BINGHAMTON REVIEW Editor-in-Chief Contents
P.O. BOX 6000 BINGHAMTON, NY 13902-6000 EDITOR@BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
Founded 1987 • Volume XXXIII, Issue III Tommy Gagliano
Managing Editor Matt Gagliano Copy Desk Chief Madeline Perez, Harold Rook
Business Manager Joe Badalamenti
Social Media Shitposter Sebastian Roman
Editor Emeritus
Patrick McAuliffe Jr.
Staff Writers
Kevin Vorrath, Jon Lizak, Dillon O’Toole, Bryn Lauer, Will Anderson, Spencer Haynes
Contributors
COVID-19, My Mom, Crippling Depression
Special Thanks To:
Intercollegiate Studies Institute Collegiate Network
THE DANIEL PRUDE CASE
PAGE 6
by Spencer Haynes
3 Editorial by Tommy Gagliano 4 Press Watch by Our Staff 8 After Five Years, We Still Can’t Breathe by Patrick McAuliffe 10 There is Something Wrong With ‘Cuties’ by Joe Badalamenti 11 There is Nothing Wrong With ‘Cuties’ by Tommy Gagliano 13 It’s a Boy! Burning California by Harold Rook 14 Dr. Mario: The Ultimate Ultimate Character by Matt Gagliano 15 The Fault in Our Dining Halls by Madeline Perez
Binghamton Review was printed by Gary Marsden We Provide the Truth. He Provides the Staples
TELL US WHAT YOU THINK! Direct feedback to editor@binghamtonreview.com 2
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
Vol. XXXIII, Issue III
EDITORIAL Dear Readers,
From the Editor
Woooo! Ramble time! And I deserve the right to ramble—having now produced three issues in the month of September (the first time Binghamton Review has ever printed three issues in a calendar month, by the way), and with it being past my bedtime, some exhaustion-induced incoherence is to be expected. I am still unable to compete with Joe Biden, however—only dementia can elevate an individual to that level of nonsense. What are we now, five and a half weeks into the semester? The prediction is the first issue by yours truly is looking pretty good right now! Will Anderson, Harold Rook, and Dillon O’Toole are all out of the running, having guessed that the semester will last only three, four, and five weeks, respectively. Joe Badalamenti is now the only opponent standing in my way, with his prediction of six weeks, but the outlook isn’t good for him either, as the daily surveillance testing has revealed zero new positive tests on a fairly consistent basis. I told you guys COVID is fake. It was the 5G towers all along. Our last cover seemed to garner some attention. I’m glad you all liked it. For those of you that picked up your first copy of Binghamton Review because of that cover, and have decided to stick with us: you smart. You loyal. I appreciate that. Anotha one. We have a weird mix of stuff for you to digest this time around. Three of our sixteen pages are occupied by discussion of “Cuties”—a film that really doesn’t deserve any pages. Joe Badalamenti criticized the film, and I thought he was wrong about literally everything, so I wrote my own piece. Somehow it was way too long and barely fit on two pages. Oh well. Which one of us is right? That’s for you to decide! Isn’t free speech and civil disagreement great? We also have two articles covering Black Lives Matter, with each taking a different approach. Spencer Haynes (a Rocherstarian) discusses the case of Daniel Prude, while Patrick McAuliffe (coincidentally also a Rochestarian) reflects on the movement more generally as the indictment decisions in the Breonna Taylor case were announced. Harold Rook discusses the state of California (spoiler alert: there’s fire), Madeline Perez complains about Sodexo’s awful dining hall food, and Matt Gagliano metaphorically jerks off a D-tier character from the second-best Smash Bros game. Nothing but quality content throughout this issue. Thank you, as always, to all of our readers and supporters. If you would like to upgrade from a reader to a contributor, we’d love to have you. Send me an email: editor@binghamtonreview.com. You can also send other things to that email address, such as feedback, questions, responses, submissions, complaints about Matt’s overuse of the made-up term “The Spinnies™,” memes, your social security number, etc.
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 “We need our politicians to fight harder against climate change” Seth Gully, Pipe Dream, 9/24/20 “Take a $15 minimum wage as an example: Biden claims to support it, but seldom brings it up, let alone making it central to his message.” Maybe because it has already caused massive unemployment, price increases, and business closures. “When representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez proposed her version of a Green New Deal, a mild social democratic proposal, Pelosi downplayed representative Ocasio-Cortez’s plan, labeling it the ‘green dream, or whatever they call it.’ Pelosi doesn’t believe in even basic reform to benefit the environment. ” Some of these “basic reforms” included the complete elimination of fossil fuels, massively increasing the amount of electric car usage, creating more public transport systems, and even socialist policies that would cost nearly $5.2 trillion dollars in 10 years. This isn’t simply basic reform; it’s a set of policies so unfeasible that it wouldn’t even be possible to implement without drastically increasing the amount of government control. “...Obamacare, arguably the crowning achievement of the Obama administration, a market-based moderate health care plan pushed by right-wing think tanks like the Heritage Foundation.” Firstly, Obamacare is the opposite of a market-based plan—it is socialist. It forces people to buy a product and forces the seller to charge lower prices to only people deemed qualified by the government. Secondly, the idea that Obamacare was pushed by Republicans is absurd, considering they have never stopped trying to repeal it. “If you support greater economic growth, a Green New Deal would include a massive infrastructure program which would employ millions, and therefore spur such growth. If you support domestic manufacturing, research
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.
on new green technology for the energy sector would propel U.S. manufacturing to revitalize the Midwest, which has been in economic decline for decades.” The Green New Deal wouldn’t necessarily spur economic growth, especially when part of its provisions including cutting already-existing jobs. The size of the fossil fuel industry in the economy is massive in the United States, so it isn’t realistic to assume that we can simply replace it and expect growth. While it is true that research into new green technology can be useful for domestic manufacturing, it isn’t guaranteed that this would be centered in the Midwest. “Presidential debates have become obsolete for modern voting” Nicolette Cavallro, Pipe Dream, 9/24/20 “Kennedy was more lively and sounded better on television, leading to a rise in his polls.” Being more lively and sounding better on television means better poll numbers? RIP Joe Biden I guess. “[Debates in the 1800s] were also much more necessary for voters.” These debates were almost useless. Radio and Television didn’t exist, so only 1,000 or so voters would see the debate—on a good day. Others would only hear about what was said through word of mouth and newspapers, and we both know how reliable those mediums are as sources of information. Voter turnout was also only 39% among qualifying voters, all of whom were white men.
“In continuation, these debates are organized in a quiz, game show-esque atmosphere, where candidates are forced to answer a question in a short amount of time. This is definitely not the best way for candidates to present their platforms or show how they could help the American people.” The point of a televised debate is to present your ideas in as much of a condensed, concrete way as possible so that the people watching are able to understand. If you are unable to clearly and concisely present your basic platform, how can the average person truly know what they are voting for? “According to one poll, only 25 percent of Americans have ever voted outside their party line... If people have already decided who they are voting for, why does a debate need to take place?” A debate isn’t necessarily about the people who have already decided who to vote; a debate is FOR that 25 percent. Elections have been decided by narrow margins throughout history, such as the Kennedy v. Nixon election you mentioned previously. The debate should take place precisely for the people that would consider voting out of party lines or for people that
Vol. XXXIII, Issue III
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM are undecided. “Zoom classes are inherently more challenging” Clarissa Del Re, Pipe Dream, 9/14/20 Do you know what “inherently” means? Because, literally speaking, Zoom classes are not “inherently” more difficult. They could be subjectively more difficult, depending on a combination of factors such as the instructor, the course material, and the student, but to say they are “inherently” more difficult just is not true. A we’ll see, you will continue to prove my point throughout your article, as it relates entirely to your own personal experience. Just look at the very first sentence: “After my Tuesday morning, afternoon and night of back-to-back Zoom classes, I felt utterly exhausted, drained and unfocused.” Aw, poor you. Sitting in front of a computer for a few hours must be so tiring. Also, TWO MISSING OXFORD COMMAS IN THE SAME SENTENCE? Seriously, Pipe Dream? I’m getting tired of calling you out on this. Join the 21st century. “When we were split up into breakout rooms, it felt awkward and the group fell silent after a minute of mindless discussion” This is obviously a problem unique to Zoom classes. In person the awkward, mindless discussions only last thirty seconds. “In an average classroom setting, getting to know your professors and peers in person is almost inevitable.” Ok, you’re an extrovert, we get it. “...but what happens when your roommates are laughing in the next room, your neighbors are blasting music or there are dogs barking outside your window?” You go outside? Or to the library? You know, that place people went to to study when encountering these very same issues before “COVID-19” had even entered the human vocabulary? “The exhaustion of staring at the computer screen for hours stifles my critical
editor@binghamtonreview.com
CAMPUS PRESSWATCH thinking skills and drives me to watch Netflix or take a nap instead.” Staring at the computer screen for hours during class is detrimental, but starting at the computer screen to watch Netflix is totally fine. Got it. “Preventblindness.org explains how increased exposure to blue light through computers, phones and tablets ‘can disturb the wake and sleep cycle, leading to problems sleeping and daytime tiredness.’” Right, because students never use their laptop to “take notes” during in-person lectures. “Our levels of exhaustion, frustration, tiredness and decreased motivation play major negative roles in the era of Zoom learning” Zoom sucks. I get it. But your reasons why Zoom sucks don’t make any sense. How is listening to a professor lecture for hours at a time any more or less tiring if it takes place remotely from your apartment versus in a classroom? Why do you spend so much time focusing on this nonsensical point? “Physical education instruction needs to be reevaluated” Ariel Wajnrajch, Pipe Dream, 9/21/20 “As a child, all the way through high school, I always struggled with gym class.” LOL how? Were you picked last for dodgeball? “I wish my university cared enough about me to make sure I had a designated time in my day to get that movement in.” Yes, I too wish that the institution I pay thousands of dollars to attend forced me to do things completely unrelated to my area of study against my will every semester in order to get my degree. I am incapable of exercising in my own time, of course, so I need Daddy Binghamton to make it mandatory. “I think the fact that my high school carved out time so that it was easy for me to get those 60 recommended active minutes every day was really consider-
ate and I regret not taking advantage of that.” It wasn’t your high school’s decision, it’s a law. The difference here, of course, is that attending grade school is compulsory (with a few exceptions) and full of children incapable of making decisions for themselves, while college is voluntary, expensive, and made up of adults. “My reasoning behind that is that I always associated gym class with shame and with competition that I knew I would lose.” Ah, so you were picked last for dodgeball. “Those days when my gym teacher let us pick what we wanted to do, on the other hand, were great. I could take a nice quick walk with a friend and talk, lift weights, do yoga, play pickleball, go for a run or honestly anything besides sitting and doing nothing.” Oh, so you liked having a choice? And enjoyed choosing to exercise and which form of exercise to do? DO YOU REALLY NOT SEE THE IRONY HERE? “They tried to teach us the names for different types of strength training exercises, how to stretch properly, things like that... we just didn’t care to learn it.” So the “education” part of “physical education”? The majority of the article focuses on reforming grade school physical education classes to be more useful for non-athletic students, which is a valid argument, BUT WHY START WITH “I wish my university cared enough about me to make sure I had a designated time in my day to get that movement in”? It’s an awful argument, it’s unrelated to your main point, and it makes me hate you before I’ve even gotten to the meat of what you are trying to say. “Extensive government surveillance is a violation of our rights” Seth Gully, Pipe Dream, 9/10/20 This is actually a really great opinion piece, that makes a lot of valid points. Good job Seth. I suppose a broken clock is right twice a day...
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
5
THE DANIEL PRUDE CASE
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
The Daniel Prude Case and its Place in the Black Lives Matter Movement By Spencer Haynes
An Overview of the Incident
I
n the early morning of March 23rd in Rochester, NY, Daniel Prude overdosed on PCP, a street drug with strong hallucinogenic effects. As a result, he began to act erratically, running into the street and removing his clothes. His brother Joe then called 911 out of concern for Prude’s safety. This was understandable, as Prude had recently been hospitalized for mental health issues. Police and EMTs responded to the call, and Prude was initially compliant with the officers. However, he soon began spitting at the officers, while claiming to have COVID-19. This prompted officers to apply a spit hood, a mesh bag put over a subject’s head to block spit from contacting officers while still allowing the subject to breathe. Unfortunately, Prude became more agitated, and demanded the officer’s gun. Soon after, Prude tried to lunge towards the officer, which is when he was restrained. Officers rolled Prude onto his stom-
6
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
ach, pinning him down on his back and head. This action was taken to protect the officers and calm the subject down, but instead led to a restriction of Prude’s breathing from positional asphyxia (restriction of breathing from being face down). This, combined with complications of PCP like vomiting and shortness of breath, led to Prude’s coma and eventual death. When officers realized Prude had no pulse, they performed chest compressions under the supervision of the EMT on scene. After transport to the hospital, Prude did regain a pulse, but was declared brain dead due to lack of oxygen to the brain. On March 30th, Prude died after being taken off life support.
“...from a legal perspective, the officers did not commit criminal homicide as the officers in Minneapolis did.”
After Prude’s death, the police department ran an internal investigation that cleared the officers of wrongdoing. However, the details of this investigation were never released to the public. In fact, it took two months for the case to receive any more attention. In early July, Governor Andrew Cuomo discovered that the case was a homicide and ordered the attorney general to investigate the case. Instead of being transparent with the attorney general, the city of Rochester used the investigation as an excuse to withhold case information. It took the police department over 4 months to show the video of Prude’s arrest, when his family requested it. When they saw the video, they were shocked, and began seeking legal ramifications. The police department and city now realized they couldn’t hide the video, and released it to the public on September 2nd. Response to the video was swift. Thousands of Rochestestarians filled the streets downtown for over 2 weeks. While many remained peaceful, police were constantly targeted. The police were pelted with bottles and attacked with fireworks. Officers were also forced to hide their names because protestors shared their personal information including addresses and family records. A combination of factors also led to the resignation of Rochester Police Chief LaRon Singletary and several others in the police chain of command. Despite these resignations, protests still call for the resignation of Rochester Mayor Lovely Warren. Many in the police department agree with the protestors on this point for several reasons. Firstly, she immediately blamed police chief Singletary for covering up the homicide, despite her signing off on the police’s investigation in April. She also found out Prude’s death was a homicide months before the video was released. Lastly, she has stayed silent while protestors
Vol. XXXIII, Issue III
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM harass and incite violence against police. Many also believe that she is using this incident for political gain. She has fired Chief Singletary even though he was resigning and is suddenly calling for radical changes in the police department. It will be interesting to see whether this will garner support from the protestors, but for now, most still call for her resignation. Legal and Ethical Analysis of the Officer’s Actions While this case has produced outrage locally, it has drawn more national attention because of its similarity to the George Floyd case. However, these incidents are not as similar as they appear when viewed from a legal and ethical perspective. From a legal perspective, officers in Rochester did not violate statutes in the way George Floyd’s killers did. Evidence to this effect is found in the legal definition of 2nd degree murder, 3rd degree murder and criminally negligent homicide (listed from most severe to least severe). Derek Chauvin in Minnesota was charged with 2nd degree murder, while Prude’s arresting officers committed homicide. Firstly, homicide simply means death at the hands of another person even if completely accidental and non-criminal. Criminally Negligent Homicide (the lowest form of illegal homicide) is committing conduct that creates an unjustifiable risk of death, and not showing the care a normal person would in those circumstances. The actions of George Floyd’s arresting officers obviously fit this criteria. Derek Chauvin, the officer who pinned George Floyd, did not need to hold George Floyd down in an illegal manner for an excessive length of time, as Floyd was compliant. These acts created a clear risk of death. Because Chauvin committed an act so heinous it was seen as intentional, he also was charged with 2nd degree murder. The officers with Chauvin were guilty of aiding and abetting murder, because they helped Chauvin continue strangling Floyd. Firstly, pinning Prude down was at least somewhat justified. Prude was lunging for the officer’s gun, acting unpredictably due to the
editor@binghamtonreview.com
THE DANIEL PRUDE CASE PCP, and experiencing excited delirium, which can lead to extreme levels of strength. These factors could endanger the lives of Prude and others at the scene if he was not restrained. Secondly, the EMT present at the scene said that the officers did nothing wrong. She is not only a reasonable outsider, but also a trained medical professional fit to judge what due care would be under the circumstances. Therefore, from a legal perspective, the officers did not commit criminal homicide as the officers in Minneapolis did. However, the Rochester officers could face civil charges for wrongful death as the corresponding standards for guilt are much lower. That is why the family of Daniel Prude announced a lawsuit for wrongful death against the Rochester Police Department, asking for both monetary compensation, and a restructuring of the Rochester Police Force. The strength of this case is still unclear, and it does not appear that the family will pursue criminal charges. While law is a key component to this case, it is undoubtedly a minimum standard for police conduct. The bigger question is this: do police actions and policies reflect our shared values, like safety, empathy, and freedom from judgment? Unfortunately, outdated and ignorant policies have made the police a threat to the people they are meant to protect. For example, police are told to restrain subjects on their stomachs until they are fully sedated. However, sedation can also mean death by positional asphyxia, especially when a subject is on drugs. Officers should be able to identify the difference between suffocation and sedation, but are not trained to check vital signs or receive help from medical professionals. Police also fail to recognize the seriousness of drug overdose. Despite what many claim, drug addiction can be a severe mental illness. For example, PCP causes symptoms similar to schizophrenia including hallucinations, delusions, paranoia, and even hearing voices. These symptoms caused Daniel Prude to act erratically, but instead of showing compassion, the officers laughed at him. It is clear, therefore, that this area of policing must be reformed.
Comments and Recommendations It is clear that the Rochester Police need to change in some areas to match the needs of their community. First, police policies that needlessly endanger subjects should be revisited and revised. Such policies would include methods for pinning subjects, and identifying when someone is choking, suffocating, or as in this case, vomiting. Secondly, law enforcement should be closely connected to mental health organizations. Ideally, this would have two components: extensive officer training from mental health professionals, and officers trained in crisis management to oversee the safe transport of subjects to the hospital. Some have argued that moving money directly to mental health services from the police budget would be ideal. However, people with mental illness are much more likely to hurt themselves or others if psychotic or under the influence. Therefore, bringing professionals directly into the police force would likely provide the best outcome. Indeed, the last police chief of Rochester stated that defunding the police does not reform the police, but rather takes away the resources needed to make change. With regards to the racial injustice narrative, I do not believe the Rochester police department has widespread racial bias. In fact, LaRon Singletary has been one of the most progressive police chiefs in the city’s history. He has adamantly supported community policing, including residency requirements for officers. He has also promoted the hiring of African American police officers to better reflect city demographics and, most importantly, he has fired numerous officers for showing racial bias or improper conduct. In my eyes, his leadership has dramatically improved policing in the city, and his firing was a terrible mistake—a mistake that will make needed changes very difficult to attain. Clearly, the Daniel Prude case has a local impact as deep as its national effect. Therefore, the most important change is restoring trust between Rochester institutions and the people they serve.
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
7
AFTER FIVE YEARS, WE STILL CAN’T BREATHE
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
After Five Years, We Still Can’t Breathe By Patrick McAuliffe
I
n May of 2015, my innocent dewy eyes beheld Binghamton University in all of its austere splendor on a campus tour, and they were immediately drawn to the “Police Brutality” cover of Binghamton Review. The Editor-in-Chief at the time, Sean Glendon, tackled the problem of citizens dying at the hands of police in response to Eric Garner’s unjust murder over selling cigarettes on the New York City sidewalk. In the wake of the surge in Black Lives Matter protests this summer and the grand jury’s recent decision on Breonna Taylor’s murder, I felt it relevant to reflect on how far we’ve come as a nation at solving police brutality...which is to say, not fucking far enough. In his articles, Sean was very critical of the media’s tendency to set an implicit agenda by overcovering certain issues and undercovering others that may have more relevance or political weight. However, regarding police brutality, he encouraged the media to continue covering the issue with zeal as an avenue to public outcry and social change. Sean also wrote that a supplemental solution to raising public awareness on this issue comes from two types of cameras: the cell phone and the police body camera. To paraphrase, he argued that “citizen journalists” provide more police accountability to the public by capturing a firsthand experience of instances with unnecessary and, often, illegal, uses of force against a suspect. Conversely, police body cameras would allow the public to see situations from an officer’s point of view and decide for themselves whether a given altercation warranted unnecessary force from the officer. First popularized after Michael Brown’s murder in 2014, this second avenue to public awareness was implemented widely in many police departments across the country. These solutions, while good-intentioned, fall far short of their theoretical benefits. The past several years have shown that police departments
8
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
simply do not care about public accountability. They are more willing to gas and shoot at protestors than have a discussion about their shortcomings. According to Wired in an article from July 2020 on police body cams, most police departments are permitted to handle body camera footage internally, and many departments are not willing to turn over footage to outside organizations or even subjects in the footage itself. Laws vary widely between departments, but for the most part, the police are unwilling to reveal unedited body camera footage, especially in instances where the officers resort to violence against suspects. Releasing footage for a given case can take months or even years when courts must literally force a department to turn over the video. Public accountability must, therefore, fall to the “citizen journalist” and the camera on their phone. In the last five years, videos posted by bystanders on social media sites have provided a much-needed insight into police brutality that the departments themselves have refused to offer. Phone footage in high-profile cases like Philando Castile, Elijah McClain, and George Floyd have spurred public
outrage on a level previously unheard of. The video evidence from Floyd’s murder even led to the conviction of his killer Derek Chauvin and criminal charges for the other three officers on the scene at the time. The case that hits me closest to home, however, is Breonna Taylor’s murder in Louisville, Kentucky. She was killed by a no-knock raid on her apartment in March, and her case only gained national attention in May around the same time as George Floyd. The Louisville police have been extremely slow to act on public pressure, only firing Detective Brett Hankinson in June and not charging John Mattingly and Myles Cosgrove. The latter two officers fired the fatal bullets, and Hankinson was indicted by a grand jury on the 23rd of September for three counts of “wanton endangerment”—his shots during the raid were fired blindly and struck a neighboring house. All following statements are made via the New York Times’ coverage of Breonna Taylor’s case. The police were originally issued a no-knock warrant to search Taylor’s apartment due to her previous affiliation with her ex-boyfriend, who was suspected
Vol. XXXIII, Issue III
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM of dealing drugs. Her affiliation with him had since ended by the time of the raid. The warrant was changed to “knock and announce,” but Taylor’s boyfriend Kenneth Walker asserted that he did not hear any declaration of police. This is corroborated by Walker’s call to 9-1-1, where he says, “somebody kicked in the door and shot my girlfriend.” Walker fired at the police in self-defense, believing that his home was being invaded, and shot Officer Mattingly in the leg once. The police returned fire for a total of 32 shots, according to AP News. Taylor struggled to breathe for about five minutes after being shot and there was no ambulance on the scene, contrary to standard practice. According to dispatch logs, Taylor was not given any medical attention for twenty minutes after the raid, and the Jefferson County coroner said that she had probably died a few minutes after being shot with no hope of saving. The egregious breach of justice surrounding this entire case is unfathomable to me and should be to anyone who strives for justice. My blood boils seeing how some right-wing media outlets cherry-pick facts of Breonna Taylor’s case to avoid the ugly truth that these officers were not and will not be held accountable. Many police departments know that they will have these types of outlets in their corner— Fox News, The Daily Wire, Breitbart, etc.—so, as recent police responses to peaceful protests have shown, they will use excessive force against peaceful calls for transparency and accountability, and the bootlicking masses will eat up the “law and order” schtick. What is there to be done to hold police officers accountable for their excessive force? One step is the legal doctrine of qualified immunity, established by several court cases in the 1980s and 2000s. Qualified immunity, in simple terms, protects police officers from civil suits filed by a victim of excessive use of force. To win such a case, the victim must prove that the officer violated a “clearly established” law regarding their conduct, which has been interpreted in the past to mean an existing suit against an officer for conduct exactly like what the victim
editor@binghamtonreview.com
AFTER FIVE YEARS, WE STILL CAN’T BREATHE
is suing for. John Oliver explains this key distinction and virtual loophole very well in his Last Week Tonight segment on Police. It is important to note that this is only in regards to civil suits; criminal charges against police officers are exceedingly rare, and most charges against police are dropped if they are brought up at all. Even Philando Castile’s murderer, Officer Jeronimo Yanez, was originally charged with second-degree manslaughter and dangerous discharge of a firearm, but despite the public outcry and video evidence posted on Facebook by his girlfriend Diamond Reynolds, his charges were dropped and he was instead fired. I’ve seen many stories from people on social media asking what event in the United States’ troubled history radicalized them. If I had to choose one, it would be the events of the past several months. In my youth, I was raised on the Limbaugh Letter and the Michael Savage talk show in the car on road trips. Even in my twilight years of college, although I had left the conservative mindset behind, I still had a naive hope that the police’s primary purpose truly was to protect and serve their communities. Whatever the reason—perhaps going a bit stir-crazy during this pandemic—I saw what was happening in our most marginalized communities with fresh eyes and it struck a chord with me. It is a discordant, somber chord, but a deep chord nonetheless. I have no
hope in the police anymore, because I know that they serve themselves first and foremost. The entities with the legal monopoly on violence have shown that they have no intention of giving up any of their power. Black, brown, manic, autistic, high out of one’s mind or sloppy drunk—none of it matters with a gun and taser at one’s hip and the support of the Thin Blue Line. My own home city of Rochester has made national news for yet another instance of police brutality, covered in this issue by Spencer. My hope in the system has faded, and no amount of scarce good apples can change it. Sean lists several victims of police brutality in his May 2015 article and acknowledges that they will probably not be the last. I don’t think he or anyone could have known the mountains of bodies and the textbooks of names that have been added in a measly five years. I don’t have clever solutions or clear policy goals to make sure none of this injustice happens again, because the enemy is so large and so established, and its roots run so deep that I couldn’t tell you where to start cutting them. This is not to say they don’t exist, and activists of all kinds have kept the faith admirably; I just don’t know where to start. I think I’ll end things here with a transcript of Elijah McClain’s last words, released by the Aurora, Colorado Police Department almost a year after his murder in August of 2019. “I can’t breathe. I have my ID right here. My name is Elijah McClain. That’s my house. I was just going home. I’m an introvert. I’m just different. That’s all. I’m so sorry. I have no gun. I don’t do that stuff. I don’t do any fighting. Why are you attacking me? I don’t even kill flies! I don’t eat meat! But I don’t judge people, I don’t judge people who do eat meat. Forgive me. All I was trying to do was become better. I will do it. I will do anything. Sacrifice my identity, I’ll do it. You all are phenomenal. You are beautiful and I love you. Try to forgive me. I’m a mood Gemini. I’m sorry. I’m so sorry. Ow, that really hurt. You are all very strong. Teamwork makes the dream work. Oh, I’m sorry I wasn’t trying to do that. I just can’t breathe correctly.”
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
9
THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG WITH ‘CUTIES’
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
There is Something Wrong With ‘Cuties’ By Joe Badalamenti
O
n September 9th, popular streaming company Netflix decided to add the 2020 film “Cuties” to their catalog. The film follows an 11-yearold girl who joins a dance group in order to deal with growing up. Despite winning several awards, the film has received tremendous backlash from western audiences, exploding on sites such as Reddit. Critics have bashed “Cuties” for supposedly filming children in a sexually explicit manner. After watching the film myself (for journalism purposes, I swear), I can say that this film is problematic in its current state. As the Netflix description suggests, the plot revolves around the protagonist, Amy, in her own comingof-age-story. Amy is a child in an orthodox Muslim family whose father is currently distant from the household. Amy looks to escape this reality and fit in with the rest of society, eventually stumbling upon a dance group known as Cuties. The film then follows Amy and her friends on their journey as a dance group and as girls experiencing adolescence. A discussion of this film would not be complete without mentioning its most controversial scenes. “Cuties” centers around an all-girl dance troupe who wear revealing clothing and perform suggestive dances in their routine. In addition to these scenes, there are several other scenes which cross the boundary of decency. These scenes are as follows: Amy is pressured into videotaping an underage boy in the bathroom, the girls attempt to flirt with a high school boy promising sexual favors in a video call, two fight scenes where the undergarments of underage girls is shown. The coup de grâce of this content? A scene where Amy creates child porn by taking pictures of her genitals. While some of these scenes do have an appropriate context and relevance, the camera focusing on the butts of the girls at several points is unsettling, to say the least. All of these scenes take up a considerable amount of screen
10
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
time, with the dance scenes dragging on. When creating art dealing with subject matter such as puberty, one should be very delicate with the imagery and the scenes shown. “Cuties” oversteps this boundary by showing prolonged scenes with inappropriate shots of these girls; the creep shots in particular with no relevance to the plot come to mind. This isn’t helped by the former promotional material in which the cuties are in the middle of their routine. The result is a film which objectifies girls, and nationwide outrage. Many of the defenders of the film cite that the film itself is critical of this hypersexual behavior. However, the criticism shown within the film is very weak. The main opponent to Amy’s new behavior are the various members of her family which the film portrays as oppressive. At one point, Amy’s mother and Aunt perform a sort of exorcism ritual on Amy in order to spiritually fix her. This familial conflict is never solved at all, the closest thing to a resolution is that Amy is forgiven by her mother, but the family remains static. While familial intervention would be the ideal option here, in the film Amy’s family is portrayed as a hyperconservitive unit that is out of touch with the rest of society. If the film was able to portray this conservative nature in a more positive light, or experience more growth, then this criticism would have much more weight. The film instead presents a duality where each side is a net detriment, forgetting the middle road without any blatant negatives. The only other negative consequence would be the different treatment by certain classmates, yet this could just be written off as childish behavior. This juxtaposing between this hyperconservative household bounded by religious principles and modesty with an overly sexualized dance trio presents a zero-sum game: there is no chance for Amy to simply be a normal kid. All of this leaves us with the question of how a society should deal with
this controversy. In this case, the best thing to do would be to criticize the art. Constructive criticism allows the artist to learn from their mistakes. It also allows members of the audience to see why the work is flawed. Most of the outrage that has come out of this situation has been directed at Netflix for hosting the film. Those who are outraged should just cancel their subscription. No one is forcing these customers to keep their subscription so they should cancel their subscription if they are so inclined. The way one should not react to this controversy is to resort to ad hominem attacks while ignoring all criticism of your side. I’ve seen many blue checkmarks brush off this criticism of the film by making ridiculous claims, such as claiming that the opponents are QAnon supporters. Many of these comments seem to be made by those who inhabit this media bubble—actors, directors, journalists and other prominents individuals in entertainment. This bubble is basically just a left-wing echo chamber radicalizing itself by the day. In addition, this behavior may be a result of the rampant tribalism in America. In this polarized climate, there seem to be reactionaries who oppose any move made by the opposition. For these reactionaries, views are not determined by principles but by convenience. To end on a positive note, this incident does show that there are still some values that hold Americans together. With the exception of the media bubble and literal pedophiles (see “Cuties: An Uncomfortably Honest Review” on YouTube), there doesn’t seem to be any massive wave rushing to defend “Cuties.” Compared to the rest of 2020 where any tragedy has to be politicized and debated, this is a breath of fresh air. If more Americans could come together and recognize these common values then maybe we can expect things to get better. But hey, it is 2020, so any hope of community or civil discourse is nothing but a pipe dream.
Vol. XXXIII, Issue III
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH ‘CUTIES’
There is Nothing Wrong With ‘Cuties’ By Tommy Gagliano
“
Mignonnes” (or “Cuties,” as it’s known in North America) is a French indie film written and directed by Maïmouna Doucouré, which tells the coming-of-age story of a Muslim Senegalese girl living in Paris. The film premiered at the 2020 Sundance Film Festival, where it was well-received, and earned Doucouré a Directing Award. It was released to audiences in France in mid-August, and was again given a positive reception. Then, everything changed when Netflix’s advertising department attacked. Netflix purchased the rights to the film in every country outside of France, and added it to their platform on September 9th. The graphic they created to promote the film certainly grabbed people’s attention, but not in a good way. It showed four young girls posing while wearing skimpy outfits, and a translated title: “Cuties.” Everyone lost their minds. The reaction wasn’t unreasonable, as people were not presented with any context— just young, half-dressed girls and the word “Cuties.” The way Netflix chose to advertise the movie was pretty stupid, but surely once everyone saw the film and understood the context they would calm down, right? ...Right? Wrong. The outrage over “Cuties” is still alive and well, with detractors going as far as to label it “soft-core child porn.” (Search for “cuties soft-core” on Twitter; it’s baffling how many people are making this remark.) What’s going on here? Have those criticizing “Mignonnes” actually watched the film? If so, is it really bad enough to warrant accusations like “soft-core child porn”? And if that’s the case, why didn’t it cause any controversy in France? After Joe submitted his article on the film, I felt that I needed to watch it myself to give him adequate feedback. I viewed it on Netflix, in its original language (French) with English subtitles, and… I don’t get what everyone is so upset about. The film’s protagonist is an eleven-year-old girl named Amy. She is Senegalese-French girl living in Paris, with her two younger brothers and her deeply religious Muslim mother and aunt. She is waiting for her father to return from Senegal at the start of the film, but it is revealed that when he does come home, he will be bringing a second wife with him. Amy’s mother tries to remain unbothered, as she is supposed to be supportive of her husband’s decision to marry a second wife per Senegalese culture. Amy overhears her crying hysterically about it, however, and it is clear throughout the film that the situation is weighing heavily on both Amy and her mother. The predicament with Amy’s father is part of a larger conflict for Amy. She has been raised in a conservative family that strictly follows Muslim and Senegalese rules, traditions, and values. Throughout the film, Amy tries to find out where she belongs, stuck in between the rigid religious and cultural framework of her family and the culture of freedom and individuality in Paris. At school, Amy’s life should feel familiar to anyone that has set foot in a western middle school. Her problems and conflicts are the same as the ones we all went through at that age.
editor@binghamtonreview.com
She wants nothing more than to fit in with the “popular” kids, even if that means sacrificing part of who she is. Enter the “Mignonnes,” a dance group of four “popular” eleven-year-old girls at Amy’s school. She first gets introduced to the group through Angelica, a girl that lives in the same apartment building as Amy, after Amy bails her out of trouble. The other Mignonnes do not want anything to do with Amy at first, but that doesn’t stop Amy from seeking their approval. She begins to dress like them (by stealing her brother’s t-shirt and wearing it as a crop top), act like them, and even learn their dance. She wants nothing more than to be accepted, the dream of everyone on the planet between the ages of ten and fourteen—but she takes it too far. She steals money from her mother to buy new, more revealing clothing, neglects the role of caring for her brothers that her mother has trusted her with, teaches the other girls more suggestive dances in an effort to impress them, and, in an impulsive act of anger, confusion, desire to fit in, and rebellion against her restrictive family, posts a nude picture of herself online. Amy’s conflict reaches a breaking point towards the end of the film, when she pushes Yasmine (who the Mignonnes had replaced her with) into a stream, planning to use Yasmine’s absence to take her spot in the dance number. Upon realizing that Yasmine cannot swim, Amy is stuck with a decision—should she help Yasmine or go to the competition? She simply stares there for an uncomfortably long amount of time, frozen with indecision. Finally, Yasmine makes it to a buoy, and Amy runs off to dance with the other girls. Of course, Amy’s new social life has put her at odds with her family life. In a way, she has been split into two totally different people. At home, she takes care of her brother and prays with her mother. With her friends, she gets into fights, sneaks into Lazer Tag without paying, and flirts with older boys (both in person and on a website similar to Chatroulette or Omegle). Amy has to decide: which person does she want to be? Is it possible to assimilate the two versions of herself? Will her family’s strict rules and values allow her to do this? Will the unrelenting cultural and behavioral demands of middle school allow her to? Even outside of Amy’s inner conflict, we see plenty of examples of the film describing what it’s like to be at the middle school age, and what it means to come of age. Why do the Mignonnes dress the way they do in the first place? Because the older dance troupe that everyone likes does, so if they want to be taken seriously, they think that they have to do the same. No eleven-year-old wants to be eleven. They believe that they are mature, and they want to be treated like adults, so they act as if they are older, by trying to emulate what older people do. For the Mignonnes, that means wearing crop tops and short shorts, watching porn, flirting with older guys, and including suggestive moves in their dances. Every kid does similar things to seem more mature at that age, whether it be cursing frequently, playing inappropriate video games, dressing a certain way, or doing sexy dance moves. One thing that Doucouré does very well, though, is re-
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
11
THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH ‘CUTIES’ mind the viewer that, despite how the girls act, they are still kids. My favorite example of this is at the fair, with the juxtaposition of the flirting scene and the condom scene. The four girls are talking with some high school age boys, but accidentally let it slip that they are eleven. Coumba tries to say that they are actually fourteen, but the boys get creeped out and leave. As they are walking away, the girls shout at them to come back and continually ask for their phone numbers. This scene is followed by one where they are hanging out in the woods, and Coumba starts blowing up a “balloon,” joking about how it looks like a boob. The other girls are horrified, as they recognize it as a condom. They start flipping out, with one of them explaining that a condom is used by people that have HIV when they have sex. The girls don’t let Coumba near them, as they are certain that she has been infected, and are scared that they will get infected as well. They eventually agree to take her home, where they intensively scrub her mouth (and face) with liquid soap to kill the germs. This scene is great, especially following the scene where they are pretending to act much older, because it breaks their facade and exposes their actual age and maturity. One of the girls didn’t even recognize the condom, and those that did were wrong about what it was used for (only for people with HIV), how HIV spreads, and how to get rid of it. The film ends with the day of Amy’s father’s wedding (to his second wife). Coincidentally, it happens to fall on the same day as the big dance competition that Amy had been training for with the Mignonnes. Due to middle school cruelty, Amy had been kicked out of the group and replaced by Yasmine, who Amy had originally replaced earlier in the movie (due to more middle school cruelty). Amy decides to skip the wedding and go to the dance competition, even though her presence is no longer desired by the other girls. The aforementioned scene where Amy pushes Yasmine into the stream occurs on the way there, and Amy arrives just in time to replace the absent Yasmine. The girls get on stage to do their dance—the updated version with new, extra suggestive moves added by Amy. They execute it perfectly, but shots of the judges and audience suggest that, except for the occasional dude here and there, it isn’t going over very well. Most spectators seem appalled by what they are seeing on stage. Suddenly, Amy has an auditory hallucination of her mother’s voice, and freezes. She bolts off the stage and runs home, arriving just as her mother is getting ready to leave to attend her husband’s second wedding. Her aunt immediately begins berating her for disappearing and for the outfit that she is wearing, but Amy’s mother stops her. Amy begs her mother not to go to her father’s wedding. Her mother explains that she has to, but tells Amy she has the option not to attend. Amy changes into regular clothing, leaving the dress her father had bought her for the occasion in her wardrobe, and goes outside to play jump rope in the street. “Mignonnes” really isn’t anything groundbreaking; it’s another entry into the popular genre of coming-of-age stories, dealing with the protagonist’s inner conflict. So why the massive amount of attention and outrage, then? Other than the initial advertising poster, there are a few scenes in the film which could be considered objectionable or “sexualizing children” when taken out of context. Throughout the film, Amy, Angelica, and the other Mignonnes are seen wearing crop tops, short
12
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM shorts, and tight clothing. The reason for this is obvious, as they are trying to act older and emulate a different dance troupe that everyone loves. It is a symptom of a middle school age kid’s insatiable desire to be “cool,” and it is a strong reflection of the real world. The inclusion of suggestive dance moves has also been criticized, but is integral to the story for the same reason. Amy learned these moves from watching popular music videos on the Internet, and assumes that, since those videos got so many likes online, it would be beneficial for the Mignonnes to implement them into their routine as well. Early on in the film, when Amy is first becoming acquainted with the other girls, they pressure her into entering the boys’ bathroom with a cell phone camera out, in an attempt to record a glimpse of a boy’s penis. Critics seem to be missing that this scene is a statement on peer pressure, not an endorsement of voyeurism. It also relates to the “wanting to act older” theme. People have also been up in arms about one of the fight scenes, where Amy attacks a member of the opposing dance group. The fight ends with one of the opposition girls pulling off Amy’s pants and posting a picture of her underwear online, laughing about how they are made for little girls. This leads to Amy stealing money from her mother to buy “adult” underwear for herself and her friends, but also to Amy’s descent as she faces a lot of backlash as a result of the image spreading on social media. I may sound like a broken record, but this scene does a lot for the plot and the overarching theme and meaning of the film; it is not included for the pleasure of pedophiles. And, of course, there’s the scene where Amy snaps a picture of her naked lower half and posts it online. I’m on the fence a bit with this scene, as I don’t see how it is entirely necessary. I understand that it shows the frustration building up inside Amy, and how frustration can lead to impulsive and radical behavior (especially when you are young), but it seems a little extreme and a bit out of nowhere to me. That being said, I don’t understand the argument that this scene is “sexualizing children” at all. Only Amy’s clothed upper half is shown, except for a shot of her pants and underwear around her ankles (significant because the underwear is much more “adult” than the pair she was ridiculed for). I don’t love the scene, but I think it’s ridiculous to be outraged over it. The only thing that can be legitimately complained about, in my mind, is the way the director chose to shoot and frame certain shots. Many of the dance scenes contain frequent close-ups of the girls’ butts as they are performing their risqué moves. Showing the moves is obviously integral to the plot and theme, but more sparing use of closeups might have been more appropriate. That being said, I respect the director’s artistic decision-making, and the fact that I had to nit-pick this much to find a single thing I sort of agree with the film’s critics on shows how weak their argument is. “Mignonnes” is not “soft-core child porn,” it’s an exposé on going through middle school and coming of age, particularly as an immigrant from a strict Muslim family. It is an okay film that tackles complex and somewhat uncomfortable issues, that has been attacked and review-bombed by people that have either never seen the film, or are incapable of thinking critically about cinema. It is a victim of “cancel culture,” ironically led in large part by those who speak out against cancel culture most frequently. Polarization, tribalism, and mob mentality has led to outrage over a film that is entirely unexceptional.
Vol. XXXIII, Issue III
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
IT’S A BOY! BURNING CALIFORNIA
It’s a Boy! Burning California By Harold Rook
A
h, California...home to Hollywood, no longer the home for The Daily Wire, and to a Katie Perry song that can’t get out of my head. Sure, I may be at odds with some of the policies and ideas proposed by many of the politicians in the state. And yes, I may channel my inner Holden Caulfield and make fun of how phony it is that actors and actresses from California tend to lead political dialogue, which is almost exclusively to the left. Nonetheless, I have always found some charm to the Californian environment: the magnificence of its urban centers like San Francisco and San Diego, the tropical climate, and its wonderful beaches are all features I find naturally appealing. However, like a Tinder profile that includes the phrase “single mother,” there is a massive drawback to this enchanting atmosphere: wildfires. According to the California state government website on wildfires, nearly 3.6 million acres of land have been swallowed by flames this year, leading to 26 deaths and extensive property damage. Looking outside of a window in the Golden State reveals an orange sky filled with a combination of ash and soot. So, why is California currently like my mixtape? Looking at the list of causes, there are several factors that can be examined as the culprit. One such factor that contributes to this is the presence of climate change. Wildfires in California are nothing new; the state has had wildfires come and go in the preceding decades, so much so that many of the ingidenous people would purposely set fires to clear out wooded areas seasonally. Unlike previous years, however, what sets these fires apart have been the consistent presence of heat waves in California during the summer months. This can best be seen when analyzing the increase in temperature in the Californian climate, which climbed by 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit since 1980. Accompanying this increased temperature is the absence of rain; according to Climatewire, the
editor@binghamtonreview.com
amount of rainfall and other forms of precipitation in California has decreased by 30%, owing much to increased industrialization and air pollution. Consequently, the environment within California has become increasingly dry and ready to ignite, the perfect powder keg for sudden wildfires. Of course, it isn’t just climate change that has made this possible; climate change has only made starting forest fires easier, but these flames don’t light themselves often. Rather, human failures can be pointed to as the main facilitator for these fires. The United States Department of the Interior estimates that as much as 90% of all forest fires have some human origin, whether that be failure to put out a cigarette appropriately or negligently leaving campfires unattended. Compare this to the negligible amount of forest fires started by natural causes, such as by lightning, and it becomes obvious that human error can be seen as a direct cause. Some of the fires that have been a result of downright absurd causes thanks to mankind’s ability to find increasingly stupid ways of destroying itself. The best example of this can be found in the El Dorado Fire (currently only 60% contained), which was ignited as a result of using pyrotechnics for a gender reveal party, according to Reuters. Surprisingly, this isn’t the first time a gender reveal party has resulted in a blazing forest fire that resulted in thousands of acres of burnt land; in 2017, a gender reveal party sparked devastation to forests in Arizona. While I won’t take this time to stand on a soapbox like Trevor Noah and speak about how “gender reveal parties” are outdated or some such woke nonsense, I am stupefied that such irresponsible behavior can result in this much damage. I can only imagine what criminal charges the soon-tobe-parents are likely going to face. A final factor that has influenced the growing spread of forest fires in California is the failure by the state government to manage these forests.
Managing state forests has been allocated by California’s government into two main groups: park rangers, whose job is to manage the ecosystem via both conservation and prescribed burning, and the fire brigade, who addresses out of control fires. Signs of mismanagement came first through the increased reliance on the fire brigade to put out fires for fire suppression, seen through its increased budget. By contrast, the number of park rangers in California began to shrink to just 250 rangers, resulting in a decrease in biodiversity within forests. This, in turn, made it easier for fires to spread. Comparatively, when comparing this with more attentive private forestation programs--such as the My Sierra Woods Project--public parks have been more prone to these wildfires, indicating that the government of California has engaged in some degree of mismanagement. And all this time, while we sit amongst ourselves discussing the causes of these fires, California burns. It would be foolish to deny the impact that factors such as climate change, human negligence, and state government mismanagement have played in perpetuating the blazes. However, the apocalyptic nightmare that is Burning California continues. California itself is a beautiful place, filled to the brim with a lush culture and wonderful environment. Until then, it’s best to swipe left on California.
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
13
DR MARIO: THE ULTIMATE ULTIMATE CHARACTER
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
Dr. Mario: The Ultimate Ultimate Character By Matt Gagliano
W
hat’s up, gamers! It’s a random Thursday, so you know what that means: leaks and rumours for the next DLC character for Super Smash Bros. Ultimate are running rampant again, and all of them are extremely credible. While I’m sure we’re all very excited to see if some well-known, fan favorite characters like Sora or Geno (or even the God himself, Waluigi) gets in, I think we all know who the next DLC character will be… Felix from Fire Emblem: Three Houses! I for one think that a blue haired, sword wielding, anime-style character would be a unique addition to a roster that severely lacks such characters! Regardless of who the DLC fighter ends up being, I can say with utmost confidence that they will not be my new main. But what if they’re insanely overpowered? What if the new fighter is so insanely good that every other character becomes F-tier in comparison? Surely, then, I would have no choice but to main them, right? Well, what if I told you that such a fighter already exists? What if I told you that every Smash Ultimate tier list was made by some small-brained pissbaby who thinks the only definitive god-tier character in the game belongs in D-tier? What if I told you that the undeniable best fighter in Super Smash Bros. Ultimate for the Nintendo Switch is none other than Dr. Mario!
“Can you imagine a slightly overweight Italian doctor picking up a giant turtle monster, lifting them over his head, and then throwing them in the other direction?” Alright, alright, stop your booing and listen up. The Doc has been completely overlooked since Melee and I’m here to give him the credit that he deserves. Why is he so good, you ask? Allow me to explain. Have you ever used Dr. Mario’s down-B? That shit’s fun as hell. His down-B, of course, is what I like to refer to as The Spinnies™. I can already hear you saying that other characters also have The Spinnies™, but shut your stupid, low IQ, Joker-maining mouths, because they’re not the same. First and foremost, regular, boring-ass Mario can only do The Spinnies™ while in the air, which is lame as hell. Luigi can use The Spinnies™ on the ground, however the Virgin Luigi’s Spinnies™ only hits five times, whereas the Chad Dr. Mario’s can hit up to seven. Now then, why is The Spinnies™ such an epic, god-tier, high IQ, and other positive-sounding adjectives attack? Well, for starters, The Spinnies™ has insane knockback, making enemies fly away faster than Nelly Furtado, which is absolutely insane because she is, and I quote, “like a bird.” Some may call it “cheap” or “some real pussy shit,” but The Spinnies™ is the absolute best move to use if you’re playing on a walk-off stage. If you can hit someone with it while close to the edge of the stage, The Spinnies™ has the potential to KO at zero percent. Who’s D-tier now? The Spinnies™ can also be used to recover. If you find yourself needing some extra height to reach the ledge, you can activate The Spinnies™ and mash the B button to make
14
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
The Doc rise faster than my penis when I see the cover of our last issue. Dr. Mario can gain more height from The Spinnies™ then from his normal recovery which, I’ll be honest, is his only mediocre move. If used properly, I think it’s undeniable that Dr. Mario’s Spinnies™ provides the best recovery in the entire game. Suck it, Snake and Piranha Plant lovers. There’s more to Dr. Mario than just his Spinnies™, of course. His forward aerial is the most powerful punch ever, even more powerful than the punch of the self-absorbed asshole who feels the need to shout his own name as he punches. If you get hit by a Dr. Mario forward-air, the only thing you can do is pray to Palutena, because you’re either going to die instantly, or recieve, in the words of Phil Swift, “a lot of damage.” Now, I don’t want to hear any bullshit about “ending lag” or about how “it takes too long to actually perform the move. Like, I could actually read the entirety of the Lord of the Rings trilogy before Dr. Mario finishes his forward air. Seriously, that move is slow as hell.” Y’all are just jealous of how The Doc’s poignant punching power perpetually pummels the ever-loving shit out of you. Dr. Mario’s forward-air doesn’t spike like the inferior Mario’s forward-air does, but I actually see this as a benefit, not a detriment. Vanilla Mario’s forward-air doesn’t have the capacity to kill if there is ground underneath him, while Dr. Mario’s forward air can, and will, kill anytime, anywhere. Dr. Mario’s forward-air is overpowered, and if you disagree I will personally drive to your house and show you how strong my forward-air is! Which is not as strong as Dr. Mario’s, obviously, because nothing is stronger than The Doc’s forward-air! Also, I’m weak as hell. What was I talking about again? Oh yeah, Dr. Mario OP, amirite? While I could go on and on about every single reason that Dr. Mario is the best fighter in Smash Ultimate, I have to make this fit on one page (apparently this wasn’t a “good enough idea” to warrant more pages), so the last move I will be discussing is his back-throw, or as I like to call it, his Yeet Throw™. “What’s so amazing about the Yeet Throw™?” you ask, like a complete and utter fool. Well, Dr. Mario will take his opponent, lift them up over his head, and yeet them in the other direction. Can you imagine a slightly overweight Italian doctor picking up a giant turtle monster, lifting them over his head, and then throwing them in the other direction? I guess if you do a lot of LSD you probably can imagine that, but for the rest of us, this is an absolutely mind blowing feat of strength. Speaking in terms of the actual game, Dr. Mario’s Yeet Throw™ does incredible damage and has outstanding knockback, making it the absolute best back-throw in the game. Best down-B, best forward-air, best back-throw, tell me again how Dr. Mario is D-tier? After the evidence presented here today, I believe it is undeniable that Dr. Mario is the one and only fighter in Smash Ultimate that is deserving of the title “god-tier.” One might say that he is… really good. Ha, you thought I was going to say that he was “the ultimate Ultimate character,” didn’t you?
Vol. XXXIII, Issue III
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
THE FAULT IN OUR DINING HALLS
The Fault in Our Dining Halls By Madeline Perez
O
ne downside to being the most productive publication on campus (by strides, I may add) is that we have a lot of pages to fill. A lot. It is during the late night Bing Review production hours, fueled by anger and Dr. Pepper, where certain articles are written last minute in haste and disarray. This is one of those times. I considered a lot of possible ideas. A good couple. Most of them were pretty bad. Eventually, I came to the conclusion that it would probably be easiest to write about something I’m angry about. Yes, it’s true, sometimes your humble narrator in whom you’ve become so intimately familiar with over my past horrendous articles feels embarrassing emotions like “anger,” “frustration,” and “rage to the point of pillow-punching violence.” Though I don’t feel this often, the things I choose to be passionate about I have very strong opinions on. And one of those things is food quality. Especially the food quality of food I eat. Especially the food quality of food served to me by an establishment that is taking all of my money. This brings me to the actual point of this “article,” complaining about the food quality of the Binghamton Dining Halls. And this is an article long past due. Before I start this complete decimation of Binghamton’s food-related confidence, I do find it necessary to add a disclaimer about my intentions. I don’t mean to insult any individual who works in the dining halls, especially because, having worked in the food industry myself, I am all too familiar with the lack of control food preparers and servers have in the actual quality. I understand that many of the changes made under the COVID Age were necessary and the people organizing things were and are doing their best. It’s just that their best could definitely be better. I also want to make it clear I haven’t really done anything myself to fix these issues besides voting in those email polls about what food I’d like to eventually eat in a hypothetical future.
editor@binghamtonreview.com
Confrontation isn’t exactly my favorite at the best of times. My first grievance about dining hall food is the fact that it’s just not good. The pizza is somehow both soggy and burnt. the pasta is bland and overcooked to hell—taking on a mush-like play dough quality (plus, smooth penne? Do you really hate your students this much? This is an actual crime). Most of the food lacks basic seasoning. The sandwich I bought was actually inedible and with each bite I was reminded of the acute pain that exists in the world as a whole. The fries I ate at C4 were so greasy I was reminded of the guys at my high school. So far, every time I’ve seen someone eat dining hall meat they have winced at its rubbery texture and bland taste, sometimes opting to feed it to the bugs, animals, or hungry garbage cans on campus. Sadly, I can’t really comment on the meat-including foods, being a non-meat-eater, whatever that’s called. Which conveniently brings me to my next point: it’s gotten considerably harder to be vegetarian in Binghamton. This is kinda an obvious point given the immense cut of all food options, but like… come on. This meal plan cost $2,747 a semester. And my choice is mush or sleep for dinner. The garden station in CIW is significantly better than the other booths, as they actually season their food (thank God) and it definitely feels like there’s more love and care embedded in the food. That being said, it costs basically double than the meat options served. The vegans are being financially oppressed. Also, side note, sometimes the vegetarian option is marked with a red dot sticker, and the meat option has a green sticker, which was acutely distressing and anxiety inducing especially when you can’t see inside the mystery box. The PETA rating, that each dining hall bears with pride, should not be an A+. Despite the fact that nearly every vegan and vegetarian despises PETA for making animal activists look insane, I’m sure their rating system can be bet-
ter than this. In addition to the lacking vegetarian options, the omelet station (which I used to adore, so please bring it back) wouldn’t always clean off their stovetop and spatulas, so sometimes I would find stray bacon bits in my food, either visually or gustatorily. That is cringe. Many students have given up on dining hall food as a whole, opting to eat at the marketplace, often daily and multiple times a day. Now, this would be fine, if these innocent students weren’t also being charged $2000 a semester for the Meal Plan Subscription, that thing that makes the dining hall food cost cheaper. Considering this, students are being subconsciously tricked into believing that since their food is cheap it’s allowed to taste cheap, so it’s not that big a deal if they spend money on terrible food. But we are being cheated out of a lot of money and the food we’re being served is an insult to injury. I came to Binghamton prepared to bulk up, for as you surely know, it is bulking season. This isn’t even a joke. I actually was banking on those omelets to help me gain a few, but now since Binghamton has decided to starve me out, I’m afraid bulking is going to have to wait. Best case scenario, Binghamton realizes their mistake, refunds me $2000, and issues a formal apology for the suffering they’ve put their students through. If the food quality doesn’t improve, hopefully the masses will come to their senses and stop buying the expensive-ass subscription when they’re just buying the full priced marketplace foods. Just a thought. To end on a lighter note, the mashed potatoes I had the other day were actually pretty good.
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
15