before we hit a climate doomsday, but when you examine the statistics, our environment is better off than we are often led to believe. Unfortunately, the media and politicians often refuse to report the strides that have been made in improving the environment in the United States. The narrative that the environment is getting worse year by year in the United States is simply false. Since 1970 the EPA reports that “the combined emissions of six criteria pollutants dropped by 74%, while the U.S. economy grew by 275%. Americans also drove more miles and population and energy use increased. From 2005 to 2017 U.S Carbon dioxide emissions dropped 14%, the most in the world, all while becoming the leading energy producer in the world. We’ve also seen an increase in the access to clean drinking water as well as a reduction in pollution throughout the country” (EPA July Fact Sheet). These statistics indicate that we should be celebrating the environmental advancements we’ve made in the United States, not protesting them.
“If Democrats were to acknowledge the advancements that the U.S has made with regards to the environment they would no longer be able to politicize the issue to mobilize support.” It’s also important to address that while the United States makes tremendous strides in regards to the environment, other countries neglect to act. If you truly want to better the environment you need to look at countries
editor@binghamtonreview.com
such as China and Indonesia that have continually polluted the planet and show no signs of changing. How is it fair that American companies have to compete with foreign companies that do not have to meet the same strict environmental regulations levied on them? Reversing the trend in these countries is the next big step that must be taken towards improving our environment and ensuring that we can continue to live comfortably for years to come. These are simple facts that cannot be disputed. Despite the image that they portray, I believe that the Democratic Party does know this. Unfortunately, creating mass hysteria about the environment is the best political move for them at this point. If Democrats were to acknowledge the advancements that the U.S has made with regards to the environment they would no longer be able to politicize the issue to mobilize support. I also believe the majority of the population believes this. It’s why when Congresswoman Ocazio Cortez pitches that we have twelve years before a climate crisis, she’s often met with laughter because we’ve been hearing the same messages since the 1970’s to no avail. In 2006 we heard Al Gore preach on An Inconvenient Truth that we had 10 years until a climate catastrophe unless we made radical changes, yet 2016 came and went and we’re all still here. But, instead of acknowledging these logical facts, the left and mass media take a different route. We end up with sixteen-year-old Swedish girl Greta Thunberg lecturing the United Nations about the radical changes that we need to make to help the environment. I have no problem with kids becoming involved in a political issue and advocating their beliefs. What I do have a problem with is children being brought into the spotlight and used as a political ploy. Instead of having respected scientists with years of research on environmental issues speak, we had a sixteen-year-old. Children,
unfortunately, are often used as a shield from criticism in politics. For the past week, we’ve repeatedly seen critics of Greta Thurnberg be met with backlash because you can’t criticize children. In my view, if you are going to push children into the spotlight they should be susceptible to criticism, especially in the case that Greta is being used for. Whether we would like to admit it or not, the only reason that Greta was thrust into this position by liberals was to allow for the immunity of criticism of the radical ideas that she and many others have on the environment. Why is it that the kids from Covington High School can be attacked throughout the media for not even saying anything, while Greta cannot be criticized? I think the majority of Americans would say that they do care about the environment. We want to continue to make the changes that will allow us to live comfortably for years to come. What I wish more of us did was applaud ourselves for the success we’ve had. Instead of the pessimistic image that Greta Thurnberg spews about the environment, we should be addressing what we can do to continue to improve conditions without hurting ordinary Americans. Forcing Americans to switch cars and abandon air travel are not logical solutions to help the environment, especially as others continue to pollute. So instead of striking and demanding extreme changes that would negatively affect ordinary Americans, maybe we should take a second to recognize the progress that has been made in the United States over the past several decades, and how well the United States is doing compared to much of the world.
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
5
MO MONEY MO PROBLEMS
Mo Money Mo Problems
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
By Bryn Lauer
A
ccording to the 2015-16 census of data.nysed.gov, 5,491 students from kindergarten to 12th grade attend Binghamton Public School District, with 75% of those students considered economically disadvantaged. This comes with no surprise as, according to 2019 data, 1 in every 3 persons in Binghamton are below the poverty line. Even roughly 50% of kids enrolled in nursery school are extremely disadvantaged. Off the bat this lowers Binghamton student’s chances for success. “Poverty reduces a child’s readiness for school because it leads to poor physical health and motor skills, diminishes a child’s ability to concentrate and remember information, and reduces attentiveness, curiosity and motivation,” notes data from childfund.org. But no worries! The ever-generous state of New York will come to the rescue! Sure, the taxes amassed on citizens might be burdening to some, but when the children are at stake, the ends justify the means! Thus, it comes as no surprise that nearly double the national average amount of money expenditures are spent on Binghamton students. Problem solved, right? Unfortunately, no. If only we could fix all of our problems with money. Despite an expenditure amount per student of $23,565, as shown by nces.ed.gov, multiple sources cite poor performance among students. According to Niche, the academics are rated at “C”, with health and safety ranked at “C-”. Not a single school in the system has a rating above “4/10” on GreatSchools. org, a website which ranks a school’s performance on many aspects. In fact, three of the schools ranked at “1”, and the high school was a “3”. Only 64% of students graduate from the high school, compared to the state average of 80.4%, and national average of 84.6%. U.S. News reports that the high school earns a ranking of 45.19/100, with a math and reading performance that rank among the 30th percentile. Moreover, the college readiness
6
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
calculator scores Binghamton a lofty 20.7/100. This then begs the question with so much money funneled into the system, why aren’t the results something worth selling? In other words, with an education so valuable, why is the quality so cheap? The answer lies where money has no worth. It is a basic Psychology 101 concept that parents affect childhood development substantially. The less supportive parents are, the stronger the likelihood of “negative emotionality” emerging, cites researchers Richard Slatcher and Christopher Trentacosta. The stronger the negative emotions, the more a student will struggle with “higher order cognitive processes (such as problem solving, memory, and strategic thinking),” claims Carlos Valiente, Jodi Swanson, and Nancy Eisenberg. It is not difficult to note the link between less supportive families and worse academic achievements. In fact, Waterford.org explains that “The best predictor of student success is the extent to which families encourage learning at home and involve themselves in their child’s education.” While I am not here to make sweeping accusations about the welfare of Binghamton’s kids, it cannot be ignored that the more funding a school has, the better it supposedly performs, according to The Economics of Education Review. With money ruled out as a variable in poor performance, we must assume that something is awry at home and in the halls. Something must be broken in the family dynamic, where kids lack the support they need to reach their academic potential. However, to fix the psychology of thousands of families is intangible. To lift kids out of the varying degrees of crime, poverty, and family insecurity, would require a systemic change that is out of the government’s control. Binghamton public schools need a structural and behavioral change in order to better its students. Take for instance a massive study conducted by Anna Maier Julia Daniel
Jeannie Oakes, which outlines “Four Pillars” needed for high-quality education outside of the curriculum. To summarize, schools need integrated student supports, expanded learning time and opportunities, family and community engagement, as well as collaborative leadership and practice. Kids need to be pushed, and high expectations cannot be withheld for fear of underperformance. This by no means insists that kids should be pushed to their breaking point, but by God, give students an incentive to work hard and they realize the value of learning. Parents and the community are expected to be involved as well, providing relationships where kids know they can trust their parents and town. Lastly, students need role models, whether in their own self-government or through outside influencers. Research has found that a foundation on such pillars will lead to improvement not only academically, but socially, even for impoverished students with social and environmental barriers. I acknowledge how much sweat and tears goes into educating children, but if we give money back to the taxpayer, some burdens that this community faces will be lifted. Binghamton should have the guts to trust its citizens by cutting a few thousand dollars from expenditures, as doing so will reap the benefit of allowing people to utilize their own money. We must incentivize the school district to build upon positive behavior so that students will improve their academic standings and graduate. Someone has to do something, because while many things we are not capable of controlling, this is an achievable dream. Those students deserve someone to fight for them. Not all of the factors that hold them back can be fixed by money, and while Binghamton City School District has the foundation to build a potentially far-reaching education system, the extra push will have to be changed solely by human will and intention.
Vol. XXXII, Issue III
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
TIKTOK: MANIC EPISODES FOR CLOUT
TikTok: Manic Episodes for Clout By Patrick McAuliffe
I
n the unplanned sequel to my expression of concern over millennial humor, “Area 51 and Weaponized Depression,” I would like to focus my attention on the newest hip thing that all the kids are doing: the spiritual successor to Musical.ly, TikTok. The Area 51 raid was pitiful, to say the least, but I have respect for those few hundred that showed up (an honorable mention to the Naruto running guy). It’s also good that, you know, nobody died. Like a meme that had the potential for being taken too far, TikTok also has the potential for both hilarious, wholesome content, and users posting their mental breakdowns to the tune of thousands of likes. Not only is this worrying for the users, but it is concerning for the shift in public attitudes to the things people want to see. Scrolling through TikTok is a fantastic way to kill a few hours. It probably popularized Lizzo’s “Truth Hurts,” with memes based around the lines “I just took a DNA test, turns out I’m a hundred percent (fill in the blank with some ethnicity)”, followed by shots of cultural memorabilia around the house. It definitely sent Lil Nas X’s “Old Town Road” to the top of the charts, with a sudden costume change into flannels and cowboy hats at the beat drop during “I got the horses in the back.” Unfortunately, it couldn’t work its magic on BoyBoy West Coast’s “U Was At The Club” or Blanco
editor@binghamtonreview.com
Brown’s “The Git Up,” which were both doomed to short lifespans and stuck as memes instead of blowing up like others did. If the Internet is a vast jungle where the circle of meme life is always going on - memes living and dying, eking out a living if even for a short while - TikTok is the Petri dish to see the truly dynamic ecosystem of memes interacting with and one-uping each other in fast-paced life cycles. That is, if you follow those types of users and The Algorithm™ shows you enough of them.
“People want exciting, bizarre stories that they think couldn’t possibly happen in real life, perhaps to break out of the monotony of their own realities.” The concerning bacteria growing in this Petri dish, however, are the users that post videos depicting impulse decisions, usually some sort of cosmetic modification to their hair or face, claiming that it is a result of an onset of a mental breakdown. Users will dye some or all of their hair, give themselves bangs, shave off their eyebrows, or self-pierce some cartilage on their head, among other things. Most of the time, they’ll be muttering to themselves - and their thousands of followers or passersby on the For You page - how bad of a decision they’re making due to their mania or anxiety. One user I saw even did a skit with herself talking to herself about what to do during this particular manic episode, resulting in the manic side resolving to dye her hair a deep brown from her usual dirty blonde. Although the color is a bit tamer than some others, it is both fascinating and worrying to me: is this entertainment? Is this some sort of therapy, hoping that, by opening up
to the giant neighborhood of the Internet, someone can offer words of encouragement or express solidarity? Is this just another way to go absolutely batshit so one’s page will blow up with follows and likes? The Internet is, without a doubt, filled with sensationalism that newspaper headlines would kill to have. People want exciting, bizarre stories that they think couldn’t possibly happen in real life, perhaps to break out of the monotony of their own realities. “Nobody just climbs into a lion’s pen to taunt it!” “Florida Man, again? What WON’T he do?” “Would someone really just dye their hair or shave their eyebrows for no reason?” I will admit, sometimes these videos are funny to watch, but in the way you might laugh at a dark suicide or 9/11 meme. It’s no secret that that type of humor has its place in dealing with tragedy, whether that tragedy is external in the world or confined to one’s own mind. Maybe mental breakdowns for clout really are therapeutic, and maybe they do help people with mental illnesses feel a little less alone by relating to their favored TikTok personality. As you remember from my Area 51 article, I will once again argue that the concern here lies with the likelihood that those struggling with mental illnesses, medicated or unmedicated, will switch to the camera app instead of making a call to a therapist or a close friend to help them work through their issues. It’s just one more method of living in that constant state of irony; people may be more inclined to continue to make such mental breakdown videos as their coping mechanism without doing anything to help solve it behind the scenes. Like other platforms for ironic memes, the motivation to do so is strong because it is quantifiable in likes, comments, and followers. The Internet, and the apps and platforms within it, does a universe’s worth of good for the world, but we can only hope that it does a fraction of that good for its users.
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
7
IN MEMORIAM
In Memoriam
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
By Our Staff
L
ast week, the Binghamton Review community lost one of its own. Franklin “Fucktard” Wilson was a freshman cinematography major with hopes of one day working for his favorite film company, Brazzers. He was best known for his article “Jeffrey Epstein Was Definitely Suicided,” which was published in Vol. XXXII, Is. II of Binghamton Review. Franklin was born April 20th, 2001 at Obama’s birthplace in Kenya. At age six he moved to little St. Jeff, where he discovered his love for loli hentai and edgy memes. He died a virgin (unsurprisingly), as he was found dead in his dorm room on Friday afternoon. His cause of death was found to be two gunshot wounds in the back of the head. The death has been labelled a “suicide.” His last spoken words are unknown, but his last written words were a tweet sent out on Thursday night which read “I have information that will lead to Hillary Clinton’s arrest.” When asked for comment about Franklin’s death, his mother said “about time lmao.” Franklin’s father is still in denial, claiming “that shithead ain’t my son.” A service for Franklin will not be held as nobody wants to attend.
8
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
Vol. XXXII, Issue III
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
IMPEACHMENT WITHIN REACH
Impeachment Within Reach By Joe Badalamenti
P
resident Donald Trump, love him or hate him, has become the most dynamic figure of this decade, so much so that the primary platform of the Democratic Party has become his impeachment. Fortunately for the Democrats, an unlikely scandal involving the Ukrainian Government has given them their chance. But what really happened with this scandal? Was this a big brain move by the Democrats, or will the Democrats eagerness to impeach hinder their road to taking over the presidency in 2020? Before I get into the background of the situation, I’d like to clarify some specifics about impeachment. According to the Constitution, impeachment is the removal of a government official from office. In order to begin impeachment, the President would have to be convicted of “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” What this means in the context of the Framers is that any public official can be impeached, so long as they are convicted of a qualifying crime. For example, Congress decided to impeach President Andrew Johnson for high crimes and misdemeanors because they staunchly disagreed with his policies (this did not result in the removal of president Johnson from office). The impeachment trial itself requires several votes by Congress including a final vote requiring two-thirds of the Senate. Looking at the demographics of the current US Congress, the parties are nearly even, with a Democrat majority in the House of Representatives and a slight Republican majority in the Senate. This means that in order for President Trump to be removed from office, the Democrats will need to convince a significant number of Republicans to vote with them, as the Constitution intended. Considering President Trump’s high approval within the Republican Party, the Democrats would need to uncover a major scandal in order to get a significant number of Republicans on board, and have the impeachment be successful.
editor@binghamtonreview.com
So what did President Trump do exactly? The specific accusation is that President Trump pressured the Ukrainian government to assist him in the 2020 presidential election by investigating Democratic front-runner Joe Biden. According to the criteria laid out in the Constitution, this is an impeachable offense. However, there are other factors we need to consider. Firstly, is there any proof that President Trump is actually guilty of the conduct he has been accused of? While it isn’t said outright, there is evidence that there was cooperation between the Trump administration and the Ukrainian government. However this alone is not illegal, as Treaty 106-16 allows for cooperation between governments in order to combat crime, which was supposedly the purpose of this conversation. So now that we have established that President Trump can be impeached, the next question I want to answer is if President Trump should be impeached. Taking everything into consideration, I can say that it is best if President Trump is not impeached for a few reasons. Firstly while trump has committed impeachable offenses, these actions were not illegal and congress does not have an obligation to impeach a president anytime one
commits such an action. In fact, previous presidents have committed similar actions of misconduct and have avoided impeachment entirely. Secondly the majority of the population is against impeachment. The problem here is that the majority of the support for impeachment comes from the left wing. While there are some right wingers who support impeachment, they are a minority as many polls show at least 80 percent approval among the GOP. Even if Trump is impeached, all that would happen is Vice President Mike Pence would become President, which doesn’t sound much like a win for the Democrats. Finally the next presidential election is almost a year away so if people really disapprove of Trump they can just vote him out of office. While Trump does have the incumbent advantage, we have had presidents such as Jimmy Carter who were voted out of office during their first term. So, what came out of all this other than the non-impeachment? Well, on the Democrat side Joe Biden has fallen in the polls leaving Elizabeth Warren as the new front runner. However trends have been moving in this direction so there’s no guarantee that this was caused by the incident. Meanwhile, Trump has currently raised over $15 million for his 2020 campaign. The incident has improved support for his Impeachment slightly, however this effect is marginal compared to the amount of support among Trump’s favor. It’s clear that Trump knows how to rally his base for elections. However, this is not enough to guarantee a 2020 victory as moderate and uncertain voters are key to winning swing states. So the best bet to remove Trump from office before 2024 is to convince as many moderate voters as possible to vote against Trump. 2020 is over a year away, so while we can’t accurately predict the outcome, we can begin to see trends which will lead to a certain outcome. Will this outcome be on Trump’s favor? Only time will tell.
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
9
NO NEGOTIATIONS
NO NEGOTIATIONS
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
By Musclini
S
till trying to change the minds of liberals? That’s cringe bro. If your goal is to inflate your ego by “proving” the other side wrong, okay fine, but if your objective is to actually alter the way your counterpart thinks and make them an epic conservative like you, I got news for ya. YOU ARE WASTING YOUR TIME. “No, that can’t be. All my favorite TV show and movie characters always change their beliefs, durrrrrrrr.” That’s you, absolutely pathetic. Whether you like it or not, your politics are mostly predetermined. You may temporarily change your view on some issues due to the acquisition of new knowledge (I used to be a libertarian back when I only utilized about 105 of my 260 available IQ points), but ultimately your take on a certain topic will boil down to traits which have been proven to have a heritability of over .4 (and it only increases with time). Don’t believe me? Just ask Hatemi PK, McDermott R, Eaves LJ, Eysenck HJ, Martin NG or any of the other researchers that helped me develop these scary opinions. Now, that said, there are two types of liberals in terms of thought process. Type 1 depends entirely on those inherited traits and lets their results combine with the constant stream of garbage that comes out of our media, news, or otherwise, to form their views. Type 2 is smart enough to see the end result of liberal policy actions, but supports them for self-serving or group-serving reasons and finds creative ways to push them into the mainstream consciousness. For the most part in our society, the latter fills up the media and other authoritative societal roles, while the former eats up everything they say. You will not convince Type 1 liberals because their media masters fill them with nonsense that molds well with their traits faster than you could ever wreck them with facts and logic. You certainly can’t convince Type 2 liberals because they know all the relevant facts and don’t care, with most of their justifications
10
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
just being lies anyway. For that reason, most issues are just pointless to argue. I’m sure that by this point most of the low IQ dum-dums have already checked out, so for those who remain, here are some key examples of pointless discussion topics between liberals and yourself.
“We need to either destroy Google, Youtube, Twitter, and Facebook or force them to act how WE want them to. I’m not pro-tyranny, im pro-winning.” Suffrage Laws Now I’ll start off with an easy one so your pea brains may be able to understand my genius perspective. Any form of voter law is a perfect example of my point. Every single law that changes the voting process, whether that be expanding or restricting the voting rights of groups, or changing the way voting is done to complicate
or ease the process, will help one party or the other. With that premise established, and let’s take this slowly, we are going to think about why any specific issue regarding voting might be getting a lot of attention from one side or the other. This level of thinking should be straight baby mode for some people, but I want to get everyone to at least think about it. Why would Democrats push for felons to get the right to vote? Is it because they want to “promote freedom and democratic rights, regardless of one’s background”? No, though they’ll say that. It’s because they like to win elections, you can’t convince them otherwise. The left’s end goal on this one is not to “expand and enhance democracy,” it’s to expand and enhance their political authority and ensure they will never lose an election again. With that in mind, next time you are really getting into it with a libby about some law regarding illegal immigrants voting or voter ID laws and they start taking a moral stance, just remember that if they aren’t lying directly to you about their intentions, they are indirectly through their media master’s fabricated talking points.
Vol. XXXII, Issue III
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
NO NEGOTIATIONS
Tech Censorship Now on this one, conservatives suck too, because while we love to poke fun at these “snowflakes” and their “safe spaces,” we tend not to care very much when these same “snowflakes” rally and start removing us from online platforms. In fact, many right-leaning people either support the silencing, or believe that tech giants like Facebook, Google, and Twitter should be able to do this because they are “private companies.” Oh right, but if we don’t like the way a company operates, someone will just make one to rival it, right? Hey dumbass, it ever occur to you that there might not be “another Google” or “another Facebook” being made in a little while (many election cycles), and letting them do this will DESTROY OUR DAMN MOVEMENT? Oh and by the way, these companies are doing just fine financially despite their discrimination, with the mighty free market punishing conservative alternatives who try to challenge the liberal monopoly on thought. Really makes you think. The liberal endgame here is obviously to silence us, starting at the fringes and moving in over time, this is not the hard part. The hard part of this issue is to get the “b-b-but *sniff**sob**sniff* private companies have a moral obligation to abuse us, and you need to rival GOOGLE, YOUTUBE, TWITTER, and FACEBOOK in order to make any progress in pushing forward our political views” mindset out of our heads. HOLY SHIT, DO YOU WANT TO LOSE? You people are pathetic, when we get gulaged, it’s your fault. We need to either destroy Google, Youtube, Twitter, and Facebook or force them to act how WE want them to. I’m not pro-tyranny, im pro-winning. Guns This next one is going to blow you away, ready? Your political opponents and their puppet masters in Washington and in the media don’t want you, their enemy, to be able to defend yourself. SAY WHAT????? TRUTH BOMB ALERT, BOOOOOOOOM. This seems like an easy enough concept,
editor@binghamtonreview.com
but when I hear conservatives talking about how liberals are “going too far with these crazy gun control ideas” I start to think that people just don’t get it. You know politicians only talk about mass shootings because it gets their agenda passed, right? As tragic as these incidents are, every legislation that follows them are not designed to prevent another shooting, but further the ends of anti-gun politicians. So let’s calm down with all of our gun statistics and phrases like “if we outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns” because they don’t care about crime prevention, they care about having weakened opponents. Liberals like to powergrab, and nothing is more dangerous than when conservatives try to empathize and meet them in the middle with some kind of “common sense” gun control measure. These people don’t negotiate, they take and take and take, and they will never give back, SO STOP GIVING IN. Bottom line is that politics is a game, with a large component being justification. You find cute new ways to paint your greed and hunger for power and see which one the foolish masses like the most. And yes, our side does do the same thing, with those few on top feeding the masses with their interests, but the difference is that our side’s interests are glorious, hon-
orable, and good for the country, and everyone left of center hates America. When arguing with left-leaning people you are draining yourself of time and effort that could be used towards actions that actually achieve our political goals, like having kids and passing on your conservatism to the next generation (because politics are genetic). So if there’s anything I want you to take away from this masterpiece, it’s vote red, get your conservative family and friends voting red, and keep producing children (once you become financially stable). With God on our side, we will win this war of ideas, but only through clearing our minds and identifying our problems, no apologies, no negotiations.
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
11
THE DRINKING BIRD: A BRIEF EXPLANATION
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
The Drinking Bird: A Brief Explanation By Madeline Perez
T
he mysteries of the world are commonly obscured by the ignorance and apathy of the common man. People are so concerned with their actual lives that they forget to sit back and ponder things like “why”, and “how.” What a pity. This phenomenon is leading to the death of critical thought, creativity, and the scientific method as we know it. What many fail to realize is that it’s everyday mysteries that add zest and flavor to life in what is an otherwise gloomy and depressing reality. “Mysteries like what?” you may ask. Well, I’m about to tell you. There is a mystery so great and profound, after years of research and discussion the conclusion remains almost unclear and unbeknownst to most of society: What is the Drinking Bird, and how does he drink? Now, it’s quite simple really. Many pass off the inexplicable motion of the Drinking Bird, or “The Insatiable Birdie” due to vague concepts like momentum or physics. Not only are these theories structurally incompetent, but they also come from a place of pure assumption. The actual answer is much more complex. If solid facts and science stress you out, I’d stop reading this article now. The Drinking Bird operates through a thermodynamic cycle. This means it uses temperature to create pressure inside the “bird”, which is then converted to mechanical energy (everyone’s favorite type of energy.) The key is getting the Drinking Bird’s head wet, the first step in the instructions. Once his head is wet, the water evaporates from the felt, which lowers the temperature of the glass head. Before we go any further, I must make one thing clear. The “red liquid” inside the bird is not red water or “his blood”, as many seem to think. It is Dichloromethane. As the Drinking Bird is partially filled with it and sealed under high pressure, this gives the substance, with an already low boiling point mind you, the ability to work as
12
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
a heat engine in a low-temperature setting. Anyway, as the temperature in the glass head lowers, this condenses the Dichloromethane, which leads to a pressure drop in the head. Now the base of the bird has a higher temperature and vapor pressure. This pushes the liquid up the neck, assisted by good old capillary action. The bird then becomes top-heavy and tips over. This is heartwarming and revolutionary. If the Drinking Bird has a cup, it is at that moment when he takes a nice, refreshing sip. This will, of course, wet the felt on his head so the joyous cycle can continue for as long as he has water to drink. This is seen by some as uselessly repetitive, for the Drinking Bird remains thirsty no matter how much he drinks. To this, I say it is the bird’s purpose to drink, and the monotonous tone of his life is reflected most easily in the repetitive nature of our own everyday lives. I will expand more on this later, but for now, we must focus on the rest of the cycle. Post-tip, a warm bubble of vapor rises through the neck-tube from the
bird’s core to its head. This displaces the liquid out of his head and back into the bottom bulb relatively suddenly, pulling the bird from his much needed drink back into an upright position like a child away from its mother; the taste of long-awaited satisfaction lingering on his bird-lips. Pressure equalizes between the head and bottom bulb, peace is restored, and the bird grows thirsty once more. The cycle continues, on and on, forever. The Drinking Bird lives a repetitive life. Like a seesaw, he is stuck in a futile back and forth- forced to lead a trivial life. In this way, we are like the Drinking Bird; complacently numb with the monotonicity and mediocrity of our own lives. From the moment we are unpackaged from our box, we are told how to live. How to think. How to form relationships and eat food and do math. Our society is the driving force, the hand that places the daunting cup of water in front of us from which we must drink. No more. The drinking bird must drink because he is forced to. We have a choice.
Vol. XXXII, Issue III
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
BAXTER ACCUSED OF SEXUAL MISCONDUCT
Baxter Accused of Sexual Misconduct By Harley Stinger
Last Thursday, Baxter the Bearcat was accused of sexual harassment by an anonymous woman. The woman in question said that Baxter regularly “Bearcat-called” her. Bearcat calling is like cat-calling, but also racist. Baxter, who has not spoken since he caught his parents having sex back in 2004, did not respond to our request for comment. The brave young woman, however, claims that she came forward in hopes of inspiring others, and getting free tuition. Because of the nature of his crime, Baxter’s trial was held not in a court of law, but rather the court of public opinion. Since everyone automatically sides with the accuser, Baxter will be castrated and then put to death by hanging. Baxter’s execution will occur next Sunday at 4:20pm ET (nice), in the gallows by the University Union. Baxter’s body will be made into a rug for the victim to walk all over every day.
This is the first time a Binghamton mascot has been cancelled since 1999, when the Colonial Chicken was found guilty of attempting to expand the BAP program to colonize Broome Community College. In order to fill Baxter’s role, several new mascots have been proposed. In an effort to avoid offending anyone, the University has decided that they will not consider any mascots based on animals, tribes, natural disasters, or anything that could be considered objectionable. In the end, it was decided that BU’s new mascot will be the Binghamton Snowflake. It has not yet been decided whether this new mascot will be a woman to promote diversity, or nonbinary since it is harmful to reinforce the gender binary (this proposition also calls for rewriting Binghamton’s Biology curriculum), but it has been decided that this new mascot will be a Marxist for some reason.
Ms. Monopoly, Where Everyone Loses! By Brendan Casey
The family fun game of dice rolling, property buying, and intense negotiations, almost always ending in a board being flipped, has been taken over and ruined, all in the name of progression. Who would want to ruin the classic American board game you might ask? The pink hat wearing, Beto O’rourke supporting, social justice warrior feminists of course. Hasbro, the creator of Monopoly, rolled out this women empowerment version of Monopoly. Now, for the most part, the rules are the same. You can still show no mercy to your friends when they land on your hotel for the 3rd time in a row, but there are a few tweaks. Women will collect 240 Monopoly bucks when they pass “go,” while male players will collect the usual 200.
editor@binghamtonreview.com
This woke new rule is supposed to be representative of the real world gender pay gap. The 20% increase in money while passing “go” is sure to empower women around the world. Since women are correctly compensated according to 2019 SJW criteria, men will surely never win a game of Ms.Monopoly. Even greater, men will learn an invaluable lesson about closing the pay gap and empowering women. I think Hasboro is really onto something. There’s an untapped population of woke millenials that are itching to spend their parents’ money on board games all in the name of progression. I look forward to other board game manufacturers getting on board and updating their rules to 2019 social warrior criteria.
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
13
THE COLLEGE PROGRESSIVES & PRIVILEGE
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
The College Progressives & Privilege By Nerdicus Maximus
S
ince its founding four years ago, The College Progressives club has radicalized well beyond the American left. They have developed many anarchist and socialist policies which have already posed serious threats to our university community. Many of the progressives also can’t recognize their own privilege: privilege granted by the American system they despise. This article will discuss a few of these policies, and the consequences they have posed in history and in our campus today. Opportunity to Speak Determined By Gender/Race/Sexual Orientation Etc. One rule of the progressives is that the depth of a person’s minority status determines the order members are called on (African American Woman>Woman>Man etc.). This ensures that less privileged people can express their unique experiences, and the policy does work for this. The problem is that the solutions suggested by privileged people are given the same treatment. Historically, social change has occurred when groups in privilege empathize with those who are less fortunate, and help create solutions. For example, the Quakers of Philadelphia and other white abolitionists helped free thousands of slaves because their religious and social ideas aligned with the slave’s right to freedom; not because of their race. Similarly, when people of color were attacked by police in Birmingham, Alabama, whites throughout the north joined Martin Luther King Jr. and his followers towards extensive civil rights legislation. These northerners felt that people of color deserved rights as human beings and that those in authority should not abuse their power as they did in those attacks. This leads to our next question: Why is police violence towards blacks today not treated the same way?
14
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
“...the Progressives held up signs covered in fake blood and hurtful messages, attempting to disrupt a Lockheed Martin information session. This action jeopardized employment opportunities of hundreds of engineering students while claiming the company was degrading engineers by hiring them ‘for murder.’” “Necessary Violence” and Disregard for Personal Property One of the shocking viewpoints the Progressives club holds is that of necessary violence. During one of their presentations, they considered white violence a product of hateful ideologies and racist police which is, in some cases, true. However, they claim that some form of violence is necessary to atone for injustice. Their rule is that violence destroying property is acceptable because it fights those with power in our capitalist system, while violence against a person is always wrong. I agree that unnecessary violence against individuals is wrong, however, the progressives’ violence, in practice, is extremely harmful. For example, when officer Darren Wilson was acquitted in the Michael Brown case, a number of protesters destroyed and looted businesses across Ferguson, however, the progressives might agree with this action. On the other hand, the police’s using pepper spray and tear gas might be considered the violation despite the destruction of 25 businesses. The value of the destroyed property is not the most damaging part of this situation. Unlike the police attacking people of color in Birmingham, Alabama, in Ferguson people were destroying their own city and property, forcing the police to take action. Instead of gaining support from people across America, those in Fer-
guson made the police look like the victims of a horrible riot. Thus, movements like Blue Lives Matter were started, showing support for the police instead of the black community. The Progressives Ignore their Own Privilege The biggest problem with the Progressives is that they do not check their own privilege. They have a right to protest as a result of the U.S. constitution, they had the resources to go to college, and they can issue demands to the administration, which usually go their way go their way. They also don’t recognize the harm they cause to their fellow students. For example, the Progressives held up signs covered in fake blood and hurtful messages, attempting to disrupt a Lockheed Martin information session. This action jeopardized employment opportunities of hundreds of engineering students while claiming the company was degrading engineers by hiring them “for murder.” Their reasoning: Lockheed Martin makes weapons for the military and they are somehow to blame for the military’s use of these weapons. For all of the logical flaws and oversights in the progressive’s ideology, their intentions are good. They seek justice for historically oppressed groups, have a wealth of knowledge, and are strong in their convictions. However, one must also understand the consequences of the progressives’ policies and choose to act in the best interest of the university.
Vol. XXXII, Issue III
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
THE FIREARMS THAT SHAPED AMERICA, PART 2
The Firearms That Shaped America, Part 2 By John Restuccia
W
elcome back readers to my multi-part series on the “Guns That Shaped America.” If you haven’t read the last part, definitely give it a read to learn about the very first gun that shaped American history. Looking back on Part 1, the importance of this series is becoming more apparent. It seems that guns and gun control are completely taking over the 24 hour news cycle. As much as these conversations take place, one element is missing from these discussions: the history of firearms and how firearms have made us the free country we are today. People do not know how important firearms have been in our nation’s history. The purpose of this series is to emphasize that fact. Even looking at modern times, there is a major lack of understanding. Look at the most recent Democratic debate with Beto O’Rourke calling for the confiscation of firearms, for example. We must look at the history of guns and how they shaped America. With that in mind, let’s jump ahead 100 years to take a look at a gun that had shaped our country during a period of reconstruction. I am talking about the Colt Single Action Army, also known as the Colt Peacemaker. When talking about Colt there is an old saying, “God made man, Colt made man equal.” That sums up the Colt Peacemaker perfectly. It did not matter who you were or what skill level you were; Colt made guns that almost anyone could use. In Part 1, I talked about the Brown Bess musket. With that gun came the issues of reload speed, knowledge of how to load the rifle, having all the necessary gun powder, and ramming the single round down the rifle. To use the gun one had to have the necessary knowledge and skills. As a self defense weapon, the Brown Bess was not ideal. The Colt Peacemaker made the Brown Bess look like a weapon used in the Stone Age. Just about every aspect of
editor@binghamtonreview.com
the Peacemaker changed the firearm industry as a whole. Part 1 included an explanation on how one had to reload the Brown Bess and the struggles that came along with that firearm. Popular Mechanics described perfectly how easy the Colt Army was to reload. “This iconic revolver had a six-chamber cylinder that used a loading gate on the right side of the receiver. To load the pistol, you’d simply half-cock the hammer, open the loading gate, and drop cartridges into the chambers. To unload spent cases, you’d align the chamber with the loading gate and pull the ejector rod back.” It is easy to see how simple it is to load the gun. No need to ram a bullet in the chamber anymore, simply load the rounds into the chamber. Almost anyone could do this and that is one of the reasons that the gun was so popular. In American culture, the Colt Peacemaker has been used by a number of famous icons. American outlaws such as Billy the Kid and Jesse James, who were prominent figures of the “Wild West,” were known for using the Colt Peacemaker. American heroes of the west also used the gun, most famously Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday, who both used the Colt Peacemaker during the famous Gunfight at the OK Corral. These names wouldn’t have gone down in the history books without the Single Action Army. Even transcending the time period the gun was used, the Colt Peacemaker is still being used in film and video games today. The Internet Movie
Firearms Database shows the Colt Single Action Army has appeared in over one hundred different films across a variety of genres. In the Clint Eastwood cowboy classic “A Fist Full of Dollars,” Clint’s character is shown to use the revolver as his trusty sidearm. In “The Expendables 2,” a team-up of the greatest action stars of the 80s and 90s, Slyvester Stallone is shown to use the gun with a shortened barrel. The gun is popular in video games as well. The Metal Gear Solid franchise features Revolver Ocelot, a man who solely wields a Single Action Army. In Red Dead Redemption 2, the Cattleman Revolver is heavily based off the Peacemaker. As stated previously, Beto O’Rourke has called for the confiscation of firearms at one of the Democratic primary debates. However, the history of the Colt Single Action Army is the exact argument against confiscation of firearms. Everyone is different, physically and mentally. Some people in this world try to use their differences to their advantages to get ahead by taking away your rights. Whether that be the right to feel safe or the right to even live in some cases. The Colt Single Action Army, as so eloquently put earlier, makes every man equal. It gives every woman or man the ability to defend themselves from those who use their advantages over others. The Colt Peacemaker wasn’t just a firearm, it helped shape the American landscape and mentality. That is why the Colt Single Action Army is a gun that shaped America.
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
15