Cornell Review XXVIII #5 by The Cornell Review

“We Do Not Apologize.”

Limited Government. Traditional Values. America First.

Volume XXVIII, Issue 5

www.thecornellreview.com / www.cornellinsider.com

An Independent Publication November 18, 2009

What goes on inside Akwe:kon?

AIP / Akwe:kon LISTSERV emails sent with essay, website sponsored by organization supporting convicted murderers OLIVER RENICK / managing editor

ctober twenty-first, in high school, was just another day off from school. Unfortunately in college, not many people enjoy that same freedom on the last week of the month. Regardless of what college students do on this day, or what their minds are focused on, most acknowledge the national holiday of Columbus Day. But certainly not everyone celebrates it. This past Columbus Day, residents of Cornell’s Indian American program house and members of Native American Students at Cornell (NASAC) spent that week planning, promoting, and hosting an event titled ‘Indigenous Day Rally: Rethinking Columbus.’ Despite a poster at the rally with the message ‘Hate, Lies, Torture, Slavery, and Oppression,’ the event

Outside the Color Freshman’s first impression MATTHEW TRUESDAIL / staff writer

iversity is, as Cornell stresses, virtually essential in higher education. However, behind all the protests, social activism, mission statements, program houses, tapestries of possibilities, and admission policies, the true value of diversity is often lost. Its promotion in higher education is mostly understood as a moral quest for equality and social

The North Campus American Indian program house, Akwe:kon

participants assert that the event was not an ‘anti-Columbus’ rally. The Review received a letter from one individual saying that “the actual purpose

of the rally was to challenge the sacred position that Columbus holds in American mythology.” However, the tone of the rally supporters was quite different

justice. The true importance of diversity is in fact the learning experience it can foster under the right conditions; these ideal conditions are often stifled here at Cornell. Take my two friends from Saudi Arabia as an example of my argument. There are many differences between us, ranging from political ideologies and religious beliefs, to daily activities and learning processes. When we talk, I learn of their strong cultural backgrounds, their traditions,

their language, and their life in a foreign land, and I, likewise to them. Growing up in a Protestant household in upstate New York, I know little about even the basic rudiments of fascinating religions such as Islam. When I leave Cornell, I will have benefitted from this diversity. To sum it up, Cornellians benefit from a marketplace of ideas, or mental diversity, not necessarily from differing ethnicities. What’s really in a skin color anyways? Put me

Inside This Issue . . .

Catch up on campus events you missed:

Page 4 Lecturer discusses the politics of religious freedom.

Page 4 How much are you really paying for your higher education?

Page 5 Professor from West Point discusses the Afghan War.

Page 9 Sudan: Obama is riding George W. Bush’s coattails.

Page Eight Guest lecturer Calderisi, economist, discusses the U.S. approach to foreign aid in Africa

than that expressed in the aforementioned letter. It has been learned that throughout that week, employees at Akwe:kon and members of NASAC sported offensive clothing and sent out mass email chains with messages that conveyed their dissatisfaction with the holiday. Those emails contained essays and website links to radical activist groups and organizations that openly support the release of imprisoned criminals and murderers, on the grounds that they are political prisoners and social activists. One anonymous person told Review reporters that, while inside Akwe:kon during the ...see AKWE:KON, page 6

Faces from an email listserv page 6-7 A perspective on program houses page 3 THOUGHTS ON KEN GLOVER page 8

...see COLOR, page 6

Rep. Barney Frank at Cornell LUCIA RAFANELLI / staff writer

n Sunday, November 8th, the Cornell Democrats hosted Congressional representative and chair of the House Financial Services Committee Barney Frank, along with New York’s 24th district representative Mike Arcuri, a surprise guest, in Goldwin Smith Hall’s Lewis Auditorium. Rep. Frank spoke on a variety of topics, ranging from the financial crisis to the nature of partisanship in contemporary American politics. His speech was followed by a short

question and answer session. Although Rep. Frank addressed a number of topics of interest, a few of his points are particularly deserving of criticism. Rep. Frank criticized the process of securitization, which occurs when one lends money, then sells the right to collect on his or her loans. Rep. Frank argued that the development of this system decreased the incentives for cautious lending practices. He asserted ...see BARNEY, page 2

Thought

November 18, 2009

Barney Frank speaks at Goldwin Smith ...continued from front page

that lenders could simply loan money to people who would be unlikely to repay their loans, then sell the rights to collect on those loans and walk away with a profit regardless of the financial state of the borrowers. This is a valid point, however, one must consider the role of personal accountability in this process. It is not the fault of “the system”, the government, or any outside agency that people take out loans they cannot afford to pay back, nor is it the responsibility of these entities that buyers of securities may not do the research necessary to determine if they are truly making sound investments. These judgments--or lack thereof-are the sole responsibility of the people who make them-or don’t bother to, incidentally. Indeed, Frank continued to downplay the role of individual personal responsibility, particularly his own, in the financial crisis. When asked during the question and answer session about his position on a 2003 Bush administration proposal to transfer oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to the Treasury Department, he gave an answer worthy of the party of John

Frank checking his cell phone during the talk – could it be Nancy?

Kerry: “I was originally opposed to what they were trying to do and later supported it.” The rest of Rep. Frank’s defense against the accusation that he was a hindrance to passing this proposal, which could have meant more timely regulation of Fannie and Freddie, consisted solely of a shirking of responsibility followed, of course, by blaming Republicans. In particular, he blamed Senate Republicans, whose objection to the bill, even according to Rep. Frank, was the fact that it did not go far enough

in restricting Fannie and Freddie, for the proposal’s failure, saying he was simply “not in charge.” In this way, Rep. Frank attempted to argue that his opposition to the proposal was irrelevant and should be of little concern to the public. This is a ridiculous assertion, considering that, even if he were unable to make a significant difference in a Republican-controlled Congress, his opposition to the bill says a lot about his political agenda and Lucia Rafanelli is a freshman in how he might vote in the future. the College of Arts and Sciences. Frank’s comment regarding She can be contacted at lmr93

Keep on smiling, Nancy

Artwork by Anthony Longo

ANTHONY LONGO STAFF WRITER

onservative voters, in a sweeping victory, stood up in numbers and declared their opposition to the liberal state and national government this past November 3rd. Two out of three hotly contested swing states’ races, New Jersey and Virginia gubernatorial elections were won by the Republicans, while New York District 23’s House of Representative seat was taken by the Democrats. Evident of the conservative victory, however, a broad-grinned Nancy “Stretch” Pelosi in a statement to the press expressed her happiness for the Democratic win in New York District 23. What the Czarina fails to mention are the two huge Republican wins and that the only reason a Democrat won in New York is that the weak Republican candidate was bought out by the Obama White House. Way to go, Stretch. Perhaps the New Jersey election is the most telling of all. In New Jersey, former US Attorney Chris Christie–I do admit it is not the most creative name–ousted Jon “Do Nothing, Raise Taxes” Corzine, former CEO of Goldman Sachs. Corzine’s successor, Mr.

Christie, is prolife, has promised to lower taxes, and has an undefeated record for prosecuting crime. While Corzine is a billionaire and an upperechelon financial wizard, he was completely out-of-touch with the people of New Jersey and accomplished literally nothing in his four years as governor. His one asset, impressive fiscal knowledge, could not even lower taxes in New Jersey, which are among the highest in the nation. Jokingly, even comedian Dennis Miller admitted that “the most memorable event during Corzine’s four years was a car accident,” in which Corzine did not buckle up. In this momentous election, New Jersey voters told Mr. Corzine, President Obama, and the nation that they are fed up with high taxes, Democratic failures, and overbearing health care plans. This election jars me, in particular, because I hail from the Garden State. I was one of Mr. Christie’s first supporters on the social networking sites, and I

military spending was also upsetting. He asserted that we “need an enemy” to justify military spending. This may be true, but it is also true that we have one--several, in fact. The many terrorists that wish to destroy our country, in the name of, for instance, radical Islam, should certainly be considered enemies. Further, any worldview or political stance that fails to take this into account is extremely inaccurate, in fact dangerously so. Imagine attempting to govern, to write governmental policy, without acknowledging that groups such as Al Qaeda are in fact enemies of our country. This notion is utterly absurd. In conclusion, Rep. Frank’s presentation was intriguing and he raised many interesting points about contemporary politics. Further, his analysis of the workings of government was informed and in some cases enlightening, but a few key points were quite frustrating to hear, especially coming from someone with as much influence over the running of our society as Barney Frank.

have been following this race for a very long time. Democrats will be quick to point out that Christie energized a populous of young and old voters who regularly do not vote, but they are equally quick to forget that Obama did the same thing in 2008, which raised no objections from the left. These mindless liberals will also cite that Christie mainly won votes out of dissatisfaction with the previous administration. So, it is perfectly acceptable when Obama uses these techniques to his advantage, but it is an egregious fault when a Republican does so. Too bad for Obama, Christie won, despite Mr. Obama’s five visits to the state. I did a little tally on big name visits: –President Obama: 5 speeches (Wow...) –Ex-President Bill Clinton: 2 speeches (one to my home town)

–Vice President Joe Biden: at least 2 speeches (Though I’m not sure if anyone attended.) For a White House seemingly “disinterested” in this race, these numbers are quite strange. In addition, Mr. Obama’s pledge for bipartisanship clearly does not apply to actual elections. In addition, he sent out his minion Joe Biden to stump for Corzine, though most would admit Biden probably had nothing better to do. What may be most interesting is that in most of Obama’s speeches he introduced Corzine as “my friend, our partner, a true champion of all our people” (NJ News). I wasn’t aware Obama knew Corzine before this election. However, Christie’s win by a five percent margin proves that Obama’s popularity carries little weight. Obama, clearly the ...see ELECTIONS, page 5

Editorial

November 18, 2009

TheCornellReview Founded 1984, Incorporated 1986 Volume XXVIII Number 5 Ann Coulter Jim Keller Jerome D. Pinn Anthony Santelli, Jr. Founders

William Lane Editor-in-Chief

Kent Haeger

Executive Editor

John Farragut President

Oliver Renick Managing Editor

Raza Hoda

Treasurer, News Editor

Joseph Bonica

National News Editor

Dennis Shiraev Campus Editor

Contributors

Joe Bonica, Anthony Longo, Lucia Rafanelli, Oliver Renick, William Lane, Kent Haeger, Raza Hoda, Dennis Shiraev, Evan Rich, Willam Wagner, John Farragut, Harry Beyel, Lucas Policastro Faculty Advisor Michael E. Hint meh26@cornell.edu Board of Directors

Christopher DeCenzo, Joseph E. Gehring Jr., Ying Ma, Anthony Santelli Jr. 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 cornellreview@ me.com for consideration.

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

Where we stand on Program Houses

e like the motivation behind program houses. We understand the importance of having a community of people like one’s self to reach out to and come to for support. Through our conversations with people from various program houses, we better understand how such residence halls might be one way to achieve this kind of supportive social network. We also see that the houses are an effort to better permeate minority cultures into the larger campus community. Yes, we do disagree with proponents of the current program house system on a number of issues. We disagree on both the specifics of how program houses should be managed, and more generally, about how to improve race relations on campus. We don’t think that program houses should be predominantly populated by the ethnic group around which the program house is focused. We feel that lowering the percentage of African Americans living in Ujamaa, for example, would increase the number of connections that non-black students have to Ujamaa while still allowing it to serve as a community and resource center for African American students living in different parts of North Campus. We don’t feel that program houses engage enough with the rest of the North Campus community. As freshmen, we participated in a number of North Campus community activities but never attended or heard about any program house outreach events. Through our interaction with our peers and current freshman, we know that this situation is certainly not unique to us. We also disagree that white students do not have to deal with the issue of diversity. As several speakers brought up at the Sun-sponsored program house panel, diversity is more than the color of a person’s skin. In line with this belief is

the fact that all white students, as well as minorities, come from a vast array of different cultural and socioeconomic backgrounds. We are not claiming that minorities may not have additional levels of stress in adjusting to Cornell, but the argument that white students do not have to adapt to a new social climate is false. Additionally, the idea that white students are the only ones who can benefit from exposure to different cultures—this was brought up by one speaker at the program house panel—is also false. But ultimately we think that these are small differences in light of a bigger picture. At the bottom of it, we know that we agree about a lot of things. We agree that diversity is not a statistic. We agree that the goal of the college experience is not only to achieve academic enrichment, but to improve one’s self through interaction with the multiplicity of individual diversities in our Cornell community. Finally, we agree that we can accomplish a lot more by working with each other than we ever could on our own. After all, that’s why we’re here. We think progress can be achieved by work on both sides: white students being more willing to participate in program house activities and program houses being more open to the rest of the Cornell community. But there are still obstacles, and if white students need to make more of an effort to engage with students of color, then non-white students need to reciprocate with similar efforts. A reasonable and unavoidable foundation for this progress is the abandonment of radical and close-minded beliefs on both sides. It must be acknowledged that from either perspective, there is a perpetuation of both antagonistic rhetoric and polarizing ideas. Last year, the Cornell Review received a lot of criticism for republishing an article that made hurtful comments about program houses and those people that live in them. As we

said to the audience during the question and answer session of the program house panel three weeks ago, the current staff members of the Cornell Review do not subscribe to the views presented in that article. This is an example of the polarizing rhetoric that needs to be abandoned — one that we are determined to abandon. At the same time, proponents of program houses need to move away from the divisive beliefs that inflict the same amount of hurt and elicit equivalent anger from other students. At the program house panel, one speaker mentioned something about the disproportionate benefits that white students have accrued from colonialism. Regardless of the extent to which one agrees with this idea, how can one expect white students to react with anything but anger and defensiveness to this statement? How does this progress campus dialogue? We will never reach a mutual acceptance and understanding when leaders of one side do something such as sending list-serve emails containing divisive essays and truculent opinions. Views such as those expressed in the Akwe:kon emails (see page 6,7) are beliefs held by people who do not want progress – they are people who have an agenda, who believe they have justification to go to intolerable lengths to promote extremism. Their opinions are founded upon anger and fanaticism, and subjecting students to such propaganda is nothing but regressive. Certainly there will always be disagreements, but on the whole, we want the same thing. This can be achieved through mutual efforts, and we are extending ours. Oliver Renick is a sophomore in the College of Engineering. He can be contacted at ojr5@cornell.edu Dennis Shiraev is a sophomore in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be contacted at des255@ cornell.edu.

Campus

November 18, 2009

The Politics of Religious Freedom PETER BOURIS STAFF WRITER

aba Mahmood is a professor of cultural anthropology at the University of California, Berkeley and is the author of the 2005 book Politics of Piety: The Islamic Revival and the Feminist Subject. She visited Cornell on Tuesday, November 3rd, to discuss the conflicts that have evolved in the European Islamic community, as many members increasingly find themselves trapped between the radical sect of the religion and the modern secular western world. The basis of Mahmood’s lecture was the 2005 incident in which a Dutch cartoon displayed the Muslim prophet Mohammed in full view, a gross offense in the Islamic faith. This produced a furor among the European Islamic community, especially in the radical sect, which has shown a consistent propensity for militant behavior. Mahmood, though intent on displaying her excessively complex vocabulary throughout the lecture, was eventually able to explain how the speech laws in Europe are not in line with civil libertarianism the way they are in the United

States. The European laws allow for the regulation of speech in cases of emergency or public health, giving the continental and national governments discretion over what is tolerated as free speech (Fairness Doctrine, anyone?). These laws have been previously used in Europe to condemn the desecration of Christian symbols. Therefore, the Islamic community believed those same laws would give it recourse regarding the cartoon. However, the European Court protected the action of the cartoon makers by stating that they were in fact legitimately exercising free speech. This apparent hypocrisy caused the Islamic community to begin leveling charges of racism and accusations of hate speech against the publishers and the Christian defenders of the cartoon. The immediate reaction by the European media and the Christian community was that Islamic extremists were using these charges to mask their radicalism and elevate Islamic culture in Europe. This apparent and real conflict between dearly held Islamic values and a secularized Christian Europe

caused Mahmood to delve into a topic about the way that the modern secular state has spurred religious change. She explained the history of how the secularization of governments in Europe caused Christian institutions to begin tolerating more liberal behaviors (liberal in the old, honorable sense), if only because government was no longer serving as an enforcement mechanism. Many Muslims in Europe are immigrants from theocratic Islamic states, which do serve as enforcement arms for Islam. Therefore, Muslims in Europe expect the governments there to enforce their religious values in the society the way their previous governments do. This obviously does not happen, and as a result creates a very large conflict. Ultimately, Mahmood elaborated how this involves a clash of radical Islam with the contemporary western world. She offered hope that secular European governments might change radical Islam to bring it in line with modern western society, similar to the way they have Christianity. But one only needs

McMaster University

to look at the grip Sharia Law has on parts of the Netherlands and France to understand how far this is from becoming reality. Peter Bouris is a sophomore in the School of Industrial & Labor Relations. He can be contacted at prb56@cornell.edu.

What is the true cost of higher education? ZACHARY WALLER STAFF WRITER

hould I pay $45,000 a year to go to Boulder, or should I go to UMass who gave me free tuition?” A question I heard way too many times in high school (only substitute any number of universities for Boulder and any school in the Massachusetts state university system with UMass), and I am sure I am most definitely not the only person who had friends in this position: having to decide between the school they really wanted to attend and the school that offered them the best financial aid package. It is such a difficult choice, deciding where to go to college. There are so many questions one needs to ask one’s self: “Do I want to go to a public or private school? What state? Do I even want to go to school in the United States?” And these are only the questions one must ask before applying. Come April 1 st, after countless numbers of high school seniors leave school and rush home to collect their acceptance or rejection letters, a whole new set of questions arise: “I got into school X, but they didn’t give me financial aid. School Y gave me more financial aid, but it’s nowhere near as prestigious

as school X. What should I do? Should I take prestige, money, social scene, location?” Some end up deciding that cost is most important, others prestige, and still others allow some different factor to make their final college choice. But why is it that cost has become such a major factor in deciding where to go to college? Obviously, it should be. Many private universities are now breaking the $50,000 per year mark, including such prestigious institutions a s G e o rg e t o w n , N Y U , a n d Washington University in St. Louis. Last Monday, I had the pleasure of attending the Conversation at Keeton with Keeton House Fellow and Professor in the School of Industrial and Labor R e l a t i o n s , R o n E h r e n b e rg . Professor Ehrenberg offered a vast insight into the business that is running a university, with a particular emphasis on how that business operates within Cornell. During the first minutes of the talk, it really struck me how a university is a business. It offers a product (education), and it charges for that product. With that being said, Professor Ehrenberg delved deeper into the subject of why it seems that universities may now

be out of control when deciding how much to charge for that product. Through most of the twentieth century, college costs rose at a rate slightly higher than the rate of inflation. That was not a problem as average income also tended to rise in the U.S. at the time. However, everything changed in the 1980s. When the 1980s rolled around there was “a stagnation in real income.” When this happened, according to Professor Ehrenberg, the “selective privates lost their discipline and blindly continued to raise tuition more than inflation.” This includes Cornell. In the 1970s, Cornell had a policy that they only raised tuition at the same rate median family income increased, meaning that through the 1970s Cornell’s cost of tuition was about 28% of median family income. This policy went out the window in the 1980s and Cornell continued to raise tuition without regard to inflation and median family income. As a result, Cornell’s tuition costs totaled 28% of median family income in 1980, 43% in 1990, 49% in 2000 and 57% in 2007. Yet how did tuition costs get this far out of hand? Quite simply, it was because higher education is a business offering a product and

people still continue to pay for that product, even though the cost has become so great. Professor Ehrenberg attributed people’s willingness to pay this type of money for private higher education to America’s “winner take all society,” a change in the quality of the product being offered and to university ranking systems that have led to an “arms race of spending” at American universities. Higher education has become a very expensive product and, although many institutions have frozen or reduced tuition rises this year, the cost of higher education appears to be nowhere near reaching any sort of plateau. With the appearance of systems such as the U.S. News and World Report’s “Best College Rankings,” colleges are now finding themselves spending more per student to help drive their rank higher up the list. Obviously, this drives up tuition costs. On another note, the rankings also allow colleges to charge more, as they create “prestige” for colleges who appear high up on the list, since people want to “buy the best” for their children and are willing to pay outlandish prices for them ...see COST, page 10

November 18, 2009

Campus

West Point prof. discusses war in Afghanistan JOSEPH BONICA NATIONAL NEWS EDITOR

he current military engagement in Afghanistan has proven to be at once a small thorn in the side of the Obama administration and an excellent piece of media bait, largely due to its immense complexity. To help explain what these complexities are, the Cornell University Peace Studies Program brought in Lt. Col. Isaiah Wilson, an active-duty colonel and member of the social sciences department at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. Early on in the talk, he stressed the importance of addressing the situation in Afghanistan because of its strategic placement in the region. Also, Lt. Col. Wilson stated that the war is not a “war of necessity” as described by President Obama, but simply an important theater in a broad war which the United States has failed to adequately define through two administrations. Before explaining exactly what this meant, Lt. Col. Wilson delved into the current situation on the ground in Afghanistan, beginning with the warning that this cannot be viewed merely as an insurgency. Rather, he said, it would be better to view Afghanistan as a “hybrid conflict,” affected by both a homegrown insurgency and trans-

regional movements. There are highly complex regional dynamics, present for thousands of years, that the United States must work around. However, the layers of complexity are not only ones that have existed since the dawn of civilization; rather, the United States’ presence has added layers that were not necessarily predicted early on. It is only by getting to the heart of both layers, said Lt. Col. Wilson, that the United States can win or at least gain some degree of control. To facilitate this, civilianmilitary partnerships similar to those that succeeded in Iraq are being formed to use some of those complexities to our advantage. It is the civilian-military strategy that President Obama stressed during what Lt. Col. Wilson calls his “27th of March remarks” calling for a change of strategy in Afghanistan. From a military perspective, President Obama seems most likely to send about 34,000 additional forces into the region, falling short of Gen. McChrystal’s original request of 40,000. Even this number, however, is on the low end of some requests; indeed, said Lt. Col. Wilson, some military leaders estimated they would require

110,000 additional troops to help stabilize the situation. Now of course a military leader is often going to ask for more than he needs, said he, but the size of that request should clue one in to the instability caused by the dynamics of the region. The reason Gen. McChrystal ultimately asked for far less is because he concluded the best approach would be a Petraeus- style counterinsurgency calling for the use of both combat troops and civilian forces. Most importantly though, said Lt. Col. Wilson, is that Gen. McChrystal’s plan states combat troops will not participate in a major operation like that taking place in the Helmund province until the army has gathered enough of a civilian resource to hold down whatever gains they made. To get this force on our side, social and cultural embedding of our soldiers into the Afghan population is very important. This is best done through a bottom-up approach, starting off with influencing the people directly and then using that strong base to stabilize the government. Regardless of how effective this plan is, however, Lt. Col. Wilson stressed the importance of defining the war properly. The United States is falling into the major trap of allowing one theater of the war define

the entire this. This, said he, would be equivalent to defining World War II as only the African or European campaign; it’s tempting to do, but can have disastrous consequences. The closest correct definition of the war came from the Bush Administration when troops were first deployed to the region. When this occurred, former President Bush defined the operation as a war against global terrorist organizations in other countries, which unfortunately for convenience was shortened to simply the “War on Terror.” Early on in his presidency, President Obama made a dangerous mistake in saying that the global war on terror is finished, and that the United States will prioritize Afghanistan as the true “war of necessity.” However, he did offer a strategic goal that if executed properly could lead to victory in Afghanistan. However, said Lt. Col. Wilson, this will not be easy. In fact, he said, to get close enough to the population to do something concrete against insurgency, it can realistically take as long as twenty years.

ELECTIONS ...continued from page 2

in the Senate, was given the right to radically transform America (Does this remind you of anyone? More specifically, any recent President?). His crucial vote sold out an American public that does not support this massive socialistic overhaul of the American economy. Unfortunately, the man only won because Obama and Friends (Nancy Pelosi) contacted the Republican candidate— Scozzafava—and forced her—in tears—to drop out of the election. So much for bipartisanship and fair elections, Mr. Obama. If the Democrats were so popular, why did you feel the need to intervene in this election? Do you, Mr. Obama, really understand New York politics enough to have a vested interest? And if you were so interested couldn’t you at least send Slick Willy Clinton to stump for your candidate like you have been doing? No. Instead you bought out the Republican candidate and left the fortified Democrat up against a relatively unknown Conservative Party Candidate. Despicable. Another seemingly unrelated political scandal was the 2009 Afghanistan Presidential Election, in which incumbent

Hamid Karzai “beat” his rival Dr. Abdullah Abdullah. Dr. Abdullah, the former Foreign Minister of Afghanistan, was a trained physician, pro-U.S., Englishspeaking, anti-Taliban candidate. Karzai, seen by the people of Afghanistan and by the US as weak on terrorism and extremely corrupt, clearly had a good chance of being ousted by his people. There was one problem with this, however. Karzai’s administration controlled the voting process. So he simply had to “throw out” a few hundred thousand votes to win. Dr. Abdullah was forced to drop out of the election to at least stop his supporters from being killed in the streets. However, don’t worry, President Karzai is a man who believes that “there were many wonderful people in the Taliban.” So, when Abdullah was forced to withdraw, Karzai literally won by default because there was no one left to run against him. None of his supporters, however, seemed to be willing to die for him. Without a doubt, the Messiah-inChief Barack Obama failed in any extent to condemn the elections in Afghanistan. Instead, he placed a congratulatory call to Hamid Karzai and washed his hands of

the ordeal. Once again, our weak, spineless leadership is evident. He might as well have apologized for America’s actions in that phone call (which he probably did anyway). Our weak Democratic leadership, distanced from the American public, will ensure a win in the upcoming midterm elections. Already, Congress’s Democrats are squirming in their seats and will soon have to answer to their constituents on why they voted for the massive socialized health care bill. In a country where 40% of people identify as conservatives and 40% identify as independents (Gallup), these are dangerous times for the Democrats. They may hold all the seats they want—for now. The wrath of the voter is clearly powerful in its implications. Pathetic Democratic governors, an incapable liberal majority, an out-of-touch Speaker of the House, and a pathetically predictable President have virtually ensured a Republican resurgence in the upcoming elections. So, yes, Mr. Obama, I finally have HOPE.

very poor sport that he is, simply cannot admit that he lost. But, alas, Christie won, and he did not run a single negative ad campaign. In Virginia, GOP voters also decided to take back their state. Their choice of Bob McDonnell represents Virginia voters’ desire to return to conservative, traditional, and small-government politics. Clearly Virginians, like New Jerseyans, are no longer content with Democrats in power. Obama may have had the luck to win Virginia during the Presidential Election, but clearly his failed policies did not go over well with those who actually gave him a chance. McDonnell, a down-to-earth candidate with extensive military experience, won with nearly 60% of the vote. Democrat Bill Owens, a wasted vote unfortunately, took the sought-after New York District 23 House of Representative Seat. Almost immediately after elected, he played right into Stretch Pelosi’s pocket and voted for a government takeover of health care (see my September 30 article). This man, having yet to accomplish anything

Joseph Bonica is a sophomore in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. He can be

Anthony Longo is a freshman in the College of Arts and Sciences. He may be contacted at ajl272.

Campus

November 18, 2009

Faces AKWE:KON ...continued from front page

week of Columbus Day, they saw one of the event coordinators, and NASAC administrator, wearing an explicit and offensive t-shirt. “I noticed, around the time of Columbus Day,” she recounted, “an Akwe:kon employee sporting a t-shirt that read, ‘F*** Columbus and the Ships that Brought Him Here.’ Even if what they say is correct concerning the myth of Columbus Day, isn’t it plausible that people could get the wrong

from

Website linked on Akwe:kon listserv email rallies support for the idea if people run around in t-shirts like that?” The person told Review reporters that they were personally offended by the message on the shirt. The actual t-shirt, which can be purchased online at bant-shirts. com, reads “F**** Columbus and the Ship He Came in On.’ (edited here for profanity). Also on the website are myriad t-shirts decrying the crimes of capitalism and the various evils of America: one shirt assesses

that the U.S. Army base at Fort Benning is in fact a terrorist camp. During this same week, Akwe:kon and NASAC employees utilized their respective email LIST SERVs to pass along messages which, apparently, they thought articulated their beliefs about and complaints with Columbus Day. An email sent on October 5 to members of the program house was intended to inform people of the Columbus Day protest. The tone of the email

does not seem to reflect that of one encouraging proactive discussion or debate. Some of the points listed in the email are that “Columbus is not a hero,” “[he] does not deserve a national holiday,” and that he “committed genocide,” and started what would “lead to the Trans-Atlantic slave trade.” Six days later, another email was sent by the same person to the Akwe:kon and American Indian Program list-serves, accompanied

Avelino Gonzalez-Claudio

MARIE MASON

famine in Europe but also taught them much about freedom and democracy, later adopted by the forefathers of Euro Americans.”

Robert Robideau

“The Europeans who came and settled invented and schooled the myth that they had created the New World by their imagined “discovery,” just as they had come to create the creation myth of its origins known as the “Bering Strait Theory.” Native Americans just had to have come from somewhere, but not the western hemisphere.”

Below are some excerpts from an essay he wrote which was included “What good does Columbus in an email from Akwe:kon and Day contribute by celebrating NASAC administrators. racist propaganda and myths that perpetuate “The myth that continues to be propagated is that genocide in institutions of Native Americans were education? Nazi Germany is perfect example of where savages and the civilization brought false, racist and by Europeans saved them. Reality is such opportunistic ideas lead. that the foods, medicines The most popularly believed and political structures myth of scholars is that of Native Nations in the Americans were Americas not only saved Native Jews.” Europeans from constant COLOR ...continued from front

and an African-American in a room together. If he or she was raised in a small town similar to mine, what would really be different about us? I would have a European heritage, and they, an African, and if they are as far removed from their heritage as I am from my Dutch forefathers, then it really makes no difference. A skin color is a skin color; it is meaningless without the history behind it, without the cultural

Go to the

background, without the unique experiences by which we learn new perspectives and becomes ultimately more intellectual. It is often presumed that programs that seek social justice promote the advancement of the well-being of an entire group of people. The ideology behind this thought process is fundamentally flawed. Groups are not homogenous conglomerates of congruent individuals. It is as Sergeant “Buster” Kilrain

Get to know your convict

hile the organization maintains that these people are all political prisoners suffering from false accusations, all the current prisoners supported on the website have, or are expected to, serve their full sentences. The organization demands the release of ‘political prisoner’ Abu-Jamal, who was sentenced

to death for gunning down a Philadelphia police officer. According to CNN, “he was convicted for the December 9, 1981, murder of Officer Daniel Faulkner, 25, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Faulkner had pulled over Abu-Jamal’s brother in a late-night traffic stop. Witnesses said Abu-Jamal, who was nearby, ran over and shot the

immortalized it in the epic film called Gettysburg, “The thing is, you cannot judge a race. Any man who judges by the group is a pea-wit. You take men one at a time… I don't think race or country matters a damn. What matters, Colonel...is justice, which is why I'm here. I'll be treated as I deserve, not as my father deserved.” Everyone is an individual, and inherently unique. Affirmative action and other similar policies judge by the

group. This is the most significant difference between liberals and conservatives, and the reason why I will ever remain as one of the latter. Liberal ideologies view everything through the glasses of society as a whole, and conservative ideologies, in contrast, are more individualistic. Regarding health care, the liberal will say “It is the responsibility of society to ensure the wellbeing of its members,” while the conservative argues: “I am

The Review’s website, http://cornellinsider.com/ for more news and a downloadable PDF of all the Issues!

Campus

November 18, 2009

mass email list release of imprisoned eco-terrorists, Black Panthers, and cop killers by an essay denouncing European exploration into the Western Hemisphere (see excerpts below). This essay, intended to “keep the discussion going” is an older piece written by a man named Robert Robideau. Robideau, now deceased, was an American Indian activist who was suspected of killing two FBI agents in a shootout on an Indian Reservation. After fleeing the scene, he was later brought into custody after an

ammunition explosion wrecked the car he and others were driving. The explosion was so serious that it embedded shrapnel in Robideau’s head, eventually causing his death. After the explosion, he was later acquitted of the murder charges on the grounds of self-defense. His cousin, long time friend, fellow advocate, and selfproclaimed ‘brother ’ Leonard Peltier, was subsequently tried in the incident and convicted of

murder; the conviction has survived every possible court appeal, and Peltier is currently serving two consecutive life sentences. Below the essay in the mass email is a link to a website called jerichony.org, a page dedicated to soliciting support for convicted criminals, ranging from ecoterrorist Marie Mason to former Black Panther Mumia AbuJamal. Peltier also joins the list of convicted murderers that the Jericho Movement sympathizes

with. While the organization maintains that these people are all political prisoners suffering from false accusations, all the current prisoners supported on the website have, or are expected to, serve their full sentences. At this time, it is unknown whether or not those responsible for sending the emails were aware at the time of the origins of the essay or the website link on the email, but each email encouraged readers to pass along the messages.

jalil muntaqim

MUMIA ABU JAMAL

MUTULU SHAKUR

zolo azonia

policeman in the back and in the head.” Those officials familiar with the case have labeled AbuJamal “nothing more than an assassin.” Another is Zolo Azania, who spent 27 years on death row for the murder of a police officer during an Illinois bank robbery. Although he now is off death row, he continues to serve a sentence for the crime, and is expected to serve at least seven more years. Marie Mason, a selfconfessed arsonist, is currently

serving a 22-year sentence for setting flame to a Michigan State University genetics building, causing millions of dollars of damage and endangering lives of workers. Next on the support list is Avelino Gonzalez-Claudio, a convicted Puerto Rican terrorist and bank robber. Wanted for a $7 million armored car robbery in Connecticut over 20 years ago, Gonzalez-Claudio was arrested by the FBI in 2008 and is an alleged member of a Puerto

Rico Independence group called Los Macheteros. The group, whose goal is to violently coerce the United States into releasing Puerto Rico as a territory, has taken claim to multiple bombings and attacks since the 1970’s. The Jericho Movement also calls for the release of Mutulu Shakur, step-father of the late rapper Tupac Shakur. In 1986, Shakur was found guilty of being part of an armed robbery that resulted in the death of two policeman;

Shakur is expected to be released in 2016. On the cover of the webpage is Jalil Muntaqim. A former member of the Black Liberation Army before his arrest in 1975, Muntaqim is currently serving a life sentence after being convicted of murdering a California police officer.

responsible for my own, unique health care, not my neighbor’s.” It is the same for diversity. The liberal argues something to this affect: “This minority as a group is often less well-off; we will fight for their equality.” At first glance, this appears to be a forthright and morally altruistic argument, but consider its true effects. In situations of forced diversity, the minority questions his or her value. They often consider, “Am I truly qualified for my

advance? Or am I receiving benefit from my ethnicity?” In situations of forced diversity, ethnicity is taboo. It stifles communication, and therefore learning. For example, one of my friends from another country once expressed the fact that he was timid in saying the word “Jew,” for the chance he might be considered a racist. “Jew” is not a derogatory term. My friend’s sentiments elucidated a major flaw in the culture of Cornell:

sometimes people look for racism, and because of that, they see it everywhere – most of the time where it doesn’t exist. The “moral foundations” of diversity are zealously enforced so much that students are often deterred from its intellectual advantages. There is little that I can do to change this. For now I must continue to lower my voice in my discussions with my friends. “Cornell will only be able to say it is diverse when the

president can say we have 3,200 different freshmen in this class,” said Mohammed M. al-Zayer, “instead of saying we have ‘x’ amount of this race, and ‘y’ amount of another, and so on.”

Information compiled from CNN, SeattleTimes, Huffingtonpost. com, guardian.co.uk, USA Today, and Pasadena Weekly

Matthew Truesdail is a freshman in the School of Industrial and Labor Relations. He can be contacted at mdt64@cornell.edu

The Review welcomes and encourages letters to the editor. Please send questions, comments, and concerns to cornellreview@me.com.

Campus

November 18, 2009

Willfull misinterpretation The removal of Kenneth Glover from Ujamaa WILLIAM P. LANE EDITOR-IN-CHIEF

he news about the reassignment of Ken Glover has ripped through the Cornell community, as students of all stripes have come together in opposition to the move. Students stood in protest to the move outside of Bailey Hall as Skorton addressed trustees, and a large contingent marched in the Homecoming Parade to express support for the displaced Ujamaa RHD. Since the eruption of the controversy, the administration has temporarily apologized for the move, allowing Glover to remain on the staff at Ujamaa for the remainder of the year on account of the hasty implementation of Housing’s decision. While the administration was correct to make amends for the move’s suddenness, the questions of its overall validity are far from warranted. The primary objection to Glover’s reassignment is his long and close association with Ujamaa. Having served in his current position for around twenty years, he has developed a close working relationship with the community, and in many ways Ken Glover has become a symbol of the house. The decision to transfer him to another

Ujamaa Residential College: Ken Glover’s home for rest of this year

dormitory, then, is taken as an attempt to disrupt this relationship, and an attempt to change Ujamaa. The real rationale behind the move, as Vice President Susan Murphy and Deputy Provost David Harris have attempted to explain, is simply to spread his experience to other places on campus. Yet the lateness and sparseness of the explanation have given rise to wild speculation on the part of many students. As with last year, when the Program Houses officially came under review as the start of the campus-wide initiative to examine the university budget, there has been a certain willful

misinterpretation of the facts, and a conflation of any incipient change with an attack on Cornell’s “safe spaces”. Daily Sun coverage of the controversy has not helped matters. Furthermore, nobody has stopped to consider advantages to the move. Glover’s reassignment was far from a normal occurrence, but only in part for the reasons commonly cited by opponents. Glover’s length of tenure as Ujamaa RHD is pretty much unprecedented— the typical director is on for only a few years before moving to a new building, if they even remain at Cornell. While his time there affords him great knowledge of

the house’s intricacies, it also means that the program house has been driven by the same leadership for two decades. A new RHD would bring fresh insights and a new direction to Ujamaa (Obama supporters might know this process better as “change”), perhaps awakening possibilities overlooked during Glover’s time. While the paper’s position on program houses is best saved for another editorial entirely, if such institutions are to exist on Cornell’s campus it is right that they should grow and change over time as Cornell does. Stagnation in this growth for any reason, even in the well-meaning case of Glover’s familiarity, weakens program houses and the Cornell community both inside and outside their walls. So while we congratulate the students fighting the hastily imposed administration decree, it would be nice to consider the potential for future growth in Ujamaa when Glover’s reassignment takes effect the next school year. William Lane i s a senior in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be contacted at wpl5@ cornell.edu

Africa, the giant panda, and foreign aid Why an economist thinks Africa should go the way of the giant panda RAZA HODA TREASURER

ast Thursday, Robert Calderisi, a Canadian economist formerly with the World Bank and author of “The Trouble with Africa: Why Foreign Aid Isn’t Working,” spoke about the problems and offered solutions to foreign aid in Africa. He was the tenth of eleven speakers in a series hosted by Cornell’s Institute for African Development on the finance and development of Africa. “Less aid is better than more aid,” Mr. Calderisi began. To defend his statement, he compared Africa to a Giant Panda. “Let’s pull the plug on the Panda. Even though it is cute and big, we should let it die with some dignity.” Mr. Calderisi believes that if Africa

is to succeed, it should do so on its own accord. Throwing a panda in a zoo does no good to the strength of the species. Mr. Calderisi strongly believes that poor government is to blame for the limited effectiveness of foreign aid. Often, the heads of state in Africa make no clear distinction between government funds and personal wealth. Mr. Calderisi used President Omar Bongo of Gabon to illustrate his point. President Bongo had been spending large sums of money, which he claimed came from his own pocket, to fund government expenses. When asked why he was taking the cost upon himself rather than the state, the president asked, “Was the Palace

of Versailles built with the money of France or of Louis XIV?” In essence, President Bongo saw the treasury of his country as his personal wallet, spending and splurging the government’s limited financial resources, truly following Louis XIV’s famous philosophy: “I am the state.” It is this misuse of government money, which includes foreign dollars, that make foreign aid impossible to reach the populous and, instead, land in the president’s pockets. Mr. Calderisi tried to find reasons why Africa has not developed like other continents. In the past fifty years, Africa’s average income has not gone up, while Asia’s average has risen by forty percent. “Is it the harsh climate?” Mr. Calderisi asked. No, he observes, as many

Read the Cornell Review’s Blog! http://cornellinsider.com/

other countries have overcome the weather barrier to prosper. Could it be Africa’s history of slavery and colonization that is holding it back? No. “Yes, there was a slave trade, and many people hide behind it as a reason. But that is not why the Ivory Coast is destroyed--that is because of Africans of today,” he notes. In regard to colonization, Mr. Calderisi believes that it could not possibly be a reason. Some of the modern world’s most powerful countries were, at some point, someone else’s territory. Debt is also not a factor, as many generous countries have written off the debts of Africa. He uses Chinua Achebe to conclude that the root of the problem is the “collapse of good government.”

World

November 18, 2009

Sudan: Obama builds on Bush’s success ROMAN LESKO STAFF WRITER

t seems that over last half decade or so being seen with a “Save Darfur” T-shirt, bumper sticker or bracelet has become somewhat of a trendy statement of one’s support for the people of the war-stricken region. But shouting slogans and showing your support for the cause on the back of your car next to a “1-20-09” bumper sticker will hardly affect the welfare of Darfur’s millions of citizens unless you back up your words with actions. Although bringing attention to the issue does have an important place, don’t think that just because George Bush isn’t president anymore means that there will be some diplomatic miracle to end the crisis. A few weeks ago, the Obama administration announced their diplomatic strategy towards Sudan in which they vowed to engage the rogue nation rather than contain and isolate it, but whether this new plan will amount to actual progress is yet to be seen. This past Monday, the Cornell International Affairs Review hosted three professors to analyze the administration’s policy and discuss the current situation in Darfur. On the panel were Prof. Nicolas van de Walle, Prof. Salah Hassan, and Prof. John Weiss. The first presenter, Professor van de Walle,

elucidated the political paradigm in Sudan and argued that the Sudanese government has not done anything to stop the recurrence of violence and has repeatedly failed to protect their citizens. Consequently he is skeptical that a nation without freedoms and with a terrible diplomatic track record will “behave” and respond to the measures and threats of the United States. Perhaps the most controversial remarks made in the discussion came from Professor Hassan, who staunchly criticized both the Obama and Bush policies towards Sudan and Darfur. He claims that US foreign policy has been marred by hypocrisy and support of oppressive regimes and that efforts by the United States in Sudan are no different, going so far as to say that the US doctrine towards Sudan is racist because it represents the arrogance of Western nation and patronizes the people of Sudan as inferior and incapable to govern on their own. Despite the pessimism and strong negative sentiment over US policy displayed at the discussion, there have been some major accomplishments in United States policy towards Sudan that must be continued if we are to make a lasting contribution to the stabilization of that nation. Over the last few years, the Untied States has had some major disagreements with

the international community on how to deal with President Bashir’s oppressive regime including breaking with the UN in calling the atrocities in Darfur a genocide and then being the strongest supporter of the International Criminal Court in indicting Bashir for war crimes in July of 2008. In fact, in November of 2008 Kenneth Roth, Executive Director of Human Rights Watch stated that “when it comes to supporting international efforts to prosecute Sudanese leaders for their slaughter in Darfur, the [Bush] administration so far has it right.” The Bush policy towards Sudan, lauded by Mr. Roth, was centered on apprehending the masterminds behind the humanitarian atrocities and supporting the accountability of Bashir’s regime to its citizens and to the international community. President Obama wants to expand on the successes of the Bush administration by engaging Bashir ’s regime and offering earned incentives to the Sudanese government if they move forward and begin to show progress towards normalizing relations with the US and securing safety, freedoms and rights for its citizens. However, as Professor van de Walle pointed out, Bashir and his governing party have repeatedly refused humanitarian access to the most destitute parts of Sudan and have ignored repeated calls to stop the violence that they

have inflicted upon their citizens. So, Obama and his administration are between a rock and a hard place trying to play ball with a regime that refuses to play by the rules. Although there are detractors who feel that an imperial policy is racist and immoral, how can we as a nation look the other way when genocide and other humanitarian crimes are occurring and there are proactive steps that we can take to stop it? The Bush administration put in place an effective framework for US policy towards Sudan and took measures that were praised by human rights groups. As Obama and his administration try to build on these gains, they must proceed carefully with dealing with a regime that knows no limits to deceit and evil. This is a challenge, no doubt, but unless there is follow through and significant pressure on Bashir’s regime, there is also significant risk that this policy may fail. Let’s hope for the sake of the Sudanese people that this new policy does in fact build upon prior success and does not just become tantamount to the Obama administration to putting on their “Save Darfur” t-shirts and pretending to make a difference, when it is all just a show.

-enough to block passage." Given these developments, it will be a challenge to pass the bill whether or not it includes coverage for abortions. Of course the Democrats will try to barter with Planned Parenthood. Some pro-life Democrats may vote for the bill even if it includes coverage for abortion. But the situation is not hopeless. The swing voters are facing pressure in both directions, and phone calls to representatives can make a big difference. Don’t forget that the Senate must also pass the bill. In order to break a Republican filibuster, the Democrats would need the support of Joe Lieberman, who said, “As a matter of conscience, I will not allow this bill to come to a final vote.” In order to get the bill passed, the Senate Democrats will have to make concessions to the conservatives. With many ideas floating around, senators are much more likely to listen to their constituents about which plan is the best. So why are conservatives against the current plan? On p. 92, the current bill mandates that anyone who isn’t

in a private insurance plan sign up for the public plan. Eventually, the public option will be the only option. The bill also includes a $500 billion cut in Medicare and a $40 billion dollar tax increase on medical device manufacturers, such as St. Jude Children’s Hospital. This will slow down medical research considerably. According to Christine Romer, Obama’s medical advisor, 5.5 million jobs will be lost if the bill is passed. The economy will also suffer. In short, the healthcare bill is a piece of legislation that will harm medical research, the economy, and liberty itself. But the battle is not lost. Contact your representatives until you are blue in the face. Challenge the Liberals, who say the public option is the best option out there. As Rep. Michelle Bachmann of Minnesota said, “This is our liberty and tyranny moment.”

Roman Lesko is a senior in the College of Arts and Sciences. He may be contacted at rml37@cornell.edu.

There is still hope... ED ESTABROOK STAFF WRITER

n November 7, 2009, a great groan was uttered in the conservative camps. The House of Representatives passed the healthcare bill, which, among other things, would create a government-run insurance plan. Many conservatives believed that there was no stopping the bill, once the House had passed it. These conservatives, I believe, are giving up too easily. The situation, while severe, is anything but hopeless. The bill passed the House by a margin of 220 to 215, with one Republican supporting it and 39 Democrats opposing it. According to the New York Times, 31 of these 39 Democrats represent districts that were won by John McCain. If three more representatives had voted against the bill, it would not have passed. The House will vote on the bill again, after House and Senate reconciliation. Many House Democrats are facing a considerable amount of political pressure to vote against the bill. If you live in a

traditionally Republican district with a Democrat representative, now is the time to call your Representative. Maybe phone calls won’t be enough, but there is another factor at play here: abortion coverage. On November 7th, the House also passed the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, which disallowed federal money from being used to pay for abortions. The StupakPitts Amendment passed by a much wider margin (240 to 192) than the healthcare bill itself, so it is very likely that the final bill will lose its necessary three votes if the StupakPitts language is excised. (The one Republican who supported the bill, Rep. Anh “Joseph” Cao from Louisiana, will definitely vote against it if the Stupak language is excluded.) Yet Planned Parenthood recently issued a statement that it will oppose any bill that includes the Stupak-Pitts language. According to the Washington Post, “Rep. Diana DeGette (Colo.) said she has collected more than 40 signatures from House Democrats vowing to oppose any final bill that includes the amendment-

Ed Estabrook is a junior in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be contacted through thecornell.review@gmail.com

Thought

November 18, 2009

Paving the Road to Serfdom BRENDAN DEVINE STAFF WRITER

iberalism triumphant! Let the bells ring from every church tower--actually, secular bells only. “Squeaker of the House” Nancy Pelosi, along with her coterie of contestable Democrats, have “answered the call of history” according to President Obama. History dialed the wrong number. Speaker Pelosi required nothing more than a dubious majority in the House to push her most inauspicious health care socialization bill forth. She only exceeded the majority (218 votes) by 2; one of those votes can be credited to a curious Republican defector, but now is not the time to abjure his treachery. The lesson is that HR 3962 is a unilateral bill rather than a material coalescence of the General Will gathered around Obama most high. Speaker Pelosi, who has already admitted, most nobly, that she and the Democrats are prepared to take the punishment of the elections for passing this bill, is seeking to institutionalize Big Brother once again. Government is the good doer, the only agent of raising our standard of living, claimed Rep. Barney Frank at Cornell last Sunday. The desideratum of Rep. Frank, Speaker Pelosi, and the rest of their motley crew, is the assurance of this sentiment for years to come, to give birth to a new generation of believers where conservative heretics will be stranded with the counterfactual arguments against their “reforms.” Reform and regulation, as the question is implied: what have they ever accomplished for us? Frank lauded the 1965 establishment COST ...continued from page 4

to attend a prestigious university. That being said, one must also look at the quality of education universities offer now as compared the quality of education offered twenty, thirty or forty years ago. With the modern age, universities have vastly improved the quality of the product they offer and, as with any market, a higher quality product means a higher price tag. With all of this being said, it absolutely must be noted that many students do not pay full tuition, due to generous financial aid programs. According to Professor Ehrenberg, even those who must cough up enough money for an entire tuition bill “do not bear the full cost of their educations-they benefit from federal and state aid, from endowment

of Medicare by President and philandering extraordinaire Lyndon Johnson. He has similar praise to offer for the New Deal and other unprecedented “reforms” of Franklin Roosevelt. One of the few people I know to have suffered the acquaintance of Hillary Clinton relays to me that she shares the infatuation with Social Security, being so bold as to herald it as “wonderful.” How beneficial have these programs been? Social Security will be bankrupt by 2037, four years sooner than previously expected. Medicare should finally be gone by 2017, also two years sooner than anticipated. Generations of citizens have grown up with these programs and are now dependent on them, having become vassals to Lord Government. When these entitlements are gone, where are the empty pockets to turn? These programs are sure to mandate their own government bailouts (as opposed to deserved death), despite already occupying the largest portion of the Federal budget. Have these programs been worth it? People should already have been alerted to the answer: these programs should never have been so essential in the first place. Several living generations of Americans have now been brought up without having to save money or plan for their retirements, working under the aegis of Big Brother’s willingness to pay their way through the twilight years. Millions of people now do not save or know how to, but does Big Brother offer to teach anyone how? When Rep. Frank extolled government subsidies for low level education, why did he not suggest

some method of educating people to govern themselves? Without dependency, the oppressor in Washington becomes trivial. Speaker Pelosi’s own health care “reform” is, in many ways, the sum of the Left’s vices. Health care now accounts for a $2.5 trillion dollar share of the United States’ economy, one-sixth of the total, a number substantially inflated since the 1965 Social Security Act created Medicare. The current financial breakdown is not the fault of President Bush or even the lascivious Barney Frank; it is the result of the “Community Reinvestment Act” of 1977, which gave lenders two choices: to dole out high risk subprime mortgages so the “poor” could join the ranks of homeowners or to pay significant fines for failing to do so. The decline of the United States economy is not the product of financial freedom but the consequence of the Left’s disingenuously benevolent restriction. Nothing in HR 3962 suggests a break in the current trend. For those who have bothered to read Pelosi’s 1,990 page magnum opus, which was likely written by some philosophy majors from Georgetown interning in her office, the bill’s content is striking. Individuals are required to own an insurance plan valued at no less than $15,000 a year (which does not even guarantee actual care) or they can face five years in prison and a $250,000 fine. The bad news if you already have a plan is that it may not meet the government’s standards, requiring you to buy additional coverage you do not desire. The overhaul, including

a public “option” to “compete” with private firms, is currently estimated to cost $1.2 trillion according to the Congressional Budget Office. If history is any indicator, they are too optimistic. Control masquerading as “reform” only sets a gloomier precedent: never before in this country has the government directly entered a private matter. Your options are to buy a commodity, which you are now told is a “right,” or go to prison. Bizarro-world corporatism at its finest: people are now compelled to buy a product that an industry makes. At least the Left is now friendly to corporate interests. The only solution to the inevitable boom in prices would seem to be price caps, which effectively kill off the private sector altogether. Very little light glimmers at the other end of the tunnel for this policy. Such a policy is dangerous to young professionals who make up a large portion of the uninsured in this country. The moderate youth do not buy plans because they can neither stomach the financial hit nor do they see themselves at risk. With nowhere else to turn, the young would turn to Big Brother’s “option” at the expense of the elderly and the well-todo, putting another generation in permanent correspondence with this towering object. Intention is the common predicate for the Left’s programs and regulations but even this historical pretext is antiquated by Obamacare. The regulations and antitrust laws of past administrations focused on

spending and annual giving and from the value of the services produced by the buildings that were paid for by all of the above.” Throughout the lecture, Professor Ehrenberg offered great praise for President Skorton and Cornell’s generous financial aid program, citing both President Skorton’s and Cornell’s commitment to make a Cornell education financially accessible to anyone who is accepted to the university. Currently, one of the best ways of identifying the number of financially disadvantaged students at a university is by checking the statistics on how many Pell Grant recipients attend that university (the Federal Pell Grant being offered to students whose yearly family income is less than $45,000). According to Professor

Ehrenberg, Cornell is currently doing quite well with attracting Pell Grant recipients, “much better than Harvard, Princeton or Yale.” However, the percentage of Pell Grant recipients at selective private universities is still much lower than the percentage of recipients at public institutions. “The U.S. is no longer the world leader in terms of the share of the population that has a college degree,” said Professor Ehrenberg. Unfortunately, it is quite a real possibility that the cost of higher education has barred some from obtaining a college degree. He offered several suggestions on how the U.S. could allow more students access to higher education: more government spending on the Federal Pell Grant

program, more incentives for state universities to enroll Pell Grant recipients, and examination of the cost structures of both public and private universities in order to create controls to hold tuition costs down. Although staunchly opposed to most forms of increased government spending, this writer finds that, in the case of higher education, Professor Ehrenberg has a good point and our government and public and private institutions of higher education must work together and find some way to insure that the best and the brightest this country has to offer have every opportunity to pursue a college education.

...see REFORM, opposite

Zachary Waller is a freshman in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be reached at zjw5@cornell.edu

THOUGHT

November 18, 2009

are flourishing, South Africa and Mauritius in particular, are so because of good governments that work on behalf of its people rather than its president. In countries with corrupt governments, the World Bank would often grow weary of giving more aid. During his time at the World Bank, Mr. Calderisi recalled being asked why the West and World Bank were often hard on Africa. He would often respond by asking, “Would you lend your government money?” This would always be met with silence. Again, Mr. Calderisi points out that corrupt governments are the reason that foreign aid is not effective. Instead of offering Africa a caribou head or a safe and secure zoo to survive in, Mr. Calderisi offered some suggestions to strengthen the impact of foreign aid at a local level. Adopt-ahighway programs would greatly improve the standard of living in Africa. Rewarding governments, who increase local productivity, would encourage African nations to push to improve their fruitful agricultural economy rather than sit and wait for more foreign dollars, which is a “perverse result of foreign aid,” according to Mr. Calderisi . While he recognizes flaws in these suggestions, Mr. Calderisi believes it is a start in the right direction for African aid.

Robert Calderisi, Canadian economist

This lack of good governance has led, Mr. Calderisi believes, to a general fatalistic outlook among the African people. This demoralizing fatalism, combined with, what Mr. Calderisi called, “racial or historical guilt,” has forced the West to simply ignore the structural problems with Africa and rely on throwing money at

the continent. However, because of the corrupt governments, this leaves the Africa arrested in its development. To sustain a corrupt system is much like tossing a Giant Panda into a zoo--while it may preserve the species, it weakens its strength and will. Mr. Calderisi used another animal example to further his point. In the

Northwest Territories of Canada, it is customary to welcome a guest with the head of recentlykilled game. “Foreign aid is like a caribou head. It is very difficult to use. But it is a nice gesture.” Mr. Calderisi pointed out that good things are indeed happening Raza Hoda is a junior in the College in Africa. However, it is not due of Arts and Sciences. He can be to foreign aid. The countries that contacted at rsh94@cornell.edu

REFORM ...continued from page 10

“

‘Squeaker of the House’ Nancy Pelosi, along with her coterie of contestable Democrats, have ‘answered the call of history’ according to President Obama. History dialed the wrong number.

”

protection of the abused; they were not positive law. Pelosi’s power play is the obverse to restriction: it is manifestation. Perhaps the old Left’s work is debatable but the monstrosities of Roosevelt and Johnson gave birth to this demon in the desert. With decades of history condemning their sustainability, benefits, morals, and patterns it seems curious that such schemes persist in both perpetuity and new creation; instances of benefit may be gerrymandered but they are few. The true purpose of health care “reform” is to again remold government in the Left’s image, to ensure their posterity so as when they are out of power, they can expect nothing to have changed when they return. This bill aims to

institutionalize the Left’s morals and (ir)responsibilities for years to come; in the past they have succeeded, no prior programs have ever truly been phased out. For the roguish, independent, rugged opposition, there exists hope, hope that the President cannot offer. This bill is still seen as unlikely to pass the Senate. Democrats own 60 seats, the exact number they need to obtain cloture on a filibuster and move to vote, however Senator Lieberman has taken a solemn vow to filibuster such a deplorable bill. I have worked for Senator Lieberman before, in 2006 when he was running for reelection against his own party’s contemptuous leadership. He can be affirmed as

a man of virtue, since virtue is the rare, the extraordinary, although his views are predominantly misguided. We must take this man at his word, for he is one of the few men standing between another generation and the Left paving the road to serfdom again. The Left does not seek to comfort the poor, the weak, the oppressed. It seeks serfs. Shall we follow down that familiar, dreary road?

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

The Cornell Review

November 18, 2009

Wisemen and Fools Who is wise and who Abraham Lincoln is a fool? You decide! “Nobody believes a rumor here in Washington until it’s officially denied.” Edward Cheyfitz “I’m addicted abortions!” Bad Irene

“I support efforts to limit the terms of members of Congress, especially members of the House and members of the Senate.” Dan Quayle “Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power.”

can’t play, you know, hide the salami, or “Obama is a leveler. He has come to narrow “The President has kept whatever it’s called.” the divide between rich all the promises he Howard Dean and poor. For him the intended to keep.” ultimate social value is G e o r g e “I got tested for AIDS. I fairness. Imposing it Stephanopolous know Barack got tested upon the American social “I haven’t committed a for AIDS. There’s no order is his mission.” crime. What I did was shame in being tested for Charles ‘the Hammer’ fail to comply with the AIDS. It’s an important Krauthammer thing.” law.” Joe Biden “Anyone who isn’t a David Dinkins Liberal before the age word sums of 30 has no heart .... “The most terrifying “One probably the and anyone who is still words in the English up language are: I’m from responsibility of any a Liberal after the age of the government, and Governor, and that one 30 has no brain”” word is ‘to be prepared’.” Winston Churchill I’m here to help.” John Kerry Ronald Reagan “I’m someone who “Nothing is so permanent had a deep emotional a temporary attachment to ‘Starsky “I think with a lifetime as and Hutch.’” appointment to the government program.” Bill Clinton Supreme Court, you Milton Friedman

In your heart, you know we’re right.

Join The Review Send us an email at wpl5@cornell.edu or