Cornell Review XXIX #4 by The Cornell Review

The Cornell Review

An independent Publication

The Conservative Voice on Campus

Vol. XXIX, No. IV

cornellreviewonline.com / cornellinsider.com

Pleading the 26

New adults cast their first votes; for some, a lack of motivation Alfonse Muglia Staff Writer

ith the arrival of one’s 18th birthday comes new privileges and responsibilities, notably the ability to buy a port-a-potty or work at Walmart. This week, freshly “legal” adults had the opportunity to express another newfound right – voting. By means of the 26th Amendment, suffrage was extended to 18 year olds

Review poll 80 Cornell freshmen were asked the question “Are you voting in this year's election?” 18 responded yes. 62 responded no. 23% ± 9% of Cornell freshmen are voting with 95% confidence. Not a scientific poll.

in 1971. The implications were soon felt. Passed primarily as a response to the criticisms of Vietnam protestors that a citizen could be drafted at

18 but wasn’t legally allowed to vote, the amendment was more momentous in another aspect; it brought the vote to college campuses, and, ever since, politicians have tried to rally the college vote to get into office. For example, John Kerry tried unsuccessfully in 2004, while President Obama effectively rallied students four years later. Cornell’s Class of 2014, with its host of newly-turned 18 year olds, had its first taste of the power of their vote this month. Many took full advantage. “It feels good to be able to say I played my part in getting my views heard,” commented freshman Frank Gonzalez from Louisiana. Like many students, Frank needed to put in a little extra effort to get his voice heard. Because of his distance from home, he voted by means of an absentee ballot. With an absentee ballot, citizens away from their permanent residences can still vote in their respective districts by requesting a ballot, receiving Please turn to page 4

“We

Do Not Apologize.” November 3rd, 2010

Let me declare: the Democrats will be in the

majority.

Nancy Pelosi at Cornell, May 2010 INSIDE:

Too Big To Fail Andrew Sorkin '99 and his big ideas

Everyone's Favorite Issue Youth and the future of the abortion debate

It's Not Easy Going Green Green transition will require interplay between government and the private sector Christopher Slijk Staff Writer

or decades, scientists have continually emphasized the importance of investing in green energy, citing climate change and energy security concerns as motivation to promote everything from personal recycling to electric cars to massive solar power construction projects. Yet, while advertisments have been paraded endlessly to convince ordinary people to reduce their driving or to switch to flourescent lightbulbs, many have also turned to government programs and legislation as

a way to steer society towards cleaner energy. Programs such as last year’s Cash for Clunkers, which among other things was designed to put more fuel-efficient cars on the road, have seen some success in subsidising consumer change towards more sustainable lifestyles. Other laws, such as state and federal taxes on gasoline consumption or the recent cap and trade bill, have attempted to incentivize private investment in alternate energy sources by forcing reductions and limitations on carbon dioxide emissions. Yet, by and large, Please turn to page 7

Europe’s Populist Radical Right Lucia Rafanelli Staff Writer

Hell yeah!

n October 21, Cornell professor Mabel Berezin hosted DePauw University’s Cas Mudde, who delivered a lecture on the populist radical right political parties of Europe. Mudde’s talk examined several different aspects of the populist radical right movement, including its core ideology, difficulties involved in identifying populist radical right groups, and possible reasons for and impacts of their political successes. Mudde defined the movement as a transnational group of political

No thanks.

Page 2

Page 3

Page 4

Animal House

Learning from Stewart and Colbert

NJ-style education reform

Cornell Repubs & Dems debate fiscal policy

The impending shakeup in our school system

Page 5

Ain't Gonna Do It Without the Fed NY Fed speaks on the recovery effort

Too smart to be serious? Page 11

Blog page Greg Stein on his transfiguration from Demoncat Democrat to Republican.

parties whose core ideology consists of a combination of nativism (which he described as a combination of nationalism and xenophobia), authoritarianism, and populism. This set of principles—particularly the final two—may appear self-contradictory, but it is worth noting that Mudde’s definition of populism is perhaps not the most intuitive or commonly used one. Rather than the primacy of the public masses and their right to power outside of government institutions and governmentally imposed constraints, Mudde uses the term “populism” to signify the idea that society consists of two “homogenous and antagonistic” groups: the “pure people”, who have common interests, and the “corrupt elite”. Thus, authoritarian and populist ideologies may not in fact be mutually exclusive. Mudde next outlined the difficulties associated with classifying parties as part of the populist radical right movement. These problems stem mainly from some parties’ reluctance to openly identify with the movement and the lack of easily accessible Please turn to page 2

Campus

November 3, 2010

Welcome to th Monkey House

outs over the next two decades, and therefore did not suggest that reform was urgent. The Republicans, citing Social Security’s deficit from this year, recommended reforming the

Continued from the front page

are therefore less likely to be alienated by controversial ideological claims. Mudde devoted the rest of the lecture to discussion of populist radical right successes and their causes and effects. A commonly employed political strategy among populist radical right parties, which are almost never large enough to constitute a parliamentary majority, is to agree to vote with the ruling party on major issues, in order to ensure that party’s continued power. By doing this, radical right groups gain an important platform in parliament. This move creates a dynamic in which ruling parties are at least partially dependent on the radical right for support, and in which the radical right can simultaneously claim credit for successful government programs and escape blame for any negative effects of public policy.

With regard to the source of the radical right’s political successes, Mudde entertained both macro-level theories, which focus on broad societal changes such as economic modernization and mass immigration as the origins of radical right trends; and micro-level theories, which focus more on individuals’ attitudes and choices. He also discussed what he called “political opportunity structures” conducive to radical right successes. Namely, he cited proportional electoral systems, the convergence of mainstream left and right parties, and the presence of a national subculture with potentially radical leanings. Mudde further discussed other factors such as the influence of the media, the presence or absence of charismatic party leaders, the quality of a party’s organization, and the effectiveness of

numbers that the same report said extending the Bush tax cuts would create. The Dems ultimately won the segment because they pulled a number out of thin air suggesting

programs immediately to bring down overall costs. Because of the general agreement between the two sides, the discussion quickly descended to pot shots. One Republican debater suggested that the Democrats don’t want to touch entitlements because that would mean losing their voter base. The Democrats quickly countered that the Republicans’ plan to bring down costs would only work with a significant reduction in benefits. On defense spending, the Republicans flew out citing the global benefits of American military hegemony, as well as how military research breakthroughs tend to spill over into the private sector. The Republicans kept articulating how America’s military dominance serves to protect trading partners and allies. The Democrats did not really have an argument besides lower overall defense spending. This argument was not buttressed by entirely cogent reasoning. Instead, they took the form of Glenn Beck, and mostly asked questions. Why do we need a military-industrial complex? Why should defense spending be so high post-Cold War? Why can’t research come from outside the military? Why are we the world police force? They said we could use funds currently put into the military and direct them toward domestic concerns. The judges awarded the defense segment to the Dems on a close 3-2 vote. They essentially said that the Republicans did not answer the Democrats’ questions sufficiently. Despite the last segment being the best for real debate, the judges probably did their poorest in evaluating it. The overarching Republican argument answered pretty much all of the Dems’ questions, perhaps with the exception of the one about why research can’t occur outside of the military. The GOP panel did a strong job of explaining how the US military not only protects America, but also how it serves the interests of our trading partners and allies. It was asserted that US dominance has made the world safer overall, leading to fewer total wars

Fiscal face-off between Cornell Republicans and Democrats turns By Peter Bouris

hursday, October 21 in Kaufmann Auditorium, in a circus of a debate that rivaled that of the New York gubernatorial race, the Cornell Democrats and Cornell Republicans squared off on the Bush tax cuts and the fiscal future of the country. The Forensics Society provided judges. The debate was broken into three segments: the Bush tax cuts, domestic spending, and defense spending. To recap, the Dems won tax cuts and defense, while the Republicans won domestic spending. Most of the tax cuts segment was basically a competition between supply-side and Keynesian economic theories. It did not help that the two sides were citing the same CBO report in their discussion. At one point, the panels squabbled over a table of numbers within the report. The Democrats cited the report saying that things which boost the income of individuals in lower tax brackets are the best stimulus measures. The Republicans cited the growth to GNP and job

sour

that extending the Bush tax cuts would add $700 billion to the deficit by 2020. This was done right at the end of the segment and did not give the Republicans a chance to respond. It turns out the $700 billion figure was nowhere to be found. After the debate, one of the Republican debaters pressed the Democrats to show from where the figure came. After 20 minutes of page flipping, it was clear that the number did not exist. The second segment on domestic spending was when the discussion quickly disintegrated into pettiness. The Democrats appeared to have expected the Republicans to quickly advocate the abolition of Social Security and Medicare. When the Republicans expressed a desire to reform the big entitlement programs to make them more sustainable, the Democrats did not appear prepared for such an argument. While the Republicans expressed reforms, the Democrats actually agreed. However, the difference was that the Democrats said both programs could maintain full pay-

The Democrats mostly lobbed up iconoclastic questions and never thoroughly explained the international consequences of their plan. They were somehow rewarded for this. But it was not so surprising, considering that the judge who ended up as the deciding vote was clapping in the front row whenever the Democrats said something.

information about party ideologies and platforms. Despite these roadblocks, though, Mudde concluded that the best sources of information to use to identify populist radical right groups as such are primary sources, published by the parties themselves. Particularly, he emphasized the importance of party literature that is produced specifically to be distributed only to members. This literature, he asserted, is often a more reliable source of information regarding a party’s ideology than publicly available literature or materials disseminated to the general voting public. According to Mudde, this is simply because “the voters have to be won over,” whereas existing party members already share the party’s ideology and

and casualties over time as it checks the aggression of other military juggernauts such as China. Again, the Democrats mostly lobbed up iconoclastic questions and never thoroughly explained the international consequences of their plan. They were somehow rewarded for this. The judges said that the Democrats used a brilliant debate maneuver known as “posing the question.” This was the official story of why they won defense. When the judges were announcing who won the segments, I was sure that the Republicans had the entire thing in the bag after it was stated that they won the domestic spending portion. I did not believe there was any conceivable way that the Democrats could have won defense since they lacked a clear argument. But it was not so surprising when considering that the judge who ended up as the deciding vote was clapping in the front row whenever the Democrats said something during the defense segment—really. To repeat, he was clapping during the debate while the Dems were speaking. Therefore, it is fair to conclude that the “posing the question” non-sense was merely a narrative to reward ideological allies. This is especially the case considering that the Dems were generally disoriented during the defense segment. “Posing the question” is a typical response when someone is on the defensive (no pun intended). Anyway, regardless of the ugly details, it is difficult to convey just how unruly the debate was at certain points. Many questions from the panels and the audience were interrupted. The two sides consistently tried to sneak final insults in the dying seconds of the segments. You really had to be there, but I can unequivocally say that it was the most entertaining and anti-intellectual debate between the two groups in recent memory. Peter Bouris is a junior in the School of Industrial and Labor Relations and the Chair of the College Republicans. He can be contacted at prb56@cornell. edu. its propaganda as contributors to the status of the radical right in the political sphere. Finally, he concluded that the radical right’s ability to gain entrance into the political fray by no means guarantees its ability to persist in positions of power; and that, even when radical right parties are successful, the direct impact of this success is limited. Moreover, although the indirect effects are likely more significant, they are still uncertain and certainly not substantial enough to justify the common– though misguided, according to Mudde– classification of Eastern Europe as a “hotbed” for radical right movements. Lucia Rafanelli is a sophomore in the College of Arts & Sciences. She may be reached at lmr93@cornell.edu.

Editorial

TheCornellReview Founded 1984 r Incorporated 1986 Ann Coulter Jim Keller Jerome D. Pinn Anthony Santelli, Jr. Founders

Dennis Shiraev Editor-in-Chief

Oliver Renick

Executive Editor

Raza Hoda President

Lucas Policastro Managing Editor

Joseph Bonica News Editor

Hannah MacLean

National News Editor

Brendan P. Devine

Campus News Editor

Anthony Longo

Treasurer, News Editor

Contributors

Michael Alan Sam Pell Peter Bouris Lucia Rafanelli John Farragut David Schatz Noah Kantro Chris Slijk Karim Lakhani Gregory Stein Tianye Liu Matthew Truesdail Colin Lounsberry William Wagner Kathleen McCaffrey Zachary Waller Alfonse Muglia

Board of Directors Christopher DeCenzo Joseph E. Gehring Jr. Ying Ma Anthony Santelli Jr. Faculty Advisor Michael E. Hint

meh26@cornell.edu The Cornell Review is an independent biweekly journal published by students of Cornell University for the benefit of students, faculty, administrators, and alumni of the Cornell community. The Cornell Review is a thoughtful review of campus and national politics from a broad conservative perspective. The Cornell Review, an independent student organization located at Cornell University, produced and is responsible for the content of this publication. This publication was not reviewed or approved by, nor does it necessarily express or reflect the policies or opinions of, Cornell University or its designated representatives. The Cornell Review is published by The Ithaca Review, Inc., a non-profit corporation. The opinions stated in The Cornell Review are those of the individual author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the editors or the staff of The Cornell Review. Editorial opinions are those of the responsible editor. The opinions herein are not necessarily those of the board of directors, officers, or staff of The Ithaca Review, Inc. The Cornell Review is distributed free, limited to one issue per person, on campus as well as to local businesses in Ithaca. Additional copies beyond the first free issue are available for $1.00 each. The Cornell Review is a member of the Collegiate Network.

The Cornell Review prides itself on letting its writers speak for themselves, and on open discourse. We do not all agree on every issue, and readers should be aware that pieces represent the views of their authors, and not necessarily those of the entire staff. If you have a well-reasoned conservative opinion piece, please send it to thecornell.review@ gmail.com for consideration. The Cornell Review meets regularly on Mondays at 5:00 pm in GS 160. E-mail messages should be sent to

thecornell.review@gmail.com

The Cornell Review P.O. Box 4654 Ithaca, NY 14850

November 3, 2010

Writing to Restore Clarity

n the day before midterm intentional or not. Jon Stewart rep- obscene descriptions of Republican elections, Cornell’s main resents a belief just as Glenn Beck candidates, the latest craze in libdrag was host to Democratic candi- represents a belief, and Beck draws a eral commentary this past year has dates taking the podium and Cor- particular voter, just as Stewart does. been to ‘lash out’ against Obama – While Stewart’s demonstration is co- just like everyone else, with an open nell leftists taking it to the streets. Cornell’s ‘Get out the Vote’ rally medic by nature, it unavoidably at- mind and change-oriented attitude! From New York Times’ Maureen on Monday was originally a byprod- tracts a specific audience. This fact was quickly demonstrated by the Dowd to Cornell Daily Stun’s Tony uct of Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert’s ‘Rally to Restore Sanity and/or rally’s attendants, ‘protest’ signs, and Manfred, liberal writers everywhere are patting themselves on the Fear’ – a satellite gathering deback for stepping out from their signed to encourage students comfort zone to take a feigned to seize their opportunity to jab at President Obama. Wheth‘restore sanity locally.’ As the er it’s grumbling about his slugevent began to take shape, howgish approach to gay rights or criever, it changed from a celebratiques of his speaking tone when tion of youth voting to a mechaddressing the Gulf oil spill, they anism for eliciting blue ballot never quite manage to file a legitpunches. imate complaint. Republican political figures Oliver Renick It’s Obama’s mantra, his perfrom the surrounding area were Executive Editor sonality, his moderate policies, not actively pursued, while and his promise-completion rate Democratic ones were chosen that deserve our outrage, not his to speak to the audience that conmemorabilia, most of which were overhaul of healthcare or financial vened on Ho Plaza. The Tompkins direct shots at the Tea Party and Reregulations. County Democrats are sponsoring publicans in general. One Getty ImYet for a group of people who the event, since the Cornell Dems were busy out of town at Colbert’s ages photo of a man giving the bird once painted the town with O-rainrally. Those attending include Con- to a Fox News truck captured the at- bows and Hope Portraits, they are most certainly opposed to any new gressman Maurice Hinchey, Assem- titude rather succinctly. The omniscient observers that change. For a group of students atblywoman Barbara Lifton, and canconvened for the satirist’s rally are an tending a ‘sanity rally’ sponsored by didate for NY Senate Pam Mackesey. abstraction of an emerging ideology the Tompkins County Democrats, Hinchey: Upstate NY’s leading that finds its roots in arrogance and there sure is a great void of objectivprogressive; Lifton: anti-hydrofrack disingenuousness. Its teachings are ity. Contrary to the claims of conqueen and illegal alien guru; Mackeembraced by people who buy into servatives being the outdated ideosey: Union veteran and Andrew the far left’s portrayal of conservalogues, the Left has shown that it Cuomo’s #1 fan. Dems all across the tives as archaic racists, xenophobes, can’t be budged from its ideological board. and war-mongers. When progres- stronghold. As Seinfeld might say, ‘not that sive, passionate Democrats are pitted For the omniscient observer, old there’s anything wrong with that!’ against hateful, imbecilic Republi- change was good and new change is People's personal rally preferences are nobody's business but their own. They say it’s Obama’s mantra, his personality, his moderate poliOur rally’s relevance lies not in its propagandist approach cies, and his promise-completion rate that deserve our outrage, but in its insight to a larger not his overhaul of healthcare or financial regulations. Yet for a issue. As is often the case, Cor- group of people who once painted the town with O-rainbows nell’s campus serves as a microand Hope Portraits, they are most certainly opposed to any new cosm of the greater country, an Upstate petri dish where one change. can study political movements without leaving the front cans, the voter needs only one asset bad. Yesterday, 96% of Black voters porch. to fall back on: ‘reason.’ supporting Obama was reasonable; For an event whose catchphrase Amazingly, many accept this fab- today, if 96% of Beck’s rally members was ‘excited for Jon Stewart's and ricated ballot sheet. They view themare White, it’s racist. Stephen Colbert's rallies in DC this selves as too philosophically sophisFortunately, the most vocal leftists weekend?,’ things sure got real parti- ticated and too politically prescient are proving to be unrepresentative of san, real fast. to be troubled by considering the the general populace. Tuesday’s elecThe political nature of Cornell’s mundane and pedantic criticisms of tion will be a gauge of how well the rally is not a departure from the sup- crazies that object to stagnant econ- Obama administration has listened posed neutrality of Comedy Cen- omies, Governmental social over- to the people, and that alone. The tral’s ‘Sanity Rally.’ It is in fact a reach, and deaf representatives. efforts by those who elevate themprima facie case of a predominately For the omniscient observer, san- selves above common Americans liberal movement whose key player ity is not reasonable thinking, it is and falsely appeal to a contrived rais the ‘omniscient observer:’ the dis- reasonable leftist thinking. A rally to tionality will be fruitless. If sanity enchanted youth, the educated ideal- restore sanity is a rally to restore lib- rallies and calls to reason can’t win ist, the political satirist. It is the 18-34 erality – it is the only viable option Democrats the vote, only one thing year olds who are just so inundated given such a narrow spectrum. will, and they’ve tried it before: with rationality that the only way to This too-smart-to-be-serious men- change. view the Tea Party is as a plaid-laden tality is a perfect complement to the Halloween costume. Oliver Renick is a junior in the Colsame group’s classic evasion techColbert and Stewart’s rally was nique of straw-men and misplaced lege of Engineering. He may be reached a political one indeed, whether criticisms. If it’s not drawing up at ojr5@cornell.edu.

The Review welcomes and encourages letters to the editor. Long, gaseous letters that seem to go on forever are best suited for publication in the Cornell Daily Sun. The Review requests that all letters to the editor be limited to 350 words. Please send all questions, comments, and concerns to thecornell.review@gmail.com.

Campus

November 3, 2010

This article is all about educations Shakeup in DC,“Superman” documentary, and, of course, Chris Christie — education is back in style

ow hard is it to fire a tenured public school teacher in New Jersey? Calling a student the n-word? Frowned upon, but not cause for dismissal thanks to tenure, which the union uses to keep school districts from firing bad apples and is given to teachers with only three years of experience. That’s not to mention how poorly the students have to be performing. In fact, it’s so hard to fire a teacher in New Jersey that, in a hidden camera investigation posted on conservative journalist Andrew Breitbart’s “Big Government” website from the last “Leadership Conference” hosted by the New Jersey Education Association, the statewide teachers’ union and affiliate of the National Education Association, one teacher and member of the NJEA’s “upper echelon of leadership” drew the line at hallway fornication. It didn’t take long for New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, who waged a very public war against the NJEA on issues such as pension reform and support for charter schools, to mention the videos in a townhall meeting, specifically noting the revelation that union leaders in the NJEA advocate kicking the Governor “in his toolbox.” Last month, Christie got a national venue to talk about education re-

It’s so hard to fire a teacher in New Jersey that, in a hidden camera investigation posted on conservative journalist Andrew Breitbart’s “Big Government” website, one teacher and member of the NJEA’s “upper echelon of leadership” drew the line at hallway fornication. form on “The Oprah Winfrey Show,” appearing with rising political star Mayor Cory Booker of Newark and Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg to discuss Zuckerberg’s $100 million donation to fix public education in Newark, Christie’s plan to put Booker in charge of overseeing the reform efforts in his city’s failing public schools, and the role charter schools and private school vouchers would play in fixing public education. Professor John Bishop, who has studied public education in the ILR School, said that, “Booker

high performing teachers making six figure salaries in exchange for the elimination of tenure and even included an option in which teachers who wanted to stay on tenure could simply take a more modest raise, something that would seem perfectly rational to a labor group committed to improving schools while still defending the interests of teachers, was vigorously fought by the union. It’s clear that Rhee’s tenure (no pun intended) at DCPS won’t be defined by the success she had in implement-

is charismatic and his heart is in the right place, but rich people throwing money at schools isn’t the solution” and that, “Newark should look to what’s worked with charter schools like KIPP, the New Roots School here in Ithaca, and the approach the Gates Foundation has taken.” The Knowledge is Power Program or “KIPP,” a national chain of ninety-nine charter schools operating in mostly poor, urban areas with underperforming or failing public education options, was prominently featured in the documentary Waiting for “Superman” and has been praised for its unique approach, which includes keeping schools open late and on the weekends along with a rigorous college preparatory curriculum for all students. Directed by Davis Guggenheim, who got the “NPR crowd” concerned about the idea of anthropogenic global warming with An Inconvenient Truth, the “Superman” A scene from the hidden camera investigation at the NJEA Leadership Conference showing union leaders bragging about spending public money on a lavish conference. documentary has the potential to cause a huge shakeup In her defense, Professor Baker notes ing reforms like a decentralization in education reform and get urban that Weingarten “worked closely of responsibilities to empower indiwhite liberals to consider the tradiwith [New York City Schools Chan- vidual schools, the eradication of the tionally conservative ideas of charcellor] Joel Kline” in closing down most ineffective administrators and ter schools, private school vouchers, large high schools with low gradua- teachers, and significant increases in and standing up to teachers’ unions tion rates and opening forty small- test scores and graduation rates, but that are too powerful and, as is said er high schools that the Gates Foun- rather by the reforms she couldn’t in the film, “have become a menace dation says have graduation rates implement due to the tension with and impediment to reform.” Despite twenty percent higher than those the teachers’ unions, like the aforea moment in the film when Newsof the schools they replaced. Baker mentioned merit pay system, lengthweek’s typically liberal columnist thought that the movie wasn’t fair to ening of the school day, toughening Jonathan Alter calls the Democratic the unions, saying that, “Rhee didn’t standards for evaluating teachers, Party “a wholly owned subsidiary of really collaborate with the union and changing tenure. the national teachers’ unions,” Presiwhen coming up with her plan.” dent Obama has embraced the film’s Rhee, however, noted in the docuMichael Alan is a freshman in message, which does mention ideas mentary that her plan to establish a the ILR school and can be reached at like the standardization of assessmerit pay system that could have had mja93@cornell.edu. ments and merit pay that Education Secretary Arne Duncan advocated Continued from the first page While Dennis intends to vote in elecin his “Race to the Top” reform plan, tions throughout his life, the experione in the mail, and returning it by much to the chagrin of the teachers’ ence can wait, reflecting the mindset unions. He even had the students mail before election day. of many otherwise politically mindOn campus, students found plen- ed students on campus. featured in the film, who are shown trying to win spots in charter schools ty of encouragement to put in this The problem is that many across such as the Harlem Success Acad- effort. From activists in front of Wil- the nation will never think that votemy and the SEED urban boarding lard Straight Hall encouraging pass- ing is worth the effort, even after they school in Washington, D.C. through ersby to vote, to New York state voter graduate and return home. The roots mandatory lotteries with acceptance registration forms greeting students for one’s sense of political self-efficacy rates that would make even Harvard in their mailboxes, the message was take hold in these early years of voter and Yale cringe, over at the White clear—Rock the Vote. eligibility. The absentee ballot process “Since I think I am voting for the appears to be doing little to encourHouse to meet him. With the College of Agriculture minority in my district, I thought it age the non-extremist to have his or and Life Sciences announcing ear- was important to get that voice out,” her voice heard. The system definitely isn’t helping lier this month that it was eliminat- added Frank. “It was worth the effort.” For many students, however, civil citizens like Devra Flatté, who ing the Education Department, it’s ironic to see two Cornellians, Ameri- the voting experience is not worth had her own problem with the votcan Federation of Teachers President this extra effort. Between course work ing process. “My ballot never came,” Randi Weingarten ’80 and former loads and other requirements, taking she remarked. That is one less voice Washington, D.C. Public Schools the time to apply for a ballot isn’t a that will be heard this November. Alfonse Muglia is a freshman in ILR Chancellor Michelle Rhee ’92, play- priority. ing such a big role in a documentary “It’s just too much of a hassle,” and can be reached at arm267@cornell. about education reform. While Rhee summed up freshman Dennis Dering. edu.

VERITAS VISUALS

Michael Alan Staff Writer

discusses her reform plan at DCPS and the obstacles she faced in both the system and the teachers’ union, Weingarten defends the unions against the film’s charge that they are the biggest obstacle to reform. Rhee resigned earlier this month after her biggest ally in city government, former Mayor Adrian Fenty, lost the Democratic primary to a candidate aided by a $1 million independent expenditure from Weingarten’s AFT, something unprecedented for a national union to do in a local election.

Campus

How Goes the Recovery? NY Fed President William Dudley reveals continued economic instability, inspires little confidence William Wagner Staff Writer

GETTY IMAGES

The few who managed to stay awake through the didactic patronizing, political doublespeak, and hollow self-congratulation that unfortunately characterized President of the NY Fed William Dudley’s talk on Monday were little shocked by revelations that the economy is growing slowly and the Fed will “stay the course,” with regards to the policy of quantitative easing. Dudley repeatedly avowed concern for the economic development of upstate New York, framing with skewed optimism the exodus of manufacturing jobs from the region as “restructuring” that would render

it less beholden to the vicissitudes of economic cycles. Future growth, he asserted, will be driven by what happens “in our noggins.” Analysis of this profundity comprised the extent of his concern; the balance of his prepared speech amounted to a remedial lesson in rudimentary macroeconomics. During the subsequent Q&A portion, Dudley took exquisite pains to avoid saying anything substantial. He spoke deliberately throughout the session, ever looking to his advisory team for approbatory nods of assurance that he was sticking to the script. When queried as to the potential future use of specific tools, namely catch-up inflation and negative interest on reserves, he resorted to quoting

William Dudley (right) testifies at a House Financial Services Committee hearing.

Shale Shock at Cornell Greg Stein Staff Writer

ecently, Cornell University featured a short lecture series called “Drilling 101”. Hosted by the Pa’Lante organization, these five classes aimed to present the “real” facts behind what it deems to be the exploitative drilling for natural gas in upstate New York. Created by an organization known as Shale Shock, which stands to oppose what is known as ‘hydraulic fracturing’, or, more commonly, ‘hydrofracking’, the Drilling 101 program has run multiple times in an effort to ensure that such practices are never used, either here in New York or in other places throughout the country. Speaking on behalf of Shale Shock were Ryan Clover and Maria Oldiges. Mr. Clover addressed the class with a “grassroots perspective”. He was born and raised in upstate New York, and he believes that the burden of proof should be with the corporations who want to drill, and supports

Shale Shock because he believes that the corporations have provided misinformation with regard to the actual safety of hydrofracking. Ms. Oldiges, unlike Mr. Clover, is a recent Cornell graduate, and became involved with Shale Shock after learning about the perils of hydrofracking and the increasing global drive for natural resources at supposedly any cost. According to these two speakers, Shale Shock is “more like a movement than an organization”. It is a collaboration between a number of regionally based organizations, all of which are outraged at what they believe to be unsafe extraction of natural gas by those who value profit over the lives of others. The organization is not a political one. Rather, its message is one that transcends politics and affects everyone.

himself from official statements rather than answering, lest he inadvertently illuminate the inscrutable institution’s plans. He did, however, alert the astute observer to some disconcerting tidbits. Most disturbing among these is the Fed’s ballooning balance sheet, which is swollen with upwards of $1 trillion in mortgage-backed securities (MBS) or, in economic parlance, “toxic debt” purchased in the throes of the financial crisis from ailing financial institutions. During the financial crisis, banks were facing massive write-offs and insolvency. MBS markets effectively shut down upon discovery that, despite investment-grade ratings, these securities were at massive risk of defaulting. Clever investment bankers had realized that in order to secure this coveted rating for their newly concocted security, they needed include but 25% good mortgages. The balance, they discovered, could comprise of “subprime” mortgages extended under the Community Reinvestment Act to poor people with neither assets nor income. The resultant securities were stamped with a rating avowing the near impossibility of their ever losing value, let alone defaulting The uproar surrounding hydrofracking stems from the methods by which some companies, notably Halliburton (which is well known for other reasons), are using to extract natural gas from the resource-rich Marcellus Shale. In the shale, which extends from upstate New York to most of West Virginia, there are tiny pockets of natural gas. Unlike crude oil, which can be extracted almost easily from large pockets or resource veins, the gas in the Marcellus Shale is trapped in such a way that getting it out is an intensive process. Hydraulic Fracturing involves blasting large amounts of water into deep underground wells, funneling chemicals into them, and collecting the natural gas that is blown out of the fissures created by the water. One significant argument against this hydrofracking is its overall environmental impact. Many people in this area believe that the introduction of chemicals into the wells, coupled with the destruction of previously stable subterranean rock formations, will contaminate the drinking water. While drilling companies

November 3, 2010

in such numbers as they began to in 2007. The Fed then proceeded to buy up all these MBS to spare companies still holding them from bankruptcy. Since markets for them had ceased operating, price determination was left to

Future growth, he asserted, will be driven by what happens “in our noggins.” Analysis of this profundity comprised the extent of his concern; the balance of his prepared speech amounted to a remedial lesson in rudimentary macroeconomics. the diligence and honesty of the institutions left holding these assets. The Fed purchased at face value $1.25 trillion of securities worth less than half that, assuming there does indeed exist a greater fool willing to buy them. When prodded on the subject, Dudley remarked tersely: “we can manage our balance sheet fine,” adding that they will get rid of the toxic debt “eventually” but equivocating as to the means. We can therefore rest relieved that the consequences of this particular bout of financial irresponsibility will not be visited upon us in any predictable timeframe. As for more present issues, he intimated that on November 1st the Federal Open Market Committee, of which he is Vice Chairman, will engage in long term quantitative easing by means of purchasing 7-year treasury bonds. In response to audience members’ concern over such an action weakening the dollar he Please turn to page 10 and the EPA hold the belief that there will be no such problems as a result of the drilling, many residents remain unconvinced. One of the attendees at the Drilling 101 lectures was a local Ithaca resident who provided an interesting perspective in opposition to the whole process. She moved to Ithaca a number of years ago and has since started an organic farm, which she plans to expand. Her outrage at hydrofracking stems from her worry that people won’t want to buy her products if they fear possible contamination. Another argument presented against drilling the wells dealt with the size and industrial appearance of the machinery involved. Residents in other areas who have allowed drilling on their property were appalled by its size and unsightliness. Overall, the Drilling 101 lectures provided an informative and intriguing, but by no means definitive, analysis of the nature of hydrofracking. Greg Stein is a sophomore in the College of Engineering and can be reached at gjs58@cornell.edu.

Campus

November 3, 2010

Pathos, Ethos, and Tasty Animals: A Debate in Three Courses

Noah Kantro Staff Writer

this practice on the poverty, hunting as a way to both control animal population and feed people, the practices of the animal farming industry, and even whether or not animal pain and human pain are equivalent. While

This is Mr. Brown—it will dismay you to know that he was eaten.

the two sides clashed heads on all of these issues, each approached the topic from a very different fundamental argument. In essence, Friedrich’s case revolved around his idea that “the only ethical diet is a vegetarian one,” while Blackman and Bores argued that Friedrich’s opinion and facts “did not adequately deal with why moderation [of meat consumption] is bad,” and that cruelty to animals in the meat industry points to a law-enforcement problem, not an argument to abandon the Thanksgiving turkey. Despite the seriousness and depth of the issues, the debaters managed to keep the event light-hearted. The Cornell team jumped on Friedrich’s use of philosopher Socrates’ famous

We are not nuggets!

PETA

line, “The unexamined life is not worth living,” by noting simply that, “Socrates ate meat—as did Jesus.” When asked, Cornell debater Bores attributed this tasty tidbit of cleverness – and their carefully planned de-

LUCAS POLICASTRO

hile our Cornell football team may not be off to a great start this season, one team that certainly has their routine down is the Cornell Forensics Society. After observing the Big Red debaters in action last Friday, it is clear that their offense is tight and coordinated and that their defense is well-prepared to meet any challenge. This week’s contest put the sharply-dressed Cornell team of Alex Bores and Danny Blackman on the side of tasty roast beef and turkey sandwiches in a debate over whether eating meat is ethical. Their opponent was PETA Vice-President Bruce Friedrich, a self-described religious Catholic who “adopted a vegan diet for environmental and global poverty reasons,” and now rejects the violence he supported in his younger days as a way to achieve the goals of the “animal rights” movement. He has appeared on television and at college campuses across the country in support of vegetarianism and against the practices of the meat industry. After trying to win over the Cornell audience with a Harvard joke, Mr. Friedrich presented the basis of his argument in his opening speech, displaying a large blue slide lambasting meat consumption as contributing to gluttony, global poverty, and cruelty to animals. From there he jumped straight into a variety of topics, discussing everything from meat’s nutritional shortcomings and the relative inefficiency of raising animals instead of crops, to the societal acceptability of eating some animals rather than others.

Ten minutes later, it was the Cornell debaters turn to take over on offense, and they too jumped straight into the ideas, responding to Friedrich’s call to vegetarianism. They countered the assertion that animal agriculture causes unnecessary environmental damage with the reality that many types of vegetables require much more energy to produce than it takes to raise animals. The debate soon evolved into a sparring match, with many issues being ricocheting between the two sides and carrying through the second and third rounds of the contest. One of these issues was the potential economic harm of shutting down the meat industry. While the Cornell carnivores noted that this would cause the loss of millions of jobs, PETA’s pacifist Friedrich claimed that if people were to gradually lessen the demand for meat, “The economy would adapt.” The debate also centered around a report on animal farming’s environmental impact published by the always-accurate and reliable United Nations. This report, titled Livestock’s Long Shadow, was refuted by the Cornellians but frequently cited by Friedrich, possibly prompting debate-viewer Alyssa Levental ’14 to comment that “PETA was throwing statistics at [Cornell].” She felt that “the Cornell side had a stronger debate.” According to Friedrich, however, PETA is “not trying to win popularity contests. We are trying to get people to think about difficult issues.” There was certainly no lack of these presented by both sides. Almost all relevant controversial topics were discussed. These included the economics of buying meat and the effect of

Please don’t eat us. Vegetarians save 95 lives a year. Go vegetarian—for yourself, for the planet, and for animals!

bate strategy – to watching videos of Friedrich’s debates at other schools. They were also able to poke fun at themselves and the criticisms against their position, mocking themselves as potential agents of meat processing corporations, and structuring their speech into three delicious sections - appetizer, entrée, and desert. Lady Gaga’s infamous meat bikini even made an appearance – as an image of carnivorous excess in comparison to the traditional Thanksgiving dinner. While this elicited huge laughs from the audience, the crowd in general seemed impressed with the depth of knowledge displayed by the debaters, and was eager to get involved in the controversies which were touched upon. Leah Salgado ’12, President of the Forensics Society, was, “Glad about the discourse on the consequences [of eating meat].” Rather than focusing on ethics alone, she felt, “It allowed more topics to actually be discussed.” At the end of the day though, is the debate over whether eating meat is ethical or not really about ethics? Amelia Kermis ‘11, Vice-President of the Forensics Society, thinks otherwise. After watching the debate, she said, “It’s not an ethical issue, it’s an issue of what is people’s grossout factor.” Perhaps this came as a response to Friedrich’s use of videos of animal abuse, including of sick and dying animals, as part of his argument. These videos were described by Soyung Kang ’11 as, “very shocking.” This is indeed a most emotional appeal. While the facts of this debate and their veracity are contestable, as the very necessity of a debate goes to show, the pathos-based portion of the argument is pervasive. No one wants to treat animals cruelly, but to Please turn to page 10

Campus

November 3, 2010

GEORGETOWN GLOBAL FORUM

n the chilly night of October 20, famed New York Times reporter and DealBook.com founder Andrew Ross Sorkin ’99 talked to a packed Call Auditorium about his recent New York Times bestseller, Too Big To Fail. The book is considered one of the foremost accounts of the events of the 2008 financial crisis, and is unique for focusing on the personalities involved in the crisis rather than the economics that drove it. Much in this same vein, Sorkin shaped the talk around his own experiences writing the book, and how he got to that point, as opposed to the details of the book itself. The crowd of people, many of whom stood in the entranceway and sat on the staircase because of the sheer volume of attendees, listened attentively as Sorkin, a communications major during his time at the

Andrew Sorkin

University, discussed first how he got to be where he is now at the top of the world of financial reporting. As a student at Scarsdale High School, he created a sports magazine which, in his words, “failed horribly”. As part of his endeavor, he would constantly ask companies to buy ads in the magazine, which met with very limited success. It is then he got the idea to contact the New York Times advertising department, and after many calls, finally landed a lunch with the editor. While there, Sorkin asked if a writing job of some kind was available at the Times; while they did not have a summer program, the editor responded, he would allow him to work as simply a “fax-and-staple guy”. While working in this manner, Sorkin was approached by a writer who mistook him for a permanent

member of the staff and asked him to write an article about an up-andcoming invention named the Internet. Ecstatic, Sorkin took the article without the knowledge of his boss and wrote a piece on it, and sent it in. Despite surprise by the editors and their initial hesitation to publish, Sorkin’s article made the issue of the Times and in fact was rated one of the best-written articles of the issue. It was then, right out of high school, Sorkin was offered a semipermanent position at the Times while in college. While at Cornell, Sorkin would continuously pitch article ideas to the editorial staff, most of which were rejected fairly quickly. Some, however, would make it and he would receive the credit. It is at this point in the talk that Sorkin stressed the importance of perseverance, saying if you are dedicated and ask enough times, in his words, “it is very difficult to say ‘no’”. Eventually, by a stroke of luck and as a result of his own perseverance, he got a job as a mergers and acquisitions reporter in London. Eventually, he received the job back in the United States, and that continues to be his job to this day. It is this experience and this position that enabled Sorkin to write Too Big to Fail, an idea he got literally 45 minutes after the collapse of Lehman Brothers. Rather than pen a dry account about the economics of the collapse, however, he sought to make the book more of a cinematic character drama, analyzing the actions and reactions of the biggest people in Wall Street and the government to the greatest financial upheaval since the 1930’s. In order to get this information, Sorkin interviewed over 500 different people, from major CEO’s like Dick Fuld of Lehman Brothers and Jaime Dimon of JP MorganChase, to simple aides and receptionists who happened to catch an earful of important conversations. While crafting the story based on the interviews, Sorkin said he wanted the book to be “like a Quentin Tarantino movie…at the end of the story, you may love a certain character that the guy next to you absolutely hates.” The act of making the book completely non-judgmental, said Sorkin, was the most difficult. Andrew Sorkin’s chronicling of his own life, and the time he spent writing his book, proved to be a very interesting and enlightening talk for college students of all pursuits. His Please turn to page 10

Solar and wind may eventually solve our renewable energy issues, but not without problems of their own: solar panels are still prohibitively expensive, while wind remains unreliable for consistent, high-volume power.

Continued from the front page these measures have failed to change the predominantly coal and oil based energy usage in America. It is clear that despite massive government undertakings to change consumer and business behavior, the market is not leaning towards energy efficiency as a profitable venture. According to John Dyson ‘65, Daniel Goldman ‘87, and Bernard Neeman ‘70, all entrepreneurs with both private and public sector experience, the problem lies not just with consumers or businesses but also with poorly implemented government policies and programs. Speaking on a panel entitled “Energy Security and a Sustainable Environment” at Cornell on October 1st, they commented on the difficulties in focusing and directing commercial efforts towards development and distribution of new energy efficient technologies, saying that many of the roadblocks to progress in this area are the result of inefficient government intervention in the market: With so many different energy policies at the state and federal level, some of which in fact contradict each other, it has become increasingly difficult for the private sector to deploy even existing tools profitably. One of the most telling examples of government disorganization is the Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) financing program. Originally a straightforward loan program, PACE bonds offered guaranteed loans to homeowners for the purchase and installation of solar panel roofing, to be repaid through incremental property tax increases which were offset by the homeowner’s energy savings. However, due to complications between local governments’ undertaking of the program and the federal government’s willingness to fund it, there has been next to no progress made in implementing residential solar power on a wide scale. The solution presented was one of cooperation between businesses and government: By utilizing private investment backed by government

logistical support, a financially viable method for commercial distribution is much more likely to come to fruition. Mr. Goldman mentioned some of his own experiences as the CFO of GreatPoint Energy, displaying how the private sector was capable of financing and investing in many different energy projects without government support. But with it, he believes, more companies would be willing to go green, knowing that the typically large upfront cost barriers would be substantially reduced. He pointed out that while the private sector has been slow to act in switching to more sustainable practices, the changing opinion of the public is having much more of an effect than some may realize, and that such efforts may yet prove to be feasible for profit-seeking enterprises. Finally, the panelists all stressed the importance of keeping all options for clean energy open to research. Mr. Dyson singled out nuclear power as a cornerstone in the transition to clean power, citing its practicality, efficiency, and safety, while lamenting the opposition towards the construction of new nuclear power plants by those who otherwise support green energy initiatives. There is no single solution to this energy problem, he says, and so all options must be considered and researched further, whether they be solar, hydroelectric, nuclear, or even refinement of current coal and gas technologies. Undoubtedly the road to green energy must be one which works in conjunction with the market, rather than the entanglement of regulation and legislation which currently plagues attempts to bring widespread research and distribution of green technology to the public. Perhaps with bettering cooperation between the private and public sectors and more streamlined, less intrusive government regulation, progress in clean energy circulation can finally begin to take hold in the US. Christopher Slijk is a junior in theSchool of Arts & Sciences He can bereached at cps95@cornell.edu.

Joseph Bonica News Editor

ML ENERGY SOLUTIONS

Andrew Sorkin ‘99 Discusses ‘Too Big to Fail’

Campus

November 3, 2010

What's Your Secret? PostSecret founder Frank Warren dredges the worst to reveal the best Hannah MacLean National News Editor

that he has received secrets on all sorts of surfaces, including shells, naked Polaroid pictures, sonograms, and one of his favorites—a one pound bag of coffee on which the secret was written, "Where I work they don't keep inventory so please enjoy our finest." He mentioned that there's one secret he carries around with him every time he travels; on one side there are six "RUSH" stickers from an airline, and its owner's secret reads: "You called me an idiot so I sent your bags to the wrong destination. Oops, I guess you were right." Aside from some of the humorous ones, he receives serious secrets as well. He says that he gets very, very few secrets about murders or other crimes, but he does receive significantly more postcards about loneliness, self-harm or eating disorders. The second most common secret he receives is variation about how the sender is trying to find a person with whom he or she can share his or her se- Left: Frank Warren speaks to the crowd. Right: Cornell students share secrets of their own. crets (and the 1st most common secret he receives is some varia- […] When we think we are keeping a live completely different lives. A sesecret, the secret is really keeping us.” tion of, "I pee in the shower."). cret can seem huge and scary when As Frank mentioned the secrets In Hebrew, he pointed out, the word it's in the dark, yet usually when it's loneliness, his informal lecture took for secret means “come closer”. He shared with others, we find that it on a more somber tone as he encour- proposed that we can become closer was just a little speck of dust floating aged all those in the audience to be to other people by sharing our secrets around. vigilant for themselves and for oth- instead of trying to keep them locked Hannah MacLean is a sophomore in ers, to talk about feelings of isolation up inside. the College of Arts and Sciences. She can be reached at hem47@cornell.edu. or depression before they get to you.

Growing Gay Rights Kathleen McCaffrey Staff Writer

s of late, it has been hard to read a newspaper without mention of the movement for “equality” in regards to the treatment of homosexuals. Many of my friends who identify as being gay or bisexual have been incredibly outspoken about how they feel like second-class citizens for not being able to join the military or marry someone they love. The recent gay teen suicides have only augmented this fervor and brought the conversation about the way they are treated to the national stage. While times may seem rough, the conversation about homosexuality has ultimately changed for the better in America - despite what the news media may suggest. A perfect example of this is the backlash incurred by Carl Paladino after his insensitive remarks towards homosexuals. Paladino said to Orthodox Jewish leaders that he doesn't want children to "be brainwashed into thinking

Following Frank's talk, he invited people to come up to the microphones and share a story or a secret, and surprisingly, they did come and share—a few shared some light-hearted secrets, while others shared secrets about their own feelings of desperation and low points of their lives. The crowd in Bailey showed their support in applause as each person finished. The PostSecret website, for anyone who is interested, is www.postsecret. com. If you get a chance, check out the Sunday secrets. You might be surprised at how many secrets you understand or even share with other people. In the end, many of us have had similar experiences, even if we

HANNAH MACLEAN

merica's most trusted stranger came to visit Cornell on October 19th. Sitting on a stool, he introduced himself: “Hi, my name's Frank and I collect secrets.” In fact, he has collected half a million secrets, which people all over the world have sent anonymously to his house. He receives about 200 secrets every day, which he then sorts through and from which he picks a handful (maybe 20, give or take a few) to scan and post every Sunday morning for the rest of the internet world to read. It began a few years ago when he started an experiment: he basically handed out blank postcards and asked people to write a secret—any secret—on the card and simply send it to his address, which was already on the postcard. It was a little slow at first, but then word spread and a community of people formed. Now hundreds of thousands of people visit Frank Warren's PostSecret website each week. He has also put out 5 books, the last of which was a New York Times bestseller. Mostly through these books but also through other people's donations gathered through PostSecret, Frank has helped raise hundreds of thousands of dollars for a crisis hotline (1-800-Suicide). For the most part, people send their secrets to Frank on postcards, on which many of the people create their own artwork, drawing their own pictures or using their own photographs. However, he mentioned

He also offered some hope, suggesting that the "children most broken by the world become the adults most likely to change it." He then segued into talking about his theories concerning why people send in their secrets: some people just want to get something off their chest, some perhaps are looking for grace, some are offering forgiveness, some are looking for closure, and some are just looking for the first step in the journey from where they are to where they want to be. Everyone has a "box" in which they keep their secrets, he said, and “every day we make a decision about what to do with our box.

that homosexuality is an equally valid or successful option." Though it is not just reassuring that Paladino was chastised. Rather, the interesting measure of progress lies in the parallel one can make to a similar incident in 1978 when his opponent, Andrew Cuomo, allegedly coined the phrase "vote for Cuomo, not the homo." The slogan, used during his father’s mayoral campaign against Ed Koch, grew to popularity in the outer-boroughs of New York City with no serious consequence. I asked Gregory Angelo, the Chairman of the Log Cabin Republicans of New York, to give his take on the Paladino reception and the conservative bend in 2010. In an email he explained: “What happened with Paladino is indicative of the fact that in this year's election there is a definite shift away from social issues within the Republican party. Emphasizing social issues is not a strategy that wins votes, and I think you saw Republicans around the state realizing that any discussion of gay marriage would cloud the

message that is resonating with voters around New York and the country right now -- lower taxes, less spending and taking in the reins of government. “There is, of course, a double standard at play. Andrew Cuomo was silent last year when he could have been making the calls to Democratic Senators that provided the political cover for Republicans to vote their conscience on the issue. Instead Cuomo started beating the drum for marriage equality only after he declared his candidacy for Governor -- and even that was mostly at the prompting of a New York Times article that questioned his commitment to gay issues. I guess Cuomo expects voters to take his word for it. At least with Paladino you know where the man stands. “We have Republican legislators in the State Assembly who have already gone on-record and voted for marriage equality multiple times. We have an Attorney General candidate, Dan Donovan, who Log Cabin Republicans endorsed, who has vowed to

defend marriage equality when it becomes law in this state. And we have a State Senate that approved anti-bullying legislation with overwhelming Republican support and co-sponsorship long before the recent, tragic suicides by gay teens in other states. New York Republicans didn't need a wake-up call. They did the right thing. We're moving in the right direction.” I do not mean to suggest that LGBT community should have no gripes about the way our legal system treats them. They are well-justified in arguing against legislation that taxes them equally, but constricts their liberties seemingly arbitrarily. However, I believe it reflects very strongly upon our society in 2010 that an anti-gay slur in a campaign is now considered politically toxic on both sides of the aisle. This is particularly significant when one considers that, thirty years ago, it could have been part of a catchphrase. Maybe this instance is indicative of a recalibration of values, one that I hope to see more of in the next three decades. Kathleen McCaffrey is a junior in the College of Arts and Sciences and can be reached at kam424@cornell.edu.

Campus

One Queer Blogosphere Karim Lakhani Staff Writer

Not using software to alter his IP addresses on his home computer, Lat’s identity began to become apparent and he eventually revealed himself. As a result, he met with Chris Christie—the current governor of New Jersey and the U.S. district attorney at the time. Lat thought that his job was over, but to his surprise, Christie simply asked him to stop blogging. After some time, Lat realized that he missed blogging and felt he couldn’t express himself without it. He launched “Above the Law” in August of 2006. In it, Lat gives a “behind-the-scenes look at the world of law.” His work has become very popular and influential in the law community. Lat also discussed LGBT issues in the blogosphere. The social media age, as Lat explains, has presented both positives and negatives for the LGBT community. It has allowed for an amazing exchange of information and opportunities for people to communicate like never before. It has also opened the doors to many talented LGBT writers to showcase their skills on a wide range of issues. On the other side, blogging and social media has also created a large amount of negative traffic, along with the growing problem of cyber-bullying. The Internet gives everyone a podium,

World Philosophy Day Gets... Philosophical

out that “[in] the last few years, at least a dozen scholars have been put on trial; many more have been detained without charges. Just last week the trailblazing Iranian blogger Hossein Derakhshan was sentenced to 19½ years in prison for “cooperation with hostile states” and “insulting sanctities,” among other charges.” In other words, for an event that allegedly looks to attain philosophical dialogue, Tehran could not be a poorer choice. Of course, that was not always the case. Persia was an apex of literature and the arts in the 7th and 8th centuries, while the West was subjected to a “Dark age” after the fall of the Roman Empire. Their location at the convergence of merchants, trade, and ideas in the Middle East was conducive to the discussion that carried their progress in the sciences and humanities for hundreds of years. (Sidenote: Without hesitation, I can say that Persian philosophy of this time is underrated in comparison to western medieval philosophy – Mazdak, Ibn Rushd, Ghazali, etc.) It is a tragedy that, amidst sanctions, a police state, and increasing economic instability, the Iranian people, whose ancestors contributed so much to the sciences, literature, and philosophy, live privy to the whim of a zealot. There is no room for discussion when the reasoning of one man is the only legitimized option. In Iran, inquiry is dissent, and, as such, philosophy is now a form of propaganda. There brings about an interesting array of answers to the idea of having a day devoted to presenting ideas in a

any law school students and one adventurous undergraduate student filled a lecture hall in Myron Taylor on October 21st to hear David Lat, a prominent gay blogger, speak. Part of gay history month, the GPSAFC, the LGBT Resource Center, and LAMBDA hosted Lat, founder and managing editor of “Above the Law” (www.abovethelaw.com).

David Lat

Kathleen McCaffrey Staff Writer This article first appeared in The Politicizer, a blog co-founded by Kathleen.

SUPERFOREST BLOG

urrently, I am studying philosophy and history here at Cornell. Though whenever I introduce myself to someone new who is familiar with my work at The Politi-

cizer, a website I began that amalgamates collegiate political opinion pieces, they almost always assume that I am a politics major. That is not the case, though it is a warranted assumption. Usually my clarification is followed by someone inquiring why I am a philosophy major, and I think the controversy over this years most

ABOVE THE LAW

Lat explained his dramatic transition from attorney to blogger, along with the impact that blogs and other forms of social media have had on gay rights and the LGBT community. Lat attended Harvard University for his undergraduate studies, and then attended Yale Law School. After law school, Lat worked as a federal prosecutor in Newark, a litigation associate at a private law firm, and as a law clerk to Judge O'Scannlain, the judge for the 9th district U.S. Court of Appeals. Spending all his time writing appellate briefs, Lat longed for less scholarly writing, and decided to start a blog: “Underneath their Robes.” Lat, acting as a woman called “Article III Groupie” to keep his identity a secret and protect his job, began blogging about his largest fascination: federal judges. He caught the attention of the law world and news networks with his decision to hold a Sexiest Federal Judge contest.

recent World Philosophy Day in Iran can help explain why: “World Philosophy Day is a United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) initiative that draws people around the world to engage in shared reflection on contemporary issues. Various events and activities include: Philosophical dialogues, debates, lectures, and meetings involving renowned philosophers. International conferences on philosophical topics such as the connection between philosophy, education and culture. Exhibitions and philosophy book fairs, philosophy cafes. Different organizations, community groups and government agencies in many countries, including (but not exclusive to) Chile, France, Morocco, the Philippines, and Turkey, have participated in actively promoting World Philosophy Day.” As you well know, Iran is a dictatorship ruled by the controversial president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. As in any strong-armed totalitarian regime, the people of Iran, especially many of the intellectuals, live in fear. A Wall Street Journal article pointed

November 3, 2010

including those who make horrible homophobic, ignorant, racist, and sexist slurs online. These positives and negatives, as Lat explains, are clear in the case of Rutgers student Tyler Clementi. Clementi entered a college environment,

full of the anxiety of not knowing anyone. Using social networking, he was able to meet many likeminded people. However, his roommate used social media against him, broadcasting an intimate encounter of Clementi and another man over the Internet. Clementi later committed suicide and his roommate was arrested for invasion of privacy. With the hope of showing their support to the LGBT community at large, Cornell’s Gay Straight Alliance recently uploaded a video on Youtube titled “It gets better.” This video explains that regardless of the struggle, lives for members of the LGBT community do get better. Karim Lakhani is a freshman in the School of Hotel Administration. He can be reached at kml248@cornell. edu. totalitarian state. As you may have inferred, I would never travel to Iran for a philosophy conference at the risk of the state media perverting the reason for my presence. (“Western Philosophers Gather in Iran to Inquire!” Thankfully, I will never have such a qualm.) I feel these things, though, because I believe I have reason to characterize the Iranian government as nefarious and immoral. Thus, any measure I take that can be construed as tolerating their regime is against my interest. Similarly, there is now a competing conference in opposition to the Iranian the location called Philosophy4Freedom. Other philosophers, like Eric Thomas Weber, a professor at the University of Mississippi, believe that “If you want to fight injustice, you have to speak truth to power. That is impossible if you refuse to speak to power.”… “Ignoring and disengaging injustice only strengthens its hold.” Depending on one’s view of the legitimacy of the Iranian government, it could be justified under certain facets of moral relativism that it’s fine to allow the Iranian people to act as they please as long as it is in accordance with their local moral code. Others, yet, might feel so strongly that they violently oppose the Iranian government on certain grounds. What I find compelling, though is that this dramatic array of reactions to the Iranian government illustrate exactly why I became a philosophy major. Frankly, ideas matter. Kathleen McCaffrey is a junior in the College of Arts and Sciences and can be reached at kam424@ cornell.edu.

National

November 3, 2010

“If you don't believe in Santa Claus anymore, you believe in abortion” S

hawn Carney calls abortion that “light topic you can bring up at any Christmas dinner.” When abortion is not the descant of discourse over prime rib and Deck the Halls, it is dividing families, friends, and schools of thought. In fact, “abortion” is the second most stigmatizing word in the United States next to a certain racial slur; it is also the most common medical surgery in the United States. Yet while the abortion debate inflames the passions at every Papal pronouncement or nomination of a Supreme Court justice, the great moral dilemma of our time remains untouched by the academies. This aspect of abortion, its neglect by institutions of learning, frustrates Carney, the founder of 40 Days for Life and a leading pro-life activist. As Carney puts it, if the prochoice crowd is right, “then we are obstructing access to a basic medical procedure… like pulling wisdom teeth out.” If the pro-life cadre holds the correct view, then the procedure amounts to nothing short of murder. Within the disparity between the two

“Like all great injustices, [abortion] dehumanizes an entire segment of our population.” positions rests basic questions: When does life begin? Whose authority is it to end life? Somehow college ethics classes circumnavigate these points of inquiry before even distributing the syllabi.

Economy Continued from page 5 repeated with religious conviction the mantra that had by then emerged as a catch-all for tough questions: “we have a very clear mandate,” full employment and price stability. Currency devaluation falls outside the scope of their consideration. He commented, with the shortsightedness endemic to macroeconomists, that this phenomenon would support economic activity by keeping jobs and spending at home. Curiously absent from his analysis is the possibility of reciprocal policies being adopted abroad, leading to a currency devaluation war as in the 1930s, during which international trade ground to a halt.

Carney’s first college philosophy professor pre-emptively announced that abortion would not be covered in a class on modern moral issues. However, the same professor had no reservations telling Carney, when the United States liberated Iraq, “If you want to see real terrorists, don’t look at al-Qaeda. Look at the people praying in front of Planned Parenthood.” “If we cannot talk about abortion in our universities,” asks Carney, “in what meaningful setting can we talk about it?” The dismissal of the abortion dilemma may be having the same effect as keeping the lid on a boiling pot for too long. Eventually, it will pop. The pressure in the academies has been building for several years while the professors continue to hold the lid on. One in four female college students will get an abortion one day. The Ithaca Planned Parenthood is so ready for business that it proudly accepts Visa and MasterCard. Across the street, the “real terrorists” from the Cornell Coalition for Life hold their signs and keep vigil until evening falls. There are 4,000 abortions a day in the Unites States, yet pro-life activists have been successful where they have visited. In Collegetown, Texas, the site of Carney’s first endeavor into pro-life activism, the number of abortions dropped a staggering 28%. One has to wonder if abortion is being dismissed as a topic of discourse in higher education, or if only the pro-life crowd is being shunned. A dedicated and brave vanguard of the pro-life cause can occasionally

bring abortion to the fore-front. Mother Teresa immortalized her commencement address to Harvard College when she told the young scholars “Abortion is the greatest destroyer of peace… It is a poverty that a child must die so you can live as you wish.” Her zeal contrasts greatly to the moral lethargy of Jocelyn Elders, famed drug-addict and surgeon

The talk ultimately did little to inspire confidence in the immediate future of upstate New York’s economy and still less to allay concerns of prolonged economic stagnation. We can only hope the Fed knows what it’s doing.

with emotion. Carter Lindberg ’11, who describes himself as someone with experience raising and farming animals, pointed out that, “A lot of points can be made by people who don’t necessarily have direct contact with the animals.” Upon taking this step back, the issue can be examined with a wider sense of perspective. At the end of the day, as long as there is a market for meat, farmers will produce it, hopefully with any suffering by the animals reasonably minimized. While the debate rages on, I will be here finishing my turkey sandwich.

Too Big to Fail

Noah Kantro is a freshman in the College of Engineering. He can be reached at nk366@cornell.edu.

Joseph Bonica is a junior in the College of Agriculture & Life Sciences and can be reached at jmb582@cornell.edu.

William Wagner is a sophomore in the College of Arts & Sciences. He may be reached at wpw27@cornell. edu.

Carnivorism Continued from page 6

give them as a positive right freedom from suffering, and to personify them to the point of calling livestock “someone” instead of “something” as Friedrich did is to overpower reason

convenience of it: “they think abortion will solve their problem.” Much like slavery, many oppose the injustice, but few of the dissidents are truly willing to confront it, instead choosing to hide behind their portcullis by characterizing the problem as a personal decision. And, most like slavery, Carney insists, no one wants to talk about it in public. Karl Rove, the architect of the Bush campaigns, has one absolute rule for election analysis: the first person to mention abortion loses. It turns people off. Bernard Nathanson, the founder of NARAL, and Norma McCorvey, the Jane Roe from “Roe v. Wade,” once stalwarts of the abortion crowd, now position themselves with Carney. As Carney puts it, academics have a dismissive attitude towards abortion: “If you won’t believe in Santa Claus anymore, you believe in abortion.” The Cornell Coalition for Life had advertised Carney’s lecture with signs outside of Kauffman auditorium, which would-be protestors or angry passers-by threw into the garbage. The pro-choicers, who once took pride in their activism, have now been reduced to hit-and-run activism. Soon, the lid will have to blow off the pot of boiling water. The situation is unavoidable as the old, established pro-choicers try to skirt any engagement with the empowered, young pro-lifers. NARAL president Nancy Keenan summarized the impending clash when she walked out of the subway station and into 400,000 protestors on the Washington Mall during the annual March for Life day: “There are so many of them, and they are so young.” BRENDAN DEVINE

Brendan Patrick Devine Campus News Editor

general to Bill Clinton, who brushed aside the issue when she said, “America needs to get over its love affair with the fetus.” Carney drew parallels between abortion and other moral catastrophes in American history, particularly slavery. “Like all great injustices,” posited Shawn Carney, “[abortion] dehumanizes an entire segment of our population.” Is the embryo life? “It’s a human embryo,” asserted Carney. “Not a zebra.” Many people turn to abortion, as they did slavery, for the

Brendan Patrick Devine is a junior in the College of Arts and Sciences.He can be contacted at bpd8@cornell.edu.

Continued from page 7 message of perseverance and aggressive pursuit of a passion left many students pleased, as much of the overheard discussions after the talk were of how interesting it was and how engaging Sorkin made even the most minute details of his existence. As a further indication of reception to his talk, many people, including this writer, went out to purchase a copy of Too Big to Fail at a small table set up in front of Call Auditorium, and was informed that sales of the book that night “were excellent.”

Blog

November 3, 2010

CORNELLINSIDER.com

a blog by the writers of the Cornell Review

Cornell Prof: Gay Suicide Rate 'Not Abnormal'

Posted by OLIVER RENICK

Last week I predicted that Cornell’s LGBT community wouldn’t miss the opportunity to get involved with a movement called ‘It Gets Better,’ an anti-gay-bullying video series and online support group. Sure enough, the lead story of today’s Daily Sun reported that a video by Cornellians will be posted shortly. Accompanied by an email this evening, Cornell’s LGBT groups are submitting the video and encouraging students to protest ‘gay bullying’ by wearing purple this Wednesday. Via an email: On October 20th, 2010, let’s wear purple in honor of the 14 young men and women who committed suicide in recent weeks and months due to bullying. Some of these young ones were of the LGBTQ community and some were bullied just for being different. The author of this email may be overstepping their deductive bounds a bit when they conclude the suicides were “due to bullying.” Regardless, Ritch Savin-Williams, professor of developmental psychology and director of Cornell University’s Sex and Gender Lab, recently said in a statement that labeling gay suicide rates as an epidemic is scientifically false. More importantly, it is a dangerous way of thinking that sends the wrong message. Savin-Williams said, “It is important to point out in these moments of grief that there is absolutely no scientific evidence of an ‘epidemic of gay youth suicide,’ or even that gay youth kill themselves more frequently than do straight youth. … “Thus, to assert that there is an epidemic of gay youth suicide is not only speculative but also irresponsible because of the message it delivers to gay youth: ‘be prepared to kill yourself.’ Indeed, most gay youth love their life and wouldn’t change their sexuality even if they had a magic pill to do so. Is this not the better message to deliver?” The type of misinformation Savin-Williams talks about is precisely what I mentioned in the last post. Anyone of sound mind will agree that bullying and prejudiced behavior against any group of people is terrible, but misrepresenting an issue can have greater, more longer-lasting consequences.

Proud to be a Republican

Posted by GREG STEIN

For the entirety of my life, I have considered myself a Democrat. Even after signing up to write for the Cornell Review, I never quite changed my party affiliation. So I hope it is with great weight that I say that I have never been so eager to call myself a Republican than when I read a recent Cornell Daily Sun article that criticizes the Tea Party. A collection of disorganized points and unsubstantiated insults, the article has little factual basis and relies on name-calling to drive the author’s angry and offensive ranting. On multiple occasions, these rants directly malign all those who associate with the Republican Party or the Tea Party Movement as idiots. Well apparently someone missed the memo: I am not an “idiot.” I’m neither a “crazy” nor am I a “racist” and I certainly don’t appreciate having my political views being called an “inherently classist and racist political philosophy.” Who’s the real bigot here?

There are crazies within every political movement, yet it is my goal to point out that the Tea Party and the Republican Party are not characterized by the opinions of the ones who get the most media attention. The negative stereotype presented in the article is far removed from reality. I am a Republican because of my intelligence, not in spite of it, and I have never been more proud to say so. Bold words for a Harvard man.

cornellinsider.com

As an editorial writer, you aren’t going to win anyone over by throwing around loaded terms and being blatantly intolerant of those who don’t agree with you. Winning over the minds of those who don’t share your political philosophy requires the same type of substantiated argumentation that my colleague presented to me. By the time I had really put my unsupported Democratic ideals to the test, I realized that I needed to reinvent my political philosophy. I write for The Review with the hope that I can make someone else really think about his or her political beliefs and reach conclusions similar to mine. I will never resort to bigotry, especially at the repugnant levels that are reached in The Sun article.

SOUTHALL PAKISTAN FLOODS APPEAL

This type of optimism isn’t that type of blissful ignorance traditionally associated with ‘blind optimism,’ but, rather, is a philosophy characterized by the belief that people don’t need to be mandated by the government to lend one another a helping hand and that they don’t need some self-entitled bureaucrat to force “the right thing to do” down their throats. It is an optimism which I only found because of a number of conversations with a colleague of mine, who, through reasoned and rational debate, opened my eyes to the mistakes of the Democratic Party: mistakes that have been made underneath the misguided heading “the sacrifices that you are making now are in your best interests.” Never once was a point made by referring to those in power as idiots. The points instead appealed to reason without the use of racist remarks, scripture or yelling.

REUTERS

Allow me to fill you in on what it really means to be a Republican or to support the Tea Party Movement. It doesn’t mean blindly following the most outspoken members of our parties that appear on Fox News. It means standing up against a majority that suppresses logic with mud slinging and passes legislation that opposes the will of the country, due in large part to a grandiose sense of superiority. The word that most accurately characterizes the ideals and moral foundation of the Republican Party…is ‘Optimism.’

November 3, 2010

Wisemen & Fools I would say the best moment of all was when I caught a 7.5 pound largemouth bass in my lake. George W. Bush on his best moment in office I want our young people to believe as we did that there is no goal too high to reach if they are willing to work. Jesse Helms Feminism was established to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream. Rush Limbaugh I will permit no man to narrow and degrade my soul by making me hate him. Booker T. Washington The reforms we seek

would bring greater competition, choice, savings, and inefficiencies to the health care system. Barack Obama I think it’s great that they think that, but we are acting on another possibility, and that’s that we will keep the House. Nancy Pelosi Hillary Clinton is as qualified or more qualified than I am to be vice president of the United States of America. Quite frankly, it might have been a better pick than me. Joe Biden

You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. If we fail, at least let our children and our children’s children say of us we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done. Ronald Wilson Reagan

of you familiar with the combination of Irish and Sicilian know that I grew up not unfamiliar with conflict. Chris Christie

The divide is this country is not between Republicans and Democrats, or men and women, but between talkers and doers. Thomas Sowell

Change change change change change change change change change change change change change change change change change change change change change

When I was growing up, I had an Irish father and a Sicilian mother. Now those

[The media in Alaska] are corrupt bastards, Chris. That’s what's wrong with the media today. Sarah Palin

Barack Obama

To read these articles online, visit The Review's website, cornellreviewonline.com.

Visit our blog for breaking news and exclusive analysis:

cornellinsider.com

Count on the Insider for swift coverage of significant campus events.

Join the Review. Send us an email at des255@cornell.edu or come to GS 160, Mondays at 5:00 pm.