BINGHAMTON REVIEW Editor-in-Chief Contents
P.O. BOX 6000 BINGHAMTON, NY 13902-6000 EDITOR@BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
Founded 1987 • Volume XXXIV, Issue V Matt Gagliano
Managing Editor Madeline Perez Copy Desk Chief Joe Badalamenti
Business Manager Dillon O’Toole
Social Media Shitposter Arthur O’Sullivan
Editor Emeritus Jake Schweitzer
Staff Writers
Charles Forman Siddharth Gundapaneni Evelyn Medina
Contributors Julius Apostata The Joker?
Special Thanks To:
Intercollegiate Studies Institute Collegiate Network Binghamton Review was printed by Gary Marsden We Provide the Truth. He Provides the Staples
KYLE RITTENHOUSE AND JULIUS JONES: UP IS DOWN IN MEDIA
PAGE 8
by Arthur O’Sullivan
Editorial by Matt Gagliano Press Watch by Our Staff Advice Column by Madeline Perez Elmo Says Get The Jab by Joe Badalamenti Cardinal Sins And The Chocolate Factory by Madeline Perez 10 A New Low: The Lincoln Project’s Vile Stunt by Julius Apostata 11 The Economics of Marijuana Taxation 3 4 5 6 7
by Siddharth Gundapaneni
12 Anonymous Poem We Found On The Floor by The Joker? 13 Does Christmas Come Too Early? by Evelyn Medina by Joe Badalamenti 14 Disliked Dislikes 15 Out With The Old, In With The New by Dillon O’Toole
TELL US WHAT YOU THINK! Direct feedback to editor@binghamtonreview.com 2
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
Vol. XXXIV, Issue V
EDITORIAL Dear Readers,
From the Editor
S
hut that goddamn Christmas music off already! It’s November! Thanksgiving hasn’t even happened yet! I swear to god if Mariah Carey doesn’t crawl back into her cave until AFTER November 25th, I’m going to go Sicko Mode. Wait… I think that implies that I’m going to kill eight people. Probably shouldn’t use that phrase any more. Basically what I’m trying to say is that it’s way too early to start talking about Christmas; give Thanksgiving it’s chance to shine. I would like to say that we here at Binghamton Review have given Thanksgiving it’s chance to shine, this is the Thanksgiving issue after all, and yet it appears as though no one has written anything related to Thanksgiving. The closest thing we have is Evelyn Medina’s article “Does Christmas Come Too Early?” on page 13. Christmas may come too early, but we here at Binghamton Review most certainly don’t. *Wink wink* *Nudge nudge* Am I right ladies? Haha! Woo! *Slaps knee* Hehe! Get it? Hoho! *Wipes away tears of laughter* Anyway, I hope all of you can ignore that shitty joke long enough to enjoy your Thanksgiving break. Unlike any Binghamton Review members, Thanksgiving break is coming soon, and I think I speak for everyone when I say it can’t get here fast enough. This semester has me more done than Garfield on Mondays. Speaking of which, does anyone know why they call it oven when you of in the cold food of out hot eat the food? Speaking of food, if you’re interested in a food related article, you should check out “Cardinal Sins And The Chocolate Factory” by Madeline Perez on page 7. Yeah, alright, it may be a bit of a stretch to call that one “food related” but it does have “chocolate” in the title. Technically, chocolate is a food, so if it’s in the title, then clearly the article must at the very least be food adjacent. Know what, I don’t have to justify myself to you. Just read the damn article. It’s the third paragraph of the editorial, so you know what that means. I’m tired and sick of writing this shit so here come the rapid fire article name drops with no witty comments in between because my brain has run out of creativity juice. “Elmo Says Get The Jab” by Joe Badalamenti on page 6 is pretty good and is also related to our “beautiful” back cover. You should probably read it so you can properly appreciate the approximately fifteen minutes I spent photoshopping the “beautiful” back cover. Fun fact, the Big Bird image that I used didn’t originally have feet, so I had to photoshop the feet on so it wouldn’t look weird. That’s where my life is at right now, photoshopping feet onto an image of Big Bird at 2am on a Thursday night. This is no longer an editorial, this is a cry for help. Someone please, save me from this eternal hell. “Anonymous Poem We Found on The Floor” by The Joker on page 12 is another good article that I would recommend reading. We actually found it on the floor covered in some weird sticky substance, so naturally we just had to publish it.
Sincerely, Matt Gagliano Binghamton Review is a non-partisan, student-run news magazine of conservative thought founded in 1987 at Binghamton University. A true liberal arts education expands a student’s horizons and opens one’s mind to a vast array of divergent perspectives. The mark of true maturity is being able to engage with these perspectives rationally while maintaining one’s own convictions. In that spirit, we seek to promote the free and open exchange of ideas and offer alternative viewpoints not normally found or accepted on our predominately liberal campus. We stand against tyranny in all of its forms, both on campus and beyond. We believe in the principles set forth in this country’s Declaration of Independence and seek to preserve the fundamental tenets of Western civilization. It is our duty to expose the warped ideology of political correctness and cultural authoritarianism that dominates this university. Finally, we understand that a moral order is a necessary component of any civilized society. We strive to inform, engage with, and perhaps even amuse our readers in carrying out this mission.
Views expressed by writers do not necessarily represent the views of the publication as a whole. editor@binghamtonreview.com
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
3
CPampus resswatch “Extremists police pose violent threats to society”, by Elanor Gully, Pipe Dream, 10/11/21 “It is paramount for communities to trust the police officers that are assigned to ‘protect’ them, but that means certain extremist ideologies may pose a problem, as these ideologies can drive these two groups apart.” Protect in quotes? Wow, not even trying to hide your open resentment towards the police. I know this is an opinion article, but the most basic duty of police is to “serve and protect” their communities. Some of them at least try to do so. “Extremism on the left is often exaggerated while extremism on the right tends to be overlooked or minimized. Don’t believe me? The Anti-Defamation League published a report on extremism in 2020 and found that the domestic, extremist-related killings by perpetrator affiliation was heavily ideologically skewed. The report reads, “All but one of the 17 murders (94 percent) documented in this report had ties to forms of right-wing extremism,” with white supremacists being responsible for a majority. Left-wing extremists were at fault for only 6 percent of deaths.” Alright, ignoring the cherry-picked source, this claim is blatantly false. If one compares the treatment by cable news of left-wing violence with right-wing violence, the latter is covered and demonized endlessly, while the former is too often brushed off or even excused in the name of “progress”. “Texas abortion laws reverse decades of progress”, by Eve Marks, Pipe Dream, 10/11/21 “There have been thousands of demonstrations across the United States standing in opposition to Texas’ ban on abortions, and it is incumbent on all of us to protect the constitutional right of women to control their own bodies. If Texas’ law is upheld, we as a nation
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.
would be taking a major step back in the advancement of human rights in this country.” There have been thousands of demonstrations across the United States standing in opposition to Roe V. Wade, and it is incumbent on all of us to protect the constitutional right to life of the unborn. If Texas’ law is upheld, we as a nation would be taking a major step forward in the advancement of human rights - yes, even unborn ones - in this country. “Democrats should have passed the $3.5 trillion infrastructure bill”, by Desmond Keuper, Pipe Dream, 10/18/21 “Manchin and Sinema have proposed $1.5 trillion in spending as a compromise, less than half of the original number. Progressives like Sen. Bernie Sanders have expressed concerns that this would not be enough to accomplish the intended goals. I feel the same way.” Only a progressive would say that a trillion-and-a-half dollar budget is “not enough” to accomplish their goals. If your goals require a budget the size of the GDP of the United Kingdom, then maybe it’s time for you to scale down your goals. “School choice systems do not solve public school issues”, by Sean Reichbach, Pipe Dream, 11/08/21 “Additionally, Youngkin has proposed freezing property tax payments, which are the main source of public school funding in school districts. This means that in localities, inflation would cause tax revenues for school funding to de-
crease over time, risking possible budget cuts in already struggling schools.” 20% of US dollars currently in circulation were printed in 2020. The Biden administration wants trillions of dollars for their upcoming policy goals. Reducing taxes for average Americans is a swell idea, but if inflation undercuts those revenues, there’s a place somewhere on the Hill where that buck stops (or continues to be printed). “As one of the richest nations on Earth, the United States should be able to provide equity in educational opportunity, or at least much more than what already occurs. This is not an idealistic sentiment, and deciding to open up our schools to a free market system in which students are treated as customers and products rather than just students is dangerous.” The United States has one of the most highest funded educational systems in the world, yet it lags behind other moderately funded countries such as Finland. Money for public schools gets pissed away because of government mismanagement and poor funding mechanisms, dooming some children before they can begin merely because of their zip code.
Vol. XXXIV, Issue V
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
ADVICE COLUMN
Advice Column By Madeline Perez
I
offered to give you all life advice. These were your questions.
“Hi, can you give me a few hobbies to occupy my time with? Preferably something affordable.” What you’re going to want to do first is invest in some sidewalk chalk. I’ve spent hours upon hours in the hot summer sun laboring away, creating one masterpiece after another. I’ve felt love, frustration, and pain unimaginable. It showed me who I was and who I could never be. I also generally find discussing which 14-year-old girl from the hit anime Neon Genesis Evangelion I’m most attracted to tends to… wait, no don’t go... I don’t wanna be lonely again... :( “Why is my peepee hard?” Boobs, Ass even. Personality, if you will. “I have been keeping mice in my campus dorm, but recently two of them escaped and have been excreting all over the floor and have been chewing wires and wood. I have been unable to track them, but I also refuse to acknowledge that they belong to me for fear of being evicted or fined. Am I a jerk for not owning up to my responsibility?” No, you’re not a jerk. Actually, I have something to own up to. I was on one of my late-night mouse-killing expeditions when I found virgin, untouched wood and wires. I couldn’t help myself and decided to give them a little nibble. I may have gotten slightly carried away, and the next thing you know I felt that familiar rumble in my tummy. I’m sorry. I had to poop on the floor. I am living in your walls. “Should I smoke up rn” Absolutely, a good barbeque makes any day better. “Is it normal to hate your dad sometimes?”
“If I am a bunny woman. Will Matt Gagliano shoot me on sight?” IDK ask Matt. “Yes”- Matt Gagliano “How to be less of a people-pleaser?” That’s an easy one! You can do what I do and become a people-painer. Hurt them physically, unless they’re into that. Then you get the spray bottle. After, you can hurt them psychologically. Tell them you only listen to Weezer. “How do I make my life more interesting at the moment?” Go out, meet people, get to know those people, have interesting conversations, fall in love, get married, and die happy. Or, maybe just try Crack. I hear that can get some instant interesting results. “My mom says I’m hansome but grills dont liek me. what? Respectfully, Havrey Stinger” First, I must apologize. I promised to always publish questions anonymously, but Havrey, I feel others could benefit from knowing your predicament. When you meet a woman, extend your hand like a human would, just like we practiced. Then, try to engage in real human speech. Try not to mention the children you keep in your cellar for at least the first five minutes. If she doesn’t respond to your advances, don’t worry. She isn’t worth your time, king. “Tips for when you might have a stalker?” First off, you’re going to want to invest in some sort of defense, something like pepper spray, a pocketknife, or a spray bottle. Now that you are armed, reverse the situation and stalk them. Gather information about them. Find out the secrets they only reveal to themselves in the dark. Then bring them out into the light. Ruin them. Also, stalker? I barely know her. “How do I get the cute managing editor to notice me??” Oh? Well, my sweet and platonic friend, you already have! Also, I’m tough, not cute. If anyone else wants help getting my attention, you can email manager@binghamtonreview. com!
editor@binghamtonreview.com
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
5
ELMO SAYS GET THE JAB
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
Elmo Says Get The Jab By Joe Badalamenti
I
magine, if you will, that you are babysitting a young, impressionable family member and they are watching a cartoon, let’s say SpongeBob. How would you feel if, during the episode, the characters decided to kneel as a sign of respect for the “brave soldiers fighting in Afghanistan?” What if they spoke to the audience about the “need for universal healthcare” or the “dangers of socialism?” Chances are high that you will have one of two reactions: either you won’t mind so long as the message adheres to your own political views, or you would feel that such a message would be inappropriate for a cartoon targeted at a young demographic. The title I’ve chosen makes the point of this example clear. Of all people to speak about the issue of COVID vaccination, Sesame Street characters Big Bird and Elmo decided to share their experience of learning about and/or getting the vaccine. While this didn’t exactly happen in the show itself, the message conveyed by these fictional characters is nonetheless political. While political messaging and PSAs have been around since PeeWee Herman warned kids about the dangers of crack cocaine, the question raised by this event is as follows: Where is the line between a public service announcement and propaganda spread only to boost the legitimacy of an institution? We can look at examples of effective public messaging in pop media. Arguably the best types are not overt PSAs but allegorical works of fiction that convey a political message. A perfect example is one commonly taught in high school: Uncle Tom’s Cabin. While the evils of slavery is a prominent theme of Uncle Tom’s Cabin, what makes the book work is the depth of the message itself. Instead of conveying a surface level message or pamphlet providing general attitudes opposing slavery, author Harriet Beecher Stowe writes a lengthy novel
6
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
which explores the issue at a profound level of detail. This resulted in the book reaching unprecedented levels of fame. Another way to effectively send a political or societal message is to treat the audience as adults. This is what shows such as The Simpsons (especially the early seasons) and Bojack Horseman do when they decide to comment on a topical issue. While these shows are primarily made for adults or teenagers, they are generally averse to falling into the trap of talking down to the audience from their soapbox. Notice that all of these examples are not PSAs in the general sense. This is because interweaving the message into the story itself plays into the strengths of fiction as being... well, made up. Compare this to the standard PSA where fictional characters are pulled into the real world to send an announcement to the people. It’s much more jarring and surreal. While not every message is equal, messaging through storytelling is much more effective than your typical PSA. So then what differentiates propaganda from mere public service announcements? One possible answer would be the authorial intent. This is very difficult to prove, however, especially when the author is different from the speaker. When one thinks of propaganda, images of Nazi Germany or North Korea come to mind. Is such a system possible in a liberal country such as the United States? Let’s take the example of the many drug PSAs of the 80s and 90s. There are numerous examples of these PSAs, but they all convey the same message: don’t do drugs! Well, there’s a clear message and drugs can clearly cause harmful effects, so what’s the issue? Well, you also likely have been told this message by your parents, extended family, teachers, pastors, neighbors, and any other guardian or responsible influence in your life. So if there is already an effective means to spread this message, then why spread an obvious message? At the time of these drug PSAs, the 80s
and 90s, the War on Drugs was in full effect, with certain policies leading to harsh prison sentences for both drug dealers and drug users. These policies inflicted damage on many communities, especially African-American communities. Moreover, these policies had little impact on the amount of drug usage in America. If this is the case, why would these destructive policies be kept in effect for many years? Perhaps the drug PSAs were used to provide legitimacy for such policies. The mechanism is as follows: a government decides that it wants to promote or discourage a certain action; it makes policies that encourage or target the action (i.e. drug use); pop culture spreads messages that are in line with these policies in order for the audience to view them positively regardless of the impact. Returning to the modern controversy caused by our favorite puppet friends, it seems that this incident also fits the framework described. So does this mean that Elmo and Big Bird are government agents just like Ted Cruz said? I wouldn’t go that far, but I would also be cautious of any topical issues addressed in “PSA”. So we have described a mechanism of propaganda used in liberal countries. However, the question stands: is this good? For the most part, that depends on who is in charge at the time of the propaganda. If it’s a group of corrupt, despotic individuals, then it’s safe to say that there is something nefarious hidden behind the so-called PSA. If our vision is to live in a free country of independent thought, then any trace of such a system should be called out and dismantled, though many have already called out this phenomenon. If you are worried about the effects of such a system on a young family member, the prudent thing to do would be to control the media that they are exposed to; parental guidance has been a societal norm for a reason. As for the rest of society, hopefully, they come to seek out the truth for themselves.
Vol. XXXIV, Issue V
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
CARDINAL SINS AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY
Cardinal Sins And The Chocolate Factory By Madeline Perez
G
ood morning starshine, I’m going to go out on a limb here and guess you’ve seen the cult classic “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory,” or even, for you old people, “Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory.” As someone who has been exposed to a fair share of Christian theology, I couldn’t help but notice a trend, and one night (as in four days ago), realization struck me like a van at a protest. Were the kids in the chocolate factory based on the seven deadly sins? As I manically used red strings to connect pictures to other pictures, I was forced to confront exactly how deep this metaphorical rabbit hole goes. I consulted my jumbled, scattered memory that I sometimes use to help solve mysteries. Could the mystical candy land Wonka introduces somehow represent the Garden of Eden (or, “Garden of Eatin’,” if you will)? Could what at first seems like a paradise, actually be a thinly-veiled test of temptation? The entire factory: a diabetes-inducing world masterfully orchestrated and controlled by Willy Wonka, propagated by slave labor, where children go to die. Maybe die is the wrong word. Where children go to get ironically punished for their respective hubris; their arrogance and defiance in the face of Capitalist God Wonka. Augustus Gloop Let’s start with the most painfully obvious. You see, Augustus is gluttony because he’s fat. He drinks from the chocolate pool because he can’t help himself, even though God specifically told him not to, and then he falls in due to his poor, fatchild coordination. Him clogging the chocolate tube is actually supposed to represent how his arteries are clogged with fats and cholesterols. Violet Beauregarde As someone whose sin is pride, Violet’s sense of superiority is almost as bad as business majors’ when they try to tell me about investing. Violet is very achieved and flaunts it in a way that makes you want to rip her guts out. Funnily enough, she turns into a big blue ball—haunting the nightmares of assholes mad at their girlfriends for not putting out. Veruca Salt Veruca’s sin is not only greed, but stupid aimless greed. Why the hell do you want a big yellow egg so bad?? Or a squirrel?? At least want something cool like the new Super Monkey Ball: Banana Mania. Veruca’s dad also commits the sin of being a weak beta cuck, doing whatever his daughter says and spoiling her with his beta bucks, but sadly that one was overlooked in the bible. You may ask yourself- wait, are all these children just victims of really bad parenting and then get punished for it? The answer is simple: yes. But, as the Bible says, the sins of the father shall be visited upon the sons. Sucks for them, I guess. Mike Teavee Now, some may argue that Mike TV’s sin is sloth. “He sits
editor@binghamtonreview.com
at home all day watching television and playing video games. He doesn’t work, he doesn’t clean, he just screams for his mom to bring him his tendies.” While you’re slightly correct, you are also infinitely wrong. Mike Teavee is a gamer, which means he’s fuelled by gamer wrath. He smashes that pumpkin solely because he likes to see beautiful things destroyed. His sin is wrath and he wants to run over pedestrians in GTA IV so badly he couldn’t give two shits about chocolate or love or literally anything else. Charlie Bucket Charlie’s sin is envy, though it might not be obvious at first. You see, Charlie is envious of these aforementioned rich, privileged kids. He looks through the window of the candy shop with almost as much yearning as gay kids in love with their best friends in early high school. He differs from the other children in one very important way: his youth, shackled with the responsibility of caring for his family, has matured and humbled him. When he is offered his respective temptation, the strange, shady man offering to pay him for the Everlasting Gobstopper (obviously another test from Mr. Wonka), Charlie is presented with something much more intense than the other kids: money, something that could finally pull his family out of poverty and let them eat something besides Cabbage Soup for every meal. In his infinite good-heartedness and stupidity, he resists and understands that since he has a secure attachment with his parents, he doesn’t really need much else to fill that hole. That’s why he wins. I don’t care that he drank the fizzy lifting drink that one time! That wasn’t his test! It was stupid Grandpa Joe that convinced him. Wait. GRANDPA JOE! STUPID FUCKING GRANDPA JOE GRANDPA JOE REPRESENTS SLOTH! HE LAYS DOWN IN THAT FOUR-PERSON BED WITH THE OTHER GRANDPARENTS, DOING JACK-SHIT AND PRETENDING TO BE DISABLED! HE DOESN’T HELP OUT, HE DOESN’T COOK OR CLEAN, HE JUST BENEFITS FROM THE FRUITS OF THE REST OF HIS FAMILY’S LABOR AND EATS CABBAGE SOUP LIKE A FATASS! SUDDENLY CHARLIE GETS A GOLDEN TICKET AND IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THE CENTURY, GRANDPA JOE PRETENDS TO REGAIN THE USE OF HIS LEGS AND THIS NEVER GETS ADDRESSED AGAIN. WHAT THE HELL! I’M SO MAD!!! But, wait. I’m missing one, aren’t I? I can practically feel you screaming at me: “Those are only six sins!!! You forgot lust, idiot!” And to that I respond: these are kids I’m talking about, sicko. What’s wrong with you? If I really wanted to make the stretch, I guess I would say that lust is what the audience feels when you see those little Oompa Loompa men. Yeah, that’s right. You weren’t the only one.
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
7
KYLE RITTENHOUSE AND JULIUS JONES: UP IS DOWN IN MEDIA TOWN
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
Kyle Rittenhouse and Julius Jones: Up is Down in Media Town
By Arthur O’Sullivan
This article concerns two ongoing criminal justice cases: the potential clemency grant to Julius Jones, and the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse. I write this piece on November 11, and in the time between now and publication on the 17th, there will almost certainly be rulings and decisions that will make statements in this article outdated. I do not believe that there will be revelations significant enough to upend the cases’ trajectory, however, and I likewise believe that this moment of uncertainty is highly relevant to the troubled relationship between mass media and plain facts, as entire swathes of America allows itself to once again be caught up in “narrative truth,” rather than reality. This article would not have been possible without those who take the time to objectively examine cases such as these. I would especially like to thank Sean Fitzgerald (Social Media Handle: Actual Justice Warrior) and the Justice for Paul Howell organization, without whom I would have been entirely ignorant about the Julius Jones case. So long as there remains credible opposition to partisan spin-doctors, the spread of clear truth remains possible. These things having been acknowledged, I can now begin to expose the discrepancy between the criminal cases of Julius Jones and Kyle Rittenhouse and the (specifically progressive) news/popular media’s spin on these cases. The Case of Julius Jones Many people may have heard of Julius Jones through Viola Davis’s The Last Defense documentary series. In it, Jones is presented as an innocent black man framed by the corrupt, racist justice system of Edmond, Oklahoma and his former friend Christopher Jordan for the 1999 murder of Paul Howell. The documentary posits that Jordan was in fact the murderer, and that he threw the guiltless Jones under the bus in a secret plea deal with the Oklahoma court system. Jones was arrested
8
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
despite being at his parents’ home the night of the murder. The racist jurors of the court then convicted Jones based on supposedly faulty testimony from Megan Howell Tobey, the murder victim’s sister and the only adult in the family to witness the crime, with Jones not even allowed to testify on his own behalf. Jones, an innocent man, now faces imminent execution, with the decision to commute his sentence laying in the hands of Governor Kevin Stitt. Since the documentary, Jones has received widespread support from progressives and celebrities nationwide, with Kim Kardashian visiting him in 2020, urging her fans to donate to his legal fund. Even some on the right, such as Matt Schlapp of the American Conservative Union, voiced support for Jones. It is clear that The Last Defense struck a chord with many who saw it, but there are a few problems... First and foremost, this narrative is prima facie incoherent: how does it make sense that Jones was convicted due to systemic racism, but Christopher Jordan, who was also black, was allowed to walk free? But looking a little further into this case, it is clear to anyone that this documentary’s claims are egregiously manipulative at best, and downright false at worst. First, court documents reveal that Jones admitted multiple times that he was not at his parents’ house the night of the murder. These same documents reveal that Jones voluntarily waived his right to testify on his own behalf, as is typical in most defense cases. Second, multiple affidavits confirm that Christopher Jordan was not released in a plea deal with the state, but due to an update in operating procedure for prisoners of his type. Third, the testimony of Megan Howell Tobey as described in the documentary is both different and far more vague than her actual testimony: the documentary asserts that her description of the murderer matches that of Christopher Jordan, whereas her actual description excludes Jordan, as
she testified to the murderer not having a cornrow hairstyle. Guess what kind of hair Jordan possessed at the time? A full list of these false claims and their corresponding rebuttals can be found on justiceforpaulhowell.com. If you are still unconvinced, there is one clear, damning piece of evidence that indicates beyond any reasonable doubt that Jones was the murderer. Paul Howell was murdered by a man in a red bandanna, wielding a .25 caliber handgun. Julius Jones was arrested three days later. Laying in the attic space above his bedroom closet was a .25 caliber handgun, wrapped in a red bandanna. In 2017, Jones asserted in The Last Defense series that DNA testing of the bandanna would exonerate him. Jones stopped pressing his claims about the bandanna after a partial profile was constructed from court-ordered DNA testing, which just so happened to match Jones’s DNA and exclude Jordan’s. According to justiceforpaulhowell.com: “The probability of randomly selecting an unrelated individual with the same DNA profile is approximately 1 in 1.3 billion in the US Caucasian population; 1 in 110 million in the US African American population; and 1 in 1 billion in the US Hispanic population.” For reference, there were only 35 million African Americans in the U.S. in 1999. In short, Julius Jones wishes he had O.J. Simpson’s credibility. Since the documentary, Jones has shown himself to be unrepentant for his crimes, needing prompting in his clemency hearing to express sympathy for the Howell family, and even going so far as to make money from his time in the limelight through donations and clothing brands. As foul as it is to defend a murderer such as this man, our justice system holds to Blackstone’s Ratio (better that ten guilty walk free than one innocent suffer punishment). It is therefore even worse to spread lies that insinuate the guilt of a clearly innocent man.
Vol. XXXIV, Issue V
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM The Case of Kyle Rittenhouse The commonly-understood story goes something like this: Jacob Blake, an unarmed black man, was unjustly shot seven times in the back by Kenosha police; local protests naturally emerged in response, which turned to minor rioting after dark; on the second day of protests, Kyle Rittenhouse, a 17-year-old with ties to white supremacy and homicidal tendencies, acquired an AR-15 style semi-automatic rifle, crossed from Illinois to Wisconsin, and opened fire on a crowd of protestors, killing two and injuring one more. To those who believe this, Rittenhouse is yet another in a growing list of deranged white mass shooters. Even a surface-level analysis of the case reveals that this narrative is flimsy. First, Rittenhouse was not alone, having joined the “Kenosha Guards,” a group of armed men who formed for the express purpose of hindering looting and property destruction. Although joining an armed militia to serve as a vigilante remains a stupid idea, the image of a madman motivated by bloodlust is incoherent with the facts of the story. Kyle Rittenhouse, despite having a clear capability to shoot many more people, only hit three. When this is pointed out, the narrative shifts towards the idea that Rittenhouse initiated the conflicts with the three protestors. For months, many media figures (e.g. Ana Kasparian) baselessly asserted that Rittenhouse began his “shooting spree” by chasing and then shooting a man named Joseph Rosenbaum. The prosecution’s case rests on this, because if it could be shown that Rittenhouse was defending himself against Rosenbaum, then the rest of his actions captured on camera were undoubtedly self-defense. The prosecution has a problem, though, because their ostensible “key piece of evidence” to prove Rittenhouse’s guilt in fact exculpates him. Recently-revealed FBI drone footage shows that the first armed confrontation began when Joseph Rosenbaum ambushed Rittenhouse from behind a group of parked cars, whereupon Rittenhouse began to flee. Despite this, Rosenbaum attempted
editor@binghamtonreview.com
KYLE RITTENHOUSE AND JULIUS JONES: UP IS DOWN IN MEDIA TOWN to grab Rittenhouse’s rifle multiple times, prompting Rittenhouse to shoot Rosenbaum, killing him in a clear-cut case of self-defense. Even if Rittenhouse had initiated the conflict, which it is now clear he did not, undeniable video evidence shows that he made every effort to remove himself from the situation, meaning that he was always justified in using self-defense. The next two cases are therefore clear-cut: as Rittenhouse tripped while attempting to surrender to police, protestor Anthony Huber pursued and attempted to disarm him, striking Rittenhouse with his skateboard as the protestors can be heard shouting threatening messages. Rittenhouse then shot him once in fear for his life. Finally, Gaige Grosskreutz, a “medic” at the scene, was shot in the bicep after, by his own admission, pointing his illegally-owned handgun at Rittenhouse. The facts speak for themselves. Though he made a mistake in joining an armed vigilante militia, Rittenhouse exemplified discipline and responsibility as best he could in a dangerous and chaotic situation. Still, left-wing news outlets could not keep the record straight. Take Christina Maxouris of CNN’s near-hagiographic description of the three whom Rittenhouse shot, which omits how each of them attacked Rittenhouse. Take the Washington Post and The Young Turks questioning the presiding judge’s credibility for excoriating the prosecution’s unethical conduct (questioning Rittenhouse’s right to plead the 5th and making use of unadmitted evidence to impeach the defendant’s character, for instance), or just recently making an off-color joke. Take the Twitter news headline (taken from Washington Post) highlighting Grosskreutz “fearing for his own life” during his encounter with Rittenhouse as the most important part of his testimony, as opposed to the more significant admission of him pointing his own gun at Rittenhouse. The case of Kyle Rittenhouse is reminiscent of the infamous January 2019 Lincoln Memorial incident, where a confrontation took place be-
tween March for Life protestors from Covington Catholic High School and the Indigenous Peoples March, with Nathan Phillips of the latter group banging his drums in face of the bemused student Nicholas Sandmann. A viral picture circulated with the false narrative of Sandmann and his racist white male cohort bullying Phillips, causing a brief mass-media moral panic against him. Of course, the story was quickly debunked, with Sandmann receiving out-of-court settlements with CNN and The Washington Post, as well as broad recognition that the narrative was reported in a reactionary and lazy manner. With Rittenhouse, however, progressive mass media doubles down instead of retracts, making every effort to obfuscate the clear truth of the case. The Poison of Lies It’s clear that these media outlets have a narrative to push, and they won’t let silly things like “truth” get in their way. Though Julius Jones is undeniably a cold-blooded murderer, many believe that he is an innocent man condemned by the system. Though Rittenhouse would doubtlessly be declared innocent in any court of law, he will nevertheless be condemned in the court of public opinion. It’s bad enough that the progressive mass media’s manipulation of these events corrodes public trust. As long as this continues, much of American society will elect to solely consume media that confirms their priors, further dividing the nation into a postmodern quagmire of fractured narratives. It’s made worse, however, by the fact that collective beliefs result in collective actions, often violent, when emotions run high enough. Assuming Rittenhouse is found not guilty and Jones’s appeal for clemency is denied by Governor Stitt, this will merely confirm many leftists’ priors that America remains systemically racist to its core, and that riots and political violence will be necessary to rectify it. Every drop of blood spilled in the name of this cause will stain the hands of these spin-doctors, as well as their activist adherents who unquestioningly accept any narrative, no matter how absurd.
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
9
A NEW LOW: THE LINCOLN PROJECT’S VILE STUNT
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
A New Low: The Lincoln Project’s Vile Stunt By Julius Apostata
I
n today’s political atmosphere, it would be fair to describe the current leading parties as… less than preferable. It is clear that the Democratic and Republican parties have become increasingly radicalized. While I’m sure that many of you are aware of this moral degradation happening on the left side of the political spectrum, it would be remiss of me to not mention the corrosive elements of the modern GOP. With Trump’s entry into the Republican Party and successful rebrand of it to fit his more populist agenda, many in the GOP began to find themselves susceptible to wild conspiracy theories, unfettered nationalism, and even apologetics for the worst aspects of farright ideology. In my view, those that represent the embodiment of these ideas, such as Representative Majorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), Representative Paul Gosar (R-AZ), and Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO), have facilitated a downward spiral of the GOP’s platform and opened the floodgates for that platform to consist solely of Trumpism. Given such circumstances, it might be helpful (welcome, even), that some group present an alternative to voters disillusioned with the direction of the Republican Party and try to present a front against Trumpism. In this case, The Lincoln Project advertised itself as the reasonable alternative to whatever insanity is at work in the GOP, leading many, including myself, to admire its efforts in combating Trumpism. Unfortunately, whatever admiration I had of the Lincoln Project is now gone. Just before the election of Glenn Youngkin to the governorship of Virginia, the Lincoln Project staged a disgusting stunt that briefly fooled many.
“Needless to say, the act of impersonating vile white supremacists as a political stunt caused the Lincoln Project to face immediate backlash, with many outlets and individuals, including many of those that rushed to link the demonstration to Youngkin, condemning it. For context, the stunt came shortly before the Virginian gubernatorial election. In the gubernatorial election, Glenn Youngkin was running on the Republican Party ticket against incumbent Governor McAuliffe, with much of the media’s focus being centered upon Youngkin’s opposition to Critical Race Theory in schools, vaccine mandates, and a fiscally conservative economic plan for Virginia. Of course, it is also worth mentioning that Youngkin is a political outsider, having never run a campaign for office before. For the sake of this article, however, we should ask ourselves one question: is Youngkin a Trumpist politician? It’s a difficult question. While Youngkin has declared the election of Joe Biden to be legitimate, he has emphasized the need for election integrity through having a valid ID. Another Paul Gosar or Majorie Taylor Greene? Hardly! But someone who plays a “Goldilocks” strategy in courting both Trump and Biden voters on local issues, as some commentators have pointed out? Certainly. Still, this didn’t stop some, such as Gov-
10
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
ernor McAuliffe, from labeling Youngkin a “wannabe Trump.” On October 29th, 2021, five people, dressed up in what can best be described as the attire of white supremacists that marched in Charlottesville, carried tiki torches and stood in front of his bus, stating “We’re all in for Glenn!” Obviously, the sight of something so reminiscent of an ugly day in American history rightfully deserves condemnation, especially if such a demonstration is genuine. Prominent figures on McAuliffe’s campaign, such as spokeswoman Christina Freundlich and social media manager Charlie Olaf, immediately rushed to state that such a stunt was a real indication of Youngkin’s support group and his beliefs. Of course, they were wrong when they said the act was real. Only hours after the stunt took place, the Lincoln Project would release a statement saying that this was their demonstration, with the goal of “...reminding Virginians what happened in Charlottesville four years ago, the Republican Party’s embrace of those values, and Glenn Youngkin’s failure to condemn it.” Needless to say, the act of impersonating vile white supremacists as a political stunt caused the Lincoln Project to face immediate backlash, with many outlets and individuals, including many of those that rushed to link the demonstration to Youngkin, condemning it. Of course, the planning behind the event is even more interesting: enter Lauren Windsor, a Democrat operative who can best be described as the left’s answer to James O’Keefe. According to her and emails obtained by The Intercept, the demonstration was never meant to be a “hoax.” Of course, some of the lovely chants that she directed her group to say include “Hail Trump!” and what to do in the case of aggressive confrontation, according to her email, and her own twitter later amplified the stunt as though it were real, but surely, this wasn’t meant to be perceived as real. All of this is to say that much of the Lincoln Project’s credibility has been seriously harmed with the events that have unfolded. Many, including myself, are sympathetic to the organization’s overarching message that there is a moral rot within the Republican party due to former president Trump and that it is necessary to rescue the party from the abandonment of its principles. However, whatever the plan was for this stunt, it backfired in spectacular fashion: not only was their charade exposed to the world, but Youngkin would end up winning the race for governor. Not only was this a cheap stunt meant to smear Youngkin, but by trivializing such a matter, the Lincoln Project takes away from very real instances of these events. What is certain is that in the process of attempting this political smear, the Lincoln Project did a disservice to their own name.
Vol. XXXIV, Issue V
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
THE ECONOMICS OF MARIJUANA TAXATION
The Economics of Marijuana Taxation By Siddharth Gundapaneni
A
s of November 2021, recreational marijuana is now legal in 19 states, along with Washington D.C. While this as a start may seem great, it hasn’t been half as effective as it should have been. Although marijuana usage on its own can not kill a person, there has been an uptick in fatal cases of marijuana laced with synthetic opioids. This is largely due to the majority of cannabis users still purchasing their products from illegal markets. Such outcomes were not originally expected in the fight for legalization, and reform is needed to incentivize consumers to buy from safer, legal dispensaries.
“Moreover, an increase in consumers purchasing marijuana legally will categorically prevent fatalities from marijuana laced with fentanyl from untrusted drug dealers. State governments must forgo some tax revenue in exchange for the safety of its constituents.” Throughout the 1990s and early 2000s, many economists theorized that marijuana usage would increase upon legalization. The Brookings Institution went so far as to say, “The belief that legalization would lead to an instant and dramatic increase in drug use is considered to be so self-evident as to warrant no further study.” All that being said, after more and more states began legalizing recreational use of marijuana, use rates just barely increased, as shown in the graph below—so how could so many experts have been so wrong? The issue arises with the false assumption that marijuana is an inelastic good. Cigarettes, a product that is often on shelves next
editor@binghamtonreview.com
to marijuana, is in fact an inelastic good, meaning that even if the price of cigarettes is changed, demand for it should remain unchanged. This is likely due to the fact that about 85% of cigarette smokers are addicted to nicotine. Cigarette smokers that are addicted tend to continue purchasing cigarettes regardless of how expensive they are. This does not hold true for marijuana smokers as marijuana is known to have very little, if any, physically addicting properties. Therefore, when marijuana users see high prices in markets due to burdensome taxes, they are more likely to be deterred from dispensaries subject to said taxes, and instead purchase from an unauthorized source. The extent of some states’ taxes are so overbearing that it is even cheaper to import marijuana from other states. For example, Washington state has a 37% excise tax on the sale of marijuana, in addition to the 6.5% state sales tax, and another 3.6% in sales tax for Seattle residents. The miniscule increase in marijuana usage over the last two decades can be attributed to states that legalized weed and did not apply excessively high taxes. If economists were correct in saying that marijuana has inelastic demand, we would’ve seen significantly more in-
creases in usage rates nationwide. Seeing the lack of increase in usage along with the introduction of legal markets, we can conclude that marijuana is an elastic good. We can also then assume that, without such onerous taxes, demand for legal marijuana will increase. This allows us to see all the positive effects of legalization in action. Consumers will undoubtedly prefer a FDA-regulated product in place of an illegal good. When comparing states with cumbersome excise taxes like California, and states with less burdensome policy like Colorado, the results are quite telling. 78% of all marijuana sold in California was not legal, while that number dwindles to the low 30s in Colorado. California’s excessive regulations make legal dispensaries unable to compete with illegal markets, and that is much less so the case in Colorado. Moreover, an increase in consumers purchasing marijuana legally will categorically prevent fatalities from marijuana laced with fentanyl from untrusted drug dealers. State governments must forgo some tax revenue in exchange for the safety of its constituents. The transition of marijuana purchases from illegal dealers to legal dispensaries is a goal that state governments should strive to meet. An increase in the legal consumption of marijuana will lead to the gradual diminution of black markets in the industry. This will also prevent the purchase of marijuana for many under the legal consumption age, as dispensaries tend to be quite strict when asking to see identification, whereas a street dealer has no incentive to check for identification. Legal marijuana consumption must be propelled ahead of illegal markets in every state, and that is best done through less regulatory policies in one of America’s up and coming industries.
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
11
ANONYMOUS POEM WE FOUND ON THE FLOOR
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
Anonymous Poem We Found On The Floor By The Joker?
I’m a lot like the Joker. To me, it seems I’m tied up in strings of cringe American dreams I don’t like college, I don’t want a career I’m losing at Mario Kart and I hate it here I get so worried I pull out my hair I attract your girlfriend with my sigma stare The impermanence of everything weighs me down It slips through my fingers I grasp at the ground It’s gone now. Or was it ever there? I stare through the wall with my virgin glare. I feel numb and look like shit Fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck tit I want to smash glass with a baseball bat And then I’d eat it. Tasty Snack. Is it cool to be infinitely sad? If nothing matters, how could it be bad? If nothing matters, how could I be wrong? Could my fight against the world go on for that long? Finally stop talking and not have to think? Sink in the cum rather than cum in the sink? My sigma stare—I take it down I don the mask I walk the town I’m dark and brooding And tough as nails And love to salt shake the shake salt with the snails Everything’s bleak when inside you’re grey Not you, you’re rainbow. Your mom is gay. Me? I’m based. I’m misunderstood. I carpet my life over sticky hardwood. I still believe the Earth is flat I can get better Still waiting on that Holding my breath, red, until my eyes tear There are no happy endings. Nope. Not even here.
12
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
Vol. XXXIV, Issue V
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
DOES CHRISTMAS COME TOO EARLY?
Does Christmas Come Too Early? By Evelyn Medina
I
went home the weekend of November 6, only to be greeted by my mother playing Christmas music on a local radio station, Mix 103.3. It is the Binghamton area’s holiday station, and has been since I was born. It turns out that the weekend celebration of the holidays has begun early this year. Don’t get me wrong, I love Christmas; the nostalgia, the music, the feelings of good tidings, but I had just handed out Halloween candy the weekend prior. I hadn’t even taken Halloween decorations off my dorm door, not to mention put my Thanksgiving flag up and the Halloween one away. As a freshman, I understand that this will be one of the most stressful parts of my college career. I need to figure out what I want to do with my life, and survive those stressful weedout classes that will inevitably determine the direction of my future. A little bit of holiday spirit would do me some good, I’m sure. Focusing on Christmas this far out may relax me, especially since we most likely won’t be able to celebrate the holidays with our friends when the dorms close on December 18, and the final exams are completed. Celebrating Christmas early may give me a chance to celebrate in a completely different way, with my new friends, that I may never get a chance to if the holidays weren’t shoved in my face the day after Halloween. However, is there something to say about the desperation of an escape from reality and responsibility, when Christmas comes earlier and earlier each year? Or, will this early season cause more stress than initially thought. By bringing in more holiday merchandise, and playing the music so early, our brains could be tricked into thinking that we need to out-do ourselves this year, when gift giving, cooking or decorating, especially after the COVID-19 pandemic. We feel an obligation to find happiness and celebrate the holidays with our families. It is fair to say that this adds more stress to those searching for happiness, and
editor@binghamtonreview.com
therefore, when the day finally arrives, that magical December 25, we are burnt out by the work we put ourselves through, and we are incapable of feeling that holiday spirit. We are empty, and unsatisfied despite all of the hard work we put into creating the perfect holiday experience for ourselves and our families. But then we wonder why. “Why have we run out of the Christmas spirit when we had two months to prepare?”
“Christmas will come, and it will become more special when we take the appropriate time to enjoy it.” I like to think that Christmas should be a very special time of year. Though, I must admit, listening to the music and decorating early is fun, and I fall victim to it year after year. But I haven’t even thought of what dish I want to make for Thanksgiving yet. Christmas is losing what makes it so magical. When we have more of something, we learn to take it for granted, and it loses value in the eyes of the public. For example, imagine not having electricity except for one month a year. That would be a pretty special month, wouldn’t it? I relate this to the holiday season. I am bombarded with so many beautiful cards and songs for not one, but two months. The longer the season gets, the more I take from it, the less special it becomes. I feel bad for Thanksgiving, if it were to have feelings. If we were to slow down, not rush into Christmas, we could take a moment to celebrate with our families, as the holiday intends. If we calm ourselves, and we forget the material things that drive what we believe is our love for the holidays, we could appreciate them even more. We could appreciate the time it gives us for the ones we love. We have put so much pressure on ourselves to make the holiday sea-
son perfect, so we give ourselves extra time for it. We forget to take a breath, and rationalize what time we have left in the year. I see that Christmas could eventually turn into an excuse to rush into the next year. The holiday season is at the end of the year, and marks the occasion for when we will begin a new one, during a brief break from work or school. I see the expansion of the Christmas season into the beginning of November as a longing to start over, or the desire for a break. Stress rises, and Christmas becomes an excuse to remind ourselves that all our problems will disappear at the end of the year. So we stretch it, take advantage of it, and forget what it is truly about; family. The holiday season is a magical time of the year. All December long, we decorate, sing Christmas carols, and wind down for a brief period of time before New Years Day. We are in such a rush to get there, we forget that time cannot be manipulated, and we push the festivities front and center as soon as we can. Sometimes, we forget to take a break. We forget to ignore the marketing ploys to get us to spend money on useless holiday merchandise, and we forget the true meaning of the holiday season. So spend your time savoring every day as it is, and not every day as you wish it would be. Take the time to slow down and be present. Christmas will come, and it will become more special when we take the appropriate time to enjoy it.
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
13
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
DISLIKED DISLIKES
Disliked Dislikes By Joe Badalamenti
R
ecently YouTube announced that it will be removing dislike visibility from all videos. While technically keeping dislikes on the platform, a new update will remove the dislike counter from all videos, rendering it useless. No one will be able to see the number of dislikes per video, as well as the like to dislike ratio, two critical means of quantifying the quality and popularity of videos. This move represents a continual gutting of the original spirit of Youtube. Youtube was founded on February 14th, 2005 with the famous slogan, “Broadcast yourself.” The idea that one could make and share videos to the world was an appealing concept by many. This resulted in a growth in users, as well as videos to the website. Eventually, a culture developed, as figures such as Smosh, Ray William Jonson, and even PewDiePie gained massive traction. Formats such as vlogs, “Lets Plays” and “YouTube Poops” developed into common genres. What’s significant about all of this was that this was done by ordinary people looking to express themselves. It was truly an example of the early internet Renaissance. There were few rules other than to comply with US laws. But how would I know if a creator had gone too far with a video? Enter the rating system. Originally a five-star system, the like system allows viewers to give their input through either a like or a dislike. Comments could also be used to express more nuanced feedback. While certainly not a perfect system, the like-based rating system allowed the developing YouTube community to moderate content on the website. Eventually, the potential of a video-sharing website was noticed by the public as notorious tech start-up Google acquired YouTube in October 2006, for a grand total of $1.65 billion. Now in possession of the website, Google started to gradually change the website as time went on. Unfortunately most of these changes were frowned upon by the original and now growing
14
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
community of YouTube. First were the numerous layout changes made to YouTube. While this made the website more uniform, this change was criticized as limiting the ability of creators to personalize their Youtube channels. Another criticism was that of the algorithm, a machine learning system designed to feed viewers similar videos in an effort to keep users watching videos. While this addition made it easier to find new videos similar to those you watched, the act of using the search bar, a prominent feature of the website, was disincentivized in favor of using recommended videos. In other words, Google fixed a problem that no one in the community had with the website. One of the biggest changes was the ability to monetize videos, which allowed creators to earn revenue on their videos through the use of advertisements on videos. This was initially received positively, however, this change had the most profound effect on the website as a whole. While users initially created videos in order to “broadcast themselves,” monetization changed the incentives to one of making money or even a career out of the website. This attracted many more creators, as well as a plurality of corporate brands and media to promote their numerous products. Eventually, this transformed the Youtube community into one where original creators who were once prominent became overshadowed by repetitive corporate content. Suffice it to say, the community was not on board with these changes, thus efforts to resist these changes developed. The first prominent attempt at resistance was the creation of “Bob.” Bob was a text stick figure whose main goal was to overcome the integration of Google + within the website. While Bob may have had a tank at his disposal, this was not enough to save Youtube from the powers-that-be. Years later, YouTube creator EmpLemon, who also made several videos chronicling these events, devised a plan to
“tank,” or mass dislike, the 2018 YouTube Rewind, an annual showcase of all the events that occurred that year. The logic behind this plan was to send a message strong enough that the higher-ups would have to recognise it. What’s interesting about this plan is that the community was able to pull it off. In December of 2018, the year’s Youtube Rewind accumulated 15 million dislikes becoming the most disliked video on the platform. Mission accomplished? Unfortunately, instead of addressing the grievances of the overall community, YouTube decided to continue changing the website. Instead of making changes that please the community, why not remove the ability to dislike videos altogether? With this trend in mind the question remains: where do we go from here? Given the trends discussed in this article, it’s unlikely that Youtube or Google will make a serious effort to cater to the original YouTube community. Though neglected by the corporate overlords, it is possible that this community can persist as original content is made to preserve the original nature of YouTube. Another option is to migrate to a competitor such as Odyssey or Rumble. While they may be obscure at the moment, these competitors seem eager to cater to those disillusioned with the state of Youtube. It may seem that the odds are stacked against the YouTube community, however, they have often proven themselves able to adapt in order to preserve years of creativity.
Vol. XXXIV, Issue V
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
OUT WITH THE OLD, IN WITH THE NEW
Out With The Old, In With The New By Dillon O’Toole
N
o matter how successful you may be, no one can be at the top of their game forever. In any sport, there comes a time when the veterans become second tier to the up and comers. This transitional period has been in the making over the last several years in both NASCAR and Indycar. An influx of new talent has entered both series in recent years, and this talent has been developing to bring a fight to the old guard of each respective series.
“All in all, after several years developing their talents the members of the most recent youth movement in NASCAR have finally started delivering results.” Let’s start with NASCAR. For at least three years now, NASCAR has been hyping up the “youth” movement taking place within the Cup Series (the top series in NASCAR). Younger drivers like Chase Elliott, Alex Bowman, Ryan Blaney, Erik Jones, William Byron, Daniel Suárez, and Bubba Wallace were all hyped up as the next big thing back in 2018. This is all well and good, except for the fact that the veterans kept beating the younger drivers every week. In fact, even in the 2020 season veteran drivers like Kevin Harvick, Denny Hamlin, Martin Truex Jr, Joey Logano, and Brad Keselowski were winning loads of races compared to the younger drivers. The hype was built up a little too early for many of the younger drivers who have entered NASCAR in recent years. Only Ryan Blaney had earned a win prior to the start of the 2018 season, and only Elliott, Blaney, and Jones
editor@binghamtonreview.com
won in 2018. The big problem many of the younger drivers have faced was either an inability to win or a lack of consistency. This problem has been slowly solving itself over time as the drivers have gained more and more experience. This has culminated in the rise of the younger generation of drivers over the second half of 2020 and 2021. Starting in 2020, Chase Elliott had his breakout year, getting five wins
“The limited number of seats in both NASCAR and Indycar means that there will always be a cycle of drivers moving into and out of the sports.” and also winning the championship. The success for the newer drivers only continued in 2021. Elliott continued his success on road courses, Bowman and Blaney both had breakout years, winning four and three times respectively, Byron fixed his consistency issues, and Wallace was able to win his first race. In comparison, the veterans of the sport had a noticeably down year. Truex and Hamlin both remained highly competitive, but Harvick, Logano, and Keselowski all had unremarkable seasons. Also taking away from the veterans success was the eventual champion, Kyle Larson. He racked up ten wins in 2021, and even though he has been in the sport for many years now, this was also a breakout year for him. All in all, after several years developing their talents the members of the most recent youth movement in NASCAR have finally started delivering results.
Now let’s move onto Indycar. Since the early 2000s, Scott Dixon has dominated Indycar, winning a total of six championships between 2003 and 2020. Additionally, other veteran drivers like Ryan Hunter-Reay, Will Power, Simon Pagenaud, and Takuma Sato have been winning races and championships. The success of these drivers has since been lessened due to the new drivers who have entered the series since 2019. These young drivers include Colton Herta, Marcus Ericsson, Patricio “Pato” O’Ward, and Álex Palou. These young drivers all were in title contention in 2021, with all of them finishing in the top six in the championship. In fact, the two main title contenders for much of the season were Palou and O’Ward. Palou eventually came out on top, while O’Ward had some misfortune near the end of the season and finished third. Palau’s championship came in only his second full season, which is quite an impressive feat. Even though Herta and O’Ward didn’t win the championship, both have had speculation involving them moving to Formula 1. In comparison, the veteran drivers of Indycar had a down year. Pagenaud, Sato, and Hunter-Reay all went winless. Power and Dixon only got one win, although Dixon was still consistent enough to finish fourth in the championship. The youth movement in Indycar adapted rather quickly and has since started pushing out the old guard. It would be safe to assume that these new drivers will only continue to get better with time as well. The limited number of seats in both NASCAR and Indycar means that there will always be a cycle of drivers moving into and out of the sports. While veteran drivers will likely still continue to race for at least a few more years, they will start seeing less and less success when compared to their prime years. Therefore, it is necessary to accept the new faces within the sports as they will continue to carry the torch of motorsports for years to come.
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
15
