Editorial by Madeline Perez

Dear Readers,

Ladies and gentlemen, it’s that time of the month! Specifically, the time of the month when Binghamton Review comes out with a new issue. Not to say that it comes out the same day every month, or even on a monthly basis (which it doesn’t. Our publishing schedule is something I made up on a whim one night by intoxicatedly throwing darts at a calendar.), but rather every day exists within the time frame we know as “month,” literally making whenever we release this issue the “time of the month.” All in all, Review issues will come out when they’re ready and, more importantly, nobody’s pregnant. I’m sure many of you quit halfway through that paragraph, and those who stayed probably regret reading it. Well, “Reading is Fundamentally Ill” after all. Hey! That’s coincidentally the name of my article on page 6, where I talk about how reading and elitism go hand in hand when they should be going fist to fist. In a fighting way, if that wasn’t clear. Speaking of fisting, check out “There’s No Place for Zoning Laws in Binghamton” by Siddharth Gundapaneni on page 10, where he talks about the Binghamton Mayor screwing over college kids trying to live off-campus. Be warned: it may concern you or the people close to you. More specifically, your wallets. Are you real? Am I real? Is this edition of Binghamton Review real? Hopefully not, as one day I dream this will all vanish, having been some sort of hellish mirage. But who can say? John M. can say, as he does in his article “Postmodern Questions and the Project of Truth” on page 8. Like Neon Genesis Evangelion, this piece is full of introspection, Catholic gesturing, and ponderance of human experience in a way that will pleasantly surprise you.

I am running out of space in the editorial, so let’s try a rapid-fire round. Make sure to peek at Midas’s article “Yik Yak: The Hidden Underbelly of BU” on page 11. It makes me want to reference the 1959 hit “Yakety Yak!” more than any other article ever has. Look no further than page 12 to find “Misunderstandings: Necessary Corrections To “LEFTIST MEME ALERT”” by Julius Apostata, where he talks about me and the wacky, zany, and quirky things I’ve said in my last couple articles. Ponder Logan Blakeslee’s “Austrian Economics: A Genuine Fix to Monetary Policy in the U.S.” on page 5, where he gives his insight on the Austrian School of economic thought. For more information, look up sonic inflation. Finally, read Shayne O’Loughlin’s “Adventures in American Secession” on page 14. “It’s about modern secessionist movements throughout America,” says Shayne. Intriguing!

Better start reading! Or don’t, I’m not the boss of you. ...Or am I?

Sincerely,

Madeline Perez

Binghamton Review is a non-partisan, student-run news magazine of conservative thought founded in 1987 at Binghamton University. A true liberal arts education expands a student’s horizons and opens one’s mind to a vast array of divergent perspectives. The mark of true maturity is being able to engage with these perspectives rationally while maintaining one’s own convictions. In that spirit, we seek to promote the free and open exchange of ideas and offer alternative viewpoints not normally found or accepted on our predominately liberal campus. We stand against tyranny in all of its forms, both on campus and beyond. We believe in the principles set forth in this country’s Declaration of Independence and seek to preserve the fundamental tenets of Western civilization. It is our duty to expose the warped ideology of political correctness and cultural authoritarianism that dominates this university. Finally, we understand that a moral order is a necessary component of any civilized society. We strive to inform, engage with, and perhaps even amuse our readers in carrying out this mission.

Advice Column

Ioffered to give you all life advice. These were your ques-

tions.

I’ve been talking to a girl recently, and she was showing a lot of interest at the beginning, but recently she’s been more distant and awkward. What happened, and does it have something to do with all the times I called her fertile?

I can tell you right now, the fastest I’ve seen women get uncomfortable was when someone else called them fertile. Hell, it made me extremely uncomfortable, almost to the point of purposely crashing my car into the Susquehanna River to eliminate the awkwardness. You really fucked up, so just hope that you haven’t been put on the blacklist of datable people in Binghamton.

It’s in my walls oh fuck help me it’s in my walls. What do?

Sorry, it’s already too late for you. Thankfully, your heroic sacrifice means we can now quarantine your entire neighborhood to further prevent its spread. You will probably be

forgotten.

Is it true that Binghamton Review holds weekly orgies in the Library North Underground?

If the event isn’t listed on our B-Engaged then we haven’t reserved the room for any event. So, rest assured, we are not holding weekly orgies on campus. Those occur off campus for select invitees.

Will you do it?

Only if you wire the money to my offshore account.

Speaking of MILFs, is anyone else disappointed by Claudia Tenney’s district no longer covering Binghamton?

You can’t be disappointed in what you never knew existed in the first place, although now that I do know, I am still not disappointed. I hate MILFs.

I had a sexy-Baxter nightmare last summer, and the damp feeling of horror has yet to leave me. How do I stop seeing her in that horrible train station stall?

I don’t even think Binghamton has a train station. Maybe just drive a car like everyone else, you can’t be worse than any of the other drivers in Binghamton. Also, to get rid of these feelings, you should desensitize yourself to furry art.

Written by our Staff

This publication’s EIC threatened to take me out behind the shed and kill me. What is the appropriate response?

Proper citizens of the People’s Republic of Binghamton Review don’t question the orders of their leader.

I live on a farm. Also, I think this is unrelated, but there’s this… thing… a far-off indistinct-looking guy in a reddish shirt, and whenever I see him, I puke black bile. I guess my question is, how do I talk to freshman girls on campus?

That’s easy! Just use your words, unless those words are fertile. That should never leave the farm.

How do I get compliments from girls?

You have to talk to women in order to get compliments from them, maybe try that first!

How do I make my boyfriend feel better about his circumcision 23 years ago?

The same way you talk to someone with a recent haircut. Say “nice cut bro,” and then go about your day as normal.

Why are those people in the edge of my vision getting bigger?

Your medicine is clearly not working, you should up your dosage. Don’t consult your provider first, they don’t want you to get better. It’s actually against their financial interests. Down with Big Pharma!

What movie should I spend my evening watching?

Madeline: Robin Hood: Men in Tights Dillon: The Blues Brothers Shayne: American Psycho Sid: Barbie and the Diamond Castle Arthur: Donald Trump’s The Art of the Deal: The Movie

What hurt you enough to write for Binghamton Review?

I was forever scarred by Pipe Dream when I first visited Binghamton University. The paper cut still hasn’t healed, even after several years.

Austrian Economics: A Genuine Fix to Monetary Policy in the U.S.

By Logan Blakeslee

Among all mainstream schools of economic thought in the western world, one black sheep stands out. The Austrian School, as it is commonly known, was founded by Carl Menger and Ludwig von Mises in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Their ideas and those of their contemporaries, far from being outdated or incompatible with the modern global economic structure, are quite possibly the tools necessary to save it from collapse.

The Austrian School is built upon one crucial fact of life: human beings value things in a subjective and rational manner. This idea can be contrasted with the Marxist principle of Labor Value Theory, which postulates that value is objective and tied to the effort—or labor—put into the production and distribution of a good or service. Followers of the Austrian School observe that when socialist (not social-democratic, like the Scandinavian Model supported by Bernie Sanders) economic policies are put into practice, inefficiency ensues. This inefficiency is created by the leftist assumption that value can be magically separated from supply and demand. In reality, this leads to severe shortages of essentials and consumer goods in countries with planned economies, such as the Soviet Union, Cuba, North Korea, etc.

Mises referred to this historically-repeated outcome as the “Economic Calculation Problem,” which turned socialism from a noble idea into a mathematical impossibility. It also touches upon how capitalist nations likewise make poor economic decisions for similar reasons. Whether capitalist or socialist, governments can never accurately determine the true value of a good or service because they do not make decisions like individual consumers do. Without supply and demand guiding the market, there is no way to observe whether something in the economy is actually wanted by its people. Price signals are integral to deciding what gets produced, always proving to be far more efficient than “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs,” as the Marxists posit.

Because of the emphasis on guiding economic thought through the lens of individual consumers, the Austrian School is popular among libertarians, fiscal conservatives, anarcho-capitalists, and a few other political minorities on the right. It wholly rejects collectivism as a means to lift nations out of poverty or to maintain prosperity. It also uses a form of logic called “praxeology,” which assumes that human action is deliberate, something that carries over into the everyday decisions people make that affect the market. Unlike the Keynesians or their ideological kin, members of the Austrian School come to their conclusions via a priori reasoning, or simply using theoretical deductions to understand the economy rather than direct observation. This is a point of contention and perhaps the foremost factor in Mises’ unpopularity among most academics.

The most pertinent idea belonging to the Austrian School is the Business Cycle Theory. Currently, inflation in the United States and elsewhere is hurting the livelihoods of millions, and supply chain issues continue to plague most industrial sectors. Although the unemployment rate appears low, it does not account for individuals who are no longer seeking employment or can no longer find it. Thousands of businesses shut down during the Covid-19 pandemic and a large percentage of them will likely never reopen, skewing the unemployment rate touted by liberals in government. The Business Cycle Theory addresses these problems succinctly: they were caused by government intervention.

As Ludwig von Mises once said, “Inflation is an increase in the quantity of money without a corresponding increase in the demand for money, i.e., for cash holdings.” When the government prints significant amounts of money beyond what is needed or lowers interest rates beneath the market rate (according to Dan Mahoney), it creates a fiscal bubble destined to pop. The Trump Administration twisted the Federal Reserve’s arm to keep interest rates low, an action that provided short-term gains and long-term consequences. Likewise, both the Trump and Biden presidencies have overseen unprecedented injections of new money into circulation, as can be seen in the ever-rising national debt.

Is it any wonder, then, that the state of the global market in 2022 is so abysmal? John Maynard Keynes cemented the notion that more deficit spending and inflation can rescue an economy from recession, but this has been thoroughly disproven since the 1970s. While politicians like to blame COVID for our woes, it only encouraged policymakers to act on their worst instincts and take as much power for themselves as possible, while spending as much money as possible. Average Americans are left to foot the bill for generations to come.

The boom-and-bust cycle of a modern economy is hard to break. It requires a number of reforms, such as ending fractional reserve banking, cutting market regulations, balancing the federal budget, and potentially restoring the gold standard. There are pros and cons to each of these suggestions, but they may be the cures to the more endemic disease of government mismanagement. In this author’s humble opinion, a truly free market is preferable to the mess we see today. If the White House cares for good advice, they should listen to the Austrians.

“It wholly rejects collectivism as a means to lift nations out of poverty or to maintain prosperity.”

Reading is Fundamentally Ill

By Madeline Perez

Let me be clear. I am NOT like other girls. I don’t spend my time applying make-up and being conventionally attractive. I don’t own a hairdryer, can’t do dishes, and am able to read an analog clock. Every day, I throw my humble brunette locks into a messy bun and put on clothes that leave everything to the imagination until I am nothing more than an idea. I am cynical and satirical and refuse to stoop to the vulnerabilities of saying what I mean, though I still believe I am the most genuine person I know. Though an air of despondency hangs around me, I can rest assured knowing there is one factor, above all else, that separates me from the phonies and femmes alike: my literacy.

While the sheepish mobs are busy watching television meant to brainwash them into complacency, I expand my infinity brain by consuming media in a different way. Through BOOKS. You may not have heard of them, being you only know things like iPad, iPhone, and iPod shuffle. Books are REAL things made of DEAD TREES that you CANNOT CLICK. I make sure to carry one on me at all times, lest a normie mistakes my aloof atmosphere as an invitation for conversation. (DON’T INTERRUPT MY BROODING.) I am actually a lot like Holden Caulfield (not that you would even know who that is, deeming my simile pointless), being that I am the only real person in a sea of pretenders and fakes. It’s enough to drive you insane, which society already thinks I am. But to me, society is the one that’s insane, and I am the only truly “normal” thing about it.

Being a “reader” has a lot of weird connotations. People assume readers are smart, educated, and tend to get an ego complex in the presence of someone independently reading. This normally goes as follows:

“Wow, that’s a big book you have there, that must be heavy to carry around! Haha, but seriously, what are you reading? Animal Farm? Wow, that’s crazy. You know, I used to be a lot like you. I used to read so much. It’s a wonder why I don’t read as much as I used to. You know what? I’m going to get back on the book train! That’s right, I’m going to start reading every day before bed since books don’t emit blue light that tricks your eyes into staying awake longer. You know, I had this cousin once–”

And so on and so forth. This script that people follow isn’t themselves talking; It’s a result of years of societal messaging about how reading is good and makes you smart and is necessary to keep your mind sharp. It’s only my assumption that, knowing this, people feel threatened when they see someone reading in the wild, kind of like how I feel threatened when I see someone wearing their retainer like they’re supposed to. But is any of this true? Is reading good? Could it be bad? Should I stop using rhetorical questions every single time I’m about to make a point? Like the eternally wise words of one of the Magic 8 Ball’s twenty predetermined responses, “Answer not clear.” There are no definite answers to these questions, as they don’t exist in black and white, but let’s dive into them anyway. Let’s tackle these 50 Shades of Grey.

Reading is a form of entertainment. Reading books is essentially media consumption in the same way that television, magazines, and radio are media consumption. While television tends to get the short end of the stick, reading is put on an undeserved pedestal. It’s seen as lazy, unhealthy, and worrying to watch television for 8 hours a day, which it is; you desperately need to touch grass. Meanwhile, reading for 8 hours in a day is more often interpreted as impressive, as most well-adjusted people would not want to do that. This is because watching television and listening to things is passive—you don’t need to work very hard to pay attention, and your brain engages in less cognitive processing. Meanwhile, reading is active—it exercises the imagination, increases language comprehension and fluency, and can activate neural pathways that can make us feel as if we’re actually experiencing the story. There’s no question about it, the science is already out: Television kills you, reduces your

“You may not have heard of them, being you only know things like iPad, iPhone, and iPod shuffle. Books are REAL things made of DEAD TREES that you CANNOT CLICK.”

brain’s gray matter, and makes you fat; reading improves your cognition, memory, and gets you hoes. Wait, not that last one. I meant to say it increases your empathetic capabilities through the theory of mind concept.

Wow. After all that science it’s going to be a lot harder to argue my point, but God willing, I’ll still try. Many studies and articles out there assume that television must be overstimulating, shallow, and less thought-provoking. Meanwhile, it’s assumed that books are more calming, provide indepth character analysis, and are more

factually correct. While this is a common trend, it’s not always the case; this all depends on the type of media you’re actually consuming. There exists television that increases your knowledge and can calm you. It can make you think about your values, your life, and your relationships with those around you. (Have you ever heard of the movie Joker? It says a lot about society.) On the other hand, books can be just as good at perpetuating harmful ways of thinking and shallowly wasting your time. Many stated benefits of reading come from the thought that goes into it, the book being a comprehension puzzle you need to solve. This is what keeps your mind sharp. If the book is not intellectually challenging enough, many of those benefits are lost, and you are left with a form of entertainment only marginally better for you than good television.

Many have joked about the praise they’ve received for “being a good reader,” while the other person remains oblivious to the fact they are essentially reading “smut,” or sexually vulgar literature. And herein lies the natural progression from book enjoyer to porn junkie many innocent women fall victim to. It’s an insidious pipeline, especially when many more popular or heavily marketed books for women rely on the sexual crutch. Here’s where the double standard between books and other media seems most apparent, as adult books containing sexual themes are seen as non-threatening while visually erotic material would never be left out in the open in some sort of breakroom or child’s playpen. I have no qualms against people who enjoy this material but only ask for their introspection on whether reading porn for four hours was beneficial to them and their life mission. Of course, I am consistent in my belief that detailed sex should be banned from most books, as well as television, movies, and real life.

I got a little off-topic there, but let’s get back to the issue at hand. The benefits of reading can vary depending on how one consumes the book. No, I am not talking about literally eating paper, as much as I would like to. Skimming over passages and not taking the time to process what you’re reading will obviously not do you much good. By contrast, really concentrating on an audiobook and putting in the work to stay engaged can lead to a better memory of what was said and still help exercise your cognition. Television is challenging to derive as many benefits, cognitive-wise, but it can influence your thinking and leave as much of an impact on you as any book, just as long as you’re watching the right things and processing them afterward. What are “the right things?” Sorry, I said I would stop with the rhetorical questions. The “right things” expose you to new information, worldviews, and exercise your brain’s thinking-muscles.

Educational television, like documentaries, can be good for your mind while still leaving you entertained and happy. Contrary to how college makes you feel, learning and understanding new things should lead to an increase in dopamine, the major neurotransmitter of your brain’s reward system. Learning more about the world, as well as yourself, can help you feel fulfilled after a novel experience. This goes the same for books, math problems, and the articles I write and publish in this magazine. And only those things.

Ok, so I’ve established how reading can be bad and television can be good, as opposed to everything you’ve ever learned. That doesn’t change the fact that society still sees excessive reading as the thing smart, weird people do. And why is that again? Oh yeah, because excessive reading is hard, and excessive television watching is not. Unless… unless the material you’re reading is not intellectually challenging you and is a preferred form of entertainment. Unless you have essentially trained your mind to be able to focus on books for long periods of time, making reading amounts that would be hard for others a part of your routine. This is essentially the trick. Independent reading comes naturally if you do it every day. You don’t have to be any smarter or better at focusing, you just have to be committed. I have never seen anyone criticize excessive reading, which is why I find it necessary to start now. While most other unsocial attention-based activities, like television, social-media use, and video games, are constantly under fire (and rightfully so), reading seems to always get the metaphorical get-out-of-jail-free card. But here’s the thing—not all reading is created equal. Not all reading is good for you, and excessive reading should be called out every once in a while for what it is: a glorified form of escapism. It is not “quirky” to spend the entire day in your room reading, just as much as it’s not “quirky” to spend the day reading memes off your phone. It can be harmful to you and keep you from living your own life, having your own experiences, rather than the kinds you read about in your books. And that’s not to say I’m perfect, I’m only writing this so people don’t do the same stuff I did. Don’t get me wrong, reading is good for you, but just like everything else, should be done in moderation. Except for reading my articles, which you should do at every possible opportunity, over and over again, indefinitely.

Postmodern Questions and the Project of Truth By John M.

Now, I’m no philosopher, but I do engage with postmodern questions about the nature of truth; I feel like anyone looking for the truth nowadays has to. Postmodernism has this tendency to pop up everywhere. Some people seem to have very strong opinions on it, though I tend to wonder how many of those people actually understand the logic of the philosophy. To my mind, postmodernism exposes the foundationless and deluded nature of the modernist project. We can see this in how the rational project of the enlightenment is coming apart all around us (just think about politics). In this postmodern age, truth is a bad joke. There is no center, moral, philosophical, scientific; there are no points of reference. There is only language, an endless media-mind-maze that relies on your confusion to create the illusory narrative of truth from which we draw some meaning (just think about politics). Human beings are not rational creatures, they are narrative-seekers. This is an almost inevitable conclusion from an interrogation of reason and language. When you really question ideas like truth or right and wrong, you will eventually discover a missing piece: “the real.” How can you rationally argue for the existence of a common ‘real’ world if your whole existence is a construct of your senses, which may or may not be interpreting external stimuli ‘correctly,’ if there even is a ‘correct’ way to interpret reality. Setting aside the concept of God (we’ll address that later), you’ll struggle to prove much of anything. Every scientific experiment is constructed through your senses, or even worse, a machine or another person who has communicated their sensory information to you. There are many “men of science” who will walk around proclaiming that your mind is just a chemical reaction, that your free will, a fundamental element of your experience of reality, is an illusion created by some advanced physics. In a modernist reality, the scientist’s experience of observing data from their machine can prove that all human experience, yours included, is invalid. Postmodernists criticize this mindset. Most of the public doesn’t. Things will only get murkier when you push into the realm of logic and reason that underlies science. What does it mean for something to be “proven” or “exist?” How can we even communicate these ideas with words? I think that the most accessible piece of media where this topic is explored is George Orwell’s 1984, specifically with Ingsoc’s manipulation of language. After being captured and tortured by the party, Winston is given the opportunity to ask party member O’Brien any question he wants. This is the ensuing dialogue:

“Does Big Brother exist?” “Of course he exists. The Party exists. Big Brother is the embodiment of the Party.” “Does he exist in the same way as I exist?” “You do not exist”

For all the horrors in that book, this is the interaction that lives rent free in my head. Do you know if you exist, reader? You might think and feel like you exist, perhaps you could physically prove it, logically prove it, prove it to yourself by an act of the mind or will, but all those ‘proofs’ can be muddled by language and other labyrinthine philosophical queries which point out the obvious unreasonableness of reason. Why does science work? It just does. Why does math work? It just does. Why does logic work? We just use it because it helps us make sense of reality. Why does reality have to make sense? Do you see what I am getting at?

These problems go even further than rational thinking. The very connection between words and ideas, the sign and signified, can be blurred. There are some who believe that there is no difference at all: that there is no concrete world behind everything, only what French philosopher Jean Baudrillard would call “the Simulacrum.” Only the Simulacrum exists, that web of constructs and signs we create within our minds.

Yet, this all feels so wrong, so laughably out there, seemingly unconscionable to actually believe, so contrary to all human experience. So what gives? Ironically enough, it is the heart and experience, which the modernist tells us to deny, that provides the most compelling (not necessarily the best, but most compelling) defense of the idea of objectivity of reality. The postmodernist can explain away the figures and signs of trees and rocks and rivers, but when you run into one, you can’t seem to explain it away. It just exists, and the postmodern mindgames seem comedically irrelevant to the actual life of a human being. So we now find ourselves in a bit of a bind. To justify the rational systems that we use to navigate and understand our world, we have to borrow from our intuition and subjective experience, but science tells us that our experience is nothing more than an illusory construct of a chemical reaction. Now, are there any political or philosophical schools of thought which seek to reconcile the rational and subjective elements of human experience? Well, there are actually quite a few, but in this article I would like to talk about religion, and more specifically, Roman Catholicism. Why Catholicism you may ask? To be honest, it’s simply the religion I know the most about because I am a practicing Catholic (though this was not always so). Catholicism is also a helpful example for the subject of this article because of how literally Catholic philosophy embodies the idea of a center of exis-

tence. It is very much possible to disagree with Catholic theology and the church, while still understanding the project they are desperately building towards. Allow me to explain. The Catholic and the postmodernist are allies in their opposition to the modernist enlightenment project. Science and reason lack the ability to justify themselves and fail to complete language and the human narrative experience. You can see this in the almost comedic excesses of the French Revolution: the Cult of Reason, the reconstruction of the calendar, the constant spiraling into ideological violence. These are all symptoms of a hollow center. Reason is not a sufficient principle for human organization and prosperity. In the western world, which is dominated by a weary liberal modernist mindset, the Catholic and the postmodernist actually assist each other in shaking the public out of their rationalist complacency. Where the two differ is in how they address the hollowness of modernism. The postmodernist points out all the lies, the biases, the structural violence, maybe they use critical theory to deconstruct liberal narratives or empiricism, and they conclude with something akin to the simulacrum. Everyone’s narratives become equally valid because there is no truth, only language and interpretation. The hardcore postmodernist argues not that God isn’t real, but that there is no real. The Catholic, on the other hand, has a very different response. The Catholic goes to church, worships God, and maybe tries to share their ideas because they believe that there is such a thing as reality and that God is the center of it, acknowledged or not. God is truth. The Catholic church claims to be the one, universal Christian church, with a lineage (apostolic succession) going all the way back to Jesus and his apostles roughly two thousand years ago. Every ceremony, every tradition, every symbol, has been built, council by council, on the foundational socio-cultural narrative recorded in the bible, which itself finds its foundation in the life of Jesus Christ and the existence of God, an infinite omnipotent being that exists outside of space and time, which itself, somehow, loves you. God is, according to Catholic theology, THE center, that fixed point which creates, orders, and loves existence. Everything, I mean EVERYTHING, is constructed around God. The ideas of free will, morality, nature, beauty, our narrative life experience, and truth itself, now rather intuitively fall into place (with a bit of philosophical legwork of course). This is the project of truth, using reason and experience to build towards that center point of reality. I think that religions, Catholicism especially, are often stereotyped by the mainstream conscious as close-minded brute acceptances of antiquated practices as truth. Though I often lament how people (even religious) fail to investigate the deeper meanings of the traditions we hold dear, tradition itself serves a crucial function of preserving and allowing participation in truth through the ages, without having to literally explain every philosophical point, some of which defy language to begin with. Religion is not an ideology (at least, it’s not supposed to be), it is a system of relating oneself to reality. To the Catholic, worshiping God is not so much an act of blind submission as it is of directing oneself, physically and spiritually, towards the truth: looking to the highest good at the center of existence made manifest in our world by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. With this proper orientation, one can understand right and wrong (moral concepts that only mean something concrete with belief in God) and find happiness by complying with his will, one of true love and moral perfection. Some of the strangest and most apparently superstitious rituals of the Catholic Church are the most necessary to holding this project of a universal truth together. Really I am now hinting at the Catholic sacraments, especially transubstantiation and the Eucharist. To simply explain, transubstantiation is the theological idea that in the Catholic mass the bread and wine are literally transformed into the substance of the body and blood of Christ, and that in receiving the eucharist you are not symbolically, but physically and spiritually in communion with God and his church on Earth. To any modernist, this all sounds positively bonkers, but remember what the Church is trying to do here. The project of reconciling human experience, the heart, the mind, and the center of existence, requires going down some pretty unique philosophical pathways. Also, having a bit of faith helps too. Even most atheists place their faith in something, they trust science, they trust reason, even if the foundation beneath those ideas is something rather nebulous. The Catholic Church holds to the idea of sacred mysteries as phenomena that are beyond human understanding in our mortal lives. In many ways acceptance of mystery (or a general limit to human understanding) allows for the study of the comprehensible elements of our reality to proceed without hidden doubt or postmodern malaise. While I disagree with the fundamental postmodern idea that there is no center to reality, I wish more people would ask the questions postmodernism asks, instead of blindly clinging to their beliefs. It was by encountering and being forced to ask myself postmodern questions that I shook off the deeply flawed and baseless modernist assumptions that I used to make about existence. After a lot of philosophical exploration, I have now found myself at home in a set of ideas and practices that better map on to the real world and my narrative experience of it. I wish more people would understand the “intellectual price tag” of atheism, and how much of your genuine intuitions about the nature of reality and your own existence are sacrificed when you assume that God does not exist. There is absolutely a new level of understanding, happiness, and peace with oneself and the world that occurs when you stop lying to yourself and endeavor to encounter the world as it truly exists. Accept the simulacra or direct yourself towards the project of truth. Do be aware, however, that this will pose many serious mental and emotional challenges, so it is best done with friends and a playful spirit on your heart. Life’s a comedy, don’t be afraid to laugh once in a while.

There’s No Place for Zoning Laws in Binghamton By Siddharth Gundapaneni

On July 19th, Binghamton Mayor Jared Kraham put forth a new housing law with the purpose of “protecting the integrity of single-family residential neighborhoods.” In an attempt to diversify housing options available for locals, this law will place significant restrictions on where students looking to live off-campus are able to reside. Unfortunately, the consequences of this policy will not be as favorable as the Mayor may have hoped.

This law will immediately make the housing process difficult for students looking to move off-campus, many of whom are first-time renters. A number of houses, including everything south of Ayres Street, will no longer be available to students seeking to live with their peers. Many of Binghamton’s multi-family (R3) residential zones, where students are able to reside, will be converted to single-family (R1) and two-family (R2) residential zones. The language used in Kraham’s announcement gives a strong impression that the City of Binghamton will take prosecuting students that live in R1 or R2 zones much more seriously going forward.

As a result of the restricted market for students, rent prices will undoubtedly begin to rise. This stands in stark contrast to nationwide trends of a declining housing market due to rising mortgage rates, which are now at their highest point since the Great Recession. Restricting the housing market while mortgage rates increase is a recipe for worsening financial stress among students.

Now you may be wondering, does this policy only hurt college students? Unfortunately the scope of zoning laws’ consequences is much larger. As of now, all non-Vestal apartments are located in the heart of downtown Binghamton. It is reasonable to assume based on Binghamton’s growing industries, like the new metrocenter and whatever may come out of the $500,000 federal funding for an energy project, that there will be a demand for more apartment complexes.

Unfortunately this law, with no type of sunset provision (essentially an expiration date for laws), will hamper the market’s ability to build new apartment complexes due to areas restricted to only single or double family housing.

Similar phenomena can be observed nationwide. Over the last two years in California, there have been massive pushes to deregulate the housing industry and allow for more apartments to be built. Like Binghamton, California wanted to preserve the “clean” suburbs sought after by America’s upper middle class that wished to enjoy proximity to jobs, but be kept away from poorer populations. There’s always been this notion of the white liberal that supports low-income housing but not in their neighborhood, and advocates of these zoning reforms embody that stereotype. Soon enough, Binghamton’s poorest residents will be unable to rent apartments in Binghamton, and will be relegated to competing for R1 and R2 houses with wealthier middle class families. Clearly, Binghamton’s college-aged population is not the only demographic facing the repercussions of this policy.

Consider California’s housing crisis, ranking 49th in the union for both housing units per resident and home ownership rates. This obviously stems from numerous zoning restrictions on land-use, severely restricting their housing supply. While Binghamton likely won’t experience a housing crisis to the extent California is dealing with, we can see similar trends come to fruition through the same mistakes being made. California voters, understanding the ramifications of zoning laws, recently approved of SB 9 and 10, which eliminates many of the single-family zones in the state. Seeing this Binghamton law garner such large support comes at a time when others are going the opposite direction comes as a disappointment.

Housing deregulation is a position that must be embraced across the political spectrum. Proponents of a limited government should be supportive of the government no longer dictating how many people can live in which area. Social justice advocates should foresee a more equitable distribution of living standards brought about by an increased housing supply, in addition to “bourgeoisie” interests no longer being held above the working class’.

Mayor Kraham’s zoning law is yet to go into effect, with a public hearing set to occur prior to the planning commission issuing a final vote. It is crucial that this legislation be blocked, for the students that dominate this city’s econ-

“Binghamton’s poorest residents will be unable to rent apartments in Binghamton”

omy, and for the extensive low-income communities of Binghamton. Zoning laws are one area of politics most despise, where politicians protect the interests of a select, influential voting bloc. No matter how you feel about the politicians, college students, or locals, one thing rings true for all; zoning laws have no place in policy if we want to see a better Binghamton.