Issuu on Google+

Volume XXVIII, Issue 8

Limited Government. Traditional Values. America First.

An Independent Publication

www.cornellreviewonline.com / www.cornellinsider.com

March 3, 2010

Snow!

¡Basta Ya! BRENDAN PATRICK DEVINE STAFF WRITER

I

mmigration reform left the national spotlight five years ago when the infamous McCainKennedy bill ended on the House floor. The bill contained many provisions that advocates of “comprehensive” reform demanded for years: small fines for illegal immigrants, access to social programs, and a path to citizenship. The American citizenry opposed the bill with such vigor that no serious attempt has been made at altering the immigration system since. While the public at large

demonstrates no desire to revive this issue, the Cornell Catholic Community does. At the end of Mass two weeks ago Laurie Konwinski took to the pulpit and briefly retold the story of a Cornellian who lost his financial aid status because his parents did not legally reside in the United States. Miss Konwinski followed this story with an appeal to sign a petition and letters to Congress demanding “comprehensive” immigration ...see BASTA, page 2

Inside This Issue . . .

Catch up on campus events you missed: Page 6 Nuclear arms: ‘Brown-Bag’ seminars takes on nukes.

WHAM! Thursday evening, AccuWeather’s predicted ‘snowicane’ struck the northeast and didn’t spare any expense at Cornell. Ithaca experienced up to 20” in areas, with 18” coating the downtown area and forcing schools to close. DE-‘NYE’-ER! Bill Nye ‘77 made an appearance on The O’Reilly Factor preceding the storm, telling AccuWeather’s Joe Bastardi that Climate Gate was merely about men disagreeing over methods. SNOW-SAVIORS! So much sudden snowfall that The Ithaca Journal began a series of ‘snow angel’ stories: usersubmitted tales and accounts of benevolent Ithacan shovelers. MORE TO COME? Predictions say one clear week before more!

Freedom From Our Chains

CU’s Catholics push ‘comprehensive’ immigration reform

Page 5 Cornell gets some money from the stimulus: where does it go?

n g at C o r n e

Photos by HM

mi

While snow certainly won’t disprove ‘global warming’ theories, it sure makes us wonder! Here are some fun facts about Ithaca’s peculiar rendition of global warming.

b a l Wa o l G r

ll !

“We Do Not Apologize.”

Page 7 Mark Kirk ‘81 is making a bid at the Senate...but whats he all about?

Page 8 Addicted to speed: warnings about riding a segway.

Page Four Our ideal SA lineup: who are these guys and why are we voting for them?

Interactions between Resolution 44 and The Review

W

JOHN FARRAGUT PRESIDENT

e at The Review are ready to accept our paper’s fate. Resolution 44, the “NonDiscrimination Clause,” recently passed the Student Assembly with a t i e breaking v o t e from President R a m m y Salem ’10. Though President Skorton has to sign off on the resolution before it becomes “Cornell law” (as is the case with all resolutions classified as “Legislation”), we will be ready if and when it comes time to face the Leviathan. To outline the changes: According to cosponsors Andrew Brokman ’11 and Matt “straight ally to the LGBTQ community” Danzer ’12, this resolution will ensure that “something like what happened at Chi Alpha never, ever happens again.” If you read the resolution, it does two things. First, it expands the list of socalled “protected classes,” so that no longer may we discriminate based upon things like “actual or perceived age.” No longer

will one’s “gender identity or expression” bar one from writing for The Review! The second is that it guarantees full privileges to all members, including the right to vote and hold office. And then at the end they say that for club sports and a cappella, a little “discrimination” is no big deal. It’s not clear w h i c h bureaucrat in the Student Associations Office (just kidding— we love you Roxanne Edsall!) will get to judge which groups get the exclusive “discriminatory” AL stamp of disapproval. If a group is deemed in violation of the new statute, not only will it lose all byline and/or SAFC funding (don’t worry—we get neither), it will also no longer be officially affiliated with the university, ...see FATE, page 2


2

Campus

March 3, 2010

FATE ...continued from front page

meaning no room reservation, tabling, etc. So groups which Adam Brokman thinks are a bit too mean cease to exist. The issues with this resolution are almost too obvious to mention. A group is defined by who leads it. If you can’t bar a person embracing homosexuality or Islam or alcoholism from leading a group whose core beliefs are inconsistent with all of those things, you have no cause in the first place. There are the obvious issues with who ought to make the highly nontrivial and necessarily arbitrary judgment of what qualifies as “discrimination” as defined by this resolution. But I don’t want to write about the obvious flaws in yet another myopic S.A. do-gooder bill; I want to make our case. In my humble BASTA ...continued from front page

CR

reform. Wi t h s o m e 1 2 million illegal immigrants in the United States, the word “comprehensive” paints a daunting picture. Are all of these transgressors to receive the full benefits of American residency after having disregarded United States sovereignty? The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops says yes! In fact the United States should eliminate “the long wait for family visas” in order to “keep families intact.” Familial volatility seems to be the driving motive behind Miss Konwinski’s efforts: “As Catholics we also believe in the sanctity of the family; current immigration policies keep families separated for years while immigrants wait to achieve residency requirements that would allow them to sponsor spouses or children [for admittance to] the US.” While families are casualties of enforcing immigration laws, the United States cannot be expected to capitulate its borders in the name of compassion. Granting de facto amnesty to illegal immigrants would be an uncompassionate act by the American government and effrontery to its people. Illegal immigrants comprise a notable portion of the United States’s blue collar work force. Miss Konwinski notes this: “Ask any upstate New York grower how difficult it would be to harvest his apples or sweet corn without immigrant laborers.” What sort of difficulty will farmers encounter when they are obligated to pay immigrants the legal minimum

opinion, The Review should be in pole position when the “Certified bigot” placards are handed out. Just ask those sobbing girls who cried to the S.A. last year about how mean a place we made Cornell for them. No doubt they would whine “Discrimination!” were they to attend one of our meetings (and they are invited to do so!), regardless of the staff’s impeccable levels of courtesy and chivalry. The racism/bigotry/sexism/etc. was all implied, you see. So as soon as these young ladies march (no doubt yet again sobbing) into the SAO, we will be out of business. Or so they think! After the die has been cast, we shall not go gently into that good night. In fact, this resolution may put The Review in

the best position of her twentyfive years. First of all, we would no doubt obtain major “street cred” for being principled resisters of “THE MAN.” (Perhaps a segue to our first university-sponsored breaking bread event with the Cornell chapter of the International Socialist Organization?) The second part of the plan involves founding the Cornell Competitive Tiddlywinking Club. This would allow us to reserve rooms, which is essentially the only benefit being recognized as a student organization currently offers us. Furthermore, the SAFC would find it irresistible to fund such a necessary and important addition to the Cornell community, providing an easy way to launder

money and increase our circulation. (We’d buy a set of tiddlywinks for show and say we had spent the rest on classy wines and spirits.) With this ingenuous scheme in order, we are fully prepared in the unlikely event that President Skorton signs the Student Assembly’s silly resolution. There is the detail of pitching this to the rest of the executive board, but I have faith they will come to agree with me. I implore all other principled student groups: respond to this resolution with as much gall and defiance as we intend to. You are not the only ones fighting the good fight!

wage? The advantage of hiring migrant workers is their willingness to work for below the minimum wage and the efficiency employers find in paying their workers off the books. Merely allowing illegal immigrants to reside in the United States with full legal status engages minimum wage laws. Farmers, many of whom rely on federal subsidies and importation restrictions for a competitive

punishes United States consumers. Separating family members elates no one, but the United States cannot be expected to suffer the consequences of bad governments in Mexico and South America. The same conference of bishops that demands “comprehensive” immigration reform glosses over the root of the problem and passes responsibility on to the United States: “Address root causes of migration

advantage, may benefit from only having to pay $4 an hour for corn harvesting, but what will they think when they must pay $7.25 an hour? The United States already imposes severe limits on the importation of foreign foods. Adopting a policy that would raise costs in a lowcompetition environment only ensures higher prices. Price increases trickle down to consumers until a new market state is reached—and in this case, a far more expensive one. Such a policy effectively marginalizes any gains made by immigrant workers and coterminously

themselves the next day. American bishops are very anxious to allow immigrants to stay here and to have the United States spend money on pursuits of foreign extraction, but they lack the same vigor when it comes to asking other nations to feed their own people. The Church’s laxity in this matter helps the Church avoid self-implication. Many bishops in heavily Catholic South American countries openly avow Marxism, the same failed class warfare philosophy that numerous dictators practice in those nations. Bishops exert reasonable influence over the state of cultural affairs in Catholic countries, yet the Church makes no effort to demand copious economic liberties. A change in the Church’s approach to Mexico and South America precedes any improvement in the condition of those countries. M i s s Knowinski summarizes the reasoning of American Catholics for demanding immigration reform quite succinctly: “how can I call myself a Christian and not try to change a system which compels people to live in fear and misery?” Many share her sentiments but doubt the wisdom of her and the American bishops. The United States cannot be reasonably expected to change its enforcement of laws in the name of compassion while a far more compassionate and sustainable solution can be reached with a little thinking and a lot of effort by the Church.

that occurs out of necessity. Our nation’s trade, economic aid, debt relief, and other types of economic and social policies should help to create conditions in which people are not compelled to leave their homes.” T h e United States brings comfort to many of the most destitute places in the world, however it is not America’s charter to aid others. It is the Catholic Church’s charter. When St. Peter, the Prince of the Apostles and first Pope of the Church, saw Jesus feed the crowd with only a few fish, he witnessed B r e n d a n D e v i n e i s a divine beneficence. Jesus only fed sophomore in the College of the crowd once though, and those Arts and Sciences. He can be people presumably had to feed reached at bpd8@cornell.edu

John Farragut is a senior in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be contacted at jdf222@cornell.edu


Editorial

March 3, 2010

TheCornellReview

The Lessons of CPAC

Founded 1984, Incorporated 1986 Volume XXVIII Number 8 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

Original Artwork by Anthony Longo

Contributors

Joe Bonica, Anthony Longo, Lucia Rafanelli, Oliver Renick, William Lane, Kent Haeger, Raza Hoda, Dennis Shiraev, Willam Wagner, John Farragut, Brendan Devine, Lucas Policastro, Roman Lesko, Justin DiGennaro, Peter Bouris, Zachary Waller, Kevin Tang, Roman Lesko, Peter Bouris, Hannah MacLean Faculty Advisor Michael E. Hint meh26@cornell.edu 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 thecornell.review@ gmail.com for consideration.

The Cornell Review meets regularly on Mondays at 5:15 pm in GS 164. E-mail messages should be sent to thecornell.review@gmail.com Copyright © 2010 The Ithaca Review Inc. All Rights Reserved.

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

3

What campus conservatives can learn from the conference

L

ast week, I was lucky enough to attend the Conservative Political Action Conference, better known as CPAC, with a small contingent of the Cornell Republicans. While the logistics of the trip to Washington, DC were prohibitive enough that we could not stay the full time, we managed to enjoy the full final day of the conference. In that short time, I was left with a few moving experiences that stuck out. From these isolated moments, I was able to find two salient lessons which college conservatives must learn if they are to survive as a movement. 1. Vitriol wins popularity, but rationality wins arguments. By and large, most CPAC speakers could be split into one of two categories. There were those who spoke vaguely, in terms of great ideals or with vitriolic snipes at the Obama Administration, and those who spoke in terms of specific things Americans and more specifically conservatives could do to create an effective change. Almost without exception, the names of the former would stay with me for some time, but the natures of their speeches would often pass me by. The latter, on the other hand, may not always have name recognition with me, but their ideas challenged and intrigued me in ways that will shape the way I consider their subjects for some time. Two particularly illustrative examples of this dichotomy were Ann Coulter and Don Devine. Coulter, as anyone who has ever read one of her columns might have gathered, falls directly into the first camp. She used her fifteen minutes at the podium to launch into a witty and scathing critique of the Obama Administration. She delivered caustic one-liner after caustic oneliner, most of which straddled the line between uproarious and outrageous. However, she did not say anything particularly concrete about conservative alternatives. But the panel on a strong foreign policy for the 21st century that preceded her, featuring Don Devine and Joanne Herring, was memorable for other reasons entirely. The forum, entitled “What is a Conservative Foreign Policy?” naturally suggests a neoconservative or militarist bent. Yet Devine denied the idea that being tough is always the best course of action. Indeed, he highlighted Obama’s willingness to send more troops to Afghanistan among other instances of his willingness to be tougher than Bush. As an alternative, he held up

Ronald Reagan as the exemplar of a good foreign policy conservative. The image of a Reaganite foreign policy is one of staring down the Soviets until they blinked. Yet Devine recalls instances where Reagan had been called “weak” yet made the better play—withdrawing troops from Lebanon after the Beirut attacks, and agreeing to sit down to discuss nuclear arms reduction when he saw he had a favorable bargaining partner in Gorbachev. Ultimately, the goal of a foreign policy, as Devine put it, was the Reaganite mantra of “peace through strength”—in which the U.S. would maintain a strong military without engaging it in conflicts around the world where it cannot make a difference. In the eight minutes that he had the podium, Devine created a speech twice as memorable as Coulter’s by use of his logic alone. Yet Coulter’s rhetoric won her applause that drowned out even the loudest standing ovations given to the foreign policy panel. Ultimately, both have something to contribute to campus conservatives trying to make their voices heard. Devine had the logical arguments needed for success, while Coulter’s simple, acerbic wit and appeal attracted more listeners to the room—in fact, much of the panel’s audience likely arrived early to get seats for Coulter. The ultimate goal is, for all campus conservatives but especially for conservative journalists, to find some balance between the two. However, should one err, it should be on the side of Devine: without controversy, strong arguments will spread slowly; without a sound logical base, however, controversy will spread too quickly to be useful. 2. The ultimate enemy of a campus conservative is the apathy of those who should be his allies. As a conservative paper, The Cornell Review regularly addresses issues that concern free exchange of ideas on campus. Thus when Eugene Genovese, Stephen Balch, and Alan Charles Kors discussed the question of “Saving Freedom on College Campuses”, the present Review writers took a particular interest in the topic at hand. The speeches themselves were eye-opening. Kors largely talked about issues with which we here at Cornell are highly familiar— the use of anti-discrimination or anti-harassment clauses to browbeat students into essential ideological uniformity. The more novel approach was taken by

Eugene Genovese. He, rather than focus on speech outside of classes, took an approach considering the repercussions of departments that contain monolithic political majorities in their professors. According to Genovese, such learning environments lend themselves to a certain style of teaching where professors teach their own interpretations of the facts rather than a realistic representation. This, combined with an academic culture which does not always encourage disagreement, results in a cheapening of a liberal arts education. This has ramifications far beyond the educations of the individual students, in Genovese’s mind; a continued decline will only decrease the educational standing of the United States in the world. Genovese’s solution? Among other things, conservative students should be convinced they have more of a stake in the success of their universities and the nation at large. However, the crowning experience of the panel was not what Genovese said so much as those to whom he said it. The audience was largely comprised of college students, and the Cornell Republicans found themselves in the midst of a large group of them. The message of student involvement and questions of the quality of education should have found especial appeal among these students—in fact, their very presence should have indicated their activism on campus. Yet Balch and Genovese garnered little acclaim for their speeches (Kors’ more vivacious speaking style and the presence of a few ushers quieting people down added to his reception). In fact, during some of the most compelling points of Genovese’s speech approximately 5 people in the area immediately around us were clapping (this author included). Instead, the audience were more given to texting, chatting, or even napping, rather than listening to a speaker addressing issues germane to their own lives. This image was telling. It revealed that there are ideas and solutions out there to combat our problems regarding on-campus diversity of thought, and that one of the keys to success is increasing our own activism. Yet as long as students dismiss this as a problem worthy of their attention or believe it inevitable, there can be no progress. William P. Lane, for the editors. William is a senior in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be contacted at wpl5@cornell.edu

CR


Campus

4

March 3, 2010

Student Assembly Round-Up: Who We Are Pulling For and Why

Ray Mensah Class of 2011 SA Student Assembly meetings, for instance, I’ve seen first hand how Executive Vice President the appropriations appeals process Long and short of why: can be improved. If elected as Ray is a member of the Cornell Executive Vice President, I pledge to: Republicans. He previously was the CR president, and now he serves 1) Work to amend the S.A. as the Chairman-emeritus. charter to create an independent,

Position running for:

What’s his deal (straight from Ray):

student-run judicial body charged with interpreting the charter and hearing appeals of Throughout my Cornell career the appropriations committee. I’ve been proud to have worked to -Allowing the S.A. to continue help improve student life. Whether it be working to improve student hearing appropriations appeals life in the several residence halls and interpreting its own charter I’ve resided in or cosponsoring creates an unacceptable conflict Resolution 15 allowing students to of interest and probability of bias. Additionally, if elected as serve on Residence Hall Directors Executive Vice President, I pledge to: search committees or even standing in solidarity with the film, theater, and dance students in face of the 2) Fight to increase multicultural massive cuts to their department, recruitment by the University it has been my honor to work and to ensure that the University on behalf of the student body. remains a welcome place for ALL. Apart from my involvement in the issues mentioned above, I’ve also 3) Work towards improving come to gain much valuable insight student life by working to into how the Student Assembly extend weekend library hours. works and, more importantly, how the Student Assembly can work 4) Work towards eliminating or better for all on campus. As a reducing charges for internet usage. regular attendee and participant in

Ray Mensah with Cornell Review staff writer William ‘the Segway Kid’ Wagner

Roneal Desai Class of 2013 Student Some of these issues include: 1) Continuing with my work to Assembly Minority Liaison integrate health insurance into Long and short of why: Financial Aid (which has been an Roneal is a moderate-minded on-going year long process) by gentleman who sat down in gathering funding through my recent November to do an interview with appointment on the SIAC (Student The Review. He knows about fiscal Insurance Action Committee) responsibility, and he knows the 2) Advertise the fact that Helen definition of ‘minority at Cornell.’ Newman can be tried FOR FREE What’s his deal (straight (already an existing policy) at the start of every week on the Cornell from Roneal): Out of the five candidates running Athletics website so students can try for the two Minority spots, I am the services before they pay for them 3) Establish a housing contract only one with any experience on the so that students with roommates Student Assembly. My year as the Freshman Representative has given can not invite friends/boyfriends/ me a huge amount of experience girlfriends to stay over for and provided me with the network extended periods of time without provided to enact change on the consent of their roommates 4) Establish a volunteer hour campus. This entire year has been filled with drafting resolutions, requirement for all SA members 5) Ensure that all SA members connecting with administrators vote on budgetary all over campus, and learning the who limits of the SA-- all preparing me appeals have taken the SAFC for a year in which I can truly take Finance Test to confirm their advantage of what the SA has to offer. knowledge of the budget system 6) Make sure students have the Although not breathe-taking, I provide a platform that is both right to a case and hearing before realistic and revolutionary, and any drinking violations result in will undoubtedly affect student penalty or parental notification. 7) Increase SA transparency. life for the better on campus.

Position running for:

CR

Desai ‘13, who took the opportunity to get to know Review readers


Campus

March 3, 2010

5

Research Grants Produce... Research. Wow! Cornell becomes the beneficiary of ARRA funds DENNIS SHIRAEV CAMPUS NEWS EDITOR

O

ne year into the spending spree that is the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, we still have high unemployment, low investor confidence, and a ballooning federal deficit that threatens future economic growth. It is clear that we have yet to reap the short term economic benefits of the stimulus—mainly because much of the stimulus money has yet to be spent— but some continue to argue that the stimulus has provided valuable investments in American infrastructure, education and technology. ScienceWorksForUS, which represents a coalition of hundreds of public and private research universities, recently released a report that highlighted the research that has been conducted using the 21.5 billion dollars of stimulus funding that was allocated for research and scientific infrastructure - some notable findings are displayed at right. Alright, so some of the research addresses what might be called more obscure scientific areas of study, but it’s no doubt useful, right? Probably. I suppose nobody is harmed if dentists receive a pamphlet that makes them more aware of how to identify eating disorders in patients. But does all this research justify the $21.5 billion appropriated to scientific research, or the entire stimulus spending bill in general? I think not. First of all, if the report intends to defend the stimulus on the basis that that federal funding has led to lots of great research, it is only restating an obvious and predictable outcome. If the government throws billions of dollars in grant money at top research universities, is there any surprise that they will produce, well, some good research? The report mentions nothing about the effectiveness of ASSA grant money—for example, some metric that measures the number of useful breakthroughs per million dollars spent— so there’s no way of knowing if the funding was actually worth while. Secondly, insofar as the stimulus is intended to save jobs and spark economic growth, investing in scientific research is a bad way of “stimulating” the economy. This point requires a bit more explanation. Even though I am a conservative with market-oriented opinions when it comes to the government’s handling of the economy, I will be the first to admit that there are many elements of theoretical soundness to the idea of “stimulating” the

economy through massive government spending. If you have ever taken an introductory macroeconomics course, you know that macroeconomic equilibrium is achieved when aggregate income equals aggregate expenditure. When aggregate expenditure is greater than income, there is an unplanned fall in product inventories and output rises to compensate. The opposite happens when aggregate expenditure is less than income. In simple models, aggregate expenditure is broken down into consumption, investment, and government expenditure. During a recession, when aggregate expenditure is down, it is difficult to raise either consumption or investment—people’s incomes are lower, plus there is little confidence in the economy so people prefer non-consumption over consumption and saving/ hoarding money over real investment. Only two things can quickly knock the economy back into equilibrium: tax cuts and government expenditure. As a free-marketer I love tax cuts, but there is no denying that if done correctly, government expenditure has a greater effect in stimulating economic activity. It all boils down to the multiplier effect and people’s marginal propensity to consume, or the average fraction that people spend of each additional dollar they earn. If the marginal propensity to consume is .5 and the government spends, say, $100 million, we know that $100 million will be spent, then $50 million by the people who got paid, then $25 million by the people who got paid by the previous parties, and so forth. With a tax cut, only $50 million of the initial $100 million in cut taxes will be spent, then $25 million of that, etc. So you miss the first $100 million of spending when the government cuts taxes. The argument for government stimulus is that it is the best way to stimulate economic activity per dollar spent. This policy has a lot of real problems— it is slow and inefficient, racks up massive debt, creates potential for moral hazard, promotes bad business practices, and sets new expectations about the government’s future role in regulating economic activity— but here I merely wanted to justify its theoretical soundness. So what are the best targets for stimulus funding? Giving money to industries for job creation

$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$

Cornell researchers used their $1 million in NIH grant money to test different strategies to encourage healthy eating and nutrition habits among obese subjects.

Scientists from Cornell and several other universities were awarded $12.2 million in NIH grant money to develop a online social research networking website exclusively for scientists to share their findings and find potential collaborators.

Almost $1 million was spent on a training program that would help dental professionals identify patients with eating disorders. At the University of Delaware, $900,000 was spent on studying preschoolers’ knowledge of geometry

At Case Western University, $1.3 million is being spent on developing a virtual coaching program that will help doctors more effectively talk to patients. stimulates economic activity, but so does paying someone to repeatedly dig holes and then fill them with dirt for eight hours a day. The most effective and efficient targets of stimulus are ones that do the best job of fulfilling the stated goals of the stimulus— job creation, economic growth, and preventing the collapse of the financial industry. Scientific research simply does not fall under this category. There are simply far too few jobs created per

dollar spent, and we will not reap the benefits of this research until the distant future. Supporters of the stimulus must look only to the lingering weaknesses of the American economy to see the real “successes” of their policies. Dennis Shiraev is a sophomore in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be contacted at des255@cornell.edu

One Small Dose of Freedom Freedom and Free Societies Program a pillar of hope JOSEPH BONICA NATIONAL NEWS EDITOR

W

illiam Buckley is once quoted as saying that the bastions of American liberalism lay in its universities. One does not have to do much research or soulsearching to realize the heavy truth of this statement. While it is truly important to hold a diversity of views in any setting of learning, especially Cornell, we see a severe lack of academic thought dedicated to the issues of freedom, national identity, and the ideas on which these two lay. Thankfully, the Freedom and Free Societies Program at Cornell is designed to address these very issues. According to their website (freedomandfreeesocieties. cornell.edu/events), the purpose of the program is “…to enhance understanding and appreciation for constitutional liberty, by stimulating inquiry into the nature of meaning and freedom.” The society,

directed by history department chair Barry Strauss, sees that the ideas of freedom, though under attack in many societies including are own, are man’s truest hope for happiness, and thus must be defended vigorously in the face of danger. Of course, this defense begins in the university, where the future of American thought studies for the world ahead. In order to complete this purpose, the Freedom and Free Societies Program hosts talks from both professors at Cornell who are in the organization and outside speakers. Among past speakers the society brought in or sponsored were Gordon Chang from Forbes, David Boaz of the Cato Institute, Will Creely of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), and Star Parker. These

CR

...see FAFS, page 6


Campus

6

March 3, 2010

How Not To Achieve Nuclear Disarmament Getting rid of WMD’s - ‘brown-bag’ style WILLIAM WAGNER STAFF WRITER

M

CR

atthew Evangelista, the President White Professor of History and Political Science, spoke at a Peace Studies Program seminar entitled How Not to Achieve Nuclear Disarmament. According to him, nuclear weapons still persist after decades of negotiations and treaties because “people love these things, they love them too much.” That is, incorporation of nuclear weapons into military strategies renders them difficult to give up. He cites nuclear artillery shells, nuclear land mines, and other such initiatives from the 1950’s and 60’s as examples of this infatuation. Today, however, the primary use of nuclear weapons is seen to be deterrence. A deterrent policy would seek to dissuade enemies from attacking the US (or its allies) in the first place by maintaining the ability to launch a retaliatory nuclear strike. Such reasoning, he argues, is the main impediment to achieving nuclear disarmament. Hypocrisy from the Obama administration means the US will not likely reach this ambitious end anytime soon, if at all. In the very same speech in which Obama announced his idealistic goal of achieving nuclear zero, he went on to reaffirm the US commitment to use the threat of nuclear retaliation to defend members of NATO. Evangelista emphasizes the incompatibility of disarmament goals like nuclear zero with the continued and expanded use of nuclear weapons in the US defense strategy. He proposes a possible solution, consisting of two parts: First, he believes nuclear weapons must be recognized as “instruments of mass killing, that ...gain their impact from the threat of killing civilians.” They are “something to be ashamed of.” Second, he proposes that the push for nuclear disarmament has to be a matter of a more widespread popular movement. In other words, hippies. Not only utterly impractical, Evangelista’s plan is based upon a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of these weapons. So effective a means of protecting American lives and global stability as nuclear weapons is hardly “something to be ashamed of.” Nuclear weapons exist because we have a use for them, and eliminating the weapons will by no means escape this fact. Evangelista’s approach focuses on the reasons underlying the efficacy of nuclear weapons in military roles but fails to properly account for the

role itself. He is right to say that eliminating nuclear weapons will be difficult so long as we have a use for them, but this use will not simply disappear with the weapons. They could not have achieved so widespread an existence without cause. Clearly, they serve an important role: the deterrence of enemies from attacking. By virtue of their ability to inflict catastrophic damage, nuclear weapons ensure that no attack against the US or its allies will be worthwhile for the aggressor. Given this threat of retaliatory strike, any such attack is rendered unwinnable, even unthinkable, and the battle is never fought. Thus these “instruments of mass killing” are really saving lives. Nuclear weapons are part of what makes the greatest country on Earth so great: they are an undeniable element of American global hegemony. After all, the ability to destroy the world many times over projects power in a way nothing else can. The loss of nuclear weapons would hamper our ability to affect international politics and share the gifts of freedom and democracy. In a world without nukes, the US may be far worse off. Even if it were possible to eliminate all nuclear weapons, this would only result in massive global instability. Countries that currently rely on US extended nuclear deterrent in lieu of their own military capability would be left defenseless. They would have no choice but to begin arming themselves, and such action could be construed by their neighbors as a prelude to aggression and impetus to strike preemptively. It is not difficult to see how regional conflicts might escalate, potentially drawing in the US or other powers. The achievement of nuclear zero would furthermore precipitate a shift to other kinds of weapons. Nations would look for ways to improve conventional weapons so as to fill the resultant gap in capability. This would undoubtedly result in weapons with destructive capabilities approaching or matching that of nukes but without the attached unpalatability and taboo against their use. Before scampering to call for so drastic a change in the status quo, we should first consider the broader ramifications of such an action. While it may one day be possible to achieve nuclear disarmament, would we really want to?

Get A Free Fortuño Reading! Puerto Rican Gov. Luis Fortuño to speak this Friday!

FAFS ...continued from page 5

speakers discussed diverse issues, from the current state of freedom, to the threat of University speech codes to First Amendment rights, to the negative effects of abortion on the black community. They also sponsored a panel of the future of U.S. Healthcare in November featuring other professors as well as members of the Cornell Republicans and Democrats, as well as a debate on the nature of media bias between the aforementioned organizations in April. As for their own staff the program boasts among its membership, besides Professor Strauss, Professor Barton A Meyers of the History Department, Professor K.W. Taylor of the Asian Studies Department, Professor Martin Shefter of the Government William Wagner is a Freshman in the Department, and Professor A. Sinan College of Arts and Sciences. He can Urnur of the Economics Department. The mission that the organization be reached at wpw27@cornell.edu

has chosen to undertake is both remarkable and commendable, especially for a university organization. This is made even more remarkable when one considers that mostly professors are in charge of the organizations running. Many more exciting speaking events are planned for the future, and we at the Cornell Review encourage attendance to all students, especially those interested in learning about the pillars of freedom upon which this great nation rests in foundation. Also, look forward to the next issue, where we will be interviewing Professor Strauss, the chairman of the organization, to learn about the rationale from the head himself. Joseph Bonica is a junior in the College of Agricultural and Life Sciences. He can be contacted at jmb582@cornell.edu.


Campus

March 3, 2010

7

Rep. Mark Kirk ‘81 (R-IL) Runs For Senate Seat ‘Lefty’ conservative not what we’re looking for RAZA HODA TREASURER

M

ark Kirk is the five-term representative of the fighting 10th district of Illinois, one of the state’s wealthiest areas. Several Fortune 500 companies, including Kraft, are located in the 10th. His contender is the Illinois Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias, a former basketball player in Greece. Mark Kirk currently holds a six point lead But just who is Mark Kirk? A “humble” Republican, he often leans to the left on several important issues, proving the old adage, “You can take the boy out of the leftist Cornell atmosphere, but you can’t take the leftist out of the boy.” The representative is resolutely pro-choice, all for human embryonic stem cell research, against making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime, and against restricting minors to cross state borders to get an abortion. His stances clearly indicate that he is against the right of life to children who live and breathe in uteruses inside warm and caring mothers. Assuming these votes were lapses in judgement, Rep. Kirk still voted against the 2003 Bush-Cheney national energy policy, which, as I understand it, was the 2003 invasion of Iraq to secure more energy. He also voted to throw away $2 billion into Obama’s failed Cash

for Clunkers program. Perhaps he learned that giving $3,500 over Blue Book value for a GM failure was a good idea while he studied at the London School of Economics (that would speak volumes about the deficiencies in the English education system). Another thing he probably learned across the pond is taxation without representation. King Mark Kirk believes that Washington DC should not get an Electoral vote or voting powers in Congress. This is the kind of ruthless and oppressive tyranny that was revolted against that fateful year of 1776. You might be asking yourself just how this man could conceivably consider himself a Republican if he doesn’t care about the lives of our children. There are a few things on which Mark Kirk takes the right and correct stance. He was for making the PATRIOT Act permanent and against shareholders deciding executives’ compensations. He also voted to keep the terrorists in Cuba and not here on the soil of our homeland that they desire to destroy. But that still does not make up for the fact that voted for an immediate reduction of greenhouse gases and against the streamlining of the approval system for forest thinning projects. Middle-of-the-road Mark is a danger to our society and its

From kirkforsenate.com

government. It is the kind of fencesitters like him that jeopardize not only our two-party system, but also aggressively challenge my core values in a manner that I find substantially threatening. While I feel safe that he is seated amongst

434 others, as a US Senator, he could be potentially hazardous, like a gun without the safety on. Raza Hoda is a junior in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be contacted at rsh94@cornell.edu.

New Credit Card Legislation to Impact Students PETER BOURIS STAFF WRITER

T

he Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009 (aka, Credit CARD Act) was recently signed into law by President Obama. The law was designed to oversee the credit card industry. Despite this, the legislation’s enforcement has only recently started. Some of the more notable provisions of the law include prohibiting retroactive rate increases, requiring greater notice for rate increases, and limiting how quickly banks can impose late fees. But most important for our purposes are the new protections afforded to young consumers (college students). While the legislation does not provide any cap for interest rates, it is still being heralded as a proper step in reeling in what many see to be an out of control industry. The law amends the Truth in Lending Act and mandates that anyone under age 21 have a cosigner or proof of ability to

university board members, and also requires a display of student information provided to the card issuers from the university. Also included is the suggestion to provide new students with financial literacy education. It was not made mandatory because the targeted time for the program was orientation week, possibly the worst time to teach students finance. Of course, despite the new protections, it is natural to expect card providers to ratchet up payment and fee rates to compensate for the new regulation. This will likely hit students particularly hard, even if they have a cosigner or have initially displayed the ability to pay, because in their annual reports to the Fed. payments will likely be much higher Perhaps the best part of the law, in the future than those upon which assuming one views it favorably at the ability to pay was determined. all, is that it mandates universities Peter Bouris is a sophomore disclose any sweetheart deals they may with credit card issuers. in the College of Industrial This forces a university to show Labor and Relations. He can be payments from card providers to contacted at prb56@cornell.edu from alwaysupward.com

make payments if they are granted fresh plastic. It also prevents providers from giving incentives to students for opening accounts at campus events and requires that providers explicitly state any special promotional programs oriented toward college students

CR


Thought

8

March 3, 2010

College Republicans Gather at CPAC Convention does not disappoint PETER BOURIS STAFF WRITER

A

group of Cornell Republicans returned from CPAC late last night. While they did not stay until the bitter end to catch keynote speaker Glenn Beck, they were still treated by the likes of Ann Coulter, Newt Gingrich, and many other lesser known conservative leaders. The most worthwhile part of the conference was the wide variety of conservatism. There was not simply Reaga-mania unbridled individualistic conservatism available for consumption– B u r k e a n i s m , Hamiltonianism, and of course neo-conservatism were all on display. While some of the attendees were a bit hypocritical when accusing Obama supporters of being zombies (many of them applauded mindlessly when a speaker quoted Ronald Reagan), it was still nice to be able to speak one’s mind on the issues and not have to worry about a tenured professor eating you. In fact, academic freedom was a key topic this year, which was quite appropriate considering that almost half the attendees were university students. A member of the panel on the topic developed a strong idea to solve the imbalance at universities. It involves the creation of an organization that would cultivate

was actually somewhat unexpected, as it was much less partisan than w a s L i m b a u g h ’s t h e previous year and was laden with criticism of conservatives and Republicans. Beck claimed his intent was to hold conservatives’ feet to the fire and convince them to stay true to their principles when they get back into power. However, many other conservative figures thought the speech to be divisive for the conservative movement. Most notable of these individuals was radio host and former Reagan advisor Mark Levin. Regardless, the conference still served its purpose as an umbrella under which all sorts of conservatives of different demographics and philosophies could interact with one another. Despite the criticism of Beck, the event further enhanced the momentum that conservatives now have entering the 2010 midterm elections. As a first time CPAC attendee, the author was happy that he went and would recommend going at least once in a one’s time as a college student.

Photo by Gage Skidmore

conservative professors. The professor claimed that the best way to solve the problem was simply to have more conservative professors get hired. This is as opposed to whining and complaining, which is what conservatives often do in this context. More incidentally, Ron Paul won the straw poll. This was more the result of his supporters voting for him no matter what and others voting for the slew of other mainline conservative participants. The reason this should not be taken as an endorsement of Paul by the conservative wing of the GOP is because when it was announced that Paul won, over half the crowd booed! But perhaps this itself

should be taken with a grain of salt, as this was the same crowd that seemed to think Don Devine referred to Ronald Reagan as a weak president in his speech (Devine said that Reagan was tough but smart on foreign policy. He was implicitly comparing it to the foreign policy of President Bush, which he noted to be tough but hard-headed). Either way, this year’s CPAC certainly had a greater spirit of optimism than did last year, when Rush Limbaugh had to lift everyone’s spirits with an historic speech after the pounding the Republicans took in 2008. This Peter Bouris is a sophomore year, Glenn Beck did not have to try and fire up an entire convention in the College of Industrial (speech is on Google). His speech Labor and Relations. He can be

Mechanical Patricians and Footed Plebeians Or: my deadly segway adventure BRENDAN PATRICK DEVINE STAFF WRITER

I

CR

t pains me to write this memoir of high speed descents and hairpin turns. My left hand is swollen to the point where my knuckles are hardly discernible. My jeans are torn and stained by the flow of my own blood. My head aches and my lower back is marked with a bruise. Blame that damned two-wheeled catastrophe which relishes every page in the Daily Sun it can get! Everyone on campus has seen William Wagner strolling through the Arts Quad or down Ho Plaza on his Segway, his automated steed. For one evening the glory would all be mine. Upon obtaining William’s permission, I

mounted his horse and took flight! Soaring through the air, one with the Segway, brings a sense of wonderment to the imagination. James Cameron attempted to recreate this exhilaration in Titanic’s “I’m flying” scene, but to no avail. Cutting through the winds, the Segway handled the corners around Olin Library like a Formula One racecar. Then temptation called: a patch of asphalt piled into incline. The Segway took its stance 50 feet away. I leaned into the breeze. More speed. I leaned fully forward. Full speed. The incline! The jump! Touchdown! William and

I took to the Slope. I descended Libe in much the same manner as a triumphant general making his return from war. The Segway was to me as the elephant had been to Hannibal and the horse had been to Napoleon. George Hegel did not see just Bonaparte, but me too, when he said, “I saw the Emperor— that World Soul— riding out to reconnoiter the city; it is truly a wonderful sensation to see such an individual, concentrated here on a single point, astride a single horse, yet reaching across the world and ruling it....” William, inconvenienced to use those bodily extensions evolution

gave us, let it be known that walking made him feel like a “damned plebe.” He lived. T h e power of the Segway intoxicated pedestrian students and beatific wenches on the sidewalks. “Hey Segway Kid!” the acclaimers yelled. No, I was something more than “Segway Kid.” The marriage of genius and technology reached its apogee the moment I passed Flora Rose House. William tended to conversation with his fellow footed plebes whilst I passed their polite exchanges under the full throttle of 2 horse-power. A turn! ...see SEGWAY, page 10


March 3, 2010

Go to the

Humor

9

The Review’s website, http://cornellreviewonline.com/ for more news and a online versions of all the Issues and Articles!

Also read the Cornell Review’s Blog! http://cornellinsider.com/

CR


Thought

10

March 3, 2010

SEGWAY ...continued from page 8

A slide! CLUNK! In one direction flew the Segway, in the opposition direction me. Somewhere between us bitter lovers laid the helmet and the center console plate. My cushy rear-end provided a most accommodating landing point, compliments of Jack’s Grille in Collegetown. “Dear goodness, are you alright?” queried William. “I’m fine,” I retorted. Again, I mounted William’s technical marvel with every intention of absconding with it despite what some might call an “accident.” Where to next? Up to my building and to an evening of solitude, work, and then sleep! I possessed every intention of opening my laptop and typing up a sensible analysis of the Segway, that lovely merger of technology and capitalism. POOF! Off guard and eyes moistened, I hopped off the trusty steed, stumbling to keep myself upright. The poor

Segway though— oh! how it fell without my accompaniment. Two friends of mine saw fit, after spying me in their eyes, to pelt me with a snowball. I again took up my mechanized mustang, kneeling to the ground for some snow and jousting at those rapscallions who dared bring me down a second time. I m i s s e d my mark with my weapon, but like a jouster, I returned for another round. Again I charged them, full capacity to the motor. Cowards!— for they ducked out of the way rather than meet me in combat. I glided past the three men again just before —CRASH! What transpired after that only

daylight and cogency could reveal. My leg burned as if it were a funeral pyre. My back remained more resolutely still than Montgomery at Sicily. My hands sizzled like an open roast at a hot summer’s barbeque. “Not to sound unsympathetic, but I am in no way liable for any of this,” resounded William from across the sidewalk. No William, I cannot blame you, nor t h e s n o w, n o r the Chinese communists who made the machine. I can only assign blame to the true culprit: the two wheeled tyrant. I t had captivated me in its culture of personality. In spite of my studies as a History

student, I failed to learn to lessons of dictators and oppressors who dominate the mind through the press. The Daily Sun and online groups such as Facebook have posted numerous dedications to this contraption’s presence on campus. Now here I sit, hobbled in a corner of my bed, ballooned hand and all, typing out this short memoir for your amusement, but also for your warning. Do not become so easily enthralled with mechanical patricians such as this and forget your natural state as a firm-footed plebeian. Get on your feet and take a walk!

The Republicans have proposed alternatives for every major piece of legislation the Democrats have pushed through, including an alternative to the stimulus bill, proposed by the GOP only eight days after the President took office. Some of the other proposed bills include: The GOP Savings Recovery Act and GOP Budget (April 2009), the GOP American Energy Act (June 2009), the Regulatory Reform Plan (July 2009), the Congressional Transparency Initiative (November 2009), and the No-Cost Jobs Plan (December 2009). H o w e v e r, t h i s has not stopped the majority party from criticizing the GOP for blocking reform, and will not tone down their rhetoric in the coming elections. “Just saying no to everything may be good short-term politics, but it’s not leadership,” said President Obama in the 2010 State of the Union Address, explicitly communicating that the GOP has brought forth no solutions, especially with regard to health care. Yet the simple fact remains that plans have been put forth in nearly every month of 2009, including the health care alternative,

originally proposed in November. “At the start of this legislative year, as you assumed the presidency, Republicans

Brendan Devine is a sophomore in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be contacted at bpd8@cornell.edu

Who Is the Real Party of ‘No’? GOP Health Care Reform plan has been largely ignored MATTHEW TRUESDAIL STAFF WRITER

W

ith the loss of significant support from usually stalwart liberal constituencies, the Democrats will no doubt spend most of 2010 characterizing the Republicans as the “Party of No” to retard the conservative resurgence. The blatant opposition and prohibition of the idea of reform is contemptible to nearly everyone in the political spectrum. However, most people are unaware that there is in fact a GOP-written alternative legislative proposal for every bad bill pushed through Congress by the Democrats. The most significant of these is the Common Sense Health Care Reform and Affordability Act, written and proposed by House Minority Leader John Boehner. The act would reduce insurance premiums for families and businesses,

nee

nej

CR

promote preventative health care, and increase access to insurance for everyone, all without raising any taxes or cutting Medicare. The American people have voiced that they do not want the 2000+ page government-take-over Pelosi bill that was rammed through Congress. The Republican bill

addresses every problem with the current health care system with American solutions in lieu of UK type socialistic programs or the debt-inducing French policies. In fact, according to the CBO, the GOP plan will reduce the deficit by $68 Billion over the next decade. The greatest criticism of the current US health care system is its high costs compared with somewhat low returns and its lack of coverage for lower income individuals. Yes, the Pelosi bill increases the number of individuals covered, but forcefully so. It also fails to reduce premiums for anyone. The CBO estimates that the government run plan would have higher premiums than private insurers under the current system and eliminate over five million jobs. The GOP plan would garner premiums up to $5 thousand dollars cheaper than the cheapest option in the Pelosi bill, and would actually lead to job growth, not loss. Not to mention the fact that taxes would be cut and reforms would initiate immediately with the Republican bill, while the Democrat plan would increases taxes now and postpone reforms for later. The health care bill isn’t the only bill the GOP has proposed.

không

нет няма

non

δεν

pledged that when we disagreed with you on policy matters, we would not simply be the party of ‘opposition,’ but the party of better solutions. Throughout the past year, on matters ranging from jobs/economic recovery and health care to savings, energy, and federal spending, we have honored this pledge. House Republicans formed solutions groups on all of these issues that have developed detailed legislative proposals for your consideration,” said Boehner (R-OH), Cantor (RVA), Pence (R-IN), and Camp (R-MI) in a letter to President Obama on December 9th, 2009. All of this information and more, including summaries and exact transcripts of the bills themselves, is available online at http://www. gop.gov/solutions for all to see. Matt Truesdail is a freshman in the School of Industrial Labor and Relations. He can be contacted at mdt64@cornell.edu.


Nation

March 3, 2010

11

Tending to the Garden...State Chris Christie sets the tone for fiscal reform

C

ANTHONY LONGO STAFF WRITER

hristopher “Chris” Christie, New Jersey’s energetic new governor, has wasted no time in cleaning up his financially broken state. Unlike a certain highly popular elected official who has taken an entire year and has still done nothing, Christie is pushing a real initiative—promised in his campaign—in order to make the Garden State habitable again. Wi t h s o m e o f t h e h i g h e s t property taxes in the USA, the nation’s most densely populated state has an unbearably high cost of living. Skyrocketing property taxes stacked on top of absurd income taxes in addition to an already high cost of living make inhabiting Jersey a financial nightmare. Retirees are moving out in droves into states with lower tax rates—Florida, Delaware, and the Carolinas being the most popular. Seniors, a culturally and financially contributive demographic, many of whom lived in the state for their entire lives, are being forced to abandon ship because they simply cannot afford Jersey. In addition to all of this, Trenton (like many other state capitals) is as corrupt as ever, with government employees reaping huge benefits at the expense of the people and special interest groups and unions controlling state politics. Christie hopes to change all of this. I had the honor of hearing Chris Christie speak at the 2008 New Jersey Boys State Convention, probably close to when he first considered running for Governor. I remember when a commentator half-seriously joked with Christie about being the state’s next governor. Now that moment is here, and Mr. Christie is not letting anyone down. Christie’s actions, as I will enumerate, do not apply only to New Jersey; the solutions being created in Jersey apply to all of the states of the Union, as long as Jersey doesn’t mind taking the lead for a change. Every politician, especially if he is Republican, talks about lowering taxes, but only a few have a coherent plan for doing so, and even fewer actually enact said plan. Christie appears to be doing so, by initiating the following actions: 1. Take on the Teacher’s Union

Teachers are given ridiculously unfair benefits, tenure (making it next to impossible to fire ineffective teachers), and virtually free health care at the expense of the taxpayers. The Teacher’s Union has become too powerful over the years, and it is time for them to be treated like the public sector with competition for their services. Christie is trying to change this outdated and costly culture. 2 . Ta c k l e S p e c i a l Interest Groups Special Interests have become too intertwined with politics, and they are out of control. With local politicians bought out, these groups rally legislation

this from happening ever again. I include police officers in this group. As much as I truly respect police officers (my uncle being a retired Captain from East Orange), we need to look at their early retirement with pension and benefits as a critical and costly issue. Officers are currently able to retire in their mid forties with a pension and benefits, while in any other career people

to

by AL

simultaneously push money into their organizations and burden the citizens of New Jersey. Christie has vowed to tackle these groups—at the expense of his own political popularity— in order to put more money back into the citizens’ pockets. 3. Reduce GovernmentEmployee Benefits Going unmonitored under the past governor Corzine, government employees have been able to reap gold by working overtime, which is available abundantly. This loophole allows workers to collect enormous sums by putting in a few extra hours here and there. Employees can effectively double their salaries using this method (not to mention gain benefits that will last their entire lives), and Christie is beginning to revamp state legislation in order to prevent

officers for another 15 years or so. New Jersey is a beautiful state. Looking beyond the oil refineries and dilapidated cities (which is what most people see of the state as they arrive or depart from Newark Airport)—the Pinelands, Jersey Shore (an MTV reality show of the same name is a disgrace to New Jersey), Cape May, and Vernon (home of Mountain Creek) are some of the great attractions of the state. Jersey has been playing Democratic politics for too long. With a history of i n a c t i v i t y, i t ’s about time t h a t some brave new

soul shakes up the state a little. Christie has put his political reputation on the line in order for his state to have a chance at revitalization. Most politicians would not sacrifice as much as Christie is prepared to. If he succeeds, New Jersey will become a model for the nation, and we can prove that smart, conservative tactics can beat back special interests. This is just the beginning of Christie’s fiscal reformation, as no legislation has been set in stone yet. But New Jersey has been waiting a long time for these types of actions and hard decisions. Obama talks about change. Christie IS change.

have to wait until at least 65 years of age to retire. I reiterate; New Jersey has some of the dangerous cities in the US—Camden, Newark, and the Oranges—but we cannot empty our state’s budget into the wallets of police officers retiring at too young an age. Most of these officers end up starting Anthony Longo is a freshman in the second careers as well, but we College of Arts and Sciences. He can can use their experience as police be contacted at ajl272@cornell.edu

The Review welcomes and encourages letters to the editor. Please send questions, comments, and concerns to thecornell.review@gmail.com.

CR


The Cornell Review

12

March 3, 2010

Wisemen and Fools “When I was in England, I experimented with marijuana a time or two, and I didn’t like it. I didn’t inhale and never tried it again.” Bill Clinton “I inhaled. That was the point.” Barack Obama “Our liberty depends upon the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.” Thomas Jefferson “I think of myself as a recovering politician. I’m on about step 9 ... recovering, boozing it up of course.” Al Gore

“We have first raised a dust and then complain we cannot see.” George Berkeley

of the injustice and that will, if it endures within our society, be the source of more injustice still.” “I’m a Metrosexual.” Supreme Court Howard Dean Justice Antonin Scalia “I wanted to say to Governor Dean, don’t be hard on yourself “Honest people are about hooting and never touchy about hollering. If I had spent the matter of being the money you did and trusted.” Ayn Rand got 18 percent, I’d still be in Iowa hooting and “It is a decision of the hollering.” Supreme Court. So this Al Sharpton is almost as if God has spoken.” Nancy Pelosi “Those who believe that racial preferences can “All the great things are help to ‘even the score’ simple, and many can display, and reinforce, a be expressed in a single manner of thinking about word: freedom, justice, race that was the source honor, duty, mercy,

hope.” Winston Churchill “Global warming... is an emergency. It’ll make world war look like heaven.” John Edwards “We are going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.” Hillary Clinton “Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program.” Milton Friedman “I don’t care what people think. People are stupid.” Charles Barkley

In your heart, you know we’re right.

Join The Review Send us an email at wpl5@cornell.edu or come to GWS 160 on Mondays at 5:00

CR


Cornell Review XXVIII #8