The Cornell Review The Conservative Voice on Campus
An Independent Publication vol. xxxii, no. i
blog.thecornellreview.com
BLOG
“We Do Not Apologize.”
September 7th, 2013
thecornellreview.com
SITE
Welcome, #Cornell2017
THE FRESHMAN ISSUE
An Open Letter to the Class of 2017 Mike Navarro Editor-in-Chief
L
et us begin this article by making one thing plainly clear: I am a conservative Republican. This newspaper is written from a conservative point of view (except for our new sports writing!). This is why the masthead reads “The Conservative Voice on Campus,” and not “Fair and Balanced” or “Independent Since 1880.” At the Cornell Review, we know what we are, and we feel strongly about what we believe. As the incoming Editor-in-Chief, it is my responsibility to provide an outlet for conservative values and viewpoints—and it is the responsibility of our writers to provide wellresearched, fact-based arguments that may oppose the mainstream line of thinking here at our great university. Now that that’s out of the way, let me be frank: if you are a senior at Cornell University, this article is not for you. The same goes for juniors, some sophomores, faculty, and administration. Should you fall into any of these categories, feel free to move on to the next article—or stay, as it is still (currently) a free country. This article is intended for one audience only: our new Class of
2017. So, let’s chat. How are you guys holding up? I’m sure it’s been a rough couple of weeks for all of you. Everything happens so fast; the move, meeting new roommates, finding your way around. For me, the biggest challenge was communal dining. I’m still trying to get comfortable with that. And in the end, that’s what all this—the college experience—is about, isn’t it? Experiencing new things, finding one’s self, and doing things that in later years you will look back at and say “what the actual f*** was I thinking?” Sure, you may not like everything, but at least by trying it, you can say that you have a sound foundational reason for not liking it. Like communal dining. (What can I say, I just don’t like other people watching me eat, and vice versa.) So what does all this have to do with the Cornell Review? In the next several months, you are going to hear a lot of new ideas and viewpoints, from many different outlets. You’ll be told that your professors are politically openminded (they generally are not), and that they teach with respect for both sides of the political spectrum (they damn sure do not). You will be told that the Cornell
Sun is apolitical (it is not), and that it includes a diverse set of voices which present contrasting opinions from all walks of life (nope). You will also be told that your opinions and viewpoints will always be respected. (This will primarily depend on what your opinions are.) It may sound as though I think that there is something fundamentally wrong with our university. I promise this is not the case—on the contrary, I think this is exactly the kind of environment for great debate, and the perfect place to discover where your true political leanings lie. Let’s get to another uncomfortable fact: this country, as a whole, is becoming more and more separated. There are a number of reasons for this, but the two I tend to single out the most are cable news and the Internet. I’m not saying that these things are bad (you will also be told that all Republicans despise technology and/or science: not only false, but laughably so), but they do afford people the opportunity to hear only what they want to hear, and filter out all opposing views. This is the world we now live in, and it’s tearing us apart, one news cycle at a time. Not to put any more pressure on Continued on page 9
Interview:
Ulysses Smith,
2 Student Assembly President
3
Big Red Sports Network
New site devoted to Cornell sports launches
History of Cornell 4 Conservatism The final chapters
3
Tucker Carlson
Talks about marriage,
6 weed, and the class of 2014
8
The Problem with Detroit
What the hell happened to the Motor City?
And more of the best opinion, campus and national news writing at Cornell University!
2
Campus
September 7, 2013
Meet Ulysses Smith, Your S.A. President
Karim Lakhani Columnist
Last spring, Ulysses Smith was
What will be the first thing you
not just the people with whom we
will pursue in your new position?
get along. My job as President is to
What is priority number one?
coordinate all of the efforts of our
elected President of the Cornell
My term technically [began on]
representatives and to make sure
Student Assembly in a close and
the first day of June, but we are
that they are engaging all students
controversial
his
already looking at bringing about
to the best of their abilities. We want
victory, the Cornell Review sat down
some structural changes to the SA
to see, not just more inclusive policy,
with Mr. Smith to learn a little bit
this year in preparation for next year.
but more informed policy. I also
more about his thoughts on the
The first couple of things will be
must be the advocate for students
election, the challenges he expects to
internal—we are cleaning house. We
in all settings, especially with
face, and how envisions the role of the
are going to change our committee
upper administration. I think many
S.A. in the lives of students.
structure and do some consolidating.
students feel that the administration
explain
The goal is to eliminate unnecessary
often
the controversial end to the
or redundant committees and create
adequate student input. A lot of
election? What are your feelings
committees that can attract a broad
us feel that some administrators
about one of your opponents'
range of students. This also cuts
are very disconnected from the
disqualification?
down on the number of committee
student experience—they aren’t on
That was a terrifying experience!
chair positions on the SA. With fewer
the front line—and that results in
We all were kept in the dark about
job titles available, we can put more
flawed policy. I plan to introduce the
what was occurring at the time. All
representatives out amongst their
various perspectives of students to
the other results came out and we
constituents. That will be followed
the administration and to make sure
were forced to live in suspense while
by an education process this year.
that the SA is the bridge between
all of this was happening. This was
I think you would be hard-pressed
the student body and a largely
all due to challenges being filed.
to find even five SA members who
disconnected
When a candidate or any student
have read our Charter or our bylaws.
order to do that, we have got to
feels that a candidate has violated
That will change this year. Having
overcome this culture on the SA of
the election rules, they can file a
members who do not understand
talking to a select few people and not
challenge against that candidate.
that our mission is to be an effective
really trying to learn what differing
Every candidate was made aware
voice for students and who do not
perspectives actually exist.
of the rules. We sat down like third
understand the various processes
graders and read them aloud at
that we have in place to fulfill that
the mandatory meeting, so we all
mission is a disservice to the student
Our biggest challenge is ourselves.
knew what they were and we had
body. Neither EVP Balik, nor myself
We have to overcome a culture that
a responsibility to uphold them. It
are tolerating that anymore.
is filled with resume-padding. We
How
election.
would
you
After
is unfortunate that someone was
How
will
you
fulfill
makes
decisions
without
administration.
In
What is the biggest challenge that faces the SA?
the
have to overcome the stigma of a
disqualified, but I do think that
promises you made over the
bureaucratic nightmare and a waste
decision was made at the end of a
campaign?
of time. The reality is that many
to sit on Mount Olympus, enjoy a few perks, and pass judgment. We got elected because enough people believed that we each had the ability to effectively bring about positive change in this campus. That is what we are charged with doing, and that is what we are going to do. What
should
the
average
student expect now that you are President? You all can expect a more noticeable SA presence; not in the sense that big government is taking over, rather that our members will be doing a lot more grassroots activities. You will notice more representatives actively soliciting your opinion. You can also expect that I will not compromise on my
very long and fair review process.
We have a fantastic group of
SA representatives do a lot of great
If candidates were permitted to
people who got elected this year! The
work that goes unnoticed because
break the rules publicly, jeopardize
beautiful thing is that we all ran on
it is overshadowed by the presence
the fairness of the election process,
similar platforms. We may disagree
of this idea that we are useless. Our
and receive no repercussions, many
in method or how to get there, but for
reputation precedes us, negatively.
students would likely feel less
the most part we have very similar
To be honest, we will never prevent
enthusiastic about the SA as a whole.
goals. My big goal is to improve the
self-interested
It would just seem like another
student experience for all students.
getting elected to the SA. That being
body at-large thinks we should be,
corrupt, resume-padding group. In
That means from the moment you
said, we can certainly make them
then we will change that. The only
the end, I respect the process and
step on-campus during Cornell
work when they get elected. I am
difference is that now I am in a
the outcome. All the candidates had
Days, Diversity Hosting Month, or
not willing to tolerate the idea that
position that allows me to critique,
great ideas and great platforms, and
the Pre-freshmen Summer Program
representatives can sit back and do
change, encourage, and lead the
I really hope that they will continue
all the way until you graduate. That
nothing while various groups are
SA in a different direction. I expect
to stay involved with the SA going
means
the
dealing with major issues. We are
the students to hold me to that. I
forward.
people with whom we agree and
students too. We did not get elected
expect the SA to hold me to that. I
everybody—not
just
individuals
from
stance regarding active engagement of our constituents. You better believe that I will still be as open and, sometimes painfully, honest in my critiques of the SA as a whole. If we are not performing the way we should be, or the way the student
expect students to keep us busy and accountable to their needs. Karim Lakhani is a senior in the
CR
College of Hotel Administration. He can be reached at kml248@cornell. edu.
The Cornell Review
Founded 1984 r Incorporated 1986 Jim Keller Jerome D. Pinn Anthony Santelli, Jr. Ann Coulter Founders
Mike Navarro Editor-in-Chief
Laurel Conrad President
Bill Snyder
Campus News Editor
Roberto Matos
National News Editor
Contributors Michael Alan Kushagra Aniket Caroline Emberton Andre Gardiner Alex Gimenez Michael Loffredo
Emeritus Members Noah Kantro Alfonse Muglia
Karim Lakhani
Board of Directors
Christopher DeCenzo Joseph E. Gehring Jr. Anthony Santelli Jr.
Faculty Advisor William A. Jacobson 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 publish a spectrum of beliefs, 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 wellreasoned conservative opinion piece, we hope you will send it to cornellreview@ cornell.edu for consideration. The Cornell Review meets regularly on Tuesdays at 5:00 pm in RCK 183. E-mail messages should be sent to
cornellreview@cornell.edu
Copyright © 2012 The Ithaca Review Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Campus
September 7, 2013
3
Big Red Sports Network Launches Matthew Provenzano Guest Columnist
O
ver the last few years, Cornell University’s athletic teams have been amongst the top in the Ivy League, and in some cases, the nation. But just how much do you know about the Big Red, and their accomplishments across sports in intercollegiate play? Sure, there are the storylines you may have followed last season. For instance, Kyle Dake’s successful quest of four wrestling National Titles across four different weight classes in four years, a feat that had never before been accomplished. Or the Men’s Lacrosse team’s run at a National Championship that came up just short in their semi-final loss to Duke. But did you know that the Men’s Soccer team was the champion of the Ivy League last season? How about Bruno Hortelano-Roig’s success both at Cornell and Internationally as a sprinter? Or the Women’s Ice Hockey Team who dominated college hockey with a star studded roster? Chances are you only heard about one or two of the previous Big Red storylines from last year. That will change starting this semester with the launch of Big Red Sports Network, Cornell University’s first completely student run sports media organization. Building off of the success of pilot program Cornell At Bat, a coverage program dedicated to providing top notch baseball coverage, Big Red Sports Network will cover 11 varsity sports at Cornell this year, including Men’s and Women’s Soccer, Sprint Football, Men’s and Women’s Ice Hockey, Men’s and Women’s Basketball, Men’s and Women’s Lacrosse, Baseball and Softball. Coverage of these sports will include play-byplay broadcasts, in-depth analyses, interviews, online articles, social media updates and more. “Our goal is to change the way the extended Cornell community follows Big Red Sports,” said BRSN’s President and Co-Founder Alex Gimenez. “We realized that there was a niche to be filled here when it came to the student-run sports media market, and our goal is to fill that niche through all inclusive coverage of student athletes by students themselves.”
In addition to the sports specific coverage teams, BRSN will provide coverage of all Cornell sports through a brand new website called bigredsportsnetwork. org and through their social media outlets. Two new radio shows will be launched in the coming months with a focus on all things Big Red Athletics. Both will include show appearances by athletes, coaches, alumni, and even faculty and staff of the University, to tell the stories of the athletes and teams in a way that has never been done before. “We want to tell the stories that even people who aren’t sports fans can relate to,” Gimenez said. “By telling the stories that go on behind the scenes everyday, asking athletes about the pressure of performing on the field and in the classroom or talking to a professor about the history of Cornell sports, we can provide content that anyone can appreciate.” Another benefit of BRSN’s coverage is that it will be provided free of charge while other comparable broadcasting programs charge monthly and yearly fees for access to their coverage. Because the organization is entirely run by students on a volunteer basis, they can do things that other organizations cannot. “Our operation would fail completely if it wasn’t for a large untapped pool of talented students around the University who got involved to gain experience in the field and in some cases, are just avid sports fans,” said Gimenez about the BRSN team, which in just a few weeks, has exceeded 40 members. The Network did benefit from some generous donations through an indiegogo campaign, and support from the SAFC and Athletic
Communications has allowed BRSN to grow in many ways. Partnerships are a big part of the organizations brand. BRSN recently announced its major partnership with CornellRadio.com, a new online radio station that is set for launch later this fall and is run by WVBR. By combining the coverage team of BRSN and the production capabilities and station at Cornell Radio, the partnership allows for creativity and flexibility in the way sports are covered. BRSN expects to announce more partnerships with other student organizations in the coming weeks, and will also be providing sports coverage for the Cornell Review for the 2013-2014 academic year. “We have realized that many organizations at Cornell have something to offer us and we have something to offer them. In many cases our staffs overlap so it became a no brainer to combine resources to really make something special,” said Gimenez. With ambitious goals, a lot of hard work, and incredible teams to work with, Big Red Sports Network is in a position to follow its motto of “Bringing You Big Red Sports Like Never Before.” “Our focus is on the athletes, they put in all the work in practice, perform well in the classroom and represent the University well in athletic competition as we’ve seen over the last few year. It is time to give them the sports coverage they deserve." Matthew Provenzano is a sophomore in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be reached at mjp294@ 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 cornellreview@cornell.edu.
CR
4
September 7, 2013
Campus
A History of Cornell Conservatism Parts III and IV
Kushagra Aniket
The Cornell Review: Inception And Rivalry
F
ast forward from the 1970s, and the Reagan Era led to an outburst of conservative newspapers across the country. The unheralded success of the Dartmouth Review at Dartmouth College inspired conservative students at other institutions to found similar newspapers. The Institute for Educational Affairs, founded in 1978 to assist conservative academics, created The Collegiate Network in 1984 to offer these groups technical and financial assistance. Jim Keller, a Government major, founded The Cornell Review in the spring of 1984. Ann Coulter, an undergraduate in the College of Arts and Sciences, edited the paper in the same year. The Review soon became successful as an outlet for students disaffected by the university's perceived leftist slant. The paper drew immediate and critical attention for its discordant rhetoric and "shock journalism." During the 1980s, The Review assumed a socially conservative stance while attacking affirmative action and communism. It notably criticized university-sponsored ethnicity-oriented residential communities, known as "program houses," as segregationist. While embroiled in several controversies, it continued to defend free speech through outspoken journalism and creative satire. In 1986, leftists voiced their opposition to the paper by seeking out and shredding nearly every copy of one issue at a multitude of locations on campus during the early morning hours after delivery. Later, The Review's social conservatism started mellowing, and it ran articles in defense of homosexual marriage and abortion as well as articles opposed to those practices. This prompted the inception of a rival publication called The Cornell American in 1992. Craig Hymowitz, who was the chairman of the Cornell College Republicans and who had a troubled history with The Review, is credited with the original vision for the publication. In January 1992, Hymowitz, Jonathan Bloedow, and Hartley Etheridge founded The American Society, an independent organization formed to "advance classical American values, and to publish a journal, The Cornell American." The first issue, entitled "The Endangered American," was published in March 1992. It contrasted with The Review in
CR
appearance and style, but most notably in tone—the older paper was known for its unconventional humor and lampooning of campus excesses, inflammatory to its critics. The new publication was even and philosophical but pretentious and boring, to fans of The Review. The situation paralleled that of Peninsula and the Salient at Harvard. The American garnered media attention across the United States with its second issue, entitled "Residence Life: Guilty as Charged." This issue made several allegations against the University’s resident advisor training program. While even-toned in style, the paper's ideological development tracked rightward, reflecting socially conservative views. It heavily criticized the university's health clinic for its links with Planned Parenthood and the high local abortion rate; the College of Human Ecology, accused of hostility to traditional morality and views of family; and Cornell's ethnic-studies-oriented program housing, which it blamed for left-wing indoctrination and increasing racial tension. The American was unable to secure a strong financial base. It was repeatedly denied funds from the Collegiate Network, of which The Review was a longstanding member, and found it difficult to retain advertisers. It lost momentum after Bloedow's graduation in 1994 and published its final issue in 1996, after which most of its remaining staff joined The Review. The American Society persisted until 1998 as a sponsor of speakers and other campus programs.
The Road To The Present A candle flickers before it goes out. Just before its demise in 1998, the Cornell American Society tried to revive the Cornell American but was unsuccessful. Publication resumed only in the spring of 2004 when Ryan Horn, a paleo-conservative graduate student attempted to create an alternative platform for the expression of conservatism on campus. Horn was critical of the Review, which had become too moderate in tone and too libertarian in its philosophy, and did not provide a strong voice for the right. From a group of like-minded students who assembled to form the group "Cornell Literary Society", the first issue of the new Cornell American emerged in March 2004, titled Unholy Matrimony. But unlike the first rivalry, in which the Review's treatment of the American was bemused (even publishing
a satirical issue entitled The Cornell Canadian) and the American steadfastly refused even to acknowledge the existence of the Review, the two publications now spar openly. However, despite the rivalry, which preceded the merger of the two newspapers, the age of the American was most noted for a controversy over a proposed Academic Bill of Rights at Cornell. The Resolution on Academic Freedom - based on David Horowitz's Academic Bill of Rights - was introduced by a bipartisan coalition of Cornell students, including the editors-in-chief of The Cornell American and The Cornell Daily Sun. The resolution stated that the "SA affirms the principles of academic freedom and intellectual diversity". These principles were the following: (1) Students should be graded on the basis of their reasoned answers and appropriate knowledge of the disciplines they study. (2) Curricula and reading lists in the humanities and social sciences should provide students with dissenting viewpoints where appropriate. (3) Faculty should not use their courses for the political, ideological, religious, or anti-religious indoctrination. (4) All faculty should be hired, fired, or promoted and granted tenure on the basis on their competence and appropriate knowledge in the field of their expertise. (5) Selection of speakers and allocation of funds should not discriminate on the basis of political or ideological affiliation. (6) The obstruction of invited campus speakers, destruction of campus literature, or any other efforts to inhibit the civil exchange of ideas should not be tolerated. The debate on the Academic Bill of Rights started on May 6, 2004. At the beginning, the SA representative Michelle Fernandes tried to eject Ryan Horn from the meeting. Horn, who was a well-known conservative journalist on campus, had brought a digital camcorder to the event to record the debate. Fernandes raised an objection to Horn's presence saying, "Point of privilege. I want [him] to stop videotaping." Horn replied, "Respectfully, no." Nick Linder, president of the SA, then ordered, "As chair, I have to ask you to leave the meeting. It's my duty to uphold that. Turn that off or leave" Horn expressed outrage and cited his First Amendment rights. He defiantly ignored Linder's decision, remained in his seat, and secretly videotaped the entire affair.
Following the camcorder fiasco, Cornell Democrats president Tim Lim—thinking he was speaking off the record—slammed the Academic Bill of Rights as "a publicity stunt [by] neoconservatives such as David Horowitz." Lim then went on to claim that promoting academic freedom was a part of a partisan conspiracy engineered by the College Republicans. Then the assault on freedom came in the form of amendments. Leftist Brennan Veys amended the resolution by removing two key phrases from the bill: (i) "students should be graded on the basis of their reasoned answers and appropriate knowledge of the subjects" and (ii) "all faculty should be hired, fired, and promoted, and granted tenure on the basis of their competence." He claimed that including these clauses in an Academic Bill of Rights was an "insult" to Cornell's faculty. When Veys was confronted with certain facts - namely that 97 percent of Cornell's faculty are Leftists and that 21 of 23 government department professors are registered Democrats - he shook his head dismissively. Ross Blankenship, a cosponsor of the bill, asked Veys, "How comfortable do you think a Cornell student is in writing an essay in support of President Bush?" At this question, the Democrats laughed hysterically, indicating that Blankenship was paranoid. When the votes were tallied (8 in favor, 9 against), SA president Linder announced his final judgment, "The chair will cast a vote in, uh, the negative." He then smirked at the co-sponsors of the bill, waved them off, and said, "Have a nice day." And with that, the Academic Bill of Rights died at Cornell. Thus, citing the document's objectives as "redundant," "irrelevant," "insulting," and "objectionable," the SA determined that academic freedom was unimportant to the campus. Besides, banning Horn from videotaping the meeting was required to ensure that the resolution failed under a cover of tolerance. The Left’s inclination to resort to censorship and intolerance for intellectual diversity became apparent at that moment. Indeed, an important part of the mission of the Review since then has been to resist such totalitarian instincts to silence and censor diverse political opinions, and defend the most basic of our freedoms—freedom of expression— within the student community. Kushagra Aniket is a sophomore in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at ka337@cornell.edu.
Opinion
Puerto Rican Statehood:
September 7, 2013
5
Do You Believe in Democracy and Equality? Julio A. Cabral Corrada Guest Writer
M
y home, Puerto Rico, has been an unincorporated territory of the United States since the 1898 treaty that ended the Spanish-American War. Island residents became American citizens with the enactment of the 1917 Jones Act. Nonetheless, as the United States Supreme Court has confirmed, Puerto Rico is subject to Congress’ plenary powers under the Constitution's Territory Clause. As a result, my fellow Puerto Ricans and I do not live in a full democracy. We cannot vote for the President, even though we serve in large numbers in the U.S. military and have won five Medals of Honor. We lack two United States senators and five voting members in the U.S. House of Representatives. Instead, we are limited to a single, non-voting delegate in the House. In other words, we do not have a vote in the government that makes our national laws. This colonial and anachronistic state of affairs contradicts our nation’s fundamental democratic values. The principle of representative democracy simply does not apply to the 3.7 million Americans (more than the population of 23 states) currently residing in Puerto Rico. Moreover, this territorial status opens the doors for the federal government to treat us unequally under the law. The Island receives roughly half of the federal funding it would receive if it were a state, resulting in
the economy of Puerto Rico lagging far behind the rest of the country. Many federal programs—such as Medicaid, Nutrition Assistance, and Supplemental Security Income— treat Puerto Ricans worse than our fellow citizens in the 50 states. For instance, in 2010, Puerto Rico received about $1 billion in federal Medicaid funding, while Oklahoma (a state with a similar population size) was granted nearly $3.5 billion. Also, our workers pay full federal payroll taxes, but obtain only some benefits under Medicare, which is partially supported by those same taxes. As American citizens, we do not deserve such discrimination. This inequality has had a severe impact on our quality of life, as well as on Puerto Rico’s ability to develop economically. For example, since 1976, the Island’s unemployment rate has averaged 15.5 percent— while the U.S. national unemployment rate has averaged less than 6.5 percent. Our current poverty rate is 45.1 percent, more than twice that of Mississippi, the nation’s poorest state. In addition, Puerto Rico’s $18,689 income per capita is onethird the national average and half that of Mississippi. Consequently, during the last decade, Puerto Rico has experienced a massive population exodus. About 4.8 million Puerto Ricans now live in the continental U.S.—one third of whom were born on the Island— which is far greater than the 3.7 million who still reside on the Island. Most of these individuals would prefer to remain in Puerto Rico, but given the current unfair political
Learning to Count Andre Gardiner Columnist
M
odern public discourse, or at least the discourse I would like to see more of, is typically related to data in some way shape or form. Most TV pundits build their arguments around statistics like changes in the unemployment rate, corporate profits, or college debt. This doesn’t change very much at the college level, only data presentation, is hopefully grounded in higher level knowledge about analysis, causality, and uncertainty. Unfortunately, debate at all levels of society frequently ignores the inherent flaws in the data that we build our arguments around. Public policy analysis is marred by inefficiencies in data collection and poorly done surveys. Last semester, I worked on a research project with Professor Rick Geddes on NYS liability law. As part of our analysis, we collected industry data segmented by state and sector. We learned through our data
collection that the bureau of labor statistics does not keep segmented data for a lot of states due to budgetary reasons. These types of data deficiencies inhibit our ability to effectively analyze policy outcomes; a startling misallocation of funds, especially in light of the fact that the government keeps track of various data oddities. For example, the US Department of Agriculture collects very detailed global commodities data, including Taiwanese milk consumption statistics. Additionally, there are numerous inaccuracies within the data available to us. For example, a large body of research is dedicated to the disparities between the number of people the government believes is eligible for enrollment in food stamps and the number of people actually signed up. While there are numerous reasons for the difference, a less talked about one is that the government overestimates the number of people eligible through its survey methodology.
structure, relocation is the only way to enjoy the full benefits of U.S. citizenship. Last November 6th, the people of Puerto Rico made history, expressing their desire to leave behind territory status. The local government, under the leadership of former Republican Governor Luis Fortuño, held a two-question referendum on its political status. Of 1.8 million voters, 54 percent said that they did not wish to continue under the present territory condition. Furthermore, among the three valid non-territorial status options (independence, free association, and statehood), out of the 1.4 million voters that chose an option, 61 percent voted in favor of statehood. We made our voice heard loud and clear. In light of this, Puerto Rico’s congressional representative, Pedro Pierluisi, on Wednesday introduced H.R. 2000—a bipartisan bill that sets forth a process to admit Puerto Rico as the 51st state of the union. Now the next question is: Will Washington listen?
A myriad of congressional leaders have been longstanding proponents of equality for Puerto Rico. For example, in recent weeks, prominent Democratic leaders like Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD) and senior Congressman Jose Serrano (DNY) voiced their support for resolving Puerto Rico’s political status problem. At the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, President Obama included in his budget proposal $2.5 million to establish voter education initiatives and conduct the first federally sanctioned plebiscite in Puerto Rico’s history. Similarly, Republican leaders have historically been advocates for Puerto Rico’s statehood. President Ford believed “that the appropriate status for Puerto Rico is statehood.” President Reagan argued that he looked forward to “welcoming Puerto Rico with open arms.” Also, both the elder President Bush and his son have stated their support for statehood. More recently, conservative
Outside of data deficiencies and inaccuracies, there are also issues of interpretation related to valuation. For example, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), a private entity related to the SEC, is responsible for setting accounting standards. FASB accounting valuation standards make it extremely difficult to understand financial documents. For example, fair value accounting methodology, which deals with the valuation of assets using market prices, differences between government sponsored entities, insurance companies, and the financial service sector. As a result, a mortgage backed securities held by Fannie Mae can potentially have a different value than if it was held as AIG or Bank of America. With that in mind, it is important to be skeptical of all data oriented studies and policy proposals. Not only are data sets chalk-full of errors and standardization issues, it is all too easy to manipulate data sets through the exclusion of “outliers” and pure fraud. In my mind, the most important tool in policy analysis is a strong understanding of microeconomics
in a policy context. Microeconomic theory on supply and demand, taxes, and incentives are important when looking critically at today’s problems. While microeconomic theory should not be applied blindly, for example, analysis of minimum wage increases yield less negative consequences than microeconomic theory would dictate, knowledge of theory can result in more efficient policy solutions. In the case of assisting the working poor, the earned income tax credit is a superior policy solution to the minimum wage, with a more credible ground in economic theory. My suggestion to all studentsincoming freshmen most importantly- is to question data, and relate policy proposals back to microeconomics theory. Balancing data with theory allows us to build solutions that both maximize utility and deal with the realities of our inefficient world.
Continued on page 9
Andre Gardiner is a sophomore in the College of Human Ecology. He can be reached at apg58@ cornell.edu
CR
6
September 7, 2013
Exclusive
Tucker Carlson's Advice to Cornellians
P
olitical commentator Tucker Carlson is a pretty cool guy. And no, I’m not just saying that because he was my boss this summer. (Although I’m sure it
doesn't hurt.) Impressively, he joined CNN as its youngest anchor ever, and later co-hosted Crossfire, where he and Jon Stewart got into a memorable and heated confrontation. Today, he is a co-host on Fox and Friends and serves as the Editorin-Chief of the popular and successful news website, the Daily Caller. Interning for Tucker is a college student’s dream. Just to name one perk, the Daily Caller’s break room includes a bar, keg, and a Ping-Pong table. This summer, he even let a 16 year old high school student named Gabe Finger attend an official White House press conference. The intern caused a stir in the media just by daring to ask Jay Carney a question critical of Obama. As an intern, I remember Tucker mentioning several times that he loves giving “unsolicited life advice.” One afternoon, I decided to solicit some life advice especially for the readers of The Cornell Review. He obliged, and we spent an incredibly candid interview talking about his attitude on politics, drugs, early marriage, his brief stint on Dancing with the Stars, and more. Calling it candid is probably an understatement. To see for yourself, check out the Review’s exclusive interview with Tucker Carlson below!
To start off, could you tell the readers about the Daily Caller, and the office’s culture? "The Daily Caller has been around for three and a half years. I started it with my college roommate, Neil Patel, who worked for Dick Chaney for eight years. At first, we started mostly out of frustration at media coverage of Obama and with the election, which we thought was appalling and entirely one-sided. The office culture is different from most other places I have worked, and that is by design. We wanted to improve upon offices that we’d been in over the years. I would describe it as Libertarian with high standards. We don’t give a lot of direction to our employees, and we aren’t micromanaging them. But, we expect that they will perform at a high level and be super productive. In effect, you have an office where not everyone thrives. It’s an environment where some people do great work and others just can’t handle the lack of supervision and lack of hand-holding."
Would you describe your own style as libertarian? "Yes, completely. I’m not necessarily an ideological Libertarian, which is to say I’m not debating my neighbors on privatizing the sidewalks. But I can’t stand the idea of being bossed around by the government."
like going is h ig h g in tt e G " in the to the bathroom ovie." middle of the m
Recently, you've received criticism by other members of the press for sending a 16-year-old intern to a White House press conference. Why do you think they reacted this way? "I have no idea. This is a meritocratic office, I don’t care how old you are, where you’re from, or what you’ve done before. I’m interested in what you can do and what you are doing at the moment. I thought that Gabe Finger asked a better question than anyone else in the briefing room that day. We were proud to send him, and proud of the work he did while there. So if he’s disqualified because he’s not old enough or doesn’t have a journalism degree from some stupid graduate school, that is ludicrous to me. I don’t even
CR
understand the critique. We sent someone who asked a question that no one else was asking, and good for us."
Exclusive
7
September 7, 2013
Specifically for Cornell Review readers, imagine that you are convocation speaker. What words of wisdom would you have for the Cornell Class of 2014? "Don’t delay adulthood any further. That would be the theme of my address. You will be tempted to hide out in some graduate school, acquiring a degree you don’t need at great expense. But, you should keep in mind that life is finite. You will die, and perhaps sooner than you think. The real sin is wasting time, so don’t do it."
On that note, what is a reality of life that you think that Cornell students will face that they are not expecting yet? "Well, for people who relish in the idea of making their own decisions, adulthood is much more rewarding than school. I think that work is inherently meaningful and inherently dignified. Again, there is something inherently dignified in supporting yourself. In my experience, and I can only speak for yourself, I found post-college life instantly more meaningful and more rewarding. I expect that a lot of Cornell graduates will have the same experience- those who embrace it. But, a surprising and distressing number of 22 year-olds appear to want to put off personal responsibility as long as possible. That is my impression, anyway; and that’s a shame because happiness comes through duty and responsibility. So my advice, always, is to put yourself in positions where you’re forced to achieve things you wouldn’t achieve unless you were forced to. So, take a job for which you are not fully qualified. Get married younger than is fashionable. Have more kids than you can afford. Put yourself in positions where you have no choice but to excel. Many people are lazy people who don’t push themselves, and won’t push themselves unless they are forced to."
You mentioned getting married young, which is something that you yourself did. What convinced you that this is a great idea? "I got married at twenty-two. You’ve got to marry the right person! I’m not espousing a reverend-moon indiscriminate marriage scenario. I don’t think that’s a good idea. I’m also not espousing an arranged marriages, although they do, I think work fairly well. But that’s not what I’m advising. I just think that there’s a ton of data on this question; married people, and especially married men, achieve more and report higher levels of satisfaction in their lives than unmarried men. Marriage is good, especially for men. A lot of young men are convinced that it is a trap, and something to be avoided at all costs, something by which they’re pushed into by women, and I think that is totally false."
Switching topics, what made you decide to go on Dancing with the Stars? How did you so gracefully take the criticism? "Well, I did it out of pure recklessness. I’m not a good dancer, and never have been. I knew that I wasn’t going to be and I knew that doing it on live television would likely be humiliating. But, I also thought that it would be interesting and the kind of experience that would enrich my life in some way. I’ve never thought about my career—I just make each decision ad hoc. I choose the most interesting option available at the moment, always. That’s how I’ve lived my life, and its worked for me. So I’m glad that I did it. As for the criticism, if you allow people you’ve never met to control over your emotional state, you’re an idiot. I have four or five people whom I love and trust have my best interest at heart, and I pay very close attention to their views. I try to pay no attention at all to the views of everyone else. Because, why would I? I think that it’s one of the great inhibitors of success, actually. The idea that the mob has something useful to say to you; I just don’t believe that. So if one-hundred thousand, or a one-hundred million people on Twitter are mad at me, it doesn’t mean anything to me. If the four people I care about are mad at me, that means everything to me. So, if they didn’t like me, that’s ok!"
10! ge C
a More Tucker on P
R
8
September 7, 2013
National
The 'Paris of the West' Dies How the Motor City’s engine finally seized-up Roberto Matos National News Editor
W
hy is Detroit suffering today? Let’s consider: The Over-Reliance on a single industry (1945-1973): Detroit's policy makers were too one-dimensional in their approach to sustaining economic stability before 1970. They had spent decades over-investing in the profitability of auto manufacturing, instead of diversifying. In the atmosphere of outsourcing, high oil prices and emerging market competition that plagued the 1970s, they ought to have awoken from this state of dependency and turned to an alternative model of market diversification—one less burdened by costly commitments to super-high priced labor benefits. Instead of re-modeling, business and government continued to finance huge benefits-packages at enormous expense, paving the road toward fiscal insolvency. D-town’s current failure can be attributed to its past success. The Good Old Days: Detroit’s urban middle class families—which produced an entire fleet of specialized professionals, from attorneys, doctors, engineering technicians and middle-management workers during the early 20 century—were the oil that greased the motor city’s mighty engine. While working class laborers were the backbone of the city’s economy, the middle classes had driven massmarket consumption for generations and served as the engine of robust productivity for non-automobile industries throughout the city. As the backbone of the city’s prosperity, they helped secure Detroit’s place as the city with highest median-household income of any city in the US. Detroit’s financial coffers benefited handsomely from their presence and prosperity, since the sum of their payment of property, sales and income taxes helped sustain public financing well into the 1950s. The Brain Drain: But the mass exodus of the affluent and highly-trained professional classes during the 60s and 70s precipitated Detroit’s ruin. Besides de-industrialization (which we’ll address later), alarming social forces drove these families to the exit doors. From steadily mounting taxation, to failing public infrastructure (decaying schools, roads, utilities and parks), to growing racial tension, many white-collar professionals lost a sense of security. The subsequent emergence of an aggressive criminal class exacerbated their alarm. These forces gradually rendered neighborhoods uninhabitable for the urban professionals. They followed job-producers out the door in the “white flight” of the 1960s and 70s (which is now
CR
the stuff of legend). They fled to the suburbs for more occupationally favorable opportunities and more socially familiar environments, leaving the skyscrapers behind and their old neighborhoods to decay. Hence, city planners lost their prime source of reliable revenue. The absence of adequate revenue has left coffers dry for city bosses. Thus, maintaining the safety net apparatus and pub-
standards of living and have done little to improve the quality of life. They have also failed to increase the willingness of inhabitants to remain in Detroit, as one can gather from the decline of the city’s population from 2 million in 1950 to 700,000 now. Under LBJ’s Model Cities Program during the 1960s, Detroit mayors dramatically expanded the municipal government’s role in housing and educational policy. They part-
lic infrastructure has become all the more impossible. The Depressed Inhabitants: The remaining masses of undereducated, under-trained and materially deprived residents, consumers and laborers could not have possibly maintained the city’s infrastructure, business establishments, education centers or public utilities. Only 1/3 have jobs. These current inhabitants, lacking marketable job skills, are largely dependent on state provisions and entitlements to maintain their livelihood and have failed to serve as an adequate tax base to finance the city’s public projects. Disgruntled, impoverished and increasingly pessimistic, many of the inhabitants have found crime to be a more profitable venture than personal investment in their human capital through professional and educational pursuits. Furthermore, in an atmosphere plagued by fear, mutual suspicion and distrust, the social capital desperately needed to maintain Detroit’s civic fabric is too scarce to make improvements. The Entitlement System’s “Model City” Cracked: In response to this intensifying civic dislocation, ambitious social engineers among Detroit’s policy makers have sought to create new elaborate safety net. Through the 60s, Detroit became ground zero for Great Society reformers. Detroit residents and commercial actors became increasingly dependent on funds from municipal, state and federal bureaucrats, who issued directives and promised to meet the city’s healthcare, housing and educational needs in exchange for votes, donations and full cooperation. Entitlement schemes have failed to raise
nered with the federal government to embark on massive public housing construction projects for destitute inhabitants. Central urban planners poured 490 million dollars into a 9 square mile zone for construction. In much of the city, bureaucratic officials called the shots - they determined what could be built, where it would be built and what businesses would be closed or remain open. After 4 decades, the public housing grants and subsidies have little good to show for, largely because residential populations have plummeted severely and management-accounting failures have rendered the programs fiscally insolvent. Many of the public and private houses in Dtown now stand abandoned in desolate ghost towns. D-town has over 78 thousand vacant houses now. The average price of a home is 5700 dollars due to mass flight and unchecked crime. Plummeting real estate value keeps D-town altogether uninviting, even in the broadest of commercial terms. Moreover, despite their souring expense, educational overhauls have failed to deliver as well. The heavily-funded Detroit school systems spend $11,100 per student, compared to the national average of $9,600, yet Detroit students enjoy a graduation rate of only 25%. Academic records remain abysmal despite astronomical levels of funding to enhance programs. Meanwhile, incredibly powerful teachers unions command impressive wages and haven't given an inch during negotiations, refusing to make concessions which might contribute to reduced deficits and greater educational dividends. Merit-based pay, increased
student/teacher ratios, teacher-targeted incentives and school-choice programs have been steadfastly opposed. The public expense associated with teachers unions benefits has handicapped fiscal policy makers and exacerbated deficits. Meanwhile, it is now widely purported that students have a better chance of ending up in prison than they do of graduating high school. The Chains of Labor shackle the Hands of the Auto Industry Admittedly, the captains of the American car industry failed to adapt to emerging market competition posed by the Japanese and German makers, who have brilliantly seized entire shares of the U.S. auto market since the 70s. They grew complacent, rigid and unwilling to sleek down their models, and were therefore overtaken by more efficient and adaptable competitors. But their demise was hastened by another factor. The cost of doing business, especially the expense associated with high-priced labor, for auto-companies has proved so crippling that decades of outsourcing and fiscal shortfall are hardly difficult to explain. In the first place, automobile company leaders, since the mid-20th century, have committed themselves to financially unsustainable contracts with labor interests. In the second place, unions have greedily demanded excessive benefits and wages. Even during unfavorable economic conditions, the UAW rarely makes wage and benefit concessions. Apparently, the threat of auto company bankruptcies and potential mass layoffs does not faze them during negotiations. Instead, even during the most severe of recessions, the UAW has seen to it that even unemployed workers enjoy full wages through access to “job banks”, which has left some unemployed U.A.Workers living comfortably while non-auto workers in the Detroit area suffer under awful wages. The UAW has also forced managers to agree to 7 weeks paid vacation. These workers also receive 74 dollars per hour in salary and benefits, whereas foreign competitors offer about 40 dollar per hour wages to their workers, enabling them to free up capital for investment, innovation and expansion. Unions forced GM to pay 100 billion dollars in healthcare and pensions to former employers in the last fifteen years alone. With business and local government providing such enormous entitlements, it is little wonder that they experience constant fiscal shortfalls. Predictably, federal governments have continued to bail them out. This mounting cost of conducting car business has been transferred to burden consumers, who have to pay an extra 1200 dollars - in order to cover employee benefits - when purchasing, extra they wouldn’t have to Continued on page 9
National
Puerto Rico Statehood Continued from page 5
leaders like Rep. Peter King and Grover Norquist have embraced the statehood cause as well. All of these leaders understood that perfecting our union is a process. We abolished slavery after the Civil War in 1865, recognized a woman’s right to vote in 1921, and decided that separate was not equal in 1954. Under our Constitution, there is only one way to ensure full self-government and equality for the people of Puerto Rico, and that is through statehood.
The 'Paris of the West' Dies Continued from page 8 pay if the bought a foreign car. Thus, union demands make both American cars and labor too expensive for American producers. American car makers are thereby handcuffed by a labor force which is unwilling to appreciate fiscal sacrifice in the wake of a market downturn. The cost of labor is too high for automakers to free up funds to invest in lower profit margin smaller cars that might save them in the wake of cutting edge foreign competition. For decades, the auto companies offered competitive wages and their market dominance remained the envy of the industrialized world, but their generosity is now serving to destroy them. Dtown’s contraction is largely their doing. Finally, although they enjoy as much as 100,000 dollars in yearly earnings and benefits, workers in Dtown have contributed to their own undoing as well over the decades. Since 1970, millions of layoffs of blue collar workers have occurred, coinciding with the declining standard of living of working class people in the mid-west. The Municipal Profligacy As we’ve seen, business and government are chained to fiscally unsustainable demands which have
burdened them. Accountability is scarce, since both business leaders and municipal officials have grown accustomed to receiving bailouts when their troubles become particularly acute. This overreliance on external rescue has spawned a culture of irresponsibility. In this way, these commercial and political elites are comparable to their personally irresponsible constituents, but the consequences are far greater for the big wigs. It is little surprise, then, that the knee jerk reaction of public officials is yet more profligate spending and budgetary outlays, and not fiscal reevaluation. The city has $20 Billion in unpayable debt. The city engaged in 10s of millions of dollars worth of unaffordable borrowing. It has spent 100 million dollars annually since 2008. Some tax dollars have not been used to cover the cost of social services, but instead have diverted to funding generous municipal pensions and health benefits. Compounding this, much of the revenue generated is immediately diverted to municipal bondholders who helped finance the profligacy in the first place. Appropriately, the credibility of municipality-issued bonds has reduced, since the
Julio A. Cabral Corrada is a 2013 graduate in Business and Government. He can be reached at jac553@cornell.edu bankrupt Detroit will have difficulty paying its long line of angry creditors. Clearly a great deal of public and private pain will be experienced in the ongoing bankruptcy proceedings. The Anti-business climate To make matters worse, from the 1970s onward, in the wake of failed attempts to revive consumer demand through endless stimulus, through overhauling education, bankrolling schools and through meager job skills programs, the city government has failed to create an attractive environment for entrepreneurs and technically skilled, commercially savvy innovators. Besides municipal bonds, premium investment opportunities are few and far between, while the supply of skilled labor is too thin. Curiously, Detroit policy makers have responded by undermining the few businesses that remain, turning to burdensome payroll and sales taxes and confusing regulatory codes. They act as if these were viable solutions to the already sinking economic prospects. The ongoing forced unionism also made the destination less attractive to non-auto industries, making market diversification difficult. The Crime Needless to say, the criminal element in the city has operated
Campus
you freshman, but it’s up to you to save this country. Fight back. Debate. Seek out contrasting viewpoints. Most importantly, if you hear something you don’t agree with, say something and stand up for yourself. This country is filled with people who disagree with things that their chosen party does, but they go along with it out of a sheer sense of party unity. It is OK to disagree. I’d go so far
as to say that disagreeing is one of the most patriotic things you can do outside of voting. One of the things that made this country great was that we would not always agree; we would argue, yell, scream, and fight. But the end result was something that included the best ideas of both sides—something that actually helped people. We didn’t completely disregard the opinions of entire segment of the population simply because it wasn’t our party’s idea. But that is where we are now.
9
As Rep. Pierluisi remarked at a recent event cosponsored by Cornell in Washington, “The struggle for statehood is a fight for civil rights and a fight for human rights.” This issue transcends partisan politics; it is about right and wrong. After 115 years of inequality, it is past time that we have the same rights and responsibilities as our fellow American citizens. Now I ask you: Do you believe in democracy and equality?
An Open Letter to the Class of 2017 Continued from the front page
September 7, 2013
My party throws tantrums and stubbornly refuses to work on anything coming from the president. Democrats take every opportunity to cast Republicans in the worst possible light. Neither side is ever willing to admit to fault, and neither side is willing to come together. Those that do are quickly shunned by their respective parties as “not being __________ enough.” It has to stop. As incoming freshman, you all have the opportunity to initiate change—to get us back
unchecked and has been met with only nominal resistance from the authorities. This is partially because the only sector which has been met with fiscal austerity Detroit’s law enforcement workforce, which has suffered cutbacks, layoffs and slashing. 7 out of 10 murders go unsolved and its murder rate is 5 times the national average. With units that take almost 60 minutes to answer routine emergency phone calls, the police force is, at this point, little more than a national laughing stock. The culture of corruption of Detroit’s political class and the civic apathy of its citizenry have left observers bewildered, and for good reason. One need only turn their head to find that a new D-town politico has been prosecuted. While our sympathy should be extended to the poor people of Detroit, we should admonish its voters for reelecting scandal-ridden and misguided economic-policy makers generation after generation. Detroit has appropriately become the tragic poster boy of an intellectually exhausted and bankrupt (pun-intended) approach to urban reform. Perhaps future generations will heed the lesson. Roberto Matos is a junior in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be reached at rlm387@cornell.edu on the right track. You have all of the advantages that we have now— cable news, the Internet, world perspective—plus the advantage of youth, the ability to see where we went wrong, and how to fix it. The Cornell Review is not here to provide you with a balanced perspective. It is never that easy. We are here to provide you with a conservative voice to balance out the liberal voice you will hear across most of this campus. It is up to each one of you to hear both, and then make a genuinely informed decision. In doing so, it is my hope that you will fix what is broken, and make this country great again. Mike Navarro is a senior in the College of Agriculture and Life Science. He can be reached at mln62@ cornell.edu
CR
10
September 7, 2013
National
Tucker Carlson's Advice to Cornellians Continued from page seven
Would you share your advice on drugs with Cornell students? "Yeah; stop smoking weed! Weed makes you stupid. That’s not just an academic opinion; that’s a hard-earned opinion. I used to smoke it a lot, so I know. I think that it’s an ambition zapper. I know that it’s terribly uncool to say that. No, I don’t buy into the drug war. I think it’s stupid. I’m probably for decriminalizing marijuana. But my views on whether or not it
should be legal are very different from my views on whether or not you should smoke it. Again, it’s a time waster. Embrace reality. Embrace adulthood. Embrace responsibility, and risk, and even danger, and excitement. And all of the amazing things that life has to offer. Don’t numb yourself—why would you want to miss a single moment? Again, my whole worldview proceeds from one fact, which is that we’re all going to die. And so, why would you ever want to spend one
The Case Against Eminent Domain
BILL SNYDER CAMPUS NEWS EDITOR
I
n Richmond, California, politicians have reawakened the controversial issue of state power versus private property rights through their attempt to use eminent domain to acquire underwater mortgages. The government is attempting to forcibly acquire mortgage loans from investors, in order to refinance the mortgage rate and reduce principal for the benefit of select residents. Property owners in debt would pay back a portion of the original loan, and investors would be compensated at a supposedly “fair market” rate for the current value of their investment or security interest. Interestingly, in the Richmond case, the majority of the mortgage loans that the city is planning to acquire are performing loans—meaning that the homeowner is timely paying their contractual principal and interest payments, which is the primary objective of the mortgage investor. But is this a proper or an abusive use of eminent domain? Like most constitutional disputes, the devil lies in the details. The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution states that “…private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation.” Richmond’s government officials would argue that the government, by paying in-debt mortgage owners, is confiscating property and compensating the owners and the investors at a “fair” price. In addition, the town’s economy would benefit because homeowners would remain in their homes and repay their loans at a more manageable level. However, there are several problems with this scenario. Firstly, the government is providing a relatively arbitrary—and likely improper—definition of what is fair.
CR
Most distressed individual mortgage loans trade in a wide range of values, and it is unlikely that the investor would receive fair or just value. In addition, Richmond’s timing is very suspect in that the real estate market is improving, and it appears that the city is attempting to garner large property write-downs for select residents early in the housing recovery at the expense of the investor. In the Richmond case, the majority of the loans are performing, and therefore, the underling value of the mortgage property is really irrelevant, as the mortgage property is simply collateral “in the case” of a default or nonpayment by the borrower. It could reasonably be argued that the investors are entitled to their original principal on “performing loans” as fair or just compensation.
“The government is attempting to forcibly acquire mortgage loans from investors.” Homeowners and investors made a contractual agreement, in which the investors negotiated a loan at a given point in time. Changing conditions does not mean that the value of the contract is void. Furthermore, if the government can seize and change the value of the loans arbitrarily, how can investors effectively negotiate with homeowners? The government’s actions would set a precedent that the value of an
second numb? You don’t want to spend it. You don’t want to miss it. You don’t want to go to the bathroom in the middle of a great movie, do you? No. Getting high is like going to the bathroom in the middle of the movie. You miss the best part; don’t take that risk." To wrap up, do you think that you’ll ever lose the reputation as the man in the bowtie, despite no longer wearing bowties? "Probably not. People truly hate bowties, and the men
who wear them. So, when you wear a bowtie, it’s like wearing a middle-finger around your neck. It’s an act of provocation aimed at the world, and people respond in-kind. They shout obscenities at you, they despise you instantly. And, I don’t think the shame of that ever goes away. It really is a permanent stain. Luckily, I don’t care!"
investment is conditional on the government’s notion of fairness or equity rather than the contractual obligations of the instrument and economic merits of the transaction. This policy would make investor risk evaluation problematic and certainly will raise the cost of mortgages for all homeowners as investors price into future homeowner mortgages rates the costs of eminent domain usage. Secondly, what constitutes as “public use”? Historically, the gov-
might benefit a city. It might be in the best interest of Richmond’s select residents that all of their other private contracts be offered cents on the dollar such that Richmond’s city is a more vibrant place. However, that would raise costs on everything and would generally be unfair to other citizens who would pay higher rates to subsidize these government payouts. The problem is that Richmond is using an arbitrary use of eminent domain that could and likely would
ernment has used eminent domain to acquire land for infrastructure related projects, such as roads or public buildings. “Public use” meant that the government could seize property for the use of goods and services that everyone would very often or absolutely need to use. However, Richmond government officials have defined public use extraordinarily broad to include very select private benefits that Richmond suggests will benefit its community. It might be true that providing select mortgage relief would benefit areas of Richmond. However, where would we draw the line in this area of private benefits for select individuals to benefit a government? It might also be true that residents who did not have to pay all of their credit card bills, hospital bills or possible even Cornell’s tuition bills
be used in an abusive manner in the future. This generalized definition of eminent domain allows the government to selectively seize private property unnecessarily. These types of policies won’t only hurt big Wall Street bankers but average Americans that have long-term investments. And the logical result of such government policies will only increase interest rates on every citizen. You don’t have to look far to find historical examples of the government abusing eminent domain (look up Berman v Parker if you don’t believe me), so perhaps it’s best not set a precedent for further terrible governance.
Laurel Conrad is a senior in the College of Arts and Sciences. She can be reached at lrc54@cornell. edu.
Bill Snyder is a sophomore in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be reached at wjs254@cornell.edu.
Exclusive Online Content
September 7, 2013
11
Blog.TheCornellReview.com Interview with Creators of Controversial Website, CornellFetch.com Posted by Laurel Conrad
In an exclusive interview, the current bane of Panhellenic’s existence, CornellFetch.com, revealed to the Cornell Review that it is tracking if users vote for or against girls in a specific sorority. The site also revealed that it even intends to release this data in the future. The good news is that while they do intend to “release summarized data in aggregate charts,” they clarified that they will not release individual voter information. The website, which allows visitors to show preference for one Cornellian over another, has become popular since its emergence on August 12th. It has certainly caught the attention of the Cornell community, but perhaps not in a positive way. According to Cornell Fetch, its creators have received “multiple death threats, harassment emails, threats to reveal doxxed information, organized spam campaigns against our servers, and multiple MySQL injection attacks against our databases.” Check out our exclusive interview below to find out more about the controversial website: CR: Why did you start Cornell Fetch? CF: CornellFetch gathers data on voting behaviors of users when presented with choices from a niche network. It monitors how users react when given certain incentives. CR: Who are the creators behind the website? CF: No comment CR: Do you feel that Cornell Fetch benefits the Cornell community? If so, how? CF: CornellFetch does not have a special purpose other than possible data analysis. Part of the experiment was to monitor how Cornellians vote in certain situations. In fact, CornellFetch purposefully excluded any directions on how a user should vote. Any inferred instruction is made by the user. Not CornellFetch. CR: Can I infer, then, that you are interested in seeing if users vote for girls in a specific sorority, or vote against girls in a specific sorority? CF: Correct. Additionally, we measure how users will alter their vote choices and voting delays when given certain incentives (ex. points). CR: Do you plan on releasing the data on how Cornellians vote in certain situations. Or is that for personal use for the creators of Cornell Fetch only? CF: As of now, we plan on releasing the data we gather at the end of our experiment. CR: Finally, how often is the top 10 updated, and how is it compiled? CF: The table is generated by a program that counts the selection percentage of a profile based on over 300,000 votes. It will be updated once every few days. So far, we have only updated it twice.
CR
12
September 7, 2013
Wisemen & Fools When it comes to telephone calls, nobody is listening to your telephone calls. That's not what this program is about. Barack Obama You have zero privacy anyway. Get over it. Scott McNealy, Co-founder of Sun Microsystems The bottom line is we're not broke, there's plenty of money, it's just the government doesn't have it. Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) I cannot write in verse, for I am no poet. I cannot arrange the parts of speech with such art as to produce effects of light and shade, for I am no painter.
Even by signs and gestures I cannot express my thoughts and feelings, for I am no dancer. But I can do so by means of sound, for I am a musician. W.A. Mozart A state cannot be made out of any and every collection of people, so neither can it be made at any time at will. Hence civil strife is exceedingly common when the population includes an extraneous element, whether these have joined in the founding or have been taken on later. Aristotle, The Politics When Arab statesmen insist that Israel withdraw to the pre-June, 1967, lines, one can only ask: If these lines are so sacred to the Arabs, why was the Six-Day War launched to
Read archived issues online at
destroy them? Golda Meir, My Life Beyond that, I think every president in the intense media environment we have now, certainly every twoterm president, gets to a point where the American people stop listening, stop leaning forward hungrily for information. I think this president got there earlier than most presidents. And I think he's in that time now. Peggy Noonan, on Barack Obama I didn’t set a red line. Barack Obama If we know anything, it is that weakness is provocative. Donald Rumsfeld If by jingoism they mean a policy in pursuance of which Americans will with resolution and common sense insist upon our rights being
respected by foreign powers, then we are ‘jingoes.’ Theodore Roosevelt We Americans are a primitive people. We do not have discipline. Our moral standards are low. It shows up in the private lives of people we know—their drinking and ‘behavior with women.’ It shows in the newspapers, the morbid curiosity over crimes and murder trials. Americans seem to have little respect for law, or the rights of others. Charles A. Lindbergh Change change change change change change change change change change change change change change change change change change change change change chan Barack Obama
thecornellreview.com
Join the Review. CR
Come to Rockefeller Hall 183, Tuesdays at 5:00 pm or send us an email at cornellreview@cornell.edu