The Cornell Review The Conservative Voice on Campus
An Independent Publication vol. xxxi, no. iii
3 Editorial:
Student Assembly
Ignites controvery in handling of mixed-gender housing
cornellinsider.com
BLOG
thecornellreview.com
SITE
“We Do Not Apologize.”
October 5th, 2012
The War is Not Over
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” -Edmund Burke Kushagra Aniket Columnist
since the calamities of the Second World War. However, the dimension of the crisis has changed since the world witnessed the catastrophe of September 11, 2001. The Arab Spring brought democracy to people who were not prepared for it. As expected, it served as a gangplank to theocratic unreason and tyranny. It is not surprising that after the Arab Spring, murderous mobs have taken to the streets across the southern shores of the Mediterranean—spewing extremist venom, terrorizing the people, and butchering each other. Indeed, there is a reason behind the incessant threats that the civilized world is facing from Muslim mobs. We paid a heavy price for assisting the Libyans on their path to democracy. On the fateful night of September 11, Ambassador Christopher Stevens was assassinated along with several others after Islamists
attacked the American consulate in Tripoli. Regardless of the fact that Stevens had risked his life to ensure the downfall of Gadhafi’s dictatorship, the enfranchised citizens of Libya did not spare him. Indeed, there is no doubt that people who sympathize with Stevens’ assassin are present in the Libyan government. Even the Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi, while condemning the attack, denounced the offending video and called for “peaceful antiU.S. demonstrations”. Similar was the reaction of the Afghan President Hamid Karzai. What should we make of this extraordinary sequence of events? First and foremost, the appeals for non-violent protests turned out to be a ruse as reports have shown that the demonstrations across the Muslim world involved arson, murder, and terrorist attacks.
More Red How to Solve a Problem Tape For Like Collegetown?
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission, which holds up much of the renovation opportunities in Collegetown. They don't actually live in the houses, so it's totally OK for them to dictate their exact appearance, as is par for most bureaucratic operations. Safely removed from any hazards or unpleasantries, they hand down their dictates from Olympus, impervious to the mortal suffering here on earth. There are houses that are ancient, crumbling and utterly unsafe, and yet the ILPC myopically continues onward into the past. But what about the businesses, the other draw of residence in Collegetown? Few will say that they are satisfied with the choices that we
Me! 4 Super-Size Big Brother douses the Big Gulp
Reflection 5 9/11 A personal account never to be forgotten
Malaise 5 Bureaucratic Cultures are hard to change, especially a culture of corruption.
the Sun 6 Mooning Journalistic integrity in local election coverage
2012 8 Election Congressional races are heating up in crucial swing states. 10
Movie Review: 2016
Financial Aid Lucia Rafanelli Managing Editor
A Fortnight of Follies
S
tudents who have successfully navigated the college application process (which, speaking from experience, is no simple task), who have waded through the even more complicated financial aid application paperwork, and who have actually been accepted to a college — surely must be able to read. They must know the difference between a grant and a loan. They must understand that loans need to be paid back. And they should be able to do the simple math needed to figure out their minimum monthly payment on a loan of a given amount. At the very least, they should be able to make a phone call or write an email to a college’s financial aid office to ask about a payment schedule. All this, though, is not enough for advocates of “financial aid transparency” law. A recently proposed bill, discussed in Gail Collins’ New York Times column “The Lows of Higher Continued on page 9
Platonic Squabbles
O
n September 11, 2012, a date that indicates planning and coordination, a series of anti-US protests began in the Middle East. The ostensible reason was the online trailer of a movie considered offensive to Muslims. But those who claim that these were spontaneous attacks in response to the video that offended the sentiments of Muslims ignore a century-long history of movements that thrive on genocide and slaughter. These are not ordinary demonstrations of citizens passionate about a cause. Here are a people indoctrinated in ignorance and motivated by a desire for supernatural reward. Here is a doctrine, spread over a large part of the world, that propagates the idea that Western power is at its roots malevolent. Here is a crisis, unprecedented in its magnitude
Karim Lakhani President Misha Checkovich Staff Writer
I
t is a tradition amongst students to simultaneously fight like gladiators for prime Collegetown apartments and absolutely disparage the third world conditions of most of its buildings, both commercial and residential. Even after the rest of Cornell tried to enter the 21st century— exemplified by the totally revamped West Campus—Collegetown seems
determined to hold onto relics of the ancient past. A large portion of the resistance to modernization comes from the City itself. For example, there exists an obscure regulation that fire inspectors are not required to inspect rental houses for fire safety until the house changes actual owners, not annually during the tenant turnover between leases. Some landlords hold onto these hou ses for decades, meaning that a house would have to burn down—like some have within the past few years—before a fire safety professional even notices it. Then there is the all-powerful
Continued on page 2
Continued on page 9
2
October 5, 2012
Opinion
The War is Not Over continued from the front page
Moreover, it is now clear that a majority of people in the Middle East are in support of terror. People that were provided moral and material support in their struggle against dictatorship have now turned against us, posing a serious danger to our diplomatic interests. What is even more dangerous is that these people are inspired to kill and be killed for
“At this stage, any form of American retreat from the Middle East would lead to an outcome far worse than Neville Chamberlain’s surrender to Hitler in 1939.” grievances that cannot be appeased. A decade back, the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press conducted a global survey that reported that a large segment of people in the Muslim world supported suicide bombing in defense of faith. Even if only half of one percent of the Muslim world supported jihad, we would still have to deal with 8 million sworn supporters of terrorism. And it is not due to poverty or economic deprivation that millions of Muslims have turned radical. In fact, religious fundamentalism is compatible with wealth, education and technical proficiency. Most terrorists do not hail from the ranks of the uneducated and poor. On the contrary, these are men with college degrees and comfortable salaries. Consequently, economic and political improvements in the Muslim world are no guarantees against radicalization. To be sure, the transition from dictatorship to democratic rule in some countries in the Middle East has not altered the character of mass mobilization. The same mob that gathered in Tahrir Square to protest
against Mubarak now shouts slogans against “American imperialism.” Even the icons invoked by the people have remained the same. For instance, Salafist protesters in Egypt put up a massive poster of Omar Abdel Rahman who is serving a life sentence in U.S. prison for involvement in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. We must realize that the protests in the Middle East do not just pose a temporary law and order problem. The new regimes in Libya and Egypt have limited influence over their armed forces and their people, and, while feigning to be pro-U.S. moderates, maintain links with Al Qaeda. Muslim leaders have encouraged the protests to continue and security personnel responsible for protecting foreign diplomats appear to be complicit in the attack. In such a situation, there is little doubt that these societies will continue to be marred by factionalism, civil war and sectarian violence for years to come. At the very least our foreign policy must be geared towards protecting our geopolitical interests and ensuring the security of our consulates in the region. At this stage, any form of American retreat from the Middle East would lead to an outcome far worse than Neville Chamberlain’s surrender to Hitler in 1939. What we should understand is that we are at war—a war that did not begin in 2001 and did not end with the death of Osama Bin Laden in 2011. The unprecedented victory of the US-led coalition forces over Iraq and Afghanistan demonstrates that terror-sponsoring states lack formal military might. However, the psychology of terror has perpetuated through social communities in the Middle East. Terror receives its mandate not only from the religious orthodoxy that preaches the conquest of the world for Islam but also from ordinary civilians whose aspirations have risen with the advent of globalization. The international arena is now set exactly as envisaged in the mind of the terrorist. From the terrorist’s perspective, the world is divided into
the “House of Faith” and “House of War.” In our parlance, terrorist offensive in the “Focus of Jihad” na-
“The Obama administration’s appeal for peace and tolerance at a time of war is just another attempt by the bleedingheart liberals to infect the mindset of the individual with capitulationism and render him passive.” tions such as the US, Israel, India, and the European states is now sustained due to the clandestine sponsorship of the “Axis of Jihad”: nations such as Iran, Pakistan, and the Palestinian territories. Since the tur-
bulence of the Arab Spring, the “Axis of Jihad” has spread over the Middle East as nation after nation has succumbed to radicalism. None of these countries deserve our goodwill and friendship beyond our efforts to protect our strategic interests. To deter the “Axis of Jihad”, we first need to counter the liberal dogma. Since 9/11, liberals have
attempted to make excuses for Islamic extremism because they do not know what it is like to “love death more than the infidel loves life.” Due to their perennial attitude of self-denial, they are in no position to protect civilization from its genuine enemies. The Obama administration’s appeal for peace and tolerance at a time of war is just another attempt by the bleeding-heart liberals to infect the mindset of the individual with capitulationism and render him passive. No nation can survive with such an attitude towards its avowed enemies. If today we fail to stop the massacre of innocent civilians in Syria, exterminate the Taliban in Afghanistan, and promote democratic reform elsewhere in the Middle East, we will be damaging our credibility in the world. Besides, if any of these countries acquire nuclear weapons, then the destruction of our civilization shall be inevitable, for nuclear deterrence with Muslim extremists will be impossible. In such a case, we
have a choice between war and suicidal surrender, between retaliation and death. If we cannot win a rational argument with a people frenzied with apocalyptic mania, we must win the war. Kushagra Aniket is a sophomore in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at ka337@cornell.edu.
Debate Season: It’s Crunch Time With the Election Looming, Media Must Focus On Issues Mike Navarro Staff Writer
L
et’s face it: the past month has been an infuriating time to be a Republican. There was the secretly taped fundraiser where Mitt Romney made the truthful but now infamous “47%” comment. There was the satirical piece about Paul Ryan referring to Mr. Romney as “Stench” that got picked up and reported as fact by MSNBC, Gawker, The New York Times, and more. To top it all off,
CR
September was a month of being inundated with poll after poll, most of which did not bother to include the necessary data that a person should know when attempting to interpret a poll. This important data included things as obvious as the number of people surveyed and the margin of error. Wake me up, for September now has ended. With the turning of the calendar comes a brand new CNN poll. This “National Poll of Polls” of 783 likely voters that was released on
October 1st showed Barack Obama leading Mitt Romney 50%-47% with a margin of error of +/-3.5% points for either candidate. This more data-inclusive poll showed that as the candidates began the debate schedule they were essentially neck and neck. Even after a month of seemingly endless negative press, Mitt Romney is still very much in the hunt. So now the question remains: can the national media take its attention off of “gotcha” journalism long enough to do its job and inform the public on the candidates’ stances
01 on the important issues? Or will we spend the next month reading more stories about crazy Mitt looking at clouds? For the sake of our country, I certainly hope not. Mike Navarro is a junior in the College of Agriculture and Life Science. He can be reached at mln62@ 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
Zachary Dellé
National News Editor
Contributors Kushagra Aniket Christopher Mills Misha Checkovich Mike Navarro Andre Gardiner Kirk Sigmon Alex Gimenez Bill Snyder Roberto Matos Jacob Zapata
Emeritus Members Anthony Longo Lucas Policastro
Christopher Slijk Oliver Renick
Board of Directors
Christopher DeCenzo Joseph E. Gehring Jr. Ying Ma Anthony Santelli Jr.
Faculty Advisor William A. Jacobson The Cornell Review is an independent biweekly journal published by students of Cornell University for the benefit of students, faculty, administrators, and alumni of the Cornell community. The Cornell Review is a thoughtful review of campus and national politics from a broad conservative perspective. The Cornell Review, an independent student organization located at Cornell University, produced and is responsible for the content of this publication. This publication was not reviewed or approved by, nor does it necessarily express or reflect the policies or opinions of, Cornell University or its designated representatives. The Cornell Review is published by The Ithaca Review, Inc., a non-profit corporation. The opinions stated in The Cornell Review are those of the individual author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the editors or the staff of The Cornell Review. Editorial opinions are those of the responsible editor. The opinions herein are not necessarily those of the board of directors, officers, or staff of The Ithaca Review, Inc. The Cornell Review is distributed free, limited to one issue per person, on campus as well as to local businesses in Ithaca. Additional copies beyond the first free issue are available for $1.00 each. The Cornell Review is a member of the Collegiate Network. The Cornell Review prides itself on letting its writers speak for themselves, and on open discourse. We publish a spectrum of beliefs, and readers should be aware that pieces represent the views of their authors, and not necessarily those of the entire staff. If you have a wellreasoned conservative opinion piece, we hope you will send it to cornellreview@ cornell.edu for consideration. The Cornell Review meets regularly on Mondays at 6:00 pm in GS 162. E-mail messages should be sent to
cornellreview@cornell.edu
Copyright © 2012 The Ithaca Review Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Editorial
October 5, 2012
3
Representing vs. Appeasing Alfonse Muglia Editor-in-Chief
“I
t was an issue that should have taken a lot longer to discuss.” The words voiced by Student Assembly Representative Peter Scelfo are a very telling summation of the Cornell Review’s stance against Resolution 12—Adoption of a Gender Inclusive Housing Policy. The Student Assembly rushed through the debate of this measure that may have long-term effects in the lives of Cornell students. Our displeasure with the Resolution is two-fold. Firstly, we question the legitimacy of the argument that mixed-gender housing will improve the lives of students. Secondly, we find issue with the Resolution’s sponsors’ use of a looming deadline in the Cornell housing process as a tool to convince fellow Assembly members that this Resolution had to be voted on immediately, limiting the time for debate. It is true that Cornell is currently the only Ivy League Institution that does not offer mixed-gender housing. However, there is no available data that suggests that the policy actually improves the mental health of the involved students. There is also no study regarding how it affects the students who are not involved with the program yet are exposed to an unconventional policy for the sake of a proportionately miniscule number of students (195 at Penn, 29 at Yale). Nevertheless, without any supporting data, the Student Assembly and their counterparts across the nation are rushing to appease the LBGT representatives by experimenting with mixedgender neutral, ignoring the longtime success of a Cornell housing office that recognized the natural differences between males and females. In a 2010 study by the National Student Gender Blind Campaign, it was reported that a mere 54 colleges and universities had mixed-gender rooming options. Of these, only two schools had adopted the policy prior to 2000 (Hampshire College and Wesleyan College). It is therefore too early to tell how effective the policy has been for overall student health and well-being. Nevertheless, those in attendance at Thursday’s Student Assembly meeting would have thought Cornell was still stuck in
the dark ages of University housing. In the fall of 2007, Cornell actually adopted a recommendation for mixed-gender housing. It was passed in the Student Assembly by a vote of 9-2, with a month between the time of its introduction and the eventual call to vote. During this time, amendments were made to the Resolution in order to clarify the Student Assembly’s legislative ability to govern housing. All of this information is available to students on the SA’s website, although it received little press coverage at the time. A pilot program was then launched in the fall of 2008, but was cancelled last March, reportedly due to low demand and mixed reviews. The sponsors of Resolution 12 last week cited that this failure was due to a lack of student awareness. The Cornell Review finds fault with the logic that a program’s failure over a four year period can solely be attributed to lack of awareness, especially at a time when mixed-gender housing was receiving growing attention along with the LBGT trend. Instead, the lack of participation is an indication that there is simply an insignificant need for mixed-gender housing on the Cornell campus. Therefore, the issue would not warrant much attention (like in 2007), if we did not believe that the manner in which it was adopted sets an improper precedent in the Student Assembly. Even for those Cornell Patriots indifferent about the policy itself, it is important to discuss the actions by which it came to be—to ensure that future resolutions yield the conversation and debate they deserve. As opposed to the 2007 resolution, which featured a debate that covered a four week period and required several amendments, Resolution 12 was quickly moved ahead on the Assembly’s agenda under the veil of “time sensitivity.” The sponsors claimed that the housing process for next year was set to launch the following week, and that this policy would need to be in place for email and other informational purposes. This was a clever tactic that limited the Assembly’s ability to fully weigh the pros and cons of the policy change, offer amendments, or seek expert opinion. While this deadline may very well be real, it is no reason
to shorten the debate for any Resolution. Fellow Assembly members raised the issue that the proposal should have been brought to the table sooner. Another shed light on the common Assembly practice of members talking about the benefits and costs of a program in the week between meetings, while seeking input from members of their respective communities. Such time for consideration is the best way to ensure that the interests of all students are not neglected. Further questions need to be raised about the ability of a sponsor of a resolution to motion for it to be moved ahead on the agenda, as was done last week. Although such a move still requires the Chair’s approval, this represents a clear conflict of interest on the part of the sponsor. What is stopping any sponsor from pushing his or her resolution forward unchecked? In fact, the rushed nature of this Resolution brings back memories of another policy change that was hastily passed along in a legislative Assembly as a looming arbitrary deadline limited fact-based discussion. Obamacare claimed to improve health and wellbeing, like this Resolution is doing, although little was known at the time of the vote (even by the Congressmen) about how this would be done and how its effectiveness would be evaluated. The Student Assembly has the rightful purpose of representing the interests of the student body, which often include mental health and wellbeing. And in recent years, the group has made strides in speaking for a greater and greater number of students. The members are more active in the community than ever before, highlighted by a new requirement this fall stating that all Assembly members must attend eight outreach events per semester. Through these efforts, however, it is our belief that the Assembly must represent the interests of the specific students they are elected to represent, not merely appease the various organizations that come to the table with proposals ideologically claiming to improve student health without any factual support. This starts with giving sufficient time and attention to every resolution. Alfonse Muglia is a junior in the School of Industrial and labor Relations. He can be reached at arm267@cornell.edu.
The Review welcomes and encourages letters to the editor. Long, gaseous letters that seem to go on forever are best suited for publication in the Cornell Daily Sun. The Review requests that all letters to the editor be limited to 350 words. Please send all questions, comments, and concerns to cornellreview@cornell.edu.
CR
4
October 5, 2012
Opinion
Super-sized Government and Risky Behavior Kirk Sigmon Columnist
Right on the Law
O
n September 13th, the New York City Board of Health voted to institute a new policy: a ban on the sale of sugary drinks larger than 16oz in establishments inspected by the Health Department. The war on individual choice is now influencing the soda you drink, and it’s all because the government is now in the business of regulating individually risky behavior. Only the most deluded would disagree that sugary sodas and drinks play a part—albeit a minor part— in American obesity. Unlike many other countries, sodas and various other sweet drinks are readily available in most American restaurants, and their sugary sweetness makes them attractive choices for children and adults alike. Because a 20 fl oz. bottle of Coca-Cola contains 240 calories, and because most Americans drink much more than that in a single sitting, sodas can create a huge caloric surplus in the average 2,000 to 3,000 calorie diet—which can in turn cause the average American to pack on some serious pounds. Nonetheless, if sodas are, in fact, a bad thing, does this mean that the New York City Board of Health
should be outright banning them? Of course not. The government is not (or, at least, should not be) in the business of regulating individually risky behavior. Granted, state governments have a strong interest in regulating risky behavior that can potentially harm others—few would argue that laws against firing a gun in the air are indicative of “big government.” But there is virtually no principled justification for government involv-
The rise of government entitlement programs and attempts by the government at manipulating the insurance markets puts the government in the unique position of having a financial incentive to fight against what is known as moral hazard. Moral hazard, in short, is the idea that individuals act differently when they do not bear the full cost of their actions. The classical example of moral hazard emerges in car insur-
“The problem is, the more the government involves itself in health insurance and entitlement programs, the more government needs to regulate risky behavior.” ing itself in individually risky (and even stupid) behavior. My desire to willingly and intelligently hurt myself does not dictate government intervention. In other words, so long as you don’t plan to land on anyone in the process, there is really no justification for the government to prevent you from skydiving. The problem is, the more government involves itself in health insurance and entitlement programs, the more government needs to regulate risky behavior.
ance, where drivers may take riskier actions with their automobiles when their insurance companies will pay for their accidents. Because of this substantial risk, insurance companies adopt a number of systems—copayments, deductibles, limits on eligibility, etc.—to disincentivize risky behavior. Just like any good insurance company, the government is now in the business of disincentivizing moral hazard because it has to pay for it. With the rise of public dependency
Mountains and Molehills Katie Johnson Columnist
Ladies’ Liberty
T
he results are in, and they probably won’t surprise you. What results? Those of the National Assessment of Educational Progress, commonly known as the “Nation’s Report Card.” Donna Kache has expounded upon them in a recent article for CNN—and not much is revealed that we did not already know: eighth and twelfth grade girls are scoring better than their male counterparts. But not in a way that is either substantial or encouraging to me: eighth-grade girls averaged 160 while the eighth-grade boys averaged 150. Meanwhile, twelfth-grade girls averaged 157 and twelfth-grade boys averaged 143. The difference is small, but what is more difficult to overlook is the fact that these scores, all around 150, are out of 300. What is the best way of encouraging equality of education? Is it through equality of outcome, or equality of opportunity? It is difficult to force anyone to learn, and some comments on Kache’s article suggest that the reason why boys are worse writers than girls is
CR
because the books read in class are largely centered on females—too much of the feathery femininity of Austen and Awakening, not enough of the violence and vulgarity of Shakespeare and Sherlock Holmes.
The truth of this statement has not been tested, but it does seem sensible that willing readers might be better writers because they have been exposed to a larger vocabulary range and have become familiarized with more grammatical structures. But if schools do have a broad and balanced selection of literature, what accounts for the difference? To me, the difference between scores does not seem large enough to cause worry—but I’m not a statistician. Another reason why I am not overly concerned is that the writing ability of an eighth-grader, or even a tenth-grader, might not be indicative of their ability to succeed in life. “Success” is a broad and often misinterpreted term. It is often implied to mean vocational security. Writing skills come in rather handily for college admissions essays, but for a mechanical engineer for whom papers are few and far between, scoring three points better than his female classmate on a writing exam is not
too worrisome. As an English major, I will be the first to proclaim the importance of writing well (that’s probably because I am easily annoyed by the confusion of “you’re” and “your”.) But since there have been many articles about how English majors are nowhere near as likely to get jobs as engineers, people are focused more on getting rich than being enriched. I think the most important thing is that people passionately pursue their interests and talents. Compulsory education which encourages graduates to be well-rounded is truly a noble endeavor. As to its success, I am not entirely certain. I am less convinced that the school system is steering children in a certain direction than I am concerned that they are doing best at subjects they already inherently love. As we are in a time of unprecedented innovation in multiple fields of study, I am pretty well assured that something is going right. So keep learning, keep innovating, and keep it classy, Cornell. Katie Johnson is a sophomore in the College of Arts and Sciences. She can be reached at kij5@cornell.edu.
on entitlements and with the new involved role the government takes in the insurance system, the government now must concern itself with “expensive” risky behavior: obesity, skydiving, reckless car driving, and the like. While much of this worry is borne by the federal government, and while most of these regulations are emerging out of local governments, the unity of mindset is here: because all levels of government now assume a lot of financial responsibility for your actions, it collectively now wants to regulate how you behave to lessen its financial burden. One can thus see the underlying logic behind the NYC soda ban: fat people are expensive. Unfortunately, the sad irony to all of this paternalistic nonsense is that the government doesn’t actually know how to encourage people to be healthy. True health comes from the old tried-and-true adage: eat less, eat better, move more. It’s always been as simple as that. But that adage — and the financial harm it would bring to the food lobby, comprised in part of companies that make their money from carb-loaded sweets and snacks—doesn’t pass for wisdom on Capitol Hill. What does pass for wisdom is the asinine USDA “Food Plate,” Michelle Obama’s toothless “Let’s Move!” campaign, school lunches sponsored by fast food companies, and, of course, soda bans. The answer to all of this stupidity is quite simple: Americans and their government need to slim down, and there are no shortcuts. Americans need to eat better and eat less than they do now, and they particularly need to hit the gym and exercise until they crawl home. Quick, lazy, too-good-to-be-true methods—including diet pills, arcane diet plans, and stupid exercise tapes and fads—will not work. Real diet and exercise will. In a very similar fashion, the American government needs to stop growing and attempting to involve itself in the affairs of its citizens. It’s time for the government to go on a diet and exercise plan, cutting down its expensive entitlement obligations and shutting down its needless programs and focusing on optimizing its true, constitutionally-mandated functions. On this diet, there is no room for draconian soda bans. Kirk Sigmon is a graduate student in the Law School. He can be reached at kas468@cornell.edu.
Opinion
October 5, 2012
5
September 11th: A Personal Reflection Laurel Conrad Campus News Editor
O
n September Eleventh each year the weather has a strange ability to place me in a surreal world. If it’s rainy or cold when I pause to reflect on the past, I feel distant from the past. If, however, it is warm and the sun is bright without a cloud in the sky, I am transported. This year, as I sit in the morning on the Arts Quad near the campus memorial, it feels like the day itself, eleven years ago. I close my eyes and I’m nine years old again. I live in officers’ housing on a military base in Washington, D.C. School hasn’t started yet, and I relish the last week of summer. My mom reads a story to my sister, two brothers, and me. My youngest brother, Ian, is six months old. I’m the oldest, and therefore feel very responsible for everyone. The phone starts ringing, interrupting the story. I follow my mom to where she answers it in the kitchen. My mom and dad have a short conversation and after hanging up, my mom turns on the television in her room. I follow and sit on her floor and watch. My siblings are downstairs, still waiting to finish the story. I barely comprehend the news we’re watching. Planes hitting large buildings in New York City. Fire. People jumping out of windows. I naively believe that they will be caught by
the firemen. My mom explains that they won’t—and I am horrified. For the first time in my short nine years on Earth, I question: how secure is the world? Then the next image flashes on the television screen. There is no sound, no commentary. Only a live image of a building on fire. I recognize the building, even without commentary. I recognize it because I’ve been there before: for office family parties, to visit my dad. I’ve been in its conference rooms, sitting at the large table coloring, while I’ve waited for important-looking adults to finish working in offices behind
the blinds of her bedroom window. From our military base in DC, she and I watch as smoke rises into the sky. In a rush, my mom leaves us in the house and goes outside. I watch from the front door and she and the other military wives silently gather. I push past the door and join them —they are terrified and suspect that everyone, their husbands and coworkers, are dead. We are warned by a news report that our air force base in DC is one of the next targets. Everyone is praying for a loved one. I silently pray for my dad. The cell phone network is down.
complicated security systems. The building on fire, engulfed in smoke, is “Daddy’s Pentagon”, the place he has gone to work every morning for the past three years. My mom opens
Even if people want to call to say they are safe, it is impossible. Finally, my dad calls. His office had been hit, and if he had been in it, he would have had no chance of survival. But
Bureaucratic Malaise
Embracing a Culture of Corruption
Roberto Matos Columnist
The Clarion Call
I
f there were ever a worst time for a federal agency to flaunt its contempt for the public’s (rapidly dwindling) trust in government, it would obviously be now. Lawmakers have long since become exceptionally skilled at beating the drums of denunciation and outrage in the wake of tales of bureaucratic incompetence, inefficiency, profligacy, and waste. In a political climate rife with furious resentment against overbearing, bloated government, it would seemingly behoove unelected officials to conduct themselves dutifully in administration, and with full commitment to responsible management of taxpayer dollars. But this would only seem to be the case. Not only did the General
Service Administration utterly squander taxpayer dollars, but its members gloated gleefully in doing so. An independent agency charged with supplying federal offices and managing buildings and office space, the GSA is, ironically, responsible for overseeing costminimizing policies. Plagued by a confusing administrative structure and subpar oversight of budget and contracting, its Pacific Rim region was allowed to spend more than $800,000 on a 2010 employee “training” conference in Las Vegas. In late spring, Congressional outrage surfaced in the wake of reports that the conference included a mind reader, clowns and comedians. The Washington Post reported that employees were led through a so-called “team-building exercise,” during which they assembled bicycles, costing the taxpayers $75,000. The spectacle featured
a “networking reception,” and included 400 pieces of “petit beef Wellington,” at $4.75 each, 400 “mini Monte Cristo sandwiches” at $5 each, and a “pasta reception station” at $16 a person. Now, more embarrassing details are surfacing. The extravaganza's organizers promised the hotel $41,480 in further catering charges “in exchange for honoring the government’s lodging cost limits for conference participants.” In an unapologetic tribute to his agency’s squandering profligacy, a GSA employee produced a spoof rap video recorded to parody his department’s lavish spending. Its lyrical content sheds a glaring light on the GSA’s raw insolence and open contempt for the public’s trust. The GSA inspector reports $6,325 spent on commemorative coins, and $8,130 for souvenir books. Most indicting, a photograph has been circulating of agency head Jeffery Neely posing shirtless while soaking in a tub, wine glasses looming prodigiously in the backdrop. This deliberate abuse of funds is so flagrantly egregious that the Inspector General has referred the case to the Department of Justice for criminal investigation. Recently, Neely, hauled before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, was
construction had started the day before to renovate the office and he and everyone else in it had been relocated. This part of the Pentagon did not receive direct impact, though it was very, very close to it. For the first time in hours, my family is able to breathe. Other neighbors are not as lucky. During the next months, armed men with large guns strapped to their backs patrol the base. Everywhere you go, you are asked to show identification. Sand bags are placed on the playgrounds for defense in case of an attack, but no one goes on the playgrounds anymore. Neighborhoods once alive with children outside are eerily quiet. The atmosphere is somber—we mourn for the loss of life our base has sustained. When people ask me why I’m a government major, I give a number of reasons. Strong national defense policy, a set of courageous moral values, and liberty are principles I greatly value. Perhaps it is because I have witnessed firsthand how these values are essential to survival for our nation’s troops and civilians. What I observed that day, eleven years ago, is why I am a conservative, and why we must never forget the lessons learned on 9/11. Laurel Conrad is a junior in the College of Arts and Sciences. She can be reached at lrc54@cornell.edu. pointedly questioned in only the first of an entire series of Congressional hearings, in which he was relentlessly grilled and decried. The witness robotically replied “Mr. Chairman, on the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my Fifth Amendment constitutional privilege,” to nearly every inquiry. Every committee member, of each committee session in which he was grilled, wanted a chance to take a swipe. Unconscionable! Condemnable! Intolerable! were hurled about. As Republicans called for indictments, and hoped to brand the debacle as representative of a spirit of wastefulness on the part of the entire Obama administration, Democrats hoped to paint the scandal as the work of a few bad apples: “It makes me cringe that the good people at GSA who work hard every day have been humiliated by a few bad actors,” stated Rep. Barbara Boxer. Frankly, though, it shouldn’t take a mind reader to determine exactly why Neely enthusiastically embraced a culture of corruption. Despite appearances, and despite the crusading denunciations of animated lawmakers, a spirit of open defiance toward and contempt for taxpayer concern pervades and festers throughout the government. Continued on page 10
CR
6
Campus
October 5, 2012
Mooning the
The 4th Ward Platform You Won't Hear in
The Cornell Daily Sun There comes a crucial point in the life of all true journalists when they must decide which side of the fence they are going to stand on. The decision is simple to understand, but complex to resolve: either to report on news independently with your readers well-aware of any biases you may have, or to report on news with hidden biases and treat your opinions as facts under the veil of independence. This decision affects the stories writers pursue, the stances they take on those stories, and even the quotes they include in order to support the overall message in the article. The staff writers at the Cornell Review are not shy about where they stand on the issues, and as you read our publication, you do so with that in mind. This makes for more honest journalism, allowing the reader to get a true sense of both sides of the issue and hear all arguments, so that you can form opinions for yourself. Our challenge is to help our comrades at the Daily Sun to do the same, and stand on the right side of the fence of journalistic integrity. Through some investigation, we have located a recent interview between the Sun and Ithaca Common Council candidate Misha Checkovich. The interview was used in an article announcing her candidacy. In the interview, we learn about Misha’s platform as well as some of her background and future plans in Ithaca. The article, however, limited her characterization to a “Cornell student” and “Republican,” as the writer proceeded to comment at length on the Democratic challenger, Stephen Smith. The fact that little has been made known at a mass market level about this election for the 4th Ward in Ithaca is not an accident. Below are more details of Misha and her platform as a candidate, as we work on investigating the same for her opponent. The highlighted sections are the lines quoted in the Daily Sun article.
When did you decide to run for Common Council? I decided to run when I heard that Eddie Rooker was resigning his Ward 4 seat. It seemed likely, as in fact happened, that the Democratic Party would propose to replace him with yet another Ward 4 resident who has never been a Cornell student and has little in common with the majority of people who live in Ward 4. In view of the enormous impact City policies have, I believe it is important that Common Council not be without a student voice for the first time in years. As an independent-minded and pragmatic fiscal conservative, I will also provide a broader, more reality-based perspective in a City government now dominated by a one-party machine and devoid of political diversity.
oader, r b a e d i so prov l a ctive l l e i p w s r I e " p y-based t i l a e r t now e n e mor m n r e gov arty p in a City e n o a ed by dominat chine." ma
CR
"I belie ve it is Comm import on Cou ant tha ncil no a stude t t be wi nt voic thout e for th e fi rst tim in year e s."
What inspired you to run for Ithaca government in your senior year? My multi-generational connection to Ithaca. My dad got his bachelors and masters at Cornell. I will finish my history degree at the end of December. I would like for Ithaca to be in my family's future as well. The City needs to do a better job of financial management and of encouraging the growth, jobs, and opportunity that inspire young people to stay here, to see Ithaca as their future, not just the place they went to school.
Campus
October 5, 2012
7
What platform are you running on? I want to address the quality of life in Ward 4, which includes Cascadilla Park, West Campus, and most of Collegetown. Ward 4 property owners and businesses pay huge amounts in taxes and fees to the City. Those of us who are students and renters understand that those costs get passed through to us, which is one reason rents are so high. In view of what Ward 4 contributes to the City's revenues, I don't think that we are getting anything close to the level of City services we should have. Safety and infrastructure are huge issues in Ward 4. We’ve seen several house fires in the past couple of years, including fatalities, but little has been done to address the fire department's concerns about fire risks in houses that have been converted into rental apartments. This is unacceptable. Some of our streets look like those in less developed nations, including the part of Stewart Avenue where I live. Residents and businesses are being crushed between economic imperatives and the burdensome and often ridiculous demands of City regulatory and review boards. Businesses are failing all over Ward 4, and that puts severe strain on student life, neighborhood life, and City finances. And I won’t even mention the parking crisis. I don’t think it is healthy for a student population such as ours to have so few spaces that are easily accessible during our downtime. One of my goals is to improve the business and housing situation. Another is to help bring the City budget back from the brink of bankruptcy. We are spending $3 million more per year than we take in. For much of the previous administration that hole was papered over by taking $ 1 million per year from the City's reserve fund. Now, that fund is nearly exhausted and cannot be raided to pay for the profligate spending without endangering the City's bond rating. Some hard decisions need to be made, and they will require cuts in both personnel and services. To his credit, Mayor Svante Myrick clearly wants to move the City toward a balanced budget and is on record as saying that he would rather make cuts than raise taxes. While I have many differences with the Mayor, I look forward to working with him on Common Council in making these difficult but necessary changes.
Do you think it’s common for Republicans to run for office in the 4th Ward? It is becoming more common. Last year Jessica Reif, who is now president of the Cornell Republicans, ran as a write-in candidate. This year I'll be on the ballot on the Republican Party line as well as on the Collegetown Party independent line. Although voter registration in the City tilts heavily toward the Democrats, Ithaca is in fact “10 square miles surrounded by Republicans.” Not only do we have the City surrounded, but I expect to see more Republicans (and independents) in the City running for seats on Common Council as Ithacans become aware of what has happened here over the past decade. The City has been run completely by Democrats, and clearly that has not worked out too well. I think some fresh political blood and diversity in political views would be a great benefit.
ne to o d n bee s a ent's h m e t l r t t a "...li e dep risk in r fi e re ss th addre rns about fi converted conce t have been . This is nts tha e s m e t s r u ho al ap t n le." e b r a t o t p e in unacc
Do you plan on continuing in Ithaca politics if you win the one year interim term? Yes. I love it here and plan to stay here after I graduate. I am already looking at graduate school and employment opportunities in the area, and of course I plan to continue in Ithaca politics after the one-year term. Ithaca has the potential to be a true powerhouse city in upstate New York, but getting there will take more than one year.
Could you explain a little about yourself? What is your major? Where are you from? I am majoring in History in the College of Arts and Sciences because it’s my most comfortable subject and also because history is so important in understanding our society and what drives people. I am originally from a suburb of Boston, so I am very comfortable here in the Northeast. My father is from a Long Island family originally from the Ukraine. Some of my other ancestors came to America before the Civil War. My mother is from Taiwan, and I still have family there, in China, and Thailand. My biggest hobby outside of school is politics, and I also love different languages and cultures. I speak Mandarin fluently and am currently learning Arabic. I think it is important for us as individuals to be willing to reach out and communicate with each other across our differences and beyond our comfort zones, otherwise we will never be able to negotiate effectively or develop productive alliances. That is another reason I love this community. For a place with such a smalltown feel, Ithaca has incredible diversity and many, many residents who want what is best for the City and its people.
CR
8
National
October 5, 2012
Beyond the Presidency Races that will define the 2012 Election Andre Gardiner Staff Writer
W
ith only a month left in this election season, it seems like neither candidate can effectively develop a message that does not include the name of his opponent in the same sentence. The Obama campaign and media have been very effective at keeping Mitt Romney off balance, but various inelegant comments have not helped. For the last few election cycles, debates have proved to be rather boring, but we could see sparks fly if Mitt Romney is still stalled in the polls. While all predictions are somewhat worthless this far out, I have put together some information on the always-important Congressional races, as well as some predictions for the general election.
House of Representatives: The House is not really worth mentioning, because if Republicans lose the majority, something beyond strange will have occurred on the national level. With that said, the RNC needs to maintain 218 seats to hold the majority, and it looks like they have 206 in the bag already. Plus, redistricting should help them pick up a few seats in key states (Redistricting/Election Reform anyone?).
Senate: This looks like the more interesting of the two sets of non-Presidential races. Short of highly depressed voter turnout in non-swing states, I can’t image the RNC taking back the Senate, although in
CR
the era of the filibuster, it doesn’t matter as much as it should. (Hopefully the following isn’t out of date by the time it is published.
Blue States Connecticut: Linda McMahon has a steep cliff to climb if she is going to win this one. Despite close polling, McMahon has a difficult task in a state where Democrats have a 17% point registration margin over Republicans. In the 2010 race, McMahon spent $50 million of her own money but still lost by double digits. Massachusetts: This has been the best (and most heated) election to watch so far. With such a large voter registration margin for Democrats, it’s a real testament to Scott Brown as a candidate that he is even close, let alone winning. There is a lot of
money in this race but I think it is going to come almost solely down to likeability, which Elizabeth Warren is somewhat lacking.
Red States Indiana: The polls are quite tight, but Richard Mourdock should be able to pull this off. Republicans make up 46% of registered voters in Indiana, with Democrats 14 points behind. Plus, with the Obama campaign shifting its attention towards more winnable states, Joe Donnelly shouldn’t have as much national support. Montana/North Dakota: Voter registration advantages plus no national attention. Republicans should win, but that doesn’t mean they will.
Swing States Nevada/Virginia/Wisconsin: The Congressional races in these states are likely to follow the Presidential campaign, so it’s worthless to try to guess who is going to win. Closing Thoughts: Its hard to imagine that anybody is really undecided when it comes to the national election, but polls tell us otherwise. Hopefully the debates will shake up the race, but I have doubts. If Mitt Romney has not picked up any momentum, he may be forced to step outside his comfort zone and make a move to get the support and energy he needs. Andre Gardiner is a junior PAM major in the College of Human Ecology. He can be reached at apg58@ cornell.edu.
The Nanny State Continued from the front page
Ed,” would require all colleges and universities to send all student loan awardees the same form explaining the terms of their loans, including an explicit statement of their future monthly payments. This coincides with the Department of Education’s release of its financial aid “Shopping Sheet,” a form it recommends all colleges use to present aid offers to admitted students. A version of the Sheet showcased in an Inside Higher Ed article from last month even includes statistics about the hypothetical school’s graduation rate, and the student loan
“It is not the job of the government—or anyone—to insure that people have every bit of information that might be relevant to one of their personal decisions set out in front of them in goodlooking tables and charts.”
National default rate. While use of the Shopping Sheet is not (yet) required, Collins notes that the Obama Administration has already begun using its clout to attempt to convince colleges to make use of the form part of their standard operating procedure. Perhaps this seems like a relatively harmless initiative (and, compared to some of the other initiatives coming out of Washington lately, perhaps it is), but ultimately, the adoption of the bill presently being considered in Congress would constitute yet another unnecessary regulation that would consume scarce government resources and undermine the personal responsibility of students and their families in being conscious of their own financial decisions. It is not the job of the government—or anyone—to insure that people have every bit of information that might be relevant to one of their personal decisions set out in front of them in good-looking tables and charts. Students and their families should make informed decisions about their education and its cost, and they should have access to the requisite information to do so. But, if this information matters as much to them as it should, then they should also make the effort to seek it out for themselves if it is not obvious from whatever financial aid information
is given to them by their chosen college. Seriously, we’re not talking about rocket science here. We’re talking about actually reading the awards letters, paying attention to what is a grant and what is a loan, and calling up a school’s registrar if that isn’t clear. We’re talking about reading financial documents before signing them. We’re talking about a minimal amount of effort—certainly much less than any student will need to put in to do well at a university, let alone to make it in the job market later on in life. Colleges should not deceive students about financial aid, nor should they withhold information about
October 5, 2012
9
the conditions attached to loans or other aid: That would be fraud, and would show a lack of good faith. Laws against those things, however, already exist and there is no need for a new law standardizing the way in which universities present financial aid information. If students really do hope to be successful enough to make enough money to be able to pay off their loans, they had best be capable of doing the little bit of work it might require to find out how much their education will cost them in the first place. Lucia Rafanelli is a senior in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at lmr93@cornell.edu.
Campus
Collegetown Problems Continued from the front page
have in the heart of Collegetown. Some of the blame lies directly with the landlords. Take for example Green Café, the property at the corner of College Ave and Dryden Road. This property, considered by the landlord as “one of the best four corners entering campus”, has remained empty for over two years. The Green Café’s owners were forced to file for bankruptcy after allegations of illegal labor disputes resulted in one million dollars in fines. The landlord is currently asking for an $18,000 triple net lease per month. In other terms, the tenant will have been responsible for $18,000 in rent on top of building maintenance, insurance, and real estate tax. If Green Café managed
to have $200,000 of revenue in a month and had about 35% in cost of goods sold and 25% in labor costs, it would have left them $40,000 to pay $18,000 in rent, in addition to maintenance, insurance and real estate tax. It is unlikely, under these conditions, that a business like Green Café could have been profitable. After two years, no new business has moved into this property. It has become obvious to entrepreneurs, as it is to us, that Collegetown businesses cannot succeed with such excessive rent and liabilities foisted on them by the landlords. Entrepreneurs also share a level of blame for the current Collegetown atmosphere. Business owners enter the C-town market hopeful that students will be willing to spend money and time at their establishment, and most of the time, we do. Unfortunately, business concepts in Collegetown, especially bars, are designed to fail. With the exception of Rulloffs, most bars in Collegetown are open from 8:00pm
until 1:00am. In just five hours a night, these businesses compete by offering the lowest priced drink deals they can. Most students will even pre-game or show up to these bars simply to socialize or dance and will not spend much money there, as highlighted in a recent New York Times article. As a result, bars are put in a chal-
throughout the day (through food and drinks), giving them more leeway with cheaper drink specials at night. Aspiring entrepreneurs attempting to enter the Collegetown market should understand that in order to compete, they must find a steady stream of revenue outside of late night drinks. Collegetown is an eminently
“Aspiring entrepreneurs attempting to enter the Collegetown market should understand that in order to compete, they must find a steady stream of revenue outside of late night drinks.” lenging position; they are forced to give lower and lower prices but are expected to pay for increasing costs. This business model forces bars out of business when renewing their leases become too costly. On the other hand, Rulloff’s business model allows them to obtain a steady stream of revenue
profitable and livable area, and yet we find ourselves in this quagmire of competing for outrageously outdated spaces at outrageous costs. There is a multi-pronged solution readily available, if people will let go of the need to be ridiculous about development and acquire some business sense. Karim Lakhani is a junior in the School of Hotel Administration. He can be reached at kml248@cornell. edu. Misha Checkovich is a senior in the College of Arts and Sciences. She can be reached at mcc254@cornell.edu.
CR
10
Odds andEnds
October 5, 2012
Bureaucratic Malaise Continued from page five
Are we really that surprised? Surely not. The structure of bureaucracy breeds a culture of non-accountability. Its removal from the public scene breeds complacency and an ignorance of the extent to which taxpayers are already burdened. What follows is a sense of elitism, failure to sympathize with citizens’ concerns, and a feeling of entitlement to indulge. Because bureaucracy is not directly accountable to the voters, this malaise is renewed, administration
after administration, and remains relatively unchecked. It becomes ingrained into the fabric of government. One can only fear that the GSA-attitude is more contagious, if less glamorous and overt, in other agencies, than administration officials would have you believe. Mr. Neely's indiscretion is anything but representative of a few “bad apples,” but rather the sorry symptom of a sorry sickness of excess which plagues our government. While it may be refreshing to see our lawmakers screaming
indignantly over this breach of integrity, they too have earned our contempt for their profligacy. So we would be remiss if we failed to turn the accusatory finger of outrage toward them as well. Bloated and constantly overspending, our government brazenly burns more taxpayer resources than the GSA could ever dream to. It is the height of stupefying hypocrisy, then, to see our lawmakers wave the bloody
At one of the Congressional hearings, Representative Elijah Cummings declared that the GSA had “violated one of the most basic tenets of government service. It's not your money." It would be helpful if the good Congressman announced (read: screamed) this information at the next session of Congress, and then took a stroll to his own party’s caucus to spread the good news.
shirt of self-righteousness. They never change. The money fountain never stops. Citizen cynicism is constantly nurtured. The epidemic continues.
Roberto Matos is a sophomore in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at rlm387@cornell. edu.
2016 in Review
Misha Checkovich Staff Writer
the psychology of Barack Obama,
O
mary motivators drive Obama's de-
ne point that cannot be stressed enough is that if Barack Obama were to seek a job in the federal government, particularly one with an agency concerning the security of the nation such as the FBI or CIA, he would be promptly rejected, possibly even placed under surveillance. The government, rightly so, is concerned with people who have associated with terrorists and radicals (cue the ACLU cries of first-amendment violation, but that's not where this article is headed). Now, some people reading this might be thinking, “Barack Obama is nothing if not an exemplary, patriotic American. All of this is just right-wing-conspiratorial-racist-reactionary-bigotry. Republicans just want to hate and 'otherize' the first black president”. And I probably would not (completely) blame them, given the total media blackout/revisionism on all things having to do with Barack Obama past and present, as well as the looks of sheer horror when bringing up these pesky details in polite company. But, how much money would you bet that supporters of Barack Obama know more about the excruciating details of Mitt Romney's high school antics than anything about Obama's years abroad, at college, and as a community organizer?
the movie takes a look at what pricisions in the White House and on the world stage. D'Souza opens the film with his “angle”: that he himself is an immigrant from India, formerly a British colony, and that he came to view America through that lens. D'Souza left India to attend college at Dartmouth, and soon after settling in to his new surroundings, joined a group of “renegade conservatives” in establishing the Dartmouth Review, a controversial newspaper aspiring to counter the liberalism of academia. He went on to work in the Reagan White House, and has since established a career as an academic and important conservative pundit
“One of the more nuanced criticisms that emerged was that Obama subscribed to an ‘anti-colonial’ view.”
Certainly your money would be safer in that bet than in the current housing market or under Jon Corzine's management.
and author.
Enter the documentary 2016: Obama's America, with the tagline “Love Him. Hate Him. You Don't Know Him”. Based on conservative commentator Dinesh D'Souza's earlier writings on
and actions. Many attributed to him
CR
As the first Obama administration unfolded, there was a lot of mystery shrouding his key decisions quaint descriptors such as “radical”, “communist”, “Muslim infiltrator”, “left-wing agitator”, and sundry conservative buzzwords. The racial dog-whistles would come later.
But one of the more nuanced criticisms that emerged was that Obama subscribed to an “anti-colonial” view. It did not help that Newt Gingrich added “mau-mau” to the description (referring to the Kenyan uprising to British colonial rule in the 1950's) in a rather derogatory tone of voice, but it did bring light to the thesis. In fact, this thesis was put forward by Dinesh D'Souza himself in an article for Forbes Magazine titled “The Roots of Obama's Rage”, and it plays the central role in 2016. The source for this article is none other than Barack Obama's very own autobiography “Dreams From My Father”. D'Souza goes through the autobiography with meticulous attention to detail (which I will not reprise here, but will say that the article is well worth the time to read through) and comes to the conclusion that Obama had drawn from his father the struggle against the Anglo-sphere capitalist societies and their perceived exploitation of the colonized states. In essence, Obama's time in office has been dedicated towards knocking America (the ultimate Anglo-sphere capitalist society) down a few pegs in the world order, as evidenced by his reference to American exceptionalism being on par with British
exceptionalism or Greek exceptionalism, among other such statements and actions. It is why he would be willing to encourage and finance South American energy-development rather than what is available on our own shores and federal lands (note: the ongoing energy development during this administration, which the president has publicly bragged about, has happened mainly, if not completely, at the hands of private enterprise on private lands). Whether or not you agree with him, we should all be on the same page as to what the facts are, as to what has come from Obama's very own pen and personal history. 2016 goes through Obama's life in sequence, from his influences to the major milestones of his life that he himself describes in his autobiography. If you are looking for a real undertaking in the vetting of this president, no matter where you fall on the political spectrum, D'Souza's movie offers a very compelling look into the often obfuscated personal story of the leader of the free world. Misha Checkovich is a senior in the College of Arts and Sciences. She can be reached at mcc254@cornell. edu.
Insider
October 5, 2012
11
CORNELLINSIDER.com Santorum/Dean Debate Tickets Sell Out in Two Hours Posted by Noah Kantro Cornell’s biggest political event in the run-up to the November’s election, the debate between former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum (R) and former Vermont Governor Howard Dean (D), is set to take place on the grand stage of Bailey in less than two weeks. But you can’t get tickets. Tickets went on sale (well, not really—they were free) last Friday in Willard Straight, but the 400-ticket supply only lasted for two hours. Alex Pruce ’13, First Vice-Chair of the CU Republicans, declared the mad ticket rush a “Political Avicii”, referring to the near-instantaneous sellout of Cornell’s homecoming concert. While Bailey Hall seats over one thousand people, many tickets have been reserved for classes and various student organizations, some of which are co-sponsoring the event and/or requiring students to attend, according to Cornell College Republicans president Jess Reif ’14. This included a $10,000 contribution from the College of Human Ecology, spearheaded by the PAM department, which is preparing many details of the debate set up. An introductory speech will be given by PAM Professer Rosemary Avery, and the debate will be moderated by ILR Professor Sam Nelson. However, this left less than half the auditorium available for the general student body, and now that politics are coming to the front of every student’s mind, many are sure to be left out in the cold, and like the Avicii concert, this is surely positively absolutely irrefutably unquestionably guaranteed to lead to a huge black market trade in the precious golden tickets. I wonder how much a Dean/Santorum ticket goes for on Craigslist…
Provost Fuchs: Administration Approves Calendar Changes Posted by Alfonse Muglia Provost Kent Fuchs announced in a statement this afternoon that the administration has approved a changes to Cornell’s academic calendar, as recommended by the University’s Calendar Committee last spring. The changes will go in effect in Spring 2014. “The committee’s objectives were to re-examine the existing calendar with an eye to proposing changes that would: address concerns about student stress and mental health related to prolonged periods of instruction without multi-day breaks, enhance educational opportunities, and comply with New York State Education Department requirements,” Fuchs released in a statement. “I applaud the committee’s dedicated service. Under the changes, classes will begin on the Tuesday before Labor Day. The only other change in the fall is that the day before Thanksgiving will be a full day off, as opposed to a half day as it is now. This change brings the total number of instruction days from 67.5 to 68. The spring semester changes are more oriented around reliving student stress. Instruction will resume after winter break on the Wednesday after Martin Luther King, Jr. Day. A break will be added on the Monday and Tuesday of President’s week. Classes will end on a Wednesday in early May. This change will reduce the number of instruction days from 70 to 69. There will also be an additional study day in the middle of the exam schedule, in both the fall and spring semester. The exam period will be reduced from 9 1/3 days to 9 days in both semesters. One of the most contested aspects of the new calendar was the reduction of Senior Week. While accepting the change, the provost charged the final exam committee to consider orienting the schedule so that the majority of exams in senior classes ended before the last day of exams. The proposed changes to the calendar had been denounced by the Student Assembly last Spring via Resolution 47. “Despite [the committee's] purpose, there has been substantial criticism of the proposed calendar with students concerned that the changes will, in fact, increase stress and harm student mental health,” stated the Resolution. Both undergraduate members on the calendar committee (including former Student Assembly President Natalie Raps, ’12) voted against the changes. The entire statement can be found here on the University’s website.
cornellinsider.com
CR
12
October 5, 2012
Wisemen & Fools The more corrupt the state, the more numerous its laws. Tacitus
You know why? It's statutory language. We hire experts. Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT)
I have never understood why it is "greed" to keep the money you're earned, but not greed to want to take someone else's money Thomas Sowell
I’d rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University. William F. Buckley
I used to think that becoming rich and becoming famous would make me happy. Boy was I right! Mitt Romney There is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. John F. Kennedy Good leadership consists of showing average people how to do the work of superior people. John D. Rockefeller I don't think you want me to waste my time to read every page of the health care bill.
Can I get an Amen for that?! Barack Obama America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof, the smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud. George W. Bush Yes! Everybody in Cleveland, low minorities, got Obama phone. Keep Obama in president, you know? He gave us a phone! Obamaphone Lady
Read archived issues online at
I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer. Ben Franklin
You didn’t build that! Barack Obama It is not strange. . .to mistake change for progress. Millard Fillmore You cannot escape the responsibility of tomorrow by evading it today. Abraham Lincoln
By failing seriously to confront the most predictable economic crisis in our nation's history, The President's policies are committing us and our children to a diminished future. Government does not create wealth. The major role for the Paul Ryan government is to create an Change change change environment where people change change change take risks to expand the job change change change rate in the United States. change change change George W. Bush change change change change change change If I don’t have this done in three years, then there’s going change change change to be a one-term proposition. change change change Barack Obama Barack Obama
thecornellreview.com
Join the Review. CR
Come to GS 156, Mondays at 5:00 pm or send us an email at cornellreview@cornell.edu