Jan 28 2019 (Vol. XXXI, Is. VII) - Binghamon Review

BINGHAMTON REVIEW Editor-in-Chief Contents

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

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

Business Manager Mac Chasman

Social Media Shitposter

SHUTDOWN & DANCE WITH ME

Tommy Gagliano

PAGE 12

by Matt Rosen

Editor Emeritus

3 Editorial

by Patrick McAuliffe

Associate Editors

4 Press Watch, Meme Review

by Our Staff

Jordan Raitses

Adrienne Vertucci

Staff Writers

Jordan Jardine Sarah Waters John Restuccia

Contributors Michael Penn

Special Thanks To:

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

He Provides the Staples

6 Year in Review

by Our Staff

7 Covington Catholic and Actual Fake News

by Tommy Gagliano 8 The Frank Miller Question

by John Restuccia 10 Hate Speech is Free Speech

by Sarah Waters 11 Venezuela: Not True Socialism

by Jordan Jardine 14 Why Have Laws at All?

by Michael Penn

15 #SubscribetoPewdiepie

by Patrick McAuliffe

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

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

Vol. XXXI, Issue VII

EDITORIAL Dear Readers,

From the Editor

H

appy New Year, and welcome back to Binghamton, dear reader! This fall’s weather wasn’t bad, but the Southern Tier had to show us who is really in control and brought out the big snowy guns for your return. How thoughtful! Luckily, you’ll have copies of the Binghamton Review to keep your heart warm as we brave the winter months.

Whether you’re a first time reader or an avid fan, we’ve got a strong start to the spring semester, so let’s dive right in.

We’ve got a nice blend of commentary on current events and more theoretical pieces for whichever may suit your fancy. First on our news analysis train, Jordan looks at the crisis in Venezuela and traces this allegedly “socialist” country’s history of unrest to blameworthy actions by the Venezuelan government’s greed and the United States’ lust for oil. A socialist label does not necessarily a true socialist government make. Matt expresses his frustration with the gridlock in Congress over the government shutdown and urges Democrats to come to the negotiating table and accept President Trump’s border wall deal. Meanwhile, Tommy decries the sensationalist attitude by mainstream media regarding the Covington Catholic High School teen’s confrontation with Nathan Phillips at the March for Life. In their quest to vilify Trump supporters, major news outlets did not stop to find all of the facts or protect the privacy of a high school student.

We also have plenty of rhetorical pieces designed to help you consider something you may not have before.

New contributor Michael offers a critique of extreme anarcho-libertarianism, arguing that even the most basic laws are necessary for the protection of the common good. Extreme individualism, he argues, will lead to the decline of society overall. John compares blowback against Kanye’s personal views to the mixed history of comic book legend Frank Miller. Learning to separate the artist from the art is a way to contextualize the work and impart lessons for the art’s consumer. Finally, I encourage the reader to subscribe to YouTube legend Pewdiepie so that he can maintain his lead against Indian music giant T-Series and stand as a monument to the grassroots creators of YouTube.

Their platform is quickly overshadowing individual content creators in favor of corporate influences like T-Series, and support for Pewdiepie is a way to hold YouTube accountable.

We have included a few calendars for you to fondly remember 2018, whether through memes or news headlines. Last year was a roller coaster ride with lots of highs and lows, and the future of 2019 remains a mystery. If you’d like to be a part of our future, shoot me an email at editor@binghamtonreview.com and get involved! Our first meeting of the semester will be on Tuesday, January 29th, at 7pm in our office, UUWB05. Keep your eyes peeled for even more Review content as the semester gets underway!

Sincerely,

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

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

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

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

3

CPampus resswatch “Fashion Tips to Fight the Winter Freeze” Lily Tang, Pipe Dream, 1/21/19 Let’s save you the read: wear a coat.

If your parents have lots of money and not a lot of sense, wear a Canada Goose coat. That’s all you need, folks.

“You don’t have to vote along party lines” Jacalyn Goldzweig-Panitz, Pipe Dream, 12/6/18 “According to Stanford political scientist Shanto Iyengar, our partisan identities — which political camp we fall into — have become so important in how we see ourselves so as to now trump other social identifiers, like religion, race and gender. But isn’t it troubling that the Brindisi of politics exemplify the rare exceptions, rather than the rule?”

Perhaps the growing importance of party identification and the antiquation of split tickets is a result of a growing emphasis on concentration of centralized power. State legislatures seem to be becoming less important than who one’s federal representative is, and as such people may choose their candidates via a topdown alignment along one political party. Revisiting federalist divisions of power may do wonders for split ticket voting.

“Brindisi’s small margin of error to win the race tells the story of burgeoning Binghamton politics — not of a district comprised of devout party members, but one of the fair-minded voters.”

No, it’s because the Democratic Party painted Brindisi as a moderate despite backing Sheldon Silver until the last minute before his indictment. Not to mention all the college students who shift the vote despite only living in the area for three-quarters of the year, maximum. The local residents and the students are known to have an uneasy tension, and the massive influx of young, primarily blue voters definitely doesn’t ease that tension.

Maybe listening more to what resi-

4

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM

Written by our Staff

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

dents of Broome County have to say about governing their home will lead to more fair representation for everyone and a blossoming acceptance of each other’s points of view.

Our Second Lady should not participate in discriminatory institutions Jessica Gutowitz, Pipe Dream, 1/21/19 “Not only do these forced assertions actively refuse to acknowledge any non-heterosexual and non-cisgender identities, but they also reinforce patriarchal values under the guise of worship.”

Lots of religious institutions have a patriarchal structure, following suit from historical Biblical figures. Also worth noting, this article mentions both Catholic and Christian schools.

Catholics and Protestants tend to have different teachings regarding homosexuality and transgenderism, and the manifestation of that difference in the school’s policy is an important one. Many Catholic schools do not do what Immanuel Christian does.

“For too long, religion has been wielded as a tool of hatred, and it feels like a regression when in 2019 our nation’s leaders continue to support such socalled values.” *Current year* “While I don’t think that taxpayers should have to pay for her living quarters, as many such taxpayers can barely afford their own, I think that her safety

is still important and should be guaranteed by the Secret Service.”

Maybe taxpayers would be able to afford their own if they didn’t have to pay for an absurd amount of ineffective government programs. The cost of Karen Pence’s living quarters is negligible by comparison. In addition, suddenly taxpayer support for something disagreeable is an issue for LGBTQ tolerance, but not for religious folks that oppose federal support for abortion.

“Karen Pence clearly has the freedom and privilege to work wherever she pleases, regardless of her position, but she must recognize that LGBTQ people do not. For her to accept paychecks from an institution that further limits the opportunities of the LGBTQ community is immoral.”

One thing worth noting about her position is that she is not an elected official. She’s just married to someone that is. Also, attention all Chick-Fil-A employees or religious bakers! Your profession is now immoral, regardless of the product you sell or the demand for said product. You MUST conform with tolerance despite private beliefs you may hold that do not directly oppress anyone.

Vol. XXXI, Issue VII

BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM

Meme

Review

2018

MEME REVIEW

By Our Staff 2018 was a great year for memes, and the Internet is getting even more creative with them. In the spirit of Pewdiepie’s weekly Meme Review, here is our tribute to notable memes from each month: January: Tide pods

February: “Change My Mind”

April: Mark Zuckerberg

July: Strong Handshake

October: Let’s Get This Bread

editor@binghamtonreview.com

May: “I Don’t Feel So Good”

August: Johnny Johnny, Yes Papa

November: Surprised Pikachu

March: Gru’s Plan

June: *Slaps Roof of Car*

September: Moth Memes

December: PETA’s AntiAnimal Language

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

5

YEAR IN REVIEW

BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM

YEAR IN REVIEW January 2018:

California becomes the sixth state to legalize marijuana for recreational use. The legal restriction sand slow implementation of distributing licenses to dispensaries delayed the process for some companies for another few months.

February 2018:

The Winter Olympics in South Korea brought the US 23 total medals, fourth most behind Norway, Germany, and Canada.

A gunman opened fire in Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, FL, killing 17 people.

The national debate on stricter gun control was headed by a few high school survivors.

March 2018:

Parkland shooting survivors spurred a national frustration with American shootings, sparking the March for Our Lives rally in Washington, DC.

April 2018:

Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook founder and CEO, testified before Congress about Facebook’s security measures, showing Congress’ stunning imcompetence with the Internet.

President Trump denied making payments to porn star Stormy Daniels, which was later proven to be false.

May 2018:

President Trump pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal, claiming it was not favorable enough to American interests. He was criticized by many news outlets and former 6

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

President Barack Obama.

British monarch Prince Harry married American actress Meghan Markle, spawning a pop culture sensation around the royal wedding.

June 2018:

September 2018:

Accusations of sexual misconduct against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh came to the forefront, spearheaded by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford. Kavanaugh was later confirmed to the Court.

Allegations of children being separated from their parents at the US-Mexican border drew outrage over ICE and current immigration policy.

President Trump became the first sitting US president to meet with a North Korean leader, attending a summit with Kim Jong Un in Singapore to discuss cooling tensions between the two nations and a peace deal between North and South Korea.

October 2018:

July 2018:

Midterm elections saw the Democrats retake a majority in the House of Representatives and close the gap with the Republicans in the Senate.

Northern California was wracked with wildfires and mudslides from the ensuing precipitation. 88 people were killed statewide, with 81 perishing in the devastating Camp Fire. Almost 20,000 structures were destroyed.

France’s soccer team won the World Cup, defeating Croatia in the final match 4-2.

Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement from the Supreme Court, and President Trump nominated former Circuit Judge of the DC Court of Appeals Brett Kavanaugh to replace him.

August 2018:

Negotiations between Great Britain and the EU over the terms of Brexit hit a standstill with the issue of the border between Ireland and Northern Ireland, specifically on what, if any, economic freedoms allow goods and/or services to pass freely between the two countries.

Senator John McCain (R-AZ), 81, and Aretha Franklin, 76, both passed away this month.

Hurricane Michael decimated the Southeast United States, knocking out electrcity for more than 687,000 homes.

11 people were killed in a shooting at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh, PA. Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi was found murdered, allegedly by orders of the Saudi Arabian government.

November 2018:

December 2018:

The 41st President George H. W. Bush passed away and was buried at the Presidential Library and Museum in Texas bearing his name.

President Trump declared that he would not approve a budget that did not include funding for a border wall on the Mexican border, shutting down the government.

Vol. XXXI, Issue VII

BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM

COVINGTON CATHOLIC AND ACTUAL FAKE NEWS

Covington Catholic and Actual Fake News

By Tommy Gagliano

O

n January 19th, a video from the pro-life “March for Life” rally in Washington DC went viral. This short video showed an interaction between 64-year-old Native American activist Nathan Phillips, and 17-year-old Covington Catholic High School student Nick Sandmann. In the video clip, Phillips sings and plays the drum in the face of Nick Sandmann, while Sandmann stands still and appears to smile or smirk at Phillips.

Sandmann is wearing a “Make America Great Again” hat, as are many of his classmates behind him. The video quickly spread across Twitter and other websites and social media platforms, with liberals and conservatives alike slamming the students for being disrespectful to Nathan Phillips.

News outlets immediately jumped on the story. They reported that the Covington Catholic students had surrounded “Native American elder and Vietnam Veteran” Nathan Phillips and his fellow activists, harassed and mocked them, and refused to let them walk by. Phillips himself supported this version of the story, adding that the students were also harassing black protestors and chanting “build that wall” prior to his interaction with them. The headlines were all more or less the same.

“Students in ‘MAGA’ hats mock Native American after rally” (Associated Press). “White students in MAGA gear taunt Native American elders” (Vox). “Native American Veteran Speaks Out After MAGA Hat-Wearing Teens Harass Him” (Huffington Post). There were many, many, more stories like this across many, many more new media outlets, but most of them have been changed or removed since.

Leftists on Twitter, including prominent verified users such as Kathy Griffin, went into full-on lynch mob mode. They attempted - and some succeeded - to dox the Covington Catholic students seen in the video, many of which are minors. The students and their families have received an overwhelming amount of death and other threats, and a woman was recently spotted recording students as they walked out of the school.

“Name these kids.” Kathy Griffin demanded on Twitter. “I want NAMES. Shame them. If you think these fuckers wouldn’t dox you in a heartbeat, think again.”

It didn’t take long for the media’s narrative to completely fall apart. On the night of January 19th, the same day the video had gone viral, an anonymous Covington Catholic student who attended the March for Life rally shared his side of the story with Local 12 News. He claimed that the students were waiting at the Lincoln Memorial for their bus to come, as they were instructed to do. He says they then started doing some of their school chants, to pass the time and to show school spirit. This is when Nathan Phillips and his fellow activists approached them, he claims. This contradicts the story told by Phillips and by the media, which stated that the students approached Phillips, and surrounded him. “They forced their way into the center of our group.” The student explains. “We initially thought this was a cultural display since he was beating along to our cheers and so we clapped to the beat.” He says that after this went on for some time, though, he and the other students became confused.

editor@binghamtonreview.com

Photo credit to Vox “To reiterate,” the student concludes, “we did not partake in any physical or verbal abuse, we did not chant ‘build the wall’ or mock or anything of the like, and did not seek to incite violence.” He also mentioned that they had been subject to verbal abuse from a group of black activists, including being called “faggots.”

Around the same time the account by the anonymous student was making its way around the Internet, more footage of the incident surfaced, including a video that was almost 2 hours long. This video shows that basically everything that the Covington Catholic student said was true, and basically everything that Nathan Phillips said was a lie. It can be seen clearly in the video that the group of students are minding their own business, when Nathan Phillips and the other Native American activists approached them. Phillips then walked right up to Nick Sandmann, and began drumming in his face. It is clear that none of the students in the video are sure what’s going on, and it seems the “smirk” that everyone has been labelling as mockery was more of a nervous laugh, or a confused smile. Despite Phillips drumming directly in Sandmann’s face, he, nor any of the other students, said or did anything malicious to any of the Native American activists. At one point during the drumming, one of the students can be heard arguing with one of the other activists. The activist told the student to “go back to Europe,” and the student responded. Nick Sandmann can be seen motioning to his classmate, telling him to stop arguing.

In addition to getting the story entirely wrong, the media also messed up a detail that appeared in a lot of their headlines - Nathan Phillips never fought in Vietnam. Phillips was labelled a Vietnam veteran in an attempt to make readers feel bad for him, but he was never actually deployed. He was released as a private due to a number of disciplinary incidents, including three AWOL incidents.

As new information emerged, many people apologized for the statements they made about the students and the incident.

A lot of news outlets pulled their stories, or updated them to reflect the new information. However, a large number of people did not retract their statements, and some even doubled down.

To those people though, the facts don’t matter. They deemed the students guilty as soon as they put on the MAGA hats.

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

7

THE FRANK MILLER QUESTION

BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM

The Frank Miller Question

By John Restuccia

M

ore and more today we see musicians, artists, and entertainers shouting out ideas that we ourselves do not agree with. Some of these in fact we may find downright offensive. Take an example on the left. After Kanye West came out in support of Donald Trump, many of his fans felt betrayed by him, saying they were unable to listen to his music now due to the opinions he was voicing and statements he made. Kanye West’s music didn’t change at all except for him releasing one pro Trump song. He’s still the critically acclaimed artist he was once; he’s still heralded as a rap genius with classic albums but many cannot support any of his work anymore, from his old to his new due to his personal opinions. An example on the right would be with Saturday Night Live. Despite the fact that SNL has always critiqued politics, more and more conservatives are refusing to watch any SNL, even the skits done years prior, because of the abundantly clear anti-Trump rhetoric from staff writers working on the

“For me I view offensive content in art as a time capsule as well as a warning. Things we find offensive today could be a look to the past which can lead to good questions and lessons. Why did they say or produce these offensive materials? What can we do so this isn’t repeated?” show. This brings up the question: can one still like the content of an artist even if their values and opinions don’t line up with one’s own? This is a question that many people have different answers on, which is great. There is no right answer to this question. However, I will discuss my own standard of viewing art with the perfect example of the famous comic book writer, inker, penciler, and director Frank Miller.

8

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

For those people who are not avid comic book fans, Frank Miller is a legend among the community. He has written some of the grittiest, realistic takes in the superhero genre with some fantastic characters and dialogue. He created Sin City, one of the best noir comic books to date, with beautifully dark art and a grim dark story that never crossed the line of edgy and gritty realness. He worked on Marvel Comics’ Daredevil, giving life to the character with what is considered the greatest run of comics the Marvel hero has ever had. The Man Without Fear is, in my opinion, the greatest Daredevil story ever told and is essential to anyone wanting to read Daredevil. The writing is master-class, with gorgeous inking by Al Williamson, a legend and master of his craft, and John Romita Jr., a comic book heavyweight who did some of the greatest comic book art to grace the pages of paper. Miller also wrote what I consider to be his magnum opus, The Dark Knight Returns.

The Dark Knight Returns is considered by many, including myself, to be the greatest Batman story ever told.

I reread it every few months because of how amazing the story, characters, and the setting are. If you are a Batman fan and haven’t read this, go out and read it now. This story single-handedly reinvited the tone and setting for comic books on a mainstream character along with Watchmen that came out the same year. This was a industry changing book. So as you can see, I love a lot of Frank Miller’s work. I could sing the praises of his Daredevil run or his Dark Knight Returns for days on end.

Despite these amazing achievements, Frank Miller has had a number of blunders that I see as giant missteps and even some problematic work.

When I first started reading comic books at the age of 11, All-Star Batman & Robin was my first introduction to Frank Miller and boy, that was an awful way to start out. To me All-Star Batman & Robin is the perfect exam-

ple for my problems with Frank Miller.

The series is garbage, mostly because of Frank Miller’s dialogue. There are some redeeming qualities in the book, such as the art and covers of the books, mostly from comic artist Jim Lee. Still, I could make a long list of the worst moments in the series. Some very “memorable” scenes include Batman calling Robin “retarded” (offensive and completely out of character for Batman). Another is when he locks Robin in the Batcave, who by the way is 12 years old, and makes him eat rats. This is regarded as one of the worst Frank Miller runs of all time as well as one of the worst Batman stories ever told.

However, that pales in comparison to what is considered to be the worst Frank Miller work ever created, Holy Terror.

Holy Terror, for those who don’t know, was created and written by Frank Miller as a homage to propaganda comics created during what most call the Golden Age of comics (ranging from the 1930s to early 1950s).

This period is called the Golden Age due to comics developing into the modern comic book. The propaganda comics during this time were created to bolster morale during World War 2, similar to the propaganda films featuring Disney characters fighting Nazis.

These comics are a product of their

Vol. XXXI, Issue VII

BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM times, featuring racial stereotypes of the Axis Powers. This is a controversial part of our history and for me is something that should be viewed as a product of its times, a time capsule to our past whose stereotypes should not be taken seriously at all. As you can guess, these propaganda comics are very controversial today so a homage to these pieces would have to be done with the utmost respect and understanding of the works. Frank Miller, however did not do this. It was quite the opposite, actually. He wrote one of the most vulgar, offensive graphic novels of all time.

Originally the book was supposed to be a Batman story but DC Comics said no due to the story not being “well fit” for Batman. (AKA they knew how bad this story is.) This becomes my first complaint with the book: one can clearly see each character as shells of their Batman counterparts. The Fixer is obviously Batman, the Cat Burglar is obviously Catwoman, and the Commissioner is obviously Commissioner Gordon. Instead of doing characters

THE FRANK MILLER QUESTION

“I try to have a conversation to gather other opinions and maybe form a new one. Cliche, yes, but fair in my eyes. Art of all kind is supposed to provoke and thought in its viewers.” that are original for the story each is a dollar store rip off of their counterparts, coming off as extremely unoriginal. My second big problem is the art. Everything is in Black and White, similar to how Sin City was done, but instead of using some color for highlights like in Sin City, Holy Terror does the art in complete black and white, which makes some of Frank Miller’s great artwork muddled as well as confusing. The main problem, however, is with the main story. The story is about a character named the Fixer having to beat up, kill, and torture terrorists as they attack his city. The terrorists are racial stereotypes of Muslims

“Instead of being a touching story of the heroes who died that way or a story of how Muslims were treated after 9/11, [Holy Terror] became a offensive piece that shows the fear around the 9/11 terror attacks.” editor@binghamtonreview.com

everywhere. The Fixer at one point “jokingly” (I use that term loosely) assumes that a Muslim terrorists name is Muhammad because, according to the Fixer, most Muslims have the name Muhammad. Firstly, this makes no sense. Secondly, I cannot put into words how offensive that scene is. The words speak for themselves. The book is full of scenes like this that make you cringe intensely. This book was a response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, which is obvious, but misses the mark completely. Instead of being a touching story of the heroes who died that way or a story of how Muslims were treated after 9/11, the work became a offensive piece that shows the fear around the 9/11 terror attacks.

That is how I see this book and how I seperate art from the artist. For me I view offensive content in art as a time capsule as well as a warning.

Things we find offensive today could be a look to the past which can lead to good questions and lessons. Why did they say or produce these offensive materials? What can we do so this isn’t repeated? Some art, however, I see as offensive for just being offensive which is something they have every right to produce. For me I just avoid it and voice my opinion on the work RESPECTFULLY. I don’t tweet about it or scream about it online or protest it.

I try to have a conversation to gather other opinions and maybe form a new one. Cliche, yes, but fair in my eyes.

Art of all kind is supposed to provoke thought in its viewers. Good art creates conversation and Frank Miller’s work does that for me despite how much I oppose some of his work. Frank Miller is, to me, still producing content that I love and sometimes I feel people get caught up too much in the new content and don’t realize that the things you once loved are still there. The old Kanye albums are still there. The old SNL skits can still be seen without any politics. The Frank Miller works I loved are still available to read. I may not like his newer works as much but I will still continue to read his new work to see where he goes with it. I’m eagerly await Superman Year One, a story he has been working on that I can’t wait to read.

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

9

HATE SPEECH IS FREE SPEECH

BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM

Hate Speech is Free Speech

By Sarah Waters

A

s a member of multiple marginalized groups, I have been told absolutely appalling things. These sentiments, among many colorful insults and racial slurs, include, “Your kind is only good dead,” “I know to never trust one of you people,” and “Go back to where you came from!” It hurts. It’s heartbreaking. Those people are cruel. And I wholeheartedly support their right to say those things.

We live in a society in which people have such freedom, such privilege, that they do not understand how lucky they are to have the First Amendment. I lived in a country in which we had no freedom of speech, a country ranked in the bottom 40 by the 2013 Press Freedom Index, a country where even the Internet is censored, a country in which political opponents are regularly assassinated, a country in which I had to hide parts of myself for fear of prison, a country in which we spoke in hushed whispers behind closed doors about things the government had already decided for us. It is a country in which the right to speak our minds freely was a pipe dream.

Living in America, I can say what I want, dress how I want, practice my religion how I want, and write what I want.

I can criticize the government without fear of arrest, I can attend political rallies, I can engage in activism, I can vote and it can mean something -- I am free here. That is why it pains me so much to see my fellow students calling to limit “offensive” speech.

Here’s a recent example. The Binghamton Review has been subject to demands that our budget be frozen and our organization be dechartered, even as recently as last year. Why? Because one person wrote an article that was deemed homophobic by a radical and vocal minority of students. Let’s take a step back, shall we? In my country, LGBT people are murdered and thrown in prison. As a bisexual woman, I am thankful that anti-gay views are in the minority here. However, I still support the rights of individuals to say homophobic things. And don’t come at me with “b-but homophobic speech leads to anti-gay violence!” I know what violence is. Speech is not violence. Bashing in the heads of gay men is violence. “Corrective” rapes of lesbians is violence. Being beaten by police for holding a rainbow flag is violence. Some dude reviewing a 2003 documentary about HIV is not violence. Being insulted is not violence. Your existence is not being “infringed upon” when somebody says something offensive. You don’t have to go into hiding or seek asylum across the world because somebody called gays promiscuous. What’s that saying again? “Check your privilege.”

Offensive speech is not illegal. Be grateful. Celebrate that fact. You may not realize it, but if you go after someone’s right to free speech because you deem it “violent” or “dehumanizing,” people can turn around and go after you. For example,

“To silence a person is to make him a martyr and immortalize his speech. The forbidden fruit becomes the most alluring.”

10

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

while some may see pro-life speech as reducing a woman to a vessel for babymaking and therefore dehumanizing, others who believe life begins at conception may consider prochoice speech to be dehumanizing to unborn children.

Beliefs are subjective. Laws and policies cannot be subject to feelings.

You cannot shut down speech you disagree with and expect your own speech to be safe. You cannot dictate what views are allowed to be expressed. That sort of thinking will immediately be used against marginalized groups. The lines about “they came for the X, but I did not speak up, for I was not one… and then they came for me and nobody was left to speak up for me” immediately comes to mind. The right to free speech is essential to our progress in society. Do you believe those in power will really protect your rights? If you advocate for the repression of disagreeable views, don’t you think those on the opposing side would do the same to you if they could?

Do not treat speech as a privilege. Speech is not a toy you can take away from a misbehaving child until he earns it back.

Speech is a human right. Now, that doesn’t mean speech is immune to consequences, nor does it mean you have to agree with it. You can be angry, you can feel hurt, but you cannot silence someone’s speech.

Instead, utilize your own freedom of speech. Write an article, invite a speaker, organize a march, host a debate. Fight hateful speech with better speech. We are college students. We can do better than to screech and cry and demand the powers that be make other people shut up, to threaten and harass and intimidate people into submission. We are adults, and adults use their words. We must uphold the free exchange of thought as an academic necessity upon which all else is built. People will not change their minds if we take away their right to speak their minds publicly. They will still hold the same views, perhaps more drastically so. They will find ways to spread their ideas. To silence a person is to make him a martyr and immortalize his speech. The forbidden fruit becomes the most alluring. These sentiments are detailed in former ACLU President Nadine Strossen’s new book, Hate: Why We Should Resist It With Free Speech, Not Censorship.

Free speech is a right that so many across the world crave.

Living in a country that upholds this essential human right is an immense privilege. Do not throw this precious freedom away in the name of comfort. In the end, the loss of liberty for one becomes the loss of liberty for all.

Vol. XXXI, Issue VII

BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM

VENEZUELA: NOT TRUE SOCIALISM

Venezuela: Not True Socialism

By Jordan Jardine

I

n the wake of a dramatic increase in tensions between the Trump Administration and Nicolas Maduro’s regime in Venezuela, it is as appropriate a time as any to clarify a few misconceptions about this South American country. First of all, although the political party to which Mr. Maduro belongs is called the United Socialist Party of Venezuela, the workers in Venezuela have no control over the means of production, there remains a large centralized state, and the functions of the capitalist system have not been abolished in Venezuela. Said functions have fallen under the control of the Venezuelan state.

This is analogous to the infamous “Workers’ Party” of Korea in North Korea. Just because a political party calls itself a “socialist” or “workers” party, that does not necessarily mean the parties’ actions match the ostensible policy positions they may espouse.

Venezuela used to be among the most thriving and prosperous countries in the entire South American continent. Unfortunately, in 2014 (the earlier days of Maduro’s administration), Venezuela’s GDP dropped 3.9%, according to data from the World Bank. It is without question that Maduro (and his predecessor Hugo Chavez) and his ever-increasing authoritarian impulses and decrees (such as increasing military and law enforcement presence throughout the nation) has contributed a significant amount to the collapse of Venezuela. However, it is Maduro’s corruption and selfish lust for more and more control over his citizenry that have ruined the country, not socialism. Again, one of socialism’s most rudimentary components is workers’ control over the means of production. Since Venezuelan workers cannot control much of anything in their daily lives, let alone their work, it is unfair and definitionally inaccurate to attribute the nation’s woes to socialism. Venezuela absolutely still has a capitalist system. It just so happens that it has been reconfigured to solely benefit Maduro and his inner circle of bureaucrats and elites.

The media, particularly Fox News, constantly displays images of starving Venezuelans waiting in long lines for basic goods like bread and toilet paper. A true socialist society would NEVER let this happen. Though anarchists such as myself disagree with Karl Marx on a variety of issues, we agree with one of his main principles: “From each according to his ability, to each

editor@binghamtonreview.com

according to his needs.” It is necessary to include this quote because Venezuelans are watching their basic needs slip away. If workers in the country were allowed more control over their own labor, it would follow that the producers would be able to fulfill everyone’s needs in society. A capitalist society, especially a state capitalist one such as Venezuela, is not necessarily concerned about fulfilling people’s needs if it interferes with the profit motive, or in Maduro’s case, the profiting off of his own people to fatten his pockets and those of his cronies.

Venezuela’s problems are not limited to its own government. The elephant in the room that American media outlets scarcely ever address is the crippling effect Barack Obama’s series of 2014-2015 sanctions had on Venezuela. According to Reuters, Obama went so far as to deem the nation a national security threat to the United States in March 2015. Really? Venezuela is a formidable threat to Americans? If Maduro said he was going to send troops to open fire on Oklahoma, that would have been cause for concern. However, Maduro never said that and never has and probably never will. America has the largest military in the world by far and we also spend more money on our military than the next 10 countries combined, the vast majority of which are our allies. There is no way Maduro actually believes his military can compete with that. Regarding the reasoning for the economic sanctions, the Obama administration offered the weak and farcical excuse that Maduro was violating Venezuelans’ human rights. While this is certainly true, the United States backs, funds and/or arms 73% of the world’s dictatorships according to the progressive news site, Truthout.

One of the clearest examples of this is our support of Saudi Arabia, where the human rights of women, Christians, Jews, atheists and alleged drug smugglers are violated on an almost daily basis. The US government has no right to call out other nations as “human rights violators” when we provide military and economic support to a large portion of these abhorrent wrongdoers.

So, if the US government does not actually care about the human rights of Venezuela’s people, what are they really interested in? The answer is very simple: oil. Venezuela has been rich in oil reserves for decades. According to the Washington Post, the United States imports over 500,000 barrels of oil per day from Venezuela, primarily for use as diesel fuel. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to assume that the true motives of the American government that underlie the instigation and escalation of tensions with Venezuela are not laid on a foundation of the desire to liberate desperate people from an authoritarian regime, but instead are merely to artificially foment an excuse to send innocent American troops to the country to die in the name of corporate profits and geographical hegemony.

In short, corruption, authoritarianism, and ever-more aggressive economic and political actions on the part of the United States are the primary drivers of Venezuela’s significant fall from grace in recent years. This has nothing to do with socialism and it never has in reality.

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

11

SHUTDOWN & DANCE WITH ME

BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM

Shutdown & Dance With Me

By Matt Rosen

W

elcome back to Binghamton!

Unfortunately, it brings me great sadness to admit that I return to school with some bad news for all of you. As I am typing this article, I worry that by the time this issue comes out, you may already know what news I am talking about. I fear the world will be a completely different place, and this article’s warning will be too little, too late. My bad news is that… the world is ending. I know; there have been numerous predictions for the end of the world before, but this one is real, I swear!

The reason why this end of the world prediction is different than the ones in the past is because the US government is SHUT DOWN! As of the day I am writing this, it has been one month since Trump shutdown the government, and life seems to be getting worse every day. If the shutdown lasts for two months, then the dead will rise, essentially starting the zombie apocalypse. If the shutdown reaches 75 days, all of the US nuclear weapons will fire automatically, killing billions.

Honestly, I have no idea what would happen if the shutdown reaches 100 days… something terrible no doubt… something like us losing net neutrality, or even worse, Brett Kavanaugh being

“...President Trump is asking for $5.7 billion to secure our Southern border. The US government spends more than twice that much every single day. This is pocket change for the US government.” appointed to the Supreme Court. CNN told me that if those things happened, we would all die, so I can’t picture anything worse than losing net neutrality or having Kavanaugh on the bench.

I am hoping that my article prints in time for President Trump to see this and end the shutdown. Maybe if we all scream at him that the world is ending, he’ll ask for something more reasonable like $1 for border security.

Ok now that my audition for the New York Times or CNN is over, let’s try to be a rational human being. Let me be clear, the first two paragraphs were jokes meant to point out how ridiculous the Democrats are being.

Also let me be clear about me being clear; when I say “Democrats,” I am mainly talking about prominent Democrats, like Congressional Democrats or Democrats in the mainstream media. I am in no way saying that all

The world when the government shutdown hits three months!

12

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

Democrats are the same way. Normally I wouldn’t find the need to clarify that, but in 2019, if you make a joke and fail to clarify what you meant, you tend to get viciously attacked by people who disagree.

Anyway, President Trump is asking for $5.7 billion to secure our Southern border. The US government spends more than twice that much every single day. This is pocket change for the US government. So what makes this $5.7 billion different than any other billion dollars we spend? In the eyes of the Democrats, this $5.7 billion is different because… well… IT’S TRUMP ASKING FOR IT. Just ignore the fact that the Democrats supported border security and a physical barrier about ten years ago, because… well…#OrangeManBad. So what makes this $5.7 billion different in the eyes of Republicans? This $5.7 billion is a campaign promise that the American people voted for in order to save lives, save money, and is something that the federal government actually has constitutional jurisdiction and responsibility over.

So with the information above, I want to ask, which party is really being unreasonable? Is it the party that was elected largely on border security and is asking for a reasonable amount of money to save lives and money?

Or is it the party that spends trillions of dollars on literally everything, but won’t spend federal pocket change for something necessary and voted for?

The Democrats used to be for border security until Trump asked for it. Now Democrats want you to believe the the illegal crime rate is 0% and that illegal immigration costs the taxpayer nothing. I remember when it was common sense that countries have borders and rules governing those borders, and that you can only move to another country if you apply through appropriate channels. I remember when it was common sense that sneaking across a country’s border should be considered a crime. Regardless of how

Vol. XXXI, Issue VII

BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM effective/ineffective our immigration system was, it seemed that those facts were basically agreed upon.

In 2019, it is impossible to agree on anything anymore, even something as simple as the idea that walls do in fact work to keep people out. There is nothing immoral about a physical barrier. You do have them at your house, right? The cliché that the President has reiterated is true: You have walls to protect the people on the inside, not because you hate the people on the outside. All a wall will do is direct all people who come to the United States towards a legal point of entry. Even the border security agents agree that they need a wall and new technology in order to protect the border. Walls work.

Yes, this article is written more informally than most of my previous articles on purpose. The reason for that is because I am genuinely exhausted from the heated rhetoric from the left, and the inability to negotiate with them. If Democrats wanted to refuse funding for a short period of time to play politics and negotiate, then that’s fine by me. But instead, they refuse to negotiate, refuse any deal Trump gives them, and then uses mainstream media to insult the President, calling him things like an “amoral hostage taker” (Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-HI). If the Democrats are going to blatantly say that they will not negotiate and will not give more than $1 to him, then it is them that is holding the government hostage. In 2013, when the Republican Congress wouldn’t give Obama the funding for Obamacare (which shut down the government), Democrats blamed Republicans. And to be clear, even though I agree with the 2013 Republicans, Republicans definitely caused the 2013 shutdown. So if you look at that case, Democrats seem to be claiming that the Congress who refuses to fund the President’s agenda is at fault for the shutdown. Now if you apply it to 2019, it is House Democrats who are refusing to pay for the President’s agenda... so shouldn’t they be at fault this time? The difference is that in 2013 the Republicans tried to negotiate, failed, and ended up giving President Obama what he wanted. Now it is time for the Democrats to do the same.

editor@binghamtonreview.com

SHUTDOWN & DANCE WITH ME I have to admit, in the beginning of this article I was a smidge hyperbolic. But there is a reason for that. Government shutdowns are honestly not the end of the world. All of the panic

by Democrats are simply a tactic to try and get President Trump to end the shutdown. During government shutdowns, all essential government functions are still running, and all government employees will get their back pay once the government is reopened.

The President has every right to not sign a bill that he doesn’t like, and that includes bills to fund the government that purposely leaves out his primary demand.

One option for the President is declaring a national emergency in order to bypass Congress and direct resources towards building the wall. I am 100% against this proposition for many reasons. If President Trump declares a national emergency, you will most likely be reading another article of mine in the future criticizing the decision. First of all, if Trump declares a national emergency, it will most likely be struck down by a court as executive overreach, and we will never get a wall. Even more importantly, declaring a national emergency for this is executive overreach. Just imagine if President Obama did something like this. Republicans would be rightfully outraged, so they should be equally outraged over Trump doing it. Plus, if Trump does declare a national emergency, it will green light Democrats to use this power in the future to declare climate change a national emergency.

The executive has constraints for a rea-

son.

Let’s all be honest now, Nancy Pelosi has no intention of ever negotiating with Trump after the government is reopened. She blatantly admitted that she would never negotiate for a wall. This is President Trump’s only leverage, and it is the smartest political move for him. While I do wish he did this a year and a half ago when he had a Republican Congress, that doesn’t mean I believe he should back down now. He should be giving rational speeches every day until the Democrats are forced to make a deal.

He should be making the Democrats explain why they are being stubborn over a small amount of money for security, but will spend trillions on literally anything else. He should be giving the facts about how little it will cost relatively, and how much money it will save taxpayers. All of this would be his best option since the Democrats have not given a single good reason for why the wall would be bad.

President Trump needs to make it clear to the American public that if no deal is struck, it is because the Democrats are being stubborn obstructionists, while he was willing to compromise. He offered them the opportunity to help design the wall, he offered them one of their campaign promises (DACA) in exchange for the wall, and he even said he was willing to ask for less money, all in an attempt to compromise. This government shutdown is solely due to Democrats in Congress being stubborn due to their personal hatred towards President Trump.

Please, President Trump, do not cave.

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

13

WHY HAVE LAWS AT ALL?

Why Have Laws at All?

By Michael Penn

L

ibertarianism is a positive influence when it seeks to prevent the social engineering and tyranny of socialism and statism rampant in modern liberalism. Yet it also has a dangerous undercurrent of near-anarchism that endangers the very idea of law. To some, anarchy is the logical conclusion of a philosophy that has preserving individual rights as its primary emphasis. While an emphasis on individual rights is absolutely necessary in our current climate, it can like most things be taken to a dangerous extreme that ignores other concerns and in the process undoes its own goal. What is most significantly neglected in an anarcho-libertarian philosophy is the good of society, which is simply individuals considered as a group. To neglect the good of society is to neglect the good of its individual members. A society of individuals is kept healthy by those individuals subscribing to common customs and embodying those customs in laws. These laws require sacrifices from a society’s individual members but in the end allow a society as a whole to function in peace and freedom thus ensuring those same benefits for its individual members. Laws are thus the guarantors of liberty.

14

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

Good laws further peace and freedom by preserving a way of life.

When people are raised from infancy being told that something is against the law, it is thus being pressed upon them that that something is wrong.

Laws against obviously evil actions such as murder or rape reinforce those negative opinions. By being constantly reminded that these and other things are against the law and thus bad, people are discouraged from committing them. Such laws reinforce inhibitions and inculcate an awareness of right and wrong. Laws concerning lesser evils such as fraud, divorce, or drugs are simply further examples of law’s inherent purpose of perpetuating moral standards.

Laws also protect those who would be indirectly harmed by individuals’ actions. Libertarians principally consider harm inflicted directly.

People are obviously harmed directly by violent crimes, but many actions of individuals affect others indirectly while still inflicting very significant harm. Some libertarians say that people have a right to commit suicide because doing so harms only the person committing it. But if a father of several children were to commit suicide he

BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM

“The easier it is for people to do something, the more they are going to do it—sometimes even when they know it is detrimental to their own well-being. Not having laws makes doing wrong that much easier. Good laws prevent people from making decisions that could ruin their life and enslave them.” would be endangering his wife and children. He would very likely be consigning them to a life of poverty in the care of a single working mother or the state. Alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs not only ruin individuals, but in the process ruin families and neighborhoods. Individuals’ actions that jeopardize the good of others, even if indirectly, should not be totally outside the scope of the law.

Laws also protect people from endangering themselves. There are countless smokers suffering from the effect of cigarettes who will warn you not to smoke even while they themselves are smoking a pack every day.

Countless individuals are turned into addicts due to lack of legal bans or limitations on dangerous substances. Many take the first step into drug abuse because it is easy to do so. The easier it is for people to do something, the more they are going to do it— sometimes even when they know it is detrimental to their own well-being.

Not having laws makes doing wrong that much easier. Good laws prevent people from making decisions that could ruin their life and enslave them.

As conservatives and libertarians, we agree that laws can wreak havoc in a society, but we should recognize that anarchy can cause just as much harm.

It doesn’t all have to be about you, or me, or any single person. It should be for everyone’s benefit that we support or oppose any law. Laws that are wisely conceived work for everyone’s benefit, but lawless anarchy cannot work for anyone.

Vol. XXXI, Issue VII

BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM

#SubscribetoPewdiepie

#SUBSCRIBETOPEWDIEPIE

By Patrick McAuliffe

R

egular Vox readers and anyone who is invested in YouTube culture will know the competition I want to talk about. Felix Kjellberg, also known as Pewdiepie, is frantically racing the Indian entertainment corporation T-Series for the most YouTube subscribers of all time. As of this article, both of them have over 82 million subscribers, which is far above most YouTube channels. Pewdiepie even surpassed YouTube Gaming, the general channel collecting various gaming streams, news videos, and playthroughs. Before you finish my article, go onto YouTube and subscribe to Pewdiepie. If you need more convincing, let me tell you why this is a battle for the soul of YouTube itself, and may have implications for more platforms across the Internet.

The massive jump in subscriptions to T-Series is due to a few different sources, primarily from the sheer money and means of the corporation.

India has expanded access to the Internet on a massive scale, jumping from 278 million in October 2014 to around 500 million in June 2018, as reported by the Times of India. T-Series puts out several videos a day, from music videos to movie trailers. This amount of output puts them in the direct view of India’s new Internet users, growing their fanbase much faster than the one-video-a-day Pewdiepie. However, as alleged in Pewdiepie’s T-Series diss track “Bitch Lasagna,” and by many Reddit users and Youtubers, T-Series seems to be using a number of spam accounts and sub bots to try and close the gap between them and Pewdiepie.

This was confirmed by Metro when YouTube removed 200,000 spam subscriptions from T-Series’ sub count on December 14th (Pewdiepie only lost 40,000).

Lots of YouTubers see the struggle between the two channels as a battle between independent content creators and corporate media outlets.

Pewdiepie became the most-subscribed YouTuber at the end of 2013

editor@binghamtonreview.com

and has held the title almost uninterrupted since then. He got famous from “Let’s Play” videos and eventually became more of a personality YouTuber.

Most of his videos today are reaction videos, whether to Dr. Phil or Tik Tok, among others, and scrolling through his very own subreddit, r/PewdiepieSubmissions. He asks his fans, whom he lovingly refers to as “the nine-yearold army,” to make memes and submit their fan art for his weekly show LWIAY (Last Week I Asked You), a knockoff of YouTuber jacksfilms’ YIAY (Yesterday I Asked You). Even though he is criticized for his seemingly unoriginal content and his occasionally abrasive statements, these types of videos help him directly interact with his audience and build a fanbase full of loyalty. The memes on his subreddit are topical to his content as it changes, and fans’ art is posted with love and admiration.

This loyalty to Pewds has been the biggest driver of him staying atop T-Series in subscribers. MrBeast (14 million subscribers), a YouTube vlogger, will often pull outrageous stunts to encourage people to subscribe to Pewdiepie, such as buying every billboard in his town with the “Subscribe to Pewdiepie” message. Keemstar, founder of the YouTube news channel #DramaAlert (4.7 million subscribers), has recently joined the fray in taking to Twitter encouraging support for Pewdiepie. Meme channels Grandayy (1.9 million subscribers), Dolan Dark (1.3 million subscribers), and FlyingKitty (1.5 million subscribers) have whipped up support through video memes and jokes about T-Series being in league with YouTube to take down Pewdiepie. Even ordinary people do their part to make sure Pewdiepie stays on top; at the beginning of December, 50,000 printers worldwide

were hacked by an anonymous person encouraging their owners to subscribe.

The grassroots nature of the “Subscribe to Pewdiepie” movement makes its supporters even more fervent.

This fierce loyalty was evident with the release of YouTube Rewind 2018, a video released every year by YouTube compiling the best moments and fastest-growing creators on the platform. This year’s video became the most-disliked video in the history of YouTube, primarily because it didn’t seem to reflect the actual big moments of the year. There was no mention of Pewdiepie vs. T-Series, celebrity cameos from Will Smith, Trevor Noah, and John Oliver seemed out-of-place, and an overemphasis on Fortnite (both the dances and the inclusion of Ninja, a Twitch streamer) felt very forced. A scene with several YouTubers grouped around a campfire probably holds the title for the cringiest moment of the video, lauding an increase in Asian representation for some reason and one woman emphatically saying, “I am so proud of this community.” Much like when corporations use social justice to push a product, the public backlash against YouTube clearly showed that the platform is gradually deviating from what its users actually want to celebrate and emphasize.

Pewdiepie has been the subject of several controversies, usually stemming from his carelessness with words or not realizing possible problematic actions by people and channels he supports. I don’t think he believes the alt-right mentality many news outlets ascribe to him, usually by association.

Despite the problems he may have, his supremacy as YouTube’s most popular channel is the last bastion of the public’s representation on YouTube.

Although some cynics are consoling themselves on Pewdiepie’s eventual defeat by T-Series, it is now more important than ever to double down and support original content creators over distant corporate media. #SubscribetoPewdiepie

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

15