Page 1



Founded 1987 • Volume XXIX, Issue X

Editor-in-Chief Jordan T. Raitses

Copy Desk Chief Elizabeth Elliot

Publishing Manager Patrick McAuliffe

Communications Manager Kayla Jimenez

Business Manager Alex Carros

Editor Emeritus Sean Glendon

Staff Writers

Thomas Casey, Aditi Roy, Zachary Borodkin, Luke Kusick, David Keptsi, Chris DeMarco, Max Newman, Dylan Klein

Assistant Editors Jason Caci, Sophie Christian, Adrienne Vertucci Special Thanks To:

Intercollegiate Studies Institute Collegiate Network Binghamton Review was printed by Gary Marsden We Provide the Truth. He Provides the Staples



by Chris DeMarco

5 A Breakdown of Brexit by Sophie Christian 6 Colonial-Style Decadence by Patrick McAuliffe 7 TSA: A Corrupt Bureaucracy by Chris DeMarco 8 Tauntrepreneurship by Thomas Casey 10 The Coming French Revolution by Max Newman 11 The Next Holodomer by Pino Che 12 Bill Nye Can’t Save the World by Aditi Roy by Dylan Klein 14 The Freedom Caucus 15 Domo Arigato, Mr. Roboto by Jason Caci


3 Editorial Farewell 4 Campus Presswatch

TELL US WHAT YOU THINK! Direct feedback to 2


Vol. XXIX, Issue X


From the Editor

Welcome to the last issue of the semester and my last issue as Editor-in-Chief. As the cover promises, this is our most shocking issue of the semester with lots of controversy to keep you enter-triggered for the rest of the summer. Before we get to the main issue, I have a few words to say as I get ready to move on with my life. In general, I’m not a huge fan of self-aggrandizement and I don’t usually think people care all that much about what I have to say. However, I’m a graduating senior so I think you’ll forgive my presuming your interest. To be honest, I’ve been thinking about writing this farewell piece for a little while now, and just the fact that I’m putting something like down in words has given me cause to seriously consider how I feel about graduation. I (and every other graduating senior) am often asked: “Oh wow, you’re graduating this May. Are you excited!?” To which we (soon-to-be-graduates) will typically answer somewhere on the spectrum of “It’s a little bittersweet, but yeah,” to “Fuck that place, woo!” At first, I automatically responded with the prior, but I think I’ve changed my mind. Granted, graduating college is a concentrated dose of growing up and that can be

scary. After 16 years of schooling, one suddenly leaves this old, comfortable world and enters the “real world;” some might say that term is ridiculous--there’s no solid well-defined line between fake adulthood (college) and real adulthood. But there is. It may not come all of a sudden; it may not come on for a few years; but there is a line from childhood to adulthood and it’s crossed after college. For a while, I was intimidated by that impending change. Now, I’m curious. In the end, college was fun, but I am ready to leave. I realize that not everyone is ready to move on, but I am fortunate enough to have a job lined up and I guess you might say I “have it together.” Maybe next September will trigger some nostalgia, but for now I’m optimistic and excited. To my other seniors moving into the real world, I recommend staying optimistic above all else. It can be intimidating, leaving everything you’ve known behind, but it shouldn’t be scary. Binghamton has done a pretty good job teaching us the skills we’ll need for life, and for everything else, there’s MasterCard Google. “So long, and thanks for all the fish!”

Our Mission

Binghamton Review is a non-partisan, student-run periodical of conservative thought 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. In that spirit, we seek to promote the free exchange of ideas and offer an alternative viewpoint not normally found on our predominately liberal campus. It is our duty to expose the warped ideology of political correctness that dominates this university. 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. Finally, we understand that a moral order is a necessary component of any civilized society. We strive to inform, engage, 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.



CPampus resswatch “Downtown blue-light system concerns Binghamton activists” Jillian Forstadt, April 18, 2017 “The plan, however, was met with criticism from residents and students who believe it will perpetuate community divisions and endanger minority students. Student groups like the Black Student Union have condemned the policy…” Someone please explain to me how a system designed to protect students can simultaneously endanger them. At the beginning of April, MINORITY students downtown were harassed and felt unsafe. They demanded the University take action to protect students downtown. A few weeks later, the University announces that it will be funding implementation of blue lights and cameras downtown. Instead of minority students being grateful for this generous initiative, they immediately insist that this actually endangers minority students… let me know. “Michael Stephens… sad the initiative prioritizes student safety over low-income and minority residents.” What is wrong with a University prioritizing the safety of its students? No one is harmed by the blue-light system, regardless of wealth or race. Rather, everyone is offered access to safety and protection. The only class of residents harmed by this initiative are criminals. Are they suggesting most criminals in Binghamton are poor minorities? That’s kind of… racist! “Students fail to understand the University’s impact locally.” GOD FORBID. HOW DARE THE UNIVERSITY BRING JOBS BACK TO THE AREA AND PROVIDE HUNDREDS IF NOT THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE WITH INCOMES. UGH! “Some also argue that the boxes are an ineffective use of taxpayer and tuition funds…” Finally something I can agree with.




Written by our Staff

“... Money should be reallocated to make the University safer for students of color by increasing University Counseling Center funding so that additional counselors of color could be hired.” So do what you want, what you want with my money. Do what you want, don’t stop. “Ride-sharing services to expand reach to upstate” Amy Donovan, 4/20/17 “‘There’s competition with all companies,’ Waad said. ‘If you have a good service, people will come to you.’” Local cab driver brings some logic to Pipe Dream! Amazing! “Criticism of blue-lights persists” Samuel Abaev,4/27/17 “...the University is just using it as a public relations campaign to sort of be able to say that [it] cares about [its] student safety, putting money and investing in these blue lights, but really there is no problem with student safety, and this money could be going elsewhere.” FACTS. This is all rhetorical nonsense that’s going to cost the university a million dollars. I wouldn’t be surprised if the University began this initiative because of all of the complaints following the step team’s harassment downtown. Meanwhile, the most dangerous situations students get in downtown are usually a result of their own actions and choices. The entire initiative, though it may increase safety downtown, is a waste of a million dollars. “Excelsior is a turn for the worse” Brian Deinstadt, 4/27/17 “Contrary to appearances, the scholarship is an unproductive step down a path that should not even be taken.” YAS Brian. This path should not be taken. Once tuition is free, who knows what’s next. Is it not good enough that we have state funded universities that are more affordable than private institutions? Sheesh, people just can’t be satisfied. When you give a mouse a cookie…

“Free higher education is counterproductive to achieving a more prosperous and educated society.” I know! People hear free tuition and they’re hype as shit… yet they don’t stop to consider whether or not this scholarship will actually achieve the desired goal. Why would incentivizing everyone to go to public schools for free, and disincentivizing people to attend private universities, create a diverse and well-educated workforce? That seems counterintuitive. It worsens the quality of education provided at public universities and increases the disparity between those who attend private vs public universities. “Paying for an education is incumbent on the individual who wants to be educated, not the rest of society.” Exactly. If you want something, pay for it. The government already provides people with state-funded universities, financial aid, and student loans. This is plenty to enable those who want an education to receive one. As was the case with our University expanding the blue light system, this change is mainly concerned with appearances and political agendas. Costing over a million dollars per year in the long run, this program is taking away from other state-funded programs and projects.

Vol. XXIX, Issue X


A Breakdown of Brexit


By Sophie Christian


fter 44 years of partnership, Britain is leaving the European Union after invoking Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty on March 29th. Theresa May signed a letter beginning this process on March 28th, which was delivered to Donald Tusk - the European Council’s president - at 12:20 BST. Until 2009, there was no option to exit the EU until the Lisbon Treaty became legal, which aims to make the EU “more democratic, more transparent and more efficient”. The countdown for Brexit has officially begun and Britain has until April 2019 to create a fair deal for leaving the EU, which will consume time and have complexities. For the deal to successfully pass, a “qualified majority” of EU member states must approve it, otherwise it can be vetoed by European parliament. Negotiations with other European countries are not expected to start until May or June and are thought to conclude in autumn the following year. Members of Parliament at Westminster, the European Council at Brussels, and the European Parliament will have the opportunity to vote on settled deals.

“Theresa May plans to duplicate EU laws onto the British statute books as part of her “Great Repeal Bill”, permitting the Government to select which laws are most relevant to Britain and abandoning laws it does not see as fit for the nation.” However, if no agreement is settled within the next two years, barring an extension, the UK will depart from the EU and every existing agreement would cease to apply to the UK. Brexit Day would thereby be declared on March 29th 2019. The simple bit of the agreement is releasing Britain from the current

agreement it has with the EU. The tricky part is deciding on updated trading arrangements, free movement and tariffs. Such agreements, according to EU leaders, are thought to take another five years. Officials expect the disposing of EU law to result in new legislations - possibly 25 Bills in every Queen’s Speech for the following decade. Hundreds of Treasury lawyers and experts would be hired for the following areas: health and safety, employment, and financial services. A Trade Ministry would be needed along with hundreds of fresh negotiators to secure new deals on a global scale. Other pressing questions that need to be answered are cross-border security, the European Arrest Warrant, and the relocation of EU agencies whose headquarters are based in the UK as well as the UK’s contribution to pensions of EU civil servants. This is part of the “divorce bill”, which has potential to total up to £50bn. Theresa May plans to duplicate EU laws onto the British statute books as part of her “Great Repeal Bill”, permitting the Government to select which laws are most relevant to Britain and abandoning laws it does not see as fit for the nation. This means the Government would have to multi-task in negotiating a new deal with Brussels and secure a series of significant bilateral global trade agreements. David Davis will oversee this procedure as Secretary of State for departing the European Union. To prevent a weak economy, business leaders want simple terms of agreement but political leaders have claimed that these terms will be too strict to discourage a domino effect across other EU states. This is out of fear that the alliance will seem less appealing to rich, liberal northern states such as the Netherlands and Denmark. If Brexit proves to be successful

it could prove as a serious threat to the EU alliance. Jean-Claude Juncker, president of the European Commission, has called for more rigid integration. In addition, he has planned for integrating the Eurozone, as well as a treasury, which will help avoid history repeating itself with the Greek crisis. This currently has not been discussed with other EU member states, but the shock of Brexit may prioritize this subject in the future. The nationalist Geert Wilders gained seats in the Dutch election that was held in March. Meanwhile, Marine Le Pen’s popularity has grown in France with the upcoming elections in April and May. Angela Merkel’s biggest hurdle will come in the German elections this coming fall. Theresa May emphasized the seriousness of Brexit by stating, “There can be no turning back.” Furthermore, the recent UK Supreme Court case has concluded that Brexit is not reversible once it is complete. However, Donald Tusk disagrees with this opinion and believes Article 50 can be reversed. Lord Kerr, a veteran British diplomat and the author of Article 50, informed BBC in November 2016, “You can change your mind while the process is going on.” However, this is unlikely due to the backlash politicians would receive from the folks of Britain. If the UK wanted to rejoin the EU, its request shall fall under Article 49. For now the UK has firmly set its sights on leaving the EU and only time will tell how Britain will fare as an independent nation.




Colonial-Style Decadence


By Patrick McAuliffe


e get a lot of political opinions in the Review, and those are wonderful to peruse. However, I always enjoy writing about things that will impact people right here in the college community itself. Therefore, to give you, dear reader, some recommendations on how to improve your night life, I’m here to talk to you about The Colonial. If you’re not familiar with it already, The Colonial is a restaurant and bar located at the corner of Court and State Streets. I went there on a Thursday during Restaurant Week, so they didn’t card at the door, although they might when it’s a weekend night. If you’re underage and/or just want some food, it works as a regular restaurant just as well. When I arrived, the place was pretty full. It’s a dark setting with a dark wood theme shown in the tables, chairs, and bar. There are different levels of seats all around the small dining area, and you even have the option to sit at a lunch counter-style table at the front window, looking at all the lit students stumbling to and fro down the street. My date and I were promptly seated at a tall two-seater table, although the wait would have probably been longer had we not come when we did. Our waitress was friendly and welcoming, and brought our drinks in under 10 minutes. An establishment’s bathroom can be incredibly important in determining the character of said establishment, and The Colonial’s bathrooms are adorable. Men and women are instead replaced with Georges and Marthas, in keeping with the Revolutionary War-themed name. They are small but well-kept. I can at least speak for the cleanliness of the Georges bathroom, although if I really wanted to I could identify as a Martha and demand my right to test the quality of that one too (heyo, okay sorry I’ll behave). I perused the Restaurant Week menu and used it as a guidepost to see if I could save money and/or get more



bang for my buck. And man, was the food bangin’. But that’s for later. I ordered maple roasted Brussels sprouts topped with bacon (pecans as well, but muh allergies prevented me), tomato soup with grilled cheese slices, and their “traditional mac” and cheese with yellow cheddar and gouda. All in all, it was about the same price as their Restaurant Week selection. The length of prep time wasn’t unreasonable for a restaurant at nearly-full capacity. I can imagine that any delays they were experiencing were due to the high volume of customers. My strong recommendation is to find a time when they aren’t terribly busy and expedite the process as much as possible, because hot dog it’s worth it. My soup arrived first, and my Brussels sprouts shortly after. Now, I normally tolerate tomato soup only to dip my grilled cheese into, but they were smart to make the grilled cheese slices an addition to the soup because it was so incredibly rich. I always thought the point of soup was to be similar to a stew, and anything with very few “bits” in it was just broth or puree masquerading as soup. This tomato soup, however, made me want to drink it straight from the bowl. If you’ve become disillusioned with regular, brothy soups like that, give The Colonial’s tomato soup a try. And I guess the grilled cheese was pretty good too. The Brussels sprouts were pretty ordinary roasted sprouts, but topped with maple syrup and chopped bacon. They came served on one of those long porcelain plates you’d expect to see holding some overpriced tiny piece of salmon at a New York restaurant, which was a pleasant surprise. The Colonial cares about the appearance of

“With a friendly albeit dark atmosphere, charming staff, and speedy and tasty food, I highly recommend making this establishment a major part of your night life...”

their food, because they don’t have to worry about the quality. Maple syrup and sprouts is an interesting combination, and I didn’t expect it to work well, but it was incredibly excellent. The sweetness provided an interesting contrast to the sometimes odious flavor of the sprouts. One of my favorite foods, mac and cheese, was surprisingly the most ordinary to me. It was excellently made, and the blend of cheeses separated it from other variants on the dish (it was a GOUDA choice on their part), but I had expectations for its potential and it met them. The other two items exceeded their expectations greatly. My date decided to go with the Restaurant Week selection, which offered one appetizer or soup/salad, one entree, and one dessert. She ordered chicken tenders with honey mustard, ahi tuna, and the house shamrock shake, with the option to spike it with Bailey’s. The chicken tenders came looking much crispier than one would expect, but they were incredibly flavorful and vastly improved with the honey mustard. I’m not sure how they were cooked but their appearance and their flavor did not match. The ahi tuna was most likely a Restaurant Week special owing to the fact that it isn’t present anywhere on their online menus, but she greatly enjoyed it and the fries that accompanied it. The Bailey’s shamrock shake was, from my discussion with my date, a delicious minty concoction with just the right hint of alcohol. I, of course, am a good Christian boy and would never let the devil’s sin juice touch my throat before I am of legal age. My overall opinion of The Colonial is a positive one. With a friendly albeit dark atmosphere, charming staff, and speedy and tasty food, I highly recommend making this establishment a major part of your night life before you leave Binghamton. And it was very clean; they must have been Washing(a)ton before we got there!

Vol. XXIX, Issue X



The TSA: A Corrupt Bureaucracy and Left Arm of Terrorists By Chris DeMarco


enjamin Franklin, founding father and great statesman, once said: “Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” American society today has strayed far from what the Founders envisioned, becoming morally bankrupt and willing to cede the values that make America great. There is no greater American value than freedom, which are composed of both the freedoms that we implicitly enjoy as citizens of the most advanced country on Earth and the freedoms explicitly enumerated in the Constitution. These freedoms are under attack today by radical Islamic terrorists. The foot-soldiers actually fighting the battle against American freedoms are not terrorists, however, but instead agents of our own government. More specifically, these soldiers belong to the miserable bureaucracy of the “Transportation Security Administration,” also known as the TSA. The TSA has encroached on the privacy and rights of American citizens, and it does this with devastating efficiency (impressive for a government bureaucracy). For example, the TSA gropes grandmothers, because my 86 year old Catholic grandmother of Irish and German descent is most certainly a radical Islamic terrorist from Iraq fulfilling her jihad. They also have to make sure that your hair gel really is hair gel and not some sort of thermonuclear explosive paste. Because a 20 year-old college student who is an American citizen has the ability to easily acquire thermonuclear explosive paste. Oh, and even if it is actually hair gel, you can kiss it goodbye if it’s over 3.4 ounces. Their stupidity

“Terrorists are by their very nature weak, without the resources to actually fight civilized countries in a major war. That is why they resort to backhanded attacks on civilian targets...”

“Turn your head and cough!” is endless! To add insult to what is already a gross injury to law-abiding American citizens, TSA screening has been found extremely ineffective, failing to stop even one single terrorist plot.1 In a TSA training game that simulated sophisticated terrorist plots, 95% of weapons and explosives made it through the checkpoint.2 It turns out that if terrorists want to hijack a plane, they can do it with or without the rights of American citizens being trampled. TSA screening also adds a large scheduling inconvenience for travelers that cannot be understated. The TSA’s own website says that travelers should arrive at the airport two whole hours early! If there is a long line, it may take more than two hours, severely inconveniencing travelers. This has nothing to do with actual security measures, but rather with the TSA union telling agents to slow down their pace of work to justify more funding and hiring more (union) employees. These government employees are literally dragging their feet on the job. In the private sector, such behavior results in an employee being fired, but in the TSA (and most government agencies, for that matter), it gets you a raise and your agency hundreds of millions of dollars more in funding.2 Such deliberate actions are actually treasonous, as they obstruct the government’s business.

The TSA is an out of control bureaucracy that must be stopped. Its mission is antithetical to the American way of life; unreasonable searches are banned in the Constitution, yet the TSA’s searches are extremely unreasonable, given their ineffectiveness. The TSA does more harm to Americans than the terrorism it is meant to prevent. Terrorists are weak by their very nature, as they lack the resources to actually fight civilized countries in a major war. That is why they resort to backhanded attacks on civilian targets; their main goal is not to cause damage, but rather to make the citizens of a free country like the United States quake in fear. They are called terrorists because their goal is to instill terror. Every time we take reactionary, fear-based measures such as creating the TSA after an attack, we are losing to the terrorists. Every time an American citizen gets groped or is forced to remove her shoes and then surrender her dignity and privacy at the TSA checkpoint, the terrorists win. Radical Islamic terrorists are the enemies of freedom; they despise the freedom and opportunity that we hold dear. They want us to live in fear and misery, and we as a nation have played into their carefully devised trap. We are Americans, and we must not grovel in fear of oppressive, radical religious regimes. We must be strong and give them an ultimatum. In the words of Secretary of Defense James Mattis, “I’m going to plead with you, do not cross us. Because if you do, the survivors will write about what we do here for 10,000 years.” If radical Islamic terrorists keep driving us to take away our freedoms, there will be hell to pay. We must guard strictly the freedoms we all hold dear as American citizens; the future of the nation depends on it. politics/explainer/2010/11/does_the_tsa_ ever_catch_terrorsts.html 2. article/435525/airport-slowdown-tsa-unionbehind-it






By Tom Casey


n the summer of 2015, I had to clear some foliage by the side of my garage. The task was pretty intensive. The vegetation was denser than a supermassive black hole and my cutting tools were rustier than my trumpet-playing skills (I abandoned the art in sixth grade). I was dismembering a particularly nasty bamboo stalk when an uninvited visitor latched onto my pant leg. A hitchhiker seed had hooked onto my jeans. By its own strength, the seed hung around even after I brushed at it. The hitchhiker was about the size of gumball. It was dark brown with miniscule barbs on its ends. A direct yank tore it free, with no visible damage to my clothing. My first thought upon removal was that the hitchhiker seed would make a cool fashion accessory. My second thought was that this story of me finding this hitchhiker seed would make a cool origin story for my future line of cool hitchhiker fashion accessories. I finished liberating the rest of the garage from the wild growth and turned my thoughts my nascent product line. The humble hitchhiker seed had all the trappings of a fashion fad. It was simple, easy to put on or take off and outwardly visible. I could borrow nature’s design and make an artificial ball of fuzz with the same hook pattern. I’d use thin plastic or fiber as the material. They’d be available in sets of three, coming in little plastic pouches at a low cost. Kids would stick them onto their shirts, pants or backpacks. They could take them off to trade with one another or to rearrange on their clothes. I fully believed at the time that the hitchhiker seeds accessory would take off enormously. For justification, I looked back at other hugely successful plastic fashion add-ons. Silly Bandz devoured the forearms of children everywhere in 2009-2010. They were cheap, collectable and simple, traits I could capture with commercialized hitchhiker seeds. Plastic chokers surged in 2014. Girls everywhere had the tight bands around their necks. Again, they were plastic, cheap and colorful. I settled on a final result, my plastic hitchhiker seeds would explode onto the childhood scene. They would enjoy massive, but brief, popularity. I was alright with the brevity, because I only needed a little bit of money to skate on until I stumbled upon my next big idea. I’d call them FUZZ to get a jazzy, quirky angle. At first, the mock hitchhiker seeds would come in primary colors. I’d then expand to patterns and designs. The end goal is to snag some licensing, like pinstripe FUZZ for the New York Yankees or Pantone-342 for Binghamton University. Before I got too far ahead of myself, I ran a quick Google search to see if anyone came up with FUZZ before me. The search came clear, so I kept planning. I dove into botany blogs to find the best design. Hitchhiker seeds come in lots of sizes with varying stickiness. The best seed to imitate was the Bur-Clover, sitting in the Goldilocks zone of removability from clothing. At this point, I returned to school for my junior year. I had a clear path to development for FUZZ. I would visit an ecology professor to get a Bur-Clover sample. I’d take the Bur-Clover to the 3D printing shop to make a prototype. The final step in the preliminary phase would be to enter in a startup competition within



the Office of Entrepreneurship. At the presentation, I’d show off the pseudo Bur-Clover and wow the crowd with my anecdote of how the idea started while I was clearing the side of my garage. For no real reason, I delayed my idea’s launch for some time throughout the semester. Though I didn’t have the wheels in motion, I allowed myself to bask in my future success. I imagined getting my first contract with the school bookstore, then selling the rights for a nice lump sum or a solid royalty. I’d collect checks for the rest of my life and swim in self satisfaction every time I saw someone wearing FUZZ in the public. I even wondered if it’d be weird if I walked up to people wearing FUZZ and yelled at them that I invented it. Probably, but I’d go for it anyway. I was at an ultimate level of self-actualization when disaster struck. I was reading the Wall Street Journal on the way to campus when a particular article socked me in the gut. “This New Toy Hit Some Real Snags—in Children’s Hair” caught my attention. I read the article with increasing horror as my entrepreneurial dreams collapsed. To my dismay, my earlier Google sweeps weren’t thorough enough. Another person had already come up with the idea of commercializing hitchhiker seeds. Even worse, he had already released it as a toy. His hitchhiker concept was called Bunchems, made of fibrous synthetic material molded in a style similar to the Bur-Clover. They came in large sets and could attach to one another or to kids’ clothing. Bunchems obliterated my concept at every angle. They went even further, doubling as a building material. Kids could make anything by sticking the Bunchems together. Bunchems outclassed FUZZ in every way, and they were already economically viable in stores. Three-fourths of the way through the article and I was already emotionally bleeding out on the floor. The coup-de-grace came at the end, where the Journal had a blurb about the creator’s inspiration. It came when a hitchhiker seed landed on him during backyard landscaping. I was dunzo. FUZZ was finished. My future hopes dashed. While I hadn’t really done anything yet or expended any effort getting FUZZ going yet, the emotional crush stung. My entrepreneurial fantasies evaporated. I had one bit of solace though. The Journal wrote the article not to laud Bunchems’ success, but to document a major problem with the product. Little girls had been putting the Bunchems into their hair, to horrific results. The seeds became hopelessly tangled in their hair. Girls across the country resorted to razor thin haircuts to remove the menaces. Lawsuits from distressed mothers were brewing. Bunchems was in trouble. I guess I dodged a bullet, since I never even thought about hair trouble. In the end, my flirtation with entrepreneurship was emotional but unproductive. I thought FUZZ was poised for greatness, but while I was daydreaming, a real life alternative was developed, brought to market, sold to consumers and then collapsed into litigation. I’m a bit sad I never had the chance to ride FUZZ to a trendy launch, but at least I’m not responsible for thousands of middle school girls with buzz cuts.

Vol. XXIX, Issue X



BSU Fights to Make Binghamton More Dangerous By Chris DeMarco


inghamton Mayor Rich David, in collaboration with Binghamton University’s Roosevelt Institute, recently proposed a plan to install a blue light system of phones and cameras throughout the city in an effort to make residents and students safer. This initiative, funded by a grant from Binghamton University, is a necessary step in the ongoing revitalization of Binghamton. The City of Binghamton is dangerous, with 338 violent crimes committed per year. One’s chances of becoming a victim of violent crime are 1 in 136, nearly double the average for New York State. One’s chances of becoming a victim of property crime are much higher, at 1 in 19!1 These numbers are unacceptable, as everyone, regardless of skin color or level of income, deserves a safe place to live and should be able to walk around at night without having to fear being a victim of a crime. The blue light phone and camera system would be a huge step towards improving the safety of Binghamton residents in several ways. First, the phone system provides a direct hotline to the police that victims or witnesses of crime can use to get help quickly.

“The reality that BSU refuses to recognize is that Binghamton is inherently a dangerous place to be. What we have here is an epidemic of crime that must be dealt with so that everyone benefits.” These phones are a more direct way of contacting police than a cell phone. In robbery and assault cases, the victim’s cell phone is almost always stolen, leaving the victim helpless and unable to call the police. Second, the cameras would create a safe space, free from crime. Criminals will not attempt violent crimes if they know they are being recorded. If the cameras were placed

frequently enough, such as along the Main St. corridor, it would allow residents to walk safely at night wherever cameras exist. This camera initiative should be a no-brainer and everyone should support it, as it will significantly increase the safety of everyone in the City of Binghamton at a low cost. Unfortunately, cooler heads do not always prevail. There has been significant backlash against this necessary initiative led by the Black Student Union, an organization that always looks to invent unnecessary race wars. The BSU has taken an initiative that would significantly improve safety for everyone and somehow misrepresent it as being oppressive of people of color. They claim that the cameras will make Binghamton too good of a neighborhood: “This sends a message that there is a select segment of the Binghamton community — particularly the wealthier, more privileged, seasonal student residents of the city — who must be ‘protected’ from some danger, which the policy implies is the poorer, non-university affiliated population of the city, (Pipe Dream 4/18/17)”2 Yes, there is a segment of the Binghamton Community that needs to be protected, but the segment is not racial or economic. Rather, that segment consists of all law-abiding citizens. The people whom us law-abiding citizens are protected from by this initiative are not poorer or minority citizens who follow the law, but rather criminals. In fact, racial minorities and poor people will benefit from a blue light system more than any other demographic, as minorities are a disproportionately affected by crime. Violent crime is the leading cause of death among African Americans between ages 10-24. That is real racial inequality! The reality that BSU refuses to recognize is that Binghamton is inherently a dangerous place to be. What we have here is an epidemic of crime that must be dealt with so that everyone benefits. Pipe Dream’s article also claims that, “...[the blue light and camera sys-

tem] might exacerbate issues of incarceration of POC and low income folks in Broome County.”2 Incarceration is not only an issue for people of color. Rather, it is an issue for everyone. While minorities are disproportionately represented in jails, that is an entirely different issue that must be dealt with systematically by society and from the ground up through education and empowering minorities to not resort to crime. However, if you commit a crime against another human being, you deserve to rot in jail, regardless of your skin color (with exceptions for non-violent drug offenses). All these blue lights do is deter crime and make it easier for criminals to be prosecuted, as they will be recorded. Cameras are colorblind and will record everyone. As a result, people who break the law will be incarcerated. Living in a safe neighborhood is not a matter of “privilege,” but rather a basic human right. For once, we must collectively shun and seek to eliminate the ignominious identity politics that radical leftist groups such as the BSU push, which leads to unfounded positions such as opposition to a blue-light system, a system that will be beneficial to everyone in Binghamton. This brand of identity politics is the proverbial reason we can’t have nice things, such as safe neighborhoods for all. 1-https://www.neighborhoodscout. com/ny/binghamton/crime 2- news/81059/westside-blue-light-system-faces-criticism-from-community-groups/





The Coming French Revolution By Max Newman


f someone told me at the beginning of 2016 that the United Kingdom would vote to leave the EU and Donald Trump would be elected U.S. President, I wouldn’t have believed it for a second. However, if someone asked me about Marine Le Pen’s chances in the 2017 French presidential election, I would have said she had a very good chance of creating a populist rebellion in France. Despite the mainstream media headlines, Marine Le Pen has a much better chance than most believe. The same forces of nationalism at work in Britain and the United States are at play in France, and it would be incredibly foolish to count Marine Le Pen out. Le Pen’s political career has been a story of insurgency. Her father, Jean-Marie Le Pen, founded the right-wing populist party National Front in October 1972. The party’s reputation was toxic in France since it became known to the vast majority of French voters as an anti-Semitic, racist and controversial party. Jean-Marie did the National Front no favors with his controversial comments over the years, including his flirtations with Holocaust denial, advocating the forced isolation of people with HIV, and outspoken denial of climate change. Despite this nefarious reputation, starting in 2011, his daughter successfully rebranded the party into the strongest political force in France today. The National Front under Marine Le Pen has been transformed into not only the most prominent right-wing populist party in France, but also one of the most influential populist parties in Europe. Le Pen stands alongside powerful figures such as the Netherlands’ Geert Wilders and Germany’s Frauke Petry. The three of them are the most ardent defenders of protecting Western civilization from the dangers of globalism and radical Islamic extremism. Marine Le Pen’s successful rebranding of the National Front has turned the party into one which advocates against open borders and mass immigration, particularly from Africa and the Middle East. It also opposes multiculturalism, is for “law and order” policing, and opposes the use of the euro. Le Pen’s views of economic protectionism makes her a near perfect right-wing populist. She believes in raising wages for impoverished workers and shows solidarity with the people who live in rural France that have been forgotten by the French political elites. Her consistent savaging of the Parisian elite has found an enthusiastic audience with this population, just as Trump’s message resonated with Middle America. Rural France has vowed to vote en masse for Marine Le Pen in the upcoming French elections, and with good reason. Le Pen knows as well as any nationalist how to speak to the forgotten Frenchmen, as she expertly frames the upcoming election as a battle of nationalists against globalists and the forgotten people against the elites in Paris and Brussels. There’s also evidence that her populist message is working because the results for the first round of the French elections have showed the National Front coming in a very close second at 21.4%. However, the second round of elections is where Le Pen is predicted to falter by everyone from the mainstream media to the EU.



In the second round of the presidential elections, where the top two parties from the first round face off to elect the president, the nationalist Le Pen will face off against the globalist Emmanuel Macron. Macron is a political centrist and former banker that strongly supports Angela Merkel’s passion for opening Germany’s borders. His pro-immigration stances are the total opposite of Le Pen’s people-powered “France First” campaign. Macron is loved by the elites in Paris, and by figures such as former British PM Tony Blair and Jean Claude Juncker, the EU Commission president. The EU sees Macron as the man who will lead the pushback of nationalism in Europe. Macron is a double edged sword: politically he seems like the perfect opponent for Le Pen, and moderates who are horrified by a Le Pen presidency are expected to vote en masse for Macron. The opinion polls for the second round show Macron handily beating Le Pen. This suggests that the tactical voting shown in previous second round elections, which is done to keep extremist candidates out of power, will happen again in May 2017. However, I am skeptical for a number of reasons. First, Le Pen’s poll numbers in the first round shows her leading a pack of eleven candidates since 2012, and she has a fervent base of support. Marine Le Pen’s unabashed message against globalism expanded across rural France like a siren song. Regions from southeastern France, where the National Front dominated the city of Nice, to the Rust Belt-esque region of northeastern France have all pledged to back Le Pen. Even former communist strongholds like Hayange are drawn to Le Pen’s left-wing views on protectionism, as opposed to Macron’s neoliberalism. Socialists and communists drawn to Le Pen’s advocacy for raising wages for workers has the possibility for communists to be united with right wing nationalists across France. Additionally, there is a high probability that traditional conservative voters supporting the Thatcherite, scandal-plagued Francois Fillon will vote for the nationalist Le Pen. The European mainstream media and the EU elite are all convinced Macron will not just win handily in France, but save all of Europe from the rising tide of nationalism. I’m deeply skeptical, just as I was when I and millions of other patriots across America didn’t buy the narrative of a guaranteed Remain victory in Brexit. The key thing to notice is that the far right has not just been smashed and oppressed by the French establishment, but the far left unions and communists have, too. Anger at historically unpopular Socialist PM Francois Hollande has boiled over from the far left since Hollande’s victory in 2012, specifically over labor reforms and France’s 35 hour workweek debate. History is repeating itself in the French election, as the same battle between people and elites are playing out. Many count Le Pen out, but with her vow to make France “calm again” (la france apaisee) after four years of Islamic terrorism fears and economic struggles, a second French revolution may be coming. Le Pen could very well shock the world, defeat Macron’s globalism and most importantly, lead to the beginning of the end of EU control and usher in a new age of nationalism.

Vol. XXIX, Issue X


The Next Holodomer


By Pino Che


ditor’s note: I didn’t think this would get as anti-Semitic as it did. Pino has pointed out some instances of fake anti-Semitic attacks, but the article loses itself in a rant. I reiterate the statement from our editorial page: our writers’ opinions do not represent the opinions of the magazine as a whole.


ecently, Anti-Defamation League (ADL) came out with a report[1] claiming that “anti-Semitism” is on the rise and that “anti-Semitic” hate crimes have risen 86% this year. While the report mentions 161 bomb threats made to Jewish communities, the website neglected to report the perpetrators of these incidents, and they coincidentally continue to be Jews. Yes, you read that right: it appears that Jews disproportionately have either made up these incidents or caused these incidents themselves. A fellow author at the Binghamton Review has covered such staged incidents in his discussion of the Jewish Community Center bomb threats. According to the New York Times, “the person responsible for many of the threats, law enforcement officials said, was half a world away, in Israel, a Jewish teenager.”[2] This Jewish teenager was a dual American and Israeli citizen, and as soon as it was uncovered that he was Jewish, the ADL and other radical Jewish groups pushing the narrative of the rise of “anti-Semitism” fell silent. They didn’t even mention this incident in their own report about anti-Semitism! What a shock! Another “anti-Semitic” incident occurred when Jewish cemeteries were allegedly vandalized by the future Adolf Hitler. According to ABC News[3], the police report stated that the perpetrator was not in fact the next Adolf Hitler, but in actuality, it was the wind. Now I know that the wind has a history of anti-Semitic attacks, but this is another case of false anti-Semitic attacks. Throughout history, fake anti-Semitic attacks have plagued the world. People who commemorate the Holocaust are people that perpetuate a victim complex. Not only can they never forget, but they must constantly be reminded of the boogeyman of the next Hitler being around the corner to inflict anudda shoah on them any minute. If there is not a high enough supply of Nazis for the Jewish community, they simply fix that problem by creating an artificial supply of Nazis for the world to fear. A recent incident occurred in our own state in the city of Syracuse, where a Jewish man was arrested for spraying a swastika on his own home and claiming that Nazis had done it.[4] However, these incidents are not simply happening outside of Binghamton. Our own school has a history of Jews creating false “anti-Semitic” attacks on themselves. Back in 1989, according to the New York Times, [5] a former President of the Jewish Student Union here at Binghamton vandalized the Jewish Student Union office with anti-Semitic writing, such as “Kill Kikes” and “Zionist Racists” after their remembrance of the 50th anniversary of Kristallnacht. It is interesting to see that this incident is never brought up on campus. I had not even heard of this false flag anti-Semitic attack until I did some research; however, we

all know had it not been uncovered that a Jew did this act, we would not hear about it to this day. So, what is the point here? Why is Pinoche just talking about fake anti-Semitism? Well, fake anti-Semitism is important to address because the people in the ADL, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and many other leftist/communist organizations use the line of growing anti-Semitism as an attack against the growing right wing movement. Fears of another Hitler being right around the corner is so ingrained into our society that even if there is no sign of a new Hitler, the left and the Jewish community will create this next reincarnation. They will create false flag attacks against themselves in order to justify their belief that Hitler is coming back and we all better be worried about the politician who is to the right of Chairman Mao. Let us understand right now: Hitler is dead and is not coming back. Nazi Germany, the Holocaust, all the scary terms that they use to instill fear into people is a dead ideology. But no, we must never forget and if you ever have an idea semi-right you better remember that your ideas will literally kill 6 million more Jews so you better stop that belief right now. This fear of a new Hitler rising should not concern anyone. However, Communism, an ideology that holds our universities hostage, is still here and people openly call themselves communist. “Antifa” attacks old men[6], burns cities, and calls for Communism now. Communism, an ideology that has killed millions upon millions of more people than Hitler is an ideology that people on our own campus will admit to associating themselves with! Why fear another Shoah when another Holodomor is much more likely? Why fear an ideology that has no modern hold when the real problem is those on the Left? The main point of this article is to debunk the myth that the ADL is pressing. Anti-Semitism is not on the rise in America. If anything, phony anti-Semitic acts are on the rise instead. What does this mean for us in the future? It means that as members of the right, we should be prepared to shoot down anyone who calls right wingers anti-Semitic. Show how these acts are being committed largely by Jews themselves! Point out to people that if left-wing violence is on the rise, we should be more worried about the next Vladimir Lenin and Leon Trotsky than we should be about the next Hitler. [1] [2] html [3] [4] arrested_after_spray_painting_swastikas_on_his_own_home_in_upstate_ny.html [5] [6]





Bill Nye Can’t Save the World By Aditi Roy


n Earth Day, thousands of people marched in over 600 cities in yet another anti-Trump demonstration, this time in the name of science. The March for Science was supposed to be a nonpartisan celebration of science and its achievements, but instead embraced the politically correct social justice agenda whose ideas instead defy science and reality. For those alarmed by the Trump administration’s cuts to research funding and the EPA, the march was their way of respectfully voicing their opposition to these proposals. For others, it was an opportunity to introduce SJW tactics to those passionate about science. The infiltration of this anti-logic, social justice movement into what should be an objective quest for truth was successful, as the founders of the March for Science were quick to cave into their every demand. The science community’s willingness to bend their own rules in the name of social justice is not a recent phenomenon. In 2015, British biochemist Tim Hunt was forced to resign after making this comment:

“It’s strange that such a chauvinist monster like me has been asked to speak to women scientists. Let me tell you about my trouble with girls. Three things happen when they are in the lab: you fall in love with them, they fall in love with you, and when you criticise them they cry. Perhaps we should make separate labs for boys and girls? Now seriously, I’m impressed by the economic development of Korea. And women scientists played, without doubt an important role in it. Science needs women and you should do science despite all the obstacles, and despite monsters like me.” 12


“I came here to educate kids and spread leftist propoganda...and I’m all out of kids.” Even though Dr. Hunt won the Nobel Prize for the discovery of the regulatory role of cyclin proteins in the cell cycle, that one comment put a halt to his scientific contributions. Even when the March for Science Twitter organizers tried to ask what the scientific community could do better to encourage more females to go into engineering, they received a wave of backlash for their use of the word “female”. Never mind the fact that the majority of scientific studies distinguish the sexes using the terms “male” and “female”. Of course the March for Science Twitter apologized for the “problematic language”, which illustrates exactly why social justice does not belong in science. Science is based on a testable hypothesis that is experimented upon to reach a conclusion, which is then published and peer reviewed by other scientists, who repeat the experiment in attempts to reject the hypothesis. Social justice on the other hand, is based explicitly on feelings and seeks to spread ideas that directly contradict science. One of the most recognizable pop science figures and honorary co-chair of the March, Bill Nye, is the perfect example of this. Originally known for combining science and entertainment to teach children about the basics of

chemistry, physics, biology, etc. in Bill Nye The Science Guy, he is now touted as a spokesperson for climate change and an apologist for pseudoscience that supports the far left worldview. Instead of using intelligent climate scientists like Dr. Michael Mann or Dr. James Hansen to present rational

“The concept of fitness is central to natural selection, where the goal of the individual is to pass on its genes to the next generation, and the more offspring an individual produces during its lifetime, the greater its fitness.” scientific arguments about human impact on climate change to convince skeptics, answer their questions, or engage in honest conversations about possible solutions, we get a condescending Netflix special for “adults”. Bill Nye Saves The World dumbs down already simple science concepts and uses Hollywood actors who don’t actually know anything about science and cringey skits to make it #relatable. But the worst thing about the show is its use of pseudoscience to mislead view-

Vol. XXIX, Issue X

BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM ers on social issues. In an attempt to illustrate differences in sexuality, the show included a bizarre skit with various flavors of ice cream, where the vanilla ice cream cone (aka straight white people) was conducting “ice cream conversion therapy” to the other ice cream cones because vanilla was the only correct flavor, and to combat its bigotry, the other flavors ganged up on the vanilla cone to seduce it until it changed its mind. As one Youtube commenter put it, “the moral of the story? Sexually assault those you don’t agree with.” The irony of the skit was that the cone representing heterosexuals on the show quoted the “science of feelings” and “had no basis in actual science” for the idea that all cones are supposed to be vanilla (aka humans are supposed to

“Like every other career, scientists are obviously going to support the politicians that they think will best support their work, so its politicization is inevitable, but it is important to be honest about this. You don’t improve people’s trust in science by lying to them about your intentions and claiming nonpartisanship.” be heterosexual), when the exact opposite is true. The concept of fitness is central to natural selection, where the goal of the individual is to pass on its genes to the next generation, and the more offspring an individual produces during its lifetime, the greater its fitness. The majority of sexually reproducing species are heterosexual. That’s not a rip on homosexuality; there’s nothing wrong with homosexuality, but it’s inherently dishonest to pretend that the reason that humans have existed for thousands of years has nothing to do with heterosexual reproduction. This is in direct contrast with the idea that “sexuality is on a spectrum, everyone’s on it, and even you might like it if you sit up on it”. These are the exact lyrics from another skit on the show, where actress Rachel Bloom sings


about sexuality and “muh vagina”. These two skits promote the idea that heterosexual people would be into gay stuff if they just tried it, which is no different from telling gay people that they could be straight if they just tried it. It directly contradicts the idea that people do not choose their sexual orientation and are born straight or gay, lesbian, trans, etc. These are just a couple examples of the politically-driven pseudoscience on the show. If Bill Nye continues to conflate propaganda with science, he will keep losing credibility, which makes him a bad spokesperson for real issues. This show won’t convince

“When scientists like Bill Nye claim to be unbiased in their quest for objective truth, yet engage in blatant political propaganda, people begin to distrust the scientific process.” climate change skeptics to change their minds, but will do the exact opposite when they decide that climate change is just as ridiculous as ice cream cones having an orgy. Bill Nye has advocated for penalizing Westerners for having too many children to combat climate change and has also indirectly supported jailing climate skeptics. The increasing skepticism of science amongst Americans does not improve with this sort of rhetoric. When scientists like Bill Nye claim to be unbiased in their quest for objective truth, yet engage in blatant political propaganda, people

begin to distrust the scientific process. It’s similar to the increasing distrust of mainstream media, because it claims to be neutral and objective, despite the obvious liberal bias. Like every other career, scientists are obviously going to support the politicians that they think will best support their work, so its politicization is inevitable, but it is important to be honest about this. You don’t improve people’s trust in science by lying to them about your intentions and claiming nonpartisanship. But as long as people like Bill Nye continue to use science as an excuse for pushing an agenda, trust in science will continue to decline. References: richard-dawkins-demands-apology-fromsir-tim-hunts-critics-and-claims-leakedtranscript-shows-sexist-10341160.html medicine/laureates/2001/illpres/index.html http://w w w.nat iona lre v ie t icle/445537/march-for-science-female-outreach-offensive




The Freedom Caucus


By Dylan Klein

higher than the national average.” In fact, all but two of the representatives in the Freedom Caucus are white men. Considering the overbearing whiteness and maleness of the Freedom Caucus, one might expect that it is a proponent of Trump’s presidency. In reality, the Freedom Caucus is quite anti-Republican, almost more so than it is anti-Democratic. Members of the Freedom Caucus share a deep distrust of establishment Republican


he Freedom Caucus “gives a voice to countless Americans who feel that Washington does not represent them…it supports open, accountable and limited government, the constitution and the rule of law, and policies that promote liberty, safety and prosperity for all Americans.” Or so claim the managers of the Caucus’s Facebook page. To Donald Trump’s dismay, not only does he have to fight tooth and nail against the Democrats, he now has the Freedom Caucus to contend with. But what is this Freedom Caucus? And what role does it play in the American political system? Founded with the goal of representing the political agenda of the nation’s most conservative citizens, the Freedom Caucus is a group of 40 or so members of the House of Representatives. When a vote comes up in the House, the members of the Caucus confer to determine how to vote. A “decision agreed upon by 80 percent of the caucus is supposed to be binding to all,” showing that their influence comes from their ability to change the outcome of a vote by voting as a bloc. Besides revealing the names of its founding members, the Freedom Caucus neglects to make an official membership list available to the public. The members of the Freedom Caucus hail from many different states and regions of the United States. The districts they represent are middle class and predominantly white. In fact, 83 percent of the residents in these districts are white, “nearly ten percentage points



“One might ask, should we condemn the representatives of the Freedom Caucus for their intense partisanship? Or should we celebrate them for their proud, uncompromising stance for their values?” politicians, and were instrumental in removing John Boehner from the Speaker of the House position a few years ago. Case in point, the “Freedom Caucus members define themselves less in opposition to Democrats than to establishment Republicans-politicians they see as quick to betray their voters.” They take pride in their unequivocal stance for conservative politics, at the expense of being considered the most partisan politicians in Washington. At the top of its list of political issues and goals, repealing and replacing Obamacare is number one. However, they blocked President Trump’s first attempt at health care reform and hinted at a willingness to do so in the future if “the repeal of essential health benefits” is pursued on faith in the Senate rather than on paper in the House. President Trump, upset about his inability to follow through on a primary promise of his campaign, should be nervous about a similar situation in the future when attempting to pass tax reform. If he can’t get the necessary help from the Freedom Caucus, Trump might have to make concessions that would attract more moderate Democrats in

order to pass any kind of tax reform. In typical Trump fashion, he used Twitter to ridicule members of the Freedom Caucus for their refusal to cooperate. However, many of them “struck back, ridiculing the president, using his own taunting and confrontational social media style.” One might ask, should we condemn the representatives of the Freedom Caucus for their intense partisanship? Or should we celebrate them for their proud, uncompromising stance for their values? If Republicans are reluctant to stand up for what they believe and compromise too often, we risk handing over the government to our uncompromising counterparts in the Democratic party. On the other hand, refusing to cooperate at all might lead to government shutdown or a failed Trump presidency and the potential for some radical like Elizabeth Warren to become president. It is up to you to determine which path the party takes: make the right decision! 1 - House Freedom Caucus,” facebook. com, last modified April 24, 2017, https:// 2 - Drew Desilver, “What is the House Freedom Caucus, and Who’s In It,” Pew Research Center, October 20, 2015, http:// house-freedom-caucus-what-is-it-andwhos-in-it/ 3 - Tim Dickinson, “Meet the Right Wing Rebels Who Overthrew John Boehner,” Rolling Stone, last updated October 6, 2015, meet-the-right-wing-rebels-who-overthrewjohn-boehner-20151006 4 - Ibid 5 - Mike DeBonis, “What the Freedom Caucus Wants in the GOP Health Care Bill, and Why It’s Not Getting It,” last updated March 26, 2017, what-the-freedom-caucus-wants-in-thegop-health-bill-and-why-they-arent-gettingit/?utm_term=.192d5860237f 6 - Glenn Thrush and Jonathan Martin, “We Must Fight Them: Trump Goes After Conservatives of Freedom Caucus, nytimes, last updated March 30, 2017, https://www.

Vol. XXIX, Issue X



Domo Arigato, Mr. Roboto By Jason Caci


ccording to consulting firm PwC, thirty eight percent of all jobs in the United States could be automated by the 2030s. On the contrary, Secretary of the Treasury Steven Mnuchin stated that robots will not be an issue until fifty to one hundred years from now. He even went as far as to say that he is optimistic about the job market. I beg to differ. This requires immediate attention from both Treasury Secretary Mnuchin and President Donald Trump. The President constantly promises to bring back manufacturing jobs that he claims are moving to Mexico and China. However, his word may not hold any value because those jobs could very well go down the tubes within the next few years as a result of automation. The trend of automation already started with regards to truck drivers. According to the Los Angeles Times, robots could replace 1.7 million truck drivers in the next decade. That is not far down the line. This only applies to workers that drive trucks. What about the workers that drive taxis, buses, and delivery vehicles? Truck driving has always been a popular occupation for those who do not seek education beyond high school. If those jobs go away, these people will not have a place to work. Technology will take away jobs that require a college degree as well. Jobs such as accounting and claims adjusting deal with data entry. Computers process information much faster

than humans ever will, so employers will look to cut these jobs in exchange for higher efficiency. This will not be something like the industrial revolution where old jobs will be replaced with alternate jobs. Technology has evolved so rapidly that it has gotten to the point where there is no need to have humans performing certain tasks. Many Macy’s, Sears, and JCPenney locations have closed since online shopping is now the norm. Personally,

“In the end, this situation comes down to survival of the fittest. If one does not keep up with technology, then he or she will be the sheep thrown to the slaughter.” I do not like online shopping because unlike other products, I prefer to try on clothes before I buy them. In every situation, people talk about the problems that arise. However, they do not mention any viable solutions. In order to survive the rapid change, universities should make computer science a required class. Employers want people who are fit for STEM, medicine, or business because those fields help drive business in the country. Even public schools should require students to take a few computer science classes. Those classes should involve students learning programming languages such as Java, Python, and C#. Other classes should involve students learning applications such as the Microsoft Office programs and other more advanced applications. Charter schools should put a lot of funding into computer science programs. This will encourage more students to at-

tend charter schools because it would show that charter schools are looking ahead to the future and want to help students to keep up with the times. In the end, this situation comes down to survival of the fittest. If one does not keep up with technology, then he or she will be the sheep thrown to the slaughter. The internet will only become more involved in our everyday lives. This is a problem for people who are currently in their 30’s. Robots will most likely take over just under half of all U.S. jobs when those same people are in their late 40’s to early 50’s if they fail to adapt to more sophisticated technology. I encourage people to go online and learn about online applications in their spare time so that they can be equipped to adapt. They have to be warned about the possible consequences of their failure to learn more about technology. Fear is an imposing psychological power that can be used to drive people towards doing what is best for themselves. We can use technology to learn more about technology. This is similar to electric powered cars needing energy to make energy, which, on a side note, is something that environmentalists do not understand. Too many instances have occurred where the public has reacted late to a significant change. That trend must stop now. We must be proactive because this situation involves possibly the most important aspect of people’s’ lives: jobs. Without jobs, how can people survive? What happens if the middle class ceases to exist? All of these questions can be put to rest if we do our part and fight to survive the rapid technological changes that will continue. References



Apr 26 2017 (Vol. XXIX Is. X) - Binghamton Review  

Emperor Penceatine brings you the Most Shocking Issue Yet! Note: "BSU Fights to Make Binghamton More Dangerous" was written and sent to pre...

Apr 26 2017 (Vol. XXIX Is. X) - Binghamton Review  

Emperor Penceatine brings you the Most Shocking Issue Yet! Note: "BSU Fights to Make Binghamton More Dangerous" was written and sent to pre...