16 pages!
The Issues Cornell Review writers discuss the issues that seperate the Presidential tickets, from the economy and unemployment to women’s issues and foreign policy.
The Review Declaration of Independence
A thorough list of grievances against King Barack, and a civil call to establish a new government. (p. 9)
UNDERGRAD SURVEY
Results from the Review’s straw poll of the Cornell undergraduate population, highlighting Cornell's liberal tendencies. (p. 8)
2
November 1, 2012
Editorial
The Educated Voter: A Five Point Plan Alfonse Muglia Editor-in-Chief
E
very four years, citizens of the United States of America get the distinctive opportunity to call into question the direction that their elected officials have been leading the country. Adults of every gender and race, religion and ideology, income and education, gather at assigned locations to cast votes that are, in theory, equal in weight. It should come as no surprise, therefore, that the United States Constitution is the longest-lasting constitution in the world, weathering over two centuries of changing norms in a changing America. Its unique structure of periodic evaluations in the hands of the populous has allowed our law to be amended in language and attuned in interpretation. Nevertheless, among the facets that have remained constant throughout the life of this document is its dependence upon an educated citizenry. Considering that we are stakeholders in an academic environment, this facet speaks to members of the Cornell student body more now than it will at any other time in our lives. Thomas Jefferson first spoke of the need of an educated population for democracy to survive. This was his argument for some limited-form of government involvement in Education (until the massive centralization of the post-FDR years) and it was the motive behind the founding of our nation’s top institutions. His argument is a simple one: citizens cannot be expected to engage in the most participatory form of government in the history of the world if they are not educated on the issues that affect them and the ideals motivating the actors.
CR
Cue the reporters. Cue the pundits. Cue academic institutions. The people must be educated! Fast forward to the 21st century, and it has become hard to differentiate between society’s efforts to educate voters and its efforts to keep people ignorant. As one campaign elucidates its social policies through a fabricated, government-dependent girl named Julia and focuses on the bells and whistles of marginal cuts to PBS, the other condenses a complicated economic entanglement into a five point plan that leaves immense room for interpretation. Educated Patriots should consider both strategies an insult to their intelligence. The challenge lies in the fact that many in power are complacent with Americans basing their vote on this limited knowledge, and they have been since our founding and the establishment of the Electoral College. Ideologists in Generation Y
when you’re in your 20s, then you have no heart and no hope for a restoration of all that is glorious about America. For a 20-year-old conservative has both a heart and a brain, and in this election cycle, he or she has even more: an idealized vision of America where the federal government does not overstep the powers granted to it in the Constitution. By questioning everything from the evolving nanny state to the myriThis snapshot of Thomas Jefferson's ad of bureaucratic instigravestone sheds some light on what tutions, Cornell’s conserthe Patriot considered to be his greatest vatives have shaped this accomplishments, namely writting the discourse. But there is Declaration and founding the University of much to be done, and the Virginia efforts that will not end next Tuesday. where order is maintained by the But they could take a giant states, social issues are not foreleap forward — if Generation Y front on the national agenda, bursides with the more ideologically dens are not passed to future gencoherent party. erations, and elected officials do
Citizens cannot be expected to engage in the most participatory form of government in the history of the world if they are not educated on the issues that affect them and the ideals motivating the actors.
not try to prolong their tenure in power by providing handouts that are the root of the Democrats creation of a population dependent on the government.
This dependence on the federal government has made Americans blind to the need to be educated—not just in the maths and sciences, but in the rules that govern the survival of the AmerA vote for this party, the Grand ican experiment. The last few now have the opportunity to challenge this gridlock, and the Old Party, will not immediately months have been a reminder of fall of 2012 has been a time to fix the problem of a disillusioned these ideals, and Patriots cannot discuss how this is possible and populous, for both parties will let them die with a vote of comquestion many of the phenomena continue to cover their efforts to placency on November 6th. that have been taken for granted maintain order with a façade of over the last four years. change. Alfonse Muglia is a junior in With this argument, I would But I find optimism in the dicargue that a famous Winston tion of the Romney-Ryan ticket. the School of Industrial & Labor Churchill quote calls for a re- Diction that speaks of a world Relations. He can be reached at wording: If you’re not an idealist arm267@cornell.edu.
The Cornell Review
Founded 1984 r Incorporated 1986 Jim Keller Jerome D. Pinn Anthony Santelli, Jr. Ann Coulter Founders
Noah Kantro Alfonse Muglia Editors-in-Chief
Karim Lakhani President
Lucia Rafanelli Managing Editor Vice President
Michael Alan
Executive Editor
Katie Johnson Treasurer
Laurel Conrad
Campus News Editor
Kushagra Aniket
National News Editor
Contributors Misha Checkovich Roberto Matos Caitlin Deming Christopher Mills Caroline Emberton Mike Navarro Andre Gardiner Kirk Sigmon Alex Gimenez Bill Snyder
Emeritus Members Anthony Longo Lucas Policastro
Christopher Slijk Oliver Renick
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.
Editorial
Now or Never for Conservatism
Noah Kantro Editor-in-Chief
N
ext week’s election is quite possibly the last chance for the great American experiment. The notions of limited government, personal responsibility, and the civil society imagined by our founding fathers are on the verge of final collapse. Why? As President John Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Our population has moved so far away from this ideal that it may be impossible to recover. This is personified by the rise of such voters as the Obamaphone Lady. The surprising part is not that she would sell her vote, but that the price would be so low. The existence of citizens like her points to the absolute failure (and corruption) of the civic education of the American population. Rush Limbaugh described this sentiment best, saying, “So these are the people that don’t like Romney because of what he said about 47 percent? No, these are the 47 percent!... She knows. She knows how to get this free Obama phone. She knows everything about it. She may not know who George Washington is or Abraham Lincoln, but she knows how to get an Obama phone.” The unnamed Obamaphone Lady personifies the 47% Romney spoke of. The candidate was widely criticized for this “gaffe”, but the substance of his comment is correct. 47% is exactly where the incumbent stands in the polls as of October 30.
The Cornell Review meets regularly on Mondays at 5:00 pm in GS 156. E-mail messages should be sent to Copyright © 2012 The Ithaca Review Inc. All Rights Reserved.
The progressive dream is on the verge of having more popular support than the American dream. This trend has been worsening since the days of the Great Depression. Our current state has followed from an endless string of policies and regulations that have corrupted the minds and souls of the citizenry for the benefit of those temporary leaders and guardians of our society—politicians. Now, the progressive dream is on the verge of having more popular support than the American dream.
3
All of this though, was predicted centuries ago. Benjamin Franklin said, "When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." He was echoed by Alexis de Tocqueville, the first outside analyzer of the American system: “The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.” More than 200 years later, have we finally reached the point where those who would vote only in their selfish interests outnumber those who vote with the future good in mind? If Obama wins this election, it will signify that the 47% has become more than 50%, and that the permanent descent into soft tyranny has begun. The Democratic creation of and subsequent dominance, racebaiting, and demagoguery of the country’s demographic shift ensures this. Conservatives will be a minority in our own land, prevented by the nanny state from living the way we want in the country we created. If Romney wins, there is still time to postpone Franklin’s prediction. There will still be time to answer the challenge of Samuel Adams: "If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." Noah Kantro is a junior in the College of Engineering. He can be reached nk366@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.
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.
cornellreview@cornell.edu
This group is not merely made up of those dependent on the government as Romney suggested, but is a coalition of government dependents and their idealistic enablers. After Obama’s objectively disastrous term, and facing as vanilla and unobjectionable a Republican as Romney, these 47 percent are sticking by Democrat ideals. If they cannot be converted in this election, with the economy, foreign relations, and social cohesion this bad, they never will. If the Obama reign has been insufficient, no presidency and no events will ever be enough to allow a widespread reverse of liberal indoctrination.
November 1, 2012
The Cornell Review
est.1984
vol. xxxi, no. v november 1, 2012
CR
4
November 1, 2012
World
The Last Stroke 01 commentators welcomed the inauguration of a new style of foreign policy. But while the “Obama doctrine” was supposed to be based on the ost opportunities, misplaced principles of negotiation and cooppriorities and incoherent poli- eration, it soon changed into a stratcies—these are the words that will egy of appeasing our enemies and surrendering our national interests. soon be used to describe President In fact, contrary to his stated goal Obama’s record in foreign relations. of establishing “a common security Four years ago, when the President and a common prosperity with other began his tenure, many enthusiastic peoples and other countries,” the President’s reign has seen an unprecedented rise in anti-Americanism, subversion of democratic reform, and perpetuation of Islamic extremism in the Middle East. Even after the death of Osama bin Laden, we now live in a more dangerous and volatile world than we did four years ago. There is no need to recount the list of formidable challenges that the US faces in Libya. But far more outrageous than the intelligence and security blunder during the Benghazi attack was the Obama Administration’s rhetoric of denial. Obama does not see the attack on the American consulate as a pre-mediated terrorist operation. On the contrary, he America cannot afford another four years of regards it as a spontaneous protest against “a crude and Obama's apology tour. Kushagra Aniket National News Editor
Platonic Squabbles
L
disgusting video.” Had this not been his position, he would have found no need to apologize to those who were offended or even to clarify that the US government had nothing to do with the obscure video. Numerous videos have been made about all sorts of religious beliefs that people hold dear, but that itself does not spark violence of this magnitude. Rather, it is Obama’s policy of hesitant intervention followed by disengagement, his lack of focus and attention, and his attitude of leaving foreign relations at the mercy of world events that has helped create a power vacuum in which terrorists can execute attacks with impunity. What is even more astonishing is
He condemned the idea of American leadership as hegemonic dominance and American Exceptionalism as vain arrogance while fanatics continued to raise the black banner of extremism over our consulates that the President fails to grasp the suicidal psychology of Islamic extremism and the enormous threat that it poses to the civilized world. Instead, he claims to sympathize
America, This Is What You Voted For Lucia Rafanelli Managing Editor
A Fortnight of Follies
I
f you haven’t been paying much attention to politics this election season, start now. Contained in this article is information every American should know. Before you cast your vote, before you make up your mind, and before you even discuss politics with one more person, take five minutes out of your day to read it. The Obama Administration faced some controversy earlier this year when the existence of its so-called “kill list” of al-Qaeda operatives and other terrorists became public knowledge. Suspects on the list were designated for “kill or capture,” and critics were troubled by the government’s endorsement of what was essentially a document authorizing the assassination of a slew of terror suspects who had never stood trial— some of whom were Americans. Politically tricky as President Obama’s use of this list
CR
might be, however, it is not my main concern here. My concern is with a 16-year-old boy named Abdulrahman al-Awlaki. Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was an American citizen. I say was because he was killed just over a year ago by an American drone. Despite the fact that his father, Anwar al-Awlaki, was on Obama’s hit list, Abdulrahman’s death was not an unintended or unavoidable side-effect of the drone strike that ended his father’s life. To the contrary, Abdulrahman was killed in a separate strike two weeks after his father’s death. Though Anwar al-Awlaki was a known al-Qaeda member who actively encouraged terrorism against the US, his son had no such record. In fact, according to Esquire’s political blog, he hadn’t seen his father once in the two years before their deaths. What is the Obama Administration’s explanation for all this? Firstly, it should be noted that, after Abdulrahman was killed, Yemeni officials incorrectly reported his age as 21.
with the fictitious sense of “humiliation” that Islamists claim to have suffered at the hands of “Western imperialism.” No one would have blamed Obama for succumbing to the illusion that people across the globe desire peace or share similar aspirations, but now his attempts to mislead Americans and his sheer incompetence in combating the rising tide of fundamentalism have lead us to doubt his intentions. It is quite evident that President Obama views American power as malicious in nature and believes that its confident exercise amounts to
Now, though, we know he was only 16. Secondly, shortly after the killing, Time reports that a US official said Abdulrahman’s death was in fact a case of collateral damage, though not related to his father’s assassination. The official claimed that the drone that killed Abdulrahman (and his teenage cousin and several others) was meant for al-Qaeda member Ibrahim al-Banna, who was also killed in the attack. However, a video featured on The Atlantic’s website shows White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs giving a different explanation to a reporter. Speaking of Abdulrahman, the reporter points out, “It's an American citizen that is being targeted without due process, without trial. And, he's underage. He's a minor.” Gibbs’ response is as follows: “I would suggest that you should have a far more responsible father if they are truly concerned about the well being of their children. I don't think becoming Continued on page 14
sinful intrusion. This explains why he is not prepared to mount serious pressure on Bashar al-Assad despite the massacre of 30,000 civilians, or Continued on page 14 Fact Check
Obama’s Apology Tour
January 2009
Saudi Arabia (Jan. 27)
“My job to the Muslin community is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy. We sometimes make mistakes. We are not perfect.”
April 2009
Strasburg, France (Apr. 3)
Turkey Parliment (Apr. 6) Trinidad and Tobago (Apr. 17)
“In America, there's been a failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world... There have been times when America has shown ignorance and been dismissive, even derisive” “The United States is still working through some of our own darker periods in our history.” “We [America] at times have been disengaged, and at times we sought to dictate our terms.”
June 2009 Cairo, Egpyt (June 4)
“I've come to Cairo to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world, one based on mutual interest and mutual respect.”
National
The Stakes Are Too High Grappling with the economic question of 2012 Roberto Matos Columnist
The Clarion Call
I
t is abundantly clear that the case for removing President Obama on November 6th can (and should) be made on entirely economic grounds. Frankly, any lengthy diatribe here about foreign policy would amount to a needless distraction for three reasons. (1) The recent presidential “debate” has exposed the striking degree to which both Obama and Romney essentially agree on critical foreign policy questions: stated commitments to staunchly support Israel, devotion to preventing the emergence of a nuclear-armed Iran, and a pledge to limit military interventionism; (2) the prevailing sentiment, largely shared by foreign affairs analysts, that the greatest threat to national security is, in truth, the lethargic state of the economic recovery and the outstanding severity of the debt; (3) the acknowledgement among the vast majority of voters that pocketbook issues should obviously predominate over all other questions. For these reasons, we shall focus entirely on the economic case for removing Obama. First, we are powerless to deny the glaring truth that the U.S economy desperately relies upon the optimism and confidence of its small businesses, the dynamism of its entrepreneurs, the rate of their start-ups, and the vitality of the markets which they are responsible for generating. Assuredly, the trajectory of the recovery cannot possibly improve if small-businesses and large companies feel under siege, or lack confidence in their future prospects, and are therefore unwilling to engage in robust economic activity. After all, they amount to the overwhelming majority of enterprises in the private sector (estimation: 95%), and employ some 52% of American private sector workers according to the Small Business Administration. We are also powerless to deny that these very agents of economic growth have felt alienated by the policies of the Obama administration. The confusion and fear which has been induced by Obamacare, in particular, has reportedly rendered a paralyzing effect on an astounding number of small business owners. Its already mounting costs could very
well prompt startled business owners, who simply cannot afford to bear its burdens, to accelerate the laying off of its workers. This fact is commonly recog-
Romney’s mere presence in the White House would induce renewal of optimism in commercial spheres nationwide. nized in most chambers of commerce and manufacturing associations across the nation. Beset with trepidation, their members are overcome by a sense of anxiety and uncertainty about their immediate prospects, especially if Obamacare survives. Frankly, our president has utterly failed to instill confidence in much of the private sector, and
businesses forego investing, forgo hiring ( job creation), forgo increasing employee wages (which would yield higher take-home pay), forgo risk taking, and forgo market expansion. A president who fails to successfully motivate small businesses to engage in these vital activities—investing, job creation, risk-taking, market expansion and the awarding higher take-home pay to its employees— can appropriately be labeled an enemy of small businesses, in both perception and reality. Moreover, Obama’s failure to remove a sufficient number of regulatory burdens in the form of excessive red-tape, which are known to obstruct start-ups, blemishes his record, and only suppresses economic optimism all the more. His promise to allow the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, though advertised as solely targeting the wealthy, will likely affect high income owners that are still struggling to keep their small businesses afloat. In other words, many of those Obama promises to tax are at the forefront of small businesses job creation efforts. Imagine the costs!
How many Americans realize that if the United States defaults on its debt, it would make the 2008 financial crisis seem like a few splashes of water at the beach compared to the deluge of economic pain that such a default would amount to? has thus failed to prompt them to rapidly accelerate job creation. The consequences have never been so clear. Without certainty,
The implications for middleincome families have been palpable. The rate at which job creation has occurred has remained staggeringly low for dozens of
November 1, 2012
5
01 months. Meanwhile, the rising cost of healthcare, the persistent decrease in take-home pay, the increasing difficulty to cover the costs of utilities oil and gas are all exacerbating suffering. The 23 million unemployed or underemployed, for years, is most indicting. Obama’s inability to bring about even gradual reversals of these trends is a harrowing blight upon his record. Given the severe human toll which the currently poor business climate is taking on American families, do we not have a moral imperative to vote for a viable alternative to the status quo? The ushering of Romney into office itself will assuredly stimulate hope in the private sector, since the office would finally be occupied by a man who sympathizes with and relates to the struggles of small business people in an intimate fashion. He probably has a better sense for what they urgently need and could engage in dialogue more comfortably with them than Obama. Thus, Romney’s mere presence in the White House would induce renewal of optimism in commercial spheres nationwide. With the gradual dismantling of the regulatory scheme burdening small businesses, and with the implementation of a more smallbusiness friendly tax code, we can expect to see an acceleration of hiring, more risk taking, more investment and less hesitation to partake in innovation. Most importantly, take-home pay is likely to rise under his tenure given these robust conditions. Second, we turn to debt. Can there be any greater embarrassment to a president who, pledging to cut the deficit in half, instead presided over massive increases of the debt by $1 trillion each year of his term? Should there be any limit to our outrage in the face of a $16 trillion debt? Can anyone conceive of the degree to which the upcoming generations will be burdened given this figure? Should we not wallow in grief when we hear the incumbent pledging to expansions of budgetary outlays? Are we to somehow ignore the likelihood that the deficit will reach $20 trillion by the end of a second Obama term unless drastic alterations to the social safety net are implemented soon? Was anyone else depressed and exasperated to see our Continued on page 14
CR
6
November 1, 2012
National
A Woman Voting for Democracy Misha Checkovich Staff Writer
T
he battle lines in the war on women have been drawn. Obviously, known to any sentient being, Mitt Romney is on the wrong side. I know because Eva Longoria tells me so, and in language I can't repeat here. I know because Debbie Wasserman Shultz shrieks it at me every so often on TV. And, since Sandra Fluke is endorsing Obama, I guess I know which way to vote now to fulfill the duties of my gender. I will be voting for Mitt Romney. Why would I be voting for such a racist misogynist—especially since I am both a minority and a woman? Because these women are totally out of touch with what many women want from a president, and they have badly misrepresented what Mitt Romney and the Republican Party are all about. Firstly, I do not believe Mitt Romney is either racist or misogynistic. Being against amnesty for illegal aliens is certainly not racism, and if being against federally mandated contraception coverage is misogyny while capitulating to the Islamic fundamentalists in the Middle East and elsewhere under the banner of multiculturalism is not, then water is dry, Cornell is a bucket full
of sunshine, and Barack Obama is a competent president. Secondly, these women are (essentially) professional liars. Eva Longoria makes her (extremely lavish) living pretending to be fictional characters. What she contributes to society is not tangible, is not life-changing, and certainly does not come from a place of deep contemplation and scholarly pursuit, let alone a place of absolute truth. Sandra Fluke is a professional activist, who is bound to a partisan agenda that takes into account no other world views and no other solutions except that which leftism propagates—facts or, more importantly, opposing viewpoints be damned. And Debbie. Oh, Debbie. Her untruths and deceptions are legion, and well-documented. Where and how do these women find the gall to proclaim themselves the standardbearers of my gender? Where did they ever get the idea that they represent all women and anything that is not in line with their views is by definition not what a real woman is? What offends me is that they claim the mantle of womanhood (and without input from a huge swath of those women they claim to represent), that what they speak is undeniable, and that anyone who
disagrees is de facto deficient in some way. Is someone who votes for Mitt Romney—who is certainly more accomplished than Barack Obama could even dream of being prior to his election to the presidency—really stupid? Or do they just have different priorities and a different set of political principles? Certainly conservatism proper, which is grounded in centuries of political philosophy and reasoned inquiry, not to mention real-world experiments, is not some kooky off-shoot of some obscure political tradition. Conservatism (or classical liberalism) is what gave birth to the Western world. To wish to preserve our tradition of individual liberty, free markets, and limited government that has given rise to the freest and most prosperous society in the history of this world is not a small matter. So, when we—women, conservatives, minorities, what have you—want to vote for Mitt Romney because we believe it is he who will best execute the duties of the office in that tradition, we will do so without any of the racist or misogynistic motives that the Left unfairly ascribes to Republican voters. I think it is appalling to write us off as dumb or racist or other vulgarities. We are trying to participate in
01 the hallowed civic tradition of voting, and to hear that our choice is basically evil is highly undemocratic. To write off half of the electorate as hopelessly and fundamentally bad because of our preferred candidate (and by extension, our political philosophy) is dangerous to democracy and freedom itself. I understand that it is part of our democratic tradition to protect speech, even offensive and vulgar speech. So, I am in no way calling for these women to be silenced. What I am going to call for instead is for people to look beyond identity politics, to look beyond the ideological boxes the Left has placed subsections of society in, and accept that people of any gender or race or creed can vote, in good faith, for either Barack Obama or Mitt Romney, and that they will do so without nefarious motives. Misha Checkovich is a senior in the College of Arts and Sciences. She can be reached at mcc254@cornell. edu.
Fact-Checking with Sandra Fluke Katie Johnson treasurer
Ladies’ Liberty
I
t has been said that truth is the first casualty of war. In the presidential and vice-presidential debates, the verbal sparring is evidence enough that a skirmish of sorts is underway. The candidates are not alone in this battle of wits (if you can call it that); everyone from well-informed and well-known comedians to Twitter members who display the creative possibilities of spelling and grammar are weighing in. It is true that some constituents do not have time to be informed about all the issues, but that being the case, is anyone qualified to vote? The United States’ forefathers were not altogether agreed on the point, but they probably could not have foreseen the extensive media that exists today, able to inform the masses with more ease and expediency than ever. The problem is that it does not always do so. Sandra Fluke, ’03, had a question-and-answer session with Cornell students and asserted we should “demand more” from the media. Fluke stated that the common conservative qualm that
CR
she was testifying for tax-funded birth control is false: she was actually asking for privatized insurance at that time (even though she is generally in favor of tax-funded birth control). Fluke stated that the people in conservative media—“all of them” —are “angry” and have a “strategy” with which to “silence women’s voices” by “hate.” Such a generalization seems to be in opposition to her assertion that she only speaks when she knows all of the specifics. She admitted that, although she was and is not an expert, she believes she was qualified to testify because of her ability to observe the circumstances around her. She then decried the depersonalization and dehumanization of anonymous social
information or opinions to their friends got that information from the media in the first place, and not all of it is true. When it comes down to it, everyone is qualified to have an opinion; everyone has access to consciousness, even if not everyone articulates it with equal excellence. Every individual is qualified to determine what is best for him or her, and vote accordingly. That is why Americans vote—because they believe that an individual knows his or her interests better
The problem is that the government doesn’t have to be all things to all people, even though some may think it does. media, and believes to “hear from someone you know is more powerful” than listening to the media. Of course, most people dispensing
than a large government Leviathan does. It does take some effort to discover the truth about issues and candidates, since candidates have,
as ever, resorted to smear tactics and telling us what their opponent has done wrong rather than telling us what they are going to do right. Fact-checking websites, docking both sides for their untruths, have popped up and garnered thousands of hits. It’s important to know the truth, not only on principle, but also because it will inform our decisions and affect our impact on our society. Ms. Fluke emphasized the importance of voting to make our voices heard. I agree with her there, even though I disagree that voting for Romney-Ryan will silence women. Maybe I’m not qualified, but I’m going to follow Ms. Fluke’s advice to observe what Continued at right
National
November 1, 2012
Unemployment Uncertainty
01
Why Employment Statistics Are Not What They Seem Christopher Slijk Staff Writer
J
obs: it seems to be the deciding factor in the upcoming election. On both sides, we hear about economic growth and stability as the basis upon which we should vote, with Obama claiming that maintaining our current course will lead to additional job growth and Romney pointing out that the still-sluggish state of the economy necessitates a change in policy. It seems to be the only thing that directly affects voters, and the candidate who can better assure the American voters that he can spur new job growth is sure to be the winner in the upcoming election. On some level, this is a dubious basis on which to cast a vote; despite the prevailing sentiment pushed on the American public since FDR’s New Deal, it isn’t the job of the president or the federal government to create jobs, nor should it be. It is, however, his responsibility to foster an environment which is conducive to economic growth and activity, which in turn leads to job creation. So, while a president is not always to blame for a bad economy (although, much unlike our current president, he should take a leadership role and accept responsibility for it), the long-term responses of businesses and workers to the economic climate serve as a gauge of the success or failure of the president’s policies. The unemployment statistics released for September by the Bureau of Labor and Statistics seem to paint an optimistic, though still rather dismal, picture: Officially, unemployment is at 7.8%, the first time it has been below 8% since 2009. Despite a recent revision of estimated GDP growth downward to below 2%, many of President Obama’s supporters flaunt this as a vindication of his economic policies, saying that he can continue a flurry of job creation if given another four years.
7
Yet, anyone who delves into the workers, who have developed years way the unemployment statistics are of experience and could be a great people—people who would have calculated knows that many vari- asset in adding value to the econ- otherwise gone into the workforce ables underlie this rosy picture of omy, with little choice but to com- were entry-level job prospects not the job market. Over the past four pete with teenagers for jobs behind so weak—into students, we see that years, the labor force participation this has become and will continue to rate (the percentage of the total be a serious problem for the future working age population with or labor force. searching for a job) has been in conPresident Obama has claimed sistent decline, dropping by nearly time and time again that his policies three percentage points since Presiof relentless stimulus spending and dent Obama took office to a 30-year bureaucratic red tape have helped low of 63.6%. Meanwhile, the averpromote job growth and brought the age duration of unemployment has US back from the worst economic more than doubled since 2008 to 40 crisis since the Great Depression. weeks and has actually risen over Yet, if the employment statistics the past three months. All this goes over the course of his administration to show that employment prospects are any indication, his policies have are still very bleak, especially for cost far more in the form of massive those who were laid off during the distortions in the labor market than recession and have been unable to the short-term benefits they brought find steady work. in the form of low-paying “McJobs.” The biggest problem found in reThe employment statistics for cent employment statistics, howevOctober are set to be released four er, is not one of quantity of jobs but days before the election. One must quality. While new jobs have been a fryer or waiting tables. wonder if there will yet again be a created in the past year, the bulk of This has taken its toll on youth miraculous “drop” in unemploythese are low-skill service or part- employment, and is reflected in a ment before people head to the vottime jobs, resulting in a massive mis- persistently high youth unemploying booths. allocation of human capital. In fact, ment rate of over 17%. When you when factoring in such undereminclude the spike in college enroll- Christopher Slijk is a senior in the ployed workers, along with discourment over the past five years turn- College of Arts & Sciences. He can be aged workers who have dropped out ing a significant number of young reached at cps95@cornell.edu of the labor force, the rate of employment remains nearly unchanged from August to September, with just under 15% of people out of work or at a job beneath their skills. How the once-noble cause of feminist thought lost its way & While many of why it may take conservative women to put it back on track the jobs shed during the recession were moderate to high-skill jobs, the ones replacing them tend to require less skill and be lower paying. This leaves many older laid-off
Continued from left I’ve seen around me and vote accordingly; and it’s impossible not to see the truth that President Obama hasn’t kept his promises. I applaud Ms. Fluke for her services to needy women, and I think that if more Americans had the mentality of asking not what our country can do for us, but what we can do for our country, there would be fewer people disappointed by President Obama’s unsuccessful attempts to make our government all things to all people. The problem is that the government doesn’t have to be all things to all people, even though some may think it does. Everyone griped about Mitt Romney only giving a certain percentage in taxes, and ignored the fact that he gave over $2 million voluntarily. Talk about media inaccuracy! Don’t wait to be forced—ask what you can do for your country, get informed, and keep it classy, Cornell. Katie Johnson is a sophomore in the College of Arts and Sciences and can be reached at kij5@cornell.edu.
While new jobs have been created in the past year, the bulk of these are low-skill service or parttime jobs, resulting in a massive misallocation of human capital.
Education, the Sexes, & Feminism
Christina Hoff Sommers
Saturday, November 3rd Goldwin-Smith HEC Auditorium 5:30pm (pizza provided!)
CR
Sponsored by: Cornell Network of Enlightened Women, Cornell Republicans, & The Intercollegiate Studies Institute
8
Spotlight
November 1, 2012
Straw Poll of Cornell Students Shows Some Surprises Undergraduates Overestimate Obama’s Popularity Mike Navarro / Staff Writer
W
ith the presidential election just around the corner, the Cornell Review took to Ho Plaza to gauge the opinions of our fellow students about which candidate has earned their votes on November 6th. As many of you may know, Cornell University has the deserved reputation of being an exceedingly liberal campus, so it came as no surprise to see that Barack Obama received the majority of support (60%) in our confidential survey. What is surprising is that Obama enjoyed much higher support from college students in 2008, and that support appears to be sliding. Unfortunately for Mitt Romney, it does not appear that he is the beneficiary to these voters that Obama may be losing. Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, and myriad of other candidates seem to be enjoying a lift. The big, ugly numbers that no one wanted to see was the great amount of native-born students that have not taken an active role in their representation. The survey showed that 20% of students are not registered and another 12% are not voting. The survey was limited to Cornell undergraduates that are United State citizens. The Review acknowledges two potential biases. One is an overrepresentation of Arts students in relative terms, because they are the most likely to pass through Ho Plaza. Next is an underrepresentation of apolitical, uninterested, and disinterested students who declined to take the 15 second survey in the midst of their busy schedules. In reality, the percentage of students not voting in the election may be exceptionally higher.
Are you a registered voter in the United States?
If so, where are you registered? Home: 63% Ithaca: 17% N/A: 20%
Yes: 80% ±4 No: 20%
What party do you consider yourself affiliated with? Democrat: 49% Republican: 11% Independent: 39% Other: 1% ± 3-5
±4
If registered, which candidate are you most likely to vote for in the Presidential election? Obama: 60% Romney: Other: 5% Undecided: 8% Not Voting: 12%
14% ± 3-5
Which candidate do you believe most Cornell students will vote for?
poll sample n=315
Obama: Romney:
92% ± 3
6% ± 3
According to a study by the Pew Research Center however, this downward trend in registration extends past our diverse campus. The study found that in 2012 only 50% of adults under the age of 30 are registered to vote, compared to 61% in 2008. When considering the overwhelming support Barack Obama enjoyed among young voters in his first election, it stands to reason that these numbers should be especially troubling to his reelection campaign. One of the more fascinating things about the Cornell poll is the presence of a phenomenon known as pluralistic ignorance. In essence, this theory states that an individual will believe that the opinions of other people are much more affected by an outside influence than their own. A textbook example of this effect was exhibited in our poll. While only 60% of Cornell students polled said that they were more likely to vote for Barack Obama, a staggering 92% believed that other Cornell students would vote for him. Perhaps the belief that Cornell University is an exceedingly liberal campus is slowly becoming a myth. While it is a small victory for the conservative student base at Cornell, it is one that we should put great hope in. If this University is actually 32% less liberal than people believe it is, then perhaps new students and young people who are just beginning to discover their political identities will begin to see that there are other options available besides the liberal ideologies that they are inundated with from the moment they first step foot on campus. should not be limited to race, creed, or gender, but should include support for diversity of thought and ideology as well. So to CR Diversity all those closet Republicans out there on campus, the numbers do not lie: you are not alone.
November 1, 2012
9
The unanimous Declaration of the staff of the Cornell Review,
W
hen in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with an individual and to assume the powers of the presidency, the limited yet important station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of all Americans requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Administration becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to elect new Government, laying its foundation on Constitutional principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to lessen their Public Debt and Regulation. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Incumbents one-term established rarely are deposed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these States; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to remove their former Commander in Chief. The history of the present President of the United States is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world. He has refused to govern within the confines of the powers granted to him under the Constitution of the United States. He has misused the Executive Privilege to withhold information from the American people regarding Operation Fast and Furious. He has forgone the War Powers Act to commit United States troops without the consent of the Senate. He has been weak against outspoken adversaries of America. He has piled mountains of debt upon the people; borrowing against the productivity of future generations to pay for today’s frivolous policies. He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation: For the largest tax increase in history via Obamacare. For the appointment of federal judges who abuse the Judiciary’s powers. For facetious efforts to promote bipartisan cooperation. For concealing aspects of his personal identity from the American people. For playing the various American races and faiths against one another. He has forbidden our Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Justice Department should bring litigation; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them. He has ignored our Representative House repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people. He has endeavoured to illegally increase the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to discourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of Protection of our Lands. He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by giving his Blessing to A Corrupt and Racist chief of the Department of Justice. He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance. He has affected to render the Military impotent and inferior to Foreign powers. For putting a tax cheat in charge of our Treasury. For intentionally and without end devaluing our currency. For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent: For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments: He has abdicated Government here, by declaring we Americans who disagree with him out of his Protection and waging War against us. He has refused to allow us to drill our seas, mine our Lands, burn our coal, and destroyed the livelihoods of our people. He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Hippie Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is the undistinguished fornication with all ages, sexes and conditions. In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A President whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people. Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Liberal brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the principles of our philosophy and lifestyle here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow their usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and Country. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of common sense. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends. We, therefore, the Representatives of the Cornell Review, in Goldwin Smith Hall, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good Conservatives of this University, solemnly publish and declare, That these United States are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Subordination to Barack Obama, and that all political connection between them and the Obama Administration, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to elect Romney, keep the House, win the Senate, repeal Obamacare, and to do all other Acts and Things which Republican Administrations may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
CR
10
Campus
November 1, 2012
Santorum v. Dean at Cornell
Party Heavyweights Debate the Role of Government Laurel Conrad Campus News Editor Caitlin Deming Staff Writer
I
n the weeks preceding the election, it was an exciting opportunity for Cornell students to be able to attend a debate with two prominent figures of the Democratic and Republican parties. Howard Dean and Rick Santorum went head-to-head in Bailey Hall on October 18. The topic of the debate, moderated by director of the Cornell Forensics Society and ILR School senior lecturer,
Sam Nelson, was the government’s role in a free society. Although Dean’s position seemed to resonate with the largely liberal audience, Santorum’s presence energized the conservatives who, at times, feel overlooked or underrepresented on campus. In his opening statement, Santorum spoke of the values of the founding fathers. “I stand by what are the traditional American principles that made this country successful about what the role of government is,” Santorum explained. “The role of
government is the understanding that rights come to us, not from the government, but from God.” Dean, on the other hand, took the position that the Constitution is meant to evolve over time. “I don’t believe that the Constitution was a document written meant never to be changed,” he said. “There is no basis for originalism at all.” Throughout the debate, Santorum expressed disapproval of President Obama’s policies. He lamented, “this administration has gone hogwild on regulating everything.” He
Body Language: Dean and Santorm present their arguments to a biased audience.
specifically mentioned the regulation of domestic drilling, to which the audience responded with a loud applause. When Santorum pointed out that the audience was applauding $6-10 gas prices, the clapping and cheering became even louder. Despite an obvious liberal-leaning slant, the audience was united in its support for Santorum when he shared a personal experience. In order to illustrate why the disabled should have guaranteed rights, he recounted how his four-year-old daughter is affected by a disability that essentially constitutes “a deathsentence.” His statement that, “as a parent of a special needs child, I don’t want the state determining what the best interest is of my child” was met with clapping and approval by the audience. In preparation for the debate, The Cornell Review asked Cornell Republicans chair, Jessica Reif, what she thought Santorum and Dean’s perspective would add to the debate. “Santorum is a leader in the conservative movement, and I expect his thoughts on issues pertinent to the upcoming election will be of interest to Cornell students,” she responded. “While Howard Dean has not run for office in several years, his stances certainly resonate with the political left. He is well-suited to debate Santorum.” Continued on Page 12
Interview
In the Debate Space with Sam Nelson
Roberto Matos Columnist
I
n a sit-down interview, Sam Nelson, director of the Cornell Forensics Society (Speech and Debate), and Senior Lecturer in the Cornell Forensics Department, offered his insight and unique perspective on the three recent presidential debates. Nelson indicated that the secret of every academic debate is not necessarily to persuade in general, but merely to persuade a uniquely defined and targeted audience, and to tailor one’s arguments with that specific audience in mind. “In non-critical debates, or in front of a political audience, the rationale for engagement is somewhat different,” noted Nelson. The vast majority of the individuals in the audience already know who they will vote for before the debate is even announced. But they are watching in order to determine why they will vote as they plan to. Thus, observers of a political debate are “watching simply because they are in search of clear reasons to vote for the candidate they already know they’ll be
CR
supporting,” he added. They merely watch to affirm a decision that has already been made in their minds. Hence, there are a very small percentage of voters who base their decisions on who actually “wins” the televised debates. “Unfortunately, or fortunately, depending on your political perspective, that three percent of voters is potentially critical in American elections, especially because of the importance of undecideds in battleground states,” cautioned Nelson. Nelson’s rapid but cogent assessment was that Romney arguably won all three debates, or at least secured a 2-1 victory overall. After all, his performances appeared (1) sufficiently concrete (impressive) and (2) he made no major gaffes. Based on the conventional criteria for winning presidential debates, he obviously won the first debate, in which he aggressively pursued Obama, who was decidedly weak in style and lacked animation. Romney’s entire crisp delivery, demeanor, presence and temperament appeared presidential. This carried over into the second debate; although Obama “fought back hard,”
Romney was merely required to hold his own (rhetorically) sufficiently while still appearing presidential. As for the foreign policy debate, Romney, who might have initially appeared to be at a disadvantage, fulfilled his role in that he didn’t show considerable weakness in substance, he stood toe-to-toe with the president on his own turf in a substantive manner, he didn’t make any obvious blunders, and he “appeared reasonably intelligent.” The unspoken implication, which was the subtext of Nelson’s analysis throughout the interview, is that Romney’s debate performances did not offer his supporters – and even undecideds – any glaring reasons
not to vote for him, given the criteria set forth here. In fact, he did quite the contrary. Roberto Matos is a sophomore in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be reached at rlm387@cornell. edu.
National
November 1, 2012
After I’m Dead and Gone Andre Gardiner Staff Writer
T
here are many important issues at stake in this election, but it should be clear to all young voters that we are fighting over a political system designed by politicians for individuals who have long since left this world. Our healthcare and social security programs were designed when my grandma was born, our social policies when my dad was born, and our military policies just after I was born. While this is a tremendous testament to the stability of American politics, it is also a product of generational shortsightedness. Policies designed with the best intentions and under tremendous pressure were also designed poorly and have left trillions on the table. It would be narrow-minded to say that this isn’t a universal problem; all countries with a vibrant democratic system are prone to certain policy inefficiencies, but that does not mean we, as future recipients and taxpayers, should not demand more from our government. As youth voters, it is not only our responsibility to voice our concerns but also to promote policies that leave the next generation in a position to realize their own political and social goals. This article is not an endorsement of a Presidential candidate, but rather an explanation of what I want to leave for the next generation.
Health and Wellness The New York City ban on large sugary drinks is indicative of the larger flaws in our healthcare system, and the relationship between costs and the government. While I abhor the measure’s effect on my ability to be a consumer in the marketplace, the ban is a logical step for local governments that are increasingly being called upon to pay for individual health costs. The government involvement in healthcare insurance for the elderly,
the poor, and a variety of other groups leaves taxpayers sensitive to the poor health decisions that individuals make on an everyday basis. Be they proactive decisions such as smoking or eating certain foods, or passive decisions such as failing to work out, it all results in higher costs for the government, and therefore to us as taxpayers.
to collect from, to the primary source of retirement income. This system we have in place, like most government insurance programs, is built on demographic ratios and thus is not designed to meet the demands of future recipients.
The program fails on two fronts. First, it fails to provide individuals with an adequate risk adjusted rate
As youth voters, it is not only our responsibility to voice our concerns but also to promote policies that leave the next generation in a position to realize their own political and social goals. Due to this sensitivity, the government has been forced to tax, ban, and regulate its way out of the problem. In the case of the first, since politicians dictate taxation, the objective is usually revenue maximization rather than deadweight loss minimization. On bans, the result is additional deadweight loss, for the government usually fails to take into account the benefits of non-monetary factors. Regulation, usually seen as the least pervasive of the three, is reduced in effectiveness by our government’s bureaucratic systems. The market’s solution to his problem has been to connect individuals to not only the costs, but also the benefits of their decisions. This means tying premiums to everyday health measures, and providing incentives for healthy decisions. If we are to solve the crisis of healthcare in this country, which is cost, we need to align incentives and take it upon ourselves to make healthy decisions.
Retirement and Support for the Aged Poor The role that Social Security plays in supporting most individuals in retirement is well-documented. The program has gone from a basic insurance program, which most people never lived long enough
of return relative to investments in the marketplace. Individuals in public and private pensions regularly obtain higher return than social security, with great longterm security. This results not only in trillions in opportunity cost, but it also helps maintain the income inequality gap in this country. Second, it does not provide enough support for individuals on the very bottom of the spectrum who rely on it for the entirety of their income. Therefore, for the next generation, we need to shift Social Security from a retirement system back to a social safety net. Allowing individuals to invest in the marketplace would not only allow them to share in the returns gained by the 1%, but would also pump trillions back into the economy, providing jobs for millions out of work.
Electoral Reform I consider debate around social issues to be heavily tied to our election law. Despite all the concerns with both presidential candidates, there hasn’t been any real support for a 3rd party candidate. This is somewhat surprising given the fact that Ross Perot made two semi-successful Presidential runs, despite less concern about candidate quality.
11
While I’m not going to speculate on the recent shift away from third parties, we can all agree that our current system simply promotes the status quo politically. While electoral reform is a major challenge given the need for legislation to get anything done, this is arguably the best solution to social problems in the country. Reaffirming the strength of our democratic process will ensure that all voices will be heard, not just those in swing states. For me, this means instant runoffs and an abolishment of the Electoral College, but there are plenty of other good ideas out there. Either way, we need some change to a system where change is quite lacking. The glaring omission to this small and incomplete list is, of course, the economy, which I’ve left off purposely. Issues such as taxes and regulation are mostly short term and will change countless times over the next couple of decades. Even problems related to the debt, which are paid for over 30 year periods, are short-term. While I think there will be some resolution to the financial crisis related to entitlements, that issue will have to be resolved when I’m gone. This election is not going to solve the many problems holding back our economy and social progress. The negative rhetoric and partisan politics are preventing any serious efforts for reform. However, there is no long-term legislative plan for government. Everything is focused around 2 and 4-year cycles, so it is impossible to really play the long game with candidates and messages. Therefore, if we are to realize genuine reform for the next generation, it’s going to have to start on November 6th, 2012.
Andre Gardiner is a junior PAM major in the College of Human Ecology. He can be reached at apg58@cornell.edu.
CR
12
November 1, 2012
Campus
Battleground Collegetown Bill Snyder Staff Writer
T
he Collegetown area is the core of social life for Cornell students. It provides substantial housing options and hosts many of Cornell’s social activities, such as parties and fun eateries. But Collegetown has its share of problems. Understanding both the benefits and problems regarding Collegetown should be an important for all students. And thus it also has become a battleground for the Ward 4 political arena. The Collegetown Neighborhood Fair was a good first step in introducing general knowledge regarding Collegetown. The Collegetown
housing forums and general safety information. To be informed about the issues, however, students need a deeper level of understanding. In a recent interview with the Cornell Review, Eric Silverberg, President of Collegetown Student Council, discussed how students can get involved. “Regardless of whether a student intends to join our Council, all students – simply by being mindful of their conduct – nevertheless, can take ownership of a neighborhood that so many call home,” stated Silverberg. The student council is a great way for individual Cornell students
relations, and safety were the main issues involving Collegetown. This statement scratches the surface of the problems facing Collegetown. And while many of these problems are complicated, they are none-
“My main concerns … are safety and infrastructure: the basic foundation to any great place to live and work.” —Misha Checkovich
Student Council, whose main duties include improving the Collegetown area and enhancing relations between students, landlords, and local residents, organized the neighborhood fair. The fair was meant to enhance community relations and engage students with information regarding Collegetown, specifically housing. To this end, the fair accomplished its goals, but this is only a first step in dealing with the issues of Collegetown. The fair only provided basic information, such as student
to get involved, but much of Collegetown’s problems lie in the policies instituted by larger government institutions, such as the Ithaca government. Thus, simply being mindful can at best only improve the general ambience of the area. Students, unaware of the real issues, cannot hope to help with the problems facing Collegetown. What is meant by Collegetown problems? Eric Silverberg and the Collegetown Council explained that economic development, student
theless important for students to understand. As a student looking to rent in Collegetown, I have first-hand experience with off campus housing options. One of the biggest problems is high rent. Living in a small apartment with four people can costs over $900 a month, making it very expensive for students. In addition, high rent affects the cost of business and thus makes conducting a small business more difficult. This is an important issue, but it is rare to see students actually discussing realistic solutions. For example, government regulations and high property taxes are some primary causes of higher rent. Reducing these burdens, by instituting progrowth policies, would be pragmatic and fiscally responsible solutions to the problem. And by examining these issues within the lens of politics, students can become more engaged in their community and more accurately incur change. Another problem facing Collegetown, and the Cornell Community, is the recent sexual assault cases. Reducing crime is a more difficult problem to solve, and with Ithaca’s government in debt, it may seem like not much can be done. Surely the first step is promoting responsible conduct for students, but more can be accomplished. Again, these issues represent problems with local polices. What are the government, and the even Cornell administration, spending money on? And why are more resources not being devoted to protecting the people? At the fair, the Police handed out pamphlets with general safety information, but again, this only is a first step in solving the problem. Students should be more actively
Santorum v. Dean
“Although they are not the nominees, this does not mean that they are not an important part of their respective party,” remarked Avery in an interview with the Cornell Review. “Candidates run on party platforms, and both these individuals contributed toward the creation of those platforms, so they can speak to the core values of their parties.” Professor Avery further believes that engaging with the Dean and Santorum debate is significant and important.
“There can be nothing more important at this critical time in America’s history than making an informed vote—Cornell students might be voting for the very first time in their lives and it is our duty as citizens of this country to be informed in terms of voting,” she added.” The Santorum / Dean debate was indeed a valuable opportunity for the Cornell community because it gave the audience a chance to hear different perspectives directly from the politicians themselves without
Turnout for the Collegetown Neighborhood Fair earlier this month was lower than expected, perhaps a sign of student hesitation to fix the economic issues negatively affecting inhavitants.
Continued from page 13.
Reif recommended that students become engaged with politics on campus through the debate, stating that “debate is a great way to expose students to opposing political ideologies, as well as common ground between party lines.” Professor Rosemary Avery, chair of the Policy Analysis and Management Department, introduced the debaters.
CR
engaged with the government, and demand at very least a shift in spending towards essential functions of government, such as the police. In conjunction with a more fiscally conservative economic policy,
the police might actually be able to do more for students instead of simply telling people to lock their doors. With such issues facing Collegetown, it’s no surprise that the area has become a local battleground arena. “If we are going to use city resources wisely, we must prioritize,” stated Misha Checkovich, a Cornell student running for Ward 4 Alderwoman. “There is clearly not enough money in the budget to do everything everyone might wish. My main concerns, and I believe every resident's main concerns, are safety and infrastructure: the basic foundation to any great place to live and work. With this theme of prioritize, Checkovich has suggested what some of input would be as the only student and only Republican on the Council. “My priorities are to improve the streets, sidewalks, and bicycle lanes to make living and working in Ward 4 not only easier but safer for everyone. I also want to address building safety and resident safety issues. This particularly includes fire and housing safety and the personal safety of residents.” Whether you are a Democrat or a Republican, the first step in becoming a responsible citizen is being aware of the issues. Collegetown isn’t simply a place near Cornell, it is an opportunity for students to get involved with politics and actually enact visible change in their community. These problems have real solutions; they merely need a student-led community ready to fight for them.
bias. No winner was announced, so it is left to Cornell students to determine which politician made the most convincing arguments for his position on the role of government in society.
Bill Snyder is a freshman in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at wjs254@cornell.edu.
Laurel Conrad is a junior in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at lrc54@cornell.edu. Caitlin Deming is a freshman in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at cad275@cornell.edu.
National
November 1, 2012
The Other Big Bird: The FCC Kirk Sigmon Columnist
Right on the Law
M
itt Romney’s now-infamous comment about de-funding PBS has sparked a firestorm of controversy between Republicans and Democrats across the nation, but this firestorm obfuscates a larger point the Right should address: the government should not only stop funding the creation of broadcast content, but it should also stop regulating broadcast content as well. There is a reason for the government to be at least indirectly involved in broadcasting. Without regulation, radio and television airwaves could be flooded with various signals from competing entities, potentially rendering wireless technologies unusable or unreliable due to signal interference and varying transmission standards. Thus, it makes sense for a governmental entity to play the role of wireless spectrum referee where no-one else in the free market can and where true laissez-faire competition would destroy the proverbial commons. In 1934, Congress created an organization tasked with doing just that: the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Broadly, the FCC regulates who broadcasts what, how, and when, predominantly to prevent signal overlap and to foster national standards (including the ATSC standard, which is the signal for digital television). The FCC even holds auctions of various electromagnetic spectra, which not only help police the airwaves but help make the government some serious dough. But the FCC isn’t all about technological standardization and auctions – it has long since established itself as a national censor, establishing what can and cannot be said on broadcast radio and television. FCC decency regulations cover everything from swear words to nudity, and the FCC heavily penalizes any
13
broadcast radio or television channel that deliberately or accidentally broadcasts content in violation of these regulations.
In other words, the modern FCC is the governmental equivalent of a doting, highly puritanical mother that can levy multi-million dollar fines. The issue of the legality of the FCC’s censorship power has made its way all the way up to the Supreme Court in numerous cases, though the Supreme Court has been less than clear regarding what the FCC can and cannot do.In 1978, the Supreme Court held in FCC v. Pacifica Foundation that the FCC could regulate indecent broadcast content in certain circumstances.Much later, in 2009, the Supreme Court decided in FCC v. Fox Television Studios that
regulations were not unconstitutionally vague. In other words, according to the Supreme Court, the FCC has the
In other words, the modern FCC is the governmental equivalent of a doting, highly puritanical mother that can levy multi-million dollar fines. the FCC could ban “fleeting expletives” on broadcast television, and that the prohibition thereof was neither arbitrary nor capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act. However, in that case, the Court expressly refrained from considering the case on First Amendment grounds. On remand, and almost as a direct challenge to FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, the Second Circuit vacated the FCC’s fine on First Amendment grounds, ruling that the FCC’s regulations were unconstitutionally vague. After granting certiorari (again), the Supreme Court (in the 2012 version of FCC v. Fox Television Studios) held that fines imposed before the “fleeting expletives” rule came into effect were the result of “unconstitutionally vague” regulations, but simultaneously upheld the FCC’s ability to regulate television licenses where its content
power to regulate content in spite of the First Amendment, but this ruling is so narrow that it may be all but destroyed by subsequent cases. Accordingly, at least for the time being, the FCC isn’t just a regulator of the technical side of broadcasting: it is also a (dubiously constitutional) censor, making normative decisions about what content should and should not appear on broadcast television. The FCC’s censorship power is quite dangerous. As I have argued in this column before, the government is ill-equipped to determine what is and is not appropriate in art, especially in a way that gives fair notice to those who create content. Current FCC regulations are awkward and inconsistent, allowing grotesque depictions of violence in shows like Law & Order while simultaneously prohibiting even the slightest hint of
v o t e,
Janet Jackson’s nipple on television. Even assuming that censorship is indeed necessary, modern technology (such as swear filter boxes and the “v-chip”) censors content perfectly well without FCC assistance. Any good Democrat would argue that the funds going to the censorship-tasked department of the FCC are so little that cutting them would not save us from the deficit. Of course, this is very true—considering the fines levied by the FCC for decency violations, the FCC’s censorship efforts likely fund themselves. Nonetheless, just as with the funding of PBS, the important question here is normative, not quantitative: it is about whether or not the government should be involved in broadcast regulation at all, not whether or not cutting it would save a lot of tax dollars. Just as much as it should not be involved in funding the creation of broadcast content, the government has no place in regulating broadcast content. While the technological side of the FCC is a positive force in the community, the censoring body of the FCC has done little other than enforce dubiously “moral” values upon the American public. Kirk Sigmon is a graduate student in the Law School. He can be reached at kas468@cornell.edu.
or
d i e. CR
November 1, 2012
What You Voted For Continued from page 4 an al Qaeda jihadist terrorist is the best way to go about doing your business." So, there you have it. The White House has apparently taken to defending Abdulrahman’s killing. Despite the fact that he was a child. And an American citizen. And never convicted— or accused— of any crime. According to Press Secretary Gibbs, the simple misfortune of having a criminal in the family was enough to seal his fate as the victim of a deadly attack launched by his own country.
The Last Stroke Continued from page 4 provide military assistance to the Syrian opposition. This explains his arbitrary cuts to the defense budget that are set to devastate our longterm national security. And finally, this also explains why he regularly manages to amuse the Taliban by offering a timeline for the withdrawal of troops and raising the rhetoric of flight and abandonment. In all of this, Obama ignores the fact that American troops have shown a great degree of restraint in their use of force. Even in the direst of circumstances, the American offensive has adhered to the laws of war and the standards of professionalism¬. We have been more sensitive to the security of noncombatant civilians and more willing to take risks for peace. But regardless of this fact, here is a President with a clear agenda to curtail American influence in the world. Indeed, Obama can take pride in his strategy of appeasement towards our avowed enemies that puts that great “Umbrella Man” Neville Chamberlain to shame.
Stakes Too High Continued from page 5
president forgo responding to this devastating indictment of his policies? How many Americans realize that if the United States defaults on its debt, it would make the 2008 financial crisis seem like a few splashes of water at the beach compared to the deluge of economic pain that such a default would amount to? This brings us to the third and final justification for voting against Obama. Given the incompatibility, venom and acrimony which has simmered – and will continue to persist – between the Obama Administration and the Tea Party Congress, it seems likely that gridlock, political stalemate and low
CR
Odds and Ends I don’t believe I need to say how sickening this position is, no matter what your political leaning. If you’re a tough-on-terror security hawk, your first concern should be the protection of American citizens like Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, and the endurance of the legal protections—including the right to due process—that help make America a country worth fighting for. And if you’re a civil rights activist who was moved by Obama’s promises to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay (which, by the way, is still open), you should be shocked and maddened at his administration’s evidently flippant attitude toward the killing of a supposed-to-be-presumed-innocent American citizen.
As Americans, we generally don’t believe the identity of a person’s father should determine his yearly income or where he goes to school, let alone whether or not he lives or dies; and as a country we Abdulrahman al-Awlaki would be foolish to deny Abdulrahman’s killing and the White House’s subsequent defense of it the scrutiny they deserve. We would be foolish not to ask ourselves whether the man we put in the Oval Office four years ago is
In a 2008 Washington address, the President pledged to prevent terrorist states from acquiring nuclear weapons. But apart from the rhetoric, his administration failed to mount sufficient diplomatic pressure on Iran. Even at the peak of the Arab Spring, Obama did not intervene to help the protestors against a repressive and reckless regime in Tehran. He took no steps to indict Ahmadinejad under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. In fact, the withdrawal of troops from Iraq has emboldened our adversaries and sounded the bugle of American retreat from the region. But above all, the President failed to deter Iran’s nuclear weapons program—a strategic blunder that has not only sabotaged the hope for peace in the Middle East but also left the world in peril. No Islamic nation with nuclear weapons can be trusted, least of all Iran, a state that sponsors international terrorism, threatens its neighbors in the Persian Gulf and perpetuates brutal atrocities on its citizens. It is thus imperative that we deter Iran from the path of nuclear
armament through a series of diplomatic and military measures. We must sever all commercial relations with Iran, including the export of refined petroleum products, and tighten other economic sanctions on Iran. At the same time, we must be prepared for a swift and coordinated offensive against Iran’s nuclear program. But when the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu alarmed the world about the ''red line'' in Iran’s development of the bomb, it was Joe Biden who laughingly dismissed his concerns and applauded his critics. Born in India, the first time I was introduced to American politics was when I heard the President deliver his celebrated “Yes, We Can” speech. Millions across the world seemed to be enchanted by his powerful message of hope and change. But four years down the line, we have come a long way from the romanticism of that night. While Obama dared us to believe in “The Audacity Of Hope,” he never for a moment believed in America. He condemned the idea of American leadership as hegemonic dominance and American
legislative productivity will also persist. This would be unacceptable, since no coherent economic agenda for reviving small businesses or reducing the deficit would be engineered in such a situation. When Romney takes office, he will find a Tea Party Congress that will be at least somewhat eager to work with him given the similarities between their worldviews. Romney will serve to reign in the legendary hardline positions taken by Tea Party members in Congress. As for the Democrats in the Senate, who will likely maintain their majority in November, it seems likely that they would yield, however reluctantly, to the firm pressure of the electorate by agreeing to some gradual reforms to the social safety net by
agreeing to a budget reduction settlement. Nor would they hesitate to agree to tax relief for small businesses (it would amount to political suicide for them to refuse). In exchange, they would be granted the credibility to act as the gatekeepers of legislation passed by the Tea Party House of Representatives. Romney’s history and experience of negotiating with a legislative body dominated by Democrats should instill public confidence in his ability to engineer a bipartisan consensus. He’s a pragmatist. After the litany of his failed promises (regarding the stillhigh unemployment rate, the deficit and healthcare costs), the case for reelecting Obama appears increasingly weak. Most indicting, he has largely refrained
Time
14
the one we want running things four years from now. Lucia Rafanelli is a senior in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at lmr93@cornell.edu.
Exceptionalism as vain arrogance while fanatics continued to raise the black banner of extremism over our consulates. He offered unwarranted excuses for a video when the conscience of the nation demanded a massive retaliation. Given the turbulent place that the world is in, I do not pretend to know what is going to happen in the coming years. I don’t know whether Assad will manage to survive or whether Iran will build the bomb. But one fact seems abundantly clear—the worst that we can do in this situation, the absolute worst, is to do nothing. And that is precisely what this President has been doing. Consequently, I have no doubt that if this President were re-elected, it would mean a lost decade for America. Kushagra Aniket is a sophomore in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at ka337@cornell.edu.
from describing a substantive narrative or coherent vision for the upcoming four years that is uniquely different from that of the past four years. He has failed to articulate a clearly defined set of policy prescriptions and solutions that would move a thinking person to support him again. What change will come about if we reelect you Mr. President? Since “nothing” appears to be the answer, our responsibility is clear. We have a moral obligation to support the alternative to the incumbent. We should settle for nothing less. The stakes are too high. Roberto Matos is a sophomore in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at rlm387@cornell.edu
Guest Column
November 1, 2012
15
Learning to Appreciate the Small Things Ex-military Students discuss their experiences in Iraq, Lebanon and Korea Hunny Jeong Guest Writer
A
fter two years away from Cornell in the South Korean Army as a combat medic, I returned to Ithaca this semester as a senior. The Army had forced me to mature but nevertheless, as a senior, I needed to get a job. Or at least decide what to do after graduation. Thus, I was forced to ask myself what I liked, what I disliked, and the multiple other questions lost seniors ask themselves. Last week, my Islamic history professor seemed to attack the heart of my problem when he asked our class, “What have you truly learned from your Cornell education?” Some of us ventured a few feeble squeaks but nobody seemed to have answers that were worth sharing. I privately indulged in my own thoughts and indeed wondered what I will have truly learned from Cornell after I left. Would Winston Churchill, international monetary theory, and French be what I learned at Cornell? Or was it something else? In my attempt to conjure an intelligent answer to this question, I reflected upon my recent experiences in the South Korean Army and my discussions with other ex-military students on campus. Maybe these students, who had also experienced life outside school, would give answers, and answer they did. So, I decided to write a short article about their stories—stories which seemed worth sharing with the Cornell community. Chris Johnson, a graduate student at the economics department, told me his tale. After college, Chris had served in the United States Marine Corps as an infantry officer.
As he conducted two combat tours in Iraq, Chris was forced to adjust quickly. He seemed to downplay the dangers he had faced when he said, he was “lucky” to have had been in a relatively safe area in Iraq. After Iraq, Chris came to Cornell to pursue graduate studies. Chris admitted there were issues in adjusting to life after the military. He humorously stated, “They [Chris’s parents] had to remind me that my sister was not one of my marines and I could not speak to her as such.” When asked what the military had taught him though, Chris’s voice changed. “I had a friend that I trained with and was killed on his first tour to Afghanistan. He had just married his girlfriend and they had moved to Japan. I also had a Marine in my platoon who deployed with me to Iraq and we returned back to the US, but he volunteered to go immediately back to Iraq and was killed by an IED.” Chris added the following: “You learn not to take for granted what we have. I know a lot of great people who have sacrificed a lot to be here [Cornell], so, I’m not trying to take that away from them at all. But I just know that, when you know what we’ve seen in the military, and had to live in that environment, you just learn not to take for granted friendships, your relationships with your family, and air-conditioning, running water. Things could be a lot worse, very easily.” Eonho Lee ‘13, formerly a UN peacekeeper with the UN Interim Force In Lebanon (UNIFIL), also commented on his military experience.
“Let’s be honest. I understand Cornell is diverse. I am myself a part of that diversity, being an international student. Yet we’re all college students; we’re, for the most part, protected from extreme situations such as starving to death or witnessing personal acquaintances getting killed. The Army introduced me to a diversity I had never encountered.” He continued, “There was a buddy whose father that was a part of a gang dealing with the prostitution industry. Another guy in my unit had attempted suicide, only to be stopped by another person at the last minute.” Eonho was brave enough to conclude, “At first, I unconsciously belittled them. Yeah, I might have felt sorry for some of them, but I was arrogant without my knowing it. I made assumptions. However, after mingling with these guys, I found out they had qualities I did not. I really learned that every person has a story. Every person has something he or she can teach me.” Dave Blome, another former U.S. marine who had served in Iraq, and current graduate student in the history department, pointed out another benefit we often overlooked: “Cancer survivors might say the same thing. But I am appreciative most of just being able to move my arms and legs. Being able to enjoy the sun. Having the capability to ride my bike when I have the time. Back in Iraq, I came to terms with the prospect that in 15 minutes, 30 minutes or an hour, everything might be dark—that I would be dead. I haven’t forgotten that. Now, little things like a good laugh with friends or family remind me of how great it is just to be living life.”
Perhaps though, the last word goes to Junhyung Lee ‘15, a computer science major in the College of Arts and Sciences. Junhyung had served as a Thermo Observational Device (a special camera that sees objects in red, yellow, and orange, depending on the temperature of the figures) specialist on the heavily fortified NorthSouth Korean border. The two Koreas are still officially at war, and border skirmishes are not uncommon as nearly 1 million armed men stand guard in bunkers, staring at one another across the border. After his service, Junhyung commented on what he had learned to appreciate. “I missed Sprite. I missed the freedom to walk over to a soda shop and buy a can of Sprite without worrying about reporting, getting permission, or potentially being shot at.” Indeed these students’ stories convey the thanks and appreciation we often forget to give our friends, families, classmates, fellow employees, and in general, our opportunity to learn. And of course, our sprites. But, to go back to the question my professor had thrown: what have we learned here? These students gained an appreciation of the many things in life we forget to thank, not because those things are unimportant but rather because they are so essential that we take them for granted. Let’s learn to appreciate the small things in life, because if we think about them, they may not be so small at all. Hunny Jeong can be reached at hj257@cornell.edu.
CORNELLINSIDER.com Interesting news...for an interesting campus
CR
16
November 1, 2012
There is properly no history, only biography. Ralph Waldo Emerson the trumpet sounds. Virgil
Corona Veniet Delectis. A crown shall come to the worthy.
Candor dat viribus alas. Sincerity gives wings to strength. Horace
Quem deus vult perdere, dementat prius. Those whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad. Euripides
Cur ante tubam tremor occupat artus. Fear seizes the limbs before
Read archived issues online at
Aliquis Latet Error. Some trickery lies hidden. Virgil
Audentis Fortuna iuuat. Fortune favours the bold. Virgil
thecornellreview.com
Join the Review. CR
Come to GS 156, Mondays at 5:00 pm or send us an email at cornellreview@cornell.edu