Page 1

“We Do Not Apologize.”

An Independent Publication

Limited Government. Traditional Values. America First.

Volume XXVIII, Issue 6

December 3, 2009 /

End-of-Semester Reflections From a Freshman SAM PELL / staff writer


s the semester draws to a close, our professors often ask us to fill out course evaluations. “How clear were the lectures?” “How well did the TA enunciate?” “Was the textbook helpful?” We speed through these

sections. “I loved your lectures.” “The TA was great, except he couldn’t speak English.” Then there is that final section to every course evaluation: “Is there anything else you would like to say?” Here we pause and ponder. What do I want to say?

Unfortunately, the professor often collects the paper before we have time to collect our thoughts. The professor reads our comments, not knowing what we really wanted to say. I, however, have the good ...see REFLECTIONS, page 6

Cornellians Debate Healthcare WILLIAM WAGNER / staff writer


What’s On Your Professor’s Door? Profs express themselves by decorating their doors, walls OLIVER RENICK / managing editor


owards the beginning of each semester, Cornellians flock towards Ho Plaza to empty their wallets on one thing: posters. The idea of plastering one’s personal heroes, visions, motifs, and philosophy on a wall above and around their bed is an appealing one to just about every college student. While some people critique ‘postering’ as overly-simplistic, we college kids aren’t the only ones displaying our personalities through dorm-style feng shui. Most Cornell professors utilize their office exterior to express their own political, social, and

comedic preferences. On a stroll through Goldwin Smith and McGraw Hall, I was unsurprised to find that nearly every Cornell professor, TA, or graduate student has at least one item taped to their door. The following is some of what I saw, and some conclusions which I came to. Easily the most reoccurring types of adornment were ads for future speaker series, discussions, and panels. Many doors and bulletin boards also had pinnedup excerpts from the Daily Sun, usually when a professor ...see DOOR, page 2

he healthcare debate last after your house Tuesday, sponsored by has burned the Alpha chapter of the Alpha down.” Insurance Phi Alpha fraternity, ran no risk companies exploit the law of being labeled impartial. The of averages in order to pool sponsors featured an excerpt risk. If insurers could not turn from Michael Moore’s film down coverage of pre-existing Sicko, which set the tone for conditions, the system would the duration of the hour and a break down because people half long event. Unsurprisingly, would just wait until they are the majority of panelists voiced sick to buy insurance. While support for Obamacare (or rather mandating coverage would the handful of plans currently counteract this, it would also being mulled over in Congress), be a tax on those who decide eagerly painting private insurance they do not want insurance. companies The far as villains. m o r e W i l l The sponsors featured an excerpt s e n s i b l e B a l d w i n , from Michael Moore’s film Sicko, which a c t i o n , set the tone. of the said Ünür, Cornell is to find Democrats, was particularly ways to help individuals vocal in this, stating, “if [denying rather than tampering with the coverage for pre-existing whole market. Demands for conditions] is not evil I don’t healthcare reform are based know what is,” after rattling off on the claim that there are too a few sob stories. However, his many people uninsured, citing sentimental anecdotes failed to figures as high as 47 million. obscure the fact that, as Dr. Sinan Such numbers are monstrously Ünür of the Freedom and Free overblown. As Ray Mensah, Societies Program pointed out, of the Cornell Republicans “you do not buy fire insurance

...see DEBATE, page 2

Beautiful Conservative Contest

Inside This Issue . . .


Catch up on campus events you missed:

Page 4 Contest over Thanksgiving: Flora Rose takes control!

Page 5 Lynching then and now: capital punishment as law’s lynch rope?

Page 6 Apocalypse... never? Prof. tells how Vietnam could be avoided

Page 9 Health care reform takes on a new adversary: common sense!

Page Eleven Cap’n trade: Senate shenanigans lead to climate bill delay until next Spring

Totally offensive 36% Deserving recognition of a marginalized minority 64%

hat’s the idea from a recently dug up Stanford Review image (from 2004) that has been the center of some internet controversy. The image, seen here, was advertising a competition held by the Stanford Review for the “most beautiful conservative woman.” We did a poll at the Cornellinsider. com to determine how people at Cornell would react to such a contest. Results are to the left, but what do you think? Email us at com to give your opinion!



December 3, 2009

Profs. Use Office Exterior To Promote, Persuade, Joke DOORS ...continued from front page

or student was mentioned in the article – several of these articles came from this month’s theme of diversity and editorials from minorities ‘speaking out.’ Easily the most decorated doors were found in sociology departments: gender and feminist studies, anthropology, and ethnic-based major programs. While regrettably the majority of doors (nearly every single one) espoused what would generally be considered liberal ideology and political correctness, most of these were solely focused on bashing the Bush administration. Even as we near the one-year mark of Bush’s absence, many Cornell professors still maintain their eternal discord with George, and do so in a very public fashion.

There’s Jolene Rickard, who displays honor for ‘Indian treaties.’ In GWS and McGraw alone, about five different professors proclaimed therir offices to endorse ‘Safe Places’ at Cornell. Mary Beth Norton has a large variety of different cartoons and newspaper clippings, with an unconventionally moderate tone.

Then there’s Garcia, who for the San

Maria Christina displays honor Antonio Spurs.

UP, DOWN: Vilma SantiagoIrizarry displayed the most blatant contempt for Republicans, namely G.W. Bush. ABOVE: Nearly every professor displayed cartoons, but the most frequently occurring ones were easily Doonesbury, Dilbert, and Far Side.

Oliver Renick is a sophomore in the College of Engineering. He can be contacted at

BELOW: Many professors endorsed Cornell events and presentations by putting advertisements on their door. Some were: ‘Archaelogy of Modern Sexualities,’ ‘New Socialist Climax,’ ‘AmericanStyle Torture,’ ‘Trouble the Water,’ and ‘Militarizing Everyday Life.’ The list goes on, but the general themes stay the same.

DEBATE ...continued from front page


remarked, of these 47 million some 10 to 13 million are not even citizens, and thus not covered by any proposed plan. Additionally, of these 47 million people, 8 million people can afford coverage but opt not to buy it. Furthermore, the survey asked respondents if they were not covered at any time in the past year. This means that people who only lacked coverage temporarily were counted as being fully uninsured, thus inflating the number even further. While no one is claiming that reform is not needed, a drastic overhaul is certainly unwarranted. Regardless, there are still those who instead of simply fixing the problems with our current private insurance system would rather tear the whole thing down and start from scratch. This is reckless, foolish, and utterly unnecessary. Ray Mensah explained that measures such as tort reform,

allowing interstate competition, and subjecting insurance companies to antitrust laws would go a long way to reducing costs. For doctors, the prices of malpractice insurance are exorbitant. Tort reform, such as setting a maximum amount awardable for lawsuits, would reduce the cost of insurance while still granting victims of malpractice means for exacting just recompense. Lifting interstate restrictions would mean many more firms vying for customers, thus driving down costs. Breaking up insurance company monopolies would similarly increase the number of firms competing, further lowering costs. Implementing such modest measures would undoubtedly solve a great many of the problems of our current system. The care provided by a universal system would necessarily be inferior. At present, there are hardly

enough physicians available to treat the currently insured. Covering millions more people would result in far poorer care for everyone, with people waiting months for doctors visits as in Canada or England, which have socialized medicine. Costs will increase drastically. Not only will there be more people to be treated, but the newly insured will likely engage in riskier activities. Dr. Ünür astutely points out that the less a person bears of the cost of treatment, the more likely that person is to engage in risky activity, resulting in a higher chance of needing costly care. Universal health care will incur large costs, so who is going to pay? The rich, of course. Current proposals will tax the people earning over $250,000 a year. This is, as Dr. Ünür frankly put it, a fantasy. As of 2007, this tax would affect fewer than 4.5 million people. It is ridiculous to believe the government

can squeeze the trillions of dollars Obamacare is likely to cost out of so few people. Such tax increases would just incentivize these people to move somewhere with lower taxes or, more likely, hire more accountants and tax lawyers to get around them. As result, everyone will have to bear the costs of the new system, which will be neither sustainable nor popular. Not only are problems with the current system being blown out of proportion, they can be resolved through fairly modest means. Not only will it be unsustainably expensive, Obamacare will result in far worse treatment for everyone.

William Wagner is a Freshman in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be reached at

December 3, 2009



TheCornellReview Founded 1984, Incorporated 1986 Volume XXVIII Number 6 Ann Coulter Jim Keller Jerome D. Pinn Anthony Santelli, Jr. Founders

William Lane Editor-in-Chief

Kent Haeger

Executive Editor

John Farragut President

Oliver Renick Managing Editor

Raza Hoda

Treasurer, News Editor

Joseph Bonica

National News Editor

Dennis Shiraev Campus Editor


Joe Bonica, Anthony Longo, Lucia Rafanelli, Oliver Renick, William Lane, Kent Haeger, Raza Hoda, Dennis Shiraev, Evan Rich, Willam Wagner, John Farragut, Brendan Devine, Lucas Policastro, Roman Lesko, Justin DiGennaro, Peter Bouris, Jerome Tse, Zachary Waller, Kevin Tang

Faculty Advisor Michael E. Hint Board of Directors

Christopher DeCenzo, Joseph E. Gehring Jr., Ying Ma, Anthony Santelli Jr. The Cornell Review is an independent biweekly journal published by students of Cornell University for the benefit of students, faculty, administrators, and alumni of the Cornell community. The Cornell Review is a thoughtful review of campus and national politics from a broad conservative perspective. The Cornell Review, an independent student organization located at Cornell University, produced and is responsible for the content of this publication. This publication was not reviewed or approved by, nor does it necessarily express or reflect the policies or opinions of, Cornell University or its designated representatives. The Cornell Review is published by The Ithaca Review, Inc., a non-profit corporation. The opinions stated in The Cornell Review are those of the individual author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the editors or the staff of The Cornell Review. Editorial opinions are those of the responsible editor. The opinions herein are not necessarily those of the board of directors, officers, or staff of The Ithaca Review, Inc. The Cornell Review is distributed free, limited to one issue per person, on campus as well as to local businesses in Ithaca. Additional copies beyond the first free issue are available for $1.00 each. The Cornell Review is a member of the Collegiate Network. The Cornell Review prides itself on letting its writers speak for themselves, and on open discourse. We do not all agree on every issue, and readers should be aware that pieces represent the views of their authors, and not necessarily those of the entire staff. If you have a well-reasoned conservative opinion piece, please send it to cornellreview@ for consideration.

The Cornell Review meets regularly on Mondays at 5:00 pm in GS 160. E-mail messages should be sent to Copyright c 2009 The Ithaca Review Inc. All Rights Reserved.

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

A Victory For Freedom Last week, the University Assembly voted to remove a recent amendment from the Campus Code of Conduct that denied student organizations the right to deny membership to students based on criteria such as gender, sexual orientation, and race. The amendment, written in the wake of the burgeoning Chi Alpha Christian Fellowship “homophobia” scandal, came as a result of much clamor from student groups; its subsequent removal resulted from similar outcry over the ramifications for freedom of association and other First Amendment rights. While some dismiss the concerns of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) and other outside groups, their arguments are very real and represent a side of the argument not often considered. Of course, it might be prudent to point out that the code, as worded, does not even apply to deposed Chi Alpha President Chris Donohoe ‘09. The amendment protects Donohoe’s right to be a member. This, however, was never in dispute. Nobody ever denied his decision to join the fellowship; objections arose to his role as the group’s president and its conflict with the stated goals of the group. The criteria that go into the decisions are so markedly different that it makes no sense to compare them. Every organization, in its charter or constitution, has a core set of founding principles and goals to which it adheres. Organizations such as Chi Alpha may draw theirs from religious sources such as the Bible. It is expected that even the most novitiate member is aware of these principles. However, in selecting its leadership, the organization selects the member who has taken these core beliefs most to heart. These individuals act as the public face of the organization, and represent

to the community what the group is all about. If the leader is lacking in one particular facet, it is the organization’s prerogative to switch. However, let us briefly pretend that the resolution was written in manner consistent with protection of Donohoe’s leadership. The question then becomes one of the necessary balance of non-discriminatory practice with commitment to allowing student organizations to associate and speak freely. Both functions can be essential to the function of an educational institution such as Cornell. Why is it, then, that for so long the former has been privileged over the latter? It might be that freedom of expression and association has so much potential to cause ill feelings. There can be no doubt that both have caused some amount of friction on campus recently. The Review has stirred up its fair share of bad blood over time, and Chi Alpha has opened up its own wounds. But Cornell has a commitment, which it states quite openly in its Code of Conduct, to protect the rights of students and student organizations alike, no matter how distasteful. Despite the many policyrelated counter-examples one might find in other parts of the code (FIRE likes to attack the bias codes in particular), Cornell has declared its intention to give a certain amount of credence to FIRE’s arguments of free expression and freedom to self-select leaders. The Sun’s objections to the “outside influence” of FIRE fall short—the UA decision merely upholds the University’s own stated goals, which state that discomfort, no matter how great, is no excuse for the administration to put student freedom on lockdown. And, protests of The Cornell Daily Sun to the contrary notwithstanding, that is exactly what stripping funding from Chi Alpha would do. If a student organization

reliant on Cornell for funding discovers that by making the wrong decision in selecting its leadership it jeopardizes its future, then the university will have sent the message that a student group should—or is expected to—betray its own goals to ensure its survival. Essentially, this is what this fight is about. It seems easy for opponents of Chi Alpha to oversimplify the case as one of brutal and overemotional discrimination. Yet neither the fellowship nor its members have engaged in public demonization of Donohoe. The rhetoric of their defense has not been one of an invective but rather a simple explanation. Their actions would be like those of the Cornell Democrats ousting a Vice President who makes a radical swing to the right halfway through the year, or The Review denying an editorship to an ardent socialist. Chi Alpha acted not out of hatred or spite towards homosexuals but out of the belief that an openly gay president would compromise their identity. Acknowledging Chi Alpha’s right to choose its leaders in accordance with its mission does not necessarily, as some suggest, equal an endorsement of its methods. Perhaps condemnation of homosexuality as a central tenet is in keeping with Christ’s message, or maybe it misses the point. But as free thinkers and speakers, and most of all as Cornellians, we should be able to come up with an objection or a way to debate the issue without imposing direct administrative sanctions. If Chi Alpha is to be put on trial, the court should be that of public opinion rather than that of the Student Assembly. William P. Lane, for the editors. He is a senior in the College of Arts & Sciences, and can be reached at wpl5@




December 3, 2009

Contest Over History Thanksgiving and Cornell’s Native American community BRENDAN PATRICK DEVINE STAFF WRITER


urkey, sweet potatoes, corn, stuffing and warm pie furnish millions of tables every last Thursday of November, as families gather to render their thanks for their good fortunes and for their loved ones. It is a uniquely American holiday but not a nationalistic holiday. The spirit of Thanksgiving is deeply personal and its traditions have defined the lore of many families for generations. Why then does one sophomore CALS student (whose name we will not publish) seek to tarnish a favorite American holiday? Patrons of Flora Rose’s dining facilities may already be privy to the answer, but for those of you who are not, you deserve to hear it. The main dining facility usually


displays an announcements placard on tables, advertising some range of activities that require attention. Flora Rose residents have found Cornell tendentiousness for oppression eating with them now: some fellow decorated the dining hall with popup cards dedicated against Turkey Day. So far, two varieties of cards have been found, each emblazoned with some revisionist narrative of the First Thanksgiving as well as some instructions for the troubled reader. The first of these wails over our dear memories of Thanksgiving: “The total emphasis is placed on the respect that existed between the Wampanoag….and the first generation of Pilgrims….while the long history of subsequent

violence and discrimination suffered by Native People across America is nowhere represented.” Thanksgiving, the day for rumination of the good, should be rededicated to sympathy for victims of indiscretions committed by people whose descendants likely comprise a small fraction of the population? And whose victims represent an event smaller living percentage? This ill-conceived leaflet continues: “History is not a set of ‘truths’ to be memorized, history is an ongoing process of interpretation and learning.” The conception of history as ongoing analysis, an unbounded exchange of dialogue, betrays the conceptions of history laid down by thinkers like Brooks Adams, who saw the purpose of a methodological approach to history as being the proper means to deduce something objectively true. Purporting that history has no true narrative defeats the mere purpose of inquiry and inevitably debases this important subject into a trivial, but unending, d i s c i p l i n e of cultural bickering. The other card presents a damning narrative of the first National Day of Mourning (which I will not reprint here out of my respect for the Cornell Review’s grammar standards). In short, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts had invited, and then “disinvited,” Frank James, a Wampanoag leader, to speak at a ceremony commemorating this inaugural observation. The Commonwealth rescinded his invitation after learning the contents of Mr. James’s speech, a speech in which James attributed the silence of his people to the “necessity of making a living in this materialist society of the white man.” James planned to desiccate those who write common history, a “History [that] wants us to believe that the Indian was a savage, illiterate, uncivilized animal.” The card insists Massachusetts silenced “a strong

and honest Native voice” whose approach to the past is “equally as valid” as the common narrative. Native Americans suffered greatly during the 19th century at the hands of Andrew Jackson and expansionist Democrats who were all too eager to disobey the verdicts of the Supreme Court in favor of their blind populism. Rather than ruining dinners at Flora Rose, perhaps the Native American community should protest at the Cornell Democrats’ next meeting. While there is no humor or light to be found on the sweat and blood stained Trail of Tears, there is no guilt to be found in any living person nor is there any rightful claim of victimhood that can be rightfully accepted. Generational responsibility, this American version of Original Sin, is a great myth. There is no calculated denigration of descendants of Natives in modern America nor should there be. Obsessing over the irreversible will pay no dividends for any member of the Native American community at Cornell, nor shall their minds be enlightened by continuing to promulgate an angry, radical, revisionist brand of history. November 17’s Daily Sun published an editorial by Alia Jones and Samuel Rose, the second in a sequence, entitled “Speaking Out: Native American History Vital to Education.” The article exposed points commendable to those who appreciate breadth in history, even more so when one considers just how few schools have history departments that investigate the Native America past. All good things must come to an end, and indeed the wisdom of the article died less than halfway through. The editorial morphed into a tirade over a year and a half old scoff at Akwe:kon between some residents and a fraternity member. The house received an apology from the fraternity for the member’s

insensitivity but this did not meet the burden of truth to Akwe:kon. Their expectations seem to more resemble the Nuremberg trials. What is one to think of a group that still insists others portray their worth as that of “ignorant savages or a bunch of primitive tree huggers?” Old wounds run deep and create bad blood but perhaps we should lend our consideration to healing rather than institutionalizing taxonomy. There is nothing to be gained by the descendants of Native Americans nor is it reasonable to expect Ithaca to be returned to the Cayuga or Connecticut to be given back to the Pequots. Revising history from objective truth into a convenient point for anger is not the solution either. Focusing one’s

enterprise on the things that can make a difference in one’s life is the real prescription for both the accused and the accusers in this case. Think about what you can actually change. On a brighter note, we at the Review hope all Cornellians enjoyed their Thanksgiving and we wish them good fortune going into finals.

For more information on this subject, including a response from the coordinating administrator, please visit Brendan Devine is a junior in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be contacted at

December 3, 2009



Socialists On Lynching: Capitalism Wields the Noose Is captial punishment the law enforcement’s lynch rope? RAZA HODA TREASURER


convicted murderer, a socialist, and a former Methodist pastor walked into Goldwin Smith Hall, what do they all have in common? No, this isn’t the start of a joke with a funny punch line; this is what happened on November 17th, at an event called, “Lynching Then, Lynching Now.” Cornell is lucky to be one of the stops on a national speaking tour of the Campaign to End the Death Penalty. I really don’t know why they stopped here at Cornell, or anywhere in the state of New York, as the death penalty has been abolished in this state since 2007. However, the Ithaca chapter of the International Socialist Organization thought it would be a great idea. And boy do those socialists have great ideas. The whole thing started (20 minutes late) when a wild socialist began ranting about the death penalty. She had some great ideas, including her claim that capital punishment was capitalism’s way to keep the working class down: “Socialism is battling against the oppression of minorities imposed by capitalism! Capitalism is built on oppressing minorities and taking advantage of them!” If that’s true, then those dirty capitalists better start cracking the whip harder on those minorities or our economy’s going to really hit rock bottom.

After the socialist ran out of steam on talking about the capitalist slave state of America, a convicted murderer took the stand – I mean, podium. Lawrence Hayes, convicted murderer and former death row inmate, is an interesting man with an interesting tale. How he ended up on death row, from what he told us, seems all too accidental. As he likes to put it, he was “involved in a historical circumstance that cost a human life.” He digressed for a little while to talk about how “life is precious” and that “there should be no reason to take a life.” He even concluded that “the state should be a model” for people and should not take lives itself, as it would set a bad example. Of course, that would be logical, except that the state is not murdering innocent people, but rather ending the life of someone who ruthlessly killed others. After his digression, he got to the “historical circumstance” that landed him on death row. It all started when he joined the Black Panther Party in 1968. “We realized that a lot of drugs were coming into the African-American

community.” So, he did as any normal person faced with this dilemma would do and “put together units that were going out with the idea of getting rid of drugs.” How, you might ask? By going to drug deals and buying them [for themselves?] off the streets. Completely reasonable and innocent! Of course, as usual, one of the deals went wrong. And of course, as usual, an undercover FBI agent was shot and killed. Well, actually, not quite shot, as Lawrence Hayes put it. The undercover FBI agent, whose true identity was unknown to him, “made a sound as if he was hurt,” and when Mr. Hayes went to go help him, “a tree that he [FBI agent] fell in front exploded.” That’s right! The tree killed him! How silly of the law to put Mr. Hayes on “wrongfully” trial, it was the tree all along! What a “historical circumstance” it was! A tree taking a human life! Can you imagine? I’m sure the “all-white, 55-year-old jurors” believed that incredible story. Oh, they didn’t? It must have been the color of your skin, Mr. Hayes! The color of your skin, not the truly unbelievable story, landed you on death row. And this leads to the conclusion

that the death penalty is the new lynch law. According to Mr. Hayes, it was “law enforcement who protected the perimeters of plantations, who held the hose against those protesting for civil rights, and who enforce the death penalty.” Mr. Hayes is truly a man of wonder. Somehow he concluded that law enforcement enforces the law and upholds capital punishment. But somehow, he also came to the conclusion that the death penalty is somehow driven by race, simply because a jury would not believe his outrageous story. Mr. Hayes was followed by an even more interesting man, Dr. Alan Bean. He is Canadian, who now hails from Texas, a Baptist, formerly a Methodist pastor, and now... a legal activist? I don’t know where socialists find these people, but it is astounding. He is a self-deemed legal activist after he witnessed a roundup of AfricanAmericans, who were allegedly selling drugs in a small Texas town. After interviewing private citizens on the arrest of these men by police officers, Dr. Bean came to the conclusion that these allegations stemmed from racial hatred. Just because a local said that the African-Americans started

crept its way into every American university, has certainly not passed over Cornell. After completing my first semester here, I feel great pride in the school. I have also become increasingly aware of the lurking menace of Liberal mania. Nevertheless, I think we have ample supplies to combat this threat. Perhaps the most obvious manifestation of Liberal dementia is in lecture. I’m currently in a Western Civilization class, and the professor is an apologist for every enemy of Europe, from Ghengis Khan to the Seljuk Turks. I challenge him as best I can, but the fact is he knows a lot more history than I do and is a lot better at thinking on his feet. I’m looking forward to taking history classes from less biased professors in later semesters. In the meantime, it’s helpful to discuss history with fellow conservatives. The College Republicans organization is very useful in this regard: they often host lecturers from the history department to offer different perspectives

on historical events and figures. Another annoying trend I see around campus is that of ecofascism. “Okenshields is going trayless to save the environment,” one sign says. Yeah, you think you’re saving the environment. Until we pile up too many plates in our hands and spill them all over our pants and have to waste water to wash our clothes. Another sign tries to explain to a baffled student the complex recycling system: “Your plate and napkin go in thecompost bin, your sandwich wrapper can go in the t rash, and your knife and fork should be put in the plastic bin.” So they actually expect busy students to sort through all that? Recycling may save physical energy, but it wastes mental energy. Think about all the hurdles we have to go through every day to “save the environment.” And we only do half of them so the school can cut expenses. We do the other half so the school can appear progressive. Eco-fascism is relatively harmless, I suppose. I don’t detect as much Liberalism among my classmates, but that’s

mainly because many of my classmates are remarkably illinformed. I don’t even read the news every day, and I still know more than many of them. Cornell has unfortunately become a sanctuary from which people can withdraw from the real world, not an institution to prepare them for it. But this just means we conservatives have our work cut out for us. We should stay well informed on current issues and work on developing our argumentation skills. We should learn our history, so that we have a better context for understanding the world we live in. We should be outspoken in our beliefs and expose our classmates to new ways of thinking. We should also listen to the Liberal point of view, so that we can make our arguments more complex and nuanced. If the conservatives unite, this university can be that shining city on a hill. It can be a breeding.

...see LYNCHING, page 7

REFLECTIONS ...continued from front page

fortune of writing for the Cornell Review. The staff, wanting to hear from me about my first impressions of Cornell as a freshman, has given me ample time to collect my thoughts. So here they are. Far above Cayuga’s waters And its wave of blue, Stands our noble alma mater, Glorious to view. Cornell is indeed glorious. From the morning, when the mist rises off the lake, through the day, with its alternating sun and rain, to the evening, when the glowing sun turns Goldwin Smith Hall a rosy hue. Everywhere, millions of activities seem to be occurring at once. In the lobby of Willard Straight, there is a blood drive. Outside, a professor is trying to explain differential calculus to a student. And everywhere, friends talk, athletes run, choirs sing, and frat boys drink. It is as if John Winthrop’s Shining City on a Hill were at last brought to fruition. Well, almost. The specter of Liberalism, which seems to have

Sam Pell is a freshman in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be contacted at




December 3, 2009

Apocalypse...Never? Alternate historical film portrays Vietnam war as avoidable JOSEPH BONICA NATIONAL NEWS EDITOR


espite having ended nearly 40 years ago, the Vietnam War is still a heavily discussed topic in theaters of life as diverse as daily conversation and political science classes. Very little background needs to be given on the war; it cost thousands of lives and was the catalyst of the counter-culture movement in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s. The film “Virtual JFK- Vietnam if He Had Lived” puts a slightly different spin on the conflict. This film, written and directed by a then senior at Brown University, does as the title says: it analyzes the Vietnam War through the lens of a very important alternate history. The film, narrated by Brown history professor James Blight, asks one very important question: Does it matter who is president in times of war and peace? According to Professor Blight, the

answer is a resounding “yes.” In the beginning of the film, Blight states that during his short presidency, John F Kennedy successfully avoided war with the Soviet Union six times. First was the Bay of Pigs conflict, in which Kennedy refused to deploy the Marines stationed just off shore of Cuba to assist the beaten force of Cuban refugees sent to incite revolution on the island against newly empowered Communist dictator Fidel Castro. Although Kennedy was certainly spared conflict, said Blight, his inaction caused many in both his cabinet and in Congress to doubt the mettle of the President. Indeed, this black cloud hung over Kennedy during his entire presidency. The next challenge for the president is the lesser known crisis in Laos, in which communist revolutionaries invaded the country, given air support by the Soviet Union. For this conflict, President Kennedy

ordered troops to the border between Laos and Thailand, but gave them strict orders to go no further. In addition, he organized a negotiation session with the Kremlin, which led to the creation of a ceasefire in May of 1961. In the same year, Kennedy again avoided the dogs of war during the Berlin crisis. This began as a standoff between Washington and the Kremlin, with Kruschev demanding Kennedy give him all of Germany. Kennedy would not go this far, but did allow Kruschev to get the eastern part of Germany, where he built a wall to separate his sector from the western capitalist sector. Despite the construction of this wall and subsequent escape attempts leading to the deaths of thousands of innocent Germans, Professor Blight insists the construction of the Berlin Wall as allowed by President Kennedy as a good thing, as it helped to avoid a wider war

All this information can lead one to conclude that had President Kennedy survived and won reelection, he would have avoided Vietnam as much as possible.

between the two superpowers. Later on in the president’s term, in 1963, came the first involvements in Vietnam. From the onset of the conflict, all of Kennedy’s advisors, every last one, was a proponent of military action. Failure to engage in Vietnam, they said, would initiate a ...see VIETNAM, page 10

Chronicles of a College Conservative JUSTIN DiGENNARO STAFF WRITER

There was a time when college campuses and universities were intolerant. They taught a strict curriculum of ideas, rarely straying, and even less often encouraged discussion and debate. But things are better now. The universities of America are open to all ideas. Grades no longer reflect whether or not professors and TAs agree with the ideas expressed, but rather how well they are substantiated and argued. I wish I could believe it. Upon my return home and some of the requisite housecleaning that ensued, I came across an old essay of mine discussing the type of diversity I sought from my college experience. I read it now with a cynical eye as I believe I have experienced some of what the “tolerant environment” of college truly represents. The misguided ideal that if a university admits a wide variety of appearances of people, this somehow ensures the university status as a diverse and tolerant place, has been a prominent driving force behind college admissions for years. But as my essay argued, the true value of diversity isn’t in a school that has people that look different, but rather people who think different. It is in

Go to the


this measure, diversity of thought, which I believe to be the true value of diversity. In this category, Cornell University and other colleges across the country are lacking. The unfortunate truth is that in these places of higher learning where diversity of thought should be cherished, too often it is not only discouraged and mocked, but at times even punished. Some of you liberals who are indeed true to the creed of tolerance and brave enough to read this article may think I am exaggerating. I assure you that I am not. It is a disheartening experience to be a government major and a conservative at a liberal university. I never thought there would be a bias here at Cornell. I was aware that most college students tend to lean to the left. As my uncle once told me the old conservative adage “If you’re not a liberal by the time you’re 20, you have no heart. But if you’re not a conservative by the time your 40, you have no brain.” Perhaps we college conservatives are just ahead of the curve but regardless of the politics of my peers, my professors would, I thought, certainly maintain a respectable distance. A study from George Mason

University in 2005 that polled professors across the country found that a whopping 72 percent of college professors would refer to themselves as liberal, while a mere 11 percent responded conservative. About a quarter of the way into the semester, I already began to sense it. The documents that were required readings were often incredibly unfair. I took note that on average, 3 out of every 4 readings were in my view liberal leaning, and the conservative documents that were included (presumably to ensure the appearance of objectivity) were often far shorter, less well written, and by far less established sources. Liberal articles were written in highly reputable journals by Doctors and leaders in their respective fields. Conservative articles were by journalists, often little more than a poorly written op-ed. It was beyond just this. When I inquired whether or not outside information could be used and cited, obviously from a reputable source, I was denied. So the only information permitted in the class, is that with which we are provided, and we are provided only with a certain type of information. Even then though, I still was not convinced. Even

if the information presented was slanted, surely the grading would be fair. Although I had far less information to cite and utilize to argue a conservative perspective on a test that prompted me to “defend your opinion,” I still strove to argue the ideals of what I truly believe. I was disappointed when I received my grade, but it’s possible that I just did not grasp the material. When I returned home, a good friend of mine shed some light on my situation. As he said “They are in a position of power. You are not going to change anyone’s mind. The value of an argument often is related to whether or not one agrees with the thesis.” He was right, and his advice was to regurgitate the information that I am supposed to accept as fact. Not wanting to doom my grade for the sake of a fruitless ideological quest, I prepared for the next test. When I received my prompt to defend my position, I argued the liberal ideas that were predominantly discussed in class and contained far more sources to cite. Surprise, surprise, the grade I received was drastically higher. I can honestly say I did ...see CHRONICLES, page 8

The Review’s website, for more news and a downloadable PDF of all the Issues!

December 3, 2009



LYNCHING ...continued from

dating white girls after gaining popularity on the football team, Dr. Bean thinks that the police department is racist. Somebody give this guy a doctorate! This

Baptist/Methodist Canadian/ Texan “lawyer�/pastor, whatever he is, is a regular Einstein! A convicted murderer, a socialist, and a former Methodist

pastor walked into Goldwin Smith those who oppose them! Get it? Hall. What do they all have in common? They all believe Raza Hoda is a junior in the College the South is a giant capitalist of Arts & Sciences. He can be lynch mob out to get rid of all contacted at

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




December 3, 2009


One of the unintended consequences of my decision to take 20+ credits of exclusively economics and math courses this semester was a huge deficit in class reading materials, and, s i m u l t a n e o u s l y, a c o m p l e t e depletion of free time in which I could pursue my own reading interests. I feel that it is only appropriate, then, that I write my first book review/recommendation this semester about a book that so brilliantly explores this law of unintended consequences in our everyday lives: “SUPERFREAKONOMICS.” Just like “Freakonomics,” the book is divided up into small chapters with semi-coherent themes. Each chapter articulates some larger observation about human behavior through a presentation of different stories, anecdotes, and research results. Without giving away too much, here are some of the more novel questions and observations that the authors present: - One chapter is titled “How Is A Street Prostitute Like

A Department-Store Santa.” - It is more dangerous to walk drunk than it is to drive drunk. (I think there’s a huge hole in the logic the authors use to reach this conclusion, but I’ll let you read and decide for yourself). - Chemotherapy is highly ineffective from a costb e n e f i t p o i n t o f v i e w. - There is a positive correlation between the introduction of televis io n in the U nited States and crime rates. - Big floaty inner tubes in the Atlantic Ocean could significantly reduce the damage done by Hurricanes each year in the U.S. - Monkey prostitution has been recorded in lab experiments. These are just some random excerpts that I found interestinghopefully they’ve either whetted your intellectual appetite or at least produced a few “huh?’s.” I also enjoyed the fact that Levitt/Dubner made an effort to justify their unifying theme at the ...see REVIEW, opposite

CHRONICLES ...continued from page 6

not study the material any more thoroughly, nor did I change my essay writing style. The only thing that changed was what side I took. The environment of a lecture hall filled with left leaning classmates and a professor who presents liberal ideology as fact makes for an intimidating environment to discuss ideas. I personally have no qualm about raising my hand and presenting a conservative point in a crowded lecture hall. The disrespect and condescension that I hear in response is enough to provoke me to engage again on another occasion. But I know of many other conservatives who sit silently in exhaustion and fear of the “tolerant” liberal learning environment. For those of you who believe I am a conspiracy theorist, seeing liberal bias everywhere I look, I suppose I can’t change your mind. All I can ask you to do is take a look at your own experience at Cornell. Have you ever heard a teacher diminish the voting concerns of those urban democratic constituents? No? Recently I had a


teacher ridicule the concerns of what she called “red state hicks” for more than ten minutes. How often have you heard a joke at the expense of President Obama, or any democrat for that matter, other than not being liberal enough? I routinely listen to professor’s jokes and students’ laughter at the expense of any Republican public official. I am enough of a realist to accept that this may be how things are now, but I am not so much of a pessimist to accept that we shouldn’t try to change it. I want to share with you my inspiration for this article, the final straw that provoked me to voice my concerns. I was sitting in a crowded lecture hall, amidst 200 other students. The guest speaker, a Cornell Alum, seriously involved with the labor movement made the claim that “If fascism were put up for a vote in congress today, at least eighty percent of republicans would vote for it.” As this comment was made there was a momentary silence. My mouth remained agape, as I sat there stunned as what was passing for “expertise” in my class.

The momentary silence was only followed by thunderous laughter and a smile from the professor. I wonder if that same response would’ve been given by both students and faculty, had a CEO been brought in and claimed Obama a socialist? This story is a perfect example of why this is a problem. We cannot have a university system that is built on indoctrination at the expense of education. We cannot accept university systems where advocates of one side are brought in as unbiased experts and the advocates of the other side aren’t brought in at all. We cannot tolerate a university system where information is so carefully presented in favor of a particular worldview that those who feel differently often cannot substantiate their ideas with the material given. I was told once that the chief purpose of the university is to learn how to think. Well unfortunately, far too many students aren’t being taught how to think, but rather what to think. Debate and discussion may be encouraged, but not all

Read the Cornell Review’s Blog!

the ideas that come of it are. The free exchange of ideas is only beneficial when the misguided and lost (conservatives) are shown the light by their wise liberal classmates and professors. Is this the type of university we want our country to condone, and moreover, is this the type of trend we want to see continued for our children? Colleges across the country seem to be more content with producing graduates off the assembly line of liberal thought than they are with creating thoughtful individuals who evaluate fair information critically and make up their own minds. We can only continue to hope for a future where the universities have altered their priorities and finally understand. It is far less beneficial to place the emphasis on those students who look differently, rather than the true driving force behind creativity, innovation, and change: people who think differently. Justin DiGennaro is a sophomore in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be contacted at


December 3, 2009


Health Care Reform Against Common Sense ROMAN LESKO STAFF WRITER


o you remember when we were promised a change in our health care system that was supposed to save money? Apparently lawmakers in Congress have abandoned their promise as the reform debate has moved to the Senate. But what do you expect when the government tries to use command and control tactics to regulate the market? If we look at the underlying promises, it is clear that the government cannot achieve what it has set out to accomplish by continuing on the present route. Think back to last year’s election and the first few months of the new administration— President Obama promised the American people that reform will drive down the cost of care and increase the number of Americans insured. But the only way to lower prices and increase the quantity of medical services is to increase supply. Don’t believe me? Just draw out a supply curve and a demand curve and convince yourself. Furthermore, it is difficult to try to increase supply when the president and his advisors are trying to convince aspiring physicians to shy away from the more lucrative specialized fields and move towards primary care. Although many Americans may have hope in our president and our congressmen, let me assure you that none of them have the power to override the laws of economics.

At this point, you may be thinking to yourself that it’s a good thing that these laws and regulations will increase the number of Americans with insurance coverage. But when bureaucrats and politicians are calling the shots you can rest assured that this increase in coverage will come at an exorbitant cost as lawmakers load the legislation with pork and cater to special interests. The current political landscape in the Senate is one where the Democrats are deeply divided over what to include in the final bill. Although they unanimously voted to move forward with the debate this past Saturday, several key issues create a deep schism in the party. Majority leader Harry Reid, struggling for support in his reelection campaign, could try to win support among his constituents by leaving out the public option in the final form of the bill. Moderate Democrat Blanche Lincoln of Nebraska stated that she is “prepared to vote against moving to the next stage of consideration as long as a government-run public option is included.” On the other end of the spectrum is self-proclaimed socialist Bernie Sanders who refuses to vote in favor of a bill without the provision of a public option. Without the whole party united it will be exceedingly difficult for the Democrats to pass a bill. As a result, one would be naïve to think that palms won’t

be greased and that significant concessions won’t be made to certain Senators in an effort to gain their support for the final bill. The costs of pork will however be eclipsed by the complete failure to contain costs as promised. The House bill gives over a thousand new mandates and establishes hundreds of new committees to deal with the colossal expansion of government power. These new committees and boards don’t come for free, either— instead they will be paid for by the exorbitant price tag of the bill. And as for the cost containment that Democrats are boasting, that is the cuts in payments and the penalization of “Cadillac” health plans will almost undoubtedly succumb to the pressures of special interests in Washington. What we are left with is a bureaucratic nightmare that doesn’t solve any of our problems. To prove that the Democrats’ h e a l t h r e f o r m p l a n d o e s n ’t accomplish what President Obama has promised us, let us look at the facts as presented by the Senate Finance Committee. First the true cost of the bill will increase spending by 1.2 trillion between now and 2019, unlike the $900 billion dollar increase that Senator Reid was touting. And once fully implemented the true cost of the bill will be $2.5 trillion between 2014 and 2023! Furthermore taxes will increase by nearly $500 billion in that period and the CBO

has estimated that the plans in the public option “would typically have premiums that were somewhat higher than the average premiums for the private plans.” Even with all of these increased costs and regulations, the legislation will still leave 24 million people uninsured i n 2 0 1 9 , h a r d l y a b a rg a i n . What President Obama and the Democrats have falsely asserted is that government regulation through price controls and expansion of bureaucracy can achieve the goals of reducing costs and increasing the number of people insured in the United States. Although the market itself is imperfect and will never cure all that ails our system, government regulation is not a panacea. Our heath care system can be fixed, and there are a plethora of innovative, simple and above all effective market based ideas currently being used to improve quality of care and to reduce costs. What Democratic legislators must realize is that the laws of economics cannot be changed by our government micromanaging the markets, no matter how much “hope and change” they may promise.

People respond to incentives, althou gh not necessarily in ways that are predictable or manifest. Therefore, one of the most powerful laws in the Good introduction universe is the law of unintended aside, this book consequences. This applies to and Realtors and fails to bring schoolteachers crack dealers as well as expectant anything new to mothers, sumo wrestlers, bagel and the Ku Klux Klan. the table in that salesmen, Their choice to include Gary regard. While Becker ’s explanation of the highly enjoyable “economics approach” was also From the first chapter: and entertaining, it laudable. In his Nobel address, Becker is just an extension suggested that the economic of the first book. approach is not a subject matter, nor is it a mathematical means of explaining “the economy.” Rather, it is a decision to examine the world a bit differently. It is a beginning of the book, especially systematic means of describing since this is a popular book how people make decisions and read by many laymen and non- how they change their minds; how economists. In “An Explanatory they chose someone to love and Note,” they lay out the unifying marry, someone perhaps to hate theme of both of their books: and even kill; whether, coming

upon a pile of money, they will steal from it, leave it alone, or even add to it; why they may fear one thing and yearn for something only slightly different; why they’ll punish one sort of behavior while rewarding a similar one. These paragraphs go a long way in both establishing a unifying theme for the book and also explaining the methodology and purpose of economics to people who think that economics is just about understanding things like money, inflation, and unemployment. So overall, it’s a great book, and I’d highly recommend it is a holiday gift. It’s a true page turner, and fast readers should be able to get through the entire thing in less than six or seven hours. With that being said, though, I don’t think the book ultimately lives up to its title. The original “Freakonomics” was so popular because of the novelty of the method of analysis (economic analysis applied to ostensibly

non-market situations). Good introduction aside, this book fails to bring anything new to the table in that regard. While highly enjoyable and entertaining, it is just an extension of the first book. One final warning: for some reason this book is not rated “R” on the cover, though it certainly should be. The analysis of prostitution at the beginning of the book is, well, very detail-oriented. I would not recommend getting this book to anyone under seventeen or eighteen years old, unless you’re interested in getting into awkward conversations with younger siblings about why certain types of intercourse have higher prices on different days of the week.

REVIEW ...continued from page 8

Roman Lesko is a senior in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be contacted at

Dennis Shiraev is a sophomore in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be contacted at




December 3, 2009

Christmas: the Story of Our Foundations BRENDAN PATRICK DEVINE STAFF WRITER


t is required of every man that the spirit within him should walk abroad among his fellowmen, and travel far and wide,” said Jacob Marley to the noted miser of Charles Dickens’ seasonal classic, “A Christmas Carol.” Many this Christmas season will reread Dickens’ esteemed and enduring novella or watch one of the dozen or so film interpretations but few read deeply enough into the lesson of book. For the sentimental majority, the tale of the spirits of Christmas is the sensation of giving of the holiday season put down to paper. Charles Dickens, however, did not intend for so narrow an application. Reminding the faithful, from Londoners of the 19th century to us today, that we carry an obligation, a higher calling, to the well-being of our fellow man was the intention of Dickens— his choice of Christmas only re-affirms the old dedications between the ancient Christian religion’s duties of beneficence with the inner most impulses of the spirit, the drive to feed the innermost poverty of one’s heart. Excessive industrialization, poverty, and the welfare system constituted the troubles of London in 1842 which bore down on Dickens the most. While surely disgruntled with industrialism, the onerous of atonement for greed is not placed with any other entity than with each individual person, with the soul seeking his own salvation: “‘Business!’ cried the Ghost…. ‘Mankind was my business. The common welfare was my business; charity, mercy, forbearance, and benevolence, were all my business. The dealings of my trade were but a drop of water in the comprehensive ocean of my business.’” For all Man’s personal enterprises,

and they are moral in right but not necessarily so in their conclusion, his greatest personal benefit falls among others. This has been the tale of the Christian inextricability for centuries. Generations before Scrooge ever converted his loyalties, the monks of Barking Abbey scoured the streets of London in the evenings in their determination to extend tidings of comfort and joy. T h e r e is no divorce between the gift of giving and those adherents to Christ; for benevolence has existed nowhere else. All ancient peoples extended benefits to the least among them for stability, for the expediency o f government rather t h a n from a categorical

annually to charities and volunteer untold hours in their idealism to the best of purposes. Our exertions are not only limited to our borders, for the sense of prescription to help others has led to many endeavors in other countries. Americans have bled more for the sake of others than any other people in memory. These actions are not mere variables in the American faith, but products of it— remove the faith, the works will diminish as well. Christian benevolence carries beyond these easily cited facts. It burdens itself with the task of being a bridge f o r

imperative. Those who go without a God altogether do so lacking the stitching that binds people— they have deprived themselves of transcendence. Secular Europe acts as an indicator: how often have people of this persuasion made calls on behalf of the impoverished only because others bear wealth, rather than out of any objective compulsion that desires comfort for the poor? The United States, perennially among the most faithful nations in the world, has consequently done more in the name of the oppressed than any other. Americans give hundreds of billions of dollars

light in the darkest corners of the world. In 1981, President Reagan shined this light on the people of Communist Poland: “For a thousand years, Christmas has been celebrated in Poland, a land of deep religious faith, but this Christmas brings little joy to the courageous Polish people. They have been betrayed by their own government….the Polish people have demonstrated their solidarity in the face of martial law by placing lighted candles in their windows to show that the light of liberty still glows in their hearts. Ambassador Spasowski requested that on Christmas Eve a lighted candle will burn in the

information showed that the Soviet Union had recently put missiles on the island of Cuba that were pointed in the direction of the United States. This Cuban Missile Crisis was, as many have claimed, the closest to all out nuclear war the United States and Soviet Union have ever gotten and ever got to since. Clearly, said many of Kennedy’s advisors, this was an act of war. Generals drafted plans to invade the island, taking into consideration any possible worst-case scenarios. Once again, however, they found an unreceptive leader in Kennedy. Though willing to blockade Cuba (the plan that

was eventually followed through with), he refused to engage in all out war. This was again, unfairly as many argue, interpreted by some in Congress as a sign of weakness by the president. All this information, the film states, can lead one to conclude that had President Kennedy survived and won reelection, he would have avoided Vietnam as much as he could. Most likely, he would have used his considerable diplomatic prowess to see him through as he did with earlier, much larger crises. There is one piece of evidence which especially shows this may

White House window as a small but certain beacon of our solidarity with the Polish people. I urge all of you to do the same tomorrow night, on Christmas Eve, as a personal statement of your commitment to the steps we’re taking to support the brave people of Poland in their time of troubles.” Even the earliest critics of the capitalist system, excluding Marx of course, would never have dreamed of taking one’s possessions for immediate redistribution to another. Inner morality is to be the great regulator of people, and that regulator is unbounded. Government is not charitable— it is first and foremost, administrative. Americans entrust more money than any other in the world to charities every year, organizations that are actually born in the intention of providing comfort to the meek. Let this condition live, for it is good! Man’s imagination depends upon this continuity of charity. The one whom Christmas commemorates did more to alter the course of Man than all the emperors who ruled during His life on Earth. Such wonderment fuels Man’s mind, his creativity, and his will. Next time we go to the mall and drop a few coins into the Salvation Army bucket or experience the power of bearing witness to an unpretentious act of kindness, let us pause and consider where we would be if not for that child born in the desert 2,000 years ago.

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

VIETNAM ...continued from page 6


perilous domino effect that would send all of southeast Asia into a communist tailspin. President Kennedy, however, refused to put a single body on the ground at first but allowed planes to fly missions over the country. Eventually, he also allowed “advisors” into the country to assist the progovernment forces in their battle against communist revolutionaries. The early conflict in Vietnam, however was overshadowed by what may have potentially been the most dangerous political situation in the history of the entire world. Later that year, intelligence

have been true: Robert McNamara encouraged Kennedy to withdraw what was at that time a small military presence from Vietnam, and Kennedy agreed. All signs point to him doing this and avoiding a major catastrophe in our history. Unfortunately, the hand of God does not always work in a nation’s favor, and a much bleaker picture was painted onto the canvas of history.

Joseph Bonica is a sophomore in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be reached at


December 3, 2009


Cap and Trade Shenanigans Senate to wait until Spring for climate bill PETER BOURIS STAFF WRITER

Debate on the Senate counterpart to the Waxman-Markey make investment bankers richer, er, climate change bill will be postponed until spring, according The Wall Street Journal. The Politico has also reported that this is concomitant with recent efforts by the Obama Administration to focus on deficit reduction, making efforts to push for cap-and-tax legislation more subject to scrutiny. Of course, President Obama discussing deficit reduction is the equivalent of a heroine addict claiming to make voluntary efforts to cure himself. Clearly, the plan is that ObamaCare will be signed into law by the spring and that it will then be easier to focus on ginning up public support for climate change legislation. This should not be a problem however, as a recent Gallup poll showed that 72% of Americans favor government imposed limits on carbon emissions. Give the White House an ‘A’ for marketing. Consider this example: administration propagandist Ben LaBolt sent an email to The Journal stating that climate legislation is “…an economic opportunity for the nation that will create millions of clean energy jobs while reducing our dangerous dependence on foreign oil, and it’s an opportunity that other countries like China and India are racing to take advantage of.” Yes, India and China have been stalwart supporters of a taxand-spend boondoggle that would grossly retard their development as economic powers. Stupendous it would be if American political leaders had such vision. If the Senate version of the bill is anything like the Waxman-Markey House version, which passed in October, it will be Christmas in July for politically connected firms. They will get the gift of first crack at the initial handout of government carbon credits. Also, Wall Street investment banks, which supported President Obama lock-stock-andbarrel during the campaign, will be treated well by whatever comes out of the Beltway. They will be the entities selling further carbon offsets to any firms seeking to buy more than their initial government ration. In fact, recently speaking to a JP Morgan seller of carbon offsets (yes, they already sell them), the author of this article learned that Wall Street will indeed

party like it’s 2005 if the proposed climate change legislation passes. Who knew the repaving of the Road to Serfdom would involve a return to the medieval practice of purchasing indulgences and their consequent penance? You can also be sure that Jeffrey Immelt, along with other liberal internationalist business leaders, will be cheering as they too get their cut of the production of the American people. The layout of this incident will very much fulfill one of William Graham Sumner’s societal evaluations. This includes a person C (any non-elite working person) squaring off against the tag-team of a person A (any rich business titan) and a person B (any governing elite). In other words, Big Business and Big Government work together to enlarge their own spheres at the expense of the rest of society; but to oppose any of this makes you an evil racist, sexist, bigoted, homophobic teabagger. No, no, our wise overlords know what is best; to challenge them shows lack of sophistication. The negative economic ramifications of such a brilliant policy will include skyrocketing electricity rates for mid-western families who rely on coal-fired power plants for their modern lives. The policy will also foster a further deterioration of America’s already fledgling industrial base, as many of whatever lowskilled economic opportunities remain will flee to China and India–those two enlightened nations supposedly trying to take advantage of the opportunity to create “clean energy jobs.” Refer to the economic conditions of the Rust-Belt and the congruent devastating results of a mass exodus of industry to know America’s future if Obama and his banker friends get their way (Detroit, Buffalo, and Cleveland are first, second, and third respectively in municipal poverty rates). At best, there will be no net decrease in employment, as the tax revenue would theoretically create the amount of jobs it killed. But factor in government inefficiency when allocating capital, and there will be a net loss in employment. So much for an economic opportunity. Also, encouraging a reduction in carbon usage will lead to more oil refineries going offshore,

thereby increasing America’s dependence on foreign oil. It is also worth noting that any Al Gore sycophants supporting the campaign to reduce Americans’ standard of living because of his or her fear of anthropogenic global warming should reconsider. President Obama’s own advisors have stated that Waxman-Markey would do literally nothing to reduce carbon emissions. Count on the Senate version being similarly ineffective. This is not withstanding the recent Climategate, in which left-wing activists (climate scientists) sought to withhold any data challenging the anthropogenic orthodoxy. Oh–so the bill actually accomplishes none of its stated goals and actually makes things worse. Expect elites in the media (especially Immelt’s outlets) to drag the bill across the finish line using any means necessary. Therefore, all opponents of this must get ready for the spring, as any criticism of the administration will be even more fervently met with charges of racism and corporate shilling. The former is simply a knee-jerk response against a common sense argument. But the latter is a rather precarious claim considering which groups support the legislation. It

is also odd that these same elite interests will cause attacks against dissenters to ratchet ever higher. Clearly, The Review and its staff are not interested in fomenting class warfare. However, we will not be silent as a disfigured version of Hamiltonian corporatism strengthens its grip over America. The entire effort is an attempt to give the appearance of problem solving while simultaneously appeasing left-wing constituencies and shelling out favors to wellliked businesses. Considering that President Obama and his cadre of zombie followers will likely have health care ‘reform’ passed by the spring, they will have a full head of momentum going into their push to further turn the American Republic into one of a banana. Of course, they want to cut America down to size so that it repents for its former sins of en masse prosperity and superpower domination on the world stage. Surprising how they never propose allowing the nation to buy indulgences.

Peter Bouris is a sophomore in the College of Industrial Labor and Relations. He can be contacted at

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



The Cornell Review

December 3, 2009

Wisemen and Fools Who is wise and who innovative and is a fool? You decide! resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about “[My truck] was a real new ways to harm our sort of Southern deal. country and our people, I had AstroTurf in the and neither do we.” back. You don’t want to George W. Bush know why, but I did.” Bill Clinton “Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you “I wanted to say to think you are facing a Governor Dean, don’t contradiction, check be hard on yourself your premises. You will about hooting and find that one of them is hollering. If I had spent wrong.” the money you did and Ayn Rand got 18 percent, I’d still be in Iowa hooting and “Each generation hollering.” goes further than the Al Sharpton generation preceding it because it stands “I’m a metrosexual.” on the shoulders of Howard Dean that generation. You will have opportunities “Our enemies are beyond anything we’ve

ever known.” Ronald Reagan “The government solution to a problem is usually as bad as the problem.” Milton Friedman “At his best, man is the noblest of all animals; separated from law and justice he is the worst.” Aristotle

of good government.” Thomas Jefferson “If you want to succeed you should strike out on new paths, rather than travel the worn paths of accepted success.” John D. Rockefeller “Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program.” Milton Friedman

“I love California, I “A wise and frugal practically grew up in government, which Phoenix.” shall leave men free Dan Quayle to regulate their own pursuits of industry and “If you see a snake, just improvement, and shall kill it - don’t appoint a not take from the mouth committee on snakes.” of labor the bread it has Ross Perot earned - this is the sum

In your heart, you know we’re right.

Join The Review CR

Send us an email at or come to GWS 160 on Mondays at 5:00

Cornell Review XXVIII #6  

Cornell Review XXVIII #6

Read more
Read more
Similar to
Popular now
Just for you