Sep 12 2018 (Vol. XXXI, Is. II) - Binghamton Review

BINGHAMTON REVIEW Editor-in-Chief Contents

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

Founded 1987 • Volume XXXI, Issue II Patrick McAuliffe Jr. Managing Editor Matt Rosen Copy Desk Chief Yvonne Tyler

Business Manager Kayla Jimenez

Social Media Shitposter Tommy Gagliano

Editor Emeritus Jordan Raitses

Associate Editors Adrienne Vertucci

Staff Writers

Jordan Jardine Thomas Sheremetta

Contributors

THE PROGRESSIVE PAST OF REPUBLICANS

PAGE 8

by Jordan Jardine

3 Editorial 4 Press Watch 5 Mac and Cheesus

by Patrick McAuliffe

by Our Staff

by Adrienne Vertucci and Patrick McAuliffe 6 From Marx to Burke: My Political Journey

by Jonathon Mecomber

Jonathon Mecomber Margarita Potapova Sarah Waters Mason Carteri

10 Battle of the Idiots

by Matthew Rosen 12 Space Columbus and Pond Scum

by Patrick McAuliffe

Special Thanks To:

13 The First Amendement v. ThePublic University

by Margarita Potapova

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

He Provides the Staples

14 Why I Left Feminism

by Sarah Waters 15 Sen. McCain and Moral Leadership

by Mason Carteri

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

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

Vol. XXXI, Issue II

EDITORIAL Dear Readers,

From the Editor

I

t’s been a few short weeks since we last talked, and I hope the semester is treating you well. We certainly haven’t missed a beat here at the Review, with lots of fresh content and fresh faces behind them. Almost as fresh a face as Nike’s new ad campaign mascot...Joseph Stalin! Believe in something, even if it means sacrificing everyone. On a serious note, I might be the most evil person for both sides of the aisle; I support Kap’s right to protest as much or as little as he wants, and I also support Nike-run sweatshops (from an economic perspective of course). Libertarians!

Hopefully that hasn’t steered you away out of disgust, unless you keep reading also out of disgust. Instead, eat something yummy with Adrienne’s and my crawl of Binghamton’s best places to eat mac and cheese. Jordan writes, arguably, his best article yet, outlining the progressive roots of the Republican party and calls for a return to those days. Matt comments on the continuing conflict between New York’s two Democratic candidates for governor, and is optimistic about a split vote between Andrew Cuomo and Cynthia Nixon. I’ve had my own share of liberal runins, and ponder a philosophical question posed by an extremely eccentric professor of mine about encounters with alien life.

I wanted to dedicate an entire paragraph to our new contributors because I’m thrilled that so many wanted to jump right in. Sarah discusses how feminism has never helped her in her past struggles, and affirms her belief in equal gender rights independent of feminism. Jonathon describes his journey of belief from the far-left back to the world of conservative sanity. Margarita tackles campus free speech codes, highlighting the discrepancies that often exist between school policies and actual beliefs of students and administrators. Finally, Mason offers his eulogy for Sen. John McCain and implores participants in today’s political discourse to move back towards an era of civility and respect.

It’s not too late for you, too, to join the best campus paper! We’re always looking for editors, writers, graphic designers, meme connoisseurs...however you want to get involved, we’re here for it. You’ll find our meeting time/ dates/location on the back of the issue, and for any more questions, shoot me a DM at editor@binghamtonreview. com. If you DON’T want to be sacrificed for something someone else believes in, like Nike and Stalin want, I think you’ll fit in quite well here.

Sincerely,

Patrick McAuliffe Jr. 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 “We need to stop glorifying artists who exploit their models” Annick Tabb August 26, 2018, Pipe Dream “Due to the sexual nature of the photographs she modeled for, she was subjected to harassment and stalking by strangers and admirers of Araki’s work.

She said Araki ‘took no responsibility for her safety’ when she came to him with concerns. After she sent him a letter in 2016 demanding he improve her working conditions, he canceled all of her future shoots. An excerpt of a letter he sent her reads, ‘It’s all up to me. If not, my art won’t work. So it’s impossible that I overdid it.’ Araki’s remarks make it clear that he prioritized his art over the comfort and safety of his model and muse.”

It’s assumed that Araki’s model agreed to work for him voluntarily, knowing the risks and nature of the photographs she would be doing.

Telling her story can help expose some of Araki’s dubious practices, but it’s a bit of a stretch to demand Araki change the way he do art at the request of his model. If nobody will help him produce his art the way he wants to, he will adapt or perish, but nobody is forcing any model of his to stick around in his employ.

“One model, Rie Rasmussen, confronted Richardson at a fashion event in Paris, saying, ‘He takes girls who are young, manipulates them to take their clothes off and takes pictures of them they will be ashamed of. They are too afraid to say no because their agency booked them on the job and are too young to stand up for themselves.’”

Why are we stripping these models of their power? These women are choosing to pursue modeling and are expressing themselves through their participation in the creation of this art. They are independent, empowered individuals who are responsible for their choices in life. Framing them as victims is belittling and does not help their case – if the artists are already stripping these women of their

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.

power, why should we do the same?

Framing them as powerless victims is demeaning.

“Students should support the nationwide prison strike” Sarah Molano August 26, 2018, Pipe Dream “Conflicts between inmates resulted in the deaths of seven prisoners and left 17 others with injuries. It took hours for ‘response teams’ to intervene, and one prisoner said he thought that inmate lives could have been saved if officials had provided timely medical assistance.”

Perhaps the rioting convicts who killed seven of their fellow prisoners stalled the medical team’s response?

It’s hard to do CPR when there’s a prison riot going on around you…

“The strikers crafted a list of demands that address the need for rehabilitation services, the lack of fair compensation to inmate workers and measures to reinstate inmates’ right to vote and the possibility of parole for all, among other demands.”

Is “fair compensation” a new “#Fightfor15” protest? Undoubtedly, nonviolent offenses need to be reexamined at a structural level, but the point of prison is retribution. Demanding some of the things they did seems out of line if we are considering their debt to society and their victims.

“Asking for improvements to prison conditions, the end of ‘prison slavery’ — a term that refers to inmates who work but often get paid mere cents per hour…”

That’s a pretty good gig, making money during a time when, broadly speaking, you’re meant to be sitting and thinking about the terrible things you’ve done. “...basic steps to treat those who are incarcerated with respect.” #RespectRapists #IStandWithSerialKillers Treat them with the respect they showed to the victims of their

crimes.

“We all have different views on the law, but whether you believe in a strict penal code or a more lax interpretation, people in prison are already being punished. They are already taken from their homes, their families and their lives beyond bars.”

Yes. Correct. Prison is a punishment.

“Why can’t they vote?”

One can argue that they’ve given up their willingness to participate in a civil democracy by doing the things they’ve done. Again, it may be a good idea to revisit nonviolent offenses, but the above argument seems fairly valid.

“People have a tendency to look down on prisoners…”

Yeah, it’s almost as if they’ve committed crimes against society. Weird that we look down upon those who violate our laws and disregard our moral code!

What separates students from prisoners is simply that we haven’t been arrested and convicted of a crime — and that can easily change.

So like, as long as you don’t commit a crime though… [Thinking emoji]

Vol. XXXI, Issue II

BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM

Mac and Cheesus

MAC AND CHEESUS

By Adrienne Vertucci and Patrick McAuliffe

F

rom the same people who brought you “Additional Top-Bing-S Cost Extra,” Binghamton’s finest pizza review, we now bring you “Mac N Cheesus,” Binghamton’s finest Macaroni and Cheese review. This delicacy is a childhood staple, especially for picky kids or lazy parents. It’s even good for lazy and or childish college students!

Like any good cuisine, however, it can get rather extravagant-- none of that “add water and microwave” bullshit, no no. There’s a few places in the area that serve some bomb af mac and cheese, and we’re here to tell you where is best. That way, you don’t have to spend hours and hours schlepping yourselves downtown on the buses or all the way home to your parents.

Galaxy Brewing Company: The first place on our list is Galaxy, a place that is known for their nine trillion craft beers. We ordered the Beer Cheese Mac and Cheese, and it was far more delicious than you’d think by the name of it. Personally, beer makes me think of frat parties, and frat parties are not things that I enjoy mixing with cheese.

However, the waitress brought out a tremendous bowl full of large shells completely covered in cheese sauce. It was pretty light in color, lighter than the radioactive color of Kraft, and had a much smoother consistency. It was nice and creamy, with a very faint taste of beer--but not the shitty kind of beer, the craft kind. The cheese flavor wasn’t overpowering, which was awesome since I honestly don’t like cheese that much. The dish as a whole was relatively mild flavored, with a cool little twist that set them apart so that you knew it was from a brewery. For the bowl that we split, sized somewhere in between a half and full-sized bowl at the Colonial, the price was $8. A smaller, individual-sized bowl is $5.

The Colonial: The second place that we visited was the famous Colonial.

Apparently they’re famous for their burgers, but they damn well should

editor@binghamtonreview.com

be famous for their mac and cheese as well. That shit was FIRE. We inhaled both of our flavors in record time. Adrienne got plain, and it was another very mild sauce, just like Galaxy, but slightly less beer flavored and more cheese flavored. The menu said “cheddar and gouda,” and it was really goud-a (ha ha kill me). There was a mild floury taste to it, and it was almost like there was bread or breadcrumbs in it? Patrick got the Cajun Chorizo flavor, with peppers, onions, cayenne powder, and shredded chorizo. Everything was very oily, but in the really excellent, “glad-to-have-this-heart-attack” kind of way. White people, stay away; it’s a little bit spicy for your taste.

Simply put, the Colonial’s mac and cheese tasted homemade, almost like something your mom would make for the holidays. A half-sized bowl like the ones we got (and that you’ll inhale very quickly) is $8 for the traditional mac and $8.50 for the Cajun Chorizo mac.

(For When You’re Feeling Lazy) Boxed Macaroni and Cheese: After trying out all these fun places, we decided to review a simple box of mac and cheese--Wegman’s brand specifically. The previous dishes were all moderately yellow, so for this review we went with their white mac and cheese just for fun (and because The Rat recently had their White Out rave; see back cover). It literally tasted

like childhood in a box (because I too spent my childhood in a box). As I ate it, I felt my arteries closing up and my heart giving out, but in a good way.

Flavor-wise, it didn’t really taste like much of anything at all, which was expected because, shit, it was just 99 cents!

CopperTop Campus Mac: If you just didn’t have enough easy options for mac and cheese, check out CopperTop’s take on the true classic. You’ll receive a hearty Tupperware-sized helping of twisty fusilli noodles, runny cheese sauce, pieces of string cheese that melt and form that sweet, sweet cheese pull, and crumbled croutons on top. We’ve found that it’s very difficult to mix together all the sauces and crumbs without at least a glob of cheese or a few noodles being lost to the edge of the bowl. All in all, however, it gets the job done, and you’ll usually have leftovers for later because of their large portions. For $7.99, you could probably get better quality mac and cheese, but if you’re in a pinch, CopperTop can deliver a delicious dinner meal.

The Verdict: Adrienne’s favorite was The Colonial’s traditional mac, while Patrick enjoyed Galaxy’s “beer cheese” mac and cheese the most. So get on out there! You have cheese to eat and arteries to clog!

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

5

FROM MARX TO BURKE: MY POLITICAL JOURNEY

BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM

From Marx to Burke: My Political Journey

By Jonathon Mecomber

O

ne quote that is often attributed to Winston Churchill is: “If a man is not a socialist by the time he is twenty, he has no heart. If he is not a conservative by the time he is forty, he has no brain.” In some ways, this very quote describes my own transition across the political spectrum from revolutionary Marxism to conservatism.

To this day, I still remember the moment when I first learned about the existence of the Party for Socialism and Liberation, or the PSL. It was the day before the 2012 election when Barack Obama and Mitt Romney were going head-to-head for the presidency. At the time, I was a politically indifferent ninth grader. Most of my opinions up to that point had mostly been formed by the evening news or the opinions of my parents. In other words, I knew next to nothing about the American political process beyond the big election. To better illustrate my ignorance, I believed that America only had two political parties. Of course, this was all about to change.

Karl Marx 6

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

As I was browsing through some of the headlines about the upcoming election online, I happened to notice a list of additional political parties.

Though it may sound somewhat silly now, my fourteen-year-old-self was shocked that there was apparently a whole other world outside of the typical Democrat-Republican/Left-Right dichotomy that is often presented as the only relevant option come election time. In hindsight, I felt as if I had

“One of the most important aspects of living is adaptation. In a way, I am actually glad that I was a Marxist as I now feel as if I have a better advantage over the plentiful streams of anti-capitalist rhetoric to be found on campus.

Like a computer programmer, I strive to identify flaws in my own logic.” taken a bite from the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden: I felt shocked, empowered, and even excited about my new knowledge.

As I scrolled through the list of third parties which included Libertarians, Greens, and Constitutionalists, one in particular caught my eye: the aforementioned PSL. For one reason or another, the name struck me unlike any of the others which I had encountered. Within minutes, I was on their website reading through their party platform. Their ideas were extraordinary to me. I was astonished by their statements which, among others, claimed that the United States was an imperialist empire or that all Americans could have affordable housing, education, and health care under a socialist government. With little required to convince me that an idea was

logically sound, I became immensely interested in socialist political theory.

Within the next few months, I had downloaded a copy of The Communist Manifesto onto my Kindle and read it thoroughly several times.

I perused dozens of internet forums and blog posts in an attempt to better understand the core arguments of Marxism. Before long, I was telling everyone that I possibly could about my newfound passion for workers rights, higher wages, and the impending liberation of the proletariat. I enthusiastically admitted to strangers that I was a fully-fledged Marxist-Leninist and even dressed up as Marx for a school event.

As I told my classmates about my love for the working class and my hatred for the greedy and exploitative bourgeoisie, most laughed in my face (perhaps ironically, many of my peers would now full-heartedly agree with me if I still preached about this today).

Despite their mockery, I was determined that with enough persuasion, I

Edmund Burke Vol. XXXI, Issue II

BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM could bring about the start of a communist revolution.

However, as I approached my junior year of high school, I began to realize that my ideas weren’t as logical as I had believed. For instance, how could I simultaneously hate the “evils of capitalism” while also benefiting from the immense prosperity that it had brought countless nations around the world? Furthermore, it was often apparent to me that the hardline secularism found in Marxism was directly opposed to the values which I had been taught in my moderately religious family. As I grappled with these and other questions, I had to make concessions that much of what I had in my life was the result of the very things which I ostensibly hated and that eliminating capitalism wouldn’t fix many of the issues that most people experienced at all.

The final nail in the coffin was perhaps the most obvious: that communism has undoubtedly failed in every nation where it had been formally embraced under law. Though there could certainly be an argument that countries like China or Cuba may still be communist, this is really only true under the broadest of interpretations.

In reality, communist policies have

editor@binghamtonreview.com

FROM MARX TO BURKE: MY POLITICAL JOURNEY almost always been completely abandoned as natural market tendencies persevere. Simply put, people don’t like it when they are told what to do with their money. I am no different.

In the years since I have rid myself of Marxist thought, I have slowly progressed more toward a center-right position. Part of this transition was encouraged by the discovery of one of my favorite journalists, Peter Hitchens, brother of the staunch anti-theist Christopher Hitchens who passed away from cancer in 2011. Interesting-

“If a man is not a socialist by the time he is twenty, he has no heart. If he is not a conservative by the time he is forty, he has no brain.” ~ Winston Churchill ly enough, Peter had a similar experience to my own. He too was a revolutionary socialist in his younger years, but is now one of Britain’s most popular conservative commentators, making frequent appearances on BBC discussion panels. Peter describes himself as a Burkean conservative today, or one who follows in the tradition of the Anglo-Irish politician Edmund Burke

who lived from 1730 to 1797. Though I usually would describe myself today only as a conservative in the general sense, Burkean thought has been of particular interest to me for the past couple of years with its attempt to influence the future with experience from the past. Regarded as the founder of modern conservatism, Burke has much to offer today’s conservative young people as they contend with today’s liberalism. He values a moral order to guide members of society, but otherwise leaving people to their own devices, separate from overreach.

Looking forward, I don’t expect to always have the same opinions or to always hold the same viewpoints.

One of the most important aspects of living is adaptation. In a way, I am actually glad that I was a Marxist as I now feel as if I have a better advantage over the plentiful streams of anti-capitalist rhetoric to be found on campus.

Like a computer programmer, I strive to identify flaws in my own logic. If there is a discrepancy, then I will try to either fix my thought process or to abandon it in favor of something else.

Though I never expect to reach absolute truth, I presume that proceeding in this manor will allow me to get as close as possible.

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

7

THE PROGRESSIVE PAST OF REPUBLICANS

BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM

The Progressive Past of Republicans

By Jordan Jardine

I

n a 2017 debate with one of today’s most prominent libertarians, Stefan Molyneux, linguist and political scholar Noam Chomsky (an icon of the libertarian left) stated that the early Republican Party of the mid-19th century – specifically in the 1870’s – was opposed to wage labor and saw it as a form of “chattel slavery” because it took away the individual autonomy of workers and their own labor. As an interesting tangent, the website Fight Slavery Now defines chattel slavery as: “…what most people have in mind when they think of the kind of slavery that existed in the United States before the Civil War…” which means that the Republican Party equated wage labor with the kind of slavery they had just outlawed in the United States. As it turns out, Chomsky is correct.

According to Encyclopedia Britannica, a faction of the Republican party originated from the Free-Soil Party, whose slogan read, “Free Soil, Free Speech, Free Labor, Free Men.” The Free-Soilers integrated into the Republican Party after the FreeSoil Party dissolved in 1854. In 160 years, the GOP has gone from arguing against wage labor except as a temporary means of employment, to nominating and electing a president, Donald Trump, who said during a November 2015 debate that wages are “too high” in America (according to the New York Times). To be fair to the president, he is not the only prominent Republican to make this argument.

“The party used to support workers, but they now support corporations and the ultra-wealthy. To be fair, speaking from the perspective of an ex-Democrat, the ostensibly “left wing” party is not much better on the issue of wages or standing up for the working class.”

8

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

According to Politico, Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky claimed that raising the minimum wage would have a negative impact on minority communities and the community at large.

The American Economic Association has found Paul’s statement to be false, as The Nation reported in 2014. So, a century and a half after its founding, the Republicans seem to have changed who they are loyal to. Now the party appears to have no problem with wage labor, and some high-ranking Republicans do not even support improved wage standards for workers.

The party used to support workers, but they now support corporations and the ultra-wealthy. To be fair, speaking from the perspective of an ex-Democrat, the ostensibly “left wing” party is not much better on the issue of wages or standing up for the working class.

The one similarity between the current Trump administration and the Republican Party of old is their protectionist policies. While it is part of current Republican orthodoxy to advocate for virtually unrestricted free trade (again, the Democrats aren’t much better on this issue), Republicans from the Progressive Era such as then-Ohio Representative William McKinley (later the 25th President of the United States) proposed the McKinley Tariff of 1890, which, according to author Joanne Reitano, raised the tax on imported goods by 50% in an effort to shield the US from economic competition from abroad and to protect American factory jobs. During his tenure as President, McKinley approved the Dingley Act of 1897, which further increased tariffs after they had been briefly lowered under the Cleveland administration. Theodore Roosevelt standardized the eight-hour work day and the restriction of child labor as part of his so-called “Square Deal.” According to the BBC, William Howard Taft, Roosevelt’s successor, opined in a 1910 New York Times article that every American worker should be entitled to two or three months of vacation

time by law, a policy idea which not even the Democrats dare to entertain.

The changes in the Republican Party on the issue of the working class from its inception to today are nothing short of striking. Of course, today’s Republicans, whether part of the establishment, neoconservatives or libertarian-leaning Republicans, pay lip service to the idea of supporting working men and women, but they rarely back that rhetoric up with helpful policies.

President Trump is a prime example of this in many ways. On the campaign trail, he repeatedly attacked American corporations for outsourcing jobs to other countries such as China and Mexico, but he himself outsourced over 93,000 jobs in his first year in office alone, according to a report from the United States Department of Labor. The kabuki theatrics of the Republican Party in regard to their “support” for workers has grown incredibly stale in recent years and needs to stop or be refuted by politicians from either party who actually care about the working class, though this task is akin to finding linebackers in football who can simultaneously serve as starting quarterbacks. A final piece of evidence that President Trump’s populist rhetoric has largely been just that, is his recent tax cuts. According

Vol. XXXI, Issue II

BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM to Politifact, Trump’s tax bill, passed in late 2017, provides permanent tax cuts for high-income earners and corporations. Though many middle class workers will see tax cuts until 2027, as much as 30% of them will see their taxes go up, not down. The Republicans used to be the party of American workers on paper and in practice, but now the GOP only supports workers only through empty rhetoric and platitudes.

The GOP used to oppose wage labor, but it now opposes wage standards. The Republicans, by and large, are not in favor of higher wages for workers. In fact, the conservative YouTube channel PragerU argued in one of their videos, “What’s the Right Minimum Wage?” that America should eliminate the minimum wage altogether. The GOP used to support some protectionist policies, but now oftentimes promotes unrestricted (or at least loosely restricted) free trade.

Oh, how times have changed. If the Republicans really care about Amer-

THE PROGRESSIVE PAST OF REPUBLICANS ican workers, they should return to these Progressive-Era policies and not just talk a big game. What was once a progressive and nearly anarcho-syndicalist party is now a party whose sole function is to serve high-income earners and corporations, while dup-

ing over a desperate working class into voting for the very politicians (in both parties) and policies that led to said workers being left for dead in the first place. Americans need a party that actually stands up for workers, not one that only pretends to do so.

We’re from Binghamton Review...

We didn’t know campus papers were supposed to suck!

Send fan mail and comments to editor@binghamtonreview.com ...and we’re running ads!

editor@binghamtonreview.com

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

9

BATTLE OF THE IDIOTS

Battle of the Idiots

BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM

By Matthew Rosen

I

n one corner, we have the Democratic establishment candidate. This candidate is a part of family politics, has been in office, and hopes to maintain the Democratic status quo. In the other corner, we have the rising Democratic socialist. This candidate wants to move the Democratic Party even more to the left, and believes the establishment Democrats are corrupt. If you thought I was talking about Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, you’d be wrong. However, the establishment vs. the far-left socialist battle is playing out again in our own state. Andrew Cuomo and Cynthia Nixon are replaying this same scenario, but for Governor of New York.

This battle may actually mean more to the future of the Democratic Party than the one with Hillary vs.

Bernie, because that one wasn’t based on popular support, but rather superdelegates. The winner of this gubernatorial election will tell us something about where the Democratic Party is.

More importantly, Andrew Cuomo’s final shift will tell us something about Democratic Party is headed.

The reason this is relevant this week is because the Democratic Party primary debate just aired, and all I can say is wow. I really don’t want either one as Governor. Cuomo took every possible chance to attack President Trump, calling him the greatest threat to NY today. Comparing the threat of Donald Trump to the threat of terrorism, climate change, and natural disasters, our Governor is stupid. Add horrible policies on top of that, and you can bet that I don’t want another term of Cuomo. That being said, Cynthia Nixon lives in a fantasy land, has the same horrible policies, but amplified somehow, and also hates Donald Trump.

Can Republican candidate Marcus Molinaro or Libertarian

10

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

“Earlier I said this race could tell us something about the future of the Democratic Party. That is because feasible populist/anti-establishment candidates make the establishment candidate squirm.”

candidate Larry Sharpe save us from these two? Probably not, at least not in Democratic NY where New York City is voting. So that leaves the question, who would you rather: Andrew Cuomo or Cynthia Nixon? Well Cuomo is more experienced, slightly more moderate, and more realistic than Nixon is by a mile. Not only that, but I think Cuomo destroyed Nixon in the primary debate. So between these two awful candidates, I would prefer Cuomo.

First of all, Andrew Cuomo debating with far-left Nixon actually made Cuomo into the candidate of reason. I know, shocking.

But here’s why: Nixon’s far-left policies are so radical, that Cuomo was forced to take the side of the moderate candidate, even though he isn’t one.

For example, Cynthia Nixon advocated for New York to move to a single-payer healthcare system, which led to Cuomo having a tiny voice of reason. He then asked her “Where do you get the $200 million short term, which would double the tax burden, and take money from everything else to get to single-payer?” He basically went over state finances with Nixon by explaining to her that the transition costs would be more than the entire current state budget of NY. Good job Cuomo for finally asking a Democrat where they are going to get the money for these programs. Unfortunately, this again does not mean I think Cuomo is a good Governor. I think he is horrible. He immediately than said single-payer is a good idea, and then attacked Donald Trump for not implementing single-payer on a national level.

Cuomo also acted as the fact checker on Nixon throughout the debate. He had to remind her numerous times that governors do not write laws, but the state legislature does. He had to remind her that the subway is under NYC

Vol. XXXI, Issue II

BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM

jurisdiction, and that the state cannot possibly pick up all of the losses of a delayed fare hike. He had to remind her that she files taxes as a corporation.

He had to remind her that he never lowered taxes on the rich, despite her accusations. He had to remind her that he was in favor of decriminalizing or legalizing marijuana before Nixon even entered the race, despite her accusations. Cuomo did say to Nixon, “You live in the world of fiction. I live in the world of facts.” The policies that Nixon advocated for are just nuts as well. She wanted driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants, a governmental switch to renewable energy in NY,

“Watching how mainstream Democrats respond to the anti-establishment is telling of where the Party is headed. Just like you can watch primaries between moderate Republicans vs Trumpian Republicans to see where the Republican Party is heading, you can do the same for moderate vs socialist Democrats.”

editor@binghamtonreview.com

BATTLE OF THE IDIOTS

The beautiful Albany Capitol building, where one of these two idiots will probably work soon profits from legalizing marijuana going to reparations, Medicare for all, tax increases, etc.

Earlier I said this race could tell us something about the future of the Democratic Party. That is because feasible populist/anti-establishment candidates make the establishment candidate squirm. We’ve seen Cuomo squirm a lot since Nixon emerged in an attempt to keep pace with the left base that’s moving further left, but also not go so far left that you lose moderates. The most recent example was when Cuomo said “America was never great,” in an attempt to show he is edgy, far-left, and fighting just as hard as Nixon. Unfortunately for him, there was a backlash from the right, middle, and moderate left, which forced him to backtrack.

Watching how mainstream Democrats respond to the anti-establishment is telling of where the Party is headed. Just like you can watch pri-

maries between moderate Republicans vs Trumpian Republicans to see where the Republican Party is heading, you can do the same for moderate vs socialist Democrats. Emergence of farleft politicians like Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Cynthia Nixon show the Democratic Party shifting left, but by how much? And how will the results of these primaries help us predict what kind of candidate Trump will face off against in 2020? I think Cuomo will win another term as Governor. I also predict that the party will move slightly left by 2020 to a point where we see a candidate further left than Hillary was, but not a Bernie Sanders socialist. Maybe Kamala Harris or Elizabeth Warren. I predict a candidate that will promote policies further left than Clinton, but still an establishment candidate.

One final note, Cynthia Nixon will be on the ballot for Governor, even if Cuomo wins the primary since she won the spot for the Working Families Party. So Republicans should still go out and vote, just in case the vote is split between Democrat Cuomo, and Working Families Nixon! It’s a long shot and almost definitely won’t happen, but always worth a vote.

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

11

SPACE COLUMBUS AND POND SCUM

BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM

Space Columbus and Pond Scum

By Patrick McAuliffe

I

’m enrolled in a class about science and the epistemological limits of it.

I’ve had the professor before in a previous class on elementary logic, but this upper-level seminar is where he really gets to put his opinions on display. Day one opened with: “There is an entire political party in America that is anti-science. Everyone in this party hates science.” He must have meant the Democratic party, right?

It’s anti-science to claim that sex and gender are completely different after all! That definitely couldn’t have been a not-so-veiled attack on a subsection of conservative creationist Republicans and climate skeptics.

Even for a guy that “wouldn’t go to family things for a while” after the 2016 election, my professor proposed an interesting philosophical question for plenty of sci-fi nerds to chew on.

As we’re going through the history of the universe as we know it now, we’ve reached the development of extremely simple life on Earth, about 3.5 billion years ago. A quick mention of Interstellar got him off on a tangent.

No planet capable of sustaining life is within reasonable distance for space travel from Earth, but he assumed for the moment that it was. He told us to imagine that Earth was dying, most likely from human-caused climate change, and we had to flee and find another planet capable of supporting life. It would most likely already have life on it, but nothing more complicated than algae. He lamented that no astronaut has ever really considered the moral consequences of moving to another planet, which would inevitably alter the new planet’s ecosystem and cause whatever life was there to die.

In our search for self-preservation, we would snuff out primitive, alien life.

It’s true that this planet is, most likely, the only one we’ve got. The nearest planet with the possibility of supporting life is much farther than Alpha Centauri, which is 4.4 light years away (an incredible distance). However, I do want to work through this philosoph-

12

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

ical problem, assuming that we could actually find a planet capable of supporting life, and see if we can discover what principles caused my professor to denounce humanity being “Space Columbus,” as I’ll call it.

Everyone has already heard about how genocidal and evil Christopher Columbus was (even though we need to contextualize history when looking at his actions and remember that the Americas weren’t some sort of peaceful paradise before his arrival). Western society has grown and rationalized over time, and no modern country in the first world would meet a new civilization with guns and violence. I use the title of “Space Columbus” to over-exaggerate the clear differences that exist between alien genocide and disturbing the ecosystem of interstellar pond scum. One would imagine that, upon meeting new intelligent life, humanity would first seek to trade and learn everything they can to advance both civilizations. We sent out the Voyager spacecraft to reach out to alien life, not a nuclear warhead.

The ethical problem lies with disrupting the ecosystem and the future of the alien pond scum, the simple life, in particular. How would we like

it if our one-celled ancestors were disturbed by alien visitors and nipped in the evolutionary bud? We’ve made countless technological advancements that have brought such utility and goodness to our world, and to crush that potential before it even gets started seems unjust somehow.

When my professor pitched this problem to my class, I was reminded of a Peter Singer-esque mindset when it comes to alien life less intelligent than ours. Would we be speciesist if we did choose to colonize the pond scum planet and take over as the reigning life on it? Granted, for Singer, it would matter whether or not the alien life could feel pain. As a utilitarian, he would want to minimize suffering of all living beings. If it can’t feel pain, we shouldn’t feel guilty, but the guilt persists for my prof. He is a man of science, and has mocked religion both in passing and explicitly since day one, so there is no after-death reward for him in his advocacy for self-sacrifice. What could it be?

For me personally, it is an extremely difficult question to answer.

It matters whether one considers the potential for life to be as equally deserving of rights as an actual one. Maybe his logic is the fact that humanity keeps messing up its home planet, and does not deserve a second chance. Are present people responsible for the mistakes of their ancestors? They inherit the world without any choice, sometimes without choice to even reverse the bad choices of those before.Is it right that they should be condemned through no choice of their own?

In a future sister article I will draw a parallel to abortion as well, but for now, I want you, dear reader, to just consider extraterrestrial ethics. Do you, like my professor, believe that we ought to go extinct as a species to give another planet’s pond scum a chance at life? Or would you land on that alien planet and save the human race at the expense of a brand new potential world?

Vol. XXXI, Issue II

BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM

THE FIRST AMENDMENT V. THE PUBLIC UNIVERSITY

The First Amendment v.

The Public University

By Margarita Potapova

T

he First Amendement reads: “Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...” A timeless statement and objectively the most important amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The First Amendment, an inalienable right, is now under attack across hundreds of college campuses nationwide.

USLegal Dictionary defines a “speech code” as a “rule or regulation that limits, restricts, or bans speech beyond the strict legal limitations upon freedom of speech or press.” All speech is protected under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment with few exceptions limited to fighting words, obscenity, and words that create a clear and present danger (i.e. shouting “FIRE!” in a crowded theatre). Ironically, for decades, universities have continued to maintain the practice of attempting to restrict “offensive” speech on campus through the implementation of vague, indeterminable codes of, so to speak, “anti-harassment.”

The concept of speech codes is relatively dated, making its way into our institutions of higher education in the early seventies. Students and faculty members have been fighting the censorship wave since Healy v.

James (1972), which became the first court case to establish that students’ rights to freedom of speech off campus extend to the grounds of their alma mater. Healy was followed closely by decisions Papish v. Board of Curators of University of Missouri (1973), Doe v. University of Michigan (1989), McCauley v. the University of the Virgin Islands (2010) and countless others.

Case after case, speech codes have failed the test of constitutionality in court. To an extent, the fight for the fundamental right to express ourselves has gained success, but the call of the twenty-first century’s self-proclaimed Big Brother, the Far Left, is cause for

editor@binghamtonreview.com

“The dissemination of all ideas, no matter how controversial, is critical to the development and maintenance of a democratic society.”

concern.

In a study of over 400 of the largest and most distinguished universities the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) found that some 32.3% continue to uphold “red light” policies limiting student speech while 58.6% universities received a “yellow light” rating; indicating that an overwhelming 419 out of the 461 schools surveyed, “chill or outright prohibit protected speech”.

Binghamton University among them, received a “yellow light” rating based on policies directed at bias, hate speech, protest and demonstration, posting and distribution, harassment, and security fees. Although this university has a beautifully written statement illustrating a commitment to the protection of First Amendment Rights on campus, it is questionable whether these values are truly being upheld. In “9 Points on First Amendment Protection” outlined by the University Ombudsman, subpoint i. affirms the notion that Binghamton University “allows all views, popular or unpopular, to be expressed, debated, supported, and countered”. However, this is hard to believe following the reaction to the Review’s March 2018 issue and countless others in its history. The threat of being defunded and disassembled as a student organization on campus prompted the Review to preemptively take down its infamous article, outrageously titled “Standard Fuck Parties, Bug Chasing, and Homosexuality.” Despite the provocative nature of the article and its intent, there are no legal ramifications that could justify what would be cause for eliciting its removal.

To directly quote Chris Block from our beloved publication Pipe-

Dream, “Organizations [referring to the Review] should not receive any funding if they encourage hate speech toward any community, regardless of personal opinion…” Not to go down the wormhole of what constitutes hate speech, but in short, it is protected by the Constitution and by Binghamton University as an arm of the State. The Ombudsman addresses this exact issue in subpoint v. and again in subpoint ix., “The University cannot and does not limit freedom of speech even if an individual’s values and ideals are challenged by that speech...Any attempt on the part of the University to suppress offensive views is nothing more than government censorship.”

The Alliance Defending Freedom observes that a public university “may not prohibit speech simply because the opinions expressed are deemed to be racist, sexist, homophobic, hateful, harassing, offensive, intimidating, controversial, provocative, indecent…

Administrators cannot regulate speech solely based on its content...” Protecting the ears of the listener/reader at the cost of the inherent right to speak one’s mind is a tradeoff few would call fair. The dissemination of all ideas, no matter how controversial, is critical to the development and maintenance of a democratic society. One could argue this is even more crucial in a college environment. If thought was homogenous, the world as we know it would cease to exist. One knows right because one also knows wrong. There is no justice without injustice.

Just as you, dear reader, are free to pick up this issue and read and critique it, you are also free to abstain from reading it. The choice to do either is ultimately in your hands. You can take these words with a grain of salt or as food for thought, or not consume them whatsoever, but these words are free to exist on these pages. Sticks and stones may break your bones, but words, words could never hurt you.

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

13

WHY I LEFT FEMINISM

Why I Left Feminism

BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM

By Sarah Waters

W

e’ve all heard the trademark “Feminism literally means equality!” howl from today’s third-wave feminists. It’s their trump card (oh, sorry, their Hillary card), the place to which they retreat during any debate regarding the subject. If we were to simply look at the dictionary definition of the term, then technically they’d be correct. But if we are to face reality (something which many feminists are incapable of doing), we find that, in practice, present day feminism is anything but an ideology of equality. The toxic, cult-like movement bears little resemblance to the feminism of old. As an ex-feminist, I have witnessed firsthand the damage third-wave feminism can cause to unsuspecting young women.

Consider this your content warning. I was raped during my first month of college (note: I did not attend Binghamton as a freshman). My rapist, an older student, had threatened to mutilate my genitals and whore me out to his friends. I had to do exactly as he said and give him sex whenever, wherever.

He went on to rape me dozens of times over the course of the semester. I was afraid and too innocent; I had never even kissed a boy prior to college. Worst of all, he made me believe I deserved the abuse for angering him, that it was normal. Going into my sophomore year, I was lost, I was confused, I was hurt and I was angry. Like many women, I turned to feminism in the aftermath. Feminism helps rape victims, or so I had heard.

How wrong I was.

I entered into a world where the notion of a patriarchy was unquestionable. I fell into a bizarre fantasy where men were in control of everything women did; our failures and hardships were due to men. (Personal responsibility? What’s that?) Women were oppressed, and a utopia of equal rights was our dream.

But the dreamlike state became a waking nightmare with each poisonous lesson I was fed. Far from helping me heal from the trauma of repeated rape, feminism broke me down until I became nothing more than a heaping pile of fearful victimhood. Men, I was taught, were not my fellow human beings, but walking time-bombs, vicious predators out to rape and abuse women. Men could not be trusted. I was told that rape was around every corner; every man was a potential rapist. I was told nobody would believe me, that everybody would blame me, that the police would not help me. We lived in a “rape culture,” where merely listening to Robin Thicke’s “Blurred Lines” could drive a man into a sexual frenzy void of care for consent.

I learned to avoid “triggering” material and class discussions even mentioning sexual assault. The paranoia was debilitating, exhausting, and unsustainable.

I started to open my eyes when feminists began decrying methods to prevent rape as “victim-blaming.” Instead, teach men not to rape, they screamed. Anti-rape panties, roofie-detecting nail polish, color-changing beer cups, self-defense classes, safety advice, everything else was rejected and maligned.

Teach men not to rape. I was shocked. If something could spare a single woman from the horrors of rape, shouldn’t we be supporting it? No, they cried, that just teaches men to rape a differ-

14

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

ent woman. Teach men not to rape.

Teach men not to rape. Teach men not to murder. Teach men not to rob. We already do these things, and yet, there are still rapists, murderers, and robbers. How about we teach women how to protect themselves? Bad people exist.

We cannot expect to eliminate sexual violence by turning women into perpetual, helpless victims, treating them like children who cannot take care of themselves. My rapist was taught not to rape. Every freshman class took a first-year experience course that taught about sexual assault and consent (well, except for me, because I was out having surgery when we had that lesson, as I later found out). He was taught. He still raped me.

I began to question what I had been taught. I started to recognize toxic behaviors and thought patterns common to feminists. Demonize men, infantilize women. Deflect debate with circular logic. Ignore the wrongdoings of other feminists.

Characterize all who disagree as misogynists and refuse to engage. When things get hard, claim sexism. Lather, rinse, repeat.

My eyes were opened. Feminism was not a movement to empower women as equals to men. Feminism today is designed to turn women into perpetual victims incapable of independent thought and action. Women who disagree with feminist theory and ideology are accused of “internalized misogyny.” Feminism paints women as damsels in distress who need to be saved from their “problematic” and “self-hating” opinions. According to feminism, women are too ignorant to understand what’s best for them and need a movement to show them the “right” way to think and act. A woman’s right to choose what to do with her own life is only for women who make the “right” choices.

I saw the light. Then the real work began. The feminist reprogramming of the mind is incredibly difficult to reverse.

For years, I struggled to overcome my fear of men. I still have trouble discussing sexual assault in class and reading articles about rape. Sex is still scary and confusing. The paranoia that took root in my brain still lingers. But I am healing. I can trust again. I refuse to be a victim. I turned to feminism to help me heal from rape, but it was only after I broke free from its chains that I was able to begin doing so.

I support women’s rights. I am not a feminist. The constant fear mongering, hypocrisy, logical fallacies, sexist radicalism, hateful attitudes, and demonization of an entire sex that I and many others have witnessed have irrevocably poisoned the term and the movement. “But wait,” the feminists cry indignantly. “People who do that aren’t real feminists, feminism is about equality!” Sorry, but if enough Scotsmen want misandry instead of equality, you start to lose your claim to true Scotsmanship.

It does not matter the dictionary definition of feminism in today’s world. Screaming it repeatedly will not change that.

In the words of Ralph Waldo Emerson, “Your actions speak so loud, I cannot hear what you are saying.”

Vol. XXXI, Issue II

BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM

SENATOR MCCAIN AND MORAL LEADERSHIP

Senator McCain and Moral Leadership

By Mason Carteri

J

ust a short while ago, on the 25th of August, America lost a great statesman and lifelong public servant – Senator John McCain. Senator McCain’s death is a tragedy, and a genuine loss to all of America. No matter what political disagreements this author or any American might have had with the late Senator, it would be a challenge to say that John McCain was not a decent man.

Even in his race for the highest office in the land, he famously refused to stoop to the level of personal degradation when dealing with his opponent. When a supporter questioned then-candidate Obama’s trustworthiness, McCain replied “No, ma’am.

[Obama is] a decent family man [and] citizen that I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues, and that’s what this campaign’s all about.”

This stands in stark contrast to statements from President Trump, both in office and on the campaign trail, who regularly attacks and slanders his opposition – including Senator McCain – to this day. McCain was undeniably a more moral and family-oriented man and a more traditional husband and father, as well as a decorated war hero. Again, a stark contrast with the draft-dodging and comically adulterous past of President Trump.

Of course, Senator McCain was not perfect. He was notoriously weak on certain conservative issues, he admitted to eventually succumbing to Vietnamese torture and signing some worthless document decrying American actions in the war, his first marriage was formally ended just a short while before he married his second wife, and like many politicians, his early career was rocked by a financing scandal. In other words, he made mistakes and had shortcomings, like all people do at some point or another.

The difference between McCain and President Trump lies in the way each approached their moral failures.

editor@binghamtonreview.com

Senator McCain spoke publicly about his regrets and many of his failures and strove to be a moral man in public life, while President Trump wholeheartedly embraced his immoral qualities and lack of decency. Ironically, this likely landed him in the Presidency.

Although it is undoubtedly enjoyable to watch President Trump fight back against the mainstream media and the democratic establishment with the same vile tactics they have used against conservative political figures for decades, and it is undeniable that the President has won several major victories for right wing politics in this country (which may have been otherwise impossible with a more traditional candidate), we must accept that this approach is not healthy in the long term.

Our political leaders are usually held to a high moral standard, not just because they are meant to serve as a positive role model and inspiration to the younger generation, but also because they are often the most influential in setting the tone of national discourse. If a political leader is toxic or hostile, then their party will often follow suit, poisoning the entire national dialogue and furthering the divisions between Americans. It is this very poisoning of the national well that breeds public violence, extremism, and civil conflict, while a more positive national

discourse promotes the opposite.

As leftist activism and politics continues to become more toxic, belligerent, and obscene, it is clear that only a dignified and honest push for moral conservative leaders can start to repair our national discourse.

Additionally, decency is critical for another, more Machiavellian reason: wanton toxicity scares away voters. Many elections, especially Presidential elections, are determined not by the core bases of either party, but by the middle-of-the-road moderate voters who can swing either way. While in 2016 President Trump was able to swing enough votes his way by connecting with people’s deepest grievances with the establishment and the PC culture, it is equally likely that the President’s continued toxicity, combined with a near-continuous barrage of negative coverage by the progressive media, will scare away voters in future elections.

Although the political left and their mouthpieces in Hollywood and the media will almost certainly continue to lob all manner of foul characterizations at conservative and libertarian policies and candidates, we must resist the urge to further stoop to their level.

We must step up and return to the burden of building a better society.

President Trump has been a useful tool for conservatives, and for the time being, we’re stuck with him. In the next Presidential election cycle, it is incredibly unlikely that a primary contest for the Republican nomination would do anything but split the party and thus lose the election. Therefore, if we want to win in 2020, we have to stick with Trump through all eight years. However, when 2024 comes rolling around, the conservative movement and the republican party must attempt to return to a moral decency – for the sake of conservative governance, and for the sake of our country.

May we all take inspiration from the best of Senator McCain’s legacy, and may he rest in peace.

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

15