Page 1



Founded 1987 • Volume XXIX, Issue VII

Editor-in-Chief Jordan T. Raitses

Copy Desk Chief Elizabeth Elliot

Publishing Manager Patrick McAuliffe

Communications Manager Kayla Jimenez

Business Manager Alex Carros

Editor Emeritus Sean Glendon

Staff Writers

Thomas Casey, Aditi Roy, Zachary Borodkin, Luke Kusick, David Keptsi, Max Newman, Dylan Klein


Gunnar Jurgensen, Ryan Stryska, Chris DeMarco

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

Media Mediation by Sean Glendon Hypocri-City: The Right by Patrick McAuliffe Calling In The Fed by David Keptsi Dear “Dear White People” by Kayla Jimenez and Ryan Stryska 12 The Ship Must Be Steadied by Max Newman

5 6 7 10

13 Intolerance of Liberal Diversity by Gunnar Jurgensen 14 There Are Only Two Genders by Pino Che 15 A Breath of Fresh Air


by Chris DeMarco

3 Editorial 4 Campus Presswatch

TELL US WHAT YOU THINK! Direct feedback to 2


Vol. XXIX, Issue VII

EDITORIAL Dear Readers,


From the Editor

nce upon a time, there was a magazine called the Binghamton Review. *Record scratch* yup that’s me. I bet you’re wondering how I ended up in this situation. Basically, I was just doing my thing when Pipe Dream showed up and, well, here we are. In case you didn’t notice, the Binghamton Review is a conservative and libertarian magazine with the occasional inclination for political shitposting. If you’re interested in joining the fun, whether you want to write, edit, design, or anything else, come on by to our weekly meetings at 7pm in our office, UUW B05. Aditi’s article criticizes the UN, citing their many failures and lack of successes and advocates defunding them entirely. Sean opens with a commentary on whether or not we should be more open to government regulation of media outlets (hint: we shouldn’t). The hypocrisy of the right (as opposed to the left) is explored by Patrick in his article in the second part of “Hypocricity,” fair and balanced, amiright? Gunnar also talks about the left, discussing their ‘surprising’ intolerance in his article. David adds fuel to the Trump hysteria by exploring his favorite picks for the Federal Reserve board governors under Trump’s administration. Meanwhile, Chris makes his first appearance on our pages and writes about everyone’s favorite head of the Department of Education, Betsy DeVos. Max breaks character and writes about the need for

change in the Trump administration. In our first movie review of the semester, Kayla and Ryan discuss “Dear White People” and, wouldn’t you know it, it’s a little problematic. Commenting on other social issues, Pino Che brings up the groundbreaking discovery, recently made by Australia, that there are two genders. In honor of the first movie review in a while being in our magazine (we’re actually a review!), I thought I’d add my own little review in here. This past Valentine’s day, after a romantic dinner at Taco Bell with my girlfriend, we went to see La La Land. I wanted to hate that movie. I really did. Needless to say, we loved it. It doesn’t have a compelling plot, the characters are fairly flat, and the singing is fine (not great, just fine). Nevertheless, I recommend seeing this movie as soon as possible. I can’t explain why, but if you go, you’ll understand. If, somehow, you hate the movie, I won’t reimburse your ticket, but I will be very confused. This isn’t much of a review, but to be honest, I have nothing good to say about the movie; it just is good. Sincerely,

Jordan Raitses

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 “Make America bang again” Kristen DiPietra Pipe Dream, February 13, 2017 “With all the recent doom and gloom in the world, it’s hard to feel optimistic. I’ve already had two dreams in which I ate all of my birth control pills in desperation.” Literally...what? How is this relevant or helpful to any of the gloom? “Recently, I perused Pope John Paul II’s ‘Catechism of the Catholic Church,’ which outlines the tenets of the Catholic faith and interpretations of the Bible, out of sheer curiosity, and also because I love a good spook now and then.” First of all, the Catechism was organized in the 1960s, while Pope John Paul II wasn’t pope until the 1980s. Secondly, if I had said that I wanted to peruse the Quran for “a good spook”, how many campus newspapers would publish my editorial? It’s unfortunately trendy to exclusively shit on Christians. “While I typically don’t seek sex advice from people who have never had it, let’s be honest: the church is hot. The whole “submission” and “torturing heretics” and “having to say 10 Hail Marys” thing is stimulating.” Besides bordering on blasphemy, where are all of these quotes coming from? The Church doesn’t torture heretics or keep submissive sex dungeons, and there isn’t anything remotely stimulating about saying 10 Hail Marys. “Hail Mary, full of grace…” ooh, tell me more baby… “In conjunction with our religious convictions, this nation’s prudishness is reflected in our vanilla sex habits. According to one study, almost half of all Americans have sex at least once a week, however, only 48 percent of Americans find themselves to be sexually satisfied. People should not be having obligatory or unsatisfying sex.”




Written by our Staff

From your condescending tone throughout the editorial, I can assume you’re not religious yourself, or at least not a serious practicer of one. Additionally, I don’t really understand what you’re trying to get at. If your percentages line up, do at least half the people that have sex at least once a week find themselves unsatisfied? It’s just all over the place. “While you don’t need sex to make you happy, having sex is a hell of a lot easier than finding real happiness.” Why be happy when you can just feel empty inside after a night of mere physical pleasure? “The Fight for Peace Studies” Mahvish Hoda Pipe Dream, February 13, 2017 “For the past four years, I have been working relentlessly to establish a peace studies minor at Binghamton University.” Maybe you should focus on getting your four-year degree instead. “A peace studies minor would… enable students to gain a greater understanding of the issues about which they feel so passionately.” So would focusing on these issues rather than worrying about a peace studies minor. Students don’t need a peace studies minor to understand international conflict issues. If establishing the minor is so challenging, why not form a club? A facebook page? If you really cared about international peace promotion,you wouldn’t be focused on this petty establishing a minor ish. It’s a minor issue ;) ! “Peace studies is already offered in several schools around the nation.” What does this have to do with us? If your friends jumped off a bridge,

would you? Just because other universities offer a program, doesn’t mean we need to. If for years on end it was shut down, it’s probably time to move on. “Reaching Refugees” Aaron Bondar Pipe Dream, February 13, 2017 “In the course of accepting our responsibility to help the lost and abandoned of our world…” Um, since when do we have this responsibility? “This makes it more urgent… that we have a honest conversation about the benefits of an open and just society.” Why is this only “urgent” when it involves refugees? We can’t discuss open and just societies unless we’re discussing opening our borders? It is urgent that we have this honest conversation, but this urgency does not stem from some moral responsibility to assist refugees.

Vol. XXIX, Issue VII



Media Mediation: Time to Intervene? By Sean Glendon


hen Congress enacted the Glass-Steagal Act as part of the U.S. Banking Act of 1933, it was an attempt to stabilize financial markets by barring banks from participating in both investment banking and commercial banking activities. Some economists have argued that the GrammLeach-Bliley Act, which repealed the remainder of the Glass-Steagal Act in 1999, played a role in the 2008 financial crisis. This legislation was enacted to increase trust in an industry that had lost the trust of many Americans previously. With the rise of “fake news” and “alternative facts” and only 32% of Americans trusting mass media (down from 50% in 2005 and 40% in 2015, according to Gallup), has this country come to a point where the media needs its own Glass-Steagal Act to increase consumer trust? Before diving deeper into this question and the potential merits of such legislation, it is important to acknowledge the difficulties of such a proposal. For starters, such a regulation would likely be shot down by fans of limited government, including those who distrust the media. Depending on the implementation strategy of such legislation, there could very well become a Constitutional crisis. Would such a proposal be in violation of the 1st Amendment? This answer would depend on the actual legislation drafted. Can the government actively ban a news organization from creating pure news and op-ed pieces? Media organizations would have a legitimate case to bring to the Supreme Court. An approach that could have a higher Supreme Court defense success rate would involve the labelling of articles based on their level of facts compared to their level of opinions. In this case, how many categories would exist and what would fall where? Where would this article fall? How are penalties balanced so that they prevent violations without bestowing an undue burden upon these organizations?

“Do Facebook and Twitter have an obligation to police their websites for fake posts? They might. But realistically their obligation is to maximize shareholder returns.” Would such legislation apply to all organizations regardless of size? Could a local newspaper be held to the same standard as multinational media corporations? Would enforcement costs drive local newspapers out of business? The questions are limitless. While enforcement sounds difficult at first glance, there is another major issue that exists below the surface. In 2013, the Internal Revenue Service faced scrutiny for targeting conservative organizations that were applying for tax-exempt status based on terms such as “tea party” and “patriot.” At least 466 groups were targeted and faced either long application delays or more intense questioning than the Average Joe. Could you just imagine a President having the power to target dissenting journalists? This would make the actions of the IRS look relatively benign. However, this could easily become a reality without the proper preventative measures in place in such legislation. While organizations like The New York Times should be held accountable for factually incorrect reporting about the Trump administration, the New York Times should have the ability to hold the Trump administration accountable. President Trump should not have the ability to target the (failing) New York Times (sad!), as the next Democratic President should not be able to target conservative media organizations like Fox News. A President has the right to engage in arguments with media organizations, but the power to actively disarm the press should not exist. If people are unaware that they are consuming news that is heavily biased or incorrect, why would they change their habits? A lack of an aware public can be detrimental, and there seems to have been an even stronger

blurring of fact vs. fiction on social media. It is one thing to share an article that is extremely biased, but it is another issue altogether when baby boomers that don’t know how to fact check blindly share things on Facebook. After countless celebrity death hoaxes spreading like wildfire, it would make sense for people to realize that they need to verify information and not believe everything they read. However, this clearly isn’t happening. The Simpsons did not predict that Donald Trump would run for President, and the Pope did not endorse Donald Trump. President Obama did not sign an Executive Order banning the Pledge of Allegiance in schools. The “news” about President Obama banning the Pledge had 2,177,000 shares and comments. This presents an interesting conundrum to social media companies. Do Facebook and Twitter have an obligation to police their websites for fake posts? They might. But realistically their obligation is to maximize shareholder returns. If these two goals align, great. If not, it is unlikely to see this policing occurring. Is regulating the media in the way that the financial market was regulated a realistic possibility? Probably not. Is it necessary? Once again, probably not. However, it has become clear that a major industry in the United States has lost the faith of the consumer. This is important to note, especially because this industry previously had the duty of informing the public. Where does the media go from here, and does it go there organically or with its hand being forced by government? This is a complex solution with many options and variables to consider, but consideration is a must. Something must change. Mark Twain famously said, “if you don’t read the newspaper you’re uninformed. If you do read the newspaper you’re misinformed.” The platform may have changed beyond traditional newspaper, but his message continues to resonate.





Welcome to Hypocri-City: And On Your Right... By Patrick McAuliffe


hilosophical, ethical, and political consistency are things that everyone should strive to attain in their lives. If these things are lacking, one’s ideology quickly falls apart under the slightest scrutiny, and a sound system of beliefs allows for the clearest debates where both sides can fully understand the other’s position. The two major political parties and movements of our day, the liberal Democrats and the conservative Republicans, are too often guilty of this hypocrisy. How such logically flawed politics became so widespread is a very nuanced question, one I hope to answer in due time. In the last issue, I tried to illustrate the flaws in the logic of many of today’s liberals, ranging from selective cultural authoritarianism, to identity politics vs. supposed concern about individuals, to the will of the people vs. cultural elites. I have much more sympathy for conservatism, having been around it for much of my life, but it too is not without its fallacies. Conservatism is not a popular ideology among today’s mainstream culture (although maybe the growing allure of populism might soon change that). After spending so long in the wings of pop culture, many right-wingers grew comfortable with a certain way to fight against the mainstream: mocking safe spaces and sensitive feelings, organizing peaceful (most of the time) protests, and calling for boycotts of businesses that advocate for certain ideals. However, the evidence that many are unable to accept the same from the left side is quite clear, especially after so much recent “yuge” winning. CAFE, one of the modern Internet “news” organizations (you know the ones I mean – the obvious liberal slant, the videos with lots of colored text and reaction gifs in between clips, etc), posted a picture to Facebook the day after the Super Bowl featuring tweets from conservatives lampooning Coca-Cola about their multilingual “America the Beautiful” commercial. The caption read, “Look



at all these triggered snowflakes”. Both sides seem to need their “safe spaces”, and to pretend that conservatism is the only side willing to escape their comfortable political surroundings is illogical. A major cornerstone of many conservatives is their concern for “life,” often religiously motivated, and how to protect it at various stages. Most of America should be familiar with the right’s attempts to ban abortion nationwide, or at least cut federal funding for it from institutions such as Planned Parenthood. (Rand Paul, who is pro-life, is even a bit more lax than that, saying that banning abortions should be up to each state.) Statistically, conservatives give more time, talent, and treasure to charities than liberals as well. Sounds good, right? It’s unclear, in some issues, how far this defense of life extends, and who or what is responsible for enforcing it.

“I think this illustrates a broad irrationality that both Democrats and Republicans are guilty of. Both parties, by restricting citizens either in the economic or social spheres of life, attempt to inconsistently legislate morality.” For example, the death penalty, a more costly (and arguably more inhumane) punitive method than life imprisonment for heinous crimes, is supported by many conservatives in the name of retribution or deterrence. Distrust of refugees fleeing human rights abuses also does not reflect compassion for innocent lives. Additionally, legislation concerning the environment, pollution and climate change could save countless lives. A common argument against this is that it is not the government’s job, but the individual’s, to actively choose to live a “pro-all-life” life. When confronted by obstinate people that do not believe in the same (usually religious) justifications for living such a life and refuse to be swayed

by anything other than threat of legal repercussions, how do these conservatives expect their pro-life goals to be achieved? And why are some ethics of life enforced by the government while others are the responsibility of individuals? I think this illustrates a broad irrationality that both Democrats and Republicans are guilty of. Both parties, by restricting citizens either in the economic or social spheres of life, attempt to inconsistently legislate morality. These attempts are often justified by subjective beliefs that do not hold up when in conversation with people of different beliefs. Liberals attempting a moral stakeholder argument for corporate responsibility, or trying to evoke empathy for refugees, is not objectively defensible, nor is conservative restriction on drugs or homosexual marriages able to be argued for rationally. To be ideologically consistent, either the government must take the hard stance of “We know best” or “You don’t want to be moral; we’ll help you out” on nearly every issue, or take the opposite stance of “You choose not to be moral, that’s fine; suffer the consequences and don’t hurt anyone else.” A hands-off government doesn’t deny the existence of morality, it merely says that it is not the government’s place to enforce it. There is much more moral worth in an action that one chooses to do because one wants to, as opposed to an action done from compulsion or duty. Across-the-board responsibility, among all citizens, and a reduction in government paternalism is what America needs if this nation is to turn from hypocrisy and move toward a consistent pattern of governance.

Vol. XXIX, Issue VII


Calling In The Fed


By David Keptsi


s the outrage machine keeps churning over Trump’s every move, it seems as if the media has taken advantage of every means available to help sow fear into our fragile hearts. However, one of Trump’s most important future decisions has been mentioned less than you would expect given its magnitude. Allow me to add some more fuel to the fire. The Federal Reserve Bank of the United States (a.k.a. The Fed) has a huge impact on the U.S. economy. The mere suspicion of a new Fed announcement is enough to rile up the markets. The exact functions and purposes of the Fed tend to be unknown to the layman, which is perhaps why this is not bigger news. The Fed is a semi-private, semi-government, and super-shady institution that has the ability to affect our economy through manipulation of the money supply and interest rates. I will not go into the reason or the process behind it. But in layman’s terms, this is fucking important. Many of my fellow Libertarians believe that the Fed is responsible for every recession we have ever had, including the Great Depression. I do not know if the data can necessarily back up that claim, but evidence does show that our more recent housing bubble crash was in part influenced by the Fed keeping interest rates too low. Now it’s time for the fear factor to set in. The Federal Reserve makes its monetary decisions through a consensus of its seven member board of PRESIDENTIALLY NOMINATED Governors from which THE PRESIDENT APPOINTS a Chair and ViceChair of the board. Prior to Trump’s electoral victory, two empty spots had already existed on the Board of Governors. Obama nominated people to fill those positions but was blocked by Republicans. Now in the wake of Trump’s several promises to amend Dodd-Frank, the Fed’s apparent “top regulator” Daniel Tarullo has stepped down. This has brought up the number of vacancies to three. In addition,

“Of course, maybe the Fed is an institution whose shady origins, lack of oversight, and reek of corporate cronyism mean it’s time to re-evaluate how such a system is allowed to exist in the first place.” Trump will be able to choose which one of those governors becomes the new Chair and Vice-Chair in early 2018. Now, these nominations won’t have as much permeance as a Supreme Court nomination in terms of length. However, each of the three governors Trump nominates will have a fourteen year term, which is equivalent to three and a half presidencies. Furthermore, the long term effects of an economic policy can unfold over decades. While I don’t know how many liberals will end up reading this, I’m assuming there is at least a puddle on the floor somewhere at this point. On the bright side, it’s not too crazy to believe Trump will be able to avoid screwing the pooch on this one. The projected interest rate increases announced by the Fed will probably still unfold over the same rate of time. Whatever opinion you may have regarding Trump, we can at least assume he knows that any drastic shift in monetary policy can have potential effects that are costly. Many Republicans are also in favor of auditing the Fed for the sake of transparency. The administration does not have a great record of transparency so far, but should such a bill actually gain traction (as I constantly hope it does), we could at least relieve the worry of Trump using the Federal Reserve to bankroll his visits to the tanning salon. For now, we can at least wildly speculate on the future. Here are some totally uneducated predictions as to who Donald Trump will nominate.

Montel Williams: Hey, there’s nothing morally bankrupt about payday loans! Plus, this guy will totally bring diversity to the Fed, am I right? This is almost as good as giving the Housing and Urban Development position to Carson.

Jim Cramer: I see this guy on TV all the time. I like his style. Look at that tie! It’s almost as big as Trumps tie! I bet he wouldn’t nominate him if it was. His ties are huge.

The Count from Sesame Street: This guy knows his numbers. The Fed could always use someone good at math. The monocle makes him seem old fashioned enough to appeal to conservatives. Unfortunately he seems vaguely Eastern European. Being from an area so close to Russia is sure to draw at least a few accusations of treason.

These are my top three picks. I couldn’t think of anyone with more qualified resumes to set our monetary policy. Of course, maybe the Fed is an institution whose shady origins, lack of oversight, and reek of corporate cronyism mean it’s time to re-evaluate how such a system is allowed to exist in the first place.





UNraveling United Nations Failures: The Case for Defunding the U.N. By Aditi Roy

The United Nations was founded in 1945 at the end of WWII as a replacement for the failed League of Nations. Its purpose was to maintain international peace and security, establish international cooperation amongst member nations in order to promote equal rights and solve international problems, and be a center for harmonizing the actions of nations within it to achieve a common goal. Under the guise of “trying to maintain international peace,” the U.N. failed to prevent 100 million deaths from Communist regimes during the Cold War, which killed more people than WWI and WWII combined. It did nothing to intervene when we were on the brink of nuclear annihilation during the Cuban Missile Crisis. It has routinely ignored human rights violations of its member states since its creation. The U.N. also failed to put an end to the more recent genocides at the end of the 20th century. When Pakistan murdered three million Bangladeshis and displaced eight to ten million Hindus during the Bangladesh Liberation War of 1971, the U.N.’s international tribunal never bothered to investigate the matter. In 1988, while efforts to end the Iraq-Iran War took place, U.N. Security Council Resolution 598 was adopted unanimously and called for Iran and Iraq to end all combat operations. While both countries accepted the resolution, Iraq led a bloody campaign against the Kurds in Northern Iraq. The Kurdish genocide claimed two hundred thousand lives, which the U.N. recognized twenty five years too late. During the 1993 Bosnian war, the U.N. designated Srebrenica as a safe zone for the Muslim Bosniaks that were being targeted for ethnic cleansing by the Serbs. U.N. Security Council Resolution 819 was adopted to disarm the Bosniaks in Srebrenica in exchange for protection by the ill-equipped U.N. peacekeeping forces, afterwhich the Serbs would give up their heavy weapons within the demilitarized zones. Instead, the



Bosniaks were left completely defenseless when the Serbs surrounded the safe zone. Despite the presence of U.N. peacekeeping forces, the camp was invaded while the Serbs murdered over 8,300 people. The Serb forces killed and tortured refugees. At the same time, they raped and murdered women. In addition to these brutal actions, they slaughtered children right in front of the U.N. peacekeepers who did nothing to end the violence. The Rwandan genocide occurred after the Bosnian genocide. Before the genocide, the Hutu extremists in Rwanda tested the U.N. peacekeeping troops’ security responsibility by murdering 40 Tutsis, to which the U.N. did not respond. The U.N. was well aware that the extremist Hutus had taken over the government and had ordered Rwandans to murder their Tutsi and moderate Hutu neighbors, yet refused to send more soldiers and ammunition to the area. In 100 days, Hutu extremists had murdered over 800,000 people. As the Tutsi opposition forces were advancing in Rwanda, the extremists fled to the nearby town of Goma in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Instead of assisting the hundreds of thousands of Tutsis back in Rwanda who lost their homes and their loved ones, the outpour of these “refugees” flooding into Goma received massive media attention and became one of the best funded humanitarian operations in the world. Over $1.5 billion was raised to help the Hutu extremists flee Rwanda and set up camp in Goma. Over there, they were able to supplement their militias with stolen aid supplies from within the camp and

increase their weapons supplies to the point where Hutu leaders were able to have weapons flown into Goma from abroad. Then, Congolese President Mobutu Sese Seko convinced the U.N. to allow his own guards to protect the camps. The U.N. agreed, and as a result the Congolese guards were able to supplement their U.N. salaries by theft and extortion from inhabitants within the camp. Africa’s first “World War” took place in 1998 between six countries and took over five million lives, for which a U.N. peace accord was signed in 2002. However, all parties involved continue to violate the contract. On top of ignoring genocides or making them worse, the U.N. has a long history of sexual abuse of local women by its peacekeeping forces. According to U.N. officials and outside observers, peacekeeping forces have engaged in sexual misconduct in almost every U.N. mission. The scandals have overshadowed the U.N. since the 1990s. At the time, U.N. peacekeeping forces had engaged in sexually abusing girls in Cambodia and fathered an estimated 24,500 babies. In Liberia, girls as young as 12 were forced into prostitution by U.N. peacekeepers, who fathered an estimated 6,600 babies in exchange for commodities such as food. Sexual abuse of minors were reported in Namibia, Burundi, East Timor, South Sudan, Cote d’Ivoire, Bosnia, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. In Haiti, U.N. peacekeepers sexually exploited hundreds of women and children in exchange for basic needs, food, or money. One-third of these victims were minors under 18. In cases where women would not get paid, they would keep the badges of the soldiers and threaten to expose their identity online via social media. In the Central African Republic, instead of protecting children, U.N. soldiers raped and sodomized starving homeless boys as young as nine years old. After the U.N. entered areas such as Cambodia, Bosnia, and Sudan, the amount of sex trafficking and sexual abuse cases sky-

Vol. XXIX, Issue VII

BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM rocketed. The U.N.’s response to all of the heinous crimes committed by their own workers was to deny, cover up, or ignore any such reports. Instead, the U.N. published a report in 2015 on cyber violence and claimed that cyber violence against women was equivalent to physical violence. Apparently trying to escape rape by a U.N. peacekeeping soldier is the exact same thing as turning off the computer to escape cyberbullying from internet trolls. If only the U.N. paid as much attention to “survivor of cyber violence” Anita Sarkeesian as the children fathered by its own forces. In August 2016, the U.N. admitted to its role in spreading the cholera epidemic to Haiti that killed nearly 10,000 people. After the 2010 Haitian earthquake left over 220,000 people dead, a cholera outbreak was introduced to the island by U.N. peacekeepers. Over 800,000 have been infected with cholera, making it the worst cholera epidemic in recent history. After the U.N. received a petition for compensation from over 5,000 victims of the disease, it responded by invoking its immunity from lawsuits under the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations. Perhaps the worst financial scandal in the history of the U.N. occurred during the 1995 Oil for Food Programme, which was established under U.N. Security Council Resolution 986. It was a $60 billion project that was supposed to help Iraq sell its oil in exchange for food and basic necessities through the U.N. without breaking the conditions of its sanctions by Kuwait. A list of top U.N. officials were exposed by an Iraqi newspaper for making a profit off of illegally selling Iraqi oil. Large amounts of funds were pocketed by private parties, some of which were being used to buy influence from within the U.N. United States investigators found that $13.6 billion worth of oil had been sold by Saddam Hussein to neighboring states and breached the terms of the sanctions. Given the world’s current political climate, it is safe to say that the U.N. is failing at every single purpose that it was created to resolve. The United States currently provides $8B

UNRAVELING UNITED NATIONS FAILURES: THE CASE FOR DEFUNDING THE U.N. to the U.N. annually, which is more than the next 185 countries combined. We bankroll 22% of its entire budget, but according to the U.N. it’s still not enough because we don’t pay our fair share of the world economy. In 2012, the world’s richest country per capita, Qatar, was considered a “developing nation” by the U.N. yet contributed $3.5 million to the U.N. budget that year. Meanwhile, Qatar had no problem bankrolling bin Laden or sending millions of dollars per month to fund jihadists in Al-Qaeda, Syria, Iraq, and more recently ISIS. The U.N. has been incredibly successful in combating Qatar’s state sponsored terrorism and modern day slave labor of migrant workers with its grand total of zero security resolutions condemning Qatar. Instead of trying to end state sponsored terrorism or preventing Kim Jong Un from launching nuclear weapons and terrorizing his own people, the U.N. Security Council has adopted at least 130 resolutions against Israel, our strongest ally in the Middle East. According to Alan Dershowitz, the U.N. has turned a blind eye to the state-sponsored terrorism within the Palestinian refugee camps, which are funded by the U.N. Given all of the failures of the U.N. to uphold its mission statement and ineffectiveness in accomplishing peace and stability in many parts of the world, the logical mode of action would be for the U.S. to defund the United Nations. After all, it costs many greenbacks for the U.S. to keep funding the U.N. We were duped into joining the U.N. in the first place in 1945 by U.S. Secretary General and convicted Soviet spy Alger Hiss. Now, the majority of U.N. member states are not even free democracies and participate in flagrant human rights violations. However, they still get to lecture free nations on how to improve human rights. The U.S. has no reason to keep pouring billions of dollars into such a failed organization. According to the latest Gallup poll, 54% of Americans believed that the U.N. was doing a poor job in problem solving, whereas 38% responded that the U.N. was doing a good job and 8% had no opinion. Seventy one years and half a tril-

lion dollars later, the U.N. has failed to put an end to murderous regimes, genocides, sexual abuse scandals and corruption within its ranks and state-sponsored terrorism. At least the U.N. will still host pompous Hollywood celebrities to provide their expertise in telling world leaders how to fight terrorism! References: wesp/wesp_current/2012country_class.pdf middleeast/syria/11140190/Banker-who-financed-911-mastermind-now-funding-terrorists-in-Syria-and-Iraq.html what-has-the-un-achieved-united-nations International Commission Of Jurists, The Events In Pakistan: A Legal Study By The Secretariat Of The International Commission Of Jurists 9 (1972), p. 56–57., cited in S. Linton, ‘Completing the circle: accountability for the crimes of the 1971 Bangladesh war of liberation’, Criminal Law Forum (2010) 21:191–311, p. 243. Black, George (July 1993). Genocide in Iraq: the Anfal campaign against the Kurds (PDF). New York: Human Rights Watch. ISBN 1-56432-108-8. Retrieved 12 August 2016. state4957.htm Crisis Caravan by Linda Pollman A30286-2005Mar12.html sexual-exploitation-by-un-peacekeepers-remains-significantly-under-reported americas/un-cholera-role-haiti-outbreakdeaths-united-nations-peacekeepers-helpedspread-a7198861.html un-haiti-cholera-victims-rejects-compensation stm ht t p : / / t i m e . c o m / 4 0 4 9 1 0 6 / u n - c y b e r- v i o lence-physical-violence/ h t t p : / / w w w. u n w o m e n . o r g / e n / n e w s / s t o ries/2015/9/cyber-violence-report-press-release




Dear “Dear White People”


By Kayla Jimenez and Ryan Stryska


urns out the only thing Americans love in their… TV more than ignorant black kids is crazy racist white folks.” This is one of the final lines in the film Dear White People that Netflix agrees with. The entertainment company released a thirty-second trailer for its upcoming original TV series Dear White People, a spin off of the 2014 film. The trailer sparked widespread controversy, made headlines, and went viral. This angered people across the nation for one reason or another. Headlines ranged from “Why Dear White People has Netflix users deleting their accounts” to “Boycotting Netflix Reveals Your Privilege.” Two weeks later, we’re still seeing posts and articles popping up all over the internet regarding the soon to premiere show. Why is this thirty second trailer the focus of so much anger and confusion? The trailer focuses on a scene where white people are instructed not to dress up in blackface for Halloween, followed by images of white college students at a Halloween party in blackface, holding fake guns, and wearing dreadlock hats. Black students enter the party, and the clip ends with shit hitting the fan. It was a lot for a thirty-second announcement. Initially, when we saw the clip, we thought the show looked stupid because, of all the things to call white people out for, they went with blackface, a rare occurrence that most people know to be socially and culturally unacceptable. We brushed the show off as pointless, borderline offensive, and racially divisive, we laughed at the like to dislike ratio on the YouTube video, and that was that.



The next morning, it was all over the news. People left and right were sharing articles on Facebook, both for and against the concept. The most prevalent opinions were the two most extreme ones: a) this show is racist towards white people! Everyone should boycott Netflix because clearly the company has an anti-white, toxic liberal agenda! or b) the only people who have an issue with this concept and want to delete their Netflix accounts over this are angry, white, bigoted racists who are crazy alt-right trash! This divisive news “coverage” forced the people with less extreme opinions to jump on the bandwagon of the side they most closely related to. A black Facebook friend of ours shared an article titled “People Are Canceling Their Netflix Accounts over ‘Dear White People’” with the caption “Oh please BOI BYE.” Hundreds of comments ensued, where other mutual friends explained the issues they had with the trailer and why they were concerned with the outdated stereotypes depicted in it. The friend continued to explain how much racism he endured growing up with us and how desperately America needs this sort of show, telling commenters to “give [him] a break. All of television is ‘Dear Black people.’” This man grew up in a racially diverse town. He lives what appears to be a nice life, not negatively impacted by racism. However, he was full-on defending the show, acting as if he’d struggled all his life as a black American. He claimed that white people need to be educated on the hardships that face black Americans, and he thinks that this show can help. Since he and many others (including writer, producer, and director Justin Simien) are arguing that the film is meant to educate people on race relations, we decided to find out more about what the show will look like. We gave Simien a chance before deeming his work racist and divisive propaganda. We watched Dear White People the movie, which is also writ-

ten, produced, and directed by Simien. The movie takes place on the campus of a fictitious Ivy League university with few black students and a prevalent racist culture. The film focuses on characterizing people based on their race, especially the main characters. The protagonist, Samantha White, hosts a radio show called “Dear White People” targeted at exposing white privilege and social injustice on campus. She is Black Panther-esque and puts constant effort into fitting in with other black students on campus. She becomes very involved with the Black Student Union. When she’s not in public, she ~secretly~ dates a white man and listens to Taylor Swift. It is revealed in the end that Sam is, in fact, half white, and has felt throughout her life that she needed to “pick a side,” white or black. She hides intimate parts of her personality in order to seem more black and to mask the fact that she is half white. She goes so far as to spend hours in the morning to make her long, flowing, curly hair look like an afro. She feels guilty for this, because she pushed away her white father, whom she loved, and her white lover, because she was embarrassed by the looks people gave her when she held hands with her father as a child and her lover as an adult. She hides this part of herself and feeds into the racism around her by giving into this divisive nature of being black or white, which only separates the races and prevents unity. In the end, he realizes the mistakes she’s made and finally decides that racism is only as real as you make it. Troy Fairbanks plays the white man’s game on campus, as a contrast to Sam. He dates the white daughter of the University President, who is only dating him to piss off her parents, as Sam points out. He is a figurehead on campus, and he tries to become involved in predominantly white student groups and clubs. He has to forfeit his passion, smoking weed and doing comedy, because his father does not

Vol. XXIX, Issue VII

BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM want him to be a black stereotype. (He is…thanks Simien!) Sam’s right hand man, Reggie, is the Panther to Sam’s Black. He absolutely despises the randomization of housing and is NEVER shown hanging out with ANY white people by choice. His small group of people is consistently black and all of his opinions are inherently radical. He just likes to start shit. Kurt Fletcher, the token white asshole… what a dick. He is the only white main character in the film. He is depicted as an EXTREME racist – he literally won’t talk to or look at black people unless he’s harassing/ arguing with them. He is a complete and utter abomination of a human. He abuses his black housemate, Lionel, because he is black and gay. (Kurt is also gay, but he’s so closeted it hurts and makes him even more of a jerk). He yells at Lionel, locks him out of the house, throws his dick in his face just to be a douche, runs an all-white student group, and hosts a “Hip Hop” themed Halloween party. This party is one of the film’s climaxes. There was maybe two black people at the party, where white students are dressed as rappers, wielding fake guns, and wearing blackface. It’s terribly racist. The Black Student Union (including Sam) crash the party and fuck shit up. The University clearly has an intense racism problem, augmented by assholes like Kurt.

“Dear White People is a sad depiction of human beings, college campuses, and race relations in this country. To demonize white people and stereotype black people, and half black people, the way Simien does is a disgrace.” Coco Conners, Sam’s antithesis, is also half white. She overcompensates to seem as white as possible, also feeling as if she needs to pick a side. She has pin straight hair, hangs out with white students, and hides the parts of her that relate to being black.


There are a lot of things wrong with this film. The only black person who has any common sense about race relations is Sam, and she only realizes this when she accepts being half white. The only central white person is borderline a satanist and has no sense of values or morality. The majority of black students on campus hate the white people and won’t accept black people who aren’t conforming to their ideas of being black, and the white students are so racist that they thought it was okay to use blackface as a costume accessory. The only two races in the movie were black and white, with one Asian student who was a member of the BSU for the snacks… how diverse! Dear White People is a sad depiction of human beings, college campuses, and race relations in this country. To demonize white people and stereotype black people, and half black people, the way Simien does is a disgrace. This movie honestly does no good for society, despite Simien’s claims that it’s meant to be a satire to inform Americans about race relations. Simien himself wondered if he “was taking the satire too far.” … He was. The only positive takeaway is Sam’s realization that all of these people are crazy and racially divided as hell, and that she fed into that by pushing away the white people

in her life and pretending to be something she’s not just to seem black. Even though the characters are supposed to be exaggerated dramatizations, it still isn’t cool to present society and the people in it in this negative light. Doing this dangerously marginalizes less extreme people in real life. This movie tells black people that they can’t affect positive change in society without interrupting the flow of things. This is unfair, and takes away from the truth that extremism is rarely a suitable answer to anything. It’s cute that Simien thinks that by perpetrating stereotypes of both white and black people while overdramatizing negativity in race relations in America is actually going to solve any racial divides that still exist. Instead of wanting to end divisiveness in America, he wants white people to toughen up their skin to be able to handle this sort of blatant nonsense, and all people (besides white people) should be allowed to create and support divisive notions. Meanwhile, Dear White People represents situations of the past, incorrectly depicting our present, and damaging what is going to be our future. We don’t want to live in the past or promote false generalizations surrounding white people, as this show likely will. Then, racism comes full circle, encouraging future white people who see this to be racist because they feel threatened and belittled, and convincing young black individuals that they are struggling and can’t be who they want to be because of extreme racism, forcing them to battle something that isn’t as bad as the trailer makes it seem. This is all just liberal Nazism, trying to superimpose racism on people who do not practice anything even close to that. We need to realize what type of seeds this plants. Americans need to spread love, peace, and respect among all races and individuals, and Dear White People does nothing to help that. Simien explains that “whether or not such a show (Dear White People) was racist was a central question the characters grappled with.” That’s something we’re all grappling with now, and that’s why the announcement has garnered such a reaction.





The Ship Must Be Steadied By Max Newman


n my last article, I closed by saying, “Now is the hour of action. Let’s not let our opportunity go to waste.” I was referencing the golden opportunity that conservatives have to remake their party’s and country’s policies in both the U.S. and Europe. Since President Trump’s election last November, we began to see right wing Americans finally join their European brethren in uniting behind populism, nationalism and the desire to save Western civilization. We see it in Facebook groups such as The Deplorables and Emperor Trump’s Dank Meme Stash. Additionally, a growing number of Americans are becoming familiar with extraordinary right-wing European figures such as Marine Le Pen and Geert Wilders. While most right wing Americans are waiting for action from the Trump administration, it seems like the people who are letting this opportunity go to waste are the people in the White House themselves. I had extremely high expectations for the Trump administration on Inauguration Day, and I still do. I cannot wait to see the wall being built in the next four years, a new immigration system that finally puts Americans first, help for our long forgotten countrymen in the Rust Belt and an America that doesn’t give our enemies flexibility but actually strikes fear into them instead. However, we must be blunt: this month has not gone well at all for the Trump administration. Leak after leak from the White House has painted this administration as incompetent, clueless and extremely divided, and the mainstream media isn’t entirely wrong. After less than a month in office, the following leaks and mistakes have done serious damage to an apparently clueless Trump administration: President Trump argued with and hung up on Prime Minister Turnbull of Australia regarding the U.S. taking in Asian refugees as part of a refugee deal. President Trump put Russian President Putin on hold to ask aides what the nuclear arms reduction treaty (START) was. President Trump’s inauguration crowds photo (which was posted in the Brady Press Briefing Room to ‘taunt’ the media) had the inauguration date wrong. President Trump’s schedule on 1/26/17 frequently misspelled British Prime Minister Theresa May’s name, and listed Australian Prime Minister Turnbull’s role as “President”. The White House’s list of Islamist inspired terrorist attacks, posted to prove that the media did not accurately cover such attacks, misspelled the word “attacker” to “attaker” and “San Bernardino, CA,” and listed the November 2015 Paris attacks and San Bernardino shooting as terrorist attacks “not covered by the media”. Labor Secretary nominee Andrew Puzder withdrew his name from consideration after domestic violence allegations from his ex wife. National Security Advisor Michael Flynn lied to Vice President Pence about his conversation with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, and Pence was unaware until February 9th. And of course, my personal favorite of all the embarrassing White House leaks, Donald Trump’s inner circle of aides



like Kellyanne Conway, Steve Bannon, Stephen Miller, Jared Kushner and Reince Priebus held meetings in the White House Cabinet Room “in the dark and had to physically feel their way out of the room when the meetings concluded”. That is just downright pathetic. Pathetic doesn’t even begin to describe some of these missteps. I can think of a word much more familiar to President Trump: Sad! These leaks coming out of his White House, one that was supposed to be the best managed White Houses the world has ever seen, are instead downright embarrassing and cast the White House as utterly incompetent. If President Trump and his team can’t even find the damn lightswitch in the Cabinet Room, then maybe we do have bigger problems here. All of these leaks are out in the public record, reported on by media outlets such as the New York Times and CNN. The media’s reporting on the Trump leaks from his White House leads me to my final, and perhaps, most important point. The media is covering these White House leaks in constant coverage, and are in fact arguably overcovering these leaks to get revenge on President Trump for his hatred of the media. While the identity of the leakers is the biggest problem of all, we cannot ignore the fact that these missteps are happening. Less than one month into Trump’s presidency, aides had to conduct cabinet meetings in the dark and listed the 2015 Paris attacks as a terrorist attack “not covered by the media”. Trump’s White House, honestly, get your shit together and get it together fast. I don’t know if Reince, Kellyanne and the two Steves are still on Cloud Nine from November’s win, but the honeymoon is over. Michael Flynn lied to our Vice President, Andy Putzer is no longer the Labor Secretary nominee and Congress is becoming increasingly fed up with the nap time going on at 1600 Penn. And what is the response of thousands of Trump supporters in Facebook groups? All most of them do is spam post a purple bird which is allegedly Pepe The Frog 2.0 and constantly complain about the “crooked media”. Andy Putzer resigned? “Blame the media”. Trump didn’t know what the START treaty was in a call with Putin? “Don’t believe the dishonest media”. President Trump’s gaffe about the inauguration poster in the Brady Press Briefing Room? “More lies from the corrupt media”, proTrump commenters post. GUYS, IT’S ENOUGH. The Trump administration’s aides still giddy after November’s election win are doing Republicans no good, when Democrats are actively organizing protests, recruiting new candidates, and contacting House Reps in coordinated phone calls, all in their movement to #resist. They’re doing that while I see pro-Trump Facebookers post Alex Jones highlight videos and laugh. Trump supporters on Facebook, Trump aides in the White House and President Trump, February 2017 has not been fantastic or yuge for us in the slightest. We need to get serious, we must organize and defend our President and we must steady the ship now. Otherwise, our world that is being built, as mentioned last article, will come crashing down faster than any of us realize, squandering our once in a lifetime opportunity.

Vol. XXIX, Issue VII


The Intolerance of By Gunnar Jurgensen


s one famous Democratic president remarked, “if we cannot now end our differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity.” Looking at Binghamton University, and academia in general, it is evident that America has failed to make the world safe for the most critical aspect of diversity–that of opinion. It is not only my experience as a libertarian, but also the experience of many progressive students on campus, that campus culture lacks an outside, non neo-liberal, voice. Whether it be in the classroom or on State Street, a conservative voice is always missing from the conversation. According to the Washington Times, liberal college professors outnumber conservatives 12:1. Without diversity of opinion at the highest end of higher education, tolerance of other perspectives is unworkable. The irony is that liberals champion the idea that diversity is the key to tolerance. A common example of exposure to diversity is when people are prejudiced against a different ethnic group until they move in next door and realize that they have far more in common then they have differences. The same can be said for diversity of thought. Many conservatives think of liberals as Stalin-loving socialists, and liberals think conservatives are white supremacist Nazis. However, on college campuses, the left has a problem. Progressives preach about the interconnectivity of diversity and tolerance yet rarely expose themselves to different ideas. The ivory tower of academia would be more accurately dubbed an ivory echo chamber, where the left’s ideas are merely confirmed rather than adequately challenged. The same cannot be said for members of the right minority, who are constantly forced to defend their beliefs from the left’s more than warranted rebuttals to conservative points. The beauty of free speech is that it permits the exchange of ideas that can be challenged for fallacies, or revered


Liberal Diversity

for accurate insights. On today’s college campuses, it appears free speech has been plighted by an arbitrary concept of social justice. No longer can people share their political leanings, or who they voted for, out of fear of wrongly being called any one of the left’s “isms” or “phobias” (racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic). Last semester, as I waited in line for the bus, a kid was being called out for wearing a MAGA hat. I stepped in against the unwarranted onslaught and stated that regardless, he has every right to express his political leanings. In response, the same people who heckled him targeted me and called me a “racist who needs to go to the back of the bus.” A couple of weeks ago, conservative icon Milo Yiannopoulos was prevented from speaking due to a riot that transpired in Berkeley in the name of “anti-fascism”. Churchill once said, “The Fascists of the future will be the anti-fascists.” This is not tolerance, and this is far from a fair exchange of diverse opinions that meritorious liberals of the 1960s fought for. However, when looked at from a truly classical lens there is an obvious reason for this blatant intolerance.

“It is almost as though sociopolitical evolution has transpired before our very eyes as the minority of thought, the right, has been calloused by years and years of irritatingly entitled liberal encounters...”

wardly Republican students and staff on campus, liberals are not exposed to these valid, non-racist, non-homophobic, non-sexist, republican political ideas. Consequently, they go on believing anyone moderately right of center is a bigoted racist. Thus, students who think more conservatively don’t openly share their ideas for fear of being unjustly branded as a racist, etc. This perpetuates a cycle where the liberal majority builds their own wall avoiding all contact with a minority of thought. It is almost as though sociopolitical evolution has transpired before our very eyes as the minority of thought, the right, has been calloused by years and years of irritatingly entitled liberal encounters, while progressives have become soft within their ivory echo chambers. Right-leaning college students know how to adapt, compromise, and self reflect under the constant magnifying lens of collegiate cultural Marxism. As history and evolution teach us, only the strong survive. If the left wants to survive and maintain its academic hegemony, they must step outside their chambers and into the reality of this country. Compromise is an essential thread of the American cloth, and without it, America will fall apart at the seams…similar to what is currently being witnessed. America’s strength is its diversity, nominally its intellectual diversity, for if there were not multiple ways of thoughtfully seeing the world, there would be no point in changing or improving it.

How are we supposed to understand opposing viewpoints and opinions without being exposed to them? Is it not the same with race or ethnic background? Of course it is. If you are not exposed to something, you will never understand it enough to be tolerant of it. Tolerance is the antithesis of polarization. Today’s political landscape is polarized to unprecedented levels due to the positive feedback loop we’ve witnessed in the discussion of ideas. With few out-





It’s The Current Year...There Are Only Two Genders By Pino Che

It’s the current year and you still believe that there are more than two genders? That is so 2015! Now, finally, this bold statement is not just a sentiment I hold, because according to The Australian, “NSW public school teachers have been banned from teaching gender theory in the classroom after an independent review into the state’s sex and health education resources. Students will no longer be taught that gender is a ‘social construct’, or that sexuality is ‘non-binary’, occurring on a ­continuum and ‘constantly changing.’”(Urban). NSW is an abbreviation for New South Wales, a province in Australia. So, while gender theory studies have not been banned throughout the entire Australian nation, it is a huge step in the right direction. The banning of teaching bogus ideas, such as gender being merely a social construct without scientific validity behind it, is the equivalent to banning creationism in the American classroom. Both of these ideas cannot stand up to scientific reasoning, studies, or backing from any recognizable figure in the legitimate scientific community. I include neither sociology nor anthropology, as these are not real sciences. The only real difference between teaching evolution and teaching gender theory is the people that are teaching it. Those who teach creationism are usually misguided, taking their love for Christian culture, Christian civilization, and accomplishments by Christians to mean that stories in the Bible have literally brought mankind to where it is now. I disagree with those who teach gender theory because they deny all that has made Western Civilization great and advocate for the dismantling of it via propaganda and unscientific data. It is important to recall that this opposition to gender theory has not suffered its first defeat at the hands of the NSW educational system. This theory has not been put to the test by many of its adherents, but it has been attacked by individuals who have a much more important role in the scientific community. One instance of this involves Dr. Paul McHugh, former psychiatrist-in-chief of John Hopkins University. Dr. McHugh has stated, “transgenderism is a ‘mental disorder’ that merits treatment, that sex change is ‘biologically impossible,’ and that people who promote sexual reassignment surgery are collaborating with and promoting a mental disorder”(Chapman). The more interesting fact, in addition to Dr. McHugh’s statement regarding transgenderism, is that he pioneered the sex change surgery in 1966. In the years that followed, when the data came out on the incredibly high suicide rate among transgender individuals, the hospital where Dr. McHugh worked, decided to stop having the surgery. According to the same article, “suicide rate among transgendered people who had reassignment surgery is 20 times higher than the suicide rate among non-transgender people” (Chapman). This staggering statistic is scary for many reasons. Firstly, after surgery changes them to match the gender they believe they are (or the one that society is telling them not to be), they still off themselves in staggering numbers. Many on the left will claim that the reason this occurs is because society has still not seen fit to accept them, which



of course is nonsense as every university in most of the free world (until now) has been teaching the cultural Marxist ideology that gender is just a social construct. On top of that, if you do not accept this cultural Marxist ideology, anti-fascist groups will literally attack you, burn your business down, or try to have you fired from your job. If that isn’t society trying to defend your delusions, then I don’t know what is. Secondly, the shockingly high suicide rate implies that those individuals who are deeply mentally disturbed are not receiving the help they properly need. As a Christian and someone who doesn’t like the idea of people killing themselves in staggering numbers, the idea that people are continuously pushing an ideology that leads to the increased deaths of people leaves me a little triggered. The province of New South Wales in Australia has taken a huge step in the right direction. It is now the beginning of a tipping point in civilization and one that my generation has sadly missed. According to recent studies, Generation Z is the most conservative generation since the Second World War (Hunter). Considering that conservatives breed more than leftists as well (Bedard), those with traditional values will outbreed those with the failed moral apathy of the previous generation. Those who believe that everything is some sort of social construct and nothing has any scientific meaning behind it are losing ground. This attitude is essentially moral apathy, as these people are not caring at all about the moral future, fabric, and framework of our society. Perpetuating ideas that cause mentally disturbed individuals to kill themselves in staggering numbers and that are not based in science is either the result of being a total psychopath or someone who is morally apathetic. More individuals, groups, and governments are coming to the conclusion that gender is a biological reality (something that we on the far right always knew) and return back to the traditional way society is run, as men and women have unique and special roles in society. Men are not women, women are not men. It is the current year and you still believe in more than two genders! Damn bro. John Oliver’s head is spinning that it is the current year and you still believe that. References gender-theory-banned-in-nsw-classrooms/news-story/ eeb40f3264394798ebe67260fa2f5782 johns-hopkins-psychiatrist-transgender-mental-disorder-sex-change

Vol. XXIX, Issue VII



A Breath of Fresh Air for A Stagnant Education System By Chris DeMarco


onald Trump’s election to the presidency was a mandate from the American people to “Drain the Swamp,” or remove incompetent career bureaucrats and politicians and install outsiders with new ideas in their place. The Department of Education is one of these incompetent bureaucracies that idly sits, twiddling its thumbs, while America’s education system falls behind those of other industrialized nations. Despite Democrats rambling about eight years of disappointing results under the Obama administration (not to mention eight terrible years under Bush, along with a history of inferior American education that dates back to the Department of Education’s founding), it is time for a new direction and a new leader. Betsy DeVos is perhaps the best woman for the job. She has extensive experience in helping low income students get the quality education they require, the same education that students from wealthier families receive. Critics claim that she is unqualified, but she is the leading advocate for conservative education reform helping to rescue thousands of disadvantaged students from failing Michigan public schools. Critics also claim that she does not have a degree in education, but neither did Bush or Clinton’s secretaries of education. Yes

“School choice puts bad teachers on the chopping block, where they ought to be, by taking tuition money from ineffective schools and giving it to effective schools...” she is an outsider, but an outsider with relevant experience and that is what the American people mandated by electing Donald Trump. Mrs. DeVos’s largest accomplishment has been her championing of school choice. Students with financial resources can escape failing public schools. It is a travesty that low-income, and often minority, students do not have the resources to do the same

“American public schools are not too big to fail. It is far more preferable for a school to fail than for the school to fail its students, as too often is the case in today’s system.” and choose the best school available. Not to mention, it is unfair that parents who do choose to send their children to a non-public school have to essentially pay twice for their children to go to school. Families and students deserve the right to choose which school their taxpayer-funded tuition goes to. Aside from allowing more options and equality for families and students, school choice will make public education better. It is a basic rule of economics, understood by everyone, (except progressives, and most Democrats) that a free market encourages competition. Today’s public education system is a monopoly, and this is detrimental for schools. If public schools had to compete with private schools for funding they would have to significantly step up their game, by any means possible. If nobody chose to attend public schools as a result, so be it. American public schools are not too big to fail. It is far more preferable for a school to fail than for the school to fail its students, as too often is the case in today’s system. Mrs. DeVos’s school choice ideas will help to eliminate the socioeconomic and racial disparities in American education today, something that Democrats and progressives should wholeheartedly support. Needless to say, Democrats are strongly opposed to DeVos with every single Democratic senator voting against DeVos’s nomination, and by extension, equality of education. The reason for this Democratic opposition is Teacher’s unions. Teacher’s unions are some of the biggest contributors to Democratic PACs. How a public service union became one of the most partisan political forces in the country is an article topic for another day, but it reeks of corruption. The swamp must

be drained, and the fact that Teacher’s unions are so strongly opposed to DeVos’s nomination goes to show that they feel insecure in their positions, which, quite frankly, is a good thing. Public School teachers enjoy higher pay than their non-public counterparts, along with benefits that cannot be found anywhere in the private sector. Even worse, it is next to impossible to fire a tenured teacher, no matter how incompetent. In the free market (AKA the real world to us red-pilled conservatives), ineffective employees are simply fired, but because this is the government, for some strange reason it doesn’t work that way. School choice puts bad teachers on the chopping block, where they ought to be, by taking tuition money from ineffective schools and giving it to effective schools, whether public or private. Betsy DeVos is not influenced by the corrupt teachers unions, and will not hesitate to fight unions for the good of our children, as any true reformer ought to do. Instead of allowing underprivileged students to attend the same excellent schools as their privileged counterparts, the Democrats, goaded by the teachers unions, would much rather that everyone, rich and poor, black and white, go to failing schools. This is the so-called “progressive” vision for schools. Betsy DeVos is a knight in shining armor for those who believe in the right of every student to attend the best school possible. She deserves support from both sides of the political aisle in her quest to create a superior, egalitarian American education system.



Feb 22 2017 (Vol. XXIX Is. VII) - Binghamton Review  

A closer look at the UN

Feb 22 2017 (Vol. XXIX Is. VII) - Binghamton Review  

A closer look at the UN