Page 1



Founded 1987 • Volume XXIX, Issue VIII

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, Bella Rubinton, Chris DeMarco, Zachary Borodkin, Luke Kusick, David Keptsi, Max Newman, Dylan Klein

Assistant Editors Sophie Christian, Jason Caci, Adrienne Vertucci Special Thanks To:

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

Israel: A democratic beacon of hope in the middle east


by Bella Rubinton

5 Badly Planned Parenthood by Kayla Jimenez 6 The Sexiest Way to Have the Hottest Sex... by Alex Carros 7 Taking the “Boy” Out of Boy Scouts by Rebecca Goldstein 9 America First: A Troubled History by Pino Che 10 Zuckerberg Publishes Facebook Manifesto by Sophie Christian 11 Healthcare Needs Help by Chris DeMarco 12 Trump Takeover by Max Newman by Jason Caci 14 Angela’s Errors 15 Milo-Gate & Media Hypocrisy by Aditi Roy


3 Editorial 4 Campus Presswatch

TELL US WHAT YOU THINK! Direct feedback to 2


Vol. XXIX, Issue VIII

EDITORIAL Dear Readers,


From the Editor

elcome back from break! I hope you all enjoyed the parade or being home. I’m writing this before parade day, but I probably know as much about it now as I will afterwards, so let’s just go ahead and say it was a great time. I also hope you enjoy our cover. It’s a little cheekier than usual, but don’t read too much into it. In case you couldn’t guess, this issue’s debate is on Israel and is between Bella Rubinton and Pino Che. It is truly a hoot and a half. Also, to tie in the *ahem* other aspects of our front cover, Alex Carros gives a response to the proliferation of sexual materials these past few weeks. I guess you could even say this is the Binghamton Review Sex Issue as Kayla Jimenez discusses Planned Parenthood and her own experience with the organization. A new contributor, Rebecca Goldstein, makes her debut in her article on new transgender regulations within the Boy Scouts. Really though, give her a chance here, it’s not what you might expect. Another new contributor, Sophie Christian, also makes her debut on the subject of fake news and social media, reporting on the “Facebook Manifesto” (man, that sounds eerie) recently published by Mark Zuckerberg. The libertarian in me would be remiss if we didn’t include an article about reducing government and reforming healthcare. Chris DeMarco’s article is just that: giving an outline for some changes he

would like to see to our healthcare system. Jason Caci makes his writing debut for the Review in his article on Angela (pronounced angle-a, according to Nigel Farage) Merkel and her errors. On the populist side of things, Max Newman gives us his take on Trump’s appearance at CPAC as well as his recent state of the union address. Speaking of Trump and media trouble, Aditi Roy brings her take on the recent scandal involving Milo Yiannopoulos and why oh why did she name it Milo-gate. Just kidding, it’s an insightful article on a troublesome topic--definitely worth the read. Now that the summary is over with, I can wax philosophically on whatever I please. Ah, yes, parade day, the 50-year-old tradition is as much a part of Binghamton as the Spiedie and, thanks to the University, many students don’t get a chance to experience it this year. The administration has claimed that the dates for the “Winter break” was chosen by an algorithm and that it coinciding with parade day was due to chance. Though, I distinctly remember this being brought up as an issue last year and no one did anything about it in all that time. And next year’s break also falls on the parade. Just sayin…


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 Our editorial staff sifts through the campus news to entertain our more sadistic readers. Original articles are in quotes, our responses are in bold.

“SA Spotlight highlights origins of Black Lives Matter” Erica Prush Pipe Dream, February 23, 2017 “It is an anti-racist vision, an anti-war vision, an anti-capitalist vision. It is a vision for black lives.” Why is an anti-capitalist vision a vision for black lives? Since when does anti-capitalism benefit all black individuals? Oh, right, it doesn’t. People are so quick to assume that you can’t have justice and equality in capitalist societies, and that capitalism is the problem… lolz! “West cited the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution as roots of racial inequality in the United States.” Where in the Declaration of Independence or the U.S. Constitution are there roots of racism? These documents provide fair and basic grounds for equality, and are far from sources of racial inequality in the United States. This speaker’s loaded statements on the other hand... “When politics intersect with Greek life” Rebecca Klar Pipe Dream, February 27, 2017 “Recently… a Binghamton University student claimed to be dropped by the recruitment process because she voted for Trump. What the article fails to mention is the author’s use of social media to proliferate hate towards minorities.” So we went to the unnamed students Facebook, and did some heavy duty scrolling, only to find a bunch of boring posts and articles that had nothing to do with proliferating hate



Written by our Staff

towards anyone, let alone minorities. Maybe she deleted the posts, but her current social media pages don’t contain hateful posts. She shared a few Trump-related posts and pictures, but sharing a photo or quote from President Trump is not the same thing as hating on minorities. Sheesh, cut this girl a break. Stop assuming she hates minorities based off her support for Trump. Once again, not all conservatives hate minorities, Trump supporters are NOT inherently racist, and this entire story is just baloney. “Beyond Spring Fling” Giovanna Bernardo Pipe Dream, February 23, 2017 “When most people think of Binghamton University, I’d venture to guess some of the first things that come to mind are Baxter the Bearcat, Pantone 342 and, of course, our affordable tuition rates. While those are positive things to be associated with, as well as integral parts of our University identity, that list seems to be lacking something.” Yeah, I guess it’s also missing extreme liberal intolerance—no seriously, you should see some of the fanmail we get. For individuals committed to the rights of others, some of y’all have some serious issues respecting others’ speech. “To me, that something could be anything... that our entire student body, faculty, staff, alumni, etc. can come together in support of and rally behind.”

Nope, it’s the low tuition. While other things might be nice, they are mere add-ons—side benefits that are cool to have but not necessary for the college experience. There’s lots to do on campus, you just need to look a little bit harder. “We’ve come together for exciting and entertaining events, such as University Fest each August, the Homecoming tailgate, [the] soccer game in the fall and Spring Fling every May — but in major, community-binding events, we’re lacking.” You literally just listed four such events. If you think Spring Fling isn’t a major community event, you should try drinking less next time and maybe you’ll remember it better. “I’m not sure what can be done to remedy this situation, but I believe the change has to start with combining the efforts of the powerhouses that exist on this campus, such as the Student Association (SA) and Greek life, for example, to put on major events that individuals, clubs, teams and organizations can all get involved in.” Or we can just un-cancel parade day and go do that instead.

Vol. XXIX, Issue VIII

badly planned parenthood

Badly Planned Parenthood By Kayla Jimenez


eminists, a lot of young people, and liberals in general are always “standing” with Planned Parenthood. It seems like a lot of those who #standwithPP have decent health insurance and would likely not even go to PP to receive reproductive health services. Because of the way people talk about PP and make it seem vital to the lives of women everywhere, a naive seventeen year old me assumed there really were no other options. I thought people who weren’t making like tens of thousands of dollars a year would never be able to afford private reproductive health services. I didn’t realize that private facilities, such as OBGYNs (gynecologists), could also offer similar services at similar costs, given some form of insurance is present. And according to the Gallup Poll, only 11% of Americans are uninsured today. Over a year ago, I needed reproductive health services, and I thought the only feasible option was Planned Parenthood. I thought there was PP, really expensive private health centers for rich women, and christian missionary centers disguised as family planning centers where they IRL spammed you with religious propaganda about why you shouldn’t get abortions or take the pill or whatever. So, I drove thirty minutes from my house to the local Planned Parenthood. As I was walking in, protesters on the street harassed me, threw adoption pamphlets in my face, and tried to hand me various religious propaganda, wrongly assuming that I was pregnant and planning to have an abortion. Once I finally passed all those lame-os, I was met by a line to check in and a bustling waiting room. When I finally made it to the receptionist, she was bitter, not receptive, and hella rude. I waited FOREVER. I finally got into an office, where I then spent almost an hour filling out stacks of paperwork. As soon as I completed the paperwork, the nurse or whoever she was suddenly realized I didn’t need to fill out any of that paperwork. Oops! She proceeds

to tell me that they couldn’t help me with what I needed that day or any day in the near future. Like, thanks for wasting almost an hour of both of our time! Ugh. I was astonished that I spent over an hour at this place going through all these employees and sheets of questions only to find out they were unable to provide me with the services I needed… AND NO Y’ALL IT WASN’T BECAUSE PLANNED PARENTHOOD DOESN’T HAVE ENOUGH FUNDING. DON’T EVEN GO THERE. They CLEARLY had a large enough budget to be overstaffed, while simultaneously underutilizing workers/ wasting their time with unnecessary paperwork. Seeing as how I still needed the ~unnamed reproductive health services~, I had to turn to other options.

“Defunding Planned Parenthood would allow these smaller, private organizations and clinics to truly shine and provide women with the safe and effective health care they need at reasonable prices, especially for those covered by insurance.” I returned to Binghamton, where we don’t have a local Planned Parenthood, but rather a private organization, Family Planning. Family Planning does a lot of the same stuff as Planned Parenthood; the main difference between the two is that Family Planning refers patients to private gynecologists rather than providing all services in-house. Family Planning is way better than Planned Parenthood. Not only does Family Planning not rely on government funding, Family Planning efficiently and effectively connects those in need of reproductive health services with private healthcare providers that meet their budget and insurance needs, and supports local practitioners in the process.

What’s the moral of the story here? Planned Parenthood = not great. There are other, just as affordable and accessible, options for women in need of reproductive health services. Defunding Planned Parenthood would allow these smaller, private organizations and clinics to truly shine and provide women with the safe and effective health care they need at reasonable prices, especially for those covered by insurance. Planned Parenthood is positioned to seem absolutely necessary and vital for women everywhere, but the reality is that it’s inefficient as all hell. Random ass legislations and funding requirements totally doom Planned Parenthood’s operation. The main reason I had to waste time with all that paperwork is because regulations require all this nonsense to be done just for any service of any type to be administered! So much of their budget appears to be wasted on over staffing, inefficiencies in the workplace, stupid paperwork, actual paper, space to store all this unnecessary paperwork… to name a few. Private health providers are made out to be unapproachable, and Planned Parenthood is positioned as the ideal means for women to receive treatments of varied kinds. I was mislead to believe that I couldn’t afford to go anywhere else. In the end, it was a private clinic that assisted me and made receiving unnamed reproductive services possible.




thwe sexiest way to have the hottest sex...

The Sexiest Way to Have the Hottest Sex... By Alex Carros

… is to wait until you’re married. Yup! You read that right. Statistically (and morally) speaking, the most meaningful and lasting sexual relationships don’t begin until after marriage. That isn’t to say you, or anyone for that matter, is a bad person for having sex before tying the knot. I’m merely looking to encourage what I believe to be a more restrained and thoughtful view of sexuality: sex is a gift to be shared with someone you truly love and are committed to, and it shouldn’t be used solely as means for one’s own personal pleasure. That last point in particular, that sex is solely a means to have fun and cut loose, is my main point of contention. Too much of hookup/one-nightstand culture today seems focused on the self. In other words, it involves thinking, “How can this person sexually please me the most?” Within these one-and-done “relationships,” everything meaningful and important about the other person such as personality, emotional intimacy, etc. goes to the wayside. Instead, the partner is, in many ways, treated like a glorified sex toy; they are a source of fleeting pleasure and very little beyond that. By the morning, the person is already gone, never to be contacted or seen again.

“But what about your boyfriend/girlfriend, someone whom you truly like and care about? You don’t see yourself leaving him/her anytime soon, so why not have sex?”

Now, this isn’t to say that this other person is being abused or hurt. To the contrary, many who indulge in one-night-stands would probably say they enjoy the practice. But if you look at the long-term, many who partake report feelings of regret and emotional pain. According to a study by the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, this number is



more than a third (35%) of women and an entire fifth of men. The reason for this seems rather obvious, at least to me: sex is an inherently emotional act, in some cases as emotional as it is physical. This is particularly true for women, who, according to researcher Dr. David Buss “differ fundamentally in their sexual psychology.” As he explains, women have a biological urge to seek out long-term relationships, as a more committed mate would better provide for any potential offspring. As a result, women have a higher sense of regret with casual sex, as the study above demonstrates. Therefore, the entire practice of empty, casual sex seems exactly that: empty. The true capacity of the act, which I will delve into later, is ignored for immediate physical gratification. That seems like an obvious path to a shallow, meaningless sex life. But what about your boyfriend/ girlfriend, someone whom you truly like and care about? You don’t see yourself leaving him/her anytime soon, so why not have sex? The emotional connection will be there as much as the physical, so what do you have to lose? Well, consider (as uncomfortable as that may seem) the possibility of you leaving this person. How painful will the break up be if the incredibly intimate act of sex has already been established? What good will the act have done after said break up? Since any physical and emotional connection you had has been severed, all it has done retroactively is give you a sense of temporary personal satisfaction. As is with casual sex, this limits the incredibly wonderful effects of unity and love that the act can bring. But if you truly love this person, and want to spend the rest of your life with them, why wait until the formal ceremony of marriage? Well, not only do mistakes happen (the wedding can be called

off), but it demonstrates a supreme act of self-control and selflessness. If you both wait until the honeymoon, you show each other how deep your affection and love are: you have denied yourself personal pleasure solely to be with only this person for the rest of your days, and that from the sex you have, you will grow closer and closer as a couple You’ll also welcome into your life the miracle of children. All of that probably seems overly sappy or sentimental to many of you. You probably think that I’m hopelessly deluding myself into ideals that no one can really live up to. Not only is that untrue, but the effects of patience and self-restraint are clear: many studies have shown that women and men with more sexual partners divorce at a higher rate than couples who abstain. According to the Journal of Family Psychology, couples who abstained have higher rates of marital stability, marital happiness, and communication. Oh, and they also report having better sex. So, going forward, I urge you discern what would be best for you and your love life. As several studies have shown, this sex-infused hookup culture will cause you higher levels or regret, dissatisfaction, and eventually, divorce. There’s no need to rush when it comes to taking part in the most intimate act humanly possible with another person. So even though it may be an ideal, it’s an ideal worth striving towards (even if we slip up.)

Vol. XXIX, Issue VIII

taking the “boy” out of boy scouts

Taking the “Boy” Out of Boy Scouts By Rebecca Goldstein


n January 30th, the Boy Scouts of America altered its criteria for entry into its organization and has started allowing transgender youth to become scouts. Previously, the only requirement was that a child’s birth certificate had to identify them as a male. However, this is no longer the case — if someone feels like a boy, then they can become a Boy Scout. The gender of the applicant is now determined by what is indicated on their application and not by what they were assigned at birth. The BSA’s rationale, as stated by their spokesperson Effie Delimarkos to CNN, is that “communities and state laws are interpreting gender identity differently, and these laws vary widely from state to state.” This new policy is an egregious affront to the traditions of the BSA, legitimizing what many would call a mental illness for no apparent reason other than the growing cultural acceptance of transgenderism. In recent years, the BSA began allowing openly homosexual Scouts and Scout leaders to join, which is not as big of a problem because they do not deny the reality of their own body. As another more dangerous example of America’s Scouting organizations succumbing to leftist social beliefs, the Girl Scouts allowed transgender people to become members around 2015, causing another controversy at the time of this decision. I am both appalled and devastated that the organizations that were created with such strong moral convictions in mind have begun to pander to the will of the left and the mentally ill. The BSA was founded on the principles of teaching young men - conventionally and scientifically considered to be those with an XY chromosome and the proper genitalia - to serve God and Country and help them to become responsible and caring citizens. The BSA Vision Statement on its website says that they will help “all eligible youth in America” to do so. As I stated earlier, their previous eligibility used to require that a Scout

needed to have been born a male; now, if a youth simply claims that they are male then they can become a Boy Scout. This really bothers me because the BSA was founded specifically for young men to help them grow into upstanding citizens and give them positive male role models. Activities and badges are geared specifically towards male strengths and capabilities. This is also the case with Girl Scouts — many activities and badges are geared towards young women! Each respective organization was created for certain males and females in mind so they could be shaped into well-rounded citizens. These organizations would make sure that the citizens hone their respective strengths and are specific to situations they are likely to experience in the future. These situations are loosely based on traditional gender roles, expectations that have held solidly for many decades in the Western world and without which our society would be thrown into disarray. A fellow writer for the Review, Pino Che, touched on this broader issue with transgenderism in one of his recent articles, “It’s the Current Year… There Are Only Two Genders.” He often cites Dr. Paul McHugh, the former psychiatrist-in-chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital and one of the most vocal anti-transgenderism professionals in the scientific community. Seventy to

eighty percent of transgender thoughts are just fleeting thoughts, “spontaneously lost” by the youth that hold them as time goes on, according to Dr. McHugh. This movement is just that: a thought. Outside of any empirical evidence, most, if not all, transgender people base their desires to change on their subjective feelings. These feelings, however, clash directly with their biological reality. No amount of hormone therapy or genital replacement surgery will alter someone’s given DNA. To Dr. McHugh, “the person’s ‘assumption’ that they are different than the physical reality of their body, their maleness or femaleness, as assigned by nature” is the root of the irrational mental state that a transgender person experiences ( I find it disappointing that the Boy Scouts of America is choosing to abandon its sturdy traditions and bend to a social fad. Transgenderism has no basis in scientific fact and continuing to consider it valid is plainly immoral, especially in institutions that are so important to the upbringing of our children and how they see the world. By teaching the leaders and citizens of tomorrow that feelings matter more than facts and that these scientific facts that are literally provable can be disregarded, we are creating a generation of weak-minded individuals on the national stage in which they are able to deny the very basic of realities.



Israel: a democratic beacon of hope in the middle east

Israel: A Democratic Beacon of Hope in By Bella Rubinton the Middle East In the first few weeks of the Trump administration, Trump has proven to stand by his protectionist, “America first” rhetoric that began on the campaign trail. However, those words, compounded with a phenomenon of ongoing bomb threats to JCCs, have led American Jews to question: What does a Trump presidency mean for Israel? Historically, US presidents from both the left and right side of the political spectrum have placed an emphasis on US-Middle East relations due to economic and diplomatic interests in the region. Republicans are known for ardently supporting Israel, while Democrats can sometime lean towards peace negotiations and a two state solution. Towards the end of his presidency, the Obama administration chose to abstain on a UN vote that condemned Israeli settlements. To many, this seemed to signal a final slap in the face as a conclusion of eight years of ‘peace talks’ that seemed to go nowhere. Trump, on the other hand, appeared to speak highly of Israel on the campaign trail. Touting his Jewish family members such as Jared Kushner, who has a friendship with Benjamin Netanyahu, he promised a new era of Israel policy. The policy that Trump promotes leans towards a one state solution and a more right-wing government. Jews in America, however, held their breath, possibly waiting to see if anti-Semitism and other hate-

“It appears that [Donald Trump] may be in support of a one-state solution. While this might anger some people on the left, a two-state solution is not currently viable. When the Palestinians routinely deny Israel its right to exist and then the media negatively spins Israel’s attempts at self-defense, a falsely anti-Israel climate is created.” ful speech and actions would emerge. Shortly after Trump took office, it did, with a vengeance. Bomb threats began being phoned into JCCs across America, including the one in Vestal. The Trump administration failed to mention Jews in a statement regarding International Holocaust Remembrance Day. In addition, it was on this very day that Trump signed his executive order, temporarily banning refugees from seven countries from entering America. Ironically, International Holocaust Remembrance Day is a day where many Jews remember America’s history of turning away Jewish refugees during World War II. Many Jews see Israel as a consolation prize for all of the suffering of the Holocaust. However, there’s a joke that’s told about the creation of Israel. It goes, “On the sixth day G-d turned to the angel Gabriel and said, “Today I am going to create a land called Israel. It will be a land of outstanding natural beauty. It will have rolling hills and mountains full of goats and eagles, a beautiful, sparkling, clear ocean full of sea life and high



cliffs overlooking white sandy beaches.” G-d continued, “And I shall make the land rich in oil to allow the inhabitants to prosper. I shall call these inhabitants ‘Jews’ and they shall be known as the most friendly people on the earth.” “But,” asked Gabriel, “don’t you think you’re being too generous to these Jews?” “Not really,” replied G-d, “just wait and see the neighbors I am going to give them.” For those who identify with more progressive politics, it seems natural to side with Palestinians, since they are the ‘oppressed’ and Israel is the ‘oppressor.’ But for other people, like me, that impression appears false. If anything, Israel is the one democratic beacon of hope in the quagmire that is the Middle East. Funding Israel and providing aid to Israel is investing in democracy and combating terrorism. Every day, citizens of the state of Israel live in fear of rockets being fired from Gaza. However, with the innovation of the Iron Dome, these rockets are stopped in mid-air. Also, by providing financial aid, America is strengthening a key strategic relationship. Just to put the situation in perspective a bit, take the example of Gilad Shalit, an Israeli soldier that was held captive for over five years. In exchange for his freedom, the Israeli government released 1,027 prisoners. Would the Palestinian Authority act in the same way if the Israeli government captured a Palestinian? Would they actually be willing to release a substantial amount of prisoners to save one life? If you truly think that the Palestinian Authority (note that Palestine is not a state) cares that much about the lives of its people, then think again. Think of their mistreatment of their own people, especially of LGBTQ people. Even Israel, whose government is heavily influenced by Judaism, has a better record on LGBT rights. On the other hand, LGBTQ people often flee the Palestinian territories due to discrimination and lack of legal protections. It is important to note this discrepancy especially when pinkwashing, or claiming that Israel uses its positive record on LGBTQ people to cover up human rights abuses, is utilized as a common way of attacking Israel. Whether you like it or not, the Trump Era is going to usher in a new age of foreign policy with Israel. With the nomination of David Friedman, along with Trump’s comments in his joint press conference with President Netanyahu, it appears that he may be in support of a one-state solution. While this might anger some people on the left, a two-state solution is not currently viable. When the Palestinians routinely deny Israel its right to exist and then the media negatively spins Israel’s attempts at self-defense, a falsely anti-Israel climate is created. Ideally, the president and his ambassador nominee will not be a part of the perpetuation of these ‘alternative facts.’ Instead, they should aim to humanize the conflict, portray Israel more positively in the media, and advocate for a one-state, bi-national solution. As a famous Zionist, Theodor Herzl, once said, “If you will it, it is no dream.”

Vol. XXIX, Issue VIII

America First: a troubled history

America First: A Troubled History By Pino Che


his year, on June 8, 2017, is the 50th anniversary of the attack on the USS Liberty, but the readers have probably never heard of it. Why is that? Well, our dearest ally Israel not only torpedoed this naval vessel but also attacked via aircraft injuring 171 crewmembers and killing 34. Now while Israel claimed they thought the ship was an enemy combatant and attacked thinking it was an enemy ship, Secretary of State at the time Dean Rusk rejected this claim, saying, “I was never satisfied with the Israeli explanation. Their sustained attack to disable and sink Liberty precluded an assault by accident or some trigger-happy local commander. Through diplomatic channels we refused to accept their explanations. I didn’t believe them then, and I don’t believe them to this day. The attack was outrageous” (Rusk). Had any other nation done the same thing, it would be very unlikely that they would not be receiving $3.1 billion in security assistance, according to the Washington Post’s “The US Foreign Aid Budget, visualized.” However, this is not the only incident between Israel and the United States. We are going to have to go back to 1954 and the Lavon Affair. This incident was a failed operation in which the Israeli government enlisted Egyptian Jews to plant bombs inside British, American, and Egyptian civilian areas in order to try to elicit a response from the United States or British governments to get involved in the Middle East against Egypt. The result was the death of no civilians, but of operatives, and the resignation of Israeli Prime Minister Pinhas Lavon. These attacks on Americans, both troops and civilians, were conducted by our greatest ally in the Middle East. We must, as the logic goes, continually give Israel more and more money in order to retain their friendship. What is more interesting to me is that they are still considered our greatest ally after these incidents, which most Americans have no idea about. If Americans knew that Israel attacked our ships and tried to frame Egypt for an attack to bait us to get involved in a war in the Middle East on their behalf, maybe we would not have so many right-wing nationalists for a country that is not their own… but I digress. The question of whether or not to continually fund Israel, in my opinion, is not one that I find entertaining to talk about. Ultimately, funding Israel or any other foreign country should not be something the United States does. It makes no sense that we fund both Israel and its enemies, especially since everyone understands that the enemies of Israel will spend some of that

“Whenever one criticizes Israel, those who support it can swiftly shut down arguments by simply calling the critics anti-Semites, which recently has become a term to shut down debate and conversation rather than to point out a phenomenon in which Jews are being prejudiced.”

money to attack Israel and Israel will use some of that money to protect itself or attack its enemies. Yet, we should focus our information on Israel and how much we are sending to Israel. According to Shirl McArthur, using a conservative estimate, America has been sending $138 billion dollars since 1949. A lot of the money that we send is in the form of the loans, which according to Dr. Stephen Zunes, an assistant professor at the University of San Francisco, are usually turned into grants after a few years. He claims that, “Congressional researchers have disclosed that between 1974 and 1989, $16.4 billion in U.S. military loans were converted to grants and that this was the understanding from the beginning. Indeed, all past U.S. loans to Israel have eventually been forgiven by Congress.” This helps Israel, and those who support the continual funding of Israel. They have never defaulted on a loan to the United States. It seems to be very hard to default on a loan if years later the government continually just gives you the money as a grant rather than a loan and forgives the loan, but you know, pointing out the obvious makes someone an anti-Semite. Another issue that comes up when we talk about Israel is the idea of anti-Semitism, which I am very reluctant to talk about it. Whenever one criticizes Israel, those who support it can swiftly shut down arguments by simply calling the critics anti-Semites, which recently has become a term to shut down debate and conversation rather than to point out a phenomenon in which Jews are being prejudiced. Now my opponent on this debate may or may not bring up this topic, I do not know, but if you were to talk to many people throughout the Jewish community, most specifically the Zionist community, you would know that they often say, “Not everyone who opposes Israel is an anti-Semite, but everyone who is an anti-Semite opposes Israel.” This attack attempting to discredit any conversation ultimately leads most conversations to whether or not foreign funding is beneficial to Israel futile because the opposition no longer has any logic or facts, simply ad hominems. In conclusion, I do not want the United States funding any foreign country. Israel, as a foreign country, falls under that category. I do not believe the world is safer when we fund the Egyptians and the Syrian rebels, who fund Hamas, who attack Israel, and then fund Israel to attack Hamas back. In a perfect world, I would not get involved in the issue and simply let the issue go on in the Middle East and focus on domestic politics. We cannot have an America First policy if we are entangled in foreign interest. We can be America First or we cannot. If we want to focus on our own interests let us focus on our own interests and gut the US foreign aid budget. References: Dean Rusk. As I Saw It. New York: W.W. Norton, 1990$138-billion.html



Zuckerberg publishes facebook manifesto

Zuckerberg Publishes Facebook Manifesto

By Sophie Christian


ark Zuckerberg recently published an online manifesto that outlined the issues facing the world and the contributions that Facebook can make towards solving these problems. In the 5,700-word manifesto, the thirty two year old billionaire outlined various topics for concern that need some tackling in order to create a better future, such as climate change, pandemics, terrorism and inequality. One point Zuckerberg stresses in the manifesto is using artificial intelligence to monitor content on the site. “Right now, we’re starting to explore ways to use AI to tell the difference between news stories about terrorism and actual terrorist propaganda so we can quickly remove anyone trying to use our services to recruit for a terrorist organization”. One version of the letter that Facebook sent to social media outlets before Zuckerberg posted the manifesto stated that artificial intelligence would be used in the future to “identify risks that nobody would have flagged at all, including terrorists planning attacks using private channels”. Zuckerberg’s manifesto continues to promote a core value that Facebook proudly exhibits-- connecting the world. He stated that the site’s role, particularly at this point in time, is to “develop the social infrastructure – to give people the power to build a global community that works for all of us”. The manifesto is similar to a political statement by a chief executive who argues against a concerning tide of isolation that is increasing across the globe. “Facebook stands for bringing us closer together and building a global community. When we began, this idea was not controversial. Yet now, across the world there are people left behind by globalization, and movements for withdrawing from global connection.” The publication of this manifesto comes at a time when globalization is facing challenges. The election of Don-



ald Trump has been linked to a strong sense of nationalism. Preceding this, Britain leaving the European Union demonstrated a stand against globalization. This is the first time that Zuckerberg has updated Facebook’s values as a social platform since the company first became available to the public.

“Facebook promised to adapt its community standards so they are more locally relevant and tailored to the individual. An example of this is that Europeans are often more tolerant towards nudity compared to Americans and citizens from the Middle East.” Facebook has mainly focused on connecting people on a global scale for the past decade, but Zuckerberg announces in his manifesto the social media platform is shifting its attention to “developing the social infrastructure for community – for supporting us, for keeping us safe, for informing us, for civic engagement, and for inclusion of all”. In relation to creating supportive communities, Zuckerberg highlights that there is a “striking decline in the important social infrastructure of local communities”, a problem that can be rectified through “meaningful” Facebook groups. The billionaire later expressed his views on the circulation of information of the site, not forgetting the issues surrounding “fake news” and hyperbolic clickbait headlines, which distort the reader’s sense of the truth and detract from well-researched journalism. It exemplifies how users are increasingly reliant on how many times a link has been liked or shared, which validates how trustworthy the information is to the individual. Zuckerberg expressed his concern for “fake news” in the media and

stated: “If this continues and we lose common understanding then even if we eliminated all misinformation, people would just emphasize different sets of facts to fit their polarized opinions. That’s why I’m so worried about sensationalism in media.” Facebook is attempting to rectify this issue by monitoring if users are reading the articles before sharing to their news feed. Providing they do, these stories are more likely to be seen in the news feed. The 32-year-old billionaire goes on to emphasize the “civilly-engaged community” and stresses how to attract more people to interact with the civic process and contribute in collective decision-making. Facebook is attempting to achieve this aim by developing tools that remind people to vote, connect with local representatives, and form protests. For example, the Women’s March began as a Facebook post. The last section of the manifesto refers to Facebook’s community standards, which are severe and can lack cultural or political subtlety. There have been a number of notorious faux pas, such as the censorship of an iconic Vietnam war photo and the removal of highly-relevant Black Lives Matter videos. Zuckerberg apologized and commented: “These mistakes are almost never because we hold ideological positions at odds with the community, but instead are operational scaling issues.” Facebook promised to adapt its community standards so they are more locally relevant and tailored to the individual. An example of this is that Europeans are often more tolerant towards nudity compared to Americans and citizens from the Middle East. Deducing what different communities see as acceptable requires a combination of “creating a large scale democratic process to determine standards” with “AI to help enforce them.”

Vol. XXIX, Issue VIII

Healthcare Needs More Than a Band-Aid

Healthcare Needs More Than a Band-Aid By Chris DeMarco


he Affordable Care Act is the biggest public policy disaster in American history. Perhaps the most disingenuous part of the Affordable Care Act is its very title, the Affordable Care Act. The Affordable Care Act has not made healthcare affordable. In fact, it has made it more unaffordable than ever before. Instead of actually reforming the entire healthcare system to make it more affordable, the Affordable Care Act was a stopgap solution, a Band-Aid that covered but did not heal the gaping wound that is the American healthcare system. America has by far the highest healthcare costs in the modern world and a standard of care that significantly lags behind other first world countries. America spends $8,233 on healthcare per capita per year, compared to an average of $3,268 for other modernized, third world countries.1 It is patently absurd that we spend more than double what other countries spend. While it was well intentioned, the Affordable Care Act did absolutely nothing to lower costs; instead, it simply increased the size of the government. Healthcare is expensive in this country, and throwing fistfuls of government money at it doesn’t actually make it more affordable. It just shifts the burden to taxpayers. Let’s face reality, we are the taxpayers paying for it (well, only 49% of us, but I digress). To actually fix the healthcare system in this country, we need to turn it upside down. The first, absolutely necessary, reform is to shift healthcare from mostly insurance-based to a system in which only the most catastrophic ailments need to be covered by insurance. By far the biggest issue with healthcare in America today is that it is insurance-based. Insurance companies exist solely to make a profit. The fact that they make a profit shows that insurance companies are a huge cause of inefficiency; a good portion of what 1 health-costs-how-the-us-compares-with-othercountries/

America spends on healthcare isn’t spent on healthcare at all, but rather goes to line the pockets of health insurance companies. Now, there are some completely unavoidable diseases for which some insurance may be required. The goal is for someone suffering from leukemia to not have to mortgage their house in order to afford treatment. However, the key word is unavoidable. Many ailments that Americans suffer today are a result of poor life decisions: risk factors that greatly increase the chances of developing a certain illness. For example, if a person were to smoke 2 packs of cigarettes a day for 30 years, it wouldn’t be a coincidence if they developed lung cancer. In fact, their smoking is the direct cause of the lung cancer. Insurance is, by definition, a protection against random and unavoidable circumstances. Lung cancer due to smoking is neither random nor

“If people paid for procedures out of pocket, the market would work to lower prices significantly as competition would emerge. This brings up another issue: that routine procedures are covered by insurance. Routine procedures are not random or unexpected.” unavoidable, and neither are many other health conditions that are covered by insurance, such as liver disease from alcoholism, injuries from extreme sports, and dare I say, sex change operations. A key tenet of conservatism is personal responsibility, and when viewing healthcare through a conservative lens, one must consider the totality of factors that lead to a healthy lifestyle. Insurance-based healthcare creates a moral hazard, a condition where people are more willing to take risks with their health because someone else (insurance companies) will pay for the consequences. Another issue with insurance is that, due to healthcare procedures being automatically paid for, people have

no incentive to shop around for the best price, as people in a free market are supposed to do. Drug companies, hospitals, and all other healthcare institutions fleece us with ultra high costs, because the consumer never sees the actual cost in the end. If people paid for procedures out of pocket, the market would work to lower prices significantly as competition would emerge. This brings up another issue: that routine procedures are covered by insurance. Routine procedures are not random or unexpected. As such, they should not be covered under the umbrella of insurance. Instead, they should be paid for directly and out of pocket, the same way that people purchase any other service. This is the only way to ensure that people seek the lowest prices possible. Senator Rand Paul’s replacement for the Affordable Care Act is based on health savings accounts, tax-free accounts that allow Americans to save money, with which they can make their own healthcare decisions in the free market. The money placed into these accounts would also be income tax-free, providing a helping hand to the middle class. Best of all, however, is the possibility that if people lead healthy lives, they may get to keep some of the money they saved for healthcare. This is instead of that money going towards enriching insurance companies. Rand Paul’s health savings account plan will put more of American’s hard earned money back into their own pockets, to spend as they see fit. Who could possibly oppose that? All the Affordable Care Act managed to do was shift all the inefficiencies of the insurance-based system onto the government, further burdening taxpayers. It also added layers upon layers of its own inefficiency, something our government seems to pride itself on. In order to fix healthcare in this country, we need to fall back on the capitalist, free market system that has made America the greatest and most prosperous nation in the world.



trump takeover

Trump Takeover

By Max Newman


s I watched President Trump’s incredible speech along with four of my friends at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) last week, it hit me. Conservatism is in a huge period of transformation and realignment. The very principles of what it means to be on the right wing of American politics are shifting like an earthquake beneath us, and before the 2016 primaries, very few people besides the D.C. political class noticed. In President Trump’s speech at CPAC, he said everything I wanted to hear as a right wing populist. President Trump hit his familiar talking points of the ills of mass immigration, poorly negotiated free trade deals, bringing back jobs for Americans, and continuously heaping praise on our brave men and women in uniform. At the end of both Trump’s CPAC speech and his recent Joint Address to Congress, I felt something even more satisfying than the optimism Trump projected to close out both of his speeches. President Trump’s CPAC speech was surreal to witness in person. I reveled in the moment of cheering loudly for a man that has transformed America in several ways. Hearing the President of the United States actually talk about his unwavering nationalist rhetoric, the process of securing our borders, the reasons for globalization having a negative impact on sovereignty, the protection of the American worker, as well as “reviving the American Spirit” was music to my ears. But the one thing that made me even more eu-

“President Trump’s takeover of the conservative movement did not begin in June 2015, but rather in 2011 when he first addressed CPAC. He closed out his political coming out event by saying, ‘We will rebuild our country so we will be proud. Our country will be great again.’ ” 12


phoric than hearing President Trump’s CPAC speech in person was seeing the reactions of the conservative faithful, particularly after a disastrous February full of leaks and embarrassments in the West Wing. Thousands in a room filled to capacity cheered and clapped, college students rushed the stage once President Trump finished speaking, and chants of “USA USA” all undoubtedly proved that Trump had officially transformed the conservative movement. President Trump’s takeover of the conservative movement did not begin in June 2015, but rather in 2011 when he first addressed CPAC. He closed out his political coming out event by saying, “We will rebuild our country so we will be proud. Our country will be great again.” The very mantra of “Make America Great Again” actually sprang up at CPAC 2011 before Mitt Romney lost to Barack Obama in the 2012 presidential election. While many cheered for Donald Trump at CPAC 2011 and again at CPAC 2013 and 2014 on his same message of making America great again, he was viewed with suspicion by the conservative faithful. “Trump isn’t a true conservative, he’s not one of us,” they said. Many attendees voicing support for Ted Cruz and

Rand Paul at CPAC 2016 felt this way, as their vocal dislike for Trump’s populism was crystal clear. At CPAC 2017, the tables turned, and no one can deny it. The days of constitutionalists and small government libertarians dominating CPAC have ended; their stranglehold on the conference ended not with a bang, but a whimper, in 2017. Business Insider noted this with an article titled “Libertarians noticeably absent from CPAC this year.” Politico published a similar arti-

“Trump is transforming conservatism. This transformation has needed to happen for a long time coming.” cle by Rich Lowry regarding Trump’s transformation of conservatism titled “The End of Reaganism.” Just last year at CPAC 2016, Libertarians and Ted Cruz supporters organized a walk out when Donald Trump was scheduled to speak, and several attendees commented that they would rather “walk across hot coals than vote for Trump” and that Trump “isn’t a true conservative”. These views are ones espoused by the likes of Glenn Beck, Justin Amash, Austin Petersen, and Gary Johnson,

Vol. XXIX, Issue VIII many of whom were heralded as main event acts at previous CPAC conferences. None of these figures addressed the main hall, and exhibits like Young Americans for Liberty and The Liberty Radio Network could not hold a candle to Breitbart, Sheriff David Clarke’s exhibit, and the Europe of Nations and Freedom’s exhibit. Speakers such as Amash, Massie, and Johnson were replaced by Nigel Farage, Raheem Kassam, and Steve Bannon, who was once a persona non grata at CPAC, and is now welcomed in as a founding father of the new American nationalism sweeping this country. The Washington Post may not be right about a lot of things, but they are spot on in their article declaring that “Trump’s Takeover of Conservatism is Complete.” In the article, Dana Milbank writes, “In 2011, the Reagan and Kemp princi-

President Trump has transformed both Congress and the United States of America. President Trump’s address to a joint session of Congress on February 28th, 2017 was the best speech of his political career, as it was a speech hitting all of his familiar nationalist and populist talking points as well as ushering in a new era of “Renewal of the American Spirit.”

ples still held sway: free trade, limited government, U.S. leadership overseas, and plans to cut entitlement programs at home to balance the government’s finances. Now, to judge from the adulation for Trump and his agenda at CPAC last week, conservatism is about ripping up trade deals, building a wall at the southern border, ending the influx of foreign cheap labor, expanding executive police powers, retreating from foreign engagement, and declaring Medicare and Social Security inviolate.” Milbank is right, whether you want to hear it or not. Trump is transforming conservatism. This transformation has needed to happen for a long time coming. As Milbank mentioned, the days of both unfettered free markets (which encourage automation and outsourcing as long as a CEO can increase his

trump takeover bottom line) and of aggressive foreign interventionism because “America must spread democracy” are over. Furthermore, those dinosaur-like views must be purged from the right wing in America if the Republican Party is to become the party of the forgotten American worker in states like Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania. Finally, President Trump has transformed both Congress and the entire United States of America. President Trump’s address to a joint session of Congress on February 28th, 2017 was the best speech of his political career, as it was a speech hitting all of his familiar nationalist and populist talking points as well as ushering in a new era of “Renewal of the American Spirit.” The latter message is yet another message that has been needed for far too long in this country. Speaking of too long: Americans have been consumed by laughable amounts of materialism, obsessions over Hollywood and the Kardashians, the thinking of the “cash me outside” meme as the best thing since sliced bread, and working too many hours to the point where family time is placed not even second, but sixth on the totem pole. It is time that we follow Trump’s advice and unite to renew the American spirit and place what really matters in our nation first: our families, our communities, our brave men and women in uniform, and our uniquely Amer-

ican values, instead of continuously obsessing over Beyonce’s pregnancy. Republicans in Congress are finally beginning to understand what America First means for our nation. However, they are behind the learning curve, as right-wing Americans outside the Beltway got this message years ago. Congressional Democrats watching Trump’s Address to the Joint Session of Congress rarely gave the President a standing ovation, and the likes of Keith Ellison and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz refused to even stand for the widow of fallen soldier Ryan Owens, who died on a mission in Yemen in January. That’s disgusting, but it’s fine to me. The Democrats are simply doing the work of destroying their own party for us. The Democrats (and many neoconservative holdouts, I may add) can either join President Trump and the new Republican Party in making America great again, as Trump has been speaking about for years, or they can continue to whine and attempt to #resist while President Trump transforms this country into something that is bigger, better, and stronger than ever before. In the age of Trump, it is a choice of whether Democrats and the neocons like McCain and Graham of the GOP want to either adapt or perish, because we are not returning to the archaic policies of the past. Now, we can only go forward to Make America Great Again together!



Angela’s errors

Angela’s Errors

By Jason Caci


hancellor Angela Merkel has many chinks in her armor. In fact, she might not have any armor at all. Chancellor Merkel has made plenty of blunders during the last year while leading Germany. Recently, Yanis Varoufakis, a Greek economist, heavily criticized Angela Merkel and the European Union for their handling of the economic crisis in Greece. He stated, “…the European Union is particularly good at doing a terrible job, but handling what should be a very manageable crisis.” He also put Angela Merkel on notice by saying that she has spent too much of her time on election campaigns and not enough time on helping Greece. Chancellor Merkel has had all the time in the world to address issues in both her own country and across Europe. However, she is too focused on finding ways to portray herself as an elegant lady who has the brains to continue to lead Germany. One might say that this situation is similar to a college student who has an essay due in two weeks but decides to wait until the last night to start it. Greece is on the verge of leaving the European Union and one could ask, does it really matters in the end for Chancellor Merkel? No, because Greece needs the European Union more than the European Union needs Greece. Nonetheless, the notion of Greece leaving would paint a bad image of Chancellor Merkel and the European Union as a whole because of the lack of effort put forth on the issue. I will show just a tad bit of fairness to Chancellor Merkel in this situation but only a smidge. Nothing can fix Greece. The sheer notion that negotiations can change Greece’s economy is quixotic. Yanis Varoufakis’s bum’s oot the windae in this situation. In order for Greece’s economy to change for the better, the young lads need to stop fishing for their parents’ money and instead catch some actual fish. In a study conducted by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in 2014, Greece ranked fourth in average work hours per week with just above thirty nine. However, Greece’s Nominal GDP as of 2016 ranked 49th in the world. Quantity does not equal quality and even though the wording might be similar, these words have different meanings. The Greeks must produce more and spend their workdays actually working. Chancellor Merkel constantly attempts to convince the public to believe that a two-state solution between Israel and Palestine will work. Do I think a two-state solution would work? In my dreams, sure. However, I live in the real world, and the real world has taught me that a two-state solution will never work. Israel and Palestine have not come up with a solution despite negotiations going on for many years. Since Chancellor Merkel does not have the same mindset as the Israelis and the Palestinians she can offer a two state solution with ease. However, she needs to understand that one cannot expect to thread a needle when that person does not even know how to work the damn thing. Why should anyone expect a rabbit to come out of a hat and have a two-state solution agreed upon at this very moment? Perhaps the Chancellor’s biggest gaffe comes from the is-



sue of refugees migrating into Germany. Ever since Chancellor Merkel let an influx of refugees enter Germany, they have been committing rapes like a bunch of hounds. However, the statistics might not back this claim because of the number of sex crimes not being reported in those statistics. For example, German Minister of Justice Meiko Haas has stated that only one in ten rapes is reported and only eight percent of the rape trials result in convictions. As a result of this, many liberal websites had authors publishing articles that downplayed the notion of the refugees having a calamitous impact on Germany. The authors of the articles on these website need to understand that one cannot hide behind the bushes and avoid the truth. Do they think they are playing Grand Theft Auto V? According to the World Tribune, Chancellor Merkel has now made a 180 degree turn and has set aside ninety million euros in taxpayers’ money to pay the refugees in order for them to voluntarily leave Germany. The main reason for this decision most likely stems from the fact that her poll numbers have taken a hit in the past few months. Even if someone argues that the refugees are nice people, strong cultural values are a crucial factor to the success of a country. The refugees will most likely not be willing to adopt the values that Germans hold, which will lead to social conflicts. At this point, any action the Chancellor commits will be considered as a fart in the wind, as she has already set the standard of refugees coming into Europe as the norm. Chancellor Angela Merkel’s ideas and actions have shown that her viewpoint of the factors that contribute to a successful society does not align with what the majority of the people believe. The people of Germany have a valid reason to bust Chancellor Merkel’s chops, as she has a view of the world that is too idealistic to achieve. References:

Vol. XXIX, Issue VIII

Milo-gate and media hypocrisy

Milo-Gate and Media Hypocrisy By Aditi Roy


rofessional troll Milo Yiannopoulos seemed unstoppable when he made his way onto Real Time With Bill Maher to discuss free speech and politics. Milo’s confrontations with the panel became the most viewed video on Bill Maher’s Youtube page, beating the infamous Sam Harris vs. Ben Affleck debacle. The next day, it was announced that Milo would be the keynote speaker at CPAC, America’s leading conservative conference, and given more time to speak than 60 other guests scheduled to speak at the event. Yiannopoulos was at the peak of his career until a video compilation of his comments on “relations between younger boys and older men” went viral. Milo was immediately disinvited from CPAC. In addition, publishers dropped his upcoming book Dangerous, which shot to the number one spot on Amazon’s bestsellers list, most notably his major publisher, Simon and Schuster. Finally, he resigned from Breitbart News. Milo’s comments resulted in instantaneous blows to his career, but did it result from the media caring deeply about protecting children from pedophilia? No. Were Milo’s comments unacceptable? Yes. Two things can be true at once. Perhaps if Milo was one of their beloved Hollywood stars, he would have not only gotten a free pass, but his reputation would have been adamantly defended. In fact, that’s exactly what happened to Roman Polanski, a convicted child rapist, who received a standing ovation at the 2003 Oscars from Hollywood’s finest and continued to be defended by stars like Meryl Streep and Whoopi Goldberg. Many former child actors have said that pedophilia continues to reign as the biggest problem in Hollywood, yet liberals continue to sweep this issue under the rug and under-report it. Is the media outraged over Milo’s comments selective? Did the media apply the same standards to beloved idols like MJ, David Bowie, Jimmy Page, Elvis Presley, Marvin Gaye, Iggy Pop, Chuck Barry, and R.Kelly, all of whom have actually engaged in sex acts with minors? Nope. None of their careers ended over actual acts of pederasty, let alone questionable comments about pederasty. Lena Dunham, who glorified sexually abusing her sister in her book (which of course got published with no problems), was allowed to speak at the DNC where Hillary Clinton was nominated to be the Democratic candidate for the 2016 election. The progressive media site ran an article by an actual pedophile, Todd Nickerson, who argued that pedophilia was simply another sexual orientation. They had no problem going in on Milo and pretending to be offended by his comments, as the Todd Nickerson articles conveniently disappeared from their website at the same time that PedoGate unfolded. Bill Maher undeservingly took credit for Milo’s downfall. Maher seemed to forget that on his 1996 show, Politically Incorrect, he defended pedophillic relations between an older woman and a fourteen year old boy. Instead, Maher claimed that boys could not be raped by women and that the woman and the boy were “in love” and should have been allowed to be together.

Were Simon and Schuster enraged by Maher’s pro-pedophilia comments to drop his audiobook? Was his book dropped when Maher made the same comments in 2007 and doubled down on them, saying the real crime was that there was no video of the incident? No and no. Bill Maher did not have to apologize for what he said, yet he was able to get his books published without any conflict. That being said, Milo’s comments were indefensible. He may have been a victim of pedophilia, to which he deserves the deepest sympathy, but that should not give him moral authority to excuse his defense of pedophilia. In a statement posted to his Facebook page, Milo says “Anyone who suggests I turn a blind eye to illegal activity or to the abuse of minors is unequivocally wrong”, but this is exactly what he did on The Joe Rogan Experience. Milo described “very young boys” taking drugs and having sex with older men at Hollywood parties and said to Joe Rogan, “When you were 25, when you were 30, you will have seen girls about 15 you thought were hot, of course!” Milo may have exposed three pedophiles in his career, but that does not mean the pedophiles whom he discusses in the Joe Rogan podcast are not still abusing children to this very day. He did not address these specific comments in his press conference, nor did members of the media present at the conference bother to ask him why he would not reveal the names of Hollywood pedophiles. Because it was never about protecting children; it was about bringing down a man who was a walking contradiction to the left’s identity politics, and whose downfall was a win for those on the right who refuse to embrace the Trumpian era of conservatism. Milo may have apologized, but many questions remain unanswered. He claimed that his words were deceptively edited and that he didn’t mean some of the things he said on the tape. A few days later, Milo posted a photo to Instagram and Snapchat of a shirt that read “Milo Did Nothing Wrong”. So which is it? Is Milo sorry for the words he used which is why he himself resigned from Breitbart? Or was he taken out of context and his words were misconstrued and he didn’t actually do anything wrong? Milo’s career is far from over: he will publish his book, find a new media venture, and continue his campus tours, but the days of the media getting away with a lack of consistency are numbered. next-w/




Mar 15 2017 (Vol. XXIX Is. VIII) - Binghamton Review  

Israel and Palestine: No ifs, ands, or butts

Mar 15 2017 (Vol. XXIX Is. VIII) - Binghamton Review  

Israel and Palestine: No ifs, ands, or butts