BINGHAMTON REVIEW
Dear Readers,
From the Editor
Who else had a rough start to the semester? I know I did. Classes feel a lot heavier when you’re running the best magazine east of the Mississippi. To that end, I apologize for all of the technical errors I made in the last issue. All of these mistakes were entirely my own. I especially apologize to Joe Badalamenti, whose article I cut off with an unfunny picture of Patrick from Spongebob “praying.” Joe was more than understanding when I apologized personally, but it’s still entirely unbecoming of my position as Editor in Chief. I sincerely promise to everyone else that I will never let their article meet the same fate.
But that’s enough miserable self-pity on my part. Projects like these are like pancakes: the first one never comes out quite right. Fortunately, you’re never making only one pancake. While the first one may be burned, gooey, or both, it just means that the next few will come out great.
Now I’m really excited about this issue. We’ve got some new talent writing for us, and I’m very impressed with their work. All these authors’ submissions are a country mile better than my own first article. Better research, stronger conclusions, and snappier prose define some of these new submissions. Perhaps I was too harsh on freshmen last issue. It’s certainly hypocritical of me to call them lazy and stupid when I forgot to fill in blank page numbers. (Sorry, I’m still beating myself up over that one.)
This is not to say the old guard hasn’t written anything for us. I myself wrote a response to “El Lento’s” latest article, where I take him to task for his more tenuous assertions. You can find this response on page 15. Aiden Miller, our Social Media Manager, makes his authorial debut on pages 12 and 13, where he discusses the misery of the New York Mets’ many maledictions.
More excitingly, music is playing a big role in this issue. Tired of so-called “music critics” mocking otherwise good artists? So is Pritish Anand, who takes these snobs to task on page 5. Toby Olson gives an intense analysis of Johnny Cash’s At Folsom Prison on pages 6 and 7. Likewise, Johnny Patterson presents an exhaustive defense of “country music” (yes, even the “bro-country” subgenre) on pages 8 and 9.
If music’s not your thing, our new talent has provided some classic Review-style articles on politics, campus, and satire. Brett Patrick and Comson Cao discuss the current climate of self-censorship and polarization on pages 4 and 14, respectively. The mysterious “Saguaro” exposes the state of Binghamton’s clubs in 2023. Similarly, “Bunzeey” gives tips on how to live “The Best College Life.” Binghamton Review claims no responsibility for any implementation of this advice.
It’s too hot outside and I’m tired. I’m gonna end this editorial here. Hopefully next time, the only “freakishly hot” thing in September will be you, dear reader.
Sincerely,
Arthur O’Sullivan
Our Mission
Binghamton Review is a non-partisan, student-run news magazine 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 on campus. We stand against dogma in all of its forms, both on campus and beyond. We believe in the tenents of free expression and believe all sudents should have a voice on campus to convey their thoughts. Finally, we understand that mutual respect is a necessary component of any prosperous 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.
Campus Censorship
By Brett Patrick
Free speech and ideological diversity are fundamental pillars of college institutions. Over the years, this is a fact that US presidents recognized. In 1998, President Bill Clinton reaffirmed the basic human right to expression during a speech in China. In 2015, on a back-to-school tour, President Obama reminded students of the importance of campus dialogue. In 2019, President Trump signed an executive order that required colleges to enforce the right of free inquiry if they desired specific federal grants.
Binghamton’s history regarding freedom of expression is abysmal.
light regulations are unconstitutional in public institutions. Binghamton’s speech climate is slightly below FIRE’s national average, and peers reportedly share this sentiment. According to FIRE, most Binghamton students self-censor, and a mere 33% say they are not concerned about harming their reputation if anything they say or do is out of context. Around 38% say shouting down a speaker to prevent them from speaking on campus is always unacceptable.
But free speech has also frequently come under fire, as the Free To Choose Network’s forthcoming Free To Speak docuseries will thoroughly investigate. Premiering October 5th, the film will examine “the power and controversy of free speech across nations and time.”
The film comes at an opportune moment. Today’s illiberal activists have tarnished this extensive precedent of discourse by censoring right-of-center voices and exacerbating partisan hostility in the United States. With the Biden Administration’s rescission of the “free inquiry” rule earlier this year, the US lost an education policy designed to uphold First Amendment and liberty rights. Open dialogue is passé. Censorship and silence are the new fashion.
This is especially bad for college students whose educational experiences have been substantially altered by censorship. From the enduring issues surrounding ideological tolerance to the “canceling” of tenured professors, institutions are inadequately unholding the fundamental right to expression. Binghamton students have endured the brunt of explicit censorship, ideological conformity, and silencing.
Censorship disproportionately impacts right-of-center students nationwide, which is comical considering that progressive students have historically pioneered the Free Speech Movement and faced suppression. Due to growing civil unrest in the 1960s, a coalition of young advocates first gained momentum at the University of California, Berkeley. Universities and law enforcement cracked down as the protests grew, which resulted in separate fatal occurrences at Jackson State and Kent State universities.
Today’s university protests are causing the police presence to increase once more. Mandated by law, public establishments must safeguard campus free speech.
National organizations have spotlighted these concerns. For instance, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) aims to uphold and defend every American’s fundamental liberties of thought and expression. They encourage a culture of support for these rights and offer ways to protect them. FIRE also evaluates free speech rules at more than 486 schools, including Binghamton University. Schools are classified annually as green, yellow, or red light institutions based on how far they restrict free expression.
FIRE classifies Binghamton University in the “yellow light” category, indicating limited protected expression. Yellow
Binghamton’s history regarding freedom of expression is abysmal. The school made headlines in 2019, when protesters disrupted a speech from visiting conservative economist Dr. Arthur Laffer. The protests were so intense that Laffer wasn’t able to articulate his views, and two offending protesters were arrested. This wasn’t enough to protect the school from a lawsuit. The Alliance Defending Freedom brought suit against Binghamton in 2020, claiming that the campus was negligent in protecting the free speech of College Republicans, their members, and their guest speakers. That lawsuit is still ongoing.
Our Student Handbook contains benighted procedures regarding speech. Demonstrations risk being shut down based on their “portrayal of individuals,” and organizers must reserve spaces at least “four days” beforehand. These policies misrepresent Binghamton University’s values. In addition, they dampen the passion of our staff and students. Binghamton should loosen these guidelines so that free expression can flourish. Further protections to safeguard beliefs espoused on-campus and off-campus must also arise.
Other institutions have taken tremendous steps to solve these concerns. Over 100 colleges have adopted the Chicago Principles, a collection of guiding tenets highlighting a dedication to freedom of speech and expression on university campuses. As a T-20 public institution, SUNY Binghamton should follow in the footsteps of other accredited universities and embrace the Chicago Statement to demonstrate an appreciation towards staff and student freedom of expression. Numerous schools in New York State have already incorporated these principles — including Columbia University, Utica College, and the CUNY system.
This issue should cross ideological boundaries. It doesn’t matter if you’re conservative or progressive; everyone benefits from an unrestrained exchange of ideas. Fortifying a university’s fundamental goal as a venue for unconfined research, discussion, and dialogue should be an immense prerogative of all American universities. The Chicago Principles would hold our institution responsible for defending the rights to free expression of staff and students, regardless of whether their objective is to conduct research, campaign, protest, or learn in a setting that fosters open inquiry.
It’s time we recognized loopholes in our campus’ speech regulations that allow for unlawful and immoral constraints within our institution. Embracing the Chicago principles would be an excellent place to start.
Groove on Your Own Rhythm!
By Pritish Anand
Ah, music critics, those peculiar beings who wander the vast landscape of sites like Billboard, Pitchfork, The Rolling Stone, and especially YouTube (I’m looking at you, Fantano). Most are elusive creatures, lurking in the shadows of their keyboards, armed with pens and notepads. Let’s embark on a whimsical journey to explore the eccentricities of these fascinating individuals and their sometimes puzzling perspectives on the music we hold dear.
First and foremost, let’s acknowledge the enduring appeal of Linkin Park, Led Zeppelin, and Nirvana. These bands have left a longstanding mark on the music scene, captivating the hearts of millions of fans worldwide. However, music critics, with their unique lens, often view things differently. They’ve been known to raise an eyebrow: questioning the commercial appeal of Linkin Park, debating the originality of Led Zeppelin’s riffs, or even calling Nirvana “the epitome of college radio.” As a disclaimer, I don’t think it’s criminal to dislike one or even all of these bands. It’s easy to understand the appeal, but also the lack of it for some. What is a bit disconcerting is how critics often end up changing their minds after overwhelmingly positive public reaction… and how maliciously stubborn they can be for artists who are not as fortunate.
Ultimately, music critics assume this peculiar role in the grand symphony of musical appreciation. They claim to offer these supposedly unique perspectives, attempting to challenge our preconceived notions and thrust us into uncharted sonic territories that don’t garner enough recognition
to Simpson’s. Yet, critics went out of their way to use her as an example of pop music’s decline. One New York Times Article from the time of the incident said, “we should stop taking it for granted that music isn’t as good as it used to be.” This criticism would also be a leading factor in further negative reviews and reduced sales for her following albums, never reaching the success of her debut. Altogether, this shows how not every musician is lucky enough to trump their detractors over the course of time—like a Linkin Park or a Led Zeppelin—nor be placed in a more open-minded environment like today.
A great example of this is Ashlee Simpson. She was one of many young artists to make an appearance in the mid-2000s but had her career come to a major pause just six months after her debut album’s release. Her band was performing on Saturday Night Live. The performance of her first song “Pieces of Me” went just fine. However, when she was scheduled to play her second song, “Autobiography,” as soon as Simpson held her microphone up to her mouth to start singing, the vocal track to “Pieces of Me” started playing instead of “Autobiography.” Realizing she had just been embarrassed on National TV, she mumbled something inaudible on the mic and ran off stage. Today, having a backing track, or even just full-on lip-syncing is a completely normal thing for performers. Artists all the way from Britney Spears to Garth Brooks to Cardi B have been “caught” lip-syncing, but the amount of backlash has been minimal compared
While their analytical shenanigans might occasionally amuse or disturb, let’s not forget that their real aim is to unravel the artists’ intentions and showcase their creations’ supposed depth. They won’t rest until they’ve stripped every song bare, leaving no stone unturned. Now, let’s take a lighthearted look at the intriguing process of reviewing musical projects. Critics have a penchant for delving deep into the intricacies of a song, dissecting every available detail, especially those more casual listeners may have missed. They’ll ponder over time signatures, chord progressions, and the emotional subtext of a cowbell solo. It’s as if they’re uncovering secret codes in the melodies, hoping to find the cure for cancer or $5 off on their next Pizza Hut delivery.
Ultimately, music critics assume this peculiar role in the grand symphony of musical appreciation. They claim to offer these supposedly unique perspectives, attempting to challenge our preconceived notions and thrust us into uncharted sonic territories that don’t garner enough recognition. And even then, for every indie artist that gets bombarded by positive reviews, there’s always one whose debut project gets a 2-star review on AllMusic and has their career stomped before it can really even begin. So sure, critics might stumble upon a hidden gem here and there, pointing out talents we may have overlooked. But let’s not forget, it’s absolutely vital to assert our individuality and never allow their “qualified” opinions to overshadow our own damn experiences. Because hey, the true beauty of music lies in its raw power to stir emotions and forge personal connections. So, let’s raise a fist to the vast diversity of tastes and opinions out there, granting every soul the freedom to embark on their own musical journey, unshackled by the chains of critics.
Let’s crank up the volume, get down with the music that speaks to your soul, and let the joy flow. Sure, critics can have their moments of analysis and interpretation, but never let their words overshadow the personal connection you have with the tunes that resonate deep within. In a world where we have access to hundreds of musical genres with a click of a button, let’s celebrate the endless possibilities and the sheer delight it brings to our lives. Groove on!
By Toby Olson
Johnny Cash Renews Inmates’ Identities, Live At Folsom Prison.
Abanner runs across the bottom of the stage, “Welcome Johnny Cash.” It’s the only decoration in one of Folsom Prison’s harshly lit rec rooms. On stage: an acoustic guitar, an electric guitar, an electric bass, a drum kit, a fiddle, and a harmonica.
Cash opens with “Folsom Prison Blues,” an attempt to capture the experience of the very individuals sitting in front of him. The raspy howls of the inmates at the sound of, “Time keeps draggin’ on,” “I shot a man in Reno / just to watch him die,’’ and “When I hear that train a’comin, / I hang my head and sigh,” suggest that the inmates feel a strong resonance with Cash’s storytelling.
Deprived of an identity anywhere outside the walls of Folsom the prisoners are renewed in their joy for living. Cash speaks, through them, on unavoidable truths of life—touching on the inmates’ experiences, and yearning for their liberation.
In listening to At Folsom Prison (please listen to the first two songs, at least), it quickly becomes clear that the album’s success is due to the emotions of our shared human experience, and the ability of music and sound to cathartically release these feelings.
But the recording holds so much more than just a performance. It encapsulates an incredible feeling one might call spirituality, or perhaps presence. Every part of the crowd is enlivened, shouting for joy, laughing, crying, hollering. Music transformed Folsom Prison from a desolate trap into a Roman amphitheater.
Sure, music has obvious power, but folk music especially has, for millennia,
Every part of the crowd is enlivened, shouting for joy, laughing, crying, hollering. Music transformed Folsom Prison from a desolate trap into a Roman amphitheater.
uplifted and united the lonely. After all, folk (volk, in German) just means person.
The music is about commonality—the knowledge that inescapable pains of life are shared. Accepting this can momentarily make life worth living. (At least it seems to have done that to the prisoners of Folsom.)
The technological development of recording (and all forms of artistic reproducibility in the wake of industrialization) presupposes our current notions on art. Recording especially revolutionized the laymans ability to experience sound. Where once the average person had to experience music in communal areas with groups of people, individuals now listen in a world of their own, listening exclusively with personal interpretations.
Folk music was typically performed at local establishments in small towns, relying on familiar melodies and stories to engage the audience and allow for memorization.
The process by which songs like “Stand By Me,” “My Girl,” “I Shall Be Released,” “Orange Blossom Special,” or even “This Land is Your Land” were recorded is similar to the process by which the Iliad or the Odyssey were written.
The authors are unknown, and the lyrics passed on through generations of verbal performances until technology came around to cement one version of the poem into “recorded” history, under names like Ben E. King, The Temptations, Nina Simone, Johnny Cash, Woody Guthrie, and of course, Homer. The communal and moral elements of folk music foster a sense of collaboration rather than exaltation of the performer. Walter Benjamin argues that this phenomenon is rare for “art in the age of its technological reproducibility.” He elaborates on how the aura of a piece is lost in its mechanical reproduction. I would consider At Folsom Prison to be a rare exception to this typically accurate observation. The album accentuates the folk music genre’s history of uplifting and unifying egalitarianism typically restricted to small, non recorded performances. At Folsom Prison’s tracklist is split into two discernible perspectives. Most, like “Folsom Prison Blues,” see Cash sing in first person from the perspective of a prisoner (one song, “Greystone Chapel,” was actually written by an inmate, Glen Shirley). The remainder of the songs are written in the second person, instructing (or preaching to) the audience. These songs are typically authorless, covered by folk singers over decades before the mass production of records.
Both categories’ songs naturally address classic folk themes: Love, death, loneliness, intoxication, deceit, and of course murder. My personal favorite is “Dark as a Dungeon,” the second song on the album. The first recording was likely made by Merle Travis in 1947, but based on the variety of covers, and the prisoners clear familiarity with the song, it’s quite clear that its roots sink far deeper into American folk history.
The song is an extended metaphor about desire:
“The dark dreary mines” are a vehicle for exposing the dingy yet opportune allure of hedonism.
The song addresses the crowd, “oh come all you young fellers;” it’s a plea (fittingly this type of invitation to the listener is characteristic of poems that rely on recitation and memory through generations). The author warns not to “seek fortune in the dark dreary mines,” though, “a man may have lust for the lure of the mines,” one must resist, lest “the stream of your blood run black as the coal.”
The heart in Cash’s voice is almost ironic when considering that the warning in the song is overdue. The listeners are already incarcerated, ostensibly due to their moral shortcomings.
It is reasonable, then, to consider that the inmates resonate with the perspective of the author. They regret their mistakes, yet howl in catharsis with Cash. You can hear a man half laugh, half burst into tears at “it’s dark as a dungeon way down in the mines.” These men are in the mines. They feel as though their “blood runs dark as the coal.” They know that in their lives, “danger is doubled / pleasures are few,” but more importantly they are heard. Cash is speaking through them, momentarily liberating them from their crimes and their ills.
Directly after, at the start of the second verse, Cash informs the crowd “its being recorded, I know, Hell!” As Cash continues singing, “like a fiend with his dope / like a drunkard with his wine,” the crowd raises its voice and yells until the recording is overrun with applause and Cash must raise his voice to resound over it. It’s truly moving. The hairs on my neck perk up every time I hear it. After the crowd is alerted to the fact that they’re being recorded, they become an active part of the performance.
The next song that sticks out to me is “Green, Green Grass of Home.” Another one riddled with irony: most of the men listening will not “touch the green, green grass of home” ever
again—that is until Cash gets to the end of the song, singing, “Yes, they’ll all come to see me / In the shade of the old oak tree / As they lay me ‘neath the green / green grass of home.”
Another moment of echoing ap-
The technological development of recording (and all forms of artistic reproducibility in the wake of industrialization) presupposes our current notions on art.
plause. It’s a reminder to the prisoners, and to us as listeners that the pains of life simply end at death. Though the inmates at Folsom may feel isolated or disconnected from their fellow man, we all share the phenomenon of death. We all take our place in the ground and communally experience the inevitable forces of time and nature. Though morbid (and not an advertisement for death) this theme is as moving as it is indiscriminate.
I wondered why I had such a strong reaction. It’s a live album, the crowd is going to add to its effect. The difference here is found both in the values of folk music and the technology of recording, which in that moment gave inmates at Folsom the ability to participate in the musical experience and have it immortalized through mass production.
The inmates both resonate with the dark yet uplifting content of the music, and vocally participate in the production. (In a sense, that I guess can be compared to adlibs in a rap song.) After learning that they are being recorded, the prisoners feel a renewed sense of identity with the knowledge that countless people will hear their voices. In this way, At Folsom Prison captures a phenomenon usually restricted to non-recorded music, all while the fact that it is recorded empowers the live listeners to feel the pains and joys of life through Cash.
Johnny Cash’s career completely turned around after his recording at Folsom Prison. He was struggling with
a cocaine addiction and hadn’t reached a financially stable level of acclaim. Though his presence on stage is commanding as ever, it stands to reason that the success of the album is in part thanks to the crowd as an active participant in the recording. The undeniable fervor present in every sound the crowd makes resounds as a truth about folklore’s ability to unite people over a shared history. It also shows a separate but intertwined truth about music’s ability as an art medium to release deeply entrenched human feelings.
I share this because being in a university setting can and will challenge your identity. The inmates and Cash demonstrate for us that though we all experience life from our own unique perspective. Whether we’re inmates, Air Force technicians (like Johnny Cash when he wrote “Folsom Prison Blues”), or students, we all take on certain identities that assert authority over our ability to recognize ourselves as individuals. The assimilating power of prisons contributes to the desperation the inmates at Folsom felt, the way Cash felt in the Air Force writing “Folsom Prison Blues,” or the way a student feels when they just can’t get out of bed and face another day. These feelings are completely incomparable; I don’t know how a death row inmate feels. Yet there is an incredibly uplifting space between the most incomprehensible personal feelings and the most vague natural tropes. Folk music enables us all to connect to our shared history. It’s even more powerful when experienced around other people in real time. At Folsom Prison presents us with the idea that we are undeniably different and yet comically the same. Accepting the latter is the best way to accept ourselves as the former.
In Defense of Country Music
By Johnny Patterson
Imagine this scene: you’re sitting in class, and someone sits down in the empty seat to your right. They ask you your name and give you theirs. You immediately hit it off, the conversation flows effortlessly. “Finally, my first friend,” you think to yourself. Eventually, the topic of music is brought up. You tell them your favorite artists and ask what they like. “I listen to everything really,” they say, “well, everything but country.”
.
“All they talk about is tractors, guns, and girls” ...
I think that these people have failed to consider that all of those things are, indeed, epic.
How does this make you feel? There’s a good chance you agree. You may have even used this line yourself a time or two. But why is this such an accepted view? I mean it’s objectively untrue. You don’t listen to everything. I mean, when’s the last time you sat back, relaxed, and queued up Wagner’s “Symphony in C Major”? How about some good old fashioned vaporwave? Gregorian chants? Copyright free music?!? Clearly, no one actually listens to everything. But this raises the question: If there are so many obscure, wacky types of music out there, why is “country” the only one that people feel the need to explicitly denounce?
If you pressed an average “everything-but-country” listener on the subject, they would probably tell you that the genre is shallow. “All they talk about is tractors, guns, and girls,” they may claim. And on this point, I concede. There is certainly a disproportionate amount of country songs about
those subjects. But I think that these people have failed to consider that all of those things are, indeed, epic. Obviously, they have never enjoyed the high that comes with taking an early autumn ride on the fender of their grandfather’s 1972 International Harvester 1066. That feeling alone deserves a couple of hundred songs. This goes for the other things on the list as well. Guns and girls? I mean come on, those have to be two of God’s greatest inventions. However, just because there is all this talk of guns, tractors, girls, hunting, fishing, beer, trucks, etc. in a majority of modern country songs, that does not give you a reason to completely reject the entire genre. There are songs that talk about similarly low-brow topics that still have plenty of artistic merit. A majority of rap songs talk about drugs or sex. This doesn’t mean the whole genre is trash. There are plenty of rappers who have meaningful things to say. The same goes for country. Once you look past the surface layer of clichéd imagery, you’re likely to find raw emotion and deep insight.
Country is a wide-ranging genre that is capable of playing to many different aspects of the human spirit. There’s a country song for every occasion. Want to hear something sad? I challenge you not to shed a tear to George Jones’ “He Stopped Loving Her Today.” Feeling a little nostalgic? Eric
There’s a country song for every occasion.
Church’s “Springsteen” hits all the right spots. Fed up with life’s bullshit? Let off some steam with Blake Shelton’s “Some Beach.” Just want a chill vibe? Nothing beats “7 Summers” by Morgan Wallen. What if you just want a nice love song? Well you’re in luck. This is where country truly excels. I could name twenty masterpieces straight off the dome. Nothing captures the spirit of romance like a soft guitar and a southern accent. My favorite of the thousands of country love songs would probably be George Strait’s “Give It All We Got Tonight.” Strait is known as the “King of Country” and I think he earns that title for this song alone. It’s beautiful. Everytime I play it, I have to be careful to not become a victim of seduction myself, lest I fall in love with “King George” and spend the rest of my life pursuing him. I am a straight man. Along with being a helpful aid to “getting in your feels,” so to speak, country songs can also have some rather deep themes and messages in them. Take the 2002 hit “Three Wooden Crosses” by Randy Travis. The song is a redemption story that tells the story of a hooker who came to accept faith after miraculously surviving a bus accident that killed several others. Some deep stuff. Another classic is Marty Robbins’ “They’re Hanging Me Tonight” which features a cowboy reflecting on his actions after committing a crime of passion. The
song just touches the soul. It makes you question your thoughts about love and regret. For something more modern, look to Luke Combs’ COVID hit “Six Feet Apart.” This track brought peace of mind to a nation in distress after its release in May of 2020. Listeners felt comforted, they felt a moment of safety amidst a world that seemed to be falling apart in front of their eyes. A little more than merely “guns, girls, and beer.”
Everytime I play it, I have to be careful to not become a victim of seduction myself, lest I fall in love with “King George” and spend the rest of my life pursuing him. I am a straight man.
By this point, an honest country music hater may be willing to admit that it’s not all trash. They may be willing to say that certain artists actually make meaningful and touching music, even if it’s not to their taste. If that is the case, I am glad, but I am not satisfied. I will defend the honor of even the least sophisticated forms of the genre. To find where this lack of sophistication stems from, we must look at a little history. In particular, we must travel back to the early 2000s. At this time, the dominant force in country was the “neotraditional” style. This was the style embodied by singers like the aforementioned George Strait, along with people like Alan Jackson and Garth Brooks. It was simple and elegant. Neotraditional singers sought to bring country “back-to-its-roots” after things had gotten a little wild in the 80’s and early 90’s. They succeeded for a long time. It was a good look for country. It was classy. No longer were the days of the wacky line dances in honkytonk bars. The civilized people were in control again and everything was going to be
okay. And then Toby Keith arrived on the scene. Maybe the least sophisticated man ever born. Toby loved women, beer, and America, and he wasn’t subtle about it. Although he did have some early hits in the neotraditional style, he quickly shifted to a louder, more bombastic type of music. Some early Keith titles include “Who’s Your Daddy?” and “Trailerhood.” As you can see, he was not exactly “refined” in his taste. But it was his post-9/11 banger “Courtesy of the Red, White, and Blue” that changed the course of country music forever. The track is Keith’s magnum opus. I’m sure you’ve heard it, if not give it a listen immediately. It is powerful. It was probably single-handedly responsible for half of the enlistments of the troops on our side of the Iraq War. In fact, I bet if the 9/11 hijackers were given the opportunity to hear this track before they went through with the attack, they would have actually switched sides right then and there—flew a plane into Bin Laden’s compound instead. It has that effect. Just raw, uncontrollable feelings of ‘Merica. The pinnacle of the genre. The song saw massive popularity, and other artists in the mold of Keith began to pop onto the scene. People like Trace Adkins and Justin Moore kept the low-brow, redneck energy going, but they still maintained some merit in their lyrics. They would at least usually make some good points about patriotism or love or something. But out of this wave also spawned people like Keith Urban, the infamous Australian
“Spring Break country” singer. Urban, along with similarly carefree, summery singers like Kenny Chesney and Brad Paisley created what we now refer to as “bro-country.” This became the most popular style in the early 2010s and has held on since. It is really what most people are talking about when they say they hate country music. It is the final boss of “guns, girls, and beer.” Many people who like the country even disown the style, calling it “fake country.” And I’ll admit, bro-country, with its pop influence and admittedly meaningless lyrics, is not my favorite. But I am a man of my word and I promised to defend country music. I can’t give up now. So I’ll say this: music isn’t just about reflecting on life in a somber and serious way. Sometimes, you don’t want to overthink life. You just want to live it. To be happy, to be proud, to laugh, whatever. This is exactly what bro-country is good for. It’s purely vibe. Sure it’s silly. High school English teachers wouldn’t be impressed. But dammit, it’s fun. Nothing beats the feeling of going for a summertime joy ride with the windows down, feeling the breeze through your hair while cranking some stupid country song like Thomas Rhett’s “Crash and Burn.” Life at its simplest. Life at its best.
There is some evidence to show that country music is already gaining massive popularity, which would render my argument useless. After all, the top three titles on the Billboard Hot 100 at the time of writing this are all country songs. But I would argue that we have not yet gone far enough. Most people haven’t experienced the full scope of the genre. All they’ve heard are a few Morgan Wallen or Luke Combs songs and maybe some of the new bluegrass stuff that’s on the rise. I hope this can change. I hope people can broaden their horizons. Country is one of the most versatile and diverse genres out there. Just give it a fair shot. Set aside your preconceived notions and try the sampler platter. If you don’t like a song or an artist, skip it and go to the next. You will find something you like eventually. Just let the music speak to you. You may discover something powerful.
An Unbiased and Impartial Review of Binghamton Clubs
Long ago, when I roamed this earth as a freshman at Bing, I was nervous about joining clubs. For those current freshmen out there, fear not, for I have arrived, ready to deliver crucial information concerning the various extracurricular activities found on campus—particularly ones that I have experience with.
Campus Survival Games
“...bullying friends is very enjoyable.”
Before I go into depth about this club, I will say that although I haven’t spent MUCH time with this club, it is intriguing. In my youth—many years ago—I yearned to have long and grueling battles with Nerf guns blasters, firing bullets darts at my friends mortal enemies. After some experience with the
group, I can confirm that it is immensely enjoyable. It has a competitive atmosphere but also can be a great place to hang out with friends and have nice conversations between firing rounds at them. The overall rating of my experience - is 8/10, would recommend. Show up to their meetings, and bring victims friends along for an enhanced experience. One last tip, when playing a team game, it may be best to pick one person you are hanging out with as a sacrifice to send to the other team. That way, you can all enjoy the experience of targeting friends.
Binghamton Gaming Group/Board Game Group
Next up on the chopping block is this club, and it’s pretty self-explanatory: you go there, talk to people (optional), and play board games. There’s a lot to choose from, and whether you want something quick where you can get lots of games in, or a drawn out 4-hour long slog of endless rule-checking and tense negotiations, all for everyone to either completely forget by the next week or hold grudges against one person for a single action they took in a long, long, game. All said it can be a great way to meet new people. Even if you don’t want that, find people you
By Saguaro
do know to drag along, and simply play with them, rather than being social and talking to strangers. I would rate it a firm 9/10, and a great place to be if you stay in on Friday nights. Similar advice as the previous club, bullying friends is very enjoyable.
Fencing
Of all the clubs in this list, this is the only club sport that I know about (somewhat). Fencing is the only club sport I really like, mostly because I think that swords are pretty cool. It’s pretty fun, there are a few different types: some are more on the stabbing side of things, with others for slashing. It’s an opportunity for some great exercise and a pretty cool sport to get involved in. One other important note, you don’t need equipment to get into it; you just need to be there. I myself love excessive violence with bladed weapons, so I find fencing a very exciting sport to partake in.
Binghamton Review
Now, of all the clubs written about here, Binghamton Review brings by far the least to the table when it comes to interesting things to do while in the club. All you really do is write. And yes, often the writing will be a bit funny. But often, it can just be bland and boring, like a less published Pipe Dream without the fluff of someone talking about sports. With Binghamton Review, it’s all about what you bring to the club, which, for some, might be one article at the beginning of the year, and then never showing up to another meeting out of embarrassment because you missed the deadline for the first release of the semester while you wrote about a topic that might be time sensitive. But don’t worry, that definitely won’t be me. Anyway, it’s a pretty chill club if you like writing, but otherwise, it might be nice to find something that suits your own interests.
At this point in an article, you might find a conclusion where the writer wraps everything up with a call to action for the readers, saying something like “but there’s tons of clubs here, with something for every interest,” but I know there isn’t. And even if there is, it might not function to your liking. Others would say “if there’s nothing you find interesting, found a club of your own,” but again, you might not end up with a well-populated club, and from what I understand, it takes a bit of work to get a club registered, and it might not be for you. It is for these reasons that I suggest to those trying to find a place to fit in to look at classmates. Sometimes, you’ll be taking classes with people who have similar interests to you, so you can meet people there. Anyway, if you’re interested in any of the clubs mentioned above, good luck.
“The Best College Life”
By Bunzeey
Greetings, fellow BU students! Ah, the joys of being at our esteemed backup university, where we’ve all surely dreamed of spending four glorious years in a college town devoid of vibrant nightlife, filled with controversial Greek life, and the absolute absence of any crime, not to mention the joy of mingling with the most basic of individuals. Now, let’s dive the essential steps for a college experience that will leave your friends green with envy and your future offspring questioning their lineage...
1. Getting Blackout Drunk at Frat Parties
Financial responsibility is for people who lack a sense of adventure.
4. Giving HW to a Third Party
Ethics, schmethics! Why not take advantage of cheap labor from across the globe available on numerous websites? Sure, you might forget to paraphrase the work you receive before submitting it, and there’s a minor issue with not developing your “character,” but who needs it when you can have straight A’s without breaking a sweat? Mental health concerns? Psh, overrated.
5. Skipping Classes
Who needs “personal safety” when you can chase the mythical college dream of being the star of your very own “American Pie” movie? At these shindigs, it’s essential to guzzle down random concoctions handed out by your fellow frat brothers, engage in some devil’s-lettuce-induced introspection, and ensure you drink enough to forget your own name. Falling down the stairs and meeting the paramedics should be your top priorities. After all, a hospital visit is the best way to network, right? Just ask the business majors who have it all figured out.
2. ChatGPT and Plagiarism
Now, who needs to actually study when you have ChatGPT at your disposal? Professors and TAs are far too occupied with their Netflix binges to catch onto your clever use of technology. Hypothetically, of course, you could use ChatGPT along with paraphrasing tools to dodge those pesky plagiarism checks and breeze through your academic life. But remember, this isn’t an endorsement of plagiarism; I’m merely offering a hypothetical shortcut to success.
Attending classes is highly overrated. Who needs to show up for those lectures, engage in discussions, or participate in group projects when you can comfortably stay in bed, gooning to your heart’s content? Your professors are merely testing your ability to survive on a diet of caffeine and procrastination. Missing classes is a surefire way to impress them with your dedication to the art of absenteeism.
6. Leaving Your Assignments to the Last Minute
As for tools like “HomeWorkify” that may or may not provide free Chegg answers, I strongly advise against using them. Why bother learning anything when it won’t help you in your future career, right?
3. Emotional Exploitation
“Seven years of college down the drain.”
-Bluto, Animal House
In Conclusion
Deadlines are like suggestions, right? Instead of diligently managing your time and tackling assignments as they come, wait until the eleventh hour to start. Panic-induced all-nighters are the ultimate test of your endurance and creativity. Plus, nothing screams “I have life figured out” more than frantically typing away while the sun rises.
7. Maxing Out Your Credit Cards
Financial responsibility is for people who lack a sense of adventure. Use those credit cards like there’s no tomorrow, splurge on designer clothes, and dine at fancy restaurants every night. Accumulating debt is just a rite of passage that will make you appreciate the finer things in life once you graduate with a mountain of loans.
Sure, you could ask your professors and TAs for help when you’re in a jam, and they might actually assist you without fuss. But where’s the fun in that? Instead, employ the age-old art of manipulation and gaslighting to spin yarns of woe and despair that will move even the stoniest of hearts. Will it work? Probably not, but who cares about facts when you can regale your friends with stories of your cunning exploits?
In conclusion, remember, college is about living on the edge, embracing questionable decisions, and potentially sacrificing your integrity for a fleeting moment of glory. Just kidding! Please don’t take any of this advice seriously. Your college experience should be about personal growth, learning, and creating memories you can be proud of, without resorting to sarcasm and satire-worthy misadventures.
The Miserable Mets
By Aiden Miller
Throwing a changeup to the average Binghamton Review reader with an article about baseball. Yes, a writer in the Binghamton Review is writing something directly related to sports. A stunning day in the history of this club. Now I know what you incels may be asking, “Get this guy out of here I only care about politics and stupid jokes.”. Well, go fuck yourself. I’m going to write an article about a team very near and dear to my heart and you’re going to like it! This team has mentally tortured me and its fans since its inception in 1962. This team has been a constant embarrassment and laughing stock for the last several decades (despite winning two World Series Championships). This team has had the most outlandish and predictably-unpredictable things happen to its players, coaches, management, and owners. This mystery team, as you may have guessed by now (from the title), is the New York Metropolitan Baseball Club (or Mets for all you kids out there). I’m going to break down some of my favorite Mets moments in recent memory. Reading this article will be as enjoyable as hugging a porcupine because I know that’s what it felt like writing it.
The Mr. Met Incident
The title of this section makes it seem like Mr. Met did something like steal a car or murder someone and dump the body in the visiting bullpen. But that’s not the case (to an extent). One of the only things the Mets consistently have going for them is their mascots Mr. and Mrs. Met. You may recognize them from their viral Twitter post where Mrs. Met was looking very—how do I say this without it sounding weird—sexy for a baseball. Before Mrs. Met was breaking the internet with her thirst traps and curvy hips, Mr. Met was making waves for all the wrong (hilarious) reasons. After a 7-1 loss to the Milwaukee Brewers during their 2017 season, a video of Mr. Met giving the bird to some fans circulated through the “baseball Twitter” world. Quickly, the video went viral with numerous news outlets covering it. You couldn’t open your feed without seeing this stupid-looking baseball with googly eyes and mouth just absolutely losing his mind and flipping off a group of fans. To be fair to Mr. Met, they probably had it coming. I mean I would fucking hate people if I had to dress up as a baseball and sweat my ass off to entertain the worst of humanity (New Yorkers). This was about the only good thing to come out of a horrendous 2017 season. The Mets finished at a dismal 70-92, missing the playoffs by a gazillion games and leading to Terry Collins, their manager at the time, resigning from his position. Mr. Met giving the middle finger to fans perfectly encapsulates the season as a whole: the Mets completely saying “fuck you” to the fans and being one of the worst teams in the entire league (only two years removed from their World Series run in 2015). As a Mets fan, I wouldn’t have it any other way. The craziness of the team mascot flipping off fans going viral is absolutely one of the funniest things to happen in baseball that year and truly befits the Mets’ dysfunctional franchise.
The Curse
If you’ve watched the Mets long enough, you would know that the season hasn’t actually started until some player suffers a really, really, REALLY unfortunate injury that not even the world’s best fortune teller could have predicted. Jesus himself could come down from the sky and tell me the entire future of mankind, but not be able to tell me how a Met got injured. Where do I even start?
If you were to ask a Mets fan “Who had the biggest impact on the team in the last ten years?”, you’d likely hear Yoenis Céspedes’ name. After being traded to the Mets from the Detroit Tigers during the 2015 season, Céspedes’ would become infamous for going on an absolute tear: in his 57 games with the Mets, he sported a .287 batting average with 17 home runs, 44 runs batted in, and an OPS of 942. Céspedes propelled the Mets to the postseason that year, where they would eventually lose to the Kansas City Royals in five games. In 2016 the Mets lost in the Wildcard, while 2017 was a stinker of a season, leading to their manager resigning. In 2018, the Mets improved and looked like they could make the playoffs next season. AND THEN it was announced that Céspedes would miss the year after breaking his ankle prior to the start of Spring Training. This left fans like myself wondering how in Hell this man managed to break his ankle prior to baseball activity even starting! It wasn’t until ONE YEAR LATER that their infamous player agent and General Manager Brodie Van Wagenen (I still hate this man with every fiber of my being) announced that Cespedes had broken his ankle when he took a “violent fall” on his ranch but never elaborated any further. Reporters figured out through sources that he BROKE HIS ANKLE WHEN HE FELL INTO A HOLE AFTER A WILD BOAR CHARGED AT HIM. A FUCKING WILD BOAR! What other teams’ star players are getting hurt in this ridiculous fashion? Only the Mets players of course. It couldn’t be from pulling a hammy running to first base or taking a ball to the ribs. No, it was from a wild boar.
To add insult to injury, the Mets finished their season at 86-
Reporters figured out through sources that he BROKE HIS ANKLE WHEN HE FELL INTO A HOLE AFTER A WILD BOAR CHARGED AT HIM. A FUCKING WILD BOAR! What other teams’ star players are getting hurt in this ridiculous fashion? Only the Mets players of course.
76, just missing the playoffs by the skin of their teeth. In the back of every Mets fan’s mind, they think about ‘what could have been’ had our star player, who nearly carried us to championship glory, not been attacked by a wild fucking boar. But the torture doesn’t stop there. This is merely the tip of the iceberg, and the Mets are the Titanic.
The case of Matt Harvey is next on the never-ending list of mystifying Mets injuries. Harvey was one of the most captivating pitchers during his tenure with the Mets and an integral piece in their 2015 NL Pennant. During Spring Training the following year, it was announced that Harvey would miss time with a blood clot in his bladder due to… HOLDING HIS URINE IN TOO LONG?! Don’t get me wrong, blood clots sound like the scariest shit ever and I would never wish that on anyone. Getting one because you held your pee in too long? Like, you’re a grown adult please just go to the bathroom when you have to. It’s not like you’re in high school detention and the teacher won’t let you go to the bathroom because they think you’re just going to vape in there. Like, just pee. Thank God this injury was nothing serious and he was able to pitch on Opening Day, but it ONLY happens to the Mets.
ing reporters.
Suprise, Suprise! The Mets sucked in 1993 (if you lack prior knowledge, the Mets have had a losing record in 35 out of 61 seasons which is roughly 57.4% of the time they have existed). If being the worst team in the league wasn’t enough, the players went above-and-beyond to ensure that this season would be even more miserable than any Mets fans could. One might say that getting charged with a felony would be a bad thing, but that’s pretty prosaic for the Mets.
In June of the season, Bret Saberhagen (great name, terrible season) had a super soaker sitting in his locker inside the Mets clubhouse (another name for locker room). He intended to spray a Mets employee who had played a prank on him earlier in the week. By accident, he was messing with reporters by pointing it at them, when suddenly the super soaker fired at the group of reporters interviewing him. Any reasonable person would think “that’s no big deal” until they realize that the super soaker was FILLED ENTIRELY WITH BLEACH. Yes, THAT bleach you use to clean your clothes or to have as an enjoyable snack. The bleach from the gun stained two reporters’ clothes and Saberhagen was suspended for a few days and forced to donate a day’s salary to charity. Maybe they could have been more creative with the punishment, like letting the reporters pour bleach into his eyes. I would have wanted that if I had to play for the Mets in 1993.
If you know anything about how ruthless New York sports media is, the reporters deserved it. Still, a different Met somehow one-upped this incident ONE MONTH LATER.
For the sake of time, let me just rattle off some other famous instances of hilarious injuries: Noah Syndergaard getting Hand, Foot, and Mouth disease like a kindergartner, Ike Davis getting valley fever (the disease is primarily found in DESERT AREAS) even though he plays in New York, and Syndergaard (again) refusing to get an MRI and proceeding to tear his lat muscle. A rational person would think “Wow, that’s a lot of injuries. I wonder how much time in between the first injury listed and the last injury listed is?” Well, I’m glad you asked… SEVEN YEARS. The Mets had these ridiculously hilarious injuries in only seven years. It’s nearly impossible for me to even wrap my head around it. I imagine this is what it was like to watch the Hindenburg crash.
Super Soakers and Firecrackers
Judging by the title, you’re probably picturing a nice Fourth of July party with fireworks, barbecue, and water guns. But no, I’m just talking about the Mets committing felonies and attack-
Let’s talk about this teeny-tiny little felony that was committed by the Mets’ Vince Coleman. Coming out of the minor leagues, Coleman hit the ground running, amassing 549 stolen bases over his six years with the Cardinals. He signed with the Mets in 1991 as one of the most prolific baserunning threats the league had ever seen. Unfortunately, his career was flipped upside down when he THREW A LIT FIRECRACKER AT A GROUP OF FANS. This prank was about as funny as the time Logan Paul filmed a dead body in a Japanese forest. The firecracker struck a family, injuring a twoyear-old girl and sending her to the hospital. If this story couldn’t get any crazier, Coleman’s lawyer was the same one who represented OJ Simpson in his infamous murder trial. So obviously Coleman got off easy with just having to complete community service hours.
I could keep going with this, but I think you get the point. The New York Mets, both on the field and off, have endlessly tortured their fans and continue to do so today. Some may say the Mets are cursed, and I may have to agree. No fans in Major League Baseball, let alone sports, have endured pain and suffering like Mets fans. I pray this will change, but as the evidence shows, it won’t happen soon. Mets fans, including myself, will continue to turn on the TV year after year to watch them endlessly disappoint and somehow still surprise you with their utter silliness and unpredictability.
Why Can’t We All Just Get Along?
By Comson Cao
In our increasingly polarized society, it’s common to hear stories about politics killing friendships, relationships, and the cheerful mood at family dinners. Why is this the case? Why is it that people can put aside their differences on all sorts of other matters, but politics seems to be a persistent dividing line? As one might expect, the answers are complicated and nuanced, but they nonetheless provide useful insight towards understanding each side of the political spectrum.
A worthwhile question might be “Which side is at fault?” It would be tempting to simply dismiss this question and take the moderate stance that both sides contribute equally to the divide. But is this really the case? The findings from an American Perspectives Survey gathered in May of 2021 titled “ The State of American Friendship: Change, Challenges, and Loss” reveals that Republicans are more likely to have Democrat friends than vice versa, with 53% of the Republicans surveyed claiming to have at least some Democrat friends compared to 32% of Democrats claiming to have at least some Republican friends. Additionally, Democrats are twice as likely to report having ended a friendship over a political disagreement compared to Republicans (20% vs. 10%, respectively). We also know that in colleges, conservatives feel a greater amount of pressure to self-censor, with 83% of people surveyed who identify as ‘strong conservatives’ agreeing with the statement “the political climate prevents me from saying what I believe.” Only 25% of those who identify as ‘strong liberals’ say the same, according to the 2017 Free Speech and Tolerance Survey conducted by the CATO Institute. From these, it seems that the two sides aren’t equally at fault here, as liberals are on average more intolerant of differing political views than conservatives.
However, instead of just pointing fingers to levy the blame on one side or the other, it’s far more helpful to know why such disparities in ideological tolerance exist between liberals and conservatives. One possible explanation is that liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. This “Moral Foundations” theory was developed by the psychologist Jonathan Haidt. In his book The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion, Haidt argues that human beings possess six moral foundations, three of which are “binding,” and the others “individualizing.” The binding foundations (loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, and sanctity/degradation) are concerned with the well-being of the group, whereas the individualizing foundations (care/harm, liberty/oppression, and fairness/cheating) are concerned with the well-being of the individual. On average, conservatives value six foundations equally, whereas liberals value the individualizing foundations significantly more than the binding foundations. The differences are shown below.
This would therefore create a problem known as ‘asymmetrical empathy’ whereby conservatives empathize with the concerns of liberals more than liberals with conservatives, given the stark differences in their moral matrices. Liberals often do not understand why conservatives value loyalty to
the group, obedience to authority, and sanctity, and therefore perceive conservatives as cold-hearted or ill-intentioned. This would be consistent with a 2012 study by Jesse Graham which found that liberals and conservatives caricaturize each other’s concerns and beliefs, but liberals do so to a much greater extent than conservatives.
Another significant question would be about the differences in mental health between liberals and conservatives. A 2020 study by Emil Kirkegaard found that liberals are on average much more neurotic than conservatives. Neuroticism is one of the traits in the “Big Five” model of personality, along with openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, and agreeableness, all of which are, to some degree, heritable. Being high in neuroticism means that you’re more likely to experience strong negative feelings and view the world as dangerous and unpredictable. This will push you to adopt a survival mentality. Because of this, a highly neurotic person will view political dissent not as mere disagreement, but as an existential threat. This is congruous with a 2021 study by Siqi Wu and Paul Resnick, which suggests that conservatives are far more willing to engage in discussions with liberals than vice versa.
Now, one objection you could raise is that the differences in mental health between left and right are based on self-report. Yet even when Soyoung Kwon measured it using symptom-based scales of distress, this pattern still emerged. Furthermore, the mere criticism of self-report is insufficient in explaining the sheer magnitude of the disparity. It’s unlikely that self-reporting bias explains the entirety of the 170% difference at the extremes. From this, one could cautiously argue that the psychometric differences between liberals and conservatives explain not only the views they hold but also the differences in their attitudes towards each other.
Politics can be understood as not merely competing systems of economic and social theories, but also the manifestations of fundamentally different moral frameworks. The moral lens which you hold, regardless of how it was formed, will compel you towards a particular stance. These differences which drive the political tribalism on the left and the right are ultimately just that: moral impositions on society that one wishes to achieve. That reality doesn’t change, regardless of whether one can justify their views. It’s trying to understand the mentality of both sides of the political spectrum and why we are so divided in the first place, as knowing what lies beneath all the shouting will allow for a better mutual understanding, on both sides.
What “El Lento” Got Wrong
By Arthur O’Sullivan
In the previous issue of Binghamton Review, the pseudonymous author “El Lento” published an article titled, “The Problem with the Pro-Life Movement.” Being “pro-life” myself, I’m used to defending my beliefs in all the conventional ways: No, pro-lifers don’t just have a control fetish. No, Republicans generally don’t want to kill babies once born No, you can’t prove “scientifically” that abortion is right or wrong. And so on, and so on, and so on. The abortion debate is as interminable as it is stagnant. It surprised me, therefore, to find that El Lento’s piece was a conservative critique of the pro-life movement.
As I read through it, I found myself nodding along. This mysterious “El Lento” was making a lot of sense. As a religiously challenged person, I too found the pro-life insistence on Christian dogma alienating. Many believe that to be pro-life, one MUST be an ultra-traditionalist-catholic or fringe evangelical. The more recent “March for Life” rallies have not dispelled this stereotype. All too often, I would explain to pro-choice friends and strangers that it’s perfectly reasonable to be both an atheist and pro-life at the same time, only to get the fluoride-stare.
Like most things in politics, the evidence right in front of people (e.g. my existence) is nothing compared to what they read in The New York Times. If Michelle Goldberg says that anti-abortion advocates simply intend to torture women, then that’s just how things are. The fact that certain “pro-life” policies actually do hurt women does not help this stereotype.
El Lento’s insight on the pro-lifers who don’t care about the Constitution also hits the nail on the head. The greatest defeats and greatest victories of the pro-life movement are found in constitutional law. Depending on who sits on the Supreme Court, our founding document has been used to justify both positions. The Warren and Rehnquist courts both “found” constitutional grounds for abortion-on-demand (up to some arbitrary limit). Now, the Roberts court has devolved the legislation back to, well, legislatures. All this was achieved through the shrewd politics of American democracy. Those who disregard it are in danger of losing everything due to sheer unbridled stupidity.
Altogether, El Lento believes that “pro-life” activists must stop being hypocrites: they must stand up for freedom, as well as life. They must stop worshipping Trump and appeal to a broader base. Despite this, they can not sacrifice their principles for political or rhetorical reasons; they can not compromise on hard issues.
Though sounding good in theory, this is where “El Lento” rapidly derails. Just as he saw two main problems with the prolife movement, I saw two big issues in his thesis.
Let’s start with the less emotional issue: El Lento criticizes Nikki Hayley, former UN Ambassador and Republican Presidential candidate, for her “15 weeks” federal ban on abortion. Hayley reasons that while Americans are intransigently divided about abortion, most could not defend killing a 15 week-old fetus. Therefore, a federal proscription on abortions past that window (with prior abortions being regulated by state
legislatures) is the only feasible compromise on the issue.
On this, El Lento disagrees vehemently. Any sort of compromise, he reasons, does a discredit to the core philosophy of the pro-life movement. If abortion really is murder, then you can not ‘meet the other side halfway.’ Why should a “practical” pro-lifer ferociously protect some lives , but compromise on others? Doing so ckearky isplays immeasurable hypocrisy among “pro-life” advocates.
My response to this is simple: compromise is the best we have. In an ideal world, abortion would not only be gone, but irrelevant. In Eden, all pregnancies are happy; all children are wanted and cared for. But we have fallen from Eden. Pregnancy and childrearing are difficult things, and so many interests (hedonistic, economic etc.) push towards their avoidance. It’s easy, then, to view destroying a “clump of cells’’ as a catch-all response. Framing this act in terms of “liberation” and “right” simply galvanizes its defenders. Now that the practice is widespread and accepted, forcing the maximalist position will only further entrench the pro-choice establishment. Thus, “no compromise” on the federal level will see no progress in deep blue states. One should never abandon the authentic principles of being pro-life, but our country survives on compromise.
Perhaps El Lento considers abortion akin to slavery. Compromise, whether in 1850 or 2024, only strengthens the evil institution. Supposing that’s true, the only way to stop abortion is either through John Brown-style bloodshed or, horribile dictu, civil war. Leaving aside its practicality, would that be a moral end to the “pro-life” movement? Man murdering Man to save hypothetical Man? Entertaining this prospect is beyond the pale. I doubt El Lento seriously believes this, but I see no other resolution for his “convicted” pro-life stance.
Finally, El Lento’s stance on women who procure abortions is inherently broken. He argues that most cases, while sympathetic, still constitute an act of murder on the part of the woman. To illustrate, he analogizes most abortions of convenience to an impoverished teenager robbing and murdering a store-owner so that he can afford college. He argues that since the latter should obviously be punished, so should the former; “pro-lifers” who disagree discredit their own beliefs.
This argument is prima facie ridiculous. Aborting a fetus, unlike murdering a store-owner, is both legal and accepted in much of the country. Further, this hypothetical store-owner can not be described as “holding back” the teenager from a good future. As things stand, pregnancy does exactly that. This in no way justifies abortion itself, especially if made illegal nationwide. It does, however, mitigate the real-world action. Refusing to prosecute women who have had abortions does not discredit the pro-life movement. It strengthens it.
In his article, El Lento confuses principles with dogma. Although he’s correct in saying that much of the “pro-life” movement discredits itself to the public, his hardline stances on abortion laws and their punishments would only make things worse.
