Page 1

BINGHAMTON REVIEW Editor-in-Chief Contents


Founded 1987 • Volume XXIX, Issue III Jordan T. Raitses

Copy Desk Chief Elizabeth Elliot

Publishing Manager Patrick McAuliffe

Communications Manager Kayla Jimenez

Business Manager Alex Carros

Editor Emeritus Sean Glendon

Assistant Editor Taylor Dowd

Staff Writers

Thomas Casey, Howard Hecht, Dan Kersten, Aditi Roy, Pino Che, David Keptsi, Max Newman


Dylan Klein Zachary Borodkin Sk8teboard Ad Vice

Special Thanks To:

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


by Aditi Roy

5 Cadillac Taxes by Thomas Casey 6 Are Dreams Worth Chasing? by Sk8teboard & Ad Vice 7 The Opioid Epidemic, Part II by Dan Kersten 8 Hillary vs. hillary by Zachary Borodkin 9 Restore the Republic, Plebs be Gone by Pino Che 10 Republican Revival: A Game Plan by Dylan Klein 14 I Love Weed, Fuck the Poor by Patrick McAuliffe


3 Editorial 4 Campus Presswatch

TELL US WHAT YOU THINK! Direct feedback to 2


Vol. XXIX, Issue III

EDITORIAL Dear Readers,


From the Editor

ope we didn’t scare you too badly with that front cover! Since this serves as both our Halloween and Election Day issue, we wanted to come up with something fitting for both. The options were Trump’s and Clinton’s faces or a spooky clown… so spooky clown it is. Also, fans of recursion, make sure to take a look at the back cover, it’s worth it. This issue covers quite a few topics, ranging from the usual pro-small government ramblings of Tom (a great read as always) to Dylan’s game plan for a republican resurgence in a post-Trump world (good luck with that one). Pino Che is back at it with his fascist antics and, as someone who considers himself pro-democracy, I would indeed consider his article successful in “triggering” me. However, he is technically right; the founders did try to create a republic and the people sometimes don’t know what’s best… he’s getting to me. Zachary explores the multple… “facets” of Mrs. Clinton’s political and non-political speeches while Aditi exposes the media bias for the same candidate and leftism in general. Patrick takes a stab at bringing Libertarianism to the unteemed masses, but he wrote his article in our magazine, so only the best-educated readers in Binghamton will get to see it! Take this as a chance to share your copy of Binghamton Review with a friend or loved one so they too can get a full Binghamton education. On the non-political side, we have Dan writing his second piece on the Opioid epidemic, so if you’re feeling too happy about the state of society, give it a read. Also, we have an article written by guest writers

Ad Vice and Sk8teboard! They came all the way from Syracuse to share their opinions on struggling artists and following through with your passions. In news about me (relevant, I promise), I was interviewed! Yes, that’s right, the esteemed Professor Ryan Vaughn (by esteemed, I mean hilarious) and I had a great conversation about the Review on his show: Pizza With Vaughn. You can watch it on BTV (lol, yeah right) or on his show’s website. It’s probably worth a watch--we filmed in a closet and I got to eat pizza. During the interview, we discussed the role of Binghamton Review in campus discourse. While I recognize that our readership may not be as large as Pipedream’s (though we both lost to “I don’t read any of these” in a poll conducted last year), I still feel that our mission statement, specifically the part about “promoting the free exchange of ideas and offering an alternative viewpoint,” is being fulfilled. After all, you’re reading this, aren’t you? Listening to others’ opinions, or at the very least hearing out what they have to say, is imperative for building a strong and resilient opinion of your own. I read my news from a news aggregator to ensure that I have as balanced a worldview as possible and, with the election coming up, I urge you all to do the same. Sincerely,

Jordan Raitses P.S. When available, you can check out our website for sources

Our Mission

Binghamton Review is a non-partisan, student-run periodical of conservative thought 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. In that spirit, we seek to promote the free exchange of ideas and offer an alternative viewpoint not normally found on our predominately liberal campus. It is our duty to expose the warped ideology of political correctness that dominates this university. 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. Finally, we understand that a moral order is a necessary component of any civilized society. We strive to inform, engage, 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.



CPampus resswatch Original content are in quotes, responses are in bold. “Election 2016: not up for debate” Kristen DiPietra, Pipe Dream “Nor can I bear to bring myself to go on Facebook to see my friends’ own debates and jokes about how they’re moving to Canada. I get angry when Chipotle skimps on guacamole; I don’t know if I can handle an hour and a half of question dodging, buzzwords, accusations, denials and rehearsed quips.” This is actually something I agree with. There’s not much value in seeing the candidates behave the way they do on the debate stage. Frankly, they both make their cases fairly clearly off the stage and the venue simply is not very helpful if you want to learn more about their policies. “I prefer to read about the fact-checked version of the debate compiled the next morning.” Even that is giving the debates too much credit. Both candidates lie; everything they said on stage, however, has been said before. “I will not waste my time listening to a presidential candidate trivialize our electoral process with his own egomaniacal diatribe about his hurt feelings. This unprecedented embarrassment will only make me more despondent about the United States’ self-inflicted predicament.” And what about the other candidate’s denial of clear facts. Actually, both candidates do that, but you get my point. “While I am abstaining from the debates, I certainly will not abstain from voting. I firmly believe that no matter what people choose to watch or read, all Americans must vote on Election Day. People who say they cannot vote for either candidate in good conscience must seriously reconsider. Abstaining dishonors the legacy of those who have fought and died for our suffrage.” But don’t forget to educate yourselves first by reading multiple sources. Yes, I admit it. Don’t just read the Binghamton Reveiw for all your news: go out there and actually understand the




Written by our Staff

pluses and minuses for both candidates. Understand their policy positions (at least the ones you care about) and look at the third party candidates too. “Why we need to be tobacco-free” Savanna Vidal, Pipe Dream “Upon returning to Binghamton University this fall, I couldn’t help but notice the sprawling patio outside the New University Union, the hallway connecting Student Wing and Lecture Hall and a glimmering new Starbucks. What caught my eye first, however, were the green stickers posted all over campus reading, “Binghamton University will become a tobacco-free campus as of Aug. 1, 2017.”” Really? Those tiny signs were the very first things you noticed on campus? Personally, it was the “sprawling patio,” but whatever. “Having made a vow to never smoke a cigarette, my oath was partially violated each time I inhaled cigarette smoke when I left the library or walked down the Spine. This unavoidable cloud of toxic fumes pollutes not only the fresh air, but also the lungs of everyone on campus.” What a poetic way to phrase second hand smoke! Tell me again how you visited campus before coming here as a freshman, had your lungs polluted by a cloud of toxic fumes, and said that this was the right place for you. As a person who chooses to go to a school that allowed smoking, isn’t that the very definition of your problem? The real world doesn’t have tobacco-free cities, so you may have to get used to it eventually. Good luck with your oath though! “Quitting the use of tobacco products is by no means necessary to comply with the policy. It does not apply outside of campus property, so everyone is free to consume tobacco products in any other permitted space. While it may be more inconvenient, this can be positive for smokers who are working to cut back or even quit by leaving them less time to spark up. The process, although not desirable, has positive long-term effects

for smokers and nonsmokers alike.” Great, so the Sodexo employees who smoke ought to take a bus (or walk) off campus during their 15 minute breaks to light a cigarette? What about the individuals’ right to chose you seemed to care about in your first sentence? “Thankfully, we have created a university environment where people look out for others who they feel to be in danger. I have frequently witnessed people approach that guy at the bus stop who’s had a bit too much to drink or the girl wobbling in her high heels in the arms of two guys. Why can’t this same mentality be applied to those who are literally killing themselves with each puff of a cigarette? Society has reached a point that, when someone confesses to being a smoker, the response is negative. This sentiment can carry over by reminding others that not only are they not allowed to smoke on campus, but they really shouldn’t smoke in the first place.” Please understand how this same logic applies directly to drinking and other harmful behaviors. Alcohol is literally poison and, under these assumptions, you should also be calling for a dry campus. Policing one another’s actions (i.e. “friends don’t let friends smoke cigarettes”) treads the fine line of invasion of privacy.

Vol. XXIX, Issue III



Cadillac-ac-ac-ac Tax-ax-ax-ax By Thomas Casey


ou oughta know by now, (you oughta know by now), the government lacks a deft fiscal tact, but that isn’t a surprise. In 2015, President Barack Obama set out a big plan to boost revenue for his doddering rollout of the Affordable Care Act. He needed some major cash flow to keep the exchanges alive and thriving, so in order to seal the deal, the President fell back to a common scapegoat. President Obama rolled out his noble plan to tax the rich and to bring healthcare to everyone else. In theory, the idea sounds a-OK. When the full policy came out, everyone had serious doubts. You see, a real issue with the government lies in its policy-ideology disconnect. The government sends out some noble goals that sound nice, but releases a completely unproductive policy that fails to remotely accomplish those stated goals. Anyway, President Obama swings out with his goal to make the rich pay for everyone’s healthcare. Then, in the same breath, he lugs out his policy that absolutely does not accomplish his goal: the Cadillac Tax. The Cadillac Tax would apply a 40% excise tax on health care plans that are considered luxurious. If healthcare plans went above a certain dollar threshold, the government would slap an additional 40% on the price of the plan and reap the revenue. The idea is that only the very wealthy people can afford these costly plans. Since only the rich will purchase them, they will be the only ones paying into the tax. Overall, the whole deal sounds like a win-win. Then why would nearly every participant in the market be against it? Unions, companies, taxpayers, Republicans and Democrats have denounced the so-called tax only on the rich.Those groups, unlike those in the executive position, feel the harsh effects of misguided policy pushes. You see, the government already tried this whole Cadillac Tax thing and it was a total failure. About two years after swearing “no new taxes,” George H.W. Bush signed into law a sweeping tax on luxury items. Bush targeted jewelry, yachts, furs and other expensive material objects. He had the same rationale as President Obama. Only the rich would feel these taxes. Shortly after signing the bill into law, Bush saw the actual effects of his policy push. The Bush luxury taxes strained a sensitive aspect of the market: price elasticity of demand. Elasticity deals with how much people’s behavior responds to the price of a good. When people react greatly to a price change, the good is elastic. When people barely respond to a price change, the good is inelastic. To illustrate this, let us look at some extreme examples. Say we took a very specific, trivial good. Let’s say a double espresso latte with milk, whipped cream and caramel. Imagine if Starbucks raises the price of this drink from $3 to $8. People would cease purchasing this almost entirely. Why? Because coffee drinkers could snag the near-identical double espresso latte with milk, whipped cream and chocolate syrup for the same old $3. Overall, trivial goods that have plenty of alternatives are elastic. On the other hand, let’s examine a vital, vague good. Imagine if a gloriously crony corporation landed a coveted monopoly on Earth’s oxygen

supply. The corporation raises the price of Daily Life Saving O2 from $3 to $8. Would people stop buying it, as they did with the Starbucks offering? No way. It’s not like consumers could purchase Delicious Nightly Nitrogen instead. Air, water, milk, eggs and similar products are vital and without quick alternatives. Thus, they are inelastic. Now that we’ve covered elasticity of goods, we can look again at the Bush luxury tax. Jewelry, yachts and furs are clearly elastic. When the tax hit these items, their prices rose significantly. How did the wealthy Americans react? They just stopped buying the goods. Instead of jewels, furs, and yachts, the rich got summer homes, fancier food, or old wine. The rich just shifted their buying habits. The drop in luxury consumption was so significant that the luxury tax brought in less than a fourth of its projected revenue. The lack of incoming funds wasn’t even the worst part. When the rich abandoned the luxury goods, the industries accompanying those goods collapsed. The jewelry industry began shedding jobs. Yacht builders halted production en masse. The employees of the industry lost their longtime positions as the market dried up. The tragic result of a myopic, horrendous policy landed mainly on, not the rich, but the working class. H.W. thought he could milk the rich for revenue, but he ended up putting the little man out of work. So here the government stood once again in 2015 debating a similar policy. H.W.’s luxury tax attempt raised very little revenue and threw tons of working class Americans out of their jobs. The really sad fact is that the lost income tax from the workers most likely completely offset the meager gains the luxury tax trickled in. In the end, the policy may have lost the government revenue and ruined American industries. Luckily the unions, Democrats, Republicans and taxpayers remembered this history lesson. They oppose President Obama’s Cadillac Tax because the rich will shift their health insurance buying patterns. The tax will put doctors, nurses, health experts out of work .Those that can’t wiggle out, namely unions and large employers, would slam workers with joint programs with higher costs. The good news is that the combined pressure has halted the tax implementation. After this battle, the government should finally learn that a luxury tax on the rich doesn’t exist in a vacuum. The misguided policy will slam the workers, not the wealthy, and probably won’t raise revenue at all. Until the mythical tax on only the rich comes along, you’ll need to pay Uncle Sam with the overtime. But really, is that all you get for your money?





Are Dreams Worth Chasing? By Sk8teboard and AdVice


o you ever wake up and think you’ll never achieve your dreams? Do they seem so far away that you think they’re unattainable? Why? Do you really believe it will never come true? So why keep dreaming? It keeps you sane and your spirit alive and regret-free; your dreams keep you actively involved with your life and with those around you. Dreams propel us forward. Our dreams can change over time. I’ve always enjoyed writing songs, but it was more of a creative outlet than anything else. Just two years ago, I didn’t think I’d be pursuing a Hip-Hop career. Originally, I was affiliated with a local label and my job was beat engineering. The label wasn’t progressing, and at one point, there was a falling out between the owner and I. I eventually separated from that label and began following my own path. I was disappointed at first, but if I’m honest with myself, I never would be where I am today if that didn’t happen. Finally, I told myself, “I don’t need them to succeed,” so I started my own label: Last Hope Entertainment™. The newfound drive I discovered within myself has allowed me to meet my goals in less time. A year and a half later, I’ve sponsored 3 shows at Syracuse’s Funk N’ Waffles and performed at this year’s 1st annual Teen Fest at Syracuse’s Palace Theater. I’ve sponsored another upcoming Halloween show, and I’ll be performing in Virginia in January of next year. I have been progressing faster by taking charge and being in control of my dreams. It wasn’t until I was forced to reevaluate my life that I really sat down and thought about where I wanted my life to go. What road did I want to walk? This is when I decided to create my own record label, so I could promote myself (Sk8board), and various other artists. I am not only an artist, I am a business owner. Each day, I am doing something new that involves getting me one step closer to



my dreams. I can’t make it in music without a fan base, so each day I promote my brand through social media. I make to-do-lists and am constantly moving forward with my label. In order to grow, I started travelling to towns around me in order to get my name out there. This led me to Binghamton University on September 30, 2016. I drove here with my newest recruit to Last Hope - Adam Cole (AdVice). We met many friendly staff and teachers. We toured the radio department underneath the Marketplace and spoke with the campus magazine & newspaper staff. This is how this article came to be. Our goal was to network and promote ourselves. This article will reach hundreds of potentially new fans and readers. Please check out our social media links below. Remember: Dreams are worth chasing. As Walt Disney says, “All dreams can come true, if we have the courage to pursue them.”


y name is Adam Cole (AdVice): Last Hope Entertainment’s latest member and an ambitious entertainer with big dreams I chase one day at a time, though it hasn’t always been this way. As a child, I had a different take on the world than most of those around me. I never fit in socially and defied authority frequently. This got me into a lot of trouble in all aspects. This, in-turn, led me down a path of depression for a number of years. Fear; the deeper I went, the worse my outlook became. I descended further until I reached a breaking point. One of two things happen when you reach your breaking point… you fight your demons, or you go off the deep end. Which path will you take? Love or Fear? Positive or Negative? Right or Wrong? I was confronted with a choice. I asked myself what I wanted

out of life and where I wanted to go. I came to the conclusion that following your dreams is not just the way to go, but the only way to go. I thought about my boss. I asked myself- in ten years would I want his job. Was he happy? Truly? Absolutely not. I asked him what he wanted to be when he was my age. He told me he wanted to be an actor. I asked, “why aren’t you on a film set right now?” A sigh of regret emerged as he told me his reasons. He was unhappy, so what had he really accomplished? I have chosen the path of love. More specifically, doing what I love. Today, even as you’re reading this, I am happier than I’ve ever been before. I worked up the courage to perform in front of my entire high school (West Genesee), collectively accounting for 2000+ people. After that, I put myself out there further and ended up winning the award of Mr. West Genesee. Writing over 70 songs, attending countless open mic venues and 10 shows including TeenFest 2016 and various house parties has kept me busy. Then, after graduating, I went back to my old high school to speak and perform at the freshman orientation. Pretty amazing compared to the middle school version of myself that was self conscious about the pitch of his own voice and would go days on end without speaking to anybody... The point of this passage is to tell my story, to inspire readers and encourage you to follow your passion – whatever it may be. I know the odds are great and you are faced with adversities, but no dream has ever been attained without hardwork and perseverance. Be a leader... because the only thing leaders follow are their dreams.

Vol. XXIX, Issue III



The Opioid Epidemic, Part II: You and Me By Dan Kersten


n the previous edition of The Review, I wrote about the current opioid and heroin epidemic facing this nation. Rates of abuse and overdose from opioid and synthetic opioids have been rising steadily for nearly a decade and a half, rising exponentially in the past six years or so. It is a crisis that impacts every single demographic in this nation: no race, gender, or age group has skirted this epidemic. In this article, I intend on explaining on why the opioid epidemic has greatly impacted young people, like you and me. To give a current snapshot of the epidemic, in 2014, 467,000 adolescents were using prescription painkillers for nonmedical purposes. Of these, 168,000 (36 percent) were addicted to these drugs; these above statistics are from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Although the rates of past-year nonmedical opioid use decreased for young adults (ages 18 to 25 years), the rates of opioid abuse have increased significantly: about 3 percent from 2002 to 2014, according to a recent study published in Addictive Behaviors. Young people have always been more susceptible to experiment, and drugs are no exception. According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, by the time high schoolers reach their senior year, approximately 70 percent will have tried alcohol, half have tried illegal drugs, about 40 percent have tried a cigarette, and nearly one-fifth have used abused a prescription drug (using a prescription drug for a nonmedical purpose). It is a fact of life that young people are much more likely to experiment than older people. And, to be sure, I am not saying that it is bad to experiment. The majority of the medical community accepts that young patients will more than likely drink, use illegal drugs, and engage in other “risky” behaviors. That being said, addiction can become a serious issue in youth. Do not think that because you are young, you cannot become addicted to anything. In fact, most drug abusers typically start their habit in adolescence or young adulthood. There are a number of factors – such as genes or socioeconomic status – that are linked to increased risks of addiction. In younger people, there is an additional problem: the brain is not fully matured. Full brain maturity is reached at around the age of 20 years. Thus, younger people are more likely to chase a rewarding, but possibly dangerous, experience (i.e. hard drugs) and not fully understand the consequences. There has been a lot of exposition so far, and you are probably wondering when I will get to the heroin. Well, here we go. Quickly summarizing what we just previously learned, we know that younger people are more likely to experiment and may be more likely to develop addictive habits. This is a particularly scary fact when a drug like heroin, or any opioid for that matter, is involved. Opioids are highly addictive in nature and the rate of addiction is about 10 percent according to a recent meta-analysis published in the journal Pain. Compare that to

alcohol, which is the most abused drug in the nation, which has a 6.8 percent addiction rate in adults (18+ years) and 2.7 percent in minors (12-17 years); these statistics are from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. Highly addictive drugs, mixed with inexperience and neurological immaturity, can lead to a scary combination. Therefore, it is quite concerning that from 1999 and 2007 the rate of prescriptions for opioids for adolescents and young adults nearly doubled, according to a 2010 study in the journal Pediatrics. In summary, we gave a lot of highly addictive drugs to a group that is quite likely to experiment with them. To add more to this concern, opioids are a gateway drug. Heroin and opioid pain medications function in similar mechanisms, to keep a long and boring scientific conservation short. People rarely start with heroin as their first drug, often opioid pain medications are a bridge. One 2016 study in Drug and Alcohol Dependence, found that nearly three-quarters of heroin-using high school seniors reported abuse of opioids during their lives; repeated abuse of opioid pain medication was a significant risk factor for heroin abuse. So not only did we give young people a lot of very addictive drugs, but longtime abuse of said drugs can lead to abuse of even harder (and more dangerous) drugs. Another area of concern is the cost of heroin. Heroin is cheaper than prescription drugs. One study in JAMA Psychiatry found that 94 percent of heroin users made the switch from opioid medications to heroin due to financial and supply issues. Adolescents, who are more likely to be strapped for cash than their adult counterparts, may be pushed more heavily into using heroin. So, the illegal and more dangerous alternative is cheaper. It should come as no shock that past-year heroin use by persons with a history of nonmedical prescription opioid increased by about 10 percent from 2002 to 2014 in young adults. Furthermore, as I have previously alluded to, younger people—especially adolescents—are less likely to fully comprehend the consequences of their actions. Again, the brain does not reach “adulthood” until around the age of 20 years. There is plenty of misinformation on drugs, especially heroin. One study by Roosevelt University found that many young adult heroin addicts thought that, instead of injecting the drugs, snorting the drug would lower the chance of addiction. Essentially, the opioid epidemic has a notable impact on the youth of America, which is from a combination of facts leading to a Perfect Storm situation. We gave a lot of addictive drugs to people who are not fully mature, do not know all the pertinent facts, and are often fiscally constrained. Frankly, it seems like common sense that a problem such as this would occur. Fortunately, hindsight is 20/20. Unfortunately, that hindsight does not return the 1,741 young adults who died from prescription drug overdoses in 2014 alone.





Hillary Vs. hillary

Two Dialogues Reveal Two Different Candidates By Zachary Borodkin


he recent release of speeches given by Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton have shown another side of the person who spoke very highly of giving assistance to the Middle Class during the primaries. These leaks were made public at the same time as Donald Trump’s own leaks via a video recording from Access Hollywood. Voters have their own opinions about what Trump said, but this election is about the candidate who will guide the current generation into a better future. Yet the candidate that has spoken the most about policies that are needed to serve as that guide, has spoken in a clandestine manner. This penchant for secrecy began early in Hillary’s life and has transcended with her into her political career.

“The armor and her use of secrecy would be engraved into her personality as it would carry her to the Presidential nomination nearly two decades later.” Hillary Rodham, as she was then known, grew up in an environment where her parents were hard-working and often distant figures. Upon moving to Chicago’s suburbs, Hillary would be introduced to the teachings of progressive minister Don Jones. He took her and her friends downtown to hear Martin Luther King Jr. speak. Hillary called it a moment that she would never forget. His speech, along with the riots over the Vietnam War, had opened the door for Hillary to step into the political arena. After graduating from Wesley, Hillary took a job in Washington as an attorney on the Watergate Committee. Her change began after being sworn to secrecy; she became refined and closed. Five days into Bill Clinton’s first term, he created the President’s



Task Force on Healthcare Reform. Hillary would be at the helm and the entire operation would be conducted in secret. This secrecy would be used against her in Congress and in the media. Even as she tried to appeal to the public on her plan, they became visceral and questioned her intentions. The healthcare bill died and almost took Bill Clinton’s presidency with it. It was at the recommendation of political strategist Dick Morris that Hillary cease all West Wing activity. Hillary, in order to save Bill’s reelection, agreed and took a traditional role. It was during the months of the Monica Lewinsky scandal that she would develop her armor for getting through turmoil. She would call it “the mean-spirited give and take of American politics” (Hillary Clinton). The armor and her use of secrecy would be engraved into her personality as it would carry her to the Presidential nomination nearly two decades later. No political triumph comes without a checkered past. But personality traits are rarely catalysts for one’s personal demons. These traits have revealed themselves in the forms of paid speeches to Goldman Sachs and other financial firms. Emails released by

Wikileaks show a candidate detached from her beginnings as a Rodham. A contentious issue during the primaries, she is quoted as saying “I’m kind of far removed because the life I’ve lived and the economic, you know, fortunes that my husband and I now enjoy.” She also stated that government should function in “a both public and private position” (The Intercept). Then presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, based his campaign on fixing what was viewed by many as a rigged financial system. During many of the debates, Hillary would support an increase in the minimum wage and say that Wall Street should never be able to wreck main street again. In her call for fixing a rigged system, she says true reform “really has to come from the industry itself ” (Buzzfeed). With the election over a month away, Donald Trump has made himself unapologetically clear about who he is. What is clear about Hillary through all of the secrecy is the difference in the candidate on the campaign trail vs. the candidate in the meeting room. If she wins, this election will have been about a tale of two countries and between the lines, a tale of two candidates, Hillary and hillary.

Vol. XXIX, Issue III



Restore the Republic, Plebs be Gone

By Pino Che


he election is upon us friends, and if you have as much hatred towards Democracy as me, you’ll understand when I tell you that election season is the saddest time of the year. If you are still holding on to some preconceived notion that democracy is cool and people should have the freedom to choose who they want to lead them, prepare to be triggered. I’m about to go full fash on you and tell you why Democracy may be, hands down, the worst form of government ever created. We all know a terrible person in our lives, you know the guy who is a complete and utter moron who surprisingly remembers to breathe. For me, this person is named “Nate,” a coworker of mine who stole the A/C unit from our employee area, barely shows up to work, collects government benefits and has multiple kids with multiple women out of wedlock. Now imagine that on November 8th, his vote counts just as much as yours, the humble reader. “Nate” isn’t an isolated incident either. The “Nate” in your life gets to counteract your vote as well, if he is so inclined; however, it is more likely the case that “Nate” will vote for more welfare, more taxes, and anything to give him more benefits. Democracy, as I have come to know it, is predicated on violating and destroying the rights of the masses of which a vast majority only want to fuck, smoke weed and drink alcohol. The founders never had a vision in which any twenty something year old who is collecting welfare, EBT, and is living in section 8 housing would have the same say as a father of three who provides for his family. If you cannot see the incentive of someone who is using the system to his or her advantage to vote for more welfare, then you are blind to the reality of democracy. Even corporations shill for neoliberals like Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush who promise them more corporate welfare. Ultimately, it has become clear that

this democracy is nothing more than a complete and utter failure. It has devolved into the parasitic class being able to vote for a living and keep the working class forever working and never moving up. The parasitic class that constitutes both the bottom rung, low IQ, illiterate welfare queen and the WASP, banking elite, who will stop at nothing to continue to rig the system to his advantage as well. Democracy is not in any sense of the phrase the idea that this country was founded upon. In fact, our founders hated the idea of democracy and purposely formed a Republic with limited franchise in order to prevent the horrors of the mob rule that is democracy. The well read are probably aware that the founders did not even want individuals to be able to vote for Senators, rather they were chosen by states to represent the interests of the state. With the passage of the 17th amendment, the states were stripped of power and the power was handed to the “Nates”. How can we remedy this failed experiment that is democracy? Certainly, we are essentially following a similar trajectory as ancient Rome in which the Republic’s Senators were stripped of their power and replaced by an Emperor who would simply appease the plebeians in order to retain power. Essentially democracy is the same, in which the plebeians vote for their leaders who will give them the modern equivalence of bread and circuses in the forms of entitlement programs and the spectacle that has become modern politics. I cannot imagine a debate performance like we have had in the current year where it has simply devolved into two demagogues name calling and taunting one another had they not had to appeal to the lowest common denominator which is the average voter. The future of the country is more likely to be led by a Nero than by a Republic any day. The only way in the foreseeable

future that we can prevent this from happening is if we begin to limit voting rights. One of the first adjustments that is necessary to secure a future for the right wing, traditional ideals, and restore the Republic, is to raise the voting age from 18 to 27. At that age, one is much more stable, a producer in society, or a parasite and will probably remain one at that point, and is mature enough to have a say in what is going on in their country. On top of raising the voting age, we must also restrict voting to property owners, therefore creating a skin-in-the-game system whereas only those who own property and will be the ones affected by laws the most will be able to decide on what lawmakers will do. Finally, we must eradicate the 17th amendment and restore authority back to the states rather than to the plebs. If you are as anti-democracy and anti-democratic as me, you will understand that you probably shouldn’t vote. Don’t. If you are a right-winger I advocate that you don’t try to get people out to vote, especially on our campus. Do you really want a bunch of Bernie bros, economic illiterates, SJWs, and communist sympathizers being signed up to vote? Let them continue to smoke weed and keep their ideas to their friends while blazed in their dorm rooms rather than forced down the throats of the American people. It is time we get rid of this notion that democracy is freedom. Democracy and freedom are at two opposite ends of the spectrum and thus, when we restore the Republic, we must remember to limit voting. If you are a left-winger, I advocate you staying home and smoking weed and maybe one day you will grow up and have the sense to recognize that your ideas are a hindrance to the continuation of Western Civilization. I will leave you with a quote by Richard Nixon, “Defeat doesn’t finish a man, quit does. A man is not finished when he’s defeated. He’s finished when he quits.”





Republican Revival: A Game Plan By Dylan Klein


n just a few weeks, the home team will lose its third straight contest in a row. Its figurehead, the abrasive pitbull, will end the day with its tail between its legs and hurting from the beating it’s going to take at the hands of the away team’s leader, the cunning and lethal fox. In other words, Donald Trump is going to lose to Hillary Clinton. We may be facing four more years of incompetent leadership and failed government policy. When, you may ask, will Republicans finally get back in control of the presidency and lead America in the right direction? It was thought by some that Donald would be the spark plug that was needed, however the energy and anger of the populists, that propelled him to the republican nominations, has become insufficient to install him as president. Others think this election marks the end of the Republican Party as we know it and will cause a major shift in the American political system. From two (relatively) equally powerful political parties, we may be moving to one dominant party and one scrambling around without an identity. Discouraged by the fact that eleven years of my life have passed during a Democratic presidency, I came up with a game plan to help Republicans win back the White House. The first and most obvious step to the revival of the party is our choice of leader. A leader represents the values, the beliefs, and the best version of the people he/she leads. He/she is the most visible member of our party, and as such should be someone we can trust, are proud of, and can relate to. In other words, if an average citizen voted for this candidate based on his or her character aside from politics, he/she should be able to sleep at night. Moving forward we must be more careful about who we choose to represent us in front of America and the world. The second step, on the long and hard road to winning presidential elections, is to adopt a slightly less radical stance on social issues in order to attract the sort of demographics who are offended by hard line Republican positions on abortion, marijuana, immigration, and guns. The focal points of a Republican platform for the presidency should be economic and foreign policy. The first such demographic that the Republican Party should target is the young voter, between the ages of 18-29. In the 2012 presidential election, that demographic voted for President Obama over Mitt Romney 60 percent to 37 percent.1 Furthermore, Clinton is beating Trump by 30 percent among voters under the age of 35 in polls right now. Gaining any support among young voters will significantly improve a Republican’s chances of winning an election. One way to attract millennials is to take a softer stance on gun control. 90 percent of young voters between the ages of 18 and 29 support background checks for all types of gun sales. The republican platform should call for background checks on all gun sales. Making sure that the people who are buying guns are sane people without criminal records will improve safety and soften criticism from the other side in the event of a mass or school shooting. Another way to attract the young voters is to legalize marijuana, as 82 percent



of 18-29 year olds are in favor of doing so, not to mention that 47 percent of republicans are as well. The second demographic group that Republicans should target is women. Women voted for President Obama 56 to 43 percent in the 2008 election over McCain and by a similar margin over Romney in the 2012 election. One change that should be made is an end to hard line stances against abortion, specifically those that would prohibit abortion even in the cases of rape and incest. Our goal is to make it so that women who believe in Republican principles for the most part but who are opposed to a complete ban on abortion are not intimidated into voting Democrat. African Americans and Hispanics make up the third demographic group republicans can win votes from with targeted shifts in policy. President Obama won 71 percent of the Hispanic vote and 95 percent of the black vote in 2012 against Romney. A hot issue in America now is the trouble of systemic racism that is present in our country’s criminal justice system. Blacks are a lot more likely to be arrested for possession of marijuana than whites, despite the fact that they use the drug at about the same amount. Decriminalizing marijuana would hopefully cause the number of arrests of young black males to decrease and would lower the number of black people in jail. This would ideally allow them to be with their families and have jobs. Since decriminalization of marijuana would do some benefit to the black community, it should also get republicans black votes if they adopt such a policy. To attract Hispanics, republicans should tone down the rhetoric about illegal immigration that Donald Trump has espoused, such as forcing Mexico to build a wall and banning all Muslims from entering the country. Immigration policy in the United States is very complicated and at the very least, republicans should appear to not be radical in order to win votes from Hispanics, many of whom have Christian values and believe in the republican ideal of working hard to improve life for one’s family. The Republican party of today is not winning elections because of its limited appeal to Blacks, Hispanics, Women, and young voters. Shifting our social policies a little bit to the left, while still maintaining our core beliefs, will allow us to be in a position to compete for these voters. Conservative Republicans who take issue with making concessions on policy for political gain should consider the fact that these changes are part of a political maneuver to win votes in presidential elections. Whether or not they are actually implemented once the candidate is elected is immaterial. For example, the Supreme Court deals with issues relating to abortion and it is the legislative branch who writes bills relating to gun control. The proposals and beliefs of justices and congressmen are things that conservative Republicans should be more worried about.

Vol. XXIX, Issue III



How the Mainstream Media Has Failed the American People By Aditi Roy


e’ve reached a point in journalism and media where truth and objectivity are no longer an option. Americans are being lied to on a daily basis by political pundits, talking heads, entertainment figures, and even fact checking sites! It’s no surprise that 60% of Americans do not trust the media. When anyone decides to run for president, their policies, personal life, successes, and failures should be subject to the highest criticism and scrutiny from an objective standpoint, regardless of their party affiliation. Alas, journalistic integrity died when these so-called reporters decided to abandon the impartiality with which they are to report the news, and instead decided that working as liberal Washington’s PR team, was a more noble profession.

The bias within the mainstream media is painfully obvious. They hated Bush so the coverage during his presidency was actually critical, but now they love Obama and the Democrats, so naturally they won’t cover his wrongdoings, even though they have admitted that his administration is the LEAST transparent in presidential history. Throughout his presidency, the Obama administration sent the Justice Department after AP and Washington Post journalists who attempted to cover negative stories about him, yet the mainstream media didn’t think that this was worthy of reporting. They love the Democrats so much, that they’ll do their best to get Democrats elected into office this November. As a matter of fact, journalists have donated a staggering $382,000 to Clinton’s campaign, compared to $14,000 to Trump’s campaign. So-called debate “moderators” are overwhelmingly liberal, and it shows in their refusal to press Hillary Clinton as much as they do Trump. Some, like Martha Raddatz, are cozy with the Obama administration; she had President Obama in attendance at her wedding to her former husband Julius Genachowski, who was Obama’s Federal Communications Commission chairman. These journalists are literally in bed with leftist politicians and bureaucrats. In fact: -NBC Senior Deputy Political Editor Mark Murray is married to Obama appointee Sasha Johnson (who also worked for CNN), who is chief of staff at the Federal Aviation Administration -Former ABC News Executive Producer Ian Cameron

married Susan Rice, a U.S. National Security Adviser for the Obama administration, in 1992. -CBS President David Rhodes is the brother of Ben Rhodes, Obama’s Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications and is an Advisor on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action with Iran. These ties were evident when CBS News decided not to report on an email written by Ben Rhodes that demonstrated the talking points of the Obama administration after the 2012 attacks in Benghazi left four Americans dead. -ABC News correspondent Claire Shipman is married to former White House Press Secretary Jay Carney. -Former ABC News and Univision reporter Matthew Jaffe is married to Katie Hogan, Obama’s Former Deputy Press Secretary and now chief of Organization for Action, a group that emerged out of Obama’s reelection campaign. -Former ABC President Ben Sherwood is the brother of United States Deputy Secretary of Energy for the Obama administration, Elizabeth Sherwood -CNN’s Washington Deputy Bureau Chief and Vice President Virginia Moseley is married to Hillary Clinton’s Former Deputy Secretary Tom Nides. Journalists don’t even attempt to hide their close ties to the White House. You have events like the White House Correspondent’s Dinner, where the members of the media, who are supposed to report every detail of the president’s actions to the public, are invited to the White House to dine with politicians, who are supposed to be serving the public. It can be argued that this dinner serves as a motivating factor for journalists to report White House ordeals in a favorable and propagandistic manner in hopes of being re-invited next year. The job description for the members of the media is no longer to keep politicians accountable for their actions, but to build good relationships with high profile politicians so they can get their all-access passes to Washington and then not do their jobs as reporters. The media has abandoned its loyalty to report to the American people, and instead pledged their loyalty to Washington insiders to report on behalf of them. How did we get to this point? In the 1950s, reporters would present facts and evidence to the public, and separate them from opinions and biases which were restricted to op-ed pages, and it was up to the consumers to come to their own conclusions. As time went on, journalistic standards began to decline. In 2006, print revenue was a $46.6 billion dollar industry, and by 2014 fell to $16.4 billion dollar, and the steadily increasing $3.5 billion dollar digital media industry has not been able to make up the difference. This gap has been filled with social media and the blogging world. The internet’s ever increasing prominence has caused media sites to measure their success based on the number of clicks on their articles, not objectivity, to make up for their declining revenue. This might explain why from 1/1/16 to 6/1/16,




ABC, CBS, and NBC gave four times more airtime to Trump’s controversies than Clinton’s controversies.

Six media giants control 90% of the American media, from your news, to the radio, and entertainment. Which might explain why almost every talk show host, actor, musician, comedian, and the rest of Hollywood has the exact same political opinion, and if they don’t, they are ridiculed and dismissed for their beliefs. Just look at how Caitlyn Jenner was viewed as a champion of transgender rights; she received Glamour’s Woman of the Year Award even though she killed someone in a car crash and was not charged, but wasn’t condemned by the left until she said that it was harder coming out as a Republican than coming out as trans. But I digress. So here are five times the media abandoned objectivity in favor of double standards to sell their leftist narratives in this election cycle.

1. The Nude Statues

Remember the outrage over the naked Donald Trump statue that appeared in major U.S. cities amongst pedestrians




and news outlets? Of course you don’t, because there was none. In fact, after “The Emperor With No Balls” statues went up, it was praised, ridiculed, and people took pictures with it. There was no question of sexism when talking about a presidential candidate’s genitals. But when an artist tried to put up his similarly unflattering nude Hillary statue in Manhattan, there was media and public outrage. People tried to take it down, calling it “sexist” and “misogynistic”. Perhaps it was sexist and misogynistic to put up a nude Hillary statue because she’s a woman. Too bad this logic didn’t apply to Melania Trump, when the New York Post published Melania’s nude photos and titled the piece “The Ogle Office”, and the media dragged her through the mud for her racy modelling pictures.. I believe liberals call this “slut-shaming”, but remember, it’s only sexist if it’s against a Democrat!

2. Tax Returns vs. Wikileaks

When The New York Times illegally released Trump’s tax returns from 20 years ago, they were praised. When Wikileaks released emails from members of the Clinton campaign, they were deemed a Russian conspiracy. CNN’s Chris Cuomo patronizingly told viewers that it was illegal to possess the documents unless they were the media, and that the only way to learn about the contents in the emails was through them. This would imply that the emails were not fabricated. Yet the Clinton campaign and members of the media continue to propagate the lie that they are falsified documents. Wikileaks has a ten year history of being 100% accurate. That is WAY more credibility than the mainstream media will have. Wikileaks releases have previously helped Democrats, like in 2008 when they released Republican VP candidate Sarah Palin’s emails, but now of course when the Democrats get hacked, Wikileaks is not credible. Contrast this with illegal release of Donald Trump’s tax returns. The New York Times never asked Trump for permission when they illegally released his tax returns after endorsing Hillary Clinton. Executive editor Dean Baquet said he was willing to risk jail time to publish them. If they’re so unconcerned with consent, why were NYT journalists emailing the Clinton campaign asking for permission to use quotes from their own interview with Hillary? Nevertheless, even the amount of time the media has covered these two stories are drastically different. Over the span of just two days, ABC, NBC, and CBS spent 49 minutes and 32 seconds on Trump’s tax returns. On Univision and Telemundo from October 7th to October 20th, Clinton’s Wikileaks scandal

Vol. XXIX, Issue III



to the mainstream media when they decided to run the stories the next day.

5. The “Tolerant Left” vs. the “Violent Right”

had received just 12 minutes and 11 seconds of coverage.

3. The KKK Endorsements

According to the mainstream media, Trump is a racist for not immediately disavowing support from former KKK leader David Duke when he was questioned on CNN by Jake Tapper. Yet Hillary Clinton has never been questioned for taking $20,000 of KKK money, or her endorsement by KKK Grand Dragon Will Quigg, or her support of her mentor, former KKK member Robert Byrd. She was also never questioned about the endorsement of the Orlando shooter’s homophobic Taliban-supporting father, Seddique Mateen. In fact, ABC, CBS, and NBC spent 18 minutes slamming Trump for not immediately disavowing David Duke, even though he already had disavowed him at that point, and spent less than 2 minutes covering Seddique Mateen’s endorsement of Clinton.

4. Rigged Elections

You have Democrats like Obama, Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren, and Bernie Sanders saying that “the system is rigged” and no one bats an eye. So when Trump says the system is rigged, he is slammed by the media and by President Obama, who accused him of “undermining our democracy” by trying to “sow the seeds of doubt in people’s mind about the legitimacy of our elections”. This was after Project Veritas Action released a second video exposing the DNC, where Scott Foval, the Deputy Political Director at People For The American Way, admits that the Democrats would bus people in mass to commit voter fraud, but now they use rental cars because it’s “harder to prove voter fraud”. Trump saying that the election was rigged resulted in Chris Wallace asking him if he would accept the results of the elections at the third presidential debate. When he said that he would wait until the election to decide, the headlines the morning after the third debate slammed him for this statement, and Democrats called it “horrifying” and “Un-American”. Yet they seem to have forgotten their behavior after Al Gore lost in 2000. He refused to concede the results of the election and kept fighting against the Florida Supreme Court. In 2014, former President Jimmy Carter also insisted that Bush did not win the 2000 election. The Democrats even accused Bush of a coup and Hillary Clinton continued to say that Bush was “selected” by the court, not democratically elected. But this didn’t matter

The violence at Trump rallies has gathered a lot of media attention this election cycle, and perpetuated the lie that all Trump supporters were aggressive, violent, and racist. For months the media continued to propagate the lie that Trump supporters were violent against “peaceful protesters” despite obvious video evidence uploaded by attendees of Trump rallies showing otherwise. Even though Trump supporters were the ones getting eggs thrown at them, suckerpunched, and harassed, the media tried to portray the protesters, who were actually the instigators, as the victims of bigoted violence. So how did the media respond when irrefutable video recordings were released by Project Veritas Action of DNC operatives admitting to paying trained agitators to instigate violence at Trump rallies? CBS dedicates less than three minutes to the story, and claimed that there was no evidence that the Clinton campaign had any knowledge of it, despite the fact that Scott Foval on video said “ the [Hillary Clinton] campaign pays DNC, DNC pays Democracy Partners, Democracy Partners pays the Foval Group, the Foval Group goes and executes the shit on the ground”. Foval also said “I’m saying we have mentally ill people, that we pay to do shit, make no mistake.” In addition to the media ignoring outright assaults of Trump supporters, little media coverage was given to a GOP campaign office being firebombed in the middle of the night. The coverage that the attack did receive on NBC, of course blamed Trump for his campaign filled with “undertones of violence”. Not once did the report mention that the building was spray painted on the side with “Nazi Republicans, leave town or else” or try to show the extent of the damage done. These examples offer only a small glimpse into the mainstream media bias just in this election cycle alone. The fact of the matter is the mainstream media cannot be trusted to deliver objective news reports to the American people. It is evident that they will continue to report stories in a manner that advances their political agenda, instead of advancing a narrative of truth.




I Love Weed, Fuck the Poor

By Patrick McAuliffe


here’s been a word floating around in this election cycle that is an increasingly better option than the two major parties. Its representatives range anywhere from Penn Jillette to Ron Swanson to Bryan Cranston (maybe, hard to tell). It probably lines up with what many people already believe; that is to let people live their lives how they want without government interference. You may have come across the slogan “I want gay married couples to be able to protect their marijuana plants with guns.” This isn’t the only stereotype of libertarianism people have come up with. My favorite is this article’s title: “I love weed, fuck the poor.” It’s hilarious because sometimes that is the extent to which people’s libertarian leanings go, but for many others, it is grossly inaccurate. It’s hard to pin down exactly what libertarianism is because so many ideas exist of how far the government should go, even amongst libertarians themselves. Libertarians can agree however, that a smaller government is a better government, and in a different way than Democrats or Republicans. You may have heard Gary Johnson, this year’s Libertarian Party presidential candidate, say the catchphrase, “fiscally conservative and socially liberal,” or his running mate Bill Weld’s



favorite line, “We’ll get the government out of your pocketbook and out of your bedroom.” Those are both good intros to libertarianism, but like product marketing or memes, they isolate a lot of holistic issues within libertarianism. For example, my libertarian leanings are extremely laissez-faire. I agree wholeheartedly with Thomas Jefferson when he said, “A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have.” For me, government exists solely to protect the rights of the governed, and anything beyond that is overstepping its function (proactive regulation, subsidies, etc.). Libertarianism takes the best parts of both Democrats and Republicans and puts it into one neat package. From the Democratic side, libertarians believe in more open borders (with the rule of law still in place, of course), reducing or ending the War on Drugs, ending corporate welfare, and legalizing same-sex marriage. Libertarians also agree with Republicans on the generally unrestricted right to bear arms, deregulating the free market, simplifying the tax code (maybe abolishing the IRS completely, but that won’t be for a while), and no “free” college of any sort. However, lots of policies set libertarians apart from both

parties. Libertarians want to take less of an interventionist role in global politics and let countries handle their own affairs, whether that means refraining from bombing the shit out of them in the name of democracy or forming entangling alliances with unelected bureaucrats that ignore national sovereignty (looking at EU, Europe). Another unique aspect of libertarianism is its approach to the “welfare state.” The welfare debate is a tricky one. Many advocate for doing away with all forms of welfare completely and letting private charity take over (so much more rewarding when giving to the less fortunate is voluntary, isn’t it?). However, such a drastic change would be impractical, especially in a time when so many “socialist” countries seem to be doing so “well”. I personally believe a good stepping stone would be a “guaranteed national income.” Before you fly off the handle for whatever reason – I’m a hypocrite, that’s worse than the current system, whatever – hear me out. Many people like libertarianism except for its apparent “fuck the poor” attitude. Couple that with an expectation among many that government has a duty to take care of its citizens (I might use the word “coddle,” but that’s me), and switching over to private charity without chang-

Vol. XXIX, Issue III

BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM ing people’s attitudes about ethics and politics is simply unsustainable. A guaranteed national income allows for the perfect middle ground and middle step between government “coddling” and people taking personal responsibility for their choices. Instead of designated funds every month for specific goods that allow for a lifetime abuse of the welfare system, people can now use their guaranteed income for whatever they deem appropriate. They can save it, they can spend it on food, they can gamble it away, they can spend it on drugs, whether they’ve been decriminalized or not. If people decide they don’t need it, they can send it back to the government for a deduction off their taxes. The kicker here is that the individual gets to decide how to use the money to improve their life, and any positive result they glean from it can be credited to their smart financial management. Conversely, if they manage to screw it up and blow it all, those consequences are on them. Basically, what you need to know is that libertarianism is a multifaceted ideology that, like what it advocates, allows for many personal interpretations about to what extent it should be implemented. Now, how does its current representative, Gary Johnson, measure up to this standard of small government and personal liberty? Governor Johnson was the Republican governor of a 2-1 Democratic New Mexico from 1994 to 2002. According to his campaign website, he “cut taxes 14 times while never raising them. He balanced the state’s budget, and left New Mexico with a billion-dollar surplus.” He also vetoed more than 700 bills to expand the state government’s reach into people’s lives. He has been an entrepreneur for his own construction company and the CEO of a marijuana company. He has climbed the highest mountain on every continent (even climbing Everest with a broken leg). Governor Johnson received some backlash during the Libertarian debate hosted by John Stossel and Fox Business. When the question of a business’ autonomous decision to deny service to someone based on their sexuali-

I LOVE WEED, FUCK THE POOR ty (the “gay wedding cake” debate), Johnson spoke in favor of forcing the business to provide service to that customer. That immediately raises some red flags in many libertarians’ minds (I do think businesses can refuse service to whomever they disagree with, but that’s for another time), but Johnson’s website attempts to explain his methodology: “…although Gary considers himself to be libertarian-minded, he has always believed that good public policy should be based on a practical cost/benefit analysis, rather than strict ideology.” He believes that allowing individual businesses to discriminate against their customers leads to general societal problems over time, and when it comes to offended businesses or happy consumers, Johnson seems to go with the latter. Another area where Johnson seems to diverge from libertarian principles is his stance on what the government should do about climate change. In a CNBC interview, Johnson thinks that a tax on carbon emission is a “very libertarian proposal,” although he wants to make clear that he’s “just open to this.” His reasoning is to strip away the mess of environmental regulations of today, replace it with a simple carbon tax, and let the free market handle the rest. Again, he is trying to consider the “cost/benefit analysis” of this regulation, doing away with subsidies of green energy or restrictions of oil pipeline construction and finding a very general way to encourage innovations in cleaner sources of energy. When I first heard of Johnson’s “carbon tax,” I was vehemently against it. I still have my reservations – energy companies have access to scientific methods and data unprecedented in human history and, if they were smart and forward-thinking, should naturally and rationally come to develop both a cleaner and economically viable source of energy. However, I understand Governor Johnson’s reasoning behind this tax. My main argument against the carbon tax, besides the one above, is one regarding resources. If there is a finite amount of fossil fuels, and the energy industry will rationally want to continue to make money

once those resources run out, no institutional regulation will prevent that day from coming. If the industry does not have foresight and causes both its business and its consumers to run out of energy, those consequences are on them. “But it could have been prevented if only the government had stepped in...” – is it the government’s job to step in? The energy companies made their choice, to drill the Earth dry, and they must take responsibility. However, if they are forward-thinking and do develop alternative sources of energy, the carbon tax becomes completely unnecessary. I am almost certain I’ll be voting for Governors Johnson and Weld in the next two weeks. More “hardcore” libertarians may denounce my decision, calling it a matter of “party over principle.” I guess my response is he’s the best we’ve got. Johnson may not be a consistent libertarian and a well-spoken politician – just let Bill Weld answer the question, for Christ’s sake – but he is a step in the right direction for reducing the scope of government in the lives of its citizens. Indeed, the polls are showing that there is a fair amount of Americans that are “closeted libertarians.” Of course, it wasn’t enough to get Johnson into the debates. However, enough people have heard his message of small government that he may disrupt the current political system just enough to get the House to pick the President, and in 2020, to have the Libertarian Party make much bigger of a splash in the public eye. Stereotypes of libertarians abound on the Internet and in conversation with one’s partisan friends. People may consider a smaller government to mean exactly what my title says. They’re still thinking in terms of mandates; libertarians don’t want compulsive marijuana consumption, nor do they forbid charitable giving. In a free society, the choice is yours to love weed or hate it, to fuck the poor or embrace them. The government exists only to protect your right to choose. One rule, though: “don’t tread on anyone,” because their rights to choose are just like yours.



Oct 23 2016 (Vol. XXIX Is. III) - Binghamton Review  

The spoooookiest time of the year: election season!

Oct 23 2016 (Vol. XXIX Is. III) - Binghamton Review  

The spoooookiest time of the year: election season!