May 3, 2023 (Vol XXXV, Is. XII) - Binghamton Review

Dear Readers,

Well, the day is finally here. To all the fanatics, hate-readers, and rando normies picking up this strange publication for the very first time, I want to start off with a goodbye. As life blooms all around us in what has been painstakingly termed “Springhamton,” there is one metaphorical obsidian monolith casting a cold shadow. (This monolith is my retirement and the grief it will surely sow in the Binghamton University student populace, if that wasn’t clear.) And to think, this goodbye is only half as sad as last year when I stopped writing the listserv emails. However, my departure is reminiscent of the well-known cooking chocolate preferred by bakers across the country: bittersweet. On one hand, it’s time to distance myself from my emotional support club and pass the 10-ton torch that has anchored me to the middle of this highway. On the other, I’M FREE! I’M FINALLY FREE! Lo, how that spring breeze gently cools my uncuffed wrists that have not known the sun for so long! My intellectual labor that has been running the hamster wheel of this publication can finally take an eternal sleep, and I can spend the rest of my days free from evils like writing, thinking, or doing anything besides blowing dandelions in a field. Won’t anybody tell me about the rabbits and living off the fat of the land?

We’ve got quite the lineup for this issue. You should look at “The Art of Not Working” by S.G. Panini on page 9. This tell-tale advice really gets to the nitty gritty of avoiding work while staying employed. Graduates, this may interest you… On page 12, we have Arthur O’Sullivan’s “The Shibboleths,” a long-awaited sequel to his last article, “Magic Words.” In this article, he describes a unique type of magic word ever present in mainstream American politics. As per any classic Review article, none of these words are in the Bible.

For some certified tear-jerkers, look at Dillon O’Toole’s “Lessons Learned” on page 14. Here, take in a Boomer’s advice on college, as well as his reflections on the way it changed him. Finally, for a guaranteed ugly cry sesh, look towards page 15 to read “So Long, Farewell, Auf Wiedersehen, Goodbye” by yours truly. Here, I talk genuinely for the first time about my introduction to the Binghamton Review, my inspiration, and my parting thoughts. On parting your mom’s legs, specifically.

That’s all for this issue! Good luck to everyone on their finals, have a blessed spring semester, and congratulations to all my fellow graduates! Despite my jokes, I will honestly miss writing these. Goodbye forever, and as always, thanks for reading. :)

Sincerely,

Madeline Perez

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.

Advice Column

I offered to give you all life advice. These were your questions.

I’m on new medication and I feel weird. Should I kill my dog?

Yes, your dog is actually not your dog. It was replaced by a parasitic plant three days ago and it has been poisoning you. It is plotting to kill you when you least expect it. So, since it is now a plant, burn it. Don’t worry about the yelps of pain, it is just trying to betray you one last time. You are just saving the human race from an existential threat.

I’ve been trying to get better mentally. However, I keep going back to my belief that I am just like Light Yagami and the world needs to be cleansed and so on and so forth. Is there any hope for me to recover? If yes, how do I start down the path of recovery? If no, how do I start down the path of becoming the God of this new world?

Let me explain something to you, tough guy. You will never, never be Light Yagami. Light Yagami is a highly-intelligent, handsome and tall multitasking machine with an ego that can only be satiated by his absolute level of chaddery. To expect any less of him, to reduce him to a lowly Binghamton University student, is frankly sacrilege. Light Yagami not only fooled the entire Japanese police force and a socially-challenged schizotypal autist, but managed to get sweet supermodel goth GF poontang in the process. So once again, I must reiterate, shout it to the fucking stratosphere, you will never be Light Yagami, you dysgenic fruitcake.

I’m trying to cope with the fact that I’m about to graduate. How should I proceed with my life?

There are two paths you can go down with this newfound freedom, because with great freedom comes responsibility. The first is that you settle down, find a career, meet a nice spouse, and start a family. Make your way up the social and economic ladder. Invest in a future for your children. Be the change you want to see in the world. The other path? The dude ranch.

How do you feel about the way the phrase “mental breakdown” has been co-opted by the non-mentally-ill?

What do you mean? Nobody has co-opted anything from the mentally ill. Society treats the mentally ill with the utmost respect, and always has. In fact, and I hate to phrase it this way, but you seem a little crazy to suggest the phrase “mental breakdown” has been co-opted. Who are these “co-opters”? Are they in the room with us right now?

Does he know?

No, the plan hasn’t been revealed to him yet. He won’t find out until it is far too late to react. And by then, nothing could stop the plan from achieving completion.

I can’t seem to let go of the past. Tips?

I find dropping a picture I took years ago to be a great way to let go of the past. It is literally a symbol of dropping the past, and mentally it can signify letting go as well. Or you could just drink until you forget everything that has happened to you, that works too.

Have you ever watched Pooty Tang before? It’s so bad though.

No, and I don’t intend to ever watch something named “Pooty Tang”.

What was your favorite memory from your four years at Binghamton—the premier public ivy?

Well, I spent a year remote so it certainly wasn’t anything from that year. I guess it was probably something I did in the review. Or, maybe it was that time I thought it was a good idea to walk three miles while wasted in negative 15 degree weather.

I’ve been told that I have “fixations” on random things like putting stuff into my mouth or pretending to be a father figure to select anime characters. Is this a problem? What do I do about it?

Suck cock.

Tucker “you can’t cuck the Tuck” Carlson just got cucked. It’s so over man. What am I going to jerk off to now at 8 pm on weeknights?

MLP ponysona art, OBVIOUSLY!

A male friend of mine has been putting on a “girl voice” that’s making me act up… I mean like full-on-Stephen-Crowder-repressed-homosexual-down-diddly-bad for real! The voice has been wriggling its dulcit tones into my dreams where I normally like to solve things I’ve seen on r/riddles. What I am trying to ask is: What is the least painful way for me to castrate myself?

You are already on reddit, so I think the world is going to take care of that issue you have in short order.

Need life advice? Email manager@binghamtonreview.com for more wacky, quirky, and zany responses.

By Emily Portalatin

Musical Theatre’s Power of Biblical Proportions

Sorry,

everyone. I don’t have time to write this article, I have rehearsal… is what I would say if I were a theatre kid! Got ya!!!!!!!! Okay, I am a musical fan, but we’ve all heard harsh rumors about the stereotypical “theatre kid”: a fan who publicly breaks into song, makes theatre their only trait, and expresses jealousy toward others in the theatre setting; a Rachel Berry type.

I am no stranger to enjoying musicals, having some related phases in my life. In recent years, I’ve listened to a few, but not frequently enough for more than a couple to stick, and I only know one or two songs from the most famous musicals. Maybe I didn’t indulge much out of fear that I’d look like that musical theatre caricature. No one wants to feel disliked! Plus I’m sure you need some semblance of talent to be a theatre kid, another reason why I choose to be inactive in anything theatre-related.

Recently, however, I was delaying academic responsibilities and grew tired of UQuiz personality quizzes telling me whether I have “okokok” or “lalala” vibes, whatever that means (...I got “lalala”). I took to Youtube, which randomly recommended a musical theatre video comparing actors singing a high note from Jesus Christ Superstar’s “Gethsemane.” I knew it was a musical about Jesus but had never listened to it, so I curiously clicked. Upon watching, NO ONE beats Ted Neeley and Ian Gillan! I am also insane now.

I’ve listened to this musical practically every day, and am gaining a newfound interest in Bible stories??? A musical about the events preceding Jesus’ death played to the tune of 70s rock opera did what Mass and religion classes couldn’t: get me OBSESSED with Bible stuff. At one point I exclaimed “This makes me wanna go to church??!!” but quickly remembered I do not particularly enjoy real church and don’t know how connected I feel to it anymore. They don’t sing 70s rock opera there :(

“ As long as you recognize that Biblical figures didn’t jam out to 70s rock opera and the founding fathers didn’t rap and Thomas Jefferson didn’t wear a Miku binder (or did he?), the history within musicals can be valuable and fun, especially when musical creators do their research.”

In all seriousness, this is not to say I am not religious at all: religion can be a lovely thing. I was raised Catholic and, admittedly, occasionally talk to God (although I can’t always tell if I’m praying or completing a compulsion since I repeat the “Sign of the Cross” a lot). I may be a hopeful, semi-religious Agnostic?

Jesus Christ Superstar isn’t exactly the “come to Jesus” type of musical anyway; it’s true enough to the source material but also quite secular, with Judas being a narrator of sorts. It provides interesting, nuanced points of view besides “grrr I hate Jesus!!! I will betray him!!!!” since that is obviously not what happened but is how some remember Judas for some odd reason. Regardless, I’m not sure if I ever found any part of the Bible as interesting as I do right now. Maybe I could appreciate my Catholicism more again, casually or otherwise. Even if the MASTERPIECE that is Jesus Christ Superstar doesn’t totally revive me religiously, I may delve into relearning some more Bible stories thanks to this *epic* musical. I may even listen to Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat next for some Book of Genesis action. To quote a line from Jesus Christ Superstar, “One thing I’ll say for him, Jesus is cool.“

Overall, my point is to state something we all already learned when Hamilton blew up, but is still important to remember: musicals can make learning more fun??!! Hamilton may be associated with “cringe” and Lin Manuel Miranda’s lip bite, but it undoubtedly made people care about the founding fathers and learn some history. There are other great musicals based on parts of history, but Hamilton opened the present-day mainstream’s eyes to this in a way bigger than before. Musicals are obviously not 100% accurate—I’ve watched enough “Historical Errors in Hamilton” videos that I can “UM ACTUALLY” anyone if needed—but they are a good starting point for learning information most would not normally seek out. As long as you recognize that Biblical figures didn’t jam out to 70s rock opera and the founding fathers didn’t rap and Thomas Jefferson didn’t wear a Miku binder (or did he?), the history within musicals can be valuable and fun, especially when musical creators do their research. If you’re an auditory learner or music enjoyer that understands cognitive dissonance, I implore you to give a historical musical a try. They are catchy, utilize different genres, and teach in an entertaining, albeit dramatized way. And now you have the whole summer to give it a whirl, just like I have the whole summer to muster up the courage to scamper into a Binghamton Review meeting next Fall!

I’d like us to break away from the fear of enjoying things. Cringe culture is dead, and theatre kids are not that bad in actuality. As long as you’re respectful and harmless it should be no big deal. And who wouldn’t be passionate about well-crafted things that bring them joy? It’s like that quote I love from the Bible: Let he who is without, uh… ever being annoying about his passions… cast the first stone! Yeah… I’m sure that’s how it goes.

Anyway, if you hear pained screaming, I may be attempting the high note from “Gethsemane.” But you should probably still call authorities for help just in case someone else is actually hurt, or I busted my larynx or something.

Musings of a Schmirnoff-Drinking Man

By El Lento

Thisarticle will diverge from what one likely expects from Binghamton Review. Despite the facetious title, what follows is not satirical and is instead a serious attempt at analysis of the incidents in February wherein multiple unidentified objects (I will attempt to avoid the nomenclature “UFO” due to its association with aliens) were shot down. I acknowledge that although I lack definitive evidence of what really happened, I believe the standing narrative is not entirely truthful.

Finally, to assuage some of your warranted skepticism, I will point out that I do not believe in extraterrestrial life, aliens or little-green-men of any sort; I believe that my theory is firmly within the realm of geopolitics and modern science, not science fiction.

First, the official narrative ought to be reiterated. According to the New York Times, the timeline of events is as follows:

February 4: After roughly a week over the United States, a Chinese spy balloon is shot down at 60,000-65,000 feet.

February 10: An object is shot down over Alaska roughly a day after detection.

February 11: Again roughly a day after detection, another object is shot down by the United States over Canada near Alaska.

February 12: Again roughly a day after detection, a third object is shot down over Lake Huron at 20,000 feet.

February 16: President Biden states that these objects, excluding of course the initial spy balloon, “likely served commercial or recreational purposes.”

February 17: The search for the wreckage of these objects officially ends.

The most immediately suspicious

fact is this rather sudden acknowledgment that the objects were not military or strategic in nature. First, our government almost always avoids admitting fault if possible. From a pragmatic standpoint, there is no reason to immediately admit to the objects being non-threatening—unless one believes that proof will soon be public. One could not claim that this announcement was to prevent further tensions (as the NYT seems to imply), as tensions would already be high because of the initial spy balloon.

Initially, I believed that the administration lacked sufficient information to conclude that the objects were private aircraft. I also believed that the objects were not civilian in nature, as one would have expected someone to have claimed them (which has yet to occur months later), and it seems extremely unlikely that three unidentifiable civilian aircraft would all suddenly be detected at roughly the same time. Some might argue in response that the United States government simply increased scrutiny of their airspace at this time and that accounts for their detection in rapid succession. Indeed, on March 17th, defensescoop. com published an article in which they quoted General VanHerck on Chinese spy balloons that he had “seen that type of...vehicle, probably for about a year and a half to two years before what you saw happened...we’ve been watching them...we had been monitoring it” before stating “we are very attuned to vehicles that aren’t flying at airline type speeds” and “we have [detected] thousands of other objects now that we’ve changed the sensitivities of our radars.”

Taken at face value, these statements support the increased-scrutiny hypothesis. Yet upon further analysis they seem entirely contradictory. Supposedly, multiple objects were detected after radar sensitivities were changed in response to this incursion. But if the U.S. was able to mon-

itor these balloons prior to this point, why would they need to alter their radar sensitivity? Similarly, if the military was aware of these balloons, why wouldn’t it have already adjusted their radar in response? VanHerck even states that they had been preparing for an incursion since August. Thus, failing to adjust their radar despite this preparation would be a near-unprecedented display of incompetence. Furthermore, if their detection was caused by an adjustment in our radar usage, wouldn’t we expect to detect them over a much narrower time frame, like immediately after the adjustment?

Furthermore, it’s strange enough that these three objects—ostensibly out of thousands—were singled out for destruction; some might argue that the other objects had their identity verified or were otherwise deemed non-threatening. But this implies that non-military aircraft can normally be identified yet these three objects would still be an abnormality. Thus, these explanations appear increasingly unlikely. One final point: defensescoop.com notes that the government made explicit that these were “objects,” not balloons. However, it should be noted that according to Al Jazeera, even balloons above a certain weight are required to have transponders on them; it is difficult, then, to imagine how these objects could remain below this requisite weight if they were not balloons, and thus any legitimate commercial or recreational craft would have had a transponder that clearly identifies them.

The second suspicious fact is the rather sudden decision to halt the search for wreckage. If an unidentified object had violated U.S. airspace, one would think that its recovery and analysis would be a high ranking priority. Further, we have just determined that these craft likely were not recreational or commercial in nature, and the government therefore should assume that they were the work of some state actor. Ostensibly, the search was halted due

to weather conditions at the time. Yet much of the Chinese spy satellite was recovered despite being shot down “six nautical miles” off the Atlantic shore. It should be expected that an object from a much smaller lake would be easier to locate, or that at least something could be recovered. Furthermore, the U.S. has historically demonstrated a remarkable ability to recover underwater objects. During the Cold War, the U.S. managed to not only locate but even recover a large section of a sunken Soviet submarine roughly 16,000 feet under the sea. Considering that Lake Huron has an average depth of 195 feet and a maximum of 750, recovery shouldn’t seem difficult. This isn’t even addressing the fact that the “Canadian” unidentified object had been shot down over the Yukon and thus should be considerably easier to recover than something submerged in water. This decision to officially halt the search thus seems unreasonable and warranting suspicion.

My final point concerns a topic which has hitherto gone unmentioned: the unidentified object sighted over China during this time period.

On February 12 it was announced that the Chinese government had detected an unidentified object near a major naval base at Qingdao and had “prepared” to shoot it down… and I have been unable to find any update on this situation since then. Indeed, the closest thing to an update I could find was a Wikipedia article which stated that there was no official update. If China had shot down the object, failure to acknowledge that would be extremely strange. If China allowed an object to enter its airspace, particularly near a military installation, failure to address this intrusion would suggest weakness on its part, entirely undesirable for any autocratic regime. China particularly felt pressure to demonstrate strength since Chinese nationalists called for shooting down the object in response to the U.S. shooting down their balloon. China also faced strategic pressure to do so, since inaction could cause other countries to view China as either unable or unwilling to protect its airspace.

Thus if China had shot down the

object, it would have been in their best interest to publicize that fact. Alternatively, if China opted to not shoot down the object, they could have attempted to contrast themselves with the U.S. by claiming that their intelligence had determined the object was no threat and would be tolerated, thereby portraying them as “calculating” and “rational” compared to the U.S. response. It seems that China chose the least rational and worst option, portraying them as neither strong nor even-keeled. It seems that the only reason why anyone would opt for this decision is if it were somehow less embarrassing or destructive than the reality of the situation.

Now, I will attempt to SPECULATE on what may have really happened. This is merely a guess, an explanation in line with what we otherwise know, without any hard evidence at present.

I believe that after our government shot down the Chinese spy balloon on February 4, their government was furious. In response, they may have deployed experimental or covert aircraft in order to either (1) test the U.S. response and defensive capabilities after our prolonged failure to respond to their spy balloon or (2) demonstrate Chinese capabilities and thereby intimidate us out of acting in a similar manner again.

It’s unlikely that these aircraft were also spy balloons, as their characteristics are different. One of the objects was described as the size of a small car, while the balloon was “200 feet tall with a jetliner size payload.” The balloon was a sphere, while the descriptions of the objects include one being shaped like a cylinder and another being octagonal. Furthermore, the altitudes of the unidentified objects were at 40,000 feet, 40,000 feet, and 20,000 feet, while the balloon was at roughly 60,000 feet. It also does not make sense to cover up these objects being spy balloons, as Biden had already announced that multiple balloons had entered our airspace. Thus, any effect of revealing additional spy balloons would undoubtedly be less destructive than the potential of public panic at the news of “unidentified ob-

jects” being shot down, with the government unable to explain what they were.

If experimental aircraft had been shot down, this also explains the strange decision to halt the search for wreckage, as it lifts public scrutiny from sources of sensitive intelligence. The unidentified object sighted by the Chinese may have, in turn, been an experimental American aircraft sent to demonstrate that further attempts at intimidation or violations of airspace would not be tolerated. Thus, China may not have offered an update if they had attempted to shoot down the aircraft and failed.

Undoubtedly some are likely to scoff at this talk of experimental aircraft as merely the product of conspiracy theories and an overactive imagination. Yet the SR71 Blackbird was designed and built in the 1960s and it still holds the official record for fastest air-breathing manned jet aircraft. It would be absurd to believe that after roughly sixty years that a faster aircraft has not secretly been built despite numerous scientific and technological advances. Furthermore, while the existence of the Blackbird was not kept secret for long, it would be roughly a decade before the public ever saw it and twenty years before they received the details. It’s not difficult to imagine that there are aircraft that are following similar or more stringent standards of secrecy.

Some may also question why both sides wouldn’t escalate the situation. In the case of Biden, note that he initially opposed the visit by Pelosi to the independent Republic of China (Taiwan), suggesting that he is hesitant to risk conflict with China. Some may argue that China under Xi’s leadership and their “wolf-warrior” diplomacy would escalate the matter. If what I have speculated is true, however, it would be in their best interests to not escalate. If China had failed to shoot down an experimental U.S. aircraft, while the U.S. in turn succeeded in shooting down these Chinese aircraft, this would demonstrate that they are at a technological disadvantage and that conflict at this time would not be in their best interests.

AI and its Effects on the Music Industry

AI continues to amaze the internet and the world with its capacity for extraordinary feats. It has now proven itself capable of creating music on par with that of accomplished singers and songwriters. The impacts this will have on the music industry will prove to be of great importance in the near future.

Over the past few months, AI programs have been used to replicate the voices of real human beings, especially famous celebrities. We have seen this on platforms such as TikTok and YouTube, in which content creators have posted videos of AI replicating the voices of Presidents and other famous figures, making entertaining videos of these voices interacting with each other and playing video games. These videos garner immense popularity on their respective platforms and as such, this popularity fueled what has now become the influx of AI-created songs and music.

These AI songs have gained popularity by replicating the voices of real people and using them to create songs. This currently exists in two different forms: the first involves AI using the voice of a celebrity to sing a popular song not originally sung by said celebrity. An example of this is an AI cover of Kanye West singing “Viva La Vida” by Coldplay. This type of AI voiceover provides a frighteningly accurate replication of the real-life individual’s voice in musical form.

By Daniel Guido

In many cases, people can not initially tell that an AI created this, which shows just how real these “voices” can sound. The second type of AI voice-over involves the use of a celebrity’s voice to create an entirely new song from scratch with its own lyrics and musical beat, the exemplar of this being “Heart on My Sleeve” created by TikTok user “ghostwriter977,” which uses AI replicated voices of Drake and The Weeknd with a Metro Boomin label at the start of the song. It uses these voices in a way which makes it sound as if it were really created by these artists. This has since opened up the possibility for collaborations to be created of different singers who never would have made a song together, such as Michael Jackson and other artists who have passed away. These examples are probably just the start in a wave of AI created music.

This opens up many legal and ethical questions when it comes to the use of real people’s voices in the creation of AI

music. So far the song “Heart on My Sleeve” has been taken down on Spotify and YouTube as people question whether or not this should be considered copyright infringement

There also exists the ethical debate over who deserves credit and ownership over these songs. Should the person who input the command for the AI to create the song receive the credit, or should the programming company who created the AI be credited? This is not to mention the person whose voice is being used in the first place. But does the celebrity deserve credit for a song in which they took no part in its creation? Should the use of AI to create voice-replicated music even be allowed? This whole situation has raised many new questions, all without clear answers.

It will certainly be interesting to see the legal decisions brought about over this debate. We could very well see courts attempt to outlaw this form of music creation, which may be the first step in a long list of regulations that will inevitably be imposed on the use of Artificial Intelligence. We already see the attempted suppression of word-generator programs such as ChatGPT, and this form of music generation will inevitably meet the same fate. However, it will still be interesting to listen to people’s defense of this form of music and the ethical debates that they bring up over this topic.

The power AI has on internet content continues to expand with AI generated pictures, art, voice replications, word generators, and now music creation. These are only the capabilities that are popularly known, with AI doing immense amounts of other work in other backgrounds as well. It is now only a matter of time before the next new and interesting AI accomplishment will gain similar wide-spread popularity and controversy.

“This has since opened up the possibility for collaborations to be created of different singers who never would have made a song together, such as Michael Jackson and other artists who have passed away”

“We could very well see courts attempt to outlaw this form of music creation, which may be the first step in a long list of regulations that will inevitably be imposed on the use of Artificial Intelligence”

The Art of Not Working

By S.G. Panini

Sometimes you have a lot on your plate: worrying about classes, your stagnant relationship life, what to eat for lunch. Other times it’s just pure laziness. On rare occasions you’re amped and willing, but just can’t for some reason; some days are slower than others.

The bottom line is you’re not gonna work. It happens… a lot, and I empathize with you. Today, I’m going to teach a masterclass on not working, and how to maintain employment while doing so. Before we even begin, you might be wondering, “Who the hell are you to tell me what not working is like?” You may even be thinking, “At my last job my boss caught me slacking off a few times, I’ve gotten good at this.” Child’s play. You are but a sperm cell in the life of not working. From my first job, I have been a pundit in this very art. Let’s work through my resumé.

I started working during my senior year of high school, once the Covid-19 pandemic had already been a few months underway. My school was in an asynchronous learning environment at the time, where every other day classes were held online. In addition, all attendance minimums in order to receive credit were removed for the entirety of that year. Thus, I took the opportunity to make money while my peers were dilly-dallying on zoom, learning as much as I was working a job, nowhere near a laptop on Zoom.

Now where does one, who does not want to work, look to work? Many of my friends had previously worked at restaurants, where tips are nice and, because of state laws, minimum wage is guaranteed. But frankly, it’s not easy to slack off in that line of work. Food and service are industries where people are very quick to voice displeasure with poor service, and poor employees are very often fired. So that was a no-go.

Most front desk jobs tend to offer a less stressful environment compared to restaurant work, but again, I’d likely be stringently monitored to start off. Front desk jobs also require a consistent friendliness that I cannot always bring myself to at 9 in the morning.

I knew I needed something better. A job where very little output was expected on my behalf, and the little I was expected to do would be hardly supervised. A job plagued by so much bureaucracy that no one would bother checking up on me, because my higher-ups would be too busy stroking their own egos for how little they do. A job where however poor the quality of my work, I’d essentially need to break the law in order to get fired. And then it hit me! There’s one employer that consistently checked off all those boxes: Government.

I quickly began digging through state and local government websites to see what random positions they were hiring for. Political positions were out of the picture, since there is no force greater than that of a power-hungry candidate, and that would indeed be a high stress job.

Before I knew it, I’d found my match. The New York City Department of Health & Hospitals had a listing for “field outreach canvassers” (government jobs have a way of sounding

meaninglessly sophisticated, often being redundant), where workers had to speak to passersby about their Covid vaccination status, and attempt to make vaccine appointments for the unvaccinated. To sweeten the deal, they were paying $20/hour! Within a few weeks, I was hired. They even paid me to attend 3 diversity and inclusion training sessions that I took wonderful naps through.

I was stationed across the boroughs of New York City, most often in The Bronx and Queens for proximity. All I had to do was sign up at least eight people a day for appointments to get vaccinated at various clinics via a government website— whether they ever showed up was not my concern. At first my coworkers and I used to just ask younger folks to do us a favor and just give us their information, letting them know there was no obligation for them to show up, and they were helping us get paid. Most happily obliged.

Soon enough we realized there was no mechanism in place to make sure the people we were signing up were actually real. At the end of each work day our supervisors just needed to see screenshots of at least eight appointments, and there was no way for them to verify the information we were showing them was of real people. Especially because we were also able to sign up homeless people with no home address, and people without health insurance. It was at this point that the job became even easier.

The days when we were stationed in Far Rockaway were a breeze, due to us working right by Rockaway Beach. As we were getting into the warmer months, I took the pleasure of spending my work hours relaxing by the beach, while most of my classmates were still in zoom sessions. Now that was the life.

Unfortunately, when my semester at Binghamton began, it was time to finally leave that wonderful job. I tried to get Covid right before quitting, because us full-time employees were offered two weeks full pay if we tested positive, but my efforts were in vain. This only meant I needed to find a new government job I could laze off at.

Within months of being at Binghamton, I was hired by the State of New York to work at the University’s bowling alley. Many friends and coworkers have seen me walking around campus, often the marketplace for food, when I’m on the clock at work. To which I most often reply, “A man’s gotta eat!” If a lane breaks, it happened before I got there. And I prefer not to hand out shoes because then I need to clean them later. In spite of all this, someone informed me that my name was in the running for supervisor. That’s government work in a nutshell. Post-graduate studies, I’d like to work at a public university for the rest of my life. It really doesn’t get any better than this. You want to not work? Government is the place for you!

P.S. All employers trying to figure out who wrote this can go fuck themselves. If you think you know, you don’t. And by the time you do, I probably got the job already, so good luck getting rid of me.

The Cruel Implications of Toy Story 4

By Madeline Perez

Ihavenever hidden my disdain for the fourth Toy Story movie. Across previous articles and social interactions—even the passing thought of TS4 sends me into a rabid hysteria, wideeyed and foaming, in which I tear apart the nearest small child or bunny rabbit. It’s comforting to know I’m not alone, as I’ve been told others have also criticized the movie—but in my ongoing effort to stay pure and original, I have sworn not to engage with the discourse until AFTER I have contributed.

My first criticism is that TS4 directly negates the values of the first three movies. Messages of unlikely friendship, resilience, and mutual support all get defenestrated and replaced with one, terminal value… moving on. And I know what you’re thinking: being able to recognize when and how to move forward are important skills. However, this message is already healthily explored in the second and third movies, with Jessie moving on from her painful past, and the toys moving on from their codependent relationship with Andy. In the fourth, this concept is unhealthily instituted in ways meant to be more reflective of the current societal status quo, but I’ll save that for later.

created with the intention of serving a child, but this cannot be the same for non-toy objects played with since—once they are discarded—their “purpose” as a toy is pretty much nil. This also raises the question, can adults create sentience in the same way, and where do “adult toys” (haha joke about them also being named buzz and woody) fit into the equation?

Now for those societal implications I mentioned earlier. At the end of TS4, Woody leaves behind all of his friends in hopes of rekindling a romance with Bo Peep and her sheep. Freaky. I read this as a direct reference to how people are expected to deprioritize their friends as they get older in order to put everything into a romantic relationship, in which they go out on their own and procreate or some shit.

TS4 has one traumatic, glaring tumor that comes in the form of an unlikely utensil. Forky, a spork with googly eyes and red pipe cleaner arms, is a new character brought to life by Bonnie’s (the girl who owns the toys) own love and imagination. Thrilling, truly. Why am I alive? Good question Forky—why are you alive? Forky might as well be a knife, because he tears a massive hole into the world building of the past 3 movies through one threatening implication: the thing that brings toys to life is the purpose of being played with by a human. Therefore, any object meant to be played with becomes alive. If you think it needs eyes and arms or whatever the shit, let me direct you to that thick etch-a-sketch in the first movie. This explains why boxed toys are alive in previous movies, despite never being played with (which is also horrifying—imagine spending eternity alone in a box and you can’t even die). This has terrible consequences: children can thrust sentience over any object they intend to play with. And not just any sentience, an existential, painful, “I shouldn’t be here” sentience on non-toy objects. I’d argue that the main cast are pretty much immortal unless they are utterly destroyed due to their identity as certified toys,

TS4 sends the message that it’s part of “growing up” to leave behind your friends so you can rely on one person for all your socializing needs for the rest of your life. Here’s the flaw in that if you haven’t noticed: no one person can healthily fulfill all social needs of another. It’s an understatement to say that I don’t subscribe to this brand of thinking. Not only are these impossibly high expectations, people need a broader support system—and God forbid something happens to that one person, you are socially left with nothing and it hits 100 times as hard. And what ever happened to “you got a friend in me?” More like “you got a friend in me until someone who gives great head comes into my life. Then you’ll never see me again.”

My last criticism of TS4 is that it is literally the worst movie ever. I can’t think of any movie I hate more—which is probably because if you hate a movie you tend to stop watching. No. I saw this shit in theaters. I’ve never been so close to walking out of a movie, not to mention committing an act of domestic terrorism. To make matters worse, this was the last thing I saw before COVID hit, so my memory of “the movies,” something that brought me joy and wonder as a youth, was marred for literal years with no hope of reconciliation. All in all, I’m planning to pull an Eternal Sunshine and obliterate my hippocampus just to free myself from the chains of this movie’s memory. Toy Story 4? More like… Toy Story Bore… Yeah, I said it.

“What ever happened to “you got a friend in me?”

More like “you got a friend in me until someone who gives great head comes into my life. Then you’ll never see me again.”

Meet Next Year’s E-Board!

By Our Staff

Editor-in-chief: Arthur O’Sullivan

My name is Arthur O’Sullivan

Social Media Manager: Aiden Miller

Hey Binghamton Reviwers! My name is Aiden Hartwell Miller. I live at 4400 Vestal Pkwy E, Binghamton, NY 13902. I’m rising at this “the premier public ivy”. I’m here to subject you all to my incredibly shitty writing skills.

Treasurer: Siddharth Gundapaneni

Hey, I’m Siddharth Gundapaneni, your new treasurer. Last year I refused to commit to not laundering money. As those who attended elections know, I have now promised to not launder money. That said, I still may lose all of it. Oops!

Weezer’s second album, Pinkerton, was released on September 24th, 1996. The import of this album cannot be underestimated. Pinkerton starts with quite a contrast from the melodic acoustic guitar riffage which introduced their previous outing in Weezer (Blue Album) with “My Name is Jonas”. Instead, we get the intense drum count-in and harsh, pummeling keys playing a distorted melody in “Tired of Sex”. A bass introduces us to the chord progression. It’s only then we get Rivers Cuomo to come in with his memorably clean voice. Whereas “My Name Is Jonas” has an impassioned performance by the songwriter-guitarist, here he sounds much more jaded and lethargic. He sings: “I’m tired / So tired / I’m tired of having sex / so tired”. Here we are introduced to perhaps the most distinctive thing about this particular piece: while in other Weezer songs, Cuomo doesn’t shy away from excessive lyric-dumping “cheese”, here he shows an incredible amount of reservation. In just a few words, he establishes a technique unique to this track in arguably all of Weezer’s catalog: the use of double–and even triple– entendre. In this way–

(Midas did not send us his introduction. We therefore AI-generated it. Legally, we can not claim that this introduction has any correspondence to the truth.)

Copy Desk Chief: Midas Leung

I am Midas Leung. I am a talented communications major and passionate cameraman with a deep connection to his Chinese heritage as a Chinese-American. Born and raised in the United States, I have always been drawn to visual storytelling, capturing the world around me through my camear lens. I am an avid traveler and have documented my journeys through stunning photography and videos.

[Pictured above: my Ponysona (do not steal), Hispania Crumpets] Managing Editor: Shayne O’Loughlin

The Shibboleths

Oh, great! I write a massive text-wall about stupid terms in politics and then I use a word like “Shibboleth.” For clarification, this word was used in the Old Testament as a test of identification: if you pronounced it right, you were spared; if wrong, you were killed as an impostor. The word itself was no secret, and everyone knew its meaning, but only one group of people used it, and its use separated the ingroup from the enemies.

Mainstream American politics is built on Shibboleths. Indeed, both Democrats and Republicans have words to which they reflexively resort, and likewise words which they spurn as “wrong.” Nevertheless, each party understands the words, but only one party uses it, and the other rejects it as if allergic.

I suppose it’s time to self-flagellate a little: Republicans have one of the biggest linguistic tumors known to all political discourse: “Woke.” Although invented by the left as a positive descriptor of the “socially aware,” right-wing boomers (like me) quickly used the word as a derogatory term for left-wing social activism. As soon as that happened, many on the left abandoned “woke” for other Magic Words. Now I can’t even go outside without some geezer who’s probably on social security going “WOKE this,” and “WOKE that,” like bro, I just woke up! Not only is the constant abuse of the “w”-word grating, but it actively stifles discussion. If you’re on the left and reading this, when was the last time you took your elderly relative complaining about “wokeism” seriously? If you’re on the right, have you ever convinced someone outside your sphere that “woke ideology” is a problem? In order for my argument to work, you should be saying “No!” A shibboleth like “woke” shuts down the brain, both of the one who says it, and the one who hears it. Once that happens, the discussion is dead.

Which brings me to the most difficult section of this series: there is a domain of “politics” (in quotes because it transcends the political) which is almost entirely dominated by Magic Words. Ever since some early hominid made a big-booby fertility statue, it’s been universally known that sex drives mankind crazy. Why should we be any different? In our heavily politicized society, the politics of sex and sexual identity lead to the greatest derangement. Magic Words mask this derangement.

(Please note, my own commentary on sexual identity politics is beyond the scope of this article. Here, I will only expose the derangement in the language around these issues, and how it dehumanizes and throttles otherwise important discussions.)

Consider a Shibboleth like “the LGBTQIA+ community.” For such a short phrase, it does so much legwork: it labels an infinitely diverse set of people by some vaguely related sexual characteristics, and throws them into a collective “community” with universal, unchanging social and political interests. As such, activists can appeal to this community in any argument, declaiming the “harm” brought about by that

By Arthur O’Sullivan

with which they disagree.

CNN’s recent (non-opinion) article “Record number of anti-LGBTQ bills have been introduced this year” exemplifies this idea. In it, Annette Choi reports that “417 anti-LGBTQ bills’’—some of which “ban access to gender-affirming health care for transgender youth” or require “forced outing” of students who secretly transition at public schools or even require public school sex education curricula to be published— have been introduced by Republican legislatures. This wave of bills, “comes at a time when 1 in 4 transgender adults say they have been physically attacked.”

Fortunately, every ‘expert’ interviewed for the article (all two of them) denounce these Republican “attacks” as all being built on paranoid conspiracy theories. Clearly then, all 417 of these bills do clear and active harm to the LGBTQIA+ community.

There’s a tiny problem in this reporting: Choi didn’t read all 417 bills. I didn’t read all 417 bills. The ‘experts’ didn’t read all 417 bills. Yet CNN feels no shame decrying each of them as “attacks on the LGBTQ community,” regardless of the actual content therein. Again, opining on gender transition, sex education etc. is beyond this article’s scope, but can one really say that Choi’s piece advances anything? No right-wing nut (like me) would read this and be alarmed, even supposing specific bills were alarming. Only those on the left will read this and get angry about it. In that sense, the entire article is a Shibboleth: a left-wing writer signals to a similarly inclined reader that she’s “one of the good ones,” while the right is beneath contempt.

Speaking of, the right is no less deranged about this, with no fewer Shibboleths either. I’ve already caterwauled about the word “woke,” but its all-too-common co-pilot “gender ideology” is similarly vague and destructive. While there may be very real issues with the ideology-based “unconditional affirmation” paradigm (which caused the collapse of the “Gender Identity Development Service” at the Tavistock Clinic in the U.K.), instead of presenting these problems in an sensible and tactful manner, conservatives lazily vomit phrases like “WOKE GENDER IDELOGUES are COMING to GROOM our CHILDREN!” Saying this may stimulate the release of other right-wingers’ endorphins, but it does nothing less than repulse their left-wing counterparts, and subject their ideas to mockery by moderates. Again, the conversation becomes insular, as the words themselves trigger mental shutdown in both speaker and listener (sympathetic and unsympathetic).

So long as Shibboleths substitute gut-reaction for thought, every cross-party discussion will see each wait for the other to say something “wrong.” When that happens, mockery—not argument—will decide the “victor,” with nobody having learned anything of value. There’s only one way to break free of this cycle: both parties (myself included) need to figure out more mutually agreed-upon words, instead of playing an unending game of semantical Among Us.

Publication Report Card

By Our Staff

With the spring semester coming to a close, it’s time to look back on the work of Binghamton’s college publications and grade them accordingly. Our grade scale is based on a multitude of factors: writing quality, frequency of publication, aesthetic design, and—most importantly of all—sheer, unhinged vibes. With this in mind, read through this report card, compare it to your own GPA, and weep:

Pipe Dream: B-

I’m not sure if anyone has previously mentioned this, but who dreams of pipes? Weird name choice aside, I have to give Pipe Dream credit for the increase in the number of printed issues this semester. The more printed issues in circulation on campus the better in my opinion.

A few pointers:

• Fun Page? More like Unfun Page!

• No, seriously, reading the “fun page” is about as fun as a hoedown at the local Planned Parenthood’s grand opening! I mean, what’s the deal with the fun page?

• If you make the Fun Page I’m going to find you and throw a whole entire apple at you!

• My cat is funnier than this, and she’s dead!

• This list is still somehow funnier than your “fun page”

• You’re not just a goner, you’re a GOONER!

When I’m done with you, you’ll be dreaming of my pipe, actually. That’s right. Bet you haven’t heard that one before.

Free Press: F

FINALLY! I FINALLY CAUGHT YOU! After two years of accusing you of tracing your art, I literally have proof. For your plagiarism, I give you an automatic fail.

On a more positive note, your issue production went up from last year from 2 issues to 3. Progress! Although, it’s still a far shot from our 12, or from Pipe Dream’s infinity. So… I read your editorial written by three people and I nearly had a stroke. I also tried reading the inside, but I couldn’t make out the words between my tears and the vomit.

Bing Butt: D

Many people think anal is a taboo subject. I’d like to disagree; Vaginas are gross, and I would be much more comfortable putting my externals into some soft, welcoming cavern. That being said, the Bing Butt is the spherical subject of my lust, or should I say, the funny headlines of my tickled neutrality.

As always, we’re going to have to give the Butt ‘the D.’

Happy Medium: A-

We are… pleasantly surprised. Will you (Happy Medium) go out with me (Binghamton Review?) Please show us your Happy Medium. We literally need it so badly. Actually, I did really enjoy the issue I saw, thought the graphic design was on point, and thought the references were a good touch. However, points off for your slow printing schedule. (I still love you though. Come to our future office bedroom?)

Asian Outlook: F

You fail due to a complete lack of material. I don’t think you handed in any work this year! Detention! Detention! And if I’m mistaken, and you did put out content if we somehow missed all of it, does it really count?

Binghamton Review: A+++ 8=========D

Well, were you really expecting anything different?

Lessons Learned

By Dillon O’Toole

Ithasn’t fully hit me yet but my time here at Binghamton is almost at an end. The realization that I am only a few weeks away from graduation has been a slow burn and I can only imagine how I will feel come the week of graduation. But looking back, it really hasn’t felt like I have been in college for four years. With COVID hitting during my second semester here, my experience as a student living on campus came to an unceremoniously sudden end. That doesn’t mean I don’t have any (actual) advice that students here in Binghamton may find useful.

During my time here at Binghamton, one of the major complaints I have seen online has been people having trouble making friends or just meeting new people in general. This can seem especially daunting if, like me, you are not a big fan of parties and similar events. To these people, I have only one suggestion: join some clubs that seem interesting. I know it may seem awkward at first, but this is normal. Not everyone is a social butterfly who will just naturally click with every person they meet. To use myself as an example, when I joined the Review as a freshman it took time before I began to feel comfortable speaking up in meetings. I’m naturally introverted but eventually, I found a great group of friends through my time in this club that I never would have met had I not joined the club. This is not me explicitly endorsing Binghamton Review by the way, showing up and getting to know people works for any club on campus. And if you already have a declared major, doing this among your peers will also lead you to get to know people who will be taking classes with you. Naturally, you most likely won’t become friends with every single member of your club or major, but putting in the effort to actually go out and get to know people should let you meet at least a few people.

This may seem hypocritical coming from a guy who only spent a semester and a half living on campus, but don’t feel like you have to go and live off campus as soon as possible. By all means, if you have a group of friends who want you to live with them off campus, consider the offer. But living on campus has its own set of benefits when compared to living off campus. The biggest advantage is obviously how close you are to your classes, but something you may not have considered is the fact that living on campus gives you a guaranteed space where you can go between classes. I have found myself on several occasions wishing I had a dorm to go to between classes, as driving back to my apartment between classes doesn’t always seem worth it when looking at the amount of time I have between classes. And yes, I know that there are certain places to sit on campus but the people who sit there must camp there because no matter how early I get to the Science II hallway those booths are always full.

Knowing how to balance schoolwork and personal time is a crucial skill to develop. It probably has been the thing I have struggled with the most in college, well besides Electromagnetic Theory I and II. It is essential to not fall into the trap of the extremes, that is don’t be the person who only parties and has fun and also don’t be the person who only studies all the time.

This is just my opinion, but neither of those types of people are properly experiencing college. Arguably, this last year has been the best. I have balanced both fun and schoolwork, and personally I have felt much more satisfied with my time than I was when my time wasn’t as balanced. To top it off I still am a major procrastinator, so if I can somehow balance my time better anyone should be able to.

College is a time for you to change as a person. Even if you don’t think it will change you, it most certainly will. This change may be rather minor, or it may be rather large, but I don’t think I know anyone who hasn’t changed at all during this time of their life. That is why I think it’s critical to approach your time here in Binghamton with an open mind. Try some new things, go and meet some new people, even if you were previously introverted. You may think it will be difficult to do this, and it may in fact be difficult, but what is life without some hardships? I know the me in high school would never have voluntarily run for an officer position in a club. That me would have also been reluctant to “act” in YouTube films (although I’m not sure you can call my performance acting). I guess what I’m saying is to take advantage of the fact that you can meet new people in this place called college, and use that advantage to enhance this experience we call life.

On one final note, this article will be the last one I write while I’m a student here at Binghamton. I’m not going to say it’s the last thing I will ever write for this club, but regardless it feels like a chapter of my life is coming to a close. That’s why I wanted to write this article. I’m truly grateful for the people that I have met here, and I hope anyone reading this finds a group of people that they too will be truly grateful for meeting.

So Long, Farewell, Auf Wiedersehen, Goodbye

WhenI was a freshman, waltzing around UFest, I found myself interested in lots of booths. Among these were the Fine Arts Society (a drawing club that I can only assume died when COVID struck and now no one can remember and I am the last remaining link to their history), the tennis and swimming clubs, and Binghamton Review Magazine. I think I signed up for other clubs probably involving singing, games, anime, and quite possibly bees, but as I never attended meetings for those it’s not really relevant, is it?

Anyway, what initially attracted me to The Review was a distinct memory of an issue pictured below (left), as well as a funny handout describing what to do when stopped by police. The people at the booth also looked at me like this (right):

By Madeline Perez

expressing my ideas, opinions, and generally—myself. As I took to the eboard and started writing more, I was able to edit and help advise the writing of others. Because of this, in my humble opinion, I am much better at writing and editing than when I started college—W and C credits be damned. I’d advise anyone who wants to write to do one thing: practice. Write through the writer’s block. Even if you feel you couldn’t possibly create anything good, just by starting you’ll surprise yourself with what you come up with. (Deadlines aren’t bad inspiration, either.) I’m still not sure if I have the ego to call myself a “writer” somehow, but at this point, I may as well be.

All of which I remember liking. I was sold. I didn’t spend too much time independently writing in high school, but I knew it was something I was good at and wanted to get into, so I sent this certified hood classic email.

Hello! I cannot make the meeting tonight because of a class. By any chance, can I have some of the core information emailed to me? Just to clarify, this is the satire magazine right? I got kinda confused with all the club names. Thanks!

Oh, young innocence.

The response changed my life forever, as I found that the EIC was actually someone who lived approximately 20 houses down from me back at my spawn point on Long Island. His younger brother, Matt, was already my friend, and we had graduated months prior together and were now going to the same university. Small world.

Going to Review meetings during my freshman year was nothing short of a drug trip combined with an anxiety disorder. I sat in our old office at Old Rafuse quietly, sweating through my clothes, both admiring yet intimidated by the confident, strange, quirked-up members of this weird club I joined. If it weren’t for Matt, I strongly doubt I would have stayed. Sure—I wanted to write articles and get them published very badly and I may have still submitted some, but I don’t think I could’ve gotten through those early meetings without my social crutch to play Jumbling Tower with.

As time passed, I started to feel much more comfortable

Growing up, it was no secret I read too much (see Reading is Fundamentally Ill). Though Augusten Burroughs and Kurt Vonnegut were good on the worst of days, I also really enjoyed the ease of graphic novels and magazines. Scratch that. Magazine. As in, one magazine in particular. Can you guess which one? Nope, not Golf Digest! MAD Magazine. (No disrespect to Highlights, which kept me entertained over many a dentist visit.) I loved the humor mixed with pop culture, even when I had no idea what they were talking about. This obsession was further enabled by the Golden Age of Cracked, the youtube channel of Cracked.com. Created after the demise of Cracked Magazine, which was before my time, Cracked.com featured mostly humorous articles analyzing pop culture and life in general. Cracked After Hours on the YouTube channel was by far my favorite, even though I knew almost nothing about the majority of the shows discussed. The mix of analysis and comedy was something I was completely enamored with and, to all the people familiar with both, they can attest to most of my writing sounding straight out of an After Hours episode, which I can’t help but be proud of. Of course, the sad truth remains that MAD stopped publishing and Cracked was purchased and lost the people who made it great. However, it was and is my goal in this trying time to provide similarly entertaining articles to expose others to this style of ‘analysis humor’ and to keep myself from falling into the neverending pit of insanity.

I’ve already written articles about my feelings about this club (see Most Controversial Binghamton Review Review!) as well as my origin story (see Help! I’ve Been Kidnapped by The Binghamton Review!) so this article need not be as long as farewells of years past. However, I still have some parting advice: put yourself out there in college. You can’t make a dent in the societal mold by just sitting around being sweaty. Be yourself, because everyone else is already Tracer. And of course, join Binghamton Review! I’m glad I did. All in all, I think the greatest thing I learned was that maybe the real Binghamton Review was the friends we made along the way. :)

P.S. I want to genuinely thank all the people who have been supportive of me and my writing over the years—know this is not the end. Probably.