April 28th, 2021 (Vol. XXXIII, Is. XI) - Binghamton Review

BINGHAMTON REVIEW Editor-in-Chief Contents

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

Founded 1987 • Volume XXXIII, Issue XI Jake Schweitzer

Managing Editor Matt Gagliano Copy Desk Chief Madeline Perez

Business Manager Joe Badalamenti

Social Media Shitposter Arthur O’Sullivan

Editor Emeritus

Patrick McAuliffe Jr.

Staff Writers

Jon Lizak, Dillon O’Toole, Will Anderson, Spencer Haynes

Contributors

Julius Apostata, Charles Forman, Siddharth Gundapaneni, Marc Anthony

Special Thanks To:

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

He Provides the Staples

RACISM IN THE CLASSROOM

PAGE 8

by Charles Forman

3 Editorial

by Jake Schweitzer 4 Press Watch

by Our Staff 5 The Great Music Released During A Pandemic

by Dillon O’Toole 6 Contemporary Stupidity: A Response To “Contemporary Arrogance” by Madeline Perez 9 Social Media At Large

by Patrick McAuliffe 10 The Effective Replacement For The Welfare State

by Siddharth Gundapaneni

by Joe Badalamenti 12 Gaetz-Gate 13 Russian Through Some Foreign Aggression

by Julius Apostata 14 Shots! Shots! Shots!...Everbody?

by Marc Anthony 15 A Mysterious Announcement...

by Our Staff

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

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

Vol. XXXIII, Issue XI

EDITORIAL Dear Readers,

From the Editor

F

ear keeps us focused on the past or worried about the future. If we can acknowledge our fear, we can realize that right now we are okay. Right now, today, we are still alive, and our bodies are working marvelously. Our eyes can still see the beautiful sky. Our ears can still hear the voices of our loved ones.

—Thich Nhat Hanh Welcome back, everyone, to the fifth issue of Binghamton Review. Amazing how the administration was able to schedule a “Rejuvenation Day” on 4/20—the jokes for that write themselves, especially since marijuana is now legalized. Funny jokes aside, was a Rejuvenation Day truly worth it? I’m not sure, to be honest, given that my day differed ever so slightly from staring at a bright screen all day worrying about my deadlines in class to me staring at a bright screen all day worrying about my deadlines outside of class.

Beyond thinking about Rejuvenation Day, Binghamton Review also had an encounter with an issue thief, which wasn’t fun. The assailant walked with a group and stole issues on the day of distribution just hours after we delivered issues to Appalachian Dining Hall. They would have gotten away with it, too, had someone not taken a picture of them walking out with the entire stack and sent it to us. Needless to say, we gave the evidence to the UPD, who found them the same day. Please consider what you are doing before you do something like this, especially since it’s against school policy.

Anyway, onto the line-up! Last issue, we had an article titled “Contemporary Arrogance”, which basically all of us on staff disagreed with. Madeline Perez disagreed with it so much she decided to respond to the article, proving that a free-speech platform is the best way to handle opinions you disagree with. In other news, you may not be aware but there has been conflict between Russia and Ukraine recently; Julius Apostata breaks this development down. An incoming freshman, Siddharth Gundapaneni, decided to provide his take on an effective replacement for the welfare state. Editor Emeritus Patrick McAuliffe goes over the impact that social media platforms have on society, and if they truly promote a “free market”. Marc Anthony goes over issues with vaccine rollouts. Joe Badalamenti investigates the scandal surrounding Representative Matt Gaetz and his opinions on the representative.

Dillon O’Toole returns after a hiatus, providing his picks for music that has come out since the pandemic. Lastly, Charles Forman goes over a recent incident that happened on campus, providing a balanced understanding of how to address the issue while maintaining free speech.

We also have a special announcement that we’d like to make, a...mysterious announcement. Perhaps you can find out more by turning to page 15, or...by visiting our YouTube channel, Binghamton Review…

Anyway, that’s all there is for now. Stay safe, stay healthy, and enjoy the final weeks of the semester!

Sincerely,

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

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

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

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

3

CPampus resswatch “Financial reparations are necessary to closing the racial wealth gap”

By Deana Ridenhour, Pipe Dream, 04/22/2021 “Had President Johnson not reversed Special Field Order No. 15, the current racial wealth disparity, as well as gaps in unemployment, education, income and health care would be much smaller — if they even existed.”

Realistically, you have no way of knowing what effect that would have on the present day. It could turn out as you predict it would have, or there could have been some sort of domino effect that resulted in things being the same, or even worse, than they are now. Unfortunately, we have no way of knowing, although it would be certainly nice to think this is the case.

“The promise of 40 acres and a mule should have been fulfilled 156 years ago, but since it wasn’t, it needs to be fulfilled now.”

156 years ago, 40 acres and a mule were promised as reparations for the fact that those people were enslaved.

There is no one currently alive who was a slave, nor anyone alive who was a slave owner, therefore there is no “40 acres and a mule” to take from the former slave owner to give to the former slave. How exactly could this be achieved?

“The needs of the African American community directly after slavery may be very different from the needs of the community today, but the basic premise of restitution for the original sin of slavery remains the same.”

Who should pay for this restitution?

You claim that descendants of former slaves deserve reparations, but there are no former slave owners to pay them. Should the descendents of the slave owners be forced to pay the reparations when they themselves never did anything wrong? How would that be different from a child serving their parents’ jail sentence, or paying their parents’ debts, if the parents were unable to do so? This lacks specifics.

4

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM

Written by our Staff

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

“In order for the United States to truly reckon with its racist history, a wide variety of systemic changes are needed, including police reform, criminal justice reform and access to affordable housing, but cash reparations are a necessary part of the path toward racial justice.”

Once again I ask, who is paying these “cash reparations”? Also, who is eligible to receive them? You seem to imply that every African American was a victim of racial inequality and therefore deserves money, but how much does each person get? There are currently about 44 million African American citizens; if you were to provide each one of them with $2,000, that would cost $88 billion dollars.

That alone is a huge amount of money that has to come from somewhere, but even if the money just magically appeared, is $2,000 really going to make that much of a difference in anyone’s life? The stimulus checks didn’t. What you are proposing is simply not feasible. The steps towards reform in criminal justice, however, are far more feasible, which most of us can agree on.

“Here in the United States, the equivalent of $1.6 billion was paid to around 80,000 Japanese Americans who survived American internment camps during WWII.” Two HUGE differences between that and what you are proposing. First, that money was going to 80,000 people, not 44 million. Second, that money was given to people who were very recently placed in internment camps,

not their descendents long after their death.

“A common concern of those opposed to reparations is that it is not fair to make people who never owned slaves pay money to people who never were slaves. The money for reparations would most likely not come directly from the descendants of slave owners — it would be paid for by the U.S. government, which would likely raise taxes on the rich, who are disproportionately white.”

The government would only raise taxes on the rich? Do you know the U.S. government? When have they ever raised taxes “only on the rich?” They would absolutely raise taxes for everyone, especially if they need to find upwards of $88 billion.

“Should well-off Black people be paid less than lower-income Black people?

Should people who pass as white be paid? How should the total payout be calculated? I don’t have the answers to any of these specific questions, but they can only begin to be answered after we agree that the United States is in debt to its Black population.”

We should at least consider these questions to find something feasible.

Vol. XXXIII, Issue XI

BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM

THE GREAT MUSIC RELEASED DURING A PANDEMIC

The Great Music Released During A Pandemic

By Dillon O’Toole

L

ooking back on my article from one year ago, 2020 Sucks (But at Least the Music Is Good), the title still holds up to this day. 2020 was a year to forget in most aspects, but throughout the year great new music was continually released. The trend of good music being released seems to have continued into 2021, as I have found several albums that I consider to be quite good already.

First, I would like to address the fact that a couple of the albums I mentioned in my previous article were delayed and still have yet to be released.

Those two albums are Surface Sounds

by KALEO and Van Weezer by Weezer.

If they don’t have any more delays, they are set to be released on April 23rd and May 7th, respectively. Before I move on from these two bands, I would like to mention the fact that Weezer actually released another album earlier this year called Ok Human. This quick 31 minute album incorporates a lot of string instruments to create a rather pleasant listening experience. If you are a fan of Weezer and have not listened to this album yet, I highly recommend sitting back and listening to the full album.

If you are a fan of LINKIN PARK and music within the same genre, the past year has seen several great releases for you. The first album I would recommend is Panic by From Ashes to New. From Ashes to New have captured that heavy sound of the early LINKIN PARK albums, but with a new fresh look at the genre. While I personally love the entire album, some highlights from it include the songs

editor@binghamtonreview.com

Blind, Panic, and Bulletproof. Another band that captures the early 2000s hard rock sound well is Fame on Fire, with their album Levels. Originally a band known for their covers of popular songs from other music genres (they have covered both Hello by Adele and XO TOUR LliF3 by Lil Uzi Vert), they show that they don’t need to rely on covers to make good music.

Their songs Not Dead Yet, Headspace, and Down highlight Levels. If new bands don’t remind you of the early 2000s rock scene enough, then Evanescence has you covered, as they just released a new album called The Bitter Truth. The band, which initially rose to prominence in 2003 with the song Bring Me To Life, returns with their first album of solely new material since 2011. Highlights include The Game Is Over, Yeah Right, and Wasted on You. As a final note, if you really want some LINKIN PARK music, they did release a 20th anniversary of their debut Hybrid Theory, and it includes plenty of b-sides from that period of time.

Evanescence wasn’t the only band that was prominent in the early 2000s to release new music over the last year. Both Seether and Chevelle have released new music, and both albums have been pretty great. Seether’s latest release is Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellem, which is Latin for “If you want peace, prepare for war”. In what was one of my favorite albums to be released in 2020, Seether steadily rocks through the 13 songs for just under an hour. This is yet another album where every song is great, but some of the standout tracks are Wasteland, Dangerous, and Buried In the Sand. Chevelle’s new album, NIRATIAS, adds another solid album to the band’s already great catalogue of music. They start off strong with the instrumental Verruckt, and continue to hit the mark with the song So Long, Mother Earth. Additional highlights include Self Destructor and Remember When. In my prior article I had a section dedicated to the 90s bands that were releasing music in 2020, and in

late 2020, another great 90s band released new music. That band would be Deftones, and that new music would be the album Ohms. Starting the album off strong with the song Genesis, the album maintains Deftones consistent quality with great songs like The Spell of Mathematics and the title track Ohms.

Not every album released over the last year was a callback to older genres and time periods of music.

Juice WRLD had his first posthumous album released, Legends Never Die, and it was quite enjoyable. My highlights include the songs Conversations, Wishing Well, and Stay High. The doom metal band Khemmis released a collection of b-sides and live songs called Doomed Heavy Metal that includes a cover of Dio’s Rainbow in the Dark and the song A Conversation with Death, which was featured in the game The Dark Pictures Anthology: Man of Medan. Fans of the progressive metal genre can listen to IMPERIAL by the swedish band Soen. Two favorites from this album are Monarch and Illusion. Finally, fans of the metalcore genre have two great albums from the bands ERRA and Architects released this year to listen to. ERRA released a self-titled album and some standout tracks from this album are Snowblood, Divisonary, and Vanish Canvas. Architects album, For Those That Wish to Exist, is an early pick for my favorite album of 2021, and three amazing songs featured on it are Dead Butterflies, Animals, and Meteor. Whether your musical tastes are similar to mine or not, I hope the music released over the last year has brought some joy to you over the objectively terrible previous year.

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

5

CONTEMPORARY STUPIDITY: A RESPONSE TO “CONTEMPORARY ARROGANCE”

BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM

Contemporary Stupidity: A Response to

By Madeline Perez “Contemporary Arrogance”

O

n April 14th, 2021, Binghamton Review published an article entitled “Contemporary Arrogance.”

Now, as Copy Desk Chief, I should have already been familiar with the article, but it’s not uncommon for another E-board member to put pieces through the editing process, so I never saw it. The publication of this article was, in my opinion, the worst oversight I have ever seen from the Review.

As someone who’s partially responsible, I regret not watching with a closer eye. The frustration I felt reading the article was surely unparalleled by mortal man. Honestly, part of me did feel grossed out being a representative of a publication that would publish something so uninformed and blatantly transphobic, and it’s because of this that I’m going to write my first ever rebuttal.

Now, for someone talking about arrogance, I find it really fucking ironic to write under the pseudonym “Johnathan Swift.” To implicitly tie your own illiterate ramblings to the likeliness of a famous author seems pretty arrogant, indeed. This hypocrisy seems to be a core theme of the article as he pretentiously describes the snobbery and perceived moral superiority of others without considering the fact he is actively trying to put himself above these people in terms of “intelligence” and “values.”

The blatant pseudo-intellectualism runs rampant through the piece as smart-sounding words are thrown in to distract from the fact that the sentences themselves make no fucking sense. Redundant words and phrases are used consistently throughout, as is the case with the way he talks about Bourgeois Values, the phrase “verbally insulted,” and many others like it. So much of this piece is effectively saying nothing, which I’m not particularly mad about considering the stupid claims made when he is saying something. Anyone who has ever passed a middle school English class would

6

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

have no trouble finding the blatant, grammatical errors that plague the article worse than 14th-century Europe.

The pathetic, reductionist attempt to use Freud and Nietzche to wrongly support his batshit claims makes it clear he was more interested in sounding smart than making a lick of sense.

Let’s begin looking at the actual content of this article, as much as it will inevitably pain me. He starts off by criticizing Binghamton’s rally against anti-Asian discrimination, implying its futility when considering that the spike of anti-Asian hate crime and discrimination are things outside of the university’s control. While he is correct in that the university cannot go back in time and prevent hate crimes, he purposefully refuses to consider any benefits rallies like these may serve to raise awareness of injustice and to help others feel like intense societal problems like those that bred the Atlanta Spa Shootings are not just being swept under the rug. Instead, he claims that activists should consider the true perpetrator of racism in this country: affirmative action.

Though the out-of-context average admission rate statistics he gives (with an “Asian students tend to score higher” (on what exactly??) thrown in for good measure) make it extremely hard to decipher what exactly he’s trying to prove, I am quite familiar with the conservative spiel on the evils of affirmative action. Many right-wing talking heads deliberately push the false narrative that affirmative action is an anti-white, anti-Asian phenomenon designed to favor underqualified marginalized groups. They also may peddle the idea that affirmative action is damaging to these groups because it both undermines the capabilities of women and minorities and sets them up for failure because of these aforementioned under-qualifications. Let’s break this down. Affirmative action as we know it does not lower the standards for minority groups but can in-

fluence their selection among equally qualified candidates, and the choosing of unqualified candidates over qualified ones is explicitly prohibited by federal regulations. It is also found that, in many cases, affirmative action may raise the self-esteem of women and minorities by offering them equal opportunities for employment, but let’s not fool ourselves that conservative figureheads actually care about this point.

The reason I’m focusing on the rebuttal of common conservative talk show points here is because it’s transparent that this article is heavily influenced and tries to regurgitate the same hateful, fear-mongering shit masquerading under concerns about the degradation of modern culture and “the children”. Our society saw this while fighting for the legalization of gay marriage and I continue to see the same blind hatred toward the transgender community and LGBT pride. “Johnathan Swift” states that the “LGBT movement” has become “an aggressive crusade against reasonable criticism.” Ignoring the fact that made no fucking sense, the underlying message of “gay people bad” was astonishingly clear. He then rages against the fact that “transgenderism is proudly displayed,” as they (transgendereds) denounce science and force children to have sex changes. Nice try, but as much as you suck up to him, Big Daddy Steven Crowder is not going to fuck you.

In reality, the argument for “scientific evidence” in order to validate the existence of trans people is a thin veil for transphobia. While it has been proven several times that the neural processes of trans people align more with the gender they identify as over the gender they were born as, this point is actually irrelevant other than it proves that he’s actually the one denouncing science. Trans people don’t need to prove that they’re trans just because you don’t like it in the same way

Vol. XXXIII, Issue XI

BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM that gay people don’t need to scientifically prove they experience same-sex attraction. It’s just who they are, and demanding they need a scientific reason to exist (a stance also known as trans-medicalism) is, frankly, stupid.

Does “Johnathan” have a scientific reason why he’s so bad at writing cohesive arguments?

“The children, won’t someone please think about the children!” “Mr. Swift” cries while clutching the metaphorical pearl necklace. Frankly, the idea that trans people are trying to force children to change their sex is so false it’s laughable. In reality, the phenomenon the right continues to so wildly mischaracterize as “forcing children to undergo sex change that they will most likely regret” is the prescription of puberty blockers to transgender youth. There are a lot of lies and misinformation around this topic so I’m going to talk about it a little.

Puberty blockers are prescribed, monitored, and administered by a pediatric endocrinologist, and are both safe and completely reversible. In order for this treatment to be considered, children must show long-lasting patterns of gender non-conformity and dysphoria that began or worsened at the start of puberty. If under the age of medical consent, parental consent must be given. The treatment aims to “pause” puberty so that it can be considered if a child’s gender identity is enduring and to give families time to consider medical, social, and legal struggles they may face. Overall, the treatment is successful in improving mental health, societal ostracization, and can possibly eliminate the need for future surgery.

No permanent surgeries or procedures

editor@binghamtonreview.com

CONTEMPORARY STUPIDITY: A RESPONSE TO “CONTEMPORARY ARROGANCE” are given to children and especially not without parental consent, as the article falsely states. This blatant misinformation has real-world ramifications as it continues to make life harder for transgender individuals.

“J. Swift’’ goes on to complain about how some people are proud of their sexuality and “wave it around like a badge of courage,” and how he’s annoyed about how a WHOLE MONTH has clearly been STOLEN by the gays.

To that, I say this: you gonna cry about it? Also, how, pray tell, do you wave something like a badge? Maybe if you were less homophobic, the gay people would teach you how to write proper similies.

He then goes on about how anti-maskers are oppressed by your “typical Binghamton student” who will VERBALLY INSULT you if you dare not follow campus policy on wearing a mask. He also states that masks have no purpose after vaccination, so students who continue to wear one are effectively just virtue signaling and pretending to be better than everyone else. Obviously, this is entirely false, as it is commonly known that no COVID vaccine is 100% effective and that you can still be infected and transmit the virus to others after vaccination. “Waa, people are pretentious for wanting to not get sick or risk getting other people sick.” That’s how you sound right now, Johnnie-boy. For someone who is criticizing these people for valuing “ideology over fact,” he sure seems to be objectively wrong a lot.

Next, in this never-ending illiterate dumpster fire of an article, “Johnathan” aims to blame students for being in college debt, claiming that many feel entitled to a college education and create their own problems by pursuing higher education. Good news! I totally almost agree with him. The national student debt is an issue, and not everyone should be pushed to go to college!

However, he’s completely talking out of his ass when he blames these problems on the decisions of students. The price of college is actually, and I’m not exaggerating here, way too high, and students are not asking for too much when they dream of a life where they can make a livable wage and not ac-

tively want to kill themselves. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, college tuition and fees have gone up 1,200% since 1980, yet a college degree is more important than ever to succeed. The high expense of college and the need for a college education to make good money is a huge factor that contributes to the low socioeconomic mobility in this country.

The financial issues of students reflect a larger problem of corporate greed, and it’s not the fault of their “arrogance” that teenagers are pushed by societal norms into the arms of colleges that are just looking to make another buck. To properly address these problems, colleges should be made cheaper and students should be able to make a good living without the need for a college degree.

Our esteemed author begins to end his piece with evidence that “rules no longer apply equally to citizens.” I use the term “evidence” here to mean made-up political grievances stolen from idiots on the far-right since nothing in this article is factually supported. In what world were BLM rioters met with “little resistance?” Was it the 104 instances of cars driving into protesters? Or was it the widespread use of tear-gas on peaceful protesters in more than 100 US cities? I could go on forever about the use of rubber bullets and instances of police violence during these protests but I feel like I’ve already illustrated how he’s full of shit. He’s also delusional if he thinks that illegal immigrants are permitted to cross the border when since October, arrests at the border have more than doubled that of the entire previous year.

In trying to prove the “arrogance” of anti-racist and LGBT communities, “Johnathan Swift” has adequately shown the boggling extent of his own arrogance. His unsupported criticisms of things beyond his ken were both annoying and yucky, and I hope I was able to shed some light on the truth of these matters. His ending claim that, unless something changes, society will degenerate into the “intellectually based caste system” mirrored in Brave New World was laugh-out-loud funny, and I hope he considers a career in comedy after this.

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

7

RACISM IN THE CLASSROOM

Racism In The Classroom

BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM

By Charles Forman

I

would like to begin by saying that racism has no place at Binghamton University and should be dealt with through the appropriate forums. This article will focus more on the issue of free speech and, rather than racism itself, what we should do when racism occurs on campus.

As students, we expect a certain standard when we walk into (or log onto) the classroom. We expect that we will be treated with respect and kept safe. However, the unfortunate truth is that, too often, this is not the case. Students across the country have to deal with bullying, offensive slurs, and other intolerable forms of racism. Schools such as the University of Southern California have recognized that racism is unacceptable in the classroom and have taken action to implement real-world consequences. In one instance where a member of faculty said a racial slur under the guise of teaching Mandarin, the university let him go due to the embarrassment he caused both himself, as well as the school. At Binghamton University, there has been a petition going around about a recent similar incident involving racism in the classroom.

“In early March of 2021 during a Zoom (virtual) class session a student was heard using racist epithets directed at the TA. These disgusting descriptions were heard by the TA and many students who were present that day, including many students of color.”

These actions are not acceptable anywhere, let alone at a place many of us consider our second home. Racism is commonly used as a tactic by bullies to torment their peers. It is cruel and should not be tolerated.

In the United States, we have struggled with systemic racism for hundreds of years. While our past would be wildly unacceptable by today’s standards, it took time and extensive learning to know the ongoing consequences of our history. In the last month, the fatal shootings of two minorities have sparked nationwide

8

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

protests protesting police brutality. It’s clear there is a problem, but what is the solution?

A group on campus called the Graduate Student Employee Union (GSEU) feels that there should be harsh punishment for the type of incident that occurred in March. Their petition stems from a comment made by the Assistant Vice President of Diversity, Dr. Nicole Sirju-Johnson, who said that “everyone has as much a right to be racist as they have a right to be culturally competent.” While this is blatantly not true, it does spark a conversation about freedom of speech on campus, and in the classroom. The

“I know I try to be respectful of all people no matter where they are from or what they look like, and I think respect is a universal concept that must always remain in place.”

GSEU is now calling for removal of Dr. Sirju-Johnson over these remarks.

While the GSEU is unhappy about Dr. Sirju-Johnson’s words, they have a larger focus on going after the bigger problem on campus: the fact that students can be openly racist in the classroom with little consequence.

While I do not advocate for the full expulsion or removal of students from our community when racism occurs, as the GSEU proposes, I agree that in some incidents, such as the one that occurred in March, further punishment may be necessary. I also believe that there is an educational opportunity that can arise from events such as these.

Sometimes, racism can come in the form of a micro-aggression and not mean any harm. While this is still unacceptable behavior, is removal from class warranted? There should

be some sort of repercussions to this, such as sensitivity training. I reached out to the GSEU to ask them about completing sensitivity training as an alternative to removal from class, and they gave the following statement: “I believe if an instructor feels unsafe with a certain student in their class, they should have the right to remove someone who is creating a hostile space. But I think mandatory training could be a worthwhile alternative as long as victims are still comfortable with an individual in their classroom.”

Of course, if an instructor feels unsafe with a student in the classroom, they should not have to teach a class to them. However, people don’t always know the extent of what they’re saying and it’s an unfortunate truth that many similar incidents have received no backlash in the past. As a society, we are striving to become more progressive, and I believe it’s important to educate people about the consequences of their actions. Of course, everything should be looked at on a case-by-case basis, and more severe actions require more severe punishment. I know I try to be respectful of all people no matter where they are from or what they look like, and I think respect is a universal concept that must always remain in place. When people use racist terms as a tool to disrespect others, it should not be tolerated in our community, but if we use our resources as a top-ranked university to educate them about their actions, we can come together as a diverse, thriving community.

Vol. XXXIII, Issue XI

BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM

Social Media At Large

SOCIAL MEDIA AT LARGE

By Patrick McAuliffe

D

oes anyone really read the Terms and Conditions that accompany setting up a new social media account?

For all anyone may know, Facebook or Twitter could ban one’s account for any reason, at any time. Many conservatives believe that their pages and accounts disproportionately suffer from bias on behalf of large social media companies, although proving this with empirical data on which accounts and pages are removed is difficult when a private company, eager to withhold this information, does not allow the collection of such data. Ironically, many on the political right traditionally believe that private businesses have the right to operate their businesses as they see fit, such as in the June 2018 Supreme Court case about the Christian baker nearly forced to bake a cake for a homosexual wedding. The removal of President Trump from nearly all mainstream social media platforms and online outlets following the events of January 6th’s Capitol riot triggered something in many people’s intuitions, mine included, about social media companies’ role in regulating public discourse.

Despite my reservations about Trump’s platform and rhetoric, it is undeniable that much of today’s media is stacked against him. His nationalistic speeches frightened many political pundits, and the comparisons to the rise of Nazi Germany knew no limit.

For all of the tough talk, his administration was a mixed bag of policy, from regulating bump stocks to lowering the price of insulin to continuing President Obama’s deportation and border detention policies, among many other policies that he enacted. In the eyes of this humble writer, both traditional and social media outlets were more frightened by what he said than by what he did.

However, what Trump said eventually did get him into trouble. After weeks of disputing the 2020 election results, Trump made a speech on the National Mall at a “Save America” rally

editor@binghamtonreview.com

that was followed by the march on the Capitol building. A BBC News analysis of key quotes from his speech, including “If you don’t fight like hell you’re not going to have a country anymore” and “Peacefully and patriotically make

“The Internet is the public bazaar of the world, and when a few large companies act as its gatekeepers, alarm bells should be sounding in the mind of anyone that values true freedom.” your voices heard” proved, in my mind, inconclusive in determining whether the President directly encouraged the directionless violence that followed his speech. His words led to the second impeachment of his tenure as President, which he was, again, acquitted of in the Senate. Regardless, the events of that day were cataclysmic for his influence in the public forum.

For various lengths of time, ranging from temporarily to the end of his presidential term to permanently, various social media sites removed all of Trump’s accounts on their platforms, including Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Snapchat, YouTube, Twitch, and Shopify, among others. They cited the events of January 6th and threats of future incitement of violence as their reasoning behind the bans. Based on what was actually said, however, it seems that the only thing Trump is guilty of in this entire situation is refusing to acknowledge the results of the election. His supporters took it upon themselves to choose a more violent route in expressing their anger.

Now that the dust is settled, the question becomes “Who’s next to receive the banhammer on all mainstream social media fronts?”

Once such a nearly monopolistic ban on a user has been put into

effect, with some people vehemently cheering it on, the precedent has now been set for these companies to do the same to others. It becomes difficult to argue that people removed from “mainstream” social media sites should merely relocate elsewhere, especially in the case of Apple, Google, and Android removing Parler, the lesser-known alternative to Twitter, from their app stores. When every large company seems to stack the deck against a person, group, or alternative platform, can the market of social media be truly free?

These platforms have become such an integral part of how humans communicate in modern times, and to see actors being actively shut out of them is akin to being ostracized from nearly all society. My answer to this problem is not to immediately jump to government action, but for people from all walks of life to seriously consider just how much power that large social media platforms have over the public discourse. Be wary of the stances that these companies take and the people that they discourage or outright ban from participating in them.

The Internet is the public bazaar of the world, and when a few large companies act as its gatekeepers, alarm bells should be sounding in the mind of anyone that values true freedom. Raise those alarm bells to anyone that will listen, even if it starts with something as simple as thoroughly reading a platform’s Terms and Conditions.

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

9

THE EFFECTIVE REPLACEMENT FOR THE WELFARE STATE

BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM

The Effective Replacement For The Welfare State

By Siddharth Gundapaneni Federal welfare programs were created in order to improve the well-being of the general public. These can range from providing healthcare, food stamps, housing subsidies, and more, for the general public. Unfortunately, as the renowned economist Thomas Sowell once stated, “Nothing is easier than to have good intentions but, without an understanding of how an economy works, good intentions can lead to disastrous consequences for a whole nation.” Leftists often concur that freedom from coercion is a beneficiary, but then advocate for government coercion to enforce equity, not seeing that this is a logical fallacy.

An example of this is the use of social programs, which have been largely ineffective at fighting racial inequity, and at handling most of society’s problems in general. Since the start of the 21st century, women’s participation in the labor force has only declined, and African-Americans are the only demographic whose real wages have decreased since then. Despite the creation of new government programs and the expansion of existing ones, society has not progressed as much as one would think.

What economists want often doesn’t become reality. There simply aren’t enough economists to bring about a substantial influence on politics — politicians find economists that will listen to them, seldom one who will tell them right from wrong. For example, most economists understand and denounce the use of price controls.

An example of this as government policy is rent control, which epitomizes a boondoggle by seeming to help poorer populations, when in reality they work to their detriment. Rent Control in New York City has notoriously deteriorated the quality of housing, as evidently shown in a study done by the National Multifamily Housing Council, depicting that landlords were significantly less likely to be up to date on maintaining and servicing apartments

10

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

with Rent Control in place. Rent controls have also led to the hoarding of property by the wealthy (such as Ed Koch keeping his $475 rent controlled apartment and Congressman Charles Rangel holding on to 4 apartments of his own), the widespread use of Black Markets in order to make a fair deal, worsening housing shortages, and more. However, these problematic policies still occur because politicians prioritize optics, rather than genuinely helping the people. Social programs are exactly that; a cheap gimmick designed to look good while not actually helping constituents, and I’d like to go into further detail on a few of them.

In 2019, 38 million individuals participated in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP/ food stamps). Food stamps help many Americans put food on the table for themselves and their families. Unfortunately, SNAP serves to be a liability more than a beneficiary. SNAP forces individuals to spend a specific amount of money on a certain amount of palpable items under said plan, forcing

people to be dependent, and become tethered by, government restrictions.

The government’s blanket plan often isn’t what’s best for each family, and because SNAP is carried out by each individual state, not everyone receives adequate benefits, depend-

“Ultimately, to allow all individuals an equal opportunity, we must provide the ability to make individual economic decisions without financial burden for all people alike.” ing on each state’s rules. The cost of food (and purchasing power parity) varies on a state-to-state basis, and each family (depending on age and nutrient requirements) needs different amounts and types of food. Each family deserves the right to make decisions for themselves, as they obviously understand their needs better than the government. The U.S. Department of Agriculture funds these food stamps across the country. 80% of their budget goes towards the Food and Nutrition service, which mainly comprises SNAP. In a time when our National Debt is an astronomical 27.4 trillion and growing, government spending must be rationed.

I would like to scrutinize something Milton Friedman championed: the Negative Income Tax (NIT). In simple terms, NIT gives tax credit to those below a certain income, in lieu of them paying taxes. Ideally, it would replace Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, SNAP, Supplemental Security Income, and the Housing Support Program. This would lead to a net positive revenue gain for the government due to the removal of hefty administrative costs. The tax credit received would be determined by two

Vol. XXXIII, Issue XI

BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM factors; the individuals income, and the income cutoff of the Negative Income Tax. The most commonly proposed Negative Income Tax structure would have a 50% phaseout rate, with a starting income cutoff of $30,000.

This would mean someone who makes $15,080 annually shall receive an extra $7,460 from the IRS. Negative Income Tax is a beautiful compromise of a structure that doesn’t leave the poor to dry, but still allows them freedom with their money.

Just 2 years ago, the government gave $22 billion in Agricultural subsidies. For a dying industry, this is unacceptable. Although the Trump administration’s protectionism worsened the situation for farmers, these subsidies have been given on a yearly basis. Considering a very large part of the subsidized agriculture is thrown out, we must stop bailing out these farmers. While it’s unfortunate that, without said subsidies, these farmers will go out of business, the government is not meant to coddle and give handouts to dying industries. The agricultural sector of individual farmers is no longer as in demand as it once was.

We are wasting the time of millions of farmers, and the money of all taxpayers, on bailing out these farmers whose crops are wasted anyways. Luckily, the other benefit of a Negative Income Tax is that it would allow farmers to move away from their inefficient farming ways and move into another sector of employment, or pursue higher education. The constant flow of cash can serve as a fund to keep basic necessities on the table, while allowing individuals to either go back to school or find work elsewhere. This allows peo-

editor@binghamtonreview.com

THE EFFECTIVE REPLACEMENT FOR THE WELFARE STATE ple to take more risks and pursue what they really want. The Negative Income Tax can be an effective replacement for most government expenditures, such as the aforementioned programs like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Agricultural Subsidies, and a myriad of other programs that make up almost $1.1 trillion dollars of our yearly federal budget. The fruitful Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) works in a very similar way to Negative Income Tax. EITC offers families with children tax credit, which is used to fund for childcare. The EITC’s most effective consequence is that it incentivizes people to join the workforce. For each additional dollar earned, a worker’s EITC is increased, hence motivating people to not only work, but strive for growth within their professions. Something similar can be used with Negative Income Taxes. Those in the workforce can be given a small bonus, and those who have seen job growth, through promotion and/or raises can be given another bonus in tax credit. Negative Income Tax also gives individuals the freedom of choice in many other regards. The Earned Income Tax Credit brought almost 6 million people out of poverty in just 2018, and there’s no reason Negative Income Tax cannot reap greater benefits due to its larger scale. The best way for families to maximize their standards of living, is by doing so themselves, with their own budget in mind.

When people have more money in their hands (due to NIT), they will spend more money. This directs traffic to local business and grocery

stores, which will lead to competition amongst themselves. Increased competition will lead companies to cater to their consumers in the best way possible, which only leads to an improvement of quality. For example, when businesses are competing with each other, one company will always try to undercut the others’ prices in hopes of making the profits back in increased customers. This then brings the general economics principle that the price which one producer is willing to assign to any good/service becomes the price that other producers are forced to assign for that same good/service. Competition between companies only benefits the people and is one of the many developments of the NIT. Furthermore, NIT would allow families to pay for higher education and necessary tutoring, which would significantly lessen the education divide between economic classes. One way families can use this is through using the funds to send their kids to private school. In fact, students of color have seen steep increases in graduation rates and test scores after joining private school. African-American students who transferred to a Private School scored 6.6% higher on reading and math tests in comparison to African-American students that stay in Public Schools.

This is also why in a poll done by the Federation for Children, 66% of African-American families now support School Choice.

Ultimately, to allow all individuals an equal opportunity, we must provide the ability to make individual economic decisions without financial burden for all people alike. Removing government programs such as TANF and SNAP should be the first order of business, followed by a viable replacement such as Milton Friedman’s Negative Income Tax. Ideally, Negative Income Tax will be strong enough that it can slowly bring individuals off government aid completely, even with programs such as Medicaid.

While momentous change seems insurmountable at times, by taking these steps in a pragmatic manner we can ensure an increase in the well-being of the general public whilst curbing government spending.

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

11

GAETZ-GATE

BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM

Gaetz-Gate

By Joe Badalamenti

I

t seems that there is yet another scandal in DC. Florida Representative Matt Gaetz has been accused of a flurry of crimes, from prostitution to outright sex trafficking. Allegations on this scale can be career-ending to a politician such as Gaetz, though Representative Gaetz has taken the path of outright denying these allegations, claiming it is the result of a smear campaign by the mainstream media.

Are the allegations all astroturf set up by the “fake news” legacy media, or is Matt Gaetz actually engaged in behavior that would make Jeffrey Epstein blush?

In early April, an investigation was launched into Congressman Matt Gaetz by the Justice Department.

The investigation concerns whether Representative Gaetz paid minors to travel in order to pursue sexual relations with them. Such actions would violate sex trafficking statutes. The investigation is connected to an older indictment in which Joel Greenberg, a former politician and acquaintance of Gaetz, was accused of similar charges.

Investigators have speculated that Greenberg may have introduced Gaetz to this illegal activity, which prompted the investigation. Investigators have also found receipts from online cash processors, such as Venmo, that were sent to various women, which may be related to these events. A week later, another investigation was launched against Gaetz, this time by the House Ethics Committee. The House investigation concerns a number of allegations including illicit drug use, the spread of inappropriate media on the House floor, and conversion of campaign funds for inappropriate use.

Matt Gaetz has denied all allegations on the basis that this is part of an extortion plot by political opponents. It’s also important to mention that Matt Gaetz has not been charged with any crimes as of now.

So, how screwed is Matt Gaetz?

Well, his public reputation has likely been tarnished by these events. These

12

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

allegations definitely sour Gaetz’s appeal on the left. Then again, Gaetz likely had very little standing with the left, due to his rhetoric, as well as his relationship with Trump. In terms of the MAGA-minded right, Gaetz’s reputation will likely stay intact, so long as the sex trafficking allegations are not confirmed by the investigations. As for the rest of the right and moderates, this is likely where Gaetz will lose the most ground. While the allegations may not be confirmed, this event has raised awareness of Gaetz’s character, or lack thereof. The information brought to public attention includes the participation of “Creepy Gaetz’’ in a game where constant sexual escapades can earn participants points. Gaetz’s voting record doesn’t make things look better for him, as he was the only vote in the house against a recent sex trafficking bill. If allegations of sex trafficking aren’t enough to discredit “Baby Gaetz”, then finding out that your politician has the sex life of a college frat boy likely will do so.

Then again, considering the speed of the modern-day news cycle, it’s likely that enough of the public will forget about the allegations for Gaetz to persevere in his reelection campaign, or presidential campaign if he so chooses, though the latter may not be likely.

This whole event seems to prompt a conversation about states-

manship in the modern-day. Statesmanship is the ability of one to govern efficiently and effectively. Like many skills, it is not one that a person has intrinsically; rather, it is one that develops over time. There are many traits that one must possess to be a good statesman. A statesman must not only develop a good character but also possess republican virtue and public-spiritedness. It is with these traits that one should choose statesmen or members of our government. However, sometimes politicians are able to get elected through other means. Without a résumé of accomplishments and clear demonstrations of good intentions, politicians will often resort to inflammatory and emotional rhetoric in order to motivate their base to vote for them. The problem is that once they take office, they have to govern for an entire term of 2-6 years. Now in office, this politician will continue spewing their rhetoric to maintain the illusion that they’re doing their job. So how is this relevant to Matt Gaetz? Well, not only does he fit this mold, but he even believes that what he does is an example of good governance. As he says in his book Firebrand, “It’s impossible to get canceled if you’re on every channel. Why raise money to advertise on the news channels when I can make the news? And if you aren’t making news, you aren’t governing.” While politicians like Gaetz may be unpopular to typical voters, they may still maintain their office so long as they can rally their base.

It’s clear that Matt Gaetz is not an ideal statesman. Regardless of the outcome of the investigations, Matt Gaetz will still be the same improper politician who would rather own the libs than write legislation. While this article may have emphasized Gaetz in particular, he is far from the only politician with these qualities. If we are going to move past the demagogues of the past, we must put our faith in politicians with the qualities of a true statesman.

Vol. XXXIII, Issue XI

BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM

RUSSIAN THROUGH SOME FOREIGN AGGRESSION

Russian Through Some Foreign Aggression

By Julius Apostata

П

ривет, товарищ! Greetings, comrade! Welcome to the most free and open country in the world…

RUSSIA! Here, we obey glorious Russian leader Vladimir Putin while aggressively—I mean righteously, of course!—reclaiming land that is owned by other countries. Да, maybe those from the West can claim that what we are doing is extremely aggressive foreign expansion, but trust us, this is legit! After all, that weakling—I mean, totally not a convenient target—Ukraine had it coming! That is why the glorious leader had decided to potentially escalate the current conflict in Eastern Ukraine by amassing troops near the border—I mean, running totally legit military exercises. What’s that, comrade? We aren’t in Mother Russia? Perfect, now I can drop this Russian accent! More importantly though, I can freely tell you about what is going on in Eastern Ukraine. According to both Russian Defense Minister, Sergei Shoigu, and intelligence reports from Ukraine, there has been a massive buildup of 80,000 personnel along both the Eastern Ukrainian border, as well as in the recently annexed Crimean territory. Additionally, according to Al Jazeera, Russia has also begun to restrict foreign vessels from navigating around parts of the Black Sea, in direct violation of typical maritime norms. So, what exactly is happening between Russia and Ukraine, and how will this impact relations between Russia and the west?

To get into the details of the cur-

editor@binghamtonreview.com

rent situation going on in Ukraine, it’s important to keep in mind the broader foreign policy to which Russia operates. Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, the newly created Russian Federation proved to be far weaker than when it had been under communism: few accesses to warm-water ports, the loss of much of its population in various breakaway states from the USSR (such as Ukraine and Georgia), and NATO on its doorstep. This, in conjunction with economic recession and conflicts in areas such as Chechnya, led to a highly destabilized Russia going into the 21st century. Much of the foreign policy adopted by Russia at this time was fairly cooperative towards the West, epitomized by the foreign policy of Andrei Kozyrev under President Boris Yeltsin.

Doing this was extremely unpopular with the nationalistic sentiments of many Russians, as this created an impression of weakness, and under President Vladimir Putin, these policies were reversed to reassert Russian dominance in the region over NATO and secure favorable geographic areas with large amounts of Russian people.

One of the first instances of this occurring was in 2008 when the neighboring state of Georgia petitioned to join NATO. Given this, and the fact that a sizable portion of Russian separatists were living in South Ossetia and Abkhazia (two territories controlled

by Georgia), Russia began to back the rebels, leading to the first conventional European war of the 21st century.

Needless to say, Georgia hasn’t sought re-admission into NATO since. A similar situation was later perpetrated in Ukraine; following the ousting of a pro-Moscow president, Viktor Yanukovych, Russian-backed separatists in Crimea, a key strategic landmass with port access to the Black Sea, began engaging Ukrainian troops in the region.

Ultimately, Russia would then annex the region in 2014, before asking the people living there if they approved of being annexed into the Russian feder-

ation...with Russian troops being there to watch the vote. Conveniently, they got a 96% turnout. A completely fair referendum that was absolutely not condemned by NGOs! Now it seems like a similar situation could play out in Ukraine once again, this time with the Ukrainian region of Donbass. Here, a surprising scenario has occurred: pro-Russian separatists seek to form their own states apart from Ukraine, being the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republic. Given the shocking history of Russia conveniently amassing troops at the slightest opportunity, having 10% of all of Russia’s forces practice “military drills” on the eastern Ukrainian border was a little hard to buy for the international community. Combining this with the hardball tactics by closing off access to the Black Sea for foreign vessels and initial denials to talk with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky led many to hold their breath, awaiting another Russian invasion.

Luckily, it seems that this was not to be; Russia has just ordered troops back home from the border, allowing us to breathe a sigh of relief.

During all of this, the United States has been waiting idly by, having not yet made a move at the time of writing this piece. While previous administrations of Obama and, to a lesser extent, Trump have placed some pressure and sanctions on Russia, there is still much left in the air for what a Biden administration means for the country. While Biden has made some moves against Russia, including the expelling of 10 Russian diplomats for their role in hacking US agencies, his track record against Russia is still unproven for his presidency. It could thus be speculated that perhaps these actions by Russia have likely been a test, to see what boundaries will be tolerated by the Biden administration.

However, it should not be forgotten that expansive aggression is simply another tool in Russia’s playbook. The question is: how will the US act?

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

13

SHOTS! SHOTS! SHOTS!...EVERYBODY?

BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM

Shots! Shots! Shots!...Everybody?

By Marc Anthony

F

or decades, schools have mandated vaccinations in the name of public health, claiming that vaccinating the nation’s youth is the quickest, most efficient, and least costly road to herd immunity. The government’s claim has proven true in many cases: Smallpox, Polio, and Measles have been entirely eradicated, and many other severe illnesses have had very few outbreaks thanks to childhood vaccination. In mass-vaccinating children, the government has saved millions of dollars in medical resources, which otherwise would have been severely depleted due to devastating outbreaks. Thanks to years of rigorous research, safe vaccines with rare side effects have prevented the country from being brought to its knees with draconian, war-time measures to stop the spread of deadly illnesses in the name of public health. It only holds true that this would also be the case for COVID-19, right? In this article, I’ll take you on a journey of a fast-tracked, highly politicized vaccine that quite literally doesn’t even stop the spread of a virus, yet is so widely publicized to the masses that people are bombarded left and right with advertisements to get their vaccine, chastised if they question it, and all but ostracized if they choose not to.

Schools are just one aspect of normal life that the government is trying to control under the umbrella of vaccination, and many schools, including universities, are making an effort to mandate this brand new vaccine under the threat of barring students from attending.

Truly, I’m not an anti-vaxxer, and I sincerely hope that my article doesn’t portray me as such. I am staunchly in favor of well-vetted vaccinations, and am up to date on all of mine, including Rabies. However, the majority of vaccines on the market have been vetted through years of research. According to the College of Physicians of Philadelphia, vaccines can take many years to develop, often ranging from 4 to 10 years, and must be licensed through the FDA. The main issue with the COVID vaccine, in many people’s minds, is that it hasn’t gone through the many years of research and trials that most other vaccines have, and has instead been fast-tracked for public use.

The vaccine has not been licensed yet and has simply received EUA (Emergency Use Authorization). An EUA is given out by the FDA during a public health emergency and allows the use of otherwise unauthorized medical products or unapproved usages of previously authorized medical products to treat and prevent serious illnesses.

For a more general analysis of the science behind the COVID vaccines and the issue with “vaccine passports”, I encourage a look at Patrick McAuliffe’s article, “Papers, Please!”.

My focus is specifically on the vaccination mandates that will inevitably be put on all students returning to in-person schooling and why that absolutely should not be a thing. According to the CDC, by the 1980-1981 school year every state, including the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, had vaccine mandates for students entering school for the first time. The vaccine requirements unilaterally included Polio, Smallpox, and Measles, three diseases that have been essentially eradicated in the

14

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

United States and are considered much more dangerous to children than COVID. Harvard Health has put out an info sheet about COVID that says that while children are still able to catch and transmit the virus, they are much less likely to suffer the severe symptoms that older people may face unless they have severe underlying conditions.

Basically, the whole purpose of the vaccines on the market right now is to lessen the symptoms of COVID, rather than prevent anyone from getting it. Under current measures, catching the virus in any way, shape, or form, will put a person out of school for at least ten days, the “quarantine” period-- the person will just feel better than they would if they hadn’t received the vaccine. This maintains the cycle of essentially stopping and starting society due to cases popping up, which is incredibly inconvenient and wholly unnecessary if COVID becomes endemic. Not to mention, exposing children to a vaccine that was rushed through testing that can potentially have more negative effects than positive is a bad idea as a whole, leaving us with a “benefits outweigh the risks” type of situation-- but do they? As I said earlier, many vaccines that are mandated have been tested heavily through years of trials and research and clearly do not pose a risk to children as they age. This poses the question: what is the point of even getting a vaccine that not only doesn’t stop the spread and transmission of a virus, but could also potentially harm someone, if they can’t go back to pre-COVID life anyway? Trials have not even started for children under 12, and while the vaccine has been tested and used in those that are older, there have certainly been negative side effects observed, albeit anecdotally, including death. At this point in time, it really doesn’t seem necessary to even consider mandating the vaccine for children; why risk the potential negative side effects?

If you’re not convinced yet, let me give you an example of something that wasn’t incredibly widely tested that caused severe issues for many children: the Lupron shot. The Lupron shot was first put on the market as a drug for prostate cancer, but it was approved for use in 1993 for precocious puberty after “minimal research.” Years after the shot was given to children, many of those who received it suffered very severe side effects including fibromyalgia, seizures, debilitating depression, and bone disorders. Regardless of this, the drug is still on the market and still being used on unsuspecting children who are likely not even made aware of the side effects. The FDA is aware of

Vol. XXXIII, Issue XI

BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM this; in a 1993 memo, Dr. Alexander Fleming, the former FDA medical officer, wrote that it was “regrettable” that this drug was approved with such minimal study. Who’s to say that this won’t happen with the COVID vaccine? This is purely speculation, but it seems that, since the vaccine was simply rushed through during a dire time, there’s not likely to be much more research done past the small amount of clinical trials for each age group, with potentially very little follow-up.

Speaking to the fact that the COVID vaccine does not entirely prevent COVID, it’s very interesting that this was approved after many years of attempts to unsuccessfully create a coronavirus vaccine. In the 1960’s, scientists attempted to create a vaccine for RSV and skipped animal trials, deeming them “unnecessary.” When the vaccine was tested out on young children, those who were vaccinated actually got sicker than those who were not, with 80% of those vaccinated ending up in hospitals. Fast-forward to the early 2000s when scientists took another crack at a coronavirus vaccine, this time testing on animals first: during the various different attempts ferrets developed hepatitis, mice and civets became sicker than those not given the vaccine, and mice developed lung disease. Each current coronavirus vaccine was tested alongside animals. While that’s definitely better than not being tested on animals at all, there is no data to show whether or not long-term side effects are possible since there simply has not been enough time that has passed yet.

Unless the child lives in a home with several older people or those with pre-existing conditions that make COVID

A MYSTERIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT... more deadly to them, there is no reason they should be forced to take an experimental vaccine in order for them to return to normal social life. The CDC even admits that the vaccine will not prevent transmitting COVID to the vaccinated person, and the clinical trials of the mRNA vaccine produced by Pfizer and Moderna did not include children in their results. The effects of the vaccine on children are still unknown, and if COVID will spread anyway, even with the vaccine, children should not be forced to take it without their parents or guardians knowing all of the possible risks and side effects. While college students are adults, it’s incredibly worrisome that many colleges are taking the route of mandating the COVID vaccine and it sets a dangerous precedent for mandating it in K-12 schools as well. Again, I’m wholeheartedly not anti-vax, I just think that more research needs to come out and time needs to pass before the vaccines for COVID become mandated. The idea behind the vaccines is great, and it’s important to make sure everyone is safe and the pandemic does end, but the quickness at which the vaccines came out is worrying and blindly mandating something like this is also worrying. People deserve the right to choose whether or not they get the vaccine. Vaccines for smallpox, polio, and measles make sense to mandate because of their proven efficacy in stopping their intended viral target; the COVID vaccines do not. Therefore, they should not be so quickly rushed for use by the public, and especially should not be so quickly mandated as a roadblock for our nation’s youth to return to normal life. Bottom line: vaccines good, mandating something without plenty of research bad.

A Mysterious Announcement...

By Our Staff

It was just your average Production Night...all of Binghamton Review were there typing away, working hard on their next issue...until a certain Editor Emeritus decided to come and bring a game of Monopoly. While the staff played, the clock kept ticking, until it struck 10pm...when the day ends and the nightmare begins. Now, Binghamton Review learns that there is someone killing them off, one by one, and all the doors in the building are locked. Will they discover who the killer is, before it is too late? Find out, by watching Production Nightmare on our YouTube channel, Binghamton Review...

editor@binghamtonreview.com

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

15