Sept 18 2019 (Vol. XXXII, Is. II) - Binghamton Review

BINGHAMTON REVIEW Editor-in-Chief Contents

P.O. BOX 6000 BINGHAMTON, NY 13902-6000 EDITOR@BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM

Founded 1987 • Volume XXXII, Issue II Tommy Gagliano

Managing Editor Brian Murray Copy Desk Chief Brian Murray

Business Manager John Restuccia

Social Media Shitposter John Restuccia

Editor Emeritus

Patrick McAuliffe Jr.

Staff Writers

Matt Gagliano Joe Dorn Brendan Casey Lacey Kestecher Nial Parmanan Joe Badalamenti Barbara Zavala

51 THINGS YOU’LL FIND AT AREA 51

PAGE 6 3 4 5 6 7 8

Contributors

9

Special Thanks To:

10 11

Franklin Wilson Jake García-Falchook Intercollegiate Studies Institute Collegiate Network Binghamton Review was printed by Gary Marsden We Provide the Truth.

He Provides the Staples

12 13 14

by Our Staff

Editorial

by Tommy Gagliano Press Watch

by Our Staff A Force Disturbed

by Nial Parmanan The Invasion of Area 51 by Lacey Kestecher Jeffrey Epstein Was Definitely Suicided

by Franklin Wilson Stop Wasting Time on Assault Rifle Bans

by Brendan Casey The Firearms That Shaped America, Part 1

by John Restuccia The Joy of Thrifting

by Barbara Zavala The Importance of the Trade War

by Jake García-Falchook CS:GO History Made in Berlin by Joe Dorn New Media

by Joe Badalamenti Responding to Fan Mail by Tommy Gagliano

TELL US WHAT YOU THINK! Direct feedback to editor@binghamtonreview.com 2

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

Vol. XXXII, Issue II

EDITORIAL Dear Readers,

From the Editor

W

elcome back readers! Thanks for picking up this copy of Binghamton Review! Hopefully you’re off to a great start of your semester. If you’re not, it’s probably because there is a Review-sized hole in your schedule. There is an easy way to remedy this - just come to our meetings! Either Monday at 7 PM or Tuesday at 6 PM, both in Old Rafuse 115.

Now that I got the plug out of the way, let’s move on to the reason you’re here - the wonderful content that fills these pages! We have a lot of variety in this issue, so there’s bound to be something for every reader. We also have articles written by a lot of new writers, and I’m super excited to introduce you to their work.

Do you find Jeffrey Epstein’s alleged suicide suspicious? So does Franklin Wilson, and he explains why on page 6.

He expresses a lot of concerns and sentiments that I’m sure people on both sides of the political spectrum can agree and identify with. Sharing a page with Franklin Wilson’s Epstein piece is all of the Area 51 content you need to prepare for the raid - which occurs only two days after the release of this issue! Lacey Kestecher provides a run-down of the situation for anyone that may be out of the loop, and our staff worked together to create a list of 51 things you may find if you invade Area 51. (Disclaimer: We are not good at counting.)

We also have a duo of gun-related pieces for any hoplophiliacs out there. Brendan Casey explains why the frequent talk about banning “assault weapons” is a complete waste of time and energy, and John Restuccia gives us all a history lesson in his first installment of a three part series on “Firearms That Shaped America.” Those two pieces can be found back-to-back, on pages 8 and 9.

On page 11, Jake García-Falchook goes into details on the “trade war” with China, and shares his thoughts about why it is necessary, and easy for the United States to win. Joe Badalamenti shares his opinions on alternative and independent media (like us!) and explains some of the advantages they have over mainstream media. Sticking with the theme of ditching the mainstream, Barbara Zavala advocates for thrifting, and explains the many advantages the practice has over shopping at typical retail clothing stores.

Nial Parmanan decides to stray away from politics and cover something possibly even more controversial - the state of the Star Wars franchise. He takes an objective approach, and explains the path Disney has taken with Star Wars, and the implications it has on the future. Also opting to focus on the entertainment industry, Joe Dorn reports on the 2019 Starladder Counter Strike: Global Offensive Major Tournament in Berlin, which had a prize pool of over $1,000,000.

Finally, the second issue of the academic year is wrapped up by yours truly, as I address a chain of tweets about us, and attempt to set the record straight. Thanks for reading, and I hope you enjoy this issue as much as I do.

Sincerely,

Tommy Gagliano Binghamton Review is a non-partisan, student-run news magazine of conservative thought founded in 1987 at Binghamton University. A true liberal arts education expands a student’s horizons and opens one’s mind to a vast array of divergent perspectives. The mark of true maturity is being able to engage with these perspectives rationally while maintaining one’s own convictions. In that spirit, we seek to promote the free and open exchange of ideas and offer alternative viewpoints not normally found or accepted on our predominately liberal campus.

We stand against tyranny in all of its forms, both on campus and beyond. We believe in the principles set forth in this country’s Declaration of Independence and seek to preserve the fundamental tenets of Western civilization. It is our duty to expose the warped ideology of political correctness and cultural authoritarianism that dominates this university. Finally, we understand that a moral order is a necessary component of any civilized society. We strive to inform, engage with, and perhaps even amuse our readers in carrying out this mission.

Views expressed by writers do not necessarily represent the views of the publication as a whole. editor@binghamtonreview.com

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

3

CPampus resswatch “Corporations are taking steps our government won’t” Seth Gully, Pipe Dream, 9/12/19 “First, I’ll answer this with what should not be done. First, we should not be blaming mental illness as the cause of our unique gun violence problem.

Our World in Data, an online scientific publication, has data on issues like this.

They find that the share of people with mental health and substance abuse disorders is roughly the same throughout developed countries.”

Really! Only a mentally ill person would walk into a public place and decide, hey I feel like shooting twenty innocent people in Walmart today.

“Even if there were a connection between mental illness and these acts of violence…”

Which there is... “...the vast majority of mentally ill individuals will never commit violent acts.

That must be kept in the conversation, as we shouldn’t be demonizing the mentally ill.”

The vast majority of gun owners will also never commit violent acts. That must be kept in the conversation, as we shouldn’t be demonizing the millions of peaceful gun owners.

“Secondly, we can treat guns like cars.

This means requiring courses on how to use and store a gun safely. In addition, requiring permits could be done.”

Permits are already required in most states for handguns and automatic weapons. You’re not proposing anything revolutionary.

“All this goes to show that more guns means more gun deaths.”

Yeah, because gun deaths are the only ones that matter. Let’s just ignore countries like Russia that have over twice as many homicides per capita as the U.S. despite having one twelfth as many guns per citizen.

“Internalizing that statement means not flocking to gun stores after a mass

4

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM

Written by our Staff

We know you don’t read the other campus publications, so we did it for you. Original pieces are in quotes, our responses are in bold.

shooting to arm oneself; it means these changes must become more than a mere law and instead incorporate education and a social movement.”

Just because you don’t feel the need to arm yourself doesn’t mean everyone else should have to follow suit.

If someone wants to arm themselves they have every right to do so. Don’t try to stop people from exercising their constitutional rights.

“Editorial: ‘Don’t ruin the show’” Pipe Dream Deitorial Board, Pipe Dream, 9/12/19 “In Pete Davidson’s recent performance at Binghamton University, he remarked that he would be bullied by the school’s newspaper after the show was over.

While we criticize more often than we praise in our editorials, we do so with the hopes of being constructive, and so the Editorial Board felt it necessary to take up his challenge by examining both his prior conduct and the performance itself.”

And exactly like he predicted you spent an entire editorial criticizing him for practicing comedy and not wanting to be distracted during a show. Great journalism Pipe Dream.

“Pete Davidson has made questionable comments in the past few months to years, which have become the crux of college criticism against him. The Student Association Programming Board (SAPB) did a great job recruiting Chris Fleming for a comedy show, who drew in a similarly sized crowd while lacking a reputation for being ‘problematic.”’

This just shows that people don’t have an issue with “problematic” Pete Davidson. They’re there to listen and laugh to a comedy show. If you don’t want to be offended then don’t attend the show, problem solved. I’m sure someone else would be happy to take your seat.

“For Davidson’s performance at BU, students were asked to not take out their phones during his comedy show, likely because of what happened at

UCF. The issue is that, as BU is a public university and thus a public space, the implications of limiting phone use in this way is questionable. Furthermore, enforcing such a rule seems tedious and unnecessary, and might be better fit as a suggestion or general act of courtesy on behalf of those in attendance.”

I fully support you expressing your rights in a public place. However, Pete is putting on a private show that people paid for. Sure, people should be informed of the policy beforehand.

But Pete can allow what he wants during his show. If cell phone use distracts Pete during a show he should be allowed to enact such a rule.

“Conversely, just because Davidson is a comedian doesn’t mean that he should say whatever he wants and not deal with the consequences. If he so chooses, he could easily address his past blunders with an apology rather than disdain.”

Just because a small group of people get offended doesn’t mean that Davidson should have to change his already successful routine. By that logic we wouldn’t of been gifted with comedic masterminds like Dave Chappelle, who have made a career of of crude humor. Oh wait, you probably are annoyed with him right now too.

Vol. XXXII, Issue II

BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM

A Force Disturbed

A FORCE DISTURBED

By Nial Parmanan

T

he reshoots for Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker recently began.

One can only speculate about what elements will be added in post-production. However, a specter of uncertainty has plagued all the media hype surrounding the film. This is mainly due to a divided fandom following the release of Star Wars: The Last Jedi, a film that proved to be more divisive than religion, politics, and pineapple on pizza in the Star Wars fandom.

The Last Jedi is one of the most unique films in cinematic history. No other film has devastated a fandom as badly as this controversial take on the Star Wars universe. Following this schism of Star Wars fandom there has been considerably less hype for Solo and Episode 9, at least when compared to the excitement generated from previous installments. As shown in the

graph below, which was created using information from Box Office, the Disney Regime has not yielded the profits that were expected from the most valuable IP on Earth. The Force Awakens, which raked in nearly a billion dollars, served as the politically correct and bland relaunch of the franchise.

However, Disney has been unable to maintain such success.

This is seen clearly in the Star Wars spin-offs. Rogue One brought positive attention, but nothing groundbreaking for the franchise.

Solo released to abysmal box office numbers with the memory of The Last Jedi still present in everyone’s mind.

The film resulted in the lowest-grossing live-action Star Wars movie ever.

The recent buzz surrounding the Rise of Skywalker does give the franchise some hope. Nonetheless, the existing

problems of the franchise cannot be ignored by Disney, nor will they be forgotten by the Star Wars stans or the casual audience.

One can only hope that Episode 9 will redeem the franchise and remedy the mistakes of this current era of Star Wars without relying too much on cheap nostalgia. For the sake of this franchise the movie should try it’s best to remedy the sense of betrayal felt by many. The malaise of Star Wars is clear, now more than ever. The new Disney attraction Galaxy Edge has unimpressive attendance, Star Wars Battlefront 2 (the ass one) was a hotbed for controversy, the literature division has been greatly ignored, merchandising sales are down, and box office returns are disappointing. With all these issues, hopefully this monolithic franchise can return to form.

Graph legend: 1. Star Wars: A New Hope 2. Empire Strikes Back 3. The Return of the Jedi 4. The Phantom Menace 5. Attack of the Clones 6. Star Wars: The Clone Wars 7. Revenge of the Sith 8. The Force Awakens 9. Rogue One 10. The Last Jedi 11. Solo 12. The Rise of Skywalker (TBD)

editor@binghamtonreview.com

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

5

THE INVASION OF AREA 51

The Invasion of Area 51

BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM

By Lacey Kestecher

A

bout four months ago, Bob Lazar made an appearance on the Joe Rogan Podcast. While Rogan’s podcasts can range up to four hours in length, Lazar’s was on the shorter end of the spectrum, lasting only a little over two hours. Over the course of solely a few days, this episode had become one of the most popular podcasts offered on Apple.

It’s now three months later, and the public is still talking about it.

Through a discussion about unearthly objects and aliens, this conversation was well received by the public.

Due to Americans’ distrust in the government, people took interest in hearing about government secrets relating to space and galactic research. Area 51 - where Lazar worked and claims to have seen extraterrestrial objects has become a popular topic in current conversations for everyone ranging from conspirists to partiers.

While Lazar’s podcast appealed to a crowd of people consistent with scientists, students and curious internet browsers, Area 51 quickly took a turn towards attracting a younger crowd of social media users. It all began when a man named Matty Roberts posted a public event on Facebook named “Area 51, They Can’t Stop All of

Us”. While it was supposed to be a joke amongst himself and his friends and family, the event got at first hundreds, then thousands and eventually millions of views by people who expressed interest in visiting the now famed Area 51. People online speak of raiding the military base to search the region for aliens, space ships and hidden space discoveries; however, this has sparked concern from both the federal government and Lazar. Given that Area 51 is used for military procedures, Lazar took to Twitter to express to people hoping to peek across the grounds and see flying UFOs that they risk being shot and killed upon storming its base.

While these safety warnings are meant to deter people away from traveling to Nevada’s Area 51, they have frightened very few people and rather extended the invitation to more. The “raid” has rather turned into party consistent with listening to musicians, celebrating aliens and hopefully spotting a few spaceships in the night sky. Lincoln County - where Area 51 is situated - has an economy which is comparatively as dry and barren as its landscape. The unexpected fame and popularity which has recently struck Area 51 is promising an economic boom for Nevada, and on September

20th, all food supplies will be used, hotels are going to be sold out and concerts fully booked. Officials have gone as far to state that they are concerned with being able to accommodate all tourists and provide all travelers with food. Regardless of the unexpected yet necessary preparation happening in Nevada, the ambiance at Area 51 will surely be lively and luminous.

As September 20th comes near, and Americans prepare to see UFOs and aliens, it must be noted that the Area 51 raid is more than a celebratory festival. It is symbolic of a coming together of the American people to combat an omnipotent national government. It is an investigation into the secrets which are hidden from the larger society. It is a chance for everyday Americans to display the danger of corrupt forces.

So, go ahead, buy a ticket to Nevada and get ready to storm the base.

After all, the government can’t be stronger than all good-willed Americans combined. Grab a pair of running shoes, a pair of night vision goggles and a clear-shooting camera. Afterwards, make a run for Area 51, meet up with a few aliens and then enjoy the concert, living life freely alongside a few extraterrestrial friends.

51 Things You’ll Find at Area 51

By Our Staff

1. A living, breathing Thanos 2. A cure for asbestos 3. Sand 4. Toothpaste that 10/10 dentists recommend 5. Jeffrey Epstein 6. The fifth Shrek movie 7. The Omnitrix 8. Master Chief ’s armor 9. Fix-it ramen 10. The secret to why kids love Cinnamon Toast Crunch 11. Trump’s real hair 6 BINGHAMTON REVIEW

12. Nicholas Cage 13. Nicholas Cage’s cage 14. Cage-free Nicholas Cage 15. The Declaration of Independence (Courtesy of Nicholas Cage) 16. Ricardo Milos 17. Despacito 3 (The Third) 18. An actually good Cardi B song 19. A living, breathing Danny Devito 20. AIDS 21. Our sense of humor 22. The original Baxter 23. A tree with human skin

24. My Horse Prince 25. The obvious solution to the Isreal-Palestine conflict 26. Hinman Dining Hall 27. Joe Rogan’s DMT Stash 28. [REDACTED] 29. Wyatt’s dad (Scott) 30. Waldo (of “Where’s Waldo?”)

31. Funeral Kazoo 32. Danny Dorito 33. The one single Bill de Blasio supporter 34. Bill de Blasio’s Wife Vol. XXXII, Issue II

BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM

JEFFREY EPSTEIN WAS DEFINITELY SUICIDED

Jeffrey Epstein Was Definitely Suicided

By Franklin Wilson

J

effery Epstein died early last month of an apparent suicide, but due to the suspicious circumstances of his death, many people (myself included) are not convinced that he took his own life.

They believe that Epstein was murdered, or “suicided”. The term “suicided,” which many truthers have used in reference to Epstein’s death, means a murder that is made to look like a suicide. The reason for making a murder seem like a suicide is so that it won’t be investigated, thus allowing the guilty party to get away with it.

Epstein was revealed to have been operating a secret “pedophilia island” called “Little St. Jeff ” in the US Virgin Islands, and he has been known to have connections to many powerful people including, but not limited to: Donald Trump, the Clintons, and Prince Andrew. Some of the people he has been connected to have been accused of visiting the island. The Clintons in particular seem to be the ones most suspected of murdering Epstein in online communities due to previous conspiracies and the already-widespread distrust of their family. There is not enough information to single out any entity in particular for Epstein’s death, and it will likely remain that way as there is no current homicide

investigation.

Now let’s discuss the suspicious circumstances surrounding Epstein’s death. Two days before Epstein passed, he signed a will. This may seem to suggest a suicide as Epstein was preparing for his death, but the detailed journal of his relationships with powerful people that he kept as “insurance” puts this will into a new context: Epstein likely predicted that someone was going to try to pick him off and prepared for his death. Two common theories are that Epstein was killed by someone else or that he was forced by an outside actor to commit suicidie, but in a jail that holds prisoners of all security levels, neither should be possible. It is also impossible to review what happened as the two cameras watching Epstein’s cell were broken. Epstein’s cellmate was also transferred at his own request after receiving threats from guards, leaving Epstein alone in his cell. Epstein was reportedly fearful of his former cellmate. Another inmate claimed Epstein could not have committed suicide because the cell blankets are flimsey and the ceiling is 8 to 9 feet with nothing to connect to.

The last time Epstein had a cell mate was a few hours before his death.

In addition, the guards who were

supposed to patrol the cell block were Jeffery Epstein died, one of which was not a regular guard, fell asleep, creating a three hour window in which anyone could have strolled in past the sleeping guards, under the broken cameras, snapped Epstein’s neck, and left. It should also be mentioned that Jeffery Epstein was on suicide watch, which would have put him in a cell away from anything he could haved used to hurt himself (like the bedsheets he allegedly hung himself with), but for whatever reason he was taken off. Perhaps this was to give more credibility to the suicide story, or maybe he was pressured by some entity to kill himself. Either way, Epstein’s death would have been arranged by some other entity.

Epstein died of a broken neck, supposedly from him hanging himself, but many people aren’t convinced.

This isn’t just conspiracy theorists either, even Epstein’s own lawyer isn’t convinced that Epstein killed himself.

Even a month after Epstein’s death, new revelations about his death and about his connections to entities like Harvard and MIT (But not Binghamton, probably) continue to surface. Did Epstein really commit suicide? Only one person (or perhaps a few) truly know.

35. Dr. Phil’s ranch 36. The Queen of England 37. Ligma 38. Seven-foot Peppa Pigs!

39. Jesus Christ 40. The Mullet 41. Evidence of Kennedy’s real killer 42. The set of the moon landing 43. Weed 44. Water that turns frogs gay 45. The cure for Fortnite 46. Obama’s last name 47. Trump’s tax returns 48. Mango Juul pods 49. Hillary’s email server 50. Real-life cat girls

51. Area 52 52. Tulsi’s missing campaign donor 53. One or two buildings 54. More sand 55. All the Native American land 56. Mr. Beast’s bank account 57. Dr. Phil & Steve Havey’s love child 58. (Possibly) A will to live 59. I don’t remember what this one is 60. Alex Jones’ sources 61. IUD for guys 62. Someone stepping on snek 63. Legal weed 64. Illegal weed 65. Maybe some aliens, I suppose 66. Karen and the kids

67. Who the fuck asked you 68. Ourselves 69. Nice

editor@binghamtonreview.com

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

7

STOP WASTING TIME ON ASSAULT RIFLE BANS

BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM

Stop Wasting Time on Assault Rifle Bans

By Brendan Casey

A

s radical liberal politicians desperately seek ways to win over votes and attack citizens emotions, they begin indicting those who disapprove of their policies. They claim that those who oppose their rendition of gun control and assault rifle bans don’t care about those who were killed by gun violence, and are sub par humans who are content with more mass killings taking place.

Anyone who has the smallest knowledge of firearms can understand that the AR-15 (no it doesn’t stand for assault rifle, AR stands for ArmaLite, the original creator) and other firearms deemed “assault rifles” are no more lethal than any other firearm. The only thing thing that seperates a “assault rifle” from a “non assault rifle” is simply cosmetic features.

It’s similar to comparing cars. Let’s take two sports cars.

Both cars are the same mechanically; the same power, and the same inner workings. One just has a spoiler, loud exhaust, and race stripes on the side, this would be an “assault car”. The only thing that separates the “assault car” vs the regular car are cosmetic features. One may look faster, but put them head to head and they’re just as fast, are the same to drive, just as safe, and just as dangerous.

Politicians manipulate the vulnerable emotions of voters in an attempt to rationalize their own agenda. It’s a pretty twisted game lefties play. Unfortunately, it’s a game that they partake in regularly. The media backing their deplorable claims only reassures libs to continue this sick behavior.

Of course libertarians, conservatives, and all US citizens alike do truly sympathize for the victims. No one wants to see a mass slaughtering of innocent human beings.

According to the CDC, in 2016 there were 11,004 firearm homicides in the United States. Only 6% were committed with a rifle OR shotgun- roughly 660 lives. In comparison, the same year the CDC reported that drug overdoses killed 63,632 Americans, nearly 45,000 Americans age 10 or older died by suicide.

In 2015, 638,169 human babies were murdered through abor-

8

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

tion (2015 was the most recent year the CDC had reported).

Despite how much the media and politicians might play it up, there are more pressing issues for politicians and the media to be focusing on other than banning assault rifles.

For those who still disagree, let’s look back at our most recent assault rifle ban.

For a period of time in the mid 1990s and early 2000s the United States enacted the “The Federal Assault Weapons Ban”.

The United States government federally outlawed the buying, producing, or transferring of assault rifles, as well as banning “large capacity” magazines.

In 2003, the last full year before the law expired, the U.S. murder rate was 5.7 per 100,000 people, according to the FBI. By 2011, the murder rate fell to 4.7 per 100,000 people. The ban did nothing, it in fact did the opposite, overall homicides increased.

Criminals do not follow laws. Criminals have never followed laws. Criminals will never follow laws. A ban on a certain type of firearm will not prevent a criminal or end homicides.

Sick twisted people will just find another means of committing these heinous acts. All the assault rifle ban did was strip the rights of the American people and shift power to the government and criminals.

Most Democrats still support a ban on all assault rifles.

Some proposed implementing a mandatory buyback, or in real world terms, a confiscation. Despite world history, Democrats still don’t understand the necessity for the 2nd amendment and the need for an armed populace including the possession of so called “assault rifles.”

The original creation of the 2nd amendment was to ensure that the citizens of the United States had a means to protect themselves from government tyranny, to limit governmental power, and protect our God-given rights. The 2nd amendment is the sole reason why America is and will always be the freest nation in the world.

Without the 2nd amendment, the government has full control of their population. In almost all examples of governmental abuse of power, which usually resulted in the deaths of millions, one of the priminialry actions put into place was disarming the populace.

Politicians and the media take up so much time forcing their agenda down our throats. Telling us what to believe, what to think, and how to feel. Attacking us where it’s most effective - our emotions. Politicians ought to be focusing on systemic causes of the opioid catastrophe. Why we lost so many American’s to suicide? What can be done to stop the massacre of defenseless babies in the womb?

Politicians on both sides of the aisle should be pinpointing their energy and our tax money on these issues. The issues that are stalling our nation’s growth, taking lives, and tearing apart families. Instead, politicians choose to spend their time bickering about which pieces of plastic or metal can and cannot be attached to a firearm.

Vol. XXXII, Issue II

BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM

THE FIREARMS THAT SHAPED AMERICA, PART 1

The Firearms That Shaped America, Part 1

By John Restuccia

O

ur country is facing incredibly turbulent times. It seems as though everyday on social media one will be bombarded with information overload. Left and right constantly fighting, and neighbors and family bickering on topics they often know nothing about. One topic specifically being discussed is gun control. Everyone has a stance on gun control nowadays. It doesn’t matter whether you have used a firearm or if you have any background on firearms previously, odds are that you have picked a side and dug in.

Walmart’s recent decision to stop selling certain ammo for guns recently has gotten me to think more about this issue. A question popped into my mind. How many people actually know how deeply ingrained firearms are in American history? There have been multiple times throughout American history where a single firearm has been so influential that it has shaped the very nation that we live in today.

In this 3 part series, I will be looking at how deeply ingrained firearms are in America, as well as which firearms have shaped this country. What better place to start than the founding of our country, the American Revolution?

Almost everyone knows the story of the American Revolution. The story of our founding fathers bravely standing up to the oppressive British control with their excessive taxation. However

editor@binghamtonreview.com

many do not know of the firearm that helped win the war - the Brown Bess.

The Brown Bess wasn’t the automatic or semi-automatic weapons of today that can carry multiple rounds in a clip or magazine. The gun was a single shot rifle. At best one can get three to four rounds per minute with the Brown Bess. No one really knows how the rifle got its name, but it is believed to be from the brown wooden stock the gun had, or from the German phrase “Braun Buss,” which means “strong gun.” The bullets the Brown Bess used were not the ones you see today, but were actually round steel balls.

The gun was best used at 50-100 feet.

The maximum range which you might be able to hit someone? 300 yards. By comparison, a modern high-powered rifle can hit a target at 1,000 feet. That’s quite a difference. After you fired your shots odds are close combat was going to ensue. Thus the bayonet was attached to the Brown Bess. The gun was equipped to have a 17-inch bayonet attachment if needed.

Reloading the Brown Bess was an incredibly long process. You can’t just put in a cartridge with multiple rounds and pull the trigger. Thoughtco.com laid out a list of how to exactly reload the gun. “First you bite the cartridge.

Next push the frizzen forward to open the pan and pour a small amount of powder into the flash pan. Snap the frizzen back to position covering the

flash pan. Then hold the musket vertically so that the muzzle is up. Afterwards pour the remaining powder down the barrel and insert the bullet in the barrel. Push the cartridge paper into the barrel. Remove the ramrod from pipe under the barrel and used to push the wadding and bullet down the barrel. Replace the ramrod and raise musket to firing position with the butt against the shoulder. Finally pull back the hammer.”

This was how the war was fought.

The reason this gun was chosen was simple. The British government distributed the gun themselves and used the same firearm in the war. Prior to the war, this was the gun that could be found everywhere in the colonies.

When the Mayflower came over to form the 13 original colonies as British citizens, this was the gun they would have. That is why it was the choice for American militias at the time, because they already had the gun. Remember that America was just a beginning country at this time. They couldn’t afford to make brand new firearms and give them out to troops, mostly made of local and state militias. Because the Brown Bess was the most common gun, it was frequently used in the conflict. It was well known how to use and due to its versatility with the bayonet attachment was a clear choice that put the Contintental Army on the same playing field equipment wise as the British Army.

The Brown Bess was used for many years, even after the Revolutionary war. There have been reports of the gun even being used during the civil war, which took place 100 years after the gun was created. When looking back on the Revolutionary War and our founding fathers fighting for independence, this was the tool they used to free themselves. This is what they trusted their lives to and without it, we might still be under British rule.

That is why I consider the Brown Bess the very first gun that helped shape America.

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

9

THE JOY OF THRIFTING

The Joy of Thrifting

BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM

By Barbara Zavala

I

love shopping. It’s my guilty pleasure. I could walk miles inside of one mall just looking at all of the shoes, makeup, clothes, and I’ll never get bored! However, I don’t have any of the money to actually buy anything. Also, I boycott many popular stores because I don’t agree with their business. Shopping has always been complicated for me because even if I have the money to buy something I like, a little bit of research is all it takes for me to give up the idea altogether.

As a result, I began thrifting! At first I was doing it just because it was a viable option, but now that I’ve been thrifting for two years, I have found some reasons that someone else would be interested in it as well.

1. Quality goods at actually low prices.

The prices are unbeatable, and for a good reason. The items that they sell are donations, and the stores have to sell items fast so that they have as much space as possible for the new shipment. Every store has different policies depending on what is locally available, but it’s not uncommon for thrift stores to bring the unsold clothes to landfills. That means there is a huge incentive to clear out as much inventory as possible to reduce waste as much as possible. Finally, a win-win for the customer and the company!

Everyday, Goodwill has items for 40% off. As soon as you walk in the door, there will be a sign with the color of the tag that is half off. Every item has a different color tag. For example, if green is the color of the week, every single item with a green tag is 40% off. The Salvation Army has a similar procedure. The colors are 50% off, the rotation of their colors is everyday, and there are three colors every day. For example, let’s say today the colors are red, yellow, and blue. Every item with any of those color tags are 50% off. Tomorrow, the colors will change, so if you find something nice, you better get it today! In addition to that, the Salvation Army has one day where all clothing is half off.

After all of that, some clothes still go unsold. These clothes go to an outlet where they are sold by the pound. Customers look through literally tons of clothing and they are able to fill their own bin to the max and at most pay twenty bucks! These outlet stores are usually a last resort to liquidate as much as possible.

2. Most environmental way to shop.

Everyone has heard of reduce, reuse, recycle, and thrifting is a great way to meet all of those R’s!

First, thrifting reduces waste and consumption. Obviously, instead of clothes going in a landfill, they go to the store where the clothes have a second chance to be in circulation.

This keeps pounds out of landfills.

Second, resources are kept in circulation. When you buy something that’s second-hand you are reusing resources. The real environmental part comes with reusing what is still useful.

For example, let’s say I need a new pair of jeans. On average, it

10

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

takes 2,000 gallons of water to make a pair of jeans (cotton and indigo are plants that are farmed). If I buy new jeans, then I am increasing 2,000 gallons of water to my water footprint. If I buy from a thrift store, then the jeans have been used by one person before me. Instead of 2,000 gallons of water being consumed by one person, it is being consumed by two or more people. My water footprint is now at most 1,000 gallons. My simple choice to buy second hand has saved 1,000 gallons of water. As consumers, our footprint of consumption quickly adds up on the individual level. In our own personal lives, 1,000 saved gallons of water is not even a dent compared to other ways we consume water (food, transportation, drinking). However, if we were to think of ourselves as a whole group, our contributions do add up to an impressive amount. If me and all of my two friends went thrifting for jeans, we could save a total of 3,000 gallons of water. Although to each of us, 1,000 gal doesn’t mean a lot, 3,000 gallons does mean a lot to the resources that are being consumed. Instead of placing a demand for more resources to be consumed, I am placing a demand for the resources that are already in circulation, therefore conserving water and energy.

This logic applies to furniture, appliances, books, shoes, and anything else. Recycling ties it all together. The ultimate goal is to get 100% use out of all of the resources that we consume. It’s not useful to consumer 2,000 gallons of water for jeans and then let those resources go to waste as soon as they no longer meet our needs. The goal is to stay away from disposability and a linear lifetime of resources.

3. Gratisfaction There is no better feeling than finding the perfect piece of clothing. Some clothes just aren’t sold in conventional malls.

There is something so fulfilling about doing something good for the environment and finding something incredibly beautiful. It’s an unbeatable combination of satisfaction. Every day there’s new clothing, every store has widely different varieties of stuff, and every single item is unique. I have a lot more pride in the clothes I wear now because I know that what I found is special among all the clothes I had to sort through to find the perfect piece. Conventional shopping is not nearly as fulfilling.

There’s nothing special about clothes on sale, and it seems like there is a formula for what people should be wearing, and what clothes are available to them.

It’s the ultimate guilt-free shopping experience.

I encourage everyone who reads this to be curious about the Goodwill, there’s more to it than meets the eye.

Vol. XXXII, Issue II

BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM

THE IMPORTANCE OF THE TRADE WAR

The Importance of the Trade War

By Jake García-Falchook

R

ight now in China, millions of Uighur Muslims are locked in concentration camps where they are converted away from their heritage, against their will. Right now in China, the people of Hong Kong are bravely fighting for independence but are actively being suppressed by a government clearly trying to take away freedoms. Right now in China, hundreds of billions of dollars (up to $600 Billion/year) of intellectual property are being stolen from America. Right now in China, currency manipulation and currency devaluation is happening breaking several trade rules and actively undermining the United States.

Right now in China, privacy rights barely exist with the government constantly spying on its own people trying to influence their behavior.

If you watched the mainstream media would they tell you this or would you hear the reality of what is going on? No, the mainstream media, Washington establishment, and limousine liberals would sell our country out in a heartbeat to China because that is what they have been doing for the past 19 years.

“The trade war was not a war started by Trump. It was an economic war started by China years ago when they decided to break the rules to actively undermine world trade rules and to maximize their control and power over the world.”

They write articles for the NY Times and yell on CNN how Trump is reckless with China, when they are just scared because he is the only man with the guts to take on one of the biggest threats we face, China, a country that has stated several times that they want to replace us as the world power and will do anything for that to happen.

But our country has no economic patriotism. We don’t care. We will sit

editor@binghamtonreview.com

back and let China run us over and continue to steal, rob us blind, and manipulate their currency. The majority of people in this country weren’t grateful that President Trump was the only anti establishment politician to actually take on China. A majority of Americans have no problem removing tariffs on China and selling us out. The media is working overtime to discredit the tariffs and try to hypnotize the American public to blindly support their globalist agenda, no matter the cost or the impact it has on our country.

But is the Trump strategy with trade working? The numbers say yes.

China’s exports to America fell by 16% according to CNBC. This is a wake up call to the one party Communist’s of the Chinese government showing them that they have to come to the negotiating table and to follow the rules.

Additionally, companies from Asia that relocated to China are looking to move back to their home countries due to the tariffs.

China’s intellectual property theft from the United States is not small or a light amount. Economist Kevin Hassett put this in perspective.

Kevin Hassett, a long time free trade advocate, agreed with the China tariffs saying: “To put that in perspective, the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum, the art museum, was part of the biggest heist in U.S. history, where [burglars] stole, tragically, $500 million worth of art. And the IP Commission’s estimates of how much China’s stealing from the U.S. mean there’s about a heist that big, every day, 365 days a year. The issue is just that when you see these big numbers, it’s easy

to just tune them out. And the fact is that the relationship with China is just utterly unacceptable because of their misbehavior. And the president is standing up to them. Absolutely there are going to be short-term costs associated with that. But I think that the long-run benefit could be enormous.”

The trade war was not a war started by Trump. It was an economic war started by China years ago when they decided to break the rules to actively undermine world trade rules and to maximize their control and power over the world.

Some Democrats recognize this with Senator Schumer saying: “I think if we’re really strong and tough against China and the president takes my advice and gets all the other countries involved, we will come to a very good solution very quickly. I hope he doesn’t back out and come up with a weak solution, because China is going to continue to hurt us over and over again.”

It is clear that America needs to continue to actively and strategically pressure China and continue to get China to the negotiating table.

The US Congress should also pass the USMCA, the new NAFTA trade agreement which will correct the errors of NAFTA while continuing to have a strong, unified North America.

The new NAFTA will boost economic growth, increase trade flows between North America, and increase employment benefiting the continent as a whole.

US policy makers and the US public should support our country as a unified front against China’s unfair and unethical trade practices.

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

11

CS:GO HISTORY MADE IN BERLIN

BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM

CS:GO History Made in Berlin

By Joe Dorn

T

he 2019 Starladder Counter Strike: Global Offensive Major Tournament in Berlin really was a spectacle to behold. Beginning on August 23rd and lasting up until September 8th, 32 teams play it out to determine which team is the best. Also with a $1,000,000 prize pool plus extra from crowdfunding, teams bring all they got, resulting in some of the best performances and craziest upsets you won’t see at any other small tournament.

The qualifiers for the tournament, ending on August 26th, went almost exactly as expected, with the majority of the favorites moving onto the New Legends Stage to play with those teams who had also qualified to move onto the next stage. The only exception to this was Brazilian favorites FURIA, who dropped out in the qualifiers. Instead, the little known Russian team Dreameaters qualified, and proceeded to exit from the New Legends Stage without picking up a single win.

Coming into the main tournament, the favorite to win the entire thing was North American powerhouse Team Liquid, who had won 6 out of their 9 previous tournaments attended, and were runner-ups in the three they lost. That is definitely no small feat. They also held the number one spot for over 2 months prior to the tournament, according to hltv. org’s rankings. Halfway through the New Legends Stage, however, Liquid’s dominance began to falter, with them sitting on a less than stellar one win against two losses scoreline, and at three losses, you’re eliminated. Although, as expected, Team Liquid proceeded to win their next two matches and move onto the playoffs stage.

The playoffs stage consisted of the top six teams at the time, which were (in order of rank), Team Liquid, the French “Vitality,” Finnish “ENCE,” Danish “Astralis,” American/Canadian/Bulgarian “NRG,” and Russian/ Ukrainian “Natus Vincere.” Along with them came the number seventeen team, Australian/Kiwi/Norwegian

12

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

“Renegades,” and the number twenty team, Kazakh/Russian/Uzbek “AVANGAR.” Not many people expected Renegades or AVANGAR to qualify for the playoffs, and were doubted by both the community and big name analysts.

The quarter-finals is where everything gets crazy now, with three of the four matches being regarded as upsets.

In the upper bracket, Renegades proceeded to blow ENCE out of the water, beating them in two maps in the best of three matchup. Even though ENCE was clearly the better team, some analysts and many of their fans from down under had faith in them, and they managed to pull off the upset. Next up was a matchup between AVANGAR, who were the clear underdogs, versus Vitality, who sports arguably the best player in the world, Mathieu “ZywOo” Herbaut. Despite a fantastic performance from ZywOo, AVANGAR pulled off the upset on the back of an even better performance from Dzhami “Jame” Ali. This resulted in the upper bracket semi-final being a matchup between the two clear underdogs of playoffs, Renegades versus AVANGAR. The lower bracket of the quarter-finals played out differently, with all four of the teams having potential to win the whole major. The first matchup was NRG versus Natus Vincere. It went as most people expected, with NRG beating their opponent in two maps. This could in part be due to a surprisingly shallow performance from Natus Vincere’s star player and hltv.org’s best player of 2018, Aleksandr “s1mple” Kostyliev. This came along with, of course, mediocre performances from the rest of the team too. The final matchup was between Astralis and Team Liquid. With Team Liquid being the current favorites to win the whole tournament and Astralis being the winner of the previous two Majors, this match was the highlight of the entire tournament thus far. However, to some people’s surprise and others’ expectations, Astralis managed to beat

out the number one team in the world in two maps to reach the semi-finals.

The first match of the semi-finals was a rather even but low-tier matchup between the two underdogs, AVANGAR and Renegades. In the end, AVANGAR came out on top, resulting in one of the biggest Cinderella stories in CS:GO Major history. Even if Renegades one out over AVANGAR, it would still be a big surprise for everyone. The second matchup was between Astralis and NRG, and it seemed like whoever won this matchup would win the entire tournament. Astralis took an overwhelming victory over NRG, which puts them on track to win not only their fourth Major win ever, but their third Major win in a row.

The grand final went exactly as everyone expected, with Astralis blowing AVANGAR out of the water in the most decisive victory in Major history, only allowing AVANGAR to win 11 rounds out of the 43 played. With this win, history was made, with Astralis, consisting of Major MVP Nicolai “device” Reedts, Andreas “Xyp9x” Højsleth, Peter “dupreeh” Rasmussen, Emil “Magisk” Reif, and Lukas “gla1ve” Rossander, being both the first team to win four Majors overall, beating the previous record holders, Swedish “fnatic”, and being the first team to win three Majors in a row. Nicolai “device” Reedts also becomes the second player ever to hold two Major MVP awards, joining Marcelo “coldzera” David, who did not attend this Major. Congratulations to Astralis on their fourth Major win, and considering their unrivaled consistency, they may be on track to win their fifth in Spring 2020.

Vol. XXXII, Issue II

BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM

NEW MEDIA: THE FREE MARKET SOLUTION TO FAKE NEWS

New Media: The Free Market

By Joe Badalamenti Solution To Fake News

I

n the current age of the internet, social media, and mass information, you would think that confidence in the mainstream media would be at an all-time high. However, that couldn’t be further from the truth. In fact, trust in the mainstream media has been on the decline since the 80s, as a majority of Americans distrust the mainstream news media according to Gallup. Some explanations for this trend may include the political polarization and embrace of yellow journalism by mainstream publications such as CNN and Buzzfeed. These practices, however, have been around since the early 20th century. It may seem like an acceptable idea to use the government to enforce better business practices, by introducing standards that news organizations must follow, but this idea is flawed and unconstitutional. Besides, there’s a better solution that’s already on the way to solving the problem.

This solution is the alternative media.

There are many different individuals and groups that can be considered part of the alternative media, however what makes these groups stand out are a number of traits absent from the mainstream publications.

“One of the biggest problems with mainstream news is that they claim that they are 100 percent objective. However, if you have read any of their articles, it is clear that they have a significant bias.”

The first trait unique to these new media groups are their focus on individual branding. Because large media companies have so many employees, there is no connection with the audience on an individual level. As a result, many people will lose trust, seeing them as a faceless corporation.

New media groups are mostly run by

editor@binghamtonreview.com

individuals, so they have no choice but to rely on themselves. Having a familiar face report the news can greatly improve the trust between the audience and the company. Even local news companies rely on this to an extent.

With more trust comes more loyalty and more subscriptions, which are more reliable than corporate ads and sponsorships for generating income.

The next trait that these new media groups have is more freedom.

Because the mainstream media companies have a built-in audience and directly compete with one another, they’re forced to spend most of their time covering the most public issues, such as whatever Trump tweeted that day. New media firms on the other hand don’t need to cover the most pressing issue, allowing them to cover less public issues which they feel are important. For example, Subverse, a small news network run by independent journalist Tim Pool, covers many different underreported topics such as the ethics of AI and scientific breakthroughs to name a few. Plus, even when these networks choose to cover the trending topic of the day, they are more likely to report it through an objective lens, allowing the audience to formulate their own thoughts and ideas.

Independent media companies also tend to be more transparent about their biases and personal political leanings, as well as the sponsors that fund them. One of the biggest problems with mainstream news is that they claim that they are 100 percent objective. However, if you have read any of their articles, it is clear that they have a significant bias. While these newer media companies are biased to an extent, they are also transparent about it. Transparency is good of course, because it shows that the company is credible and not corrupt or paid off by politicians.

New media also has the advantage of the internet. While mainstream networks do use the internet, their format remains unchanged from TV and print media. New media has adopted an entirely new format: podcasts.

Podcasts are audio recordings which last about an hour in which the host talks about whatever they want. Some sophisticated podcasts such as Ben Shapiro’s Sunday Special. invite guests on the show in order to have meaningful conversations about a topic. These guests can be well known public figures or more likely lesser known individuals with unique ideas such as current democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang. Some podcasts even allow the audience to ask questions to be answered personally by the host for a subscription. Some advantages to hosting podcasts include the low production costs and easy accessibility by the audience as you can access one anywhere at anytime on your phone.

It’s clear that new media has many advantages compared to the mainstream media. This just leaves the question of why independent media has not yet replaced the mainstream media. While the mainstream media and independent media are neck and neck when it comes to views, the main advantage mainstream media has is their brand recognition. Hopefully this article has convinced you to give independent media a chance.

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

13

RESPONDING TO FAN MAIL

Responding to Fan Mail

BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM

By Tommy Gagliano

L

ast year, before I was Editor-in-Chief of this wonderful paper, I served as the Review’s Social Media Shitposter. (Yes, that was my official title.) While most of my job consisted of uploading articles to our website and sharing them on Facebook and Twitter, I did get a few breaks from the mundane when people would send online “fan mail” our way. Most of these fans just called us fascists or virgins or something like that, but there were some more creative insults in there as well that I actually enjoyed quite a bit. I took it upon myself to compile a list of these wonderful comments, and our staff read them in a video on our YouTube channel that you should totally subscribe to.

There have, of course, been more “mean Tweets” since that video was uploaded that have not been addressed. The award for “most hilarious” goes to @patington_bear, who unleashed a whole chain of tweets on April 12th, 2019. While a few months have passed, I just find their comments way too interesting to leave without a response. (I know the singular “their” is not grammatically correct; I apologize, I’m just using the preferred pronouns that they have explicitly stated in their Twitter bio.) So I will be taking this opportunity now to discuss them.

The Binghamton Review idolizer, who does not have their name listed on their Twitter account, starts off by pointing out that, at the time of their tweet, the official Binghamton University Twitter account followed us, but not the Free Press Twitter account.

They also refer to Binghamton Review as the “alt right publication on campus,” and Free Press as a liberal publication. This is incorrect in a number of ways. First of all, Binghamton Review is a non-partisan paper. We do not have any official stance on any issues, we do not support or endorse any political parties or candidates, and the political views of our writers different pretty significantly from person to person. In fact, last year we had a

14

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

staff writer named Jordan Jardine that wrote from his perspective as an anarcho-communist almost every issue, producing pieces where he advocated for giving houses to homeless people (“Abandoned Housing, Abandoned People”), or explained how it is flawed to use Venezuela as an example of failed socialism (“Venezuela: Not True Socialism”). We also do not have a single writer this year who identifies as “alt-right,” nor did we last year. Additionally, Free Press is not a “liberal publication.” I haven’t read everything they’ve published, but I try to read their new issues whenever they put them out, and from what I’ve noticed their writers rarely get political. They seem to focus much more on art, culture, poetry, that kind of stuff. Referring to us as “alt-right” and Free Press as “liberal” is not only an oversimplification, it’s just blatantly untrue.

In this first tweet, the self-described “Cuckold wearing clown shoes” also describes Free Press as “a group bing has forced to share an office with the review.” Binghamton Review has been around way longer than Free Press has, and called UUWB05 home before Free Press moved in. Free Press wasn’t forced to share an office with the Review, the Review was forced to share their office with Free Press. I speak in the past tense because, after reporting us to the police for having dogs in the office (after they pet the dogs themselves), among who knows how many other attempts to have us kicked out, Free Press has finally gotten their wish.

We have a new office this year.

“Words printed on a piece of paper cannot cause injury, pain, harm, or loss.

Words cannot inflict injury or harm. Words are not dangerous.”

Our biggest fan, who insists in their Twitter name that they aren’t sleepy, goes on to say that the reason it’s interesting that the Binghamton University Twitter account follows us and not Free Press is because we “consistently puslishes [sic] hateful/ dangerous content to the point that there have been multiple occasions when student groups came together to protest the paper and were ignored by the school. Bing AGAIN is supporting a hate group.” I’ve read this three times now, and I have literally laughed out loud all three times. I especially like how they wrote “hateful/dangerous” as if those two things are in any way synonymous. Have we published hateful things? I don’t know. Maybe.

“Hateful” is a subjective term I suppose. I’m sure if one was to look deep enough into our past there are probably some things that we’ve published that I myself would consider “hateful.”

There definitely isn’t anything we’ve published this year or last year that could be deemed hateful by any fair definition of the word, though. “Dangerous” is a completely different term, one that is really funny to see in this context. I can’t help but imagine our team of writers running down the spine, aggressively shouting about politics while throwing pencils at other students. Merriam-Webster defines “dangerous” as “1: involving possible injury, pain, harm, or loss.” or “2: able or likely to inflict injury or harm.”

Words printed on a piece of paper cannot cause injury, pain, harm, or loss.

Words cannot inflict injury or harm.

Words are not dangerous.

The second part of that statement, that “Bing AGAIN is supporting a hate group” is also pretty funny. It shows a complete lack of understanding of laws and of the Constitution, at least. It would not only be immoral for Binghamton University to shut us down, it would be highly illegal. Binghamton University is a public university, which means that the first amendment applies on campus. The SA also can’t

Vol. XXXII, Issue II

BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM kick us out; that would be in direct violation of their own contract. Additionally, a college shutting down a paper simply because a small handful of students are too fragile to accept that some people have different opinions than them is completely antithetical to what it means to be a university, and would destroy Binghamton’s reputation and legitimacy. “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble…”

Tweet three: “in my three years at this school, it has felt like there has been constant action against bing as an institution and the ways it ignores the complaints, wishes, needs, and rights of minority students, coupled with accommodation of the review. Stop. Supporting. Them.” The irony here is that we are minority students. When they say “minorities” they are obviously talking about race, religion, and sexual orientation (and women get thrown in there somehow too even though women are the majority in the United States), and we have a good number of members that fit into those categories.

More importantly, though, Binghamton Review represents minority opinions. It is a place for people to share thoughts that may be unpopular on campus. Thoughts that they may be afraid to share elsewhere, due to fear of being unfairly graded by a professor, of losing friends, or of being called names. In this tweet @patington_bear claims Binghamton University is ignoring the rights of minority students, while simultaneously calling for the university to strip minority students of their first amendment rights.

They finish up their final tweet of their initial tweet chain by telling Binghamton University “Protect your students, this is disgraceful.” Yeah Harvey Stenger, do a better job protecting students from the ink on paper that’s going around attacking everyone.

But wait! There’s more! Approximately four hours after the initial Tweet chain, @patington_bear tweeted a follow-up. The Binghamton University Twitter account had followed Free Press, but @patington_bear wasn’t satisfied. “Bing needs to condemn the hateful and harmful publication that

editor@binghamtonreview.com

RESPONDING TO FAN MAIL

is the review.” they stated. Ah, another word that doesn’t mean what they think it means. “Harmful” isn’t as far off the mark as “dangerous” I suppose, but it’s still a laughable way to describe a magazine.

They go on to say that Binghamton Review is funded by ads, which is just factually incorrect. Binghamton Review receives its funding from a number of sources, including the SA, (That’s right, your tuition is directly paying for our operational and printing costs!) but advertising is not one of them. This statement is a dead giveaway that @patington_bear has never actually read the paper that they are so vehemently opposed to. If they had opened any of the issues from the school year this was tweeted, they would not have seen a single ad, other than the occasional one for the High Hopes Helpline, which we include for free because suicide prevention is important.

The next tweet starts out with the sentence “This isn’t about me not liking what the review stands for,” which is a joke, because that is exactly what this is about. Regardless of how they try to frame it, or the accusations they throw at us, the tweet chain is quite literally about them not liking what we stand for, and telling the university to do something about it. They then say that BU is condoning our views by not

saying anything, which is stupid, because Binghamton Review as an organization does not have any views, and Binghamton University also does not have political views. Ignoring something is also in no way the same as supporting it. I ignore a lot of the stupid shit that is said in my Political Science classes all the time, that doesn’t mean I agree with it.

The cuckold that definitely isn’t sleepy wraps things up accusing us of making fun of rape victims (which we never did, obviously), then repeating more of the same bullshit about how we’re hateful and dangerous.

The reason I’m addressing this tweet chain isn’t because it upset me.

I was being sincere in the introduction when I said I thought it was hilarious.

I’m addressing it because there is a lot of misinformation and misconceptions out there about who we are, and what we do. I’m aware that I’m never going to change the mind of the author of those tweets, or anyone else that has it set in their mind that we’re evil, but hopefully this piece was beneficial to those that appreciate nuance and honesty. Here’s your 15 minutes of fame, @ patington_bear. Enjoy it. Maybe also take the time to read some of our other articles while you’re here, maybe you’ll understand a bit more about what this “hateful” and “dangerous” paper is actually about.

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

15