BINGHAMTON REVIEW
From the Editor
Dear Readers,
This may be the last editorial I write. No, I’m not retiring or dying (last I checked). I’m planning on selling this page as ad-space next semester. This is mostly motivated by the fact that these ~500 words are extremely extraneous, and often an afterthought in the production of this issue. We already have a perfectly good table of contents on the page to my left, so I don’t see any point to my yapping about articles on this page. Don’t worry, if I need to yap, I can always kick out some freshie’s article and fill the page with my multifarious mumblings.
But that’s 2024 talk, same with graduation and elections. (If you’re into that, check out Angelo DiTocco’s piece on page 9.) But this remains the Year of our Lord 2023 (MMDCCLXXVI A.U.C.), and I want to make the most of it! For this issue, I have resolved to resolve the dialectic tension betwixt cat and dog—yin and yang—with this genius concept: the “Pet Issue.” Dogs, cats, whatever! So long as it’s not the subject of common phobias, the pets of our writers and editors are going in here. You can find the deluge of cool creatures on page 8.
Speaking of “deluges,” how often do you think about Young-Earth Creationism? If you’re anything like Logan Blakeslee, the answer is apparently “every day.” Check out his piece about a recent visit to Kentucky’s own Ark Encounter exhibit on pages 4 and 5, where he details and critiques the “science” on display at the museum.
If religion’s not your thing, we have an article about Christmas and its role in society and economics on page 6, penned by Darina Keshtova, where she considers the hidden economic lessons found in Dickens’ famous “A Christmas Carol.”
The story’s well and good, but you know where you see a horrible person repent and become charitable? Twitter. Or is it “X,” now? Liam Steele sure doesn’t think so. On page 14 he exposes the sheer nihilistic cesspit the app has become under Musk’s rule. (Not that it was much better before then, in my opinion.)
One of the big Twitter dramas of the good old days (three weeks ago) was the election of Javier Milei, the funny shouting guy from those internet videos. For a libertarian’s reflection on the nail-biting election, see Shayne O’Loughlin’s piece on pages 12 and 13.
Finally, if you find yourself sad and lonely this Binghamton winter, check out “A Bearcat’s Hymn” on pages 10 and 11. My parody of “Greensleeves/What Child is This” should warm even the coldest heart of the Binghamton student.
This issue is bursting with content, and I’ve barely scratched the surface with this Editorial, so be sure to read it through. R.I.P. Henry Kissinger, and Merry Christmas!
Sincerely,
Arthur O’Sullivan
Our Mission
Binghamton Review is a non-partisan, student-run news magazine 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 on campus. We stand against dogma in all of its forms, both on campus and beyond. We believe in the tenents of free expression and believe all sudents should have a voice on campus to convey their thoughts. Finally, we understand that mutual respect is a necessary component of any prosperous 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.
The Kentucky Conference or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Noah’s Ark
Astute readers of this publication may recall my article “Creationism in America: Faith turned Fanatical” from February of 2023. For those who have not read it, I highly suggest skimming through it before reading this follow-up, as it provides the context necessary to understand the basics of Young-Earth Creationism in the United States. With that said, I will now regale you with my experiences at the Ark Encounter in Williamstown, Kentucky.
I recently had the privilege of being invited by a subsidiary of the Leadership Institute, called the Christian Leadership Program, to an event which took place from 11/18/23–11/19/23. The event was named the Ark Statesmen Conference, which was intended to equip young Christians with an interest in politics with the skills to change public policy in a more… spiritual direction. It was impossible for me to turn down an opportunity like this, especially as it was taking place at the new focal point of Young-Earth Creationism, a subject which I already had strong interest in. I was determined to see Noah’s Ark with my own eyes.
By Logan Blakeslee
surprised me. There had only been about two or three other tour buses besides our own that day.
There was even a diorama of a dinosaur fighting a gladiator, which was objectively cool
I acknowledge that this low rate of attendance is probably the result of it being a slow travel season. Not many people venture out to these kinds of places in late November due to work or school. Fortunately for my group, we did not have to wait in line for entry. We got off the bus and spent three hours in a conference room in the basement of the “Answers Center” next to the ark. The Answers Center is the place to listen to live lectures given by creationist researchers, although sometimes it hosts concerts and other events. It also sports a sizable gift shop full of books and other collectibles.
I must first thank the Leadership Institute and its sponsors for the trip. My cozy accommodation at the Marriott Hotel in Cincinnati, Ohio, free bus and shuttle transportation, and my complimentary ticket and meal voucher for the Ark Encounter itself are things that I am deeply grateful for. Without L.I.’s generosity, this trip would have cost me a small fortune. For conservative and Christian students out there, you should really take a look at what other amazing opportunities L.I. has to offer. I will also thank the kind staff at the Ark Encounter for always being polite, helpful, and informative. I met a cashier at the gift shop from Vestal, NY and she was very courteous! Northerners could learn a thing about hospitality from these folks.
That aside, my analysis of the Ark Encounter will feature a great deal of criticism. In my previous article, I was perhaps too generous to Young-Earth Creationism and its stipulations, or perhaps Ken Ham (founder of Answers in Genesis and the Ark Encounter) is not the right person to lead the movement. I will jump into my critique after describing my time at the attraction, which was an overall fascinating experience.
My travel group of fellow conference participants, around sixty in total, arrived at the Ark Encounter around 10 A.M. to an awe-inspiring view of the reconstructed vessel sitting atop a hill in the distance. The massive structure dominated the rural landscape, which in itself was very beautiful and pristine. Our travel bus looped up a winding road, bringing us to the top of another hill that gave way to a nearly empty parking lot. I could not count more than 100 cars in a parking lot which could fit 4,000, and this
During this initial phase of the conference, we discussed ways to fundraise or raise awareness for events that promote conservative ideas on college campuses. The advice that was offered is tried-and-true, even if it may sound repetitive. We discussed how to get in contact with media outlets in order to promote stories that highlight conservative experiences at universities. Much of the content that was discussed would be intimately familiar to attendees of CPAC, Revolution (Young Americans for Liberty), AmericaFest (Turning Point USA), or other right-leaning conventions.
At 1 P.M. , we were dismissed and given the ability to explore any area of the attraction as we pleased. I followed some of my peers as we approached the massive wooden ship and boarded it. Words fail to describe the feeling of standing in front of the world’s largest wooden structure. The craftsmen behind this project did not disappoint in their work. The ark’s length is 510 feet, its width 85 feet, and its height 51 feet. A large ramp is connected to the hull, but visitors must enter from a different ramp beneath the ship. Upon entering, one can see countless displays which explain life on the ark and how Noah could have cared for so many animals during the Great Flood, or as I call it, the Deluge. There is an incredible amount of detail and thought put into every corner and exhibit. The visuals and artwork are astounding.
The ark is arranged into three decks which have different themes. To progress, one must proceed up a series of ramps that run throughout the ship. The first two decks are largely similar, containing a wide variety of model animals, both living and extinct, in wooden cages. These cages are surrounded by ceramic pots and jars and candles and other things which help explain how living beings inhabited this great vessel. The second deck does feature a theater of sorts, and I saw a short film depicting Noah being interviewed by a nonbeliever shortly before the Deluge. The actress for the nonbeliever kept slipping between a Southern and a British accent, and the jokes didn’t land quite right, but the actor for Noah seemed like a wholesome fellow.
The most interesting exhibits were the ones that tried to give an impression of life before the Great Flood. Intricate murals on the walls portray a civilization that practiced constant warfare, child sacrifice, slavery, polygamy, and every sort of hedonism imaginable. This provides the justification for God delivering judgment on humanity. There was even a diorama of a dinosaur fighting a gladiator, which was objectively cool. I appreciate the genuine passion that the artists behind these exhibits had for the subject matter.
Equally fascinating were the exhibits which explained the mechanics of the Deluge, which coincided with powerful volcanic eruptions that triggered earthquakes, tsunamis, and caused the continents to drift apart. Fossils are described as mostly being the result of the flood, with countless plants and animals being buried under vast layers of sediment carried by moving water. These ideas are the basis of Flood Geology, which seeks to prove the biblical account of events by studying rock formations across the globe.
The third deck contained numerous cages for birds, as well as the living quarters of Noah’s family. Farther along were some of the oldest copies of the Gospels in existence, dated between the 2nd and 3rd centuries. This was set up to promote the Museum of the Bible in Washington, D.C., which opened recently in 2017. One section of the ark described how (Protestant) missionaries brought the Bible to different parts of the world and how (Protestants) translated scripture into different languages. Needless to say, I was dismayed by the omission of Catholic contributions to spreading the good news.
Taking an elevator to exit the ship, I ventured out and tried some of the smaller activities nearby. The first was a bewildering lecture on how the Bible explains race and racism, while also insinuating that Darwinism is responsible for racial oppression in the modern age. However, the woman giving the lecture, Avery Foley, was kind enough to let me take a photograph with her and answer some of my simpler questions. Like everyone else working at the Ark Encounter, she was considerate and very polite. Afterwards, I went for a ride on a carousel with a mix of modern animals and dinosaurs. I may have been too large to enjoy it properly, but I thought it was very cute. Then, I hopped into a VR simulation of the Great Flood which lasted a little over ten minutes. The simulation cost around $16, so I only recommend it if you have extra cash to spend. Following this, I had a top-notch buffet dinner at Emzara’s Kitchen, named after No-
ah’s wife. This was honestly one of my favorite dining experiences and each of the selections tasted very good.
After dinner had ended, I was sad to learn that the petting zoo had closed and I didn’t have nearly enough time to visit the zip-line. In lieu of these things, I went back to the gift shop and purchased a book on dinosaurs that was autographed by Ken Ham himself, mysteriously priced the same as a regular copy. My voyage had come to an end, so I returned to my group for the bus ride back to the hotel.
It would take too long to fully describe everything I saw and did during the Ark Statesmen Conference, but having had some time to reflect on it all, I observed innumerable instances of slander against secular scientists who specialize in biology and geology. Too many times I read of how mainstream science is done with a philosophical agenda to remove God from public thinking. Too many times I saw blatant mischaracterization of what science actually provides or how it’s conducted. The problem with the Ark Encounter and its parent company is that it works backwards on science.
Science is fundamentally about taking evidence and forming a hypothesis which can be falsified. Creationism seems to bend scientific conclusions in order to fit its own agenda. For example, one exhibit in the Ark Encounter described how Archaeopteryx, a feathered dinosaur which was once believed to be an ancestor of modern birds, was just a normal bird despite having hands, a snout (rather than a beak), a lizard-like hip, and a stiff tail. Ken Ham writes extensively about how dinosaurs didn’t have feathers and evidence to the contrary is just distortion in the fossils, or that science can’t explain why a flightless animal would evolve feathers. Whenever that explanation fails, he just lumps feathered dinosaur species into the category of “normal bird.”
Likewise, he adamantly believes that dinosaurs didn’t create nests in order to nurture their young. I speculate that this is due to the implication that dinosaurs having birdlike behaviors hurts the argument against evolution. I was repeatedly frustrated by the disdain shown to paleontology and its repeated demonstration that birds originated from dinosaurs, or at the very least, shared a lot of similarities with them.
Time after time, Ken Ham teaches his followers to respond with “you weren’t there” to a secular scientist whenever a claim is made about the age of the Earth. His arguments are ridden with logical fallacies and I was far more impressed with the work and debate style of his peers, particularly Bodie Hodge for his concise explanations of Flood Geology. Additionally, I am disheartened by Answers in Genesis’ position on other theological issues, such as their denial of Mary’s perpetual virginity and frequent misunderstanding of orthodox traditions.
I could go on about this and other complaints for pages and pages. Young-Earth Creationists rightly point out that American culture is ripping apart and Western society is becoming a hostile place for Christianity. Still, I am not convinced that the answer is to mislead others by constructing a grand conspiracy run by the ghost of Charles Darwin. I think that the correct answer is to trust in the Holy See and affirm every stance held by the Catholic Church, but that’s for another article.
Amen.
The Economics of “A Christmas Carol”
Christmas is a very special time of the year, associated not only with widely beloved traditions, favorite movies, hot chocolate, fir trees, and heart-warming stories, but also with economic and social significance. As a person studying these topics, I find it interesting to learn about economic trends during holidays like Christmas, where countless consumers engage in transactions with thousands of sellers, annually spending around eight hundred billion dollars. Even though the socio-economic impact of Christmas is strongly marked by current technological inventions and instruments of trading such as online stores, these factors do not really explain the roots of certain economic phenomena this holiday causes. These are often influenced by traditions that go back many years.
Like the majority of important social tendencies, the reasons for such broad economic activity are depicted and described in works of art. “A Christmas Carol,” by Charles Dickens, is a good example. The economic subtext of this novel will help us understand how it has changed people’s feeling of money, the dynamics of rising inequality and shifts in consumption patterns, setting the way we celebrate Christmas now.
We need to start with how the story originated. It’s widely known that Charles Dickens was financially struggling, and wrote this novel for money. However, I firmly believe that his own sentiments were also involved, as his text is penetrated with resentment from the poor towards their inhumane working and living conditions. The text carries a strong social message, showing the connection between society, organizations, and commerce. It thus quickly became a masterpiece of Dickensian literature.
It’s also important to consider the concept of Christmas and how it fits into the economic situation in England at the time the book was written. According to Clement A. Miles, the midwinter season was linked to economic excess as people suddenly increased their spending with their yearly savings. Consequently, we can see the political and economic significance of the Roman Catholic Church identifying the celebration of Christmas on the day of Christ’s birth. In the time of Dickens, the middle class sought a new approach to Christmas, featuring a diminishing popularity of the season to combat the danger of social conflict between rich and poor, while still having a need for a new kind of large-scale, non-utilitarian consumption economy to support the increasing scale of industrial production. This economic climate made “A Christmas Carol” even more relevant for its time.
The narrative unfolds on Christmas Eve at approximately 3 p.m.. Ebenezer Scrooge, once a partner of a financial enterprise in London, now runs the firm alone since his partner Jacob Marley died seven years prior. Charles Dickens introduces Scrooge in the most negative manner, meeting customers with greed and mistreating his clerk, Bob Cratchit. Despising the “humbug” of Christmas, the lonesome Scrooge heads home where he encounters ghostly apparitions, beginning with Marley’s warning about the burden of his misdeeds in the afterlife. After, the
By Darina Keshtova
Ghost of Christmas Past makes Scrooge revisit joyful moments. The next apparition—the Ghost of Christmas Present—presents the joy of the season among both the rich and the poor. Finally, The Ghost of Christmas Future shows Scrooge his unmourned death, forcing him to rethink his world outlook and become a better, more charitable person. After waking up from this night’s journey, Scrooge sends generous gifts to his clerk and his family, consequently getting closer with the family and helping them overcome struggles. This gesture embodies the Christmas spirit.
This is significant not only from the point of showing the inner transformation of Scrooge, but in understanding the author’s view on how to address the economic concerns of that time. Even though Dickens shows the avarice of Scrooge induced by his wealth and social status, he does not find the solution of the problem in depriving the rich of how they accumulated wealth. He shows an alternative model of wealth-redistribution, that it should be brought back to economic circulation in the form of philanthropy and fair wages, which would significantly reduce inequality through increase of possible sufficient and more just consumption.
Dickens devotes a lot of significance to the role of consumption as the core of economic and social happiness in his text. He expresses it through depicting the Ghost of Christmas Present rising above Scrooge on the throne made of all the kinds of holiday dishes and delicacies, from turkey to bowls of punch. Moreover, in the final chapter after regenerative awakening, Scrooge, in order to show his gratitude to his clerk Bob and bring joy to the whole Cratchett family, sends them an expensive prize Turkey, a feast unavailable to the poorest of Victorian society.
By demonstrating the influence of the spirit of Christmas on the character of Scrooge and his rethinking of attitudes towards charity and helping the less fortunate in society, Dickens illustrates not only the protagonist’s desire to compensate his clerk for all his suffering, but also his focus on preventing social upheaval caused by inequality in the distribution of wealth and exploitation majority. At the same time, this change does not deprive the bourgeoisie of its social rights, providing the opportunity to open access to the benefits of industrialization to previously excluded classes. Thus, the bourgeoisie, while providing assistance to the less affluent sections of society, at the same time maintains its position, preventing possible social imbalances.
The story itself is considered by some to both depict and invent the paradigm of modern Anglo-American Christmas. Even though this is widely debated, it’s fair to say that “A Christmas Carol” depicts an idealized Christmas, where the artificially created feeling of civic engagement and social cohesion of rich and poor—which hardly characterized the relationships between classes in the society of that time—-takes place in the ancient historical context of this holiday. Yet still, “A Christmas Carol” definitely contributed to setting the course of how this holiday is to be celebrated in the modern day.
Only Scams: George Santos and the Art of Lying
George Santos, the scandal-plagued Republican Congressman of New York’s 3rd district, has been under scrutiny ever since the NY Times published a bombshell article on December 19th, 2022, revealing that Santos had largely fabricated his resume. Santos made false claims about his biography, work history, financial status, and other matters when he ran for Congress. Despite his constituents, Democrats, and even some Republicans all calling for his resignation, Santos refused and stated that he will run for reelection in 2024. While politics is a dirty business, Santos took the art of lying to a whole new level. By embellishing his resume and creating a fake persona of a gay moderate Republican with a successful career at Wall Street and running an animal rescue group, Santos scammed voters of a Biden +8 district in Long Island into electing him. However, a month following his election win, several news outlets exposed Santos as a fraud.
Santos claimed his grandparents were Ukrainian survivors of the Holocaust. However, genealogy records revealed those claims were false and that they were born in Brazil. When questioned about his faith, Santos responded by saying “I never claimed to be Jewish…I am Catholic. Because I learned my maternal family had a Jewish background I said I was ‘Jewish.’” Santos claimed he had earned a degree in economics and finance at Baruch College at the top of his class, was the star of the Baruch volleyball team, and earned an M.B.A. at NYU. Both schools released statements revealing that Santos never went to either of those schools.
In 2011, Brazilian authorities arrested Santos and was charged with check fraud after stealing a checkbook and using it to purchase a pair of shoes. The case was left unresolved in 2013 due to Santos skipping his court date. The case was revived in late 2022. Santos accepted a plea deal and agreed to pay around $5,000. Santos was accused of fraudulently collecting more than $24,000 in unemployment benefits by illegally applying for unemployment benefits in June 2020, after the program was expanded to help people out of work due to the pandemic, despite already earning an annual salary of around $120,000 as regional director of a Florida-based investment firm. Santos allegedly stole money from a disabled veteran named Richard Osthoff who came to him for help with paying for a life-saving surgery for his dog. Santos set up a GoFundMe that raised $3,000 needed for the surgery, but Osthoff never received the money. The dog died less than a year later.
On his campaign website, Santos claimed to be a Wall Street financier and investor who worked at Goldman Sachs and Citigroup, but neither company has record of his employment. What about “Friends of Pets United,” Santos’ supposed animal rescue charity? Also false. There weren’t any social media accounts for the organization, IRS records, nor evidence of registration in New York or New Jersey, where Santos claimed to have operated.
By Marco Flores
In a June 2021 post on X, Santos wrote that the 9/11 attacks “claimed my mother’s life.” In December of that same year, he claimed his mom had been dead for 6 years. On his campaign website, Santos claimed that his mom was in the South Tower on 9/11 and that she died from cancer a few years later. There were no records confirming her suffering from health problems caused by toxic debris following the attacks. Weeks later, two genealogists uncovered documents revealing that his mother was in Brazil in September 2001. 9/11 wasn’t the only tragedy Santos exploited. During an interview with WNYC, Santos said he lost four employees in the Pulse nightclub shooting in 2016, but the NY Times debunked those claims.
In May 2023, Santos was indicted on 13 criminal charges: seven counts of wire fraud, three counts of money laundering, one count of theft of public funds, and two counts of making materially false statements to the House of Representatives. California Democrat Congressman Robert Garcia and other House Democrats introduced a resolution to expel Santos, requiring a two-thirds vote. Since an expulsion motion is privileged, a vote was scheduled within two legislative days. The resolution failed in a 221–204 vote along party lines and it was instead referred to the Ethics committee; seven Democrats voted “present.” After Santos was indicted on additional charges in October, NY Republican Congressman Anthony D’Esposito and other five NY Republican House freshmen introduced a second expulsion resolution. The attempt failed on November 1st with the vote being 213-179, with 19 voting present. Support was mostly from Democrats, joined by 24 Republicans, while 31 Democrats joined Republicans in opposing. On November 16, the House Ethics finally released its report, detailing the eight-month investigation into Santos and his campaign. The report revealed that Santos broke federal laws by stealing money from his campaign for his own personal use, including money raised for RedStone Strategies that donors were told would be used on campaigns. This includes over $4,000 to Hermés, plastic surgery and Botox, payments of personal credit card bills, personal travel to Atlantic City and Las Vegas, and a small amount on OnlyFans subscriptions. Because of this damning report, a growing list of Republicans who previously voted to keep Santos now support expelling him.
When a political system is so broken, serial liars like Santos are able to slip through the cracks and get themselves elected to public office. Because Republicans didn’t properly vet him and Democrats didn’t do any opposition research, Santos managed to get elected. By the time the lies were exposed, it was already too late. After surviving two expulsion attempts, Santos’s tumultuous term in Congress may be coming to an end. At the time of writing, Santos announced that he wouldn’t seek reelection and is currently facing a third expulsion vote. Whatever happens, Santos’ election represents a catastrophic multi-pronged failure, as damning as it is hilarious.
The Many Pets of Bing Review
How to DEMOLISH Your New Year’s Resolution
One of the most important aspects of life is becoming the best version of ourselves that we can be. We all have goals, and we all desire to achieve them. And just like November is the perfect time to stop whackin’ your worm see what you look like with facial hair, the new year is the perfect time to start realizing your true potential as a human being. But this is easier said than done. More often than not, people only stick to their goals for only a few weeks before slacking off and going back to their old ways. In this article I’ll be giving you a foolproof method to stick to your New Year’s resolution and become one of the few members of society who can actually achieve it.
Finding The Right Resolution
Before you can even think about achieving your goals for the year, it’s important to make sure that you’re choosing something that you’ll actually want to achieve. One might think that the best resolutions are those that most increase your well-being, but this is actually a fallacy. The effort you put into your goals has no direct correlation with how much they will improve your life, but it does correlate with how close you think you are to achieving them. If you have the type of resolution that you need to make continuous progress towards for the whole year, then you’ll be discouraged by how long it will take. This is especially true for people in the college- age range whose attention spans have been destroyed by modern technology. Therefore, you want to choose a resolution that you feel like you can achieve at any moment. The more luck-based, the better. Some examples of good goals to have for next year are getting your dream job, finding the love of your life, starting a Fortune 500 company, or becoming a celebrity.
If you don’t have friends, just find some homeless guy on the street and have him take the place of your drunk friend instead. He’ll be happy to get some alcohol without having to spend his hard-earned donation money on it.
Getting Motivated
Even if you have the perfect goal in mind, the idea of actually going out and achieving it can be pretty intimidating. If you want to set yourself up right for the new year, you need to have a good source of motivation. It’s not easy to figure out which methods of motivation are best for you, but here are a few guidelines:
There are many forms of media that have been designed to motivate people, but some are better than others. The best types of media are short-form videos which usually involve a trustworthy figure, such as a podcaster, talking about rising to the top 1% of society or something similar. You can tell a video
By Angelo DiTocco
is extremely reliable if there is a product or service being advertised, or if there is “sigma male music” in the background. Aside from these kinds of videos, you can watch movies which have easily relatable protagonists, such as Drive, Blade Runner 2049, American Psycho, Joker, and Taxi Driver. These films will give you role models who you can strive to imitate.
You can also get motivation from people in real life, strange as it sounds. A common practice is to see a therapist who can understand your inner struggles and prescribe how to fix them. But this process is slow and expensive. A better solution is to have your drunk friend give you a long, rambling speech about how great you are and how easy it is to achieve your goals. If you don’t have friends, just find some homeless guy on the street and have him take the place of your drunk friend instead. He’ll be happy to get some alcohol without having to spend his hard-earned donation money on it.
Hyping Yourself Up
Since you’ll likely be reading this in early December, you’ll probably have some time to kill before the new year officially starts and you can work on your resolution. It might seem like the best thing to do is to just wait until then, but that’s a waste of your valuable time. Instead, you should spend this time completely obsessing over your goal and letting it live in your head rent-free. Tell everyone about it. Spend a minimum of 5 hours per day writing about it. You can do this in your diary, on the walls, on your exams; you can even spray paint it on buildings. Become an “influencer” and flood your followers’ feeds with posts about how you’re on the verge of achieving greatness. Make it your desktop background. Then learn how to code and write a program that gives you a pop-up every 5 minutes to bother you about it. This process has the effect of taking every neuron in your brain and repurposing it into thinking about your goal. Working towards your resolution is now the only thing that matters to you. It’s what you live for.
If you’ve followed this guide correctly, you will enter the new year with an unprecedented sense of vigor, completely and utterly determined to make your dream come true. Then you can stick to your goal for a whole month instead of the usual two weeks. Yippee! Be sure to spend the rest of the year speculating on why you failed instead of just trying again.
Milei’s Victory is Just the First Step
By Shayne O’Loughlin
In a previous article, I took a journalistic approach to covering the curiosity that was Javier Milei, the libertarian Argentine presidential candidate, with a healthy balance of skepticism and optimism. No doubt that in a nation where a political ideology like Peronism has dominated politics for more than half a century, placing any bets on black would have been too dangerous a gamble.
After the release of that article, the first round of the Argentine election commenced on October 22nd, and the results were not as conclusive as I had anticipated. The Peronist candidate Sergio Massa had amassed 36.8% of the vote, with Milei and right-liberal Patricia Bullrich coming in second and third places with 30% and 23% of the votes respectively. Opinion polling in the interim between the first and runoff rounds of the election showed wavering support for Milei, what seemed like the product of Bullrich’s center-right coalition dividing their support between the establishment candidate and the radical libertarian candidate, with an obvious bias towards the more politically digestible option.
Admittedly, I had lost much of my own inertia towards a potential Milei victory, now being much more careful in sharing my confidence with my cohorts. I muttered about every libelous article calling Milei a ‘Trump-like’ ‘far-right conservative’ I saw, but I couldn’t overcome the defeatist attitude that I’d bet my older libertarian friends felt seeing Ron Paul be stomped out of the GOP’s presidential race twice in 2008 and 2012.
In a moment of unexpected allegiance, Bullrich endorsed Milei for the runoff, but this did not seem to bring any solace to the greater libertarian sphere. Then, Milei had a televised debate with Massa which—perhaps due to the lack of general interface between the English- and Spanish-speaking social media worlds—yielded mixed results. Just a few days before the election, Milei’s Instagram account released a list of clarifications in response to purported policies he supported and character traits he displayed. These included more hilarious corrections like ex-
The logo of La Libertad Avanza (lit. “Liberty Advances), President-elect Milei’s political coalition.
plaining that, no, he wasn’t a Nazi or attempting to reinstate a dictatorship, and, no, he didn’t have sex with his sister. More concerning were some policy corrections that this post made, like claims that Milei did not want to privatize education, healthcare, or social security, and that he would not be embracing a large-
scale right to bear arms or the legal sale of organs.
From a libertarian perspective, these seemed like huge recissions of his previously stated principles, likely in an attempt to save face before the runoff election. The question of whether Milei had actively espoused these principles publicly in the past is not relevant to what he should advocate as a libertarian candidate. Anyone who adheres to the non-aggression principle would support such policy decisions, and his refusal to do so raised some red flags. Others found more raised when Milei showed support for Israel after the Hamas terror attacks earlier in November. The Israel-Palestine conflict is a great point of contention among libertarians, with many extolling neutrality rather than
Milei won with 55.7% of the vote; an >11% lead, and the largest in Argentinian democratic history. By 5:30, Massa had already conceded defeat. (Source: resultados.gob.ar)
interventionism. This, along with Milei’s anti-abortion views, has divided libertarians’ opinions on him.
Suffice it to say, some of Milei’s greatest critics have been from libertarians themselves, and the brunt of it has shown itself during this interim when tensions were high and hopes relatively tempered.
Then, on November 19th, Argentina had its runoff election. Pollsters predicted a close race, and the collective nail-biting reconvened accordingly. There was reportedly evidence of ballot tampering among anti-Milei dissidents, including video footage apparently showing leftists easing their bowels on La Libertad Avanza ballots. Despite the fears of election fraud, official ballot counters promised to count these damaged ballots regardless. The results sang like poetry, like your favorite underdog team pulling ahead in the championship game despite the odds against them. As the counting went on, results were expected at 7 P.M. EST, and slowly but surely, the votes came in.
Starting with overseas votes, Milei won handily. Within the first 5% of votes counted, Milei’s chances of winning increased from being nearly 50/50 to over 90%. Out of Argentina’s twenty-four provinces, Milei would go on to win twenty-one of them. He would lose in Argentina’s most populous province, Buenos
Aires, by only 1.47%. With all said and done, Milei won with 55.7% of the vote; an >11% lead, and the largest in Argentinian democratic history. By 5:30, Massa had already conceded defeat.
The center stage at Milei’s headquarters was pummeled with cheers of “Presidente! Presidente!” and “Libertad! Libertad!” from the audience, as the lion himself entered the colosseum. Behind his podium he read his speech, promising that a new age had dawned in Argentina, defined by a respect of property rights, law and order, and free trade.
“Today is a historic night, not for us,” Milei continued, “but because one way of doing politics has ended and another has begun.”
The subtext of this quote couldn’t be any more obvious: “The age of overbearing statism is over. Long live liberty.”
It’s never so simple, however, to say that this is true. Yes, a self-described anarcho-capitalist won a presidential election, but that is just a superficial view of the events that transpired. An anarcho-capitalist country this does not make.
To the credit of my libertarian peers, the work has already begun on a crucial step I frankly wasn’t expecting: we must be hypercritical of every action Milei takes. With one man playing representative to a whole ideology in its first run-in with power, more so than ever libertarians must remain vigilant to the blowback we’ll most definitely receive. Every media outlet and power-grabber is going to be looking for failures in Milei’s presidency to apply it to the whole of libertarianism. This will be made easy by dishonest actors using selective evidence to vindicate their worldviews.
As such, we must be on the frontline as harsh critics, and as first responders when a policy of his pushes against libertarian principles, but we must also work to debunk propaganda when we see it. We should also use Milei’s presidency as a litmus test to see where the outer limits of our abilities rest, should we have political sway in the future. We shouldn’t be surprised at the adversity we face, nor should we expect that the political means will lead to anything more than providing a temporary (yet hopefully fruitful) respite from state interventionism.
politicians. The populist strategy is like a hypergiant star, burning brightly, but hardly sustainable in the long run. If Milei’s policies take too long to yield results, voters might become jaded by the next election, and vote him out prematurely.
Some argue whether real change can come from the ballot, and say we need to cultivate a culture of liberty in order to maintain its tree. One way some libertarians call for this is by using counter-economics; trading and bartering goods and services away from the prying eyes of government taxation, effectively creating a culture parallel to government influence. Then if the government attempts to intervene in reaction, it would not be so easy for them to assume control. An example of this already taking place within Argentina with masses adopting the US Dollar as an alternative to the much weaker Argentinian Peso. It’s because of this distrust in the country’s own financial institutions that Milei’s explicit policy on abolishing the central bank helped win him the president’s office. One may wonder if a top-down approach to creating a libertarian culture among the population is possible. This is a question whose answer we can only predict from our armchairs, as Milei takes on the task.
Even under the worst-case scenario, we shouldn’t lose hope in the ideas that underlie the movement. As I write this, news is still coming out about Milei’s proposal to privatize the airline industry in Argentina, by giving shares of Aerolíneas Argentinas over to the workers along with a year of funding from the government for them to attempt to make the business profitable. This strategy is being adopted as opposed to the usual privatization scheme of auctioning the monopoly off to the highest bidders, a strategy which has led to further cronyism and little palpable change.
We must remember next that the majority of Argentines are not radical libertarians. When forced between a rock and a hard place, people will try to push the rock every time. The Argentines responded to a 140% inflation rate and 40% of the population living under the line of poverty by electing someone who promised change.
A firebrand like Milei is a populist, with the benefits and drawbacks inherent to populism. He can channel the resentment of the populous into something constructive, but he does so at risk of simplifying his message to appeal to a wider range of voters. While he draws the attention of many, their allegiances are fickle. This is a fact of the democratic system, where high time preferences from voters beget high time preferences from
What makes this idea remarkable, ignoring the potential effectiveness of this strategy in keeping Aerolíneas Argentinas afloat in the long term, is where the idea hailed from: the New York City apartment of the economist Murray N. Rothbard who, in 1969, included his article “Confiscation and the Homestead Principle” in his biweekly magazine The Libertarian Forum. It needs to be reiterated that from the early days of Rothbard’s salons, where the principles of libertarianism were first expounded among maybe a dozen friends, to today with the upcoming inauguration of the first libertarian head of state, only about six decades have passed.
With this in mind, it’s almost miraculous that it has only taken this long to see policy decisions by perhaps its most radical godfather come to fruition. For the wayward soul who yearns for freedom, we have a responsibility to spread the ideas of life and property. To be effective activists for freedom, we have to continue to learn, educate, debate, and discuss. Whether Milei lives up to the hype, we must take his presidency as it comes: as a learning experience on the road to liberty in our lifetime. To those who fight for freedom the world over, I call you in chorus:
“Long live freedom, damn it!”
“I’m Not Calling That Shit X”: A Rant
Twitter, X, Y, Z, whatever the fuck they’re calling it now, has been at the forefront of free speech (i.e., giving literally every numpty with internet access a platform) for years. With its recent change-in-hands to everyone’s favorite manchild billionaire, Musk of Eel, the platform has expanded this free speech base and allowed everyone—even public figures not particularly favored by popular media for whatever reason (i.e., orange businessman, Chicago rap man)—to use the platform.
Free speech is great, don’t get me wrong. It’s what allows me to rant to you in print form for the next few hundred words. But sometimes free speech is abused by people who, quite frankly, shouldn’t be allowed to yap as much as they currently do.
Elon’s takeover began with the expulsion of much of the platform’s moderation staff, allowing every manner of unsavory post to appear on your homepage. This has led advertisers to pull out of the platform in droves. You see, Musk’s change of the platform’s name, despite appearances, may have been a stroke of genius.
It may seem to us that changing the entire identity of one of the most well-known websites on earth to simply “X” was a bad move, but in reality, the rebrand may have been the best way for Twitter (see title) to become the terrible hellhole it is today. By making an immediately noticeable change to the website after its acquisition, Elon created something to rally his insufferable army of NFT-obsessed, soylent-sipping dickriders behind. In almost every post of his, the comments are flooded with “X is the future!!!” and “Long live X!!!”, the cries of a glazing committee now even more enamored with the billionaire’s every unfunny childish whim and vapid meme than ever before. With a cause to rally behind, the creatures feel like they own the platform, and as such, are free to say whatever the hell they want.
Further facilitating this yapping—as well as financially making up for the loss of advertisers on the platform—is the new Twitter verification system, dubbed “Twitter Blue.” This system makes it such that anyone who feels uppity enough can pay 8 dollars a month to have their tweets pushed onto the masses with priority over other tweets, as well as allowing users to earn money from tweet engagement, which sometimes incentivizes misinformation, omission of context, and inflammatory posts. This is a far cry from the once highly sought-after status of being “verified on Twitter,” which was reserved for actual notable public figures, not just any basement-dwelling dingus with nothing better to do in life than pay 8 dollars a month to jaw off to the online world.
To get real for a bit, I wrote this article because I noticed so many accounts that rose out of seemingly nowhere which exist for no other reason than to spread hatred for every possible group you can think of, not to mention a great influx of absurd opinions from every square inch of the political compass. These
By Liam Steele
accounts seem to be everywhere you look on Twitter, with one for just about every -ism and -phobia you can conjure in your mind.
Pictured: the usual suspects
Tweets, and subsequent comments, from an account named ‘iamyesyouareno’ are some of the strongest examples of posts intending only to divide. From condescendingly asking “What could possibly go wrong?” in reference to the election of Somali-American politician Nadia Mohamed as Mayor of a town in Minnesota, to saying “That’s why they have to fight in packs.” in reference to a video of a brutally one sided fight between a black and a white teen, this account strives for hate and division every day. Clearly it works, as the comments on these inflammatory posts include unironic statements of “the west has fallen,” cries that “they are out to replace whites,” and so on and so forth. Throughout many of these posts, comments also contain the rather cowardly use of censored derogatory speech, including “blks” and “ngrs,” along with terms like “monkeys,” “kangs,” and “dindunuffins” (not to say that I’d prefer full on slurs, but I do feel that expressing opinions as strong as these requires speaking with ones chest). Overall, Twitter, especially after Musk’s takeover, continues to serve as a cesspool of hate speech, furthering social and political divides and the hopeless, listless sentiment that hangs constantly within our minds as Gen-Z.
At this point, I feel the need to restate that I support free speech. Still, when the “political opinion” expressed in a post is clearly nothing but hatred, should anyone really be forced to put up with your bullshit? Must there always be an “us” and “them” narrative in talking about your fellow man? Should we do nothing at all to ward off the intense feeling of hopelessness for the world that online media instills in us day by day?
To give this rant a meaningful takeaway, I urge anyone reading to quit being a “doomer,” especially as we confront the stresses that come with the end of another semester, and to practice and preach hope (shoutout professor Kandukira). If we look online, especially at Twitter in its current state, where the worst is always on display and allow ourselves to act like nothing will ever improve and that there is no hope, that might as well be the case.
The Decline of Western Civilization: The McRib
Those beautiful buns and saucy ribs. Oh, how I would love to devour that delectable meal. If you’re a pervert, you probably thought I was talking about your wife, but I’m actually referencing McDonald’s infamous McRib Sandwich.
For the innumerable McDonald’s historians and certified fatties, this article is not for you. I’m solely here to educate the general public about the McRib, its history, and how the sandwich indirectly led to the decline of the West.
To dish out some history, the origins of the McRib stem all the way back to the Cold War. In the late 1960s, U.S. Army scientists created the first types of reconstructed meat. Reconstructed meat is essentially various cuts of meat being packed together to form some sort of shape. (The best example that everyone knows is the nugget.) Reconstructed meat was supposed to be a low-cost solution to feeding U.S. military troops on the battlefield. By the 1970s, Dr. Roger Mandigo had refined the process, now using pork, to create a rib-shaped patty. By the 1980s, McDonald’s founder Ray Kroc was dabbling with reconstructed meat for his restaurants. Soon, the chicken nugget was introduced to the menu. The nugget was their first item made from reconstructed meat. The chicken nugget was such a huge success, leading to the introduction of the McRib to the McDonald’s menu in 1981.
Any movie that has Rosie O’Donnell in a lead supporting role deserves all the criticism it gets.
Sadly, nobody liked it too much. Many executives within the company believed that Americans did not consume enough to keep the item on the menu. Dubbed the “McFlop,” the McRib was removed from the menu only a few years later in 1985
Then, to the shock of everyone, the Flintstones movie was released in 1994. Nobody asked for this steaming pile of horseshit. Calling the movie utterly atrocious would be an understatement. Any movie that has Rosie O’Donnell in a lead supporting role deserves all the criticism it gets. As President Donald Trump once said in a TV interview, “I would look her in that fat ugly face of hers and say, [gesturing at the camera]‘Rosie, you’re fired.’” Anyway, you’re probably wondering why I mentioned this monstrosity of a movie. Well, the McRib was reintroduced to the McDonald’s menu and used to promote the “movie” (if that’s what we’re calling it). Some would argue that the sole reason the movie was a theatrical success was because of the hype surrounding the McRib.
Between 1994 and 2005 the McRib sporadically popped up on McDonald’s menus. On November 1st, 2005 McDonald’s announced that the McRib was being retired permanently and would be going on a “McRib Farewell Tour.” Just like the band Kiss, this wouldn’t be the Sandwich’s last farewell tour. Like
By Aiden Miller
clockwork, the McRib has gone on Farewell Tour after Farewell Tour. I’m convinced that it will be until the day I die.
This all raises the question, “Was it all worth it?” For McDonald’s, yeah it was worth it. With every passing year, the McRib garners more and more media attention when it returns to the menu. All this hype and excitement rakes in the big bucks for McDonald’s and its executives. The McRib alone has funded tens of hundreds of McMansions owned by company executives. And I get it, why stop when gullible people like me keep coming back to eat that sad glob of meat and bread?
Now time to get to the heart of this discussion. Many historians wonder what has led to the decline of the West, specifically the United States. If you were to ask me, the McRib did the fair share of the damage.
During Reagan’s presidency, the fast-food industry, especially McDonald’s, experienced significant economic growth as a result of the McRib. This growth marked a shift toward a more conservative economic strategy by the Reagan administration, emphasizing typical conservative things like deregulation, free-market capitalism, and Reaganomics. (oh boy, I sure hope all that money trickled down!) One can argue that these economic policies led to Reagan and his administration being directly involved in the affairs of countries throughout the Middle East, essentially waging a Second Cold War in the region to combat communist influence. These actions by the Reagan administration led to lots of resentment amongst the people of the Middle East. Many had lost their relatives as a result of American actions in the region. This widespread resentment led to many prominent terrorist organizations like Al-Qaeda, Taliban, and ISIS growing in size after Reagan’s presidency. Eventually, these terror organizations would attack the United States and lead to many of the endless wars the United States is still fighting in the region to this day.
Most people would agree that these wars put the United States in a steep state of decline. Furthermore, the McRib accelerated the decline of the West in different aspects as well. The rise of the McRib and the fast-food industry directly led to the obesity crisis we are seeing in the West today. America is ranked as one of the most obese countries in the world, with heart disease as the number one killer of Americans.
Is it a shaky statement to say that the creation of the McRib led to the United States getting involved in the Middle East and the forever wars? Kind of. Is it fair to say that the McRib led to the obesity crisis plaguing the country? Sure. But it is clear as day that the McRib has played an important role in the overall picture when discussing the decline of the West.
To wrap this puppy up, I leave you the reader with this to ponder: Do you think it’s a coincidence that the McRib was taken off the McDonald’s menu during the Reagan administration and then brought back as a seasonal menu item ONLY A YEAR after Reagan died?
