P.O. BOX 6000 BINGHAMTON, NY 13902-6000 EDITOR@BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
Founded 1987 • Volume XXX, Issue II
Patrick McAuliffe Jr. Managing Editor Kayla Jimenez
Copy Desk Chief Elizabeth Elliott
Business Manager Jason Caci
Editor Emeritus Jordan Raitses
Assistant Editors Adrienne Vertucci Colin Gilmartin
Aditi Roy, Luke Kusick, Chris DeMarco, Max Newman
Cleaned Out the Fridge Jason Caci Special Thanks To:
Intercollegiate Studies Institute Collegiate Network Binghamton Review is printed by Gary Marsden We Provide the Truth. He Provides the Staples
UNDER EIGHT FEET OF WATER, DIVISIVE POLITICS STILL PREVAIL
by Aditi Roy
7 Tech Tock, Tech Tock
by Jason Caci
Free Market(Place) by Emma Ryan The Audacity of This Bitch by Rebecca Goldstein Anti-White Zeitgeist by Pino Che America Needs Trump’s Immigration Policy by Don Quixote 14 What Does the Internet Think of 9/11? by Our Staff 10 11 12 13
3 Editorial 4 Campus Presswatch
6 Sept. 1996 Editorial
15 The Agony of Evil
by Amy Gardner and Teresa McGoff by Matthew Pecorino
TELL US WHAT YOU THINK! Direct your feedback to editor@binghamtonreview. 2
Vol. XXX, Issue II
EDITORIAL Dear Readers,
From the Editor
econd time’s the charm! Second is the best! All those great cliches apply to our second issue of the thirtieth (30th) anniversary of Binghamton Review. I’m sure I’ve said it before, but I’m incredibly stoked about the things we’re doing this year, especially with such frequent printing. Now is the time to jump in. If you want to get involved in the best on-campus publication, be sure to stop by in UUWB05 at 7pm on Tuesdays. Or, you can come by to see me during my office hours. I’ll be chilling Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays from 2-4pm, and Saturdays and Sundays from 3-6pm. Weekend office hours, whaaaaaat? I know, I’m even more available than that TA you have for Intro to American History. Boy, do we have some good stuff for you this issue! Summer is over, and our staff is hard at work once again. Pino Che is back to his old mischief, this time proposing an answer to the anti-white sentiment that he believes is infecting American political discourse. Emma Ryan exposes the not-so-free market of the Marketplace, while Rebecca expresses her frustration with some recent vandalism that the Review has suffered. (Between you and me, I’m frustrated as well. Cut that shit out.) Don Quixote, valiant romantic Spanish hero, takes a moral stance against illegal immigration to the United States in the wake of DACA’s repeal. Jason conveys his fears about the current trend towards a technocratic takeover. Finally, as our cover article, Aditi exposes the lackluster and sometimes condescending responses from the left in the wake of Hurricane Harvey. We also have some quality retro content for you in this issue. Our former Editors-in-Chief from 1996-1997, Amy Gardner and Teresa McGoff, offer their thoughts in an editorial which is still applicable today. Disregard their GIM date, however. From September 2001, former Editor-in-Chief Matthew Pecorino outlines the campus response immediately following the September 11th, 2001 terrorist attacks, and how we came together as a community. Have I culturally appropriated because I bought Childish Gambino’s first 2012 album Camp? It’s truly amazing. He’s the first rapper I actually find myself admiring. I used to be one of those “yeah I like everything except country and rap” people, but a certain loved one of mine helped me have an open ear to country, and Childish Gambino opened my ear to rap. Seriously, I can’t get enough. Besides being an amazing lyricist, Donald Glover has an incredible backstory I can’t get enough of. See, Progressives, being exposed to a different culture isn’t so bad!
Our Mission Binghamton Review is a non-partisan, studentrun news magazine of conservative thought at Binghamton University founded in 1987. A true liberal arts education expands a student’s horizons and opens one’s mind to a vast array of divergent perspectives. The mark of true maturity is being able to engage with those divergent perspectives rationally while maintaining one’s own convictions. In that spirit, we seek to promote the free and open exchange of ideas and offer alternative viewpoints not normally found or accepted on our predominately liberal campus. We stand against tyranny in all of its forms, both on campus and beyond. We believe in the principles set forth in this country’s Declaration of Independence and seek to preserve the fundamental tenets of Western civilization. It is our duty to expose the warped ideology of political correctness and cultural authoritarianism that dominates this university. Finally, we understand that a moral order is a necessary component of any civilized society. We strive to inform, engage with, and perhaps even amuse our readers in carrying out this mission.
Patrick McAuliffe Jr.
Views expressed by writers do not necessarily represent the views of the publication as a whole. email@example.com
CPampus resswatch We know you’re not reading the campus papers, so we read them for you. Original content is in quotes, responses are in bold. “SA cuts NY Times delivery program” Orla McCaffery Pipe Dream, August 28, 2017 “Last year, the Student Association (SA) budgeted $24,546 for the program…” Why was the SA dropping thousands of dollars to provide “free” copies of the New York Times to the students? I’ve never once seen a student pick up a copy, nor did any of the students I know do so. This money will finally go towards supporting student groups and activities, rather than being wasted on something a majority of students don’t value. “Mary Haupt, a lecturer in the English department who teaches journalism classes, said she’d sometimes incorporated The Times into her lesson plans… ‘I’ll definitely miss having it within reach and thumbing through it over lunch.’” Wow, how compelling. The best quote in this article lamenting the loss of The Times is from, not a student, but a lecturer, who only occasionally incorporated the newspaper into her lesson plans and will primarily miss having a source of entertainment at lunch. Students did not appreciate or take advantage of The Times’ availability; it was taken for granted and underutilized, similar to the $24,546 of funds that were wasted on the program. “Foster calls for collective action” Allison Detzel Pipe Dream, August 28, 2017 “‘If your dream only includes you,’ Foster said, ‘it’s too small.’” Hey at least I have a dream okay??? Why does everything I do have to be about others? What about me? Is it wrong to have personal goals that are untethered to the outside world? What ever happened to individualism, sheesh. Who is Foster to tell me how and what to dream?
“‘Making money isn’t enough, making a name for myself isn’t enough, being on TV and in a magazine isn’t enough.’” Then what is enough? If making a difference is the end goal, all of the aforementioned are tools to do so! “NY State rolls out Excelsior Scholarship” Sasha Hupka Pipe Dream, August 28, 2017 “... the scholarship was a good start, but that more needs to be done to help students cover costs outside of tuition. ‘When you look at the fees for the semester, tuition is only about $4,000, and the most expensive thing is room and board.’” I don’t know what to tell you. Move off-campus? Live in a more affordable rental house, like thousands of other Binghamton students? Apply for all the other aid options? Get a part-time job? Why do people believe that the government, be it state or federal, “needs” to do more to help students attend college? When is enough, enough? “Retail Details” Opinions Section Pipe Dream, August 31, 2017 “[Retail] locations seem to be taking advantage of students by overcharging for their products.” Since when is ~$8 for a meal “overcharging”? If I were to eat at Chipotle, or Five Guys, or any other comparable fast food retail location off-campus, I’d pay a similar price for a similar product. Not to mention that CopperTop Tavern, at $2.75 per speciality slice, is cheaper than most pizza places off-campus.Speciality slices at my local pizzeria cost $4 a slice. To further their case against the retail din-
Written by our Staff ing options on-campus, the opinions section tells a blatant lie, accusing retailers of overcharging for their products, when in reality, their products are fairly priced. “...a slice of pizza from a community dining hall is less than $1, when using a residential meal plan. However, a slice of speciality pizza from CopperTop Tavern is roughly $2.75. Additionally, a chicken finger basket from a community dining hall costs about $2.91, but a similar chicken finger basket from Tully’s University costs about $7.19.” Let me stop you right there.The pizza at CopperTop is not the same as the pizza from the dining hall. The dining hall pizza sits out for extended periods of time, is of limited selection, and is at least three times greasier yet somehow is still dryer than the pizza at CopperTop. Now on to Tully’s… In what world are the frozen pieces of bread passed off as chicken fingers in the dining halls equivalent to the fresh, real meat Tully’s tenders??!! A “similar chicken finger basket” ??? B*tch, please. “Although some may argue that you pay for supposedly higher-quality food at retail dining locations, there is no objective proof to these claims, so it seems as though these retailers are mostly profiting from their convenient locations.” I’ll say it again: the food is higher quality. It is valid that it costs more. Even if the food wasn’t higher quality, it would be totally justified for the retailers to profit from their convenient locations. If you want convenience, you pay for it. That’s reality. This is some anti-capitalist baloney. The verb profiting is used like it’s a crime. If
Vol. XXX, Issue II
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM these retailers weren’t profiting, they wouldn’t be here serving us. We can’t just have everything we want handed to us on a silver platter for $2.91. If you want cheap, shitty food, the dining hall is less than a ten minute walk from the MarketPlace. “While we acknowledge that the presence of these retail locations makes BU seem more attractive and many students enjoy their products, they seem to be taking advantage of students and profiting predominantly from their convenient locations, not from their better quality.” If students enjoy these products, then the retailers are absolutely not taking advantage of them. The most beautiful thing in life is businesses bringing joy to their customers. “Benefiting the community” Adam Wilkes Pipe Dream, August 31, 2017 “There, Gov. Andrew Cuomo was presenting a $20 million check of state money to the Greater Binghamton Fund… No level of local government, and particularly New York State, has the money lying around to immediately fix every problem… with massive social-welfare spending.” ADAM. Is $20 million pocket change to you? New York had $20 MILLION lying around to just throw at the city of Binghamton for social-welfare spending. That is plenty of money to fix the problems in Binghamton. Not to mention all the money the state-funded university brings to the area, or the money the state-funded Excelsior Scholarship provided Binghamton students with. All of this state spending should do more than solve the problems “poverty [and] education.” If it doesn’t, it isn’t because it’s not enough money, it’s because social-welfare spending isn’t the solution. In fact, this excessive spending probably causes more problems than it solves. “Economic development will also increase property values, which can cause gentrification. If rents go up, that can cause flight and have an inverse effect toward reaching the greater goal.” Wait, isn’t the goal economic development? How are we supposed to win if
anything and everything can oppress people and make Binghamton worseoff? If gentrification occurs, then so be it. If you want improvements in poverty, education, and health-care, there are costs involved, and not just the cost of spending millions of taxpayer dollars to create more problems. The only solution is natural and legitimate development in the area, not just injections of cash from the government. “The University is one of the primary contributors to the ebbs and flows of property values in the Binghamton area; it is obligated to roll back any economic oppression it catalyzes.” I’m confused. Is the University contributing to the economy, or oppressing it? In the process of economic improvement, there are gorwing pains. If those pains include shifting property values, or increased oppression of certain individuals, then we deal with that when we get there. A more robust economy would be able to support these oppressed people, and help them out of oppression. “We live in a period of unchecked capitalism.” LOL. This is completely false. A world where a state government donates $20 million to a community is not a world where unchecked capitalism exists. Maybe in a world of unchecked capitalsim, we wouldn’t be experiencing all of the problems you are so concerend about. “Capitalist forces have all the structural control in our economy.” I’m sorry, are we living in the same country? “When dissent is not enough” Jacob Hanna Pipe Dream, September 5th, 2017 “Jurgensen expected Trump to denounce the neo-Nazis of Charlottesville, but failed to recall his failure to disavow David Duke and how the Ku Klux Klan-affiliated paper, The Crusader, endorsed the president “ Trump literally disavowed the KKK and white supremacists 12 times before the Jake Tapper-CNN clip that Jacob is referring to, but “muh narrative.”
“If Jurgensen and the many other dissenters are genuinely surprised by Trump’s behavior, then they have not been paying attention.” If Jacob and the many other progressives are genuinely surprised every time that it’s a Muslim driving a truck into a crowd screaming “Allahu Akbar”, they have not been paying attention. Referring to Trump: “He doesn’t smile as he endangers the lives of those who do not look like him.” Obama didn’t smile as he endangered the lives of those who didn’t look like him in Pakistan and Afghanistan. “Either stand with the marginalized people you claim to be apologizing to by being there with them and supporting policies that protect them, or don’t bother apologizing at all.” Either agree with me on everything politically or you can’t sit with us. “Letting go of your goals” Kristen DiPietra Pipe Dream, September 5th, 2017 “If you’re looking for a piece of unsolicited advice from a woman-child who still can’t drive on highways, here it is: Throw away all your goals” We weren’t. This is absolutely terrible advice. You should have goals in college that you work towards achieving. Just because something is difficult, doesn’t mean you just give up.
SEPT. 1996 EDITORIAL
The Review: What it Is, How it Got That Way & Why You Should Be Part of It By Amy Gardner and Teresa McGoff This editorial was originally published in the September 1996 issue of Binghamton Review.
inghamton Review was founded in 1987 by a group of conservative students who decided to fight back against Binghamton Universityâ€™s growing tendency towards political correctness and politically biased policy decisions. We are entering our tenth year of publication and are currently a monthly news magazine consisting of investigative reporting, opinion pieces, and of course, a good deal of humor. Most of our funding comes from outside sources, such as the Collegiate Network and local advertising revenues. There has been much recent confusion concerning the nature of our news magazine and the people who dedicate themselves to producing it each month. We have been branded as fascist, racist, sexist, and basically anything else that has a negative connotation in present-day academia. Absolutely none of these adjectives describe us; they are blatantly false accusations perpetrated by the vocal leftists on campus. The individuals and groups who have generated these lies feel the need to lash out at
us because we are the only voice of reason on campus. Besides, how could our magazine be sexist when the two current editors-in -chief are female? The truth about the Review is that the staff does maintain conservative ideals. Yet we do not force them upon others. We are always willing to print any dissenting opinion sent to us; in fact, those who disagree are encouraged to respond. Though our magazine is conservative, our staff is
comprised of people with a multitude of ideologies, such as libertarians, moderates, and those who are generally fed up with the nonsense on campus . There is room for almost anyone on our magazine who respects the right
for everyone to hold their own opinions. For those not interested in writing, there are many other aspects of the production of our magazine that one could become involved with. We are always looking for people interested in layout, cartooning, photography, reporting, editing, publicity and advertising. There are many reasons for those interested in journalism to be a part of the Review. Although we do not publish as often as the mainstream campus newspaper, we are a smaller organization, and therefore everyone on the staff of the Review is able to playa more important role in each issue. There is also a great deal of opportunity for an individual to write on subjects of their own choosing. Due to the fact that we are an ideological news magazine, writers have more leeway to express their own opinions in print. In conclusion , we encourage anyone to stop by our meetings to find out what we are all about. We are always fun, always informative, and always politically incorrect. Our first meeting this year will be on Thursday, September 5, at 8:00 PM in the University Union, Room 103. Hope to see you there!
Vol. XXX, Issue II
Tech Tock, Tech Tock
TECH TOCK, TECH TOCK
By Jason Caci
technocracy is a government that is run by scientists, engineers, or experts in technology. I cannot tell you when the United States will become a technocracy, although the completion of the transition could occur in twenty years, forty years, or even a century or two. However, I can say with confidence that it will happen eventually. Heck, most of the world will probably be run under a technocratic government. Since the birth of our great nation, most politicians previously worked as lawyers, which makes sense. However, there has been a lot of political instability in this country among both the Republican and Democratic Party, could it be just part of a natural cycle? Perhaps. In the end, politics is not about who is right but about who argues the best, the main strength that lawyers have. Nonetheless, we must realize that as time passes, technological development becomes more rapid as a result of the increased knowledge that humans possess. At that point, humans will trust the Internet more, if they haven’t started to already, than our lawyer-turned politicians because the lives of humans revolve around the Internet. The transition has already started, though it has had a very small effect for the moment. The Economist used Singapore as an example. According to The Economist, “the political and [technological] expert components of the governing system there seem to have merged completely.” For example, their prime minister, Lee Hsien Loong, is an expert in computer science. Furthermore, former President of Singapore Tony Tan, who resigned on August 31, graduated with a PhD in applied mathematics. In addition, he received his bachelor’s in physics and his Master of Science in Operations Research. The Economist also reported that “Mexico’s Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) has evolved from revolutionary generals to lawyer-politicians and finally economist-technocrats, but with less success.” Low success is expected at the moment because the transition is in the earliest stage that one could imagine. A country has to anticipate a bumpy road when going through a change as big as this one. Technological takeover has not only occurred in politics, but in sports as well. For example, sabermetrics - the application of statistical analysis to baseball records - has taken over baseball. In the past, scouts used to look at only home runs and runs batted in when analyzing batters and only earned run average and wins when analyzing pitchers. Now, scouts are analyzing top baseball prospects by using advanced statistics. For batters, scouts now use weighted on-base average, weighted runs created plus, and batting average on balls in play. For pitchers, scouts are using fielding independent pitching and skill-interactive earned run average. I know that I am losing the attention of most of you right now with all of this talk about baseball. You folks are the type of people that society neither wants nor needs to run this country. People that do not like baseball would not last in a gunfight. You need to be calculated. Patient. You have to play the long game. Tim Harford of the Financial Times observed that after
the financial crisis passed, politicians did nothing while “technocratic central bankers were - to borrow a phrase from Mohamed El-Erian, economic advisor - ‘the only game in town’ in sustaining a recovery.” Harford believes that “technocrats may not be too interested in politics, but politics is interested in technocrats.” However, I believe that technology will become so ingrained in us that the technocrats will have little to no choice but to become involved in politics. People are also egocentric by nature- they always want more. For example, “selfies” on social media apps like Instagram are a constant stroking of their own egos in today’s social media realm. Powerhouses in technology already have an influence on society, so they will want an even bigger influence by attempting to obtain political power. For example, Mark Zuckerberg gave a commencement speech this past May at Harvard University which gave the impression that he was establishing a political agenda. According to the Financial Times, he “suggested support for criminal justice reform, continuous education and the redistribution of wealth.” Zuckerberg is already one of the richest men in the world, yet he wants even more power. He has already made a fortune from Facebook, so why not take an extra step and obtain political power, to really command people’s information? One would imagine that he has at least a decent chance of doing so as a result of his major influence on society already. There is another major concern regarding the technocratic rise. People that have success in the field of technology usually work in big cities, such as New York City or San Francisco. Those cities strongly lean liberal. As a result, the inhabitants have a good chance of being influenced by the political landscape in the region, and the technology. I am already witnessing this transition with Yahoo. Whenever I go to their homepage, I only see news articles from either the Huffington Post, Newsweek, or the Independent, which all strongly support the left. Social media will also be on the rise, which means that more people will become brainwashed by the users of social media to promote their liberal agenda. What they do is nitpick a situation and act as if the situation happens all the time. A majority of regular folks who spew their political beliefs on Twitter spend so much time on social media I’d believe they don’t have jobs. They are probably the same people who go out to protest at 1:00 p.m. because they have free time, unlike the working American. Folks that use social media for the sole purpose of confirming their own biased opinions are really showing their naivety these days and it could very well end up becoming worse in the future. People should avoid social media like the bubonic plague. Nobody knows when or if the change to a technocracy will happen, though I do believe that it will occur. If indeed that is the case, it will certainly change the way we function in society. Sources http://www.economist.com/node/21538698 https://www.ft.com/content/66d357d4-0970-11e7-ac5a-903b21361b43 https://www.ft.com/content/bc384cea-4186-11e7-9d56-25f963e998b2
UNDER EIGHT FEET OF WATER, DIVISIVE POLITICS STILL PREVAIL
Under Eight Feet of Water, Divisive Politics Still Prevail By Aditi Roy
n Friday, August 25th, a Category 4 hurricane hit the coast of Texas with winds reaching over 130 mph and over 50 inches of rainfall.1 Hurricane Harvey claimed the lives of over 40 people and has been estimated to have caused over $125 billion in damages.2 The tragedy brought out the worst of mother nature, along with the best and worst in mankind. Usually people put aside their differences during such events in efforts to come together and help those affected by the disaster. Businesses, celebrities, billionaires, and ordinary people have come together to raise millions of dollars in the relief effort and countless charities have donated food and supplies. But of course, the radical left agenda stops for no one, and leftists wasted no time in smearing the victims. Politico tweet-
Credit to Politico ed out a tone-deaf cartoon playing up Texas stereotypes and putting libertarians, confederates, secessionists, and religious people in the same group.3 The cartoonist seems to miss the fact that the majority of donations, volunteers, and relief efforts have come from private organizations, charities, fellow citizens, etc. aka not the government. Never mind the fact that some of the areas where the hurricane caused massive damage such as Harris
County, where Houston is located, and Fort Bend County, are blue counties where hundreds of thousands overwhelmingly voted for Hillary Clinton last November.4
Fort Bend County, Texas5 The left has gotten so used to labeling all conservatives as racists, bigots, neo-confederates, etc. that they have no problem throwing their own under the bus too, even if it means doing so after one of the worst storms since Hurricane Katrina. That wasn’t the worst of course, as French satirist magazine Charlie Hebdo went all in with the “Nazi” and “white-supremacist” rhetoric on the front cover of their August issue, with a title that translates to “God Exists! He Drowned All the Neo-Nazis of Texas!”6 Again, Houston is one of the most diverse cities in America,7 and whites are expected to become a minority by the end of the decade.8 Not to mention that in the fight against the Nazis during WWII, Texas sent 700,000 soldiers to the war effort, more than any other state.9 And last I checked, it was all the way up in Charlottesville, Virginia where actual Neo-Nazis marched in a white-identitarian rally that lead to the death of a counter-protester.10 This hurricane did not discriminate by race or gender when it destroyed the lives of thousands of people, yet the left seems insistent on separating its victims by race and gender. Linda Sarsour, a social justice activist who gained a following after the Women’s March, was caught exploiting the hurricane to raise funds for a polit-
ical action committee by telling her 232,000 Twitter followers to donate to the “relief fund”, which was actually just a leftist PAC with no connection to Hurricane Harvey relief funds.11 Then, when she was getting called out for scamming people, she doubled down and labeled her critics a bunch of “white supremacists obsessed w/ smearing women of color”.12 But what can we expect from a woman who called CNN’s Jake Tapper “alt-right” and said that Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a victim of female genital mutilation didn’t deserve her vagina because she criticized Islam.13 Stay woke, fam. While millions of dollars of donations have been raised to provide basic necessities for survival, one charity decided that fundraising for women to have abortions was a priority.14 The Lilith Fund for Reproductive Equity created an emergency fund for hurricane survivors to be able to kill their babies on top of an already morbid situation. That wasn’t all though, it wouldn’t be divisive politics without framing President Trump as racistsexistbigothomophobe in some way, regardless of whether or not such accusations are valid. After Hurricane Katrina, the media went in on criticis-
Vol. XXX, Issue II
UNDER EIGHT FEET OF WATER, DIVISIVE POLITICS STILL PREVAIL
ing President Bush for not ending his vacation soon enough once the disaster occurred and for flying over New Orleans after the hurricane and not making a presidential stop.15 When Louisiana flooded back in 2016 where 13 people died and 85,000 registered for aid and Obama was on vacation, they were comparatively silent, aside from conservative outlets. But when Trump actually visits the affected areas as soon as it was safe for him to do so, the headlines from the Atlantic, CNN, Washington Post, Huffington Post, and many more stated that he wasn’t “empathetic” enough.16 Because apparently trying to gauge how much empathy Trump had was more important than focusing on the specifics of the relief effort, or the fact that Trump himself pledged to donate $1 million to the cause. Perhaps he should have shed a tear instead, like Obama during his speech about gun violence after Sandy Hook, because showing that level of empathy surely made a difference in preventing mass shootings during his presidency (Navy Yard, Fort Hood #2, Kansas JCC, Charleston, Chattanooga, Roseburg Community College, San Bernardino, Kalamazoo Uber Driver, and Pulse Orlando).17 Even more useless was the focus on the First Lady’s choice of shoes.18 Last I checked, questioning what a woman wears when you wouldn’t do the same for a man was called sexism (@everyone who said this about people criticising Hillary’s pantsuits). Melania wore a pair of black stiletto heels when boarding Air Force one, and contributing Vogue editor Lynn Yaeger just couldn’t get
it passed her tacky haircut that Mrs. Trump changed into sneakers before landing. You can’t make this stuff up. From smearing the victims of one of the most diverse cities in the country as Neo-Nazis to using empathy as an argument to criticising some damn shoes, you almost would have missed the fact that Hurricane Harvey landed in Texas three times, resulted in 20 trillion gallons of total rainfall across Texas and Louisiana, destroyed over 184,000 homes, and placed over 42,000 people in shelters. Thankfully, most people have been able to look past the political smear tactics and come together to donate their time, money, and/or supplies for the victims. The aftermath of Hurricane Harvey gave us incredible spectacles of the best of what humanity has to offer of people putting aside their differences to help one another during such a time of need. It also showed us once again the absolute pettiness of out-of-touch partisan hacks.
Left: Melania Trump and her triggering stilettos Right: Contributing Vogue Editor Lynn Yaeger triggered by Melania Trump’s stilettos
https://www.nytimes. com/2017/08/25/us/hurricane-harvey-texas. html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=a-lede-package-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news 2 http://abcnews.go.com/US/hurricane-harvey-wreaks-historic-devastation-numbers/story?id=49529063 3 http://www.washingtonexaminer. com/politico-cartoonist-revels-in-hurricane-harvey/article/2632973 4 https://www.texastribune. org/2016/11/09/see-which-counties-texastrump-and-clinton-won/ 5 https://www.dallasnews.com/news/ photos/2017/08/27/photos-biblical-flooding-innundates-southeast-texas 6 http://thehill.com/homenews/media/348696-charlie-hebdo-cover-god-existshe-drowned-all-the-neo-nazis-of-texas 7 http://www.latimes.com/nation/ la-na-houston-diversity-2017-htmlstory.html, http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/ article/How-Houston-became-the-most-diverse-city-in-11133665.php 8 http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/ local/article/Hispanics-to-outnumber-whitesin-Texas-by-the-end-6375597.php 9 http://www.thc.texas.gov/preserve/ projects-and-programs/military-sites/texasworld-war-ii 10 http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/14/us/ charlottesville-car-photo/index.html 11 http://www.dailywire.com/ news/20429/shameless-linda-sarsour-solicits-donations-leftist-hank-berrien 12 http://www.dailywire.com/ news/20513/sarsour-caught-exploiting-hurricane-harvey-then-hank-berrien 13 http://www.washingtontimes.com/ news/2017/jul/19/linda-sarsour-accuses-jaketapper-being-alt-right-/ 14 http://www.dailywire.com/ news/20564/charity-solicits-donations-help-hurricane-harvey-frank-camp 15 http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/08/18/bias-alert-media-thatripped-bush-on-katrina-ignores-obama-onla-flooding.html 16 https://www.google.com/ search?q=trump+hurricane+empathy&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjOsaSYkZLWAhWFNSYKHWMnAs0Q_AUICigB&biw=1315&bih=693, https:// www.theatlantic.com/politics/ archive/2017/08/trump-sympathy-harvey-inspiration/538404/ 17 https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/ politics/2016/06/12/14-massshootings-14-speeches-howobama-has-responded/85798652/# 18 https://www.vogue.com/article/melania-trump-hurricane-harvey-stilettos 1
Free Market(Place) By Emma Ryan
ollowing the release of Pipe Dream’s article, “Campus Dunkin’ charges more than local Vestal, Binghamton stores,” outrage ensued. Students and employees alike were shocked and offended to discover that “60 of the 90 items were more expensive on campus.” Are these price hikes justified? Is there a solution to the complex pricing system of on-campus eateries? The primary defense of owner Santina Christian is that operating on campus involves a different and more complicated set of expenses as compared to operating off-campus. Thanks to the university’s ten year contract with Sodexo, this is true. Sodexo pays Binghamton University to operate on campus. Sodexo essentially rents the space and equipment necessary to operate from the university. The contract dictates that Sodexo controls all food operations and has the final say in what is served to students. When a retailer wants to come to campus, it must negotiate a contract with Sodexo. According to retail manager Megan Gorski, it took “three years of planning and preparation… to make the Dunkin proposal a reality.” In three years, I can practically complete a degree. An unnamed source implied that Sodexo typically takes approximately 20% of the retailer’s sales. In exchange, Sodexo provides cashiers and other services, such as ordering supplies, and the retailer does not need to pay rent or utilities. This is a sort of twisted monopoly. Sodexo gets to control all of the food sources on campus, making it harder for outside companies to serve the students. For example, the late Bearcat Cafe (R.I.P. in peace) is currently a big question mark. Sodexo employees, whether it be the floor managers or the back
office workers, are struggling to come up with a way to utilize the station. It’s really hard for them to come up with good ideas, unfortunately. But there are definitely other companies that know what BU students like, such as nearly every restaurant downtown. If one of these restaurants wanted to rent the station, they would have to go through Sodexo, who technically is a competitor, gain Sodexo’s approval, and then give Sodexo 20% of sales… you don’t need to be a business major to know that’s a lot. It would be one thing if Sodexo’s approval ratings weren’t worse than Trump’s, but students near and far have endless complaints about Sodexo. Whether the Sodexo Shits got you feeling some typa way, or you just don’t like the food, I think it’s safe to say that people are dissatisfied with the food Sodexo serves. The dining halls are trash. The MarketPlace is decent, but a majority of the food in the MarketPlace isn’t from Sodexo. Take a look at this handy chart: Sodexo Owned Outside and Operated Retailers
• Cakes & Eggs • SubConnection • NY Deli • Garden Toss • Red Mango
• Chick-nBap • Tully’s University • Mein Bowl • Hissho Sushi • CopperTop • Moghul
And Red Mango barely counts; it’s a franchise that Sodexo manages. Take a look at the list. Look closely. Which stations are more popular? Which do students prefer? The ones on the right or the left? Y’all know it’s the ones on the right. The busiest station in the MarketPlace is probably Chick-n-Bap, followed by Tully’s. Yet Sodexo is still the
“Essentially, businesses can’t simply come onto campus and start selling food, nor can they easily rent vacant spaces and operate their businesses.” primary contract holder and negotiator. Why should a company that serves sub-par, unfavorable food have control over all food choices on campus? It shouldn’t! What else does Sodexo do besides control everything (poorly) and sell shitty food? They provide the meal plan service? I guess? The meal plans are overpriced, probably because only one company can provide them. Essentially, businesses can’t simply come onto campus and start selling food, nor can they easily rent vacant spaces and operate their businesses. All sellers must go through Sodexo. Dunkin’ could not simply open up in the Tillman Lobby and operate as usual; owners Christian and Vanderline had to consider the increased cost of dealing with Sodexo and selling on Sodexo’s turf. Students are hurt by Sodexo’s contract with the University plain and simple. We wind up paying higher prices for things that we could get off campus for a cheaper price. We are stuck with limited options. If we want cheaper choices, we are forced to go to the nasty dining halls, which are less appetizing than cat food. If campus dining was a free market, students would enjoy better choices and better prices. The University could easily provide students with a meal plan and lease the space out to both vendors and retailers. BU already owns all of the space and equipment, so why doesn’t it control it? Why let Sodexo ruin our dietary tracts and overcharge us? Something’s fishy here, and it’s not what I’ve been eating. We’re basically eating prison food. Good news is, Sodexo is only on year three of its ten year contract with BU! #blessed! And by the time the contract’s up, we’ll all be long gone. Here’s to another seven years of Sodexo Shits!
Vol. XXX, Issue II
THE AUDACITY OF THIS BITCH
The Audacity of This Bitch By Rebecca Goldstein
have been a member of the Binghamton Review for about two years now, and within the past two semesters I have noticed that we have some big issues. See that joke there? In all seriousness, many of our issues (otherwise known as our property) are being defaced and destroyed. Reminiscent of notes your mom left for you in your lunchbox, we’ve had cute notes left for us declaring us “fascists.” A particularly heartwarming one was on a small stack of issues left at the top of the Marketplace stairs near M&T Bank, declaring our issues “toilet paper.” We’ve had issues torn in half and left hanging; we’ve had whole stacks literally just stolen and put somewhere else. This is nothing new. Back in the day, a true fan sent us a picture of himself urinating on a stack of our issues. At least that guy had the courage to admit to his actions. The whole mission of the Review is to encourage free speech. Although we have an agenda to preserve a conservative/libertarian voice on campus, we want to be able to show that we are truly devoted to a free discussion of people’s ideas. However, there is absolutely a line between “free speech” and “destruction of property and defacing someone’s work because you’re a triggered little snowflake.” We quite literally are all adults here, and we are all bright enough to have been accepted into a “premier public university”. I guess we cannot have civil discourse and instead must act like a bunch of little bitches apparently. It is appalling to me that the “tolerant left” acts so intolerant! Because let’s be real - we know exactly what kind of person is causing all of this
drama. The far left - the anarcho-communists, the extreme socialists, the die-hard Bernie bros, and every socalled forward-thinking “progressive” - preach tolerance until it doesn’t fit their belief system, and then they claim that the political right is the true intolerant and hateful side. Literally it’s a bunch of pieces of paper stapled together. How is it that big of a deal? If what we print is such an issue to you, don’t touch it, and instead write a long hateful email to our editor. Just walk away. It’s a printed magazine; what is it gonna do, jump out and bite you? If it’s really that offensive to you then I can understand ripping a page down to wipe your leftist tears but that’s the ONLY thing.
You might think it’s so “edgy” to destroy our property or that you’re impacting real change in our organization. All you are doing is wasting SA funds by destroying the issues that they help us pay for, and preventing serious fans or critics from reading what we have to say. You might say, “But my actions are totally justified! You print hate speech!” (Spoiler alert: views expressed by the writers don’t necessarily represent the views of the publication as a whole.) It couldn’t be made any more clear by rational apologists for the right: speech is not violence. If someone says or believes something you don’t agree with, or that you think constitutes a call to violence but does not literally rouse soldiers in battle, it’s not justified to respond with violence against them. Changing one’s assumptions about the world and human nature can provide a valid defense of the left and the right. Understand that they’re just that: assumptions. That is, until you can prove them in a rational debate, which seems to be something that a certain side of the political spectrum is incapable of having. I hope that people start to notice your defacement of our property. I hope that your vandalism will not go unchecked, and that justice and sanity will be restored to our campus. And if my words are triggering to you because they defend the right of anyone to speak freely in a forum of ideas, you’re going to think twice about responding in the way you have the past two semesters. You’re going to find a mature way to express your thoughts and feelings about our mission and what we do. If you can’t, I pity the fool.
By Pino Che
f you have ever had to suffer through the abomination of a Sociology class at any university then you will know that racism is not defined as prejudice against someone of another race. The Webster Dictionary definition of “prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior,” is not used when discussing racism. No, racism has been redefined as power plus prejudice. This means that an African-American cannot be racist towards a white American because, according to this new rhetoric, we are all trained to believe that since birth African-Americans do not hold power in our nation. Rather, whites, and more specifically, white males hold power; therefore the phrase racism/racist is meant to address only one group - Caucasian people. The word racist is often thrown around in debates, usually aimed at whites. Anyone that goes against the current leftist regime, or as I call it the dildo regime, is branded as a racist. The term is meant to get the “racist” individual harassed, forced to denounce something, or silenced. When those on the left call you a racist what they are trying to do is silence you. If someone says, “that opinion is racist” or “that fact is racist” what they are effectively saying is “Shut up white person.” They are saying that their opinion is the only justifiable one and that any other opinion needs to be shut down. It is a term meant to disarm and cause the accused to go on a tirade trying to defend that they are not racist. However, the term itself is merely an epithet and has become meaningless. It is used to convince whites not to engage in meaningful conversation. Those on the left constantly claim that they want an open conversation, but if you do not agree with all their opinions and positions, they do not want an open conversation. They want silence, and silence is something we will never give them. That is what we are here for and why the corporate media
establishment, the liberal education system, and the military-industrial complex are all run under the same opinion. They all run under the same anti-white zeitgeist that hangs over our country, but no longer shall we be disarmed by a word. Am I trying to claim that racism, the historical definition of the word and not the new and “improved” liberal definition, has never existed in the world? Of course not. Are there modern day cases of racism now? Of course, there are. However, that term is not being used for those. The word “racist” is being used to describe anyone to the right of Chairman Mao politically in 2017. Ben Shapiro has an argument guide for when someone calls you a racist. His argument simply tells you to state that the person you are debating is illogical and ending the conversation. However, this argument is not efficient enough. One must understand that what they are doing is trying to is silence you. Ben Shapiro essentially tells you to be silent when debating someone who calls you racist. Instead, one must go on the offensive and not the defensive in the debate. If you are talking about tax policy and someone calls you racist, combat them by claiming they are anti-white. In turn, they will be very thrown off because they are not used to this rhetoric being hurled at them. In this day and age,
being called racist is synonymous with morally wrong. They are using pathos in their argument, or more simply they are appealing to morality/emotions. You will either have to go on the offensive or deconstruct their moral basis (which is not worth doing because the left already tried to “deconstruct” gender and ended up with a mob of weird degenerates who attack old people, aka Antifa). These people do not deserve to be argued with logically. If someone is going to argue with you illogically, return the favor, no holds barred. Don’t call them a racist, they will laugh at you. Instead, call them anti-white and you will see them hesitant. They have never had terminology like that used against them. Watch them squirm. When you throw their morality right back in their face then you can win. Now, if you are arguing with a reasonable person who talks about racism, understandably, someone on the Right wing, then you do not need to use this rhetoric. This rhetoric is for the left. The Left is a violent political organization trying to attack everyone and everything that you stand for if you don’t stand with them. They want you disarmed in conversations and then disarmed in the streets. Your fate will be the fate of all those murdered by the Left ever since those original communists locked themselves in that tennis court room in France. Adios!
Vol. XXX, Issue II
AMERICA NEEDS TRUMP’S IMMIGRATION POLICY
America Needs Trump’s Immigration Policy T By Don Quixote
he citizens of the United States of America, fed up with Barack Obama’s refusal to stand up for America’s interests, elected Donald Trump to the presidency on a platform of America First. Obama failed as president to uphold the very purpose of a government “By the people, of the people, and [most importantly] for the people.” The purpose of a government is to provide a collective benefit to the citizens of a country. According to the social contract, postulated by the western political philosophers Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau, citizens give up certain rights in exchange for government protection and services. For the last 8 years under the Obama administration, the government failed to uphold the social contract by putting the interests of illegitimate, illegal aliens, who give up nothing for the benefits of living in our country, ahead of the interests of law abiding, taxpaying American citizens. This was done through many Obama programs and executive orders, including DACA and neglecting to enforce immigration laws. The United States is a land of immense opportunity that provides some of the best government services in the world. That being said, we have an obligation to protect and defend the American lifestyle from outsiders. That is not to say that all immigration is bad. Immigrants who are educated, speak our language, and have skills that can contribute to the exceptional nation that is America are 100% welcome here... if they go through the lawful immigration process. In fact, we need more brainpower and productivity to remain the best and most technologically advanced society on earth. Unskilled, illegal immigrants who do not speak our language and undermine working class American citizens by displacing them in the workforce have no place here. But, Obama welcomed them with open arms and fistfuls of cash at the expense of American workers and taxpayers.
Donald Trump, on the other hand, has shown his commitment to the American way of life by putting American workers first. Many people feel that Trump’s policies are unnecessarily harsh, and to be completely honest, it is an upsetting humanitarian crisis when our law enforcement agencies are forced to deport illegal aliens. Yes, it breaks up families and that is sad, but it is not something that should weigh on our collective conscience. People who are here illegally made a deliberate decision to disregard the laws and policies of our country. They knew full well what they were doing when they crossed our border illegally and should’ve anticipated the penalties for being here illegally that are codified in the law and made publicly available. The illegal immigrant has herself to blame if she is deported, and they cannot claim to be Americans at heart if they so blatantly disregard our immigration laws. The goal of Trump’s immigration policy is not deportation, as that would be inhumane. The goal is to discourage people from coming illegally in the first place. If we had consistent enforcement of immigration laws, aliens would have no incentive to come here and no deportations would be necessary. Barack Obama actually did illegal immigrants a disservice by not enforcing immigration laws fully, because it encouraged them to come. If you are an illegal alien, we DO NOT want to deport you. It costs us even more money and forces us to use violence against typically peaceful illegal aliens. Our goal should be not to punish illegal immigrants but to deter them from coming illegally in the first place, and the first step in
achieving that goal is to change our rhetoric, which Donald Trump has already done. Under the Trump Administration, illegal immigration is down 73%1. That is mostly not due to any policy, but simply to change of rhetoric. Under the Obama Administration, illegal immigrants were told that they would be given de facto amnesty; law enforcement looked the other way, and illegal immigrants felt free to exploit our healthcare system, our welfare system, and all of our government services at the expense of taxpaying American citizens. Obama’s lax policies incentivized illegal immigration. Donald Trump changed this. He made it clear that we would not tolerate being exploited by illegal immigrants any longer. He literally said that he wanted to “build a wall!” to keep out illegal immigrants. Completely open borders are a race to the bottom for the people in more developed countries. As a result, we have an obligation to restrict who is allowed into our country, based on the priorities of our own country and our own citizens, and not the priorities of noncitizen aliens. In the United States today, we have a quality of life so valuable that citizens of other countries will go through all sorts of trouble, including dangerous border crossings just to live in the U.S. illegally. We ought to recognize this and protect our prosperity, our country, and our fellow American citizens, by maintaining a government for the people (our own people, legal citizens, that is!)! You wouldn’t let a random person walk into your house, eat your food, and sleep in your bed. You would tell them to leave. It’s about time that we have a president willing to tell illegal immigrants to leave. Source: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/apr/25/donald-trump/illegal-immigration-lowest-17-years-trump-said/
WHAT DOES THE INTERNET THINK OF 9/11?
What Does the Internet Think of 9/11? By Our Staff
his year we commemorate the 16th anniversary of the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil in modern history. It’s a topic that gets many people revved up, whether it’s because they think that 9/11 was an inside job, or they’re pissed at the people who think this, or they hate that it led to endless wars in the Middle East, etc. Regardless of your stance, what is absolutely undeniable is its impact on politics and culture. Here, we take a look at what the Internet thinks.
Vol. XXX, Issue II
THE AGONY OF EVIL
his article was originally published in the September 2001 issue of Binghamton Review.
Hurricane Harvey Strikes!