The Cornell Review The Conservative Voice on Campus
An Independent Publication vol. xxxi, no. iv
cornellinsider.com
BLOG
thecornellreview.com
SITE
14 DAYS LEFT
Thoughts in the Home Stretch—Education, Apathy, and South Park Andre Gardiner Staff Writer Cornell Review writer Andre Gardiner gives some unique insight on the issues that matter and apparently don’t matter to him in this final month before the election.
October 23rd, 2012 Editorial: Gender Benders
3
Conflict Escalates
4
Punishing Innovation
5
Meet the Candidate
6
Cultural Conservativism
8
Messmory Lose
10
Pushing back against mixed-gender housing As tensions rise, is it time to attack Iran?
FTC against Google and innovators everywhere
E
ducation: President Obama repeatedly referenced the widely popular $4.35 billion dollar Race to the Top program during the October 3rd debate. The program, due in large part to the way teachers’ unions and other Democratic institutions have responded, even has some support from Republicans. However, there are a couple of issues that should be analyzed before we all pat the President on the back. While it is still too early to see the program’s total impact, progress for implementing reforms has slowed due to a lack of accountability and local opposition. Education Secretary Arne Duncan has specifically cited issues with implementation in New York and Hawaii, and has gone so far as to threaten to withhold
“We Do Not Apologize.”
Signs of Political Activism? This apparently purposeful mispelling of the GOP nominee appeared all over campus this past week hundreds of millions of dollars. In many cases, local teachers’ unions have spoken out against these programs and have little financial incentive to back down. In total, only three of the twelve first-round winners are meeting the timetable requirements set out in their original proposals. When talking about education, it is also important to realize that the Federal government only accounts for about 8.3% of total K-12 education spending. Similarly, greater spending does not necessarily result
in better education results. While this does not mean that we should cut education spending, it does point to larger systemic problems that are holding students back. Race to the Top is generally a step in the right direction, but it does not even come close to dealing with the larger issues that negatively impact returns to education.
W
hy Vote? As one of the laziest Republicans in this election cycle, I must admit that I will
Rep. Reed (R-NY 29) discusses his opponent, Obamacare and more.
And what it means on a college campus The secret weapon of an Obama supporter
01
Continued on page 9
Local First: Tom Reed Lunch with the Talks Jobs, Agriculture Ambassador to Syria
The GOP’s Appeal to Local Patriots A Cornell in Washington Experience Alfonse Muglia Editor-in-Chief
INSIDE Interview with Representative Tom Reed (R-NY 29)
U
6
pon the announcement of the new, Congressional redistricting lines for New York in early March, the city of Ithaca found itself within the boundaries of a district represented by a Republican for the first time since 1993, when the unemployment rate was a mere 4.1% in the city. And while the new districts will not take effect until the Congressional inauguration next January, this November’s elections will feature constitutions voting within this newly formed 23rd district, which includes 6.9% more registered Republicans than Democrats. These facts make for a compelling race between Thomas Reed (R-NY 29) and his Democratic challenger Nate Shinagawa, ’05, who have been
vying for the seat leading up to the November 6 election. As Shinagawa’s calls for progressive reforms have garnered coverage in local publications, Reed’s campaign, with its base in the Southern Tier, is making a splash in the district as a whole, leading many pundits and poll experts to label the race as safely in the hands of the GOP. Reed, who formerly served as mayor of Corning, NY, comes into the contest as the more experienced candidate. First nominated for Congress in 2010 to fill the seat of scandal-ridden Representative Eric Massa, Reed won a stirring race against Washington-Insider Matthew Zeller by 12%. Since his 2010 election, Reed has been influential in the Republicanled house, speaking out against government spending and Obamacare as one of the youngest members of the House Ways and Means Committee, which has jurisdiction over tax-writing, tariffs, Social Security, unemployment benefits, Medicare, Continued on page 2
Caroline Emberton Washington Correspondent
T
he people you encounter make the Cornell in Washington experience exceptional. I am not talking about your new LinkedIn connections or the people you meet at networking events. Rather, I am referring to the “celebrities” you read about in dense articles in your government classes and the political figures you hear about in the news. The DC life adds a whole new layer to your understanding of politics. From listening to Paul Ryan give a campaign speech in a crowded ballroom to hearing Justice Ginsberg address a small group of students in the halls of the Supreme Court, I have seen politics come to life. The uniqueness of the Cornell in Washington experience particularly resonated with me when the Syria question came up in the Vice Presidential debate. Just the day before the VP debate, I listened to
Ambassador Robert Ford, United States Ambassador to Syria, engage a small conference room of students on the complications of the Syrian conflict. One of the perks of being a State Department intern is brown bag lunches with State Department officials. The brown bag lunch with Ambassador Ford seemed incredibly relevant given the prominence of the Syrian conflict in current events, and recent reports of Russian and Iranian support to the Assad regime. After the close of the American Embassy in Damascus, Ambassador Ford has been tirelessly working to encourage a peaceful transition from the Assad regime, and to support peace between Alawis and Sunnis. He spoke about his meetings with Bashar al-Assad, and the complications of asking opposition groups to negotiate with Assad. As many people observed in the Barbara Walter’s interview Continued on page 2
2
October 23, 2012
Region
GOP in the Southern Tier Continued from the front page
and more. On the committee, he is a part of the Subcommittee on Human Resources and the Subcommittee on Oversight. In the meantime, he has stuck to his roots as a champion for local workers, particularly in agriculture. “My focus remains on our struggling upstate economy,” remarked Reed in a recent interview with the Cornell Review, featured in the centerfold of this issue. “We’ve seen (after several rounds of government spending) our area’s unemployment rate remain above nine percent.” It is this focus on local workers and local produce that make Reed a compelling candidate even in Ithaca, a city that casted more votes for Ralph Nader than George W. Bush in 2000. “Our farmers need a long-term, five-year Farm Bill so they can plan for the futures of their farms, continued Reed. “We need to focus on supporting small businesses, which create the majority of jobs, especially in rural areas.” Reed’s experience while governing the small town of Corning led to
this standpoint, which should prove favorable to local farmers. Shinagawa, meanwhile, has based much of his campaign around his controversial opposition to hydraulic-fracturing, a state issue that has seen little attention on the national scene. While Shinagawa has ex-
“It is this ... that make Reed a compelling candidate even in Ithaca, a city that casted more votes for Ralph Nader than George W. Bush in 2000.” pressed firm opposition to the jobcreating, cost reducing process that dates back to the 19th century, Reed has left the issue to be negotiated at the state level. Both President Obama and Governor Romney have offered support
of the shale boom, while recognizing that any regulations should come from the state level, according to a recent report by Reuters. President Obama, however, suggested that the federal government offer a template for these regulations. This is something that the Environmental Protection Agency has had difficulties with, as it struggles to keep up with advancements in the fast-growing shale oil and gas industry that has created jobs throughout the 23rd district, as reported by Reuters. Thus, a clear line is drawn in the platforms of Shinagawa and Representative Reed. In the process, Reed has been a leading advocate for moving seasonal agricultural worker programs out of the jurisdiction of the Department of Labor and into the jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture, where the needs of farmers are better represented. “These kinds of common sense pieces of legislation that cut down on government regulations are what our farmers need.” By advocating for a limited government, leaving regulation up to the local and state levels, and representing agricultural workers, Reed
has developed a strong following in the Southern Tier. These policies also give him a compelling case for locally-focused Ithacans, who now find themselves in this historically
“By advocating for a limited government, leaving regulation up to the local and state levels, and representing agricultural workers, Reed has developed a strong following in the Southern Tier. ” conservative district. For more from the Review’s interview with Tom Reed, including his thoughts on the redistricting, Obamacare, the Romney-Ryan ticket, and more, turn to page 6. Alfonse Muglia is a junior in the School of Industrial and Labor Relations. He can be reached at arm267@ cornell.edu
A Converstation with U.S.Ambassador Ford Continued from the front page
with Bashar al-Assad and the Vogue article about his wife Asma Assad– which has now been removed from the internet–Bashar and Asma display a cosmopolitan and highly Western façade. In the meantime, Syria deteriorates into a state of anarchy. You only have to check the daily news to access graphic images of tortured and massacred Syrian citizens. The Syrian government continues to commit appalling violence against men, women, and children, while demonstrating a barbaric disregard for the dignity of its citizens. It would be an understatement to say that the opposition groups are fiercely divided. Unlike Tunisia or Egypt, Syria lacks a clear transitional government or consolidated opposition. U.S. and international demands for peace overlook the layers of historical and current cultural wounds that divide the Syrian people. After Kofi Annan’s unsuccessful ceasefire proposal, diplomats and politicians
have realized that peace is not an option at the present. The Ambassador suggested that the U.S. must deal with more immediate concerns, such as the two million internally displaced people, and negotiations with Assad. Ambassador Ford’s priority is to advance the importance of communication among Syrian opposition, which he will encourage in the next meeting with the Syrian National Council in Doha. Ambassador Ford advised the group of interns to consider the multitude of impediments to a peace agreement in Syria. The more devastating this conflict becomes and the more revenge accumulates, the less incentive opposition will have to negotiate or even engage in a dialog with Assad. I took away from this conversation with the Ambassador that blanketed statements about peace to the Syrian people disregard the intricacies of this conflict. When moderator Martha Raddatz asked Vice President Joe Biden and Congressman Paul Ryan how
USA Today
the Libya conflict compares to Syria, both candidates agreed that U.S. ground troops should not be sent to Syria. However, each candidate gave answers that reflected their varying awareness of Russia’s and Iran’s threat to the America’s interests. Biden’s answer hardly touched upon the role of Russia and Iran in this conflict. Ryan’s answer prioritized it. I gleaned from the conversation with Ambassador Ford that Iran’s motivations stem from the deeply rooted Sunni and Shiite struggles, and hyper-aggression against the U.S. Meanwhile, Russia intends to remain loyal to Syria, one of its few allies in the Middle East, and establish that it is an international force.
Power politics surround the Syrian struggle, and the Romney-Ryan campaign will not underestimate the potentially devastating consequences of power politics. My lunch with Ambassador Ford was a quintessential DC intern experience. When I was watching the debate, I could not help but think of how Ambassador Ford’s influence had shaped U.S. policy in Syria, and how that translated into the talking points for both candidates in the debates. Caroline Emberton is a junior in the College of Arts & Sciences, spending the semester in the Cornell in Washington program. She can be reached at cme67@cornell.edu.
The Review welcomes and encourages letters to the editor. Long, gaseous letters that seem to go
CR
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
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 Roberto Matos Misha Checkovich 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. 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 5:00 pm in GS 156. E-mail messages should be sent to
cornellreview@cornell.edu
Copyright © 2012 The Ithaca Review Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Editorial
Gender Benders Noah Kantro Editor-in-Chief
E
arlier in the month, the big news on campus was the new mixed gender housing policy adopted by the Student Assembly. While much has been made of the policy by the forces-thatbe on campus, notwithstanding criticism of the underhanded, under-the-table, and shamefully non-transparent method by which the SA passed the bill (especially by this paper), nowhere has there been published criticism of the policy itself. This policy allows students to live with roommates of any sex in all campus housing. The implications for traditionallyminded students are immense. However, this is not the first time this policy has been attempted. Waaaaay back in autumn 2007, before any current undergrads were on campus, SA Resolution 3 made West Campus suites available as “no-gender”. This pilot program was cancelled last March due to low demand. When the pilot program was cancelled, SA representative Ulysses Smith ’13 theorized in a Sun report that low demand for the program, “…could be attributable to the fact that the [opportunities are] just not well-known.” It is almost unthinkable that the LGBT organizations on campus would not make every effort to promote this policy—a great victory for their movement—to their constituents. However, they blame the program’s failure on a simple lack of awareness. Was it not their role to raise that awareness? Is it possible they are admitting their own failure as leaders of their community? It is a tried and true liberal tactic to fault the people rather than the policy. A most striking example of this was the 2004 presidential election, when Kerry’s loss was spun as being a result of, “not getting the message out”, despite having overwhelming media support and promotion. In reality his defeat was a rejection of the candidate, his platform, and liberal policies. Claiming “we didn’t get the message out” is a clever way of shifting responsibility for failure from the content of the policies to the capabilities of their prophets. Let mere mortals take the fall, so that dogma can live on. So it is with mixed gender housing. In that same Sun report, housing director Carlos Gonzalez stated the truth: “The findings of the pilot were that...the few multi-gender suites that were reserved ended up yielding far more roommate issues and complaints than singlegender suites.” To counter Smith’s obfuscation, just as easily the program’s failure was the result of the average student seeing the potential hazards and conflicts of living with the opposite gender, conflicts which according to Gonzalez are all too real.
This issue was also brought up back in 2007 when the pilot program was first passed. The student courageous enough to discuss its implications was Mike Wacker, who wrote in the Sun, “By enabling boyfriends and girlfriends to room together, the University is really asking for trouble.” The line of reasoning is simple and self-evident: romantic couple rooms together, breaks up, and is stuck sharing a room or suite. Alternatively, a set of “just friends” rooms together gets intoxicated (as students are wont to do), resulting in unwanted sexual contact, or worse, assault. This comes at a time when the university is concerned with limiting the opportunities for this to occur. As Wacker eloquently stated, if a cohabitation situation were to go sour, “At best, the lady will not feel safe or comfortable in her own room. At worst, the housing contract will essentially lock her into a situation where sexual crimes can take place behind closed doors.” Wacker also cited the statistic that cohabitation before marriage doubles the rate of divorce. Is this something the university really wants to promote? Let’s be honest; this policy is not meant for Joe Frat, who thinks he can increase his chances by living with a girl freshman year. It is being pushed solely for the benefit of the men, women, and especially thosenot-quite-sure members of the LGBT community. The resolution draft says as much, stating, “The aim of gender inclusive housing is to provide a safe living option for gender non-conforming, genderqueer, and transgender students…” As if it is unsafe (actively harmful, mind you, not just occasionally uncomfortable) for them to live with peers unlike themselves. Does anyone recall systematic dorm room violence against gay students? It would have been headline news. Essentially, this policy is the evolution of the program house. It is an LGBT program house distributed across every hall and dorm on campus. This particular movement gets to have their cake and eat it too—insular self-segregation and the power to impose their presence and ideas on the rest of the school in the most intimate of settings. And quite disturbing ideas they are. One goal specified in the resolution draft is, “…to begin to break down the traditional binary in the manwoman gender divide...while exploring the cultural constructions of gender identity.” Mixed gender housing is not only to provide an opportunity to a group of students, but incorporates the stated goal of being a tool to change the rest of the student body, whether they want to be involved in the program or not. The destruction and social engineering of something as basic and biologically necessary as gender roles, which traditionally-minded
October 23, 2012
3
students know have been of utmost importance for properly functioning societies and families, is now official university policy, brought about by your SA representatives. Although it will not be available for a few years, the program will eventually expand to freshman housing. Due to mandatory and mostly randomized first-year oncampus housing, this is the most troubling part of the experiment. The much-praised experience of living with roommates in a dorm freshman year is that you will meet new and diverse people, perhaps very unlike yourself. This program is designed for a select subset (LGBTs) of those too uncomfortable with this concept to escape it completely—one of the same problems we see with the program houses—by choosing to live with people of similar viewpoints. How exactly does this prepare students for real life, where they just maybe might be forced to interact with people of different stripes than their own? At the same time, those not comfortable around the behavior promoted by the mixed gender policy will not be afforded the same opportunity to feel secure in their surroundings. Traditionallyminded students in rooms and suites around mixed gender rooms may feel uncomfortable around such a lifestyle, and all students will suffer collateral damage from any problems arising in these rooms (keeping in mind that they have a higher rate of problems). Potentially, these rooms and suites could develop a damaging social stigma. Yet there is no recourse for those affected negatively by this policy. In fact, those who speak up about any negative results of the LGBT social experiment will likely be accused of discrimination or intolerance. Instead of paying attention to the results of their own pilot program, the SA, with a supportive administration behind them, has passed a new expansion program without resolving any of the concerns brought up when the pilot started, or have become apparent due to its failure. In years past there has been a simple option for those uncomfortable living with others (for any reason): singles. Now, the forces of political correctness insist not only that this option is no longer sufficient, but that in the interests of fairness all students must have the new option designed to “help” only a few. It is policy blind to reality. Yes, the few students who are in genuine need should be accommodated, but this would be much better accomplished on a case-by-case basis instead of by opening a potentially harmful program to any student for any reason. Noah Kantro is a junior in the College of Engineering. He can be reached at nk366@cornell. edu.
CR
4
October 23, 2012
World
Is It Time To Attack Iran? Kushagra Aniket Columnist
Platonic Squabbles
T
here is no greater danger to the survival of human civilization than Islamic nations with nuclear weapons. While other states can be seen as rational and responsible actors, who would not dare to risk their security by the reckless exercise of nuclear power, religious extremists in Islamic countries will not be deterred by the prospect of the total annihilation of mankind. It is a matter of little satisfaction that the only Islamic country that admits to the possession of nuclear weapons is Pakistan, a state whose arsenal faces the constant risk of a takeover by Taliban. But last year, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) found clinching evidence to show that despite international sanctions, Iran would soon be able to acquire nuclear weapons. Iran has enough uranium reserves to build nuclear weapons and put them to use in its neighborhood. Needless to say, an Iran armed with nuclear weapons will be a formidable threat to international peace and security. It will sabotage five decades of efforts at nuclear non-proliferation and trigger an arms race in the Middle East. It will strengthen the despotic regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria and the terrorist activities of Hamas in the Gaza strip and Hezbollah in Lebanon. In the words of President Bush, this is the “Axis of Evil” that has come to threaten the United States by the development of long-range missiles and sponsorship of terrorism. Most importantly, it will endanger the existence of Israel, our greatest ally in the region. This is clear given the fact that Iranian leaders believe that they have a divine mandate to erase Israel off the map.
CR
No amount of international negotiation will deter Iran's ambitious plan to build a nuclear arsenal, as it can always claim that it is using nuclear technology for “peaceful purposes.” To be fair, at this stage even Iran can do little to inspire our confidence without surrendering its basic strategic interests. Indeed, both Israel and the U.S. agree that a nuclear standoff with Iran will be an intolerable danger. In the elections held in March 2012, religious extremists and conservatives won a landslide victory in Iran, capturing 62.7% of seats in the Islamic Consultative Assembly. Ahmadinejad, who is constitutionally barred from running for a third-term, is likely to be replaced by someone who would be closer to the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. It is
and its allies have proved effective in damaging Iran’s economy and crippling its currency. In the past weeks, the Iranian Rial hit a record low of
“While other states can be seen as rational and responsible actors ... religious extremists in Islamic countries will not be deterred by the prospect of the total annihilation of mankind.” also possible that Khamenei would attempt to abolish the presidency and institute a cabinet controlled by a coterie of his supporters. Khamenei has already indicated that the country would be better governed under a cabinet. The fallout of this change of guard will pose a new security challenge to the U.S. For it is quite imminent that Ahmadinejad’s provocative address to the 67th session of the United Nations will soon be seen as one of the more moderate speeches ever delivered by an Iranian leader in an international forum. As tensions between Washington and Tehran have escalated, economic sanctions imposed by the U.S.
35,000 to the dollar. But the economic crisis is also threatening Ahmadinejad’s survival in office. Besides, Ahmadinejad has been accused of undermining clerical power and showing disloyalty to the Supreme Leader. It would not be surprising if he resigns under pressure from the opposition or is dismissed before the elections scheduled for 2013. With Ahmadinejad gone, diplomatic pressure over the Iranian government will be in vain and, sooner or later, the U.S. will be drawn into a direct military confrontation with Iran. It would be much better if we choose our own time of attack. We are not expected to get the support of the people of Iran—people who have been raising the slogan of “Death to America” at Friday prayers. But thanks to the U.S. intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran is now surrounded by countries that pledge to be on our side. Moreover, there are others who would be keen to provide assistance and perhaps it would be better for us if Israel were encouraged to take the trouble. But while the President has imposed some of the most severe economic sanctions on Iran, he has not shown enough support to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s delineation of an explicit “red line” in Israel’s relations with Iran.
However, an Israel-sponsored war is not expected to receive the support of the UN, let alone that of other countries in the Middle East. In fact, Israeli aggression is sure to antagonize the states that are predicted to remain neutral in a U.S.Iran confrontation. Even Israel, despite its current threats to Iran, would prefer to act in concert with the U.S. In such a delicate situation, it appears that a swift and careful military strike to destroy Iran’s nuclear program will be the only way to save us the repercussions of a fullfledged war. If the U.S. assault is successful in crippling Iran’s nuclear capabilities, then Iran will be left with little power to retaliate. In order to impede Tehran’s progress over its nuclear program, we need to overcome a number of obstacles that stand in the way. First, Iran’s nuclear facilities might be hidden or concealed underground and a cruise missile attack might not be sufficient to impair the project. Second, the concomitant collateral damage, even if minimized in terms of loss of lives, would have the potential of intensifying a dangerous regional conflict. Thus, reliable intelligence and careful preparation will be critical to any military operation against Iran. The right time to confront Iran will come soon after the U.S. elections. Regardless of the outcome of the elections, our foreign policy should be conducted on the basis of a broad consensus, and we must do our utmost to prevent Iran from developing nuclear capabilities. But a Republican President in Washington would be much better placed to risk an intervention in the Middle East—which would of course entail planning, international cooperation, and financial preparation. Kushagra Aniket is a sophomore in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at ka337@cornell.edu
National
Punishing Innovation, Encouraging Regulation Kirk Sigmon Columnist
Right on the Law
T
he FTC is investigating Google because Google is popular. It’s that simple. The sheer fact that the FTC feels as if it needs to investigate (and potentially punish) Google for being too popular shows how utterly misguided antitrust investigations can be in the United States. Allow me to say something that will surprise absolutely no-one: Google is both useful and popular. Almost every service Google operates – from its search engine to its e-mail systems (on which Cornell’s e-mail operates) to its advertising network – are popular and ostensibly profitable. As Google is run extensively by engineers focused on innovation, the company continually
“Of course, any large, private, wellrun organization that makes users happy highlights the ineptitude of big governments.”
provides high quality and remarkably simple products and services. While there are valid reasons why some people do not like Google (including how it tracks user searches and the like), the gestalt of Google is overwhelmingly positive on almost any measure. Of course, any large, private, wellrun organization that makes users happy highlights the ineptitude of big governments. Thus, Google is routinely “investigated” by governments around the world for various allegedly anti-competitive practices. The latest in a long series of anti-Google investigations comes from the FTC, which apparently believes that Google’s search and advertising algorithms are unfair in that they disproportionately promote Google services over non-Google services. The FTC is also apparently investigating whether or not Google “copies” data from other websites and whether or not it uses contract terms and other methods to prevent its clients and customers from using other services. Substantially similar European antitrust investigations are also currently underway: the EU is currently investigating whether or not Google has “abuse[d] [its] dominance” in some form or fashion. Long story short, the FTC is looking for something – anything – to justify telling Google what to do.
The absurdity of the FTC’s investigation cannot be understated. There is absolutely nothing wrong with Google promoting its own services – to imply otherwise would be to essentially transform Google’s own algorithms into some sort of quasi-public system whereby Google had to give “fair access” to their business competitors. It’s also not entirely clear why the FTC is investigating “copying” when such allegations are best handled by copyright lawsuits (which, incidentally, have overwhelmingly held that Google’s behavior is fair use). Finally, it seems unlikely that Google is forcing anyone – be they advertising clients, software developers, or the like – to do business only with them, given the fluidity of the Internet. There is, of course, nothing wrong with holding Google accountable for any actions it may have taken that are illegal under applicable antitrust laws. Because antitrust law is somewhat malleable and subject to judicial interpretation, there is also nothing wrong with the FTC investigating potentially legitimate violations that are not per se violations of antitrust law. However, the FTC’s implication that the popularity of a website alone can justify regulatory intervention is ridiculous. If regulators were truly concerned about competition, they wouldn’t persecute Google: Google is the result of competition, not
October 23, 2012
5
the antithesis of it. Google became popular by beating once-powerful companies like Yahoo and Hotmail through innovation and simplicity. Naturally, if Google ever becomes antiquated like Yahoo and Hotmail did in the early ‘00s, numerous competitors will spring up ready to take Google’s throne. There is absolutely nothing preventing other web services and companies from competing with Google other than the fact that companies have yet to provide a viable alternative to Google’s services. Where massive companies like Apple and Microsoft can’t hold a candle to Google (especially in light of IOS6’s horrible maps and Microsoft’s terrible Bing search engine), it seems ridiculous to consider Google’s dominance evidence of an antitrust violation when it is more readily explained by innovation and product quality. Investigations like those against Google are commonplace, and they will continue to be so until the Executive decides otherwise. Unless the Executive branch realizes that overreaching antitrust enforcement can seriously hurt potentially innocent companies like Google, it will continue to wield the battle axe of antitrust in a misplaced and anti-competitive manner. Kirk Sigmon is a graduate student in the Law School. He can be reached at kas468@cornell.edu
Time to Win Over Latino Voters Karim Lakhani President
Coffee with Karim
G
overnor Romney’s campaign agenda from the start has focused on one thing: the economy. The idea is that the economy is the first and most important thing on people’s minds, and if the Romney camp can win the jobs argument, they can win the election. For Latino voters, this argument doesn’t seem like enough. Latinos have been among those most hurt by the recession; Hispanic unemployment in the country is about two percent higher than the national average. It would seem likely then that Latino voters would be willing to turn to the Republican Party for change, but that doesn’t seem to be the case. In recent polls, Obama has received 70% of likely Latino voters, leaving Romney only 26% support. So, what is happening?
Though Latino voters rank the economy as their primary concern, they are reluctant to vote Republican because of the party’s stance on immigration. With Latinos comprising a vital part of the voting block, there is no better time than now to analyze and answer the question of illegal immigration. Romney, throughout the primary, has labeled work like the DREAM Act as only a temporary solution to a problem that needs a permanent one, but we have yet to see him produce such reform. Fortunately for Romney, Obama also has not done or proposed enough to solve the country’s illegal immigration problem. So, who will do more for Latino voters? The argument is wide open for both candidates, but without clearly detailed plans, voters look to the stances of both parties for answers. With the implementation of immigration reform policies by Republican members, especially in Arizona, the message to voters has been that Republicans are anti-Latino. It was President Ronald Reagan who bestowed amnesty to millions
of illegal immigrants in this country. Romney should follow Reagan’s lead in immigration reform as he does on Reagan’s other programs. We, the Republicans, should not and cannot afford to be the party that neglects the interests of millions who came to this country seeking the same opportunities and promises that brought millions of people before them. Condoleezza Rice, during the 2012 Republican National Convention, said it best: “We need immigration laws that protect our borders; meet our economic needs; and yet show that we are a compassionate people.” We need to find an effective way to stop illegal immigration, but we need to be compassionate to those who have built their lives and families in this country. Romney knows that "if the Hispanic voting bloc becomes as committed to the (Democratic Party) as the African America voting bloc, then we are in trouble as a party…” Latinos have responded positively to Romney’s economic plans, but without proper immigration reform,
Romney will lose the Hispanic voting block to the Democrats. The economy is an important issue, as are healthcare and education. But, dealing with the 11.5 million illegal immigrants living in this country, along with rising illegal immigration rates, is central to ensuring that the economy, healthcare, and education are sustainable. We are a group of compassionate people and will not deport millions of families for coming to a land of opportunity for opportunity; the longer we take to tackle the problem, the harder it will become to solve for future generations. By putting this issue along side the economy at the forefront of the campaign, Mitt Romney can win over a large Latino population that is still looking for a candidate to support and which has tremendous impact in swing states like Nevada. Karim Lakhani is a junior in the School of Hotel Administration and can be reached at kml248@ cornell.edu.
CR
6
Campus
October 23, 2012
Exclusive Interview with Congressman Tom Reed Mike Navarro / Staff Writer
This November there will a number of significant battles taking place all across the country for the ever-important Congressional seats, and one of them will be taking place right in our own backyard. Only now, the backyard has gotten bigger. Congressman Tom Reed (R-N.Y. 29) will be taking on the Democrat challenger Nate Shinagawa, ’05, for the right to represent New York’s newly reapportioned 23rd Congressional district, which will now include all of Tomkins County after merging with parts of Reed’s old 29th district following the 2010 National Census. The candidates are scheduled to have three debates across the newly expanded district, with the first set to take place on October 26th at Hobart and William Smith Colleges in Geneva, NY. There are many Cornellians who are registered to vote in the 23rd District, but have not been exposed to many of the issues that will define the district as we move into 113th session of the United States Congress. In any democratic election process it is necessary to have equal exposure to the viewpoints of both candidates in order to be an informed voter, and to make an informed decision. We feel that much of the coverage in other Ithaca-area publications has focused solely on Mr. Shinagawa, particularly because of his connection to our University. With that in mind, we introduce you to your incumbent Representative in Washington, Mr. Tom Reed.
What was your initial reaction when you learned about the reapportionment of District 29? Do you feel that this will help or hurt the people in this district? “Redistricting altered the Congressional District substantially but communities within the new 23rd district share some very important similarities with the current 29th district. We had an agriculture-heavy district in 2010 and I’m happy to see that after redistricting, we’re still looking at a district that is heavily involved in our state’s number o n e industry. Between family farms and large production agribusinesses, the Southern Tier and Finger Lakes are very active in the industry. During my first 22 months in Congress, I’ve strengthened relationships with friends in the 29th district and have made countless new ones in the 23rd. The bottom line though, is that this area is my home and it always has been. We knew we were going to continue working for the people of New York well before the lines were redrawn.”
After your first two year term, what do you believe are the most important issues facing District 29? “My focus remains on our struggling upstate economy. We’ve seen (after several rounds of government spending) our area’s unemployment rate remain above nine percent. We need to focus on supporting small businesses, which create the majority of jobs, especially in rural areas. Our national debt, taxes, over-regulation and utility costs are our biggest barriers to growth – we need to decrease government spending, reform and simplify our 70,000-page tax code, combat duplicative federal regulations and decrease utility costs by utilizing domestic energy. Our national debt, which is currently over $16 trillion and growing at a rate of $1.3 trillion annually, needs our immediate attention. We’ve taken small steps in the last two years but we need to reduce government spending and waste if we ever hope to rein in our debt. The uncertainty of dealing with the national debt is hurting all of us. If the market doesn’t have confidence that we can come together as a country to deal with this national crisis, it will invest elsewhere. ”
Why are you excited about Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan? "We are given two clear paths in this upcoming election: one that continues down the path of out-of-control government spending and one that steers us toward fiscal responsibility. Governor Romney and Rep. Ryan have elevated the debate above petty personal attacks and have illustrated the stark contrast between the two very different visions for the future of our country. Theirs is a vision of smaller government and more job opportunities. Governor Romney is a strong businessman who knows how to fix troubled operations. He has a proven record of making tough decisions in economic crises and a reputation of fiscal responsibility. Obviously our country is in trouble today and his experiences will best place us in position to turn it around. Having served alongside Paul Ryan on the Committee on Ways and Means, I have had a chance to really get to know him and work with him on policy issues. He is a man of courage and one that I am confident will stand with Governor Romney to make the tough fiscal decisions that absolutely have to be made. The team should energize all advocates of fiscal responsibility as they are best
CR suited to identify solutions to the dire financial crisis that our nation faces.”
Campus
October 23, 2012
7
You have experience on the House Ways and Means Committee. What has this experience taught you about the potential impact of President Obama’s healthcare act?
ating t s a v e d a e ill hav “The law w cluding n i – e r a c i d Me ns of impact on o i l l i b f o s d dre d have l cutting hun u o w e s i w t other n order i dollars tha e r a c i d e ed to M been devot acare.” m a b O r o f y to pa
“What I have seen thus far of Obamacare implementations is very unsettling. Years before full implementation, we are seeing Obamacare cost much more than expected. My role on the Ways and Means Committee gives me a more in-depth look at these negative impacts across not only our state, but our whole nation and reinforces the need to repeal Obamacare.
The law does little to protect patients and hasn’t succeeded in making health care more affordable. The law will have a devastating impact on Medicare – including cutting hundreds of billions of dollars that otherwise would have been devoted to Medicare in order to pay for Obamacare.
I worry not only about the impact the president’s health care law is having on access and cost of health care, but the effect it is having on job growth. The medical device tax under Obamacare – a 2.3 percent tax increase on medical devices like defibrillators and pacemakers – will place an additional strain on small businesses. Another tax, the Health Insurance Tax (HIT) will increase insurance premiums, forcing employers to pay more for each employee and making it more difficult for employers to take on new employees. I was part of a bi-partisan group of co-sponsors to try and repeal these taxes to protect an estimated two million small businesses. Small businesses are refraining from exceeding 50 employees because they will be subject to harsher requirements. As a country facing a $16 trillion national debt, we simply can’t afford the president’s health care law.”
Many of the jobs in District 29 are agricultural in nature. What measures will you take to help farmers in this region, as well as those affected most by this summer’s drought? “My Agricultural Advisory Council has been extremely instrumental in providing real-time updates on the effects of this summer’s drought and I am a member of a number of agricultural organizations, including the Dairy Caucus, Northeast Agricultural Caucus and the Congressional Wine Caucus – all of which are valuable resources. Our farmers need a long-term, five-year Farm Bill so they can plan for the futures of their farms. Many of the farmers I’ve spoken to worry about their inability to plan for the next several years of crops without a comprehensive Farm Bill. We rely on family farms as the backbone of our economy. Provisions we included in the GRAPE Act recently became law as part of the MAP-21 Highway Bill to help ease the burden of grape growers during the harvest season. We also recently introduced the Family Farm Relief Act, aimed at moving administration of the current H-2A seasonal agriculture worker program from the Department of Labor to the Department of Agriculture, where the needs of the farmers are better understood. These kinds of common sense pieces of legislation that cut down on government regulations are what our farmers need.”
College students are facing an unprecedented amount of student loan debt. What actions would you propose to help make this debt more manageable? ies need l i m a f d n a “Students of low y t i l i b a i v rm the long te oans” l t n e d u t s te interest ra
“As someone whose family could not afford to send me to college and one who still makes his monthly student loan payment today and for many months to come, this issue is very important to me. In July, this country faced a student loan interest rate hike. Thankfully, Congress was able to come together in a bipartisan vote to ensure that student loans did not see a hike in their interest rate payments this year. Had the bill not been passed, interest rates on subsidized Stafford loans would have doubled to 6.8 percent for 7.4 million students and their families who are expected to apply for loans in the coming year. The interest rate hike would have added an extra $1,000 to the average cost of each loan. While this is good news, the provision will run out in a year and I plan to again work to ensure student loan interest rates are not increased. Students and families need the long-term viability of low interest rate student loans, including options for those holding the loans to refinance at lower rates when possible. ”
CR
8
October 23, 2012
Opinion
Conservatism in Daily Practice The Conservative Ethos… on Cornell’s Campus Roberto Matos Columnist
The Clarion Call
I
t should go without saying that a conservative is not merely one who promotes the three signature causes of the Conservative movement: (1) A small-business friendly tax code, (2) less burdensome regulations on private enterprise and (3) limiting excessive government expenditure (less spending). Undoubtedly, it is impossible and petty to limit the truly sweeping scope of the conservative ethos to the realm of policy objectives and political principals. An authentic conservative realizes that his “ideological” belief system is organically personal and palpable. It must, necessarily and unavoidably, inform and shape the intimate contours of his lifestyle, his work ethic, his world-view and the character of his deeply felt values as reflected in his personal choices and daily activity. So it is not sufficient to merely accept conservative “talking points” on the superficial level of intellectual understanding. It is, instead, vital to gain a deeper appreciation of its spirit through practical application of its methods. Through persistently creative and industrious endeavor, on a daily basis, conservative principals become living reality instead of a mere collection of dry talking points. Conservatism’s bearing on the pursuit of individual achievement in daily experience can be seen through study of its cultural ethic. In this way, the conservative ethos distinguishes itself from the rather nebulous and poorly-explained dogma of assorted ideologies, while securing for itself a reputation of concrete relevance for ambitious individuals. Of course, for our purposes here, it is important to disabuse the term cultural conservatism of the rhetorical contamination to which it has been subject within the context of American discourse and the politics of fanaticism. The slimy and now fruitless
CR
debates over abortion and samesex marriage might very well be cultural in form, but in substance they mean precious little to those who seek to apply workable methodology towards more lofty ends. So what does real culturally conservative thought have to offer to the Cornell student? How are we to translate principals into concrete methods? What is the nature of the unique struggle we face in doing so? Now for the screed: Our campus is a haven for the culture of behavioral decadence. Godless hedonism, constant distractions; the most embarrassing forms of excess and indulgence; widespread inebriation; playful consumption of cannabis; glorification of debauchery; the wanton sexual assault which is a predictable product of this culture; obscenely shameful displays of sexuality disguised as “liberation”; rebellion against social conventions just for the sake of rebellion; and aimless activity dis-
First—a spirit of resistance and restraint. By embracing a lifestyle of postponement of gratification, ascetic self-regulation of needless desires, and by willfully and passionately rejecting the trappings of both obvious distractors (severely limiting extensive exposure to alcohol and sensual indulgence) and more subtle distractors (needless social interaction), one might yet have a chance. Surely, in fiscal conservatism we see the model to which each college student ought to aspire: strict adherence to control of consumption of pleasure in pecuniary, social, and especially sensual forms. One must find alternatives for venting and vice, like the most vigorous forms of aerobic and muscle-building exercise. Instead of spending a night out carousing or gambling, one can find pleasure in a game of chess or a quiet game of monopoly. A game of pool rains supreme over a game of beer-pong. Now, while these cathartic remedies for the overly pleasure-seeking among the student body probably seem woefully unsatisfactory, and may appear to be half-baked remedies for the overly adventurous, they are well in keeping with avoidguised by the cloak of countless ance of excess. (excessively numerous) and supPostponing gratification enposedly venerable student organizations (most of which could ables one to gain appreciation for hardly justify their existence if one’s own resilience in the face of scrutinized). All the while the ve- the most severe temptations, and neer of pseudo-intellectualism it builds faith in one’s own power abounds, with intellectual con- of endurance. By setting a budget formity (tyranny) predominating. of anticipated expenses, strictHow does the conservative, in- ly overseeing time commitments deed any individual wishing to and controlling the number of stay on the straight and narrow those commitments, and socializpath of personal growth, navigate ing out of a desire for intellectual illumination instead of mere enthrough such an environment? tertainment, conservative habits
“True freedom is not freedom to act foolishly and to take extreme license. True freedom is emancipation from the shackles and chains of one’s own vices!”
can be acquired. This must be done religiously, not casually. What about freedom!? True freedom is not freedom to act foolishly and to take extreme license. True freedom is emancipation from the shackles and chains of one’s own vices! True freedom is resistance to the social pressures which glorify the culture of hooliganism, needless diversion and distraction as the utmost forms of desirable activity. Freedom is the opposite of addiction to intrigue; freedom is the power to submit vice to the stricture of discipline at any time, any place. The conservative learns to acquire a taste which yearns for this very discipline. Hence, the conservative is content in the knowledge that he is completely independent of the vices which govern the behavior of his counterparts on campus and can control impulses as easily as they arise. He is entirely comfortable with his enterprising capacities as a student, and needs no fawning approval from social butterflies or any other posers. He alone is the author of his own spontaneous activity and champion of his own agency, not the mindless agency of the masses of shouting students at Homecoming. He relishes the opportunity to distinguish himself as a unique individual. He regards his own attitude of self-trust as the well-spring of his very own inspiration. This is the very essence of self-reliance. Second – the spirit of the marshal ethic. Indeed, substitutes for vice must serve as instruments for channeling passion to constructive activity. Thus, the conservative strives to embody the marshal ethic and spirit, which is the Continued at right
National
October 23, 2012
The Issue with Issue Voting Katie Johnson treasurer
Ladies’ Liberty
P
resident Obama is a very inspiring speaker, and in 2008, a lot of people believed that hope and change were approaching. However, most of his promises didn’t come to fruition once he was elected. It’s not just that politicians are liars who will say anything to get elected – though that is definitely the case more often than not – but the system of checks and balances keeps even the executive branch, even though it has been immensely strengthened since the FDR days, from doing much of anything. Maybe people forget this, or they try to ignore it and hope that their President, who did such a great job at persuading them, will woo Congress with similar ease. Constituents are too busy to be fully educated about the political process and political campaigns, and who can blame them? People with careers in politics spend their lives learning about current events and issues, while most voters have other things to worry about. Campaigns are getting so full
of flip-flopping, smear tactics, and excuses that sometimes even the candidates don’t seem to know what they are talking about anymore. Voters instead use heuristics, like one issue on which to base their choice. But if you vote for someone because you agree with him on one thing, keep in mind that this one thing might move down his list of priorities once the president-elect realizes everything else that comes with the job (I don’t envy him). Of course, no candidate’s views will align with yours on every point,
said before, we also want jobs, religious freedom, and freedom of expression. It takes time to be informed about candidates’ stances on these and other issues, and it’s difficult to find truth amid media bias by both sides, but it’s worth the effort. A lot of economists would say that for the amount of time it takes to be informed, the effort that goes into actually voting (registering, taking time off of work to go to a poll booth, etc.) and the basically impossible
“Voters instead use heuristics, like one issue on which to base their choice. But… this one thing might move down his list of prorities.” but it’s best to take a holistic view. Women shouldn’t re-elect President Obama simply because they want someone else to pay for their birth control; we have interests much broader than that. As I have
odds that your vote will have any impact on the election, it isn’t worth it to vote. However, when fifty percent of the population feels that way, a difference could actually be made if all of them changed their minds.
9
I think if you are among the majority of people (meaning you are educated about the voting process, you are a legal tax-paying citizen who isn’t in jail, and you have opinions), you should vote. In some countries, it is an obligation, and you’re fined if you don’t vote. Here, it is a privilege, one for which many men and women have given their lives. If you think your vote could never count, do a little research on Texan history and how single votes have had an impact. While you’re Googling that, take five minutes to research where the candidates really stand on issues… or just flip through the rest of this issue of the Review. A few weeks ago, the Network of Enlightened Women here at Cornell had a short session where we talked objectively about the presidential and vice presidential candidates, and it wouldn’t hurt for you to do the same. Keep learning, 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.
Cultural Conservatism
14 Days Left
attitude which converts aimless desire to constructive purpose, namely intellectual enrichment. When a student derives genuine exhilaration from the rigor of intellectual investment and the surmounting of challenging scholastic obstacles, he has achieved the height of fulfillment—fulfillment much more deep and indelible than a weekend of hooliganism could ever hope to surpass. The marshal ethic is only cultivated through a program of habit and repetition. For example, the use of flashcards in the course of study, and, again, the use of to-do lists and strict adherence to hourly schedules will breed a spirit of rigorous repetition and without sacrificing the need for lively variation in daily experience. The conservative appreciates the value of work for both its instrumental value and expressive value. Expressive how? By making work a chief source of his personal gratification. So class work is not merely a means to gain a few job credentials or earn credits, but a means through which he can access emotional satisfaction through work for its own sake. But he also approaches his school work passionately and without procrastination—like his life depends on it—because he
probably not vote in this election. There are a couple of reasons for this. For one, my federal Representatives are Carolyn Maloney, Charles Schumer, and Kirsten Gillibrand. Another option is that I could register in Ithaca and vote in a very close congressional election between Tom Reed and Nate Shinagawa. While it would be incredibly easy to register (thanks Cornell Democrats), I don’t feel comfortable voting in a district to which I have no permanent connection. My home is New York City, not wherever the closest campaign race is. While I am not going to pretend that my failure to vote is part of some larger scheme to reform our broken electoral system, let’s be honest; if you live in a heavy blue or red state, your vote usually doesn’t matter.
Continued from left
to actualize the height of his creative potential for its own sake! He may then indulge in success knows that it will cultivate a habit for the mere fun of it, instead of of rugged consistency in perfor- excess! All the while, he maintains mance excellence and because it will ensure that he practices the his vision: his present feats necscience of harnessing that moti- essarily foreordain his future vational fuel, at will and whim, which he desperately needs to overcome challenges that will confront him later in his career. But college work is less of an instrumental tool for career skills development than it is a means to learning about whatever weaknesses he may have for future improvement. The marshal ethic also necessitates that every activity be approached as if it were singularly consequential and transcendentally important for the agent in question. It requires that spirit, will, energy, and passion be the sources which underlie every project and endeavor, not mechanically detached intellectualism. This is easily preached, but rarely done. conquests. The ethic is also innovative, Through adherence to these and makes due with insuffiguidelines, the Conservative cient resources—whatever they may be. So the conservative stu- shines as a beaming example in dent does not merely aspire to be the midst of his peers on the Hill. the next Ford, the next Jobs, the Roberto Matos is a sophomore next Carnegie, and sees nearly every singular activity in which in the College of Arts and Sciences. he partakes as not a mere train- He can be reached at rlm387@coring ground, but as an opportunity nell.edu.
“Surely, in fiscal conservatism we see the model to which each college student ought to aspire: strict adherence to control of consumption of pleasure in pecuniary, social, and especially sensual forms.”
Continued from the front page
L
essons from South Park: With the first debate in the bag, I think we should all take some time to watch the South Park episode on the 2008 election. No matter who wins this election, at the end of the day the priorities and difficulties faced by most Americans will remain unchanged. If Romney wins by a landslide Democrats should not join the 47% and run for the border. I, on the other hand, pledge not to run for Mark Levin's concrete-andsteel bunker. Andre Gardiner is a junior PAM major in the College of Human Ecology. He can be reached at apg58@cornell.edu.
CR
10
National
October 23, 2012
Defending Obama, Forgetting Bush Selective Memory At Its Best
Lucia Rafanelli Managing Editor
A Fortnight of Follies
W
illiam Thomas, a writer for the Canadian Senior Living Magazine is making waves with his recent article “America—He’s Your President for Goodness Sake!” in which he laments Americans’ lack of respect for the office of the President. The article was reposted on Yahoo, The Daily Kos, and a plethora of other blogs and websites. In it, Thomas reminisces about a time when “Americans, regardless of their political stripes, rallied round their president.” He continues:
“Once elected, the man who won the White House was no longer viewed as a republican or democrat, but the President of the United States. The oath of office was taken, the wagons were circled around the country’s borders and it was America versus the rest of the world with the president of all the people at the helm.” He then asserts that President Obama “has become the glaring exception to that unwritten, patriotic rule.” For the record, I completely agree with Thomas’ sentiments that the President deserves respect regardless of his party membership or even his substantive policy positions.
Short of a literal Nazi occupying the Oval Office, there are few things that could justify wanton disrespect for the President. Whoever he may be, he was elected to lead the country, and, in a democracy, that should count for a great deal. However, in light of his assertion that Barack Obama is the glaring exception to a general rule of restrained and respectful discourse, I would like to pose one question to Mr. Thomas: Excuse me, but did you sleep through the second Bush’s presidency? The grievous offences against President Obama that Thomas sites include protest signs depicting him as a satanic clown and as Hitler, the “birther” scandal, Republican criticisms of his expenditures on personal security, and the fact that a woman he met last month at a wings joint complimented his physique rather than remarking that it was an honor to meet the President. But President Bush, too, was compared to Hitler—in one instance by a Congressman! I also seem to remember an abundance of “Not My President” memorabilia available during Bush’s terms. And, if the birthers are an outrage against Obama, what are we to think of the “truthers” who insist that the Bush Administration was responsible for the 9/11 terror attacks? President Bush was called stupid in more ways than I can count. He was accused of risking American
lives in Iraq for mere monetary profit, and of being nothing but a puppet of others in his administration and his father’s old agenda. The instance Thomas cites of a Congressman interrupting President Obama’s State of the Union address to call him a liar—which Thomas seems to view as simply unthinkable—could be considered a replay of a similar incident at President Bush’s second inauguration. During Bush’s address, a man yelled out from the crowd, “Where are the poor? Did you ship them out of town?” In fact, at the same inauguration, a parade entrance had to be closed because people were throwing rocks into a secured area. So please, let us answer the call for increased respect for our President, but let’s not pretend that Republicans are the only ones who need to change their ways. Let’s not pretend that the Dems were nothing but civil to the Bush White House. To so blatantly ignore such a glaring—and recent—episode in American history as the years of Bushbashing that took place in the 2000’s is not only to be an unskilled commentator on U.S. politics, but it is also to engage in the very same petty party chauvinism William Thomas claims to condemn. Lucia Rafanelli is a senior in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at lmr93@cornell.edu.
CORNELLINSIDER.com Dance of Diversity
Posted by Kushagra Aniket
Less than two months into the academic year and our freshmen are greeted by the bewildering reality of racial discourse on campus. Take a quick stroll across the campus and you will be bombarded by signboards reminding you of your ethnic origins. Or better still, open your mailbox and you will be flooded by quarter cards, letters and pamphlets from the most obscure sources, exhorting you to “respect diversity, discover your community and celebrate race and ethnicity”. Just pick up any official document and you will find this printed in small but bold letters”Cornell University is an equal opportunity affirmative action educator and employer.” I have never seen so many oxymorons in a single sentence. This is the place where it is dreadfully common to find people, especially in positions of authority, talking about achieving “solidarity, empowerment and equity” by building a “community of student power”. Little do they realize that these are loaded words with dangerous dual meanings. What’s more, they whip them into a frenzy of synthetic anger at the “silent siege on the basis of implicated race and gender, sexuality and gender expression”. But then the point behind these banners is that you are never told what to do, apart from simply talking. In fact, you are left paralyzed as no matter how enlightened your views on diversity are, there are ten others out there with even more liberated opinions, ready to pounce on you like predators in search of prey. For instance, when you start getting co-opted into believing that it is normal, indeed desirable, to address peoples’ identities, you get these: Coming from India, I had always thought that English was the only language spoken in this country. But lo behold, the bastion of bilingualism and the great “Americano Dream” is right here:
And sometimes they even betray all sense of time (or place):
CR
Insider
October 23, 2012
11
CORNELLINSIDER.com Debate Saga Leaves Sparks – Now it's time to clear through the smoke Posted by Roberto Matos Roberto Matos: “We don’t have to settle” In a debate defined by intense confrontations, direct attacks, forceful interruptions, and repeated personal exchanges, Romney’s task could not be any clearer than it was last night. First he had to expose Obama’s harrowing record on the economy. He did so. Despite spirited (and brazen) efforts to overwhelm Romney with attacks, Obama simply could not deny his sorry laundry list of glaring disappointments and broken promises which Romney exhaustively exposed, and which have plagued the President’s economic record to date. In a compelling and pointed fashion, Romney mentioned the 23 million still unemployed despite millions in stimulus, the heightened prices of oil and gas, the drop in family incomes, the increasingly burdensome price of healthcare, the unpopular specter of Obamacare, the burdensome cost of regulatory impositions and threatened taxes on small businesses, the rise in the number of Americans on food stamps and the enormous expansion of the national (now 16 trillion dollar) debt (despite promises that it would be cut in half). There came a point when I wondered why the election is even being contested, especially after such irrefutable, unanswerable charges. Obama certainly brought passion last night, but as for a vision describing a change in course from what has already been attempted over the past 4 years, he decided to leave that at home. Regardless of Obama’s sparks (he overcompensated after his listless performance a few weeks ago), he was substantively devastated when it comes to the verdict of his economic record. Romney made this evident for all to see. Romney made it clear that Obama is now a known factor, that “we simply can’t afford four more years” of lackluster growth and that a strong recovery is impossible without a decisive change in approach to job creation strategy (pro-small business). Romney’s comprehensive indictment of the President was damning and rhetorically powerful: “we don’t have to settle.” Second, Romney had to convincingly describe an economic prescription which can ail the plight of small businesses and middle class families. His incredibly practical approach to explaining tax reform policy changes, and the likely energetic investment and job-creation (on the part of small businesses) that would follow the enactment of his agenda, enabled him to contrast with Obama’s inability to define a vision for the economy in the next 4 years. Kushagra Aniket: A Comeback-Turned-Retreat It was all a part of a strategy that ended in a miserable failure. On the first day, Obama appeared ill prepared, inarticulate, and even uninterested—perhaps due to sheer overconfidence. Then Biden tried to make up for the blunder by his animated antics, contrasted with the calm and respectful attitude of Paul Ryan. But when nothing worked, today Obama came in with an apparent agenda to turn the debate into a melodrama. He portrayed himself as Aristotle’s tragic hero, as an innocent victim maligned by false and malicious propaganda. But he was not successful in evoking the sympathies of the audience, let alone swinging the debate in his favour despite the questionable role of the moderator. Romney held on to his ground, consolidated his position in the race and reinforced the hard facts of his policy proposals. The choice has never been as clear as now.
Cornell Student Review of Atlas Shrugged Part II
Posted by Laurel Conrad
Who is John Gault? Part II of Ayn Rand’s masterpiece, Atlas Shrugged, will be released in theaters on Friday, October 12th. If you missed Part I—don’t worry, so did a lot of people. While Part I was by no means a blockbuster, it gave the producers a foundation for Part II. The newest installment in the trilogy features a bigger budget and an entirely new cast. Whether you believe that Atlas Shrugged II parallels America’s projected path or is a product of capitalist propaganda, I recommend going to see it in theaters. It features an engaging, fastpaced story line that will expose you to the philosophy of a masterpiece. The strongest performance of the new cast is Jason Beghe as Henry “Hank” Rearden. Beghe captures his character’s determined, yet likable, essence. The lead role of Dagney Taggart is played by Samantha Mathis. She is an experienced actress, but at age 42, Mathis does not realistically pass for her thirty-year-old character. To my disappointment, Esai Morales’ portrayal of my favorite character, Francisco d’Anconia, often comes across as sleazy and unsettling. Fortunately, the success of Atlas Shrugged is not measured by its cast’s somewhat lackluster performance. This movie is about something bigger than that: it is about an idea. This idea is Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism, which hails rational self-interest, individual rights, and capitalism as supreme goods for society. The movie brings to life Rand’s themes that productivity is good, money is not evil, but rather a means of exchange, and that government’s constant interference for the “public good” rarely accomplishes any good at all. Throughout the movie, many of the scenes parallel with events that occur in our world today (protests, incredibly expensive gas, government regulation, and economic recession). This is not by sheer coincidence; the movie sends a clear message about its relevance to today by featuring Sean Hannity as a news anchor in the film and having protesters wave “Don’t Tread on Me” flags. Co-founder of Cornell’s Network of Enlightened Women, Caroline Emberton, found Atlas Shrugged to be “incredibly thought provoking, and revealing about the harmful realities of extreme government regulation. I appreciated how the movie also wonderfully captured the courage and resolve of the characters who desired to improve the lives of those struggling around them. The movie will definitely make people think about what it means to be a free society.” Cheesy film moments aside, if you are someone who rejects the notion that “If you’ve got a business- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen”—then this is definitely the movie for you.
Stay Informed. Demand truth. Be an Insider.
CR
12
October 23, 2012
Wisemen & Fools I did better in the second debate because I was well rested from the nap I had during the first debate. Barack Obama In the spirit of Sesame Street the president's remarks tonight are brought to you by the letter O and the number 16 trillion. Mitt Romney Folks, I can tell you I've known eight presidents, three of them intimately. Joe Biden There is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. John F. Kennedy Can I get an Amen for that?! Barack Obama Life has become better! Life has become more fun! Josef Stalin, c. 1935
Yes! Everybody in Cleveland, low minorities, got Obama phone. Keep Obama in president, you know? He gave us a phone! Obamaphone Lady Government does not create wealth. The major role for the government is to create an environment where people take risks to expand the job rate in the United States. George W. Bush If I don’t have this done in three years, then there’s going to be a one-term proposition. Barack Obama You didn’t build that! Barack Obama Four years ago I gave him a thrill up his leg. This time around I gave him a stroke. Barack Obama, on Chris Matthews The reason Social Security is
Read archived issues online at
in big trouble is we don't have enough workers to support the retirees. Well, a third of all the young people in America are not in America today because of abortion. Rick Santorum Mitt is his middle name. I wish I could use my middle name. Barack Obama I used to think that becoming rich and becoming famous would make me happy. Boy was I right! Mitt Romney People seem to be very curious as to how we prepare for the debates. Let me tell you what I do: first, abstain from alcohol for 65 years. Mitt Romney I can’t stand whining. I can’t stand the kind of paralysis that some people fall into because they’re not happy
with the choices they’ve made. You live in a time when there are endless choices. … Money certainly helps, and having that kind of financial privilege goes a long way, but you don’t even have to have money for it. But you have to work on yourself. … Do something! Hillary Clinton Now that we're on dog pee, we can have an interesting conversation about that. I do not recommend drinking urine...but if you drink water straight from the river, you have a greater chance of getting an infection than you do if you drink urine. Howard Dean Change change change change change change change change change change change change change change change change change change change change change 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