P.O. BOX 6000 BINGHAMTON, NY 13902-6000 EDITOR@BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
Founded 1987 â€¢ Volume XXX, Issue IX
Patrick McAuliffe Jr. Managing Editor Kayla Jimenez Copy Desk Chief Elizabeth Elliot
Business Manager Jason Caci
Editor Emeritus Jordan Raitses
Social Media Shitposter Tom Sheremetta
Associate Editors Adrienne Vertucci, Colin Gilmartin
David Keptsi, Luke Kusick, Chris DeMarco, Jordan Jardine, Tommy Gagliano, Matthew Rosen
Contributors Auntie Fascist
William Schneider, Adam Smith
Special Thanks To:
Intercollegiate Studies Institute Collegiate Network Binghamton Review was printed by Gary Marsden We Provide the Truth. He Provides the Staples
SOJOURN THROUGH THE SHITHOLES: NOT SO N.I.C.E. PAGE 7 5 6 9 10 11
by David Keptsi
Leave Post Alone by Tom Sheremetta Trickle Rick by Kayla Jimenez Yes, They Are Shitholes by Auntie Fascist Cannibaliberalism by Patrick McAuliffe January Winners and Losers by Matt Rosen
Departments 3 Editorial 4 Campus Presswatch
Throwbacks 13 The US Government is Officially Shut Down! by William Schneider 14 Gray Skies, Binghamton Lies by Adam Smith
TELL US WHAT YOU THINK! Direct feedback to email@example.com 2
Vol. XXX, Issue IX
EDITORIAL Dear Readers,
From the Editor
ood morning! We broke our break and it’s time to break into a new year of your favorite campus magazine, the Binghamton Review! If our stacks were outside, you could crack open a cold issue with all of your boys and cozy up with your homies by the fire as you settle in to peruse the truth contained in these two staples. And remember, it’s never gay to kiss your homies good night. We here at the Review try to keep you one step ahead of the game. However, speaking of shitholes... We’re hitting the ground running as the spring semester starts, and how better than with one of the most memeable Trump quotes to date? My great-Auntie Fascist makes no apologies for the President’s comments in our cover issue, and reaffirms the need for a filter to accept the best and brightest into America. Tom responds to an article in PRISM that claimed Post Malone’s opinion on hip-hop music is problematic, instead arguing that it doesn’t matter much and that in some senses Posty is justified in believing what he does. Matt takes a look at some winners and losers during January’s politically tumultuous month of action. Kayla discusses the implications and justifications for the recent corporate tax cuts under Republicans. I point out some instances of what I like to call “cannibaliberalism”, where the left has become so concerned with progress-at-any-cost that their own criteria for social acceptance are no longer valid even among themselves. Finally, David Keptsi returns from a long trip overseas to Scotland in order to impart his findings on the NHS and its failure to live up to American expectations of socialized metaphors. Luckily for everyone, it’s still the 30th anniversary of the Review, so we’ll be continuing the trend of throwing back to our classic articles. Here we have two pieces, one from Adam Smith (a BR alum, not the economist) and one from William Schneider (another BR alum). Schneider rejoices over the first recent government shutdown in 2013, and it fit so well with the totally useless shutdown only a few weeks ago! Meanwhile, Smith attempts to debunk the myth that Binghamton is not all doom and gloom. We like to look for special ways to expand our publication, and this semester we have done just that! You can now catch Jordan Jardine and Matt Rosen, and I as their chief engineer, on the new radio show “Binghamton Review Live!” on WHRW Binghamton. Our times will most likely be during the commute from work on either Tuesdays or Thursdays (6p or 6:30pm). More details to follow on Facebook/Twitter/ however you get your news! As WHRW says, “keep it lit”.
Our Mission Binghamton Review is a non-partisan, studentrun news magazine of conservative thought at Binghamton University founded in 1987. 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 those divergent perspectives rationally while maintaining one’s own convictions. In that spirit, we seek to promote the free and open exchange of ideas and offer alternative viewpoints not normally found or accepted on our predominately liberal campus. We stand against tyranny in all of its forms, both on campus and beyond. We believe in the principles set forth in this country’s Declaration of Independence and seek to preserve the fundamental tenets of Western civilization. It is our duty to expose the warped ideology of political correctness and cultural authoritarianism that dominates this university. Finally, we understand that a moral order is a necessary component of any civilized society. We strive to inform, engage with, and perhaps even amuse our readers in carrying out this mission.
Patrick McAuliffe Jr.
Views expressed by writers do not necessarily represent the views of the publication as a whole. firstname.lastname@example.org
Written by our Staff
We know you don’t read the other campus publications, so we read them for you. Original quotes are in regular text, our responses are in bold. “Why aren’t East Gym memberships free for students?” By Brad Calendrillo, Pipe Dream February 1, 2018 I feel like we’re always going over this y’all! THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A FREE LUNCH. Access to the East gym would never truly be free. If it was “free,” then all students would have a fee piled in with the dozens of other fees included in tuition enabling the gym to be “free.” SUNY Oswego is another university that charges for its membership, and their explanation as to why there is a fee while it is free at other colleges is as follows: “It is important to note that at these other colleges, students are paying for fitness center operational costs somewhere in the tuition and fees.” Exactly. Students are paying for the gym, whether they want to use it or not. TOns of students, given free access to the gym, still would choose not to go. And that’s fine. But why tack on the fee through tuition? Let students make that choice themselves. If you want to be active and physically engaged, great! Walk over to the gym and pay your way! It is much better to give people the freedom to choose and make these decisions actively rather than tacking on tuition fees with vague labels. The additional fees that students must pay at BU should cover a gym membership for all students. For instance, there is a recreation fee, a campus life fee, an intercollegiate athletic fee and an undergraduate activity fee. Free access to the on-campus gym should be provided by these fees. I feel this! WTF are all those fees for anyways? The university should be more explicit in its fee charging. All of those sound as though they could include a gym membership, but don’t.
“Campus club rexamines Women’s Suffrage movement” By Michael Levinstein and Valerie Oppenheim, Pipe Dream January 31, 2018 The conversation focused on the romanticization of the movement despite its exclusion of women of color, transgender and intersex women. CAN WE MOVE ON! Women have been voting for decades! Almost an entire century for white women! I get it, it sucks and is beyond unjust that black women weren’t immediately and universally granted this right, but we can all vote now. The movement justifies a level of romanticism: it is an important moment in the history of ALL women, regardless of race. Women of color are always calling on white women to support their “sisters”... it’s time we truly can practice this! The women’s suffrage movement may have disproportionately affected white women at the time, but it was a leap in the right direction for women of all colors and kinds. Why look back on a turning point in American history and belittle it? Look how far we’ve come! We all enjoy and exercise our right to vote, and hundreds of thousands women, regardless of race, fought for those rights a century ago. Their efforts should be looked back
on fondly. Also, how can you actually criticize the Women’s Suffrage movement for not including transgender and intersex women… like really. People had little to no awareness of these identities at the time, and therefore had no responsibility to include this in their movement. Democracy Matters said intersectionality was lacking within the past women’s suffrage movement... … No sh*t?? It was the beginning of the nineteenth century. What do you expect! They did what they could! Members of the club spoke about the alienation of transgender women at the latest Women’s Marches through the emphasis of female genitalia found on marchers’ signs. Why can’t I, as a woman, be proud of my (supposedly) often objectified and misunderstood body part that plays a huge role in my identity, sexuality, and most importantly my womanhood? How does me expressing and embracing myself and my own personal experiences as a woman alienate transgender women? Am I to shame myself and alter my experiences as a woman and as a feminist to cater to someone else’s perception of womanhood? How is this in any way supportive of women?
Vol. XXX, Issue IX
Leave Post Alone
LEAVE POST ALONE
By Thomas Sheremetta
won’t lie, Post Malone is one of my favorite artists right now. His style of music mixed with his laid back but friendly attitude makes him worthy of his recent accomplishments, such as the success of “Rockstar.” However, he’s taken some flak recently, and in my opinion, it is completely unnecessary. Though Post Malone’s music dabbles in the rap genre, describing his music as only rap does not do his music justice. For instance, his music has been described as a “melting pot of the country, grunge, hip-hop and R&B [genres]” (Clashmusic.com). In an interview with GQ, Post made it clear that he simply doesn’t care about the label that is genre. But, this fact isn’t good enough for some of Post’s haters. If you scourge the internet, you can find these critiques. Luckily for us Binghamton students, our student paper provides us with some local Post news. Check out the article in PRISM on January 22, 2018! In the article, “Post Malone Doesn’t Respect Hip-Hop,” it claims exactly what the title states. The article responds to the supposedly offensive quote from Post’s interview with NewOnce: If you’re looking for lyrics, if you’re looking to cry, if you’re looking to think about life, don’t listen to hip-hop… There’s great hip-hop songs where they talk about life and they spit that real shit, but right now, there’s not a lot of people talking about shit… Whenever I want to cry, whenever I want to sit down and have a nice cry, I’ll listen to some Bob Dylan. But whenever I’m trying to have a good time and stay in a positive mood, I listen to hip-hop because it’s fun. I think hip-hop is important because it brings people together in a beautiful, happy way. Everybody’s happy. The author roasts Post for his lack of respect for hip-hop and accuses him of using his white privilege to make a profit. That’s a very far stretch. Who cares what kind of music he wants to listen to when he’s sad or happy? I as-
sure you that everyone has music for certain moods. I love hip-hop, but I also love post-hardcore metal. Almost everyone I know makes fun of metal and regards it as “only noise.” It may be seen as disrespectful, but I couldn’t care less about their opinions. There is nothing wrong with people disliking certain vibes of music, as they have a right to do so. Here is a question to ponder: if Post Malone truly disrespected hip-hop culture, why would he take qualities of its genre to progress his art, which he clearly cares so much about? The author would suggest that his utilization of rap style is part of his white privilege, profit oriented agenda. Frankly, this doesn’t make sense to me. Hip-hop is currently one of the most popular genres of music. People of all races listen to it. Why does there have to besome overarching reason for Post Malone being at the top of the charts with black hip-hop artists? 21 Savage and Kanye West didn’t care about his skin color when they collaborated with him. In music, the majority of people care about the content rather than the skin color. It just so happens that the genre of music that includes Post Malone and Lil Uzi Vert is wildly popular with youngsters presently. This may explain why Post’s fall concert at Binghamton University sold out in only a few days. Listeners don’t care about what he likes to vibe to when he feels down, listeners don’t care about his skin color, listeners care about his ability to make high quality music. But, even still, we see media outlets such as Complex attack Post Malone and conclude that “he’s a problem.” Outlets such as Complex are upset that Post Malone is “taking advantage” of black culture in order to progress his own career without acknowledging the hardships that they’ve faced. This can be an understandable critique for some when regarding his exchanges with Charlamagne tha God on the topic of Black Lives Matter. It’s not entirely fair to crucify Post Malone
because he doesn’t understand certain political views. He’s new to the game. Let me know what celebrity hasn’t fallen into controversy. We know that he’s a problem to Complex because he’s white. Complex maintains a much more positive review on Lil Uzi Vert’s career being flavored with a rock-star style. In this article, they talk about Lil Uzi embracing the influence of rock-n- roll without any question of race at all because it is not a problem for a non-white artist to be influenced by David Bowie or Marilyn Manson. If we as a nation truly want equality, we need to stop pushing each other away and strengthening the divide. Even if you disagree with Post Malone, cultural appropriation plays too big of a role in today’s society. For instance, a burrito shop was closed in Portland last year all because the people making the burrito were white and therefore, were taking advantage of minorities. By that logic, does that mean I can’t eat pizza because I’m not Italian? Of course not, because it shouldn’t be an issue that people want to use the workings of other cultures in order to enjoy their lives more. In my opinion, the idea of cultural appropriation that critiques artists like Post Malone is largely unnecessary for a society that strives for equality. If you couldn’t tell, I’m a big fan of Post Malone. In light of these recent criticisms, I’m still confident that his next album in 2018 will be very successful due to his ability to create unique and quality music. Sources: https://www.gq.com/story/dont-callpostmalone- a-rapper http://www.clashmusic.com/features/facing-the- music-with- post-malone http://www.complex.com/music/2017/11/postmalone- and-racism http://www.complex.com/style/2017/06/lil-uzivert-rock- star-style- shaking-up- rap-world h t t p : / / w w w. f o x n e w s . c o m / f o o d drink/2017/05/24/portlandburrito-shopforced-to- close-amid-accusations-cultural- appropriation-stealing- recipes.html
Trickle Rick By Kayla Jimenez
henever I hear the term “Trickle-down economics,” I’m uncomfortably reminded of times when poor decision making has led me to trying to pee outside somewhere (and failing miserably.) Nonetheless, Trickle-down is the choice word(s) that refers to the economic theory that by increasing benefits for the wealthy, including corporate and business tax cuts, these benefits will ~trickle~ down to everyone else. Rooted in the assumption that the wealthy (business owners, investors, Fortune 500 CEOs) are the predominant source of change and economic growth, this theory suggests that when taxes are cut for this group of individuals and businesses, the resulting monetary savings will be reinvested in the economy to expand and drive business growth. There are many haters and naysayers regarding Trickle-down economics and its “unfair” targeted tax cuts. *whiney voice* “OMG corporations are, like, evil, greedy, manipulative, and only interested in taking all of our money! Why should they get tax cuts?! They should pay more taxes so we can all go to college for free and have free abortions!” Trump could care less about these sentiments and has pushed his tax-cut agenda since day one. I’m more of a supply-side economics kinda gal, I like ALL tax cuts, not just Trickle-down economics vibey tax cuts. But, at this rate, if there’s any sort of tax cut, in any shape or form, I’m here for it. Trump has continually suggested major corporate tax cuts. Finally, in December, Trump signed legislation that lowered the corporate tax rate from thirty five percent to twenty one percent beginning January first of this year. Let’s leave high corporate tax rates in 2017! What happened following the introduction of this lowered tax rate? Did the country combust? Did corporations decide to take all their newfound profits and offshore them? Buy more private jets or whatever it is people want to assume the repurposed
funds will be used for? NO! HA! Take that h8rs. Instead, over one hundred U.S. corporations announced extensive plans to invest the tax savings in their businesses, employees, company infrastructure, and the United States. Walmart, ironically the largest private employer in the U.S. while simultaneously having a bad rep of poor employee treatment and low wages, said starting wages for U.S. store workers will be raised from $9 an hour to $11 an hour, and certain employees will be offered bonuses of up to $1,000. It gets even better: Walmart also plans to grant “10 weeks maternity leave and six weeks paid parental leave to full-time hourly associates, including leave for parents who adopt… Walmart will also contribute $5,000 to the cost of adoption,” according to CBS. Wow! Amazing! Starbucks developed a $250 million wages-and-benefits package thanks to the tax cuts; this package includes wage increases, improved health-care benefits, and more employee stock grants.
“Over 100 U.S. corporations announced extensive plans to invest the tax savings in their businesses, employees, company infrastructure, and the United States. These two examples in particular are my favorite because the same people who are anti-corporate tax cuts are also always demanding that the federal government needs to provide us with healthcare and enforce more intense policies for paid family and maternity leave. Well guess what: when the government steps out of the picture, in this case by reducing the tax rate, all of our wishes come true! Walmart is improving its family leave options, even assisting parents who are adopting (progressive af!), Starbucks is expanding its healthcare benefits… it’s truly a beautiful thing. We do not need the government to pass sweeping regulations in order for women and men, moms and dads, to have more
options for family leave; we do not need a $15 federal minimum wage; we do not need the government to expand Obamacare and provide coverage for all citizens. All we need is for the government to allow people and corporations to exercise the freedoms they deserve, and the market will take care of the rest! Though the tax cuts are a primary reason for these announcements and changes, they are not the sole reason. With unemployment rates historically low, the job market is increasingly competitive (on the hiring side, not the searching side). Businesses have to provide more and more to make their job offerings more attractive and incentivize applicants to choose their company over competitors. None of this is bad; this is good for workers, and happy workers make for happy and successful businesses. The general state of the current labor market is an underlying driver for these changes, but the tax cuts were the real catalyst; the icing on the cake, if you will. The one valid argument against Trickle-down economics emphasizes the concern that reduced revenue from tax cuts may have an impact on the United States’ ability to fund federal programs and manage the national debt. In regards to the federal programs, good! A reduction in federal spending is always ideal. As for the national debt… we’re probably screwed anyways. Though it seems as though the government’s actions are responsible for this change, American businesses are at the heart of it. They could have said nothing and plotted to improve their bottom lines with lower taxes and higher revenue retention. Instead, they chose to invest in hard working Americans. Most corporations aren’t the heartless, money-crazy entities they are wrongly thought to be: they are run by living, breathing people; they are drivers of change; they put smiles on our faces and money in our pockets; they keep the world turning.
Vol. XXX, Issue IX
SOJOURN THROUGH THE SHITHOLES: NOT SO N.I.C.E.
Sojourn through the Shitholes: Not so N.I.C.E. By David Keptsi
’d like to think every New York Times has its own Paul Krugman, a douchebag using his economics degree to justify presenting his opinion as fact. Truly an essential part of any publication, I’d also like to believe that I am to the Review what Krugman is to the Times. That being said, if you’ve missed me this last semester I apologize, as I know my commentary must have been just as missed as Krugman’s would be if he was to stop his editorials (I really do hope he stops though). This past semester I decided to go on a journey to find myself on a study abroad trip to the highlands of Scotland, bottle of scotch whiskey in hand. In my travels through the socialist shithole known as Europe, I came to learn alot about the people and the geopolitical landscape around me. I learned that most people in favor of Brexit supported it for reasons having nothing to do with immigration, I learned that being “white” as a blanket group was a much stranger concept in a land where English, French, Spanish, and Slavic people all had their own unique cultural and ethnic backgrounds and struggles each distinct from the other. I learned that everyone
left of center in Europe was actually a full blown commie, and their republicans were basically our democrats. In my sojourn abroad I discovered a great many things and much like the great American hero Sojourner Truth, I’ve come back to bring the truth to you. One of the more interesting set of facts I was able to learn on my travels was the advisory structure of the U.K. healthcare system. The U.K. has had a socialized healthcare system (much like the one clamored for by democrats in this country) since the 40’s. In fact the U.K’s health system is ranked among the top in the world. Have their healthcare costs still gone up at an exponential rate? Yeah, that’s still an issue. But their expenditure as a percentage of GDP is still way lower than in the U.S. That’s not too surprising, our system is a mess that needs fixing especially with Obamacare regulations driving the number of insurers per state to as low as one in several states. However, the purpose of this piece isn’t necessarily a debate over which solution will work best. Rather, it is to point out a major issue in one of the core arguments the left has in favor of socialized health-
care: coverage of pre-existing conditions. In the United Kingdom, the healthcare is provided through the National Health Service (NHS) with guidelines as to who gets the treatment and in what order determined through a system of cost benefit analysis. The organization charged with setting out these guidelines is the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (N.I.C.E) but what I’ve learned from these guidelines isn’t very nice at all.
“This past semester I decided to go on a journey to find myself on a study abroad trip to the highlands of Scotland, bottle of scotch whiskey in hand... I learned that being “white” as a blanket group was a much stranger concept in a land where English, French, Spanish, and Slavic people all had their own unique cultural and ethnic backgrounds and struggles...” In a cost-benefit analysis system of deciding who gets healthcare the results are largely based on how much longer the patient is expected to live after receiving the treatment. It makes sense, someone will benefit from an artificial heart a lot longer and the money spent on the operation will be put to better use if the patient is 30 as opposed to 50. But age is not the only factor on which these considerations are based, there are many factors that determine who is prioritized when receiving treatment. Some are factors that some people can’t help but be born with, also known as pre-existing conditions. In the world of cost benefit analysis, the person with a pre-ex-
SOJOURN THROUGH THE SHITHOLES: NOT SO N.I.C.E. isting condition will be at the end of the queue waiting to receive their crucial treatment while someone in good health will be at the front. Remind you of something? Yep it’s quite similar to the issue people are quick to point out with our private health insurance system. Being sick costs more than being healthy. Except in this case, the issue isn’t insurance costs, it’s getting treated for your sickness in the first place! But Queues shouldnt matter as long as everyone gets processed in time right? Well according to the New York Times (But sadly not Paul Krugman) U.K. hospitals are highly underfunded and overcrowded. I know how much people like to accept anecdotal evidence as fact these days so let me quote that same article: At some emergency wards, patients wait more than 12 hours before they are tended to. Corridors are jammed with beds carrying frail and elderly patients waiting to be admitted to hospital wards. Outpatient appointments were canceled to free up staff members, and by Wednesday morning hospitals had been ordered to postpone non urgent surgeries until the end of the month. (NYTimes) Doesn’t sound very great does
it? Of course the go to response from anyone on the left will be that the U.S. system is still relatively worse.Thanks Obama. Look, healthcare is a complicated topic and I can’t possibly pretend to know all the answers. But I do know something fishy when I see it and the argument of covering pre-existing conditions through Universal healthcare is pretty fishy since you’re just transferring the status of pre-existing conditions from a determinant of insurance price to a determinant of receiving treatment. But who am I to talk? I’m just some kid with an economics degree using my education to present an opinion as fact, right? All I know is that when many supposed liberal icons such as Corey Booker are so deep in the pocket of pharmaceutical companies that they consistently vote to prevent Americans
from buying their drugs from Canada, the swamp needs draining. Sources:
(https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/03/world/ europe/uk-national-health-service.html) Corey Booker source: https://theintercept.com/2017/01/12/ cor y-booker-joins-senate-republicans-to-kill-measure-to-import-cheaper-medicine-from-canada/ Source for Graph:Institute of Fiscal Studies
Vol. XXX, Issue IX
Yes, They Are Shitholes
YES, THEY ARE SHITHOLES
By Auntie Fascist
et’s get one thing straight, something we all know but didn’t want to say: the shithole statement was a work of political genius by Trump, whether purposeful or not. The shithole statement has effectively pivoted political discourse in our country away from the “800,000” narrative of “DACA children” to the important metapolitical question of our day. Is our country the dumping grounds for shitholes or is it the land of the people, by the people and for the people? Trump’s statement has forced the political backpedaling of the Left whose narrative before on immigrants essentially argued that they came from shitholes and as a result could not be sent back to their shitholes but rather deserved to be here. Of course the left never said the phrase shitholes but instead referred to the “political instability,” “constant gang violence and issues with drugs,” “unsafe to raise your children” (read: shithole). Whether or not Trump was playing 72-dimensional-intergalactic-underwater-Chinese checkers when he said shithole or if he was simply boomer posting irl doesn’t matter in the long run. What does matter is the shift in the political narrative to one that is much easier to control and combat. After being on a college campus
for far too long, I have learned many things about politics and that mostly it’s all about propaganda and whether your propaganda is more successful than that of your political foes. The narrative of an evil mean Trump deporting 800,000 children, which is of course fiction, is a piece of political propaganda that hits the normie ears effectively. No normie wants to deport 800,000 children; only a “sick evil demented old white man” would do that. However, immigrants coming from countries such as Haiti, where the national cuisine is mud cookies and starvation, is clearly not the best and brightest that our country deserves. Forcing the left into the political position of defending the idea of Haiti not being a shithole is laughable to everyone with an IQ above 80, let alone to the average American. So where does this place the dissident right and the anti-immigration activists? It is funny to see the left lose their political leverage in the debate. Luis Gutierrez, a Congressman, went so far as to claim that he will build the wall himself in order to help the DACA recipients. The Democrats shut down the United States government for DACA, and in the end all they got was a promise for debate on the issue. They have essentially cucked their
own base, something they must have learned from the Republican party, and caused terror to the political base. What the dissident right must do now is double down and continue the onslaught. The Republican party does not have the balls to shut down immigration, round up all illegals and deport them immediately; however, what the party does have the ability to do is start funding the wall and begin to cut H1B visas. The more and more we can get the country back to normalcy and eliminate the issue of immigration then we will continue to win. An end to H1B visas, or a return to normalcy where H1Bs literally have to be paid higher wages than Americans if companies want to bring them, will effectively return high paying jobs back to the Americans while at the same time stopping Democratic voters from entering the country. Let’s all face it. The reason why the Democratic Party wants people coming in from shithole countries is they vote Democrat. They consistently vote for more gibs from the government, bigger government regulations and are, as Podesta’s emails stated, “loyal brand voters.” Democrats are trying to give the illusion of care for these individuals, when in reality all they care about is having a impoverished class that will constantly demand more government handouts in return for a vote for Democrats. The Democrats don’t give two shits about these people, but neither do the Republicans and you know why? Because they aren’t our people! Let the best and brightest return to their countries, let those “highly skilled” DACA kids return to Mexico to make Mexico great again (assuming they are highly skilled as the President of Mexico seems to believe). If these countries are not shitholes, then all the Dreamers will have no problem returning to their countries and who knows, maybe they will be so grateful for us returning them across the border that they will pay for the wall.
By Patrick McAuliffe
while back I did a little miniseries about the various hypocrisies on both sides of the “bourgeois political spectrum” (as our labor comrades like to call them). Personally, I enjoyed the “Hypocri-city” pun, but I’m very distraught to see that neither Republicans or Democrats have changed their tune about their basic philosophies. Democrats, especially, have doubled down on destroying themselves from the inside out with constant shows of being the most progressive and forward-thinking. Within the last couple of weeks (since January 25th, where the beginning of these tales begin), I’ve noticed some especially bad instances of “cannibaliberalism” as the left slowly eats themselves alive in the name of clinging to a progress-at-any-cost mentality. On January 25th, licensed psychotherapist and sexuality counselor Ian Kerner published a piece for CNN entitled “Cuckolding can be positive for some couples, study says.” Starting with a discussion of “cuckservative,” Kerner cites multiple studies and surveys discussing the prevalence of cuckolding fantasies (58% of heterosexual men, and ⅓ of heterosexual women), and arguing that the arousal from the kink can lead to deeper emotional connection between couples. There is a history of race and bondage associated with cuckolding, but among homosexual couples, “interracial and BDSM themes don’t appear to be as common...as they are among heterosexual men.” One of Kerner’s sources explains the prevalence of the kink as arousing especially in a monogamous society, where people can engage in the taboo act to help get off. After reading this article, the title should be changed to something far more accurate, such as “Cuckolding is a surprisingly prevalent fetish, study says”. After that point in the article, the argument for engaging in cuckolding gets much more theoretical and far less empirical. Kerner cites specific people that should not engage in this kink, such as those with “a lot of
relationship anxiety or abandonment issues, who lack intimacy and communication, and who aren’t careful, detail-oriented planners,” but nobody that specifically should. In this lame attempt to turn an insult into political and moral armor (much like SJWs attempted with “snowflake”), cannibaliberals further distance themselves from healthy, monogamous relationships that the majority of Americans have. It can only be insanity to try and dismantle monogamy, the social institution with the winning track record of all of human civilization.
“Three major shitstorms all occurred at once on January 28th, with the Grammys taking the award for two of them.” Three major shitstorms all occurred at once on January 28th, with the Grammys taking the award for two of them. First, Ed Sheeran won Pop Solo Performance of the Year, beating out an all-female list of other nominees, like Kelly Clarkson, Lady Gaga, Kesha, and P!nk (the last of which is the second-most famous artist with a symbol in their name, after Prince). First of all, if I was a sensitive cannibaliberal and was looking for problematic situations in modern society, I would angrily point out that all of these artists were white. Secondly, NowThis Entertainment posted on Facebook the day after the Grammys about how Sheeran won his Grammy for “Shape of You,” a song about a woman’s body, over four women artists, especially over Kesha’s song “Praying.” Why should such an overtly misogynistic song beat a ballad about a woman coming back from an abusive situation with her producer, Dr. Luke? The emphasis is that this song is a ballad, and
can be incredibly popular, but nobody will blast Kesha downtown or at a party. The same critique goes for P!nk’s “What About Us”, which has a nice military-style beat to it but ultimately pales in comparison to the catchy tune and lyrics of “Shape of You.” I haven’t even heard Lady Gaga’s “Million Reasons” on the radio, and they play songs like that seven times a day at the very least. Finally, Clarkson’s “Love So Soft” lost because...sexism? I agree with the choice to give the Grammy to Sheeran (if I had to care about awards shows) primarily because “Shape of You” embodies all of what modern pop is about. There’s just enough of a story to keep the song moving, an incredibly catchy and upbeat tune, themes of modern hookup culture, and lots and lots of repetition. Sheeran won because he fit the criteria the best, which is how people win awards when they are nominated for them. The second Grammy problem, after the one where you just don’t have enough room for your grandmother’s dessert after dinner, is something so helpfully pointed out by BBC. Bruno Mars and his album “24K Magic” stole the show at the Grammys this year, taking home six awards that included Album of the Year, Record of the Year, and Song of the Year. Kendrick Lamar and “Damn.” was a close second with five total awards.
“Mars, a Puerto Rican, Filipino, Ashkenazi Jew no longer checks off enough boxes to have his victory celebrated; his wins even apparently ‘robbed Kendrick Lamar’s more urgent, political album of the night’s main prizes.’” Vol. XXX, Issue IX
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM BBC’s report on the Grammys was titled, “Bruno Mars grabs (nearly) all of the Grammys - but where were the women?” Writer Mark Savage was quick to point out that of 86 awards in total, 17 were won by women or female-led bands. Mars, a Puerto Rican, Filipino, Ashkenazi Jew no longer checks off enough boxes to have his victory celebrated; his wins even apparently “robbed Kendrick Lamar’s more urgent, political album of the night’s main prizes”. For all the talk of seeing people of different backgrounds and experiences succeed, cannibaliberals can’t shake the notion of groups of people as monoliths, and once a member of an “oppressed” group becomes successful, the mantle of victimhood shifts somewhere else. This writer congratulates Bruno Mars on his wins, and for his talent as a musician in his own right.
JANUARY DRAMA: WINNERS AND LOSERS For my final Jan. 28th disaster, Pipe Dream writer Sarah Molano somehow manages to take an event of leftist resistance (the Women’s March) and make it problematic for trans women (read: biological men). The issue centers around the “pussy hat,” a modern symbol of feminist empowerment, and the assumption that this only empowers women with the corresponding parts. While the national Women’s Marches are done primarily with an anti-Trump sentiment, Molano believes that marching should be about “uplifting the most marginalized women out there.” While it’s great that white women come to march in protest against “grabbing by the pussy,” the real purpose of the March for Molano is to stand “against racism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia and all the other types of oppression that women everywhere face.” Will it
really be enough, when all your grand designs are realized? When will the next marginalized class of monolithic people come to sweep away all the progress the other monoliths have struggled and fought and died for? They’re going to need to start planning next year’s March right now, and clear it with all possible parties impacted by the actions of the marchers. While cannibaliberals continue to tear themselves apart, keep it real here at Binghamton Review. “If you don’t like what we tell you to believe, we’ll kill you!” -George W. Bush References: h t t p s : / / w w w. b u p i p e d r e a m . c o m / o p i n ions/90709/where-the-womens-march-fallsshort/ h t t p : / / w w w. b b c . c o m / n e w s / e n t e r t a i n ment-arts-42855097 https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/25/health/cuckolding-sex-kerner/index.htmlhttps://www.facebook.com/search/top/?q=NowThis%20Entertainment%20ed%20sheeran
January Drama: Winners and Losers By Matthew Rosen 1.
FISA Court Renew Winner: Big Government This week, FISA Court operations was renewed through the passage of section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act through the House and the Senate and then signed by President Trump. The Court has many problems when it comes to Fourth Amendment freedoms, as if it is permitted to gather this information from people without a warrant. The FISA Court also has a history of getting American citizens involved in this surveillance without getting a warrant from a judge proving probable cause. Therefore, its passage upholds its ability to break the Fourth Amendment and give more power to government at the expense of certain freedoms. So who wins from this? The winner is big government of course, while the losers from FISA’s passage are Freedom and the Fourth Amendment. The reason for this is that the government allowing the FISA Court to stay running means that companies like Google and Facebook are re-
quired to share their data with government agencies so that they can search through it. 2. Government Shutdown Winner: Congressional Republicans Most people know that the Federal government recently shut down for almost three days due to the lack of legislation to fund the government. The winners and losers for any government shutdown is usually dependant on which party is blamed. So who is to blame? Most Americans, according to the polls, do in fact blame (and should blame) the Democrats for the shutdown. While more than 90% of Republicans voted yes to the bill to fund the government (which would prevent the shutdown), only 5% of Democrats were on board. What makes the Democrats even more to blame is that they voted no solely because there was no mention of DACA in the proposed bill. Essentially, they shutdown the government for 850,000 illegals, and then voted to reopen the government
on an almost identical bill almost three days later, gaining essentially nothing. With midterm elections coming up, the Congressional Democrats are the big losers. With the Dems losing political ground prior to midterms, the Congressional Republicans have to be the winners by default. 3. Immigration Winner: Nobody The biggest political debate occurring currently is the debate between President Trump, Congressional Republicans, and Congressional Democrats on immigration. I will cut right to the chase and say that the losers are everybody. Nobody wins from inability to compromise and make a deal. President Trump laid out a deal in which both parties get essentially what they want, as well as what is popular among the population right now. DACA is popular, but increased border security, the end of chain migration, and the diversity lottery program is as well. President Trump said he would sign a bill containing all of these things, but
JANUARY DRAMA: WINNERS AND LOSERS Congress, particularly Congressional Democrats straight up refuse to vote for this plan. Now President Trump laid out a new plan which is so dovish that it is basically a Democratic plan. While the plan should make Democrats extremely pleased as it involves legal status for 1.8 million illegals and keeps chain migration for everybody currently on the waitlist, Democrats still call the plan racist and refuse to consider it. I am personally disgusted that Democrats refuse to compromise at all despite the fact that they are in the minority. The Democrats are losers in this case because they are shown to be obstructionists and would rather play identity politics. The Republicans are also losers in this case because they can’t get comprehensive immigration reform with a majority in both Houses. Most importantly, the American people lose because none of the immigration reform that will benefit the country will get passed. The inability to compromise is frustrating and bad for all of us. 4. Russia Collusion/Memo Winner: Republicans? Maybe? We’ll see. Many Republicans have been believing that the FBI conspired against President Trump for over a year to push a fake Russia collusion scandal
“Democrats refuse to compromise at all despite the fact that they are in the minority. The Democrats are losers in this case because they... would rather play identity politics. The Republicans are also losers in this case because they can’t get comprehensive immigration reform with a majority in both Houses. Most importantly, the American people lose...” 12
Credit to CNN
which involves Trump working with the Russians to win the 2016 presidential election. January has been a winning month for Republicans thanks to new information on FBI operations. This involves a memo regarding illegitimate FISA warrant and texts between FBI agents about taking down Trump. First, there is a memo written by Congressman Devin Nunes which supposedly reveals that the FISA warrant gained to wiretap the Trump campaign, specifically Trump campaign aide Carter Page, was solely based on a dossier and opposition research from Democrats and Fusion GPS. This would be extremely corrupt, as it would imply spying on a Presidential Candidate primarily for political means rather than legal probable cause. The second problem is the 50,000 texts between FBI agents Peter Strzok and Lisa Page that describe the Russian collusion scandal as an insurance policy. These texts were lost by the FBI and have yet to be found. Lastly, former FBI director Andrew McCabe just stepped down over allegations of mishandling the Hillary and Trump investigations. The Russian Collusion Scandal is a big loser, as well as the credibility of the FBI. While all of this is true, we will have to wait to see what the memo says once it is released to the public to see the facts and consequences. 5. Grammys and Fire and Fury Winner: President Trump Out of all the topics in this article, the 2018 Grammys is probably the
biggest win for President Trump. Music stars decided to politicize another non-political event, only leading to their own downfall. The ratings for the event were down 20% from last year’s already low rated showing. This is no doubt thanks to their trashing of President Trump in such ways as praising “shithole countries” and having Hillary Clinton read the audiobook of Fire and Fury, an anti-Trump book proven to be flawed and largely incorrect. Personally, I believe the talking down to Trump based on nothing is delegitimizing everything they have to say, and people are getting sick of it. Stupid rumors of Nikki Haley and Donald Trump having an affair sparked from the book and just prove that Democrats and their media are the keepers of Fake News. Furthermore, the attacks on Nikki Haley are proving that Democrats are not pro-women, as they attack her over fabricated rumors and for defending herself. Overall, the big Democratic voices are being drowned out thanks to their incorrect rumors and baseless attacks on the President. It is clear that they all have Trump Derangement Syndrome. This will not be good for their public support, as most people are sick of the politicizing of entertainment and media as well as the unsubstantiated attacks on the President. This made Democrats look foolish, making them the losers on this topic. From my perspective, I am very happy about the Republican wins, as now we can close the gap for the midterm elections.
Vol. XXX, Issue IX
This article was originally published in the December 2006 issue of Binghamton Review.
Vol. XXX, Issue IX
Ring in the New Year with Binghamton Review!