The Cornell Review "We Do Not Apologize."
An Independent Publication Vol. xxxiii, no. II Pg. 3
Christopher Nowacki ‘17 weighs in on the prospect of a Romney 2016 presidential run.
blog.thecornellreview.com
BLOG
The Conservative Voice on Campus Oct. 4 2014
thecornellreview.com
SITE
Pg. 5
Pg. 6-7
Shay Collins ‘18 examines the hypocrisy of getting rich off anti-capitalism.
Ready to vote in November? Learn about key races in the 2014 Midterm Elections.
Conservative Daily Sun Columnist Attacked in Anonymous Flyers Andres Sellitto Staff Writer
A
n anonymous individual or group distributed flyers featuring Cornell Daily Sun columnist Julius Kairey with the text “Daily Sun Columnist and Racist Rape Apologist” across campus some time during the days of Sep. 17 and 18. The Cornell Review has been the only campus publication covering the story, after it was made aware of the existence of flyers on North Campus between freshmen residential halls. A student unassociated with their distribution uploaded pictures of the flyers found on north Campus to the popular Facebook page ‘‘Overheard at Cornell.’’ On the night of Sep. 18, fifteen more flyers were found randomly distributed
throughout the stacks of Olin Library. It was later reported that more flyers were found in the Catherwood Library in Ives Hall. Currently, the Review cannot ascertain who is responsible for the distribution of these flyers. Most likely, the flyers were meant to smear Kairey because of his recent Daily Sun articles. Kairey writes a bi-monthly column entitled “Always Right” where he articulates conservative opinions on various topics. Several national media outlets, including Campus Reform and The College Fix, have published stories about this incident, but the Daily Sun and university administration have been mute.
Continued on page 9
Flyers distributed across campus by unknown individuals.
Feminist Logic: Anti-Rape Nail Polish Part of ‘Rape Culture’ Miranda Hawkins Staff Writer
U
ntil now, nail polish has never been used as a self-defense mechanism. Four students from North Carolina State University may be about to change that. Ankesh Madan, Stephen Grey, Tasso Von Windheim and Tyler ConfreyMaloney have developed a nail polish that changes colors when it comes into contact with common date-rape drugs such as Rohypnol, Xanax and GHB. While wearing the polish, which has
PC Censor
‘Culture of Sensitivity’ Wrong About Redskins
Jake Zhu Staff Writer
T
he United States is impugned once again by the dominant vice in American politics: the culture of sensitivity. On Sep. 12, Democratic Senator Maria Cantwell of Washington state announced the introduction of a bill to deprive of the NFL of its tax-exempt status due to the organization’s refusal to alter the name of the Washington Redskins team. In her crusade to encroach upon American culture with political correctness, Senator Cantwell is supported by many Native American tribes and Native American interest groups, such as the National Congress of American Indians, which believe the
name of the team is offensive to Native Americans. The hypersensitive, politically correct left argues that the term “redskins” is a hateful form of stereotyping that has negative connotations about the Native American ethnicity. This claim, however, is completely unfounded since the “redskins” name is not only inoffensive to the vast majority of Native Americans, but is actually a historical title adopted by the Native Americans themselves. The organizations that argue “redskins” has hateful historical connotations fail to understand the actual historical context in which the title was coined. In a BBC interview, Ives Goddard, the senior linguist at the Smithsonian’s National Museum
Continued on page 8
Victim-blaming is certainly never the right way to respond to sexual assault. The possibility of victimblaming occurring, however, should not preclude women from having access to self-defense methods. Preventative measures should not be considered as putting someone at risk for victimblaming. Instead, they should be considered a self-defense method that empowers women to avoid becoming victims in the first place. Valenti goes on to write, “We should be trying to stop rape, not just
“While women are still threatened by the possibility of sexual assault, why shouldn’t they be encouraged to defend themselves?” been dubbed “Undercover Colors,” a woman can simply slip a finger into her drink and instantly know if it has been drugged. It’s not every day that someone comes up with a simple, practical, and even stylish option for women seeking to defend themselves against date rape. It almost sounds too good to be true. But of course, this genius development has not gone unchallenged. The feminist backlash against Undercover Colors was immediate and widespread. Despite being the most vocal anti-rape advocates, many feminists are arguing that the innovative nail polish actually places the blame on women who get raped, rather than on men who rape. In an article for the Guardian, Jessica Valenti writes, “Prevention tips or products that focus on what women do or wear aren’t just ineffective, they leave room for victimblaming when those steps aren’t taken.”
individually avoid it.” This is a common feminist argument, but does not address the reality of the risk that women face. Writing for the Telegraph, Claire Cohen advises “…we talk to young boys and men, have conversations around consent and teach them not to rape in the first place.” Great, but what do we do about the men who will go on to rape anyway regardless of what Ms Cohen will tell them when they are just little boys? While teaching men not to rape sounds like a great idea in theory, in practice it’s not so easy. We’ve been actively encouraging people not to murder and steal for thousands of years, but those lessons have yet to take effect on the entire population. Most men do not commit rape because they think it’s morally right to do so. The fact that men should not rape women does not change the fact that some do.
Continued on page 8
National
2
Binder Full of Prospect: Does Recent Resurgence of Mitt Romney Make Him a Real 2016 Contender? Christopher Nowacki Staff Writer
I
t’s hard for most to recall a particular Tuesday night any year in the past, but for Mitt Romney, Tuesday, November 6th, 2012 is anything but a vague memory. For many of those who watched the 2014 Netflix original Mitt, one phrase embodies the entirety of the election: “Does anyone have the number for the President?” Whether or not Romney was the more “presidential choice,” his apparent capitulation and acceptance of defeat, as indicated by the aforementioned quote, is why many red ticket voters ridiculed the candidate throughout the election. For example, during the election rightwing pundit Glenn Beck attacked then candidate-Romney for agreeing with the President on matter of foreign policy in the Syrian civil war. All this being said, fast forward almost two years, and we have a national debt above $17 trillion (and counting), another war (or whatever the President calls it) in Iraq, Russia reverting to late20th century foreign policy, a war (or whatever the President calls it) on the Mexican border, and a President who is only a light-year away to amateur status on the PGA tour. It certainly leads to the question “what if?” What if the Mormon who makes $21.6 million a year was president now, and not the guy who ensures
the American people that ISIS, which stands for Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, is “not a Islamic organization”? If you find yourself asking this question frequently or even just recently, you may not be alone. A recent Iowa Caucus poll of Iowa Republicans revealed a stark plurality of support for Governor Romney in a 2016 presidential run at 35% of Republican voters—ranking as the only category in the double digits. The buzz about Romney seems to be a growing trend across states and polls. In fact, in a similar poll conducted in New Hampshire by Suffolk University and the Boston Herald this past June, Romney lead by a plurality against other potential select candidates at around 24% of Republican primary voters. Still, many critics are quick to diffuse any Republican partisan rhetoric on the prospects of another Romney run come 2016. For instance, according to a joint poll conducted be NBC News and the Wall Street Journal, while 30% of polled Americans have positive impressions of the Governor, 39% still hold negative impressions. Assessing these findings with a degree of speculation, it is hard not to conclude that Governor Romney might succumb to the same fate as has already happened once (in a way twice) before. With the progressive student left, which prides itself on spreading propaganda across social media and the blogosphere like “how long would it take Mitt
Photo courtesy of Legal Insurrection. Romney to earn what you make in a year?” calculators and other sophomoric devices attacking the Governor’s success, the future looks bleak for any Republican candidate - especially one who is so tangibly successful. This of course is no two-way street. According to various financial disclosure reports, President Obama himself is now worth up to $7 million (that’s a 438% gain since initially running for office). And even potential Democratic front-runner former Secretary of State, and Benghazi scandal suspect number
one, Hillary Clinton, is said to be worth over $21 million according to a popular online net worth calculator. When is the last time either President Obama or Hillary Clinton was publically disgraced for their ugly greed? Perhaps this is just my integrity whining, but it doesn’t seem too fair that what can make or break candidate these days is bad PR due to “too much success.” This isn’t to discount the other shortcomings of Romney’s candidacy in 2012, namely his lack of ‘ground game’ in Ohio
Continued on page 9
The Political Rise and Fall of Mitt Romney Secures GOP nomination
Elected govenor of Massachusetts Makes 2012 Presidential bid, but faces tough competition
Struggles against Obama in general race
Make 2008 presidential bid, but bows out to John McCain
Becomes possible contender for 2016 Loses 2012 election
U.S. Should Not Send Combat Troops to Ukraine Abnihav Saikia Staff Writer
U
kraine has long been a country divided between East and West, and the ongoing crisis in the Crimea is representative of the vast schisms in political and economic ideals within the war-torn nation. In basic terms, western Ukraine finds itself leaning towards the prosperous European Union (EU), fueled by a powerful class of businessmen and oligarchs while eastern Ukraine maintains strong ties to Russia, with Crimea having a 59% ethnic Russian population. Opinions are also stratified by age: younger generations favor modern Western ideals while those who lived through the Cold War era are often adverse to change and want to stick with the East. Ukraine thus finds itself straddled at the edges of both Russian and Western influence and the eventual conclusion of this situation will have a profound impact on the global economy
and political landscape in Europe—for better or worse. However, it would be entirely too risky and unviable to send American military forces into the beleaguered nation, because of the staunch position of Russian leader Vladimir Putin and because the vast majority of the American public has become wary of
political influence into former countries of the Soviet Union. The grand scheme is the creation of a Eurasian Union, a customs bloc to rival the EU, but really goes beyond just trade and economics. As noted, it’s really about creating a bloc of pro-Russian satellite countries. Ukraine has been the first real test grounds for this strategic restructuring
“Economic action rather than military force is the best way forward because it target Russia’s Achilles heel: a commodity, export-driven economy.” entering a prolonged militarized conflict where no direct American interests are at stake. Russia’s primary goal with the seizure of the Crimea and the support of pro-Russian rebels is to improve its stagnating economy and to re-extend its
of European geopolitics, and the fate of Ukraine will have a huge impact on the effectiveness of this proposed coalition. For instance, Ukraine is a huge part of Russia’s energy trade; 80% of the natural gas that Russia sends into Europe goes through pipelines in Ukraine. Even the smallest actions
conducted by the EU in the past, such as the Eastern Partnership Program, have created major resentment within the political spheres in Russia, which view any sort of European eastern expansion as a direct threat to Russian interests. If the mere proposal of extending Western influence irks Russia, it is not difficult to conclude that putting American boots on the ground to support Ukrainian sovereignty would not go down well with Putin and his cronies. It would be like attacking an anxious but ferocious tiger, and could seriously harm US-Russian political relations which were already strained due to the situation in the Crimea. The conflict could escalate to something more than just a purported civil war or limited guerilla insurgency in eastern Ukraine. This is not to say, however, that the United States and EU should just sit back and let the situation resolve itself. Ukraine cannot win a sustained
Continued on page 8
Campus
The Cornell Review
All Quiet Upon the Hill
Founded 1984 -> Incorporated 1986
Jim Keller Jerome D. Pinn Anthony Santelli, Jr. Ann Coulter Founders
Indifferent or Supportive? Cornell Aministration and Cornell Daily Sun stunningly silent about the Julius Kairey flyers for far too long
Casey Breznick
Casey Breznick Editor-in-Chief
Mark LaPointe
W
Editor-in-Chief
President
Laura Gundersen Managing Editor
Nathaniel Hunter Treasurer
Staff Writers Alexis Cashman Shay Collins Robert Dunbar Miranda Hawkins Christopher Nowacki Roberto Matos John Pedro Andress Sellitto Jake Zhu
Board of Directors
Christopher DeCenzo Joseph E. Gehring Jr. Anthony Santelli Jr.
Faculty Advisor William A. Jacobson
The Cornell Review is an independent biweekly journal published by students of Cornell University for the benefit of students, faculty, administrators, and alumni of the Cornell community. The Cornell Review is a thoughtful review of campus and national politics from a broad conservative perspective. The Cornell Review, an independent student organization located at Cornell University, produced and is responsible for the content of this publication. This publication was not reviewed or approved by, nor does it necessarily express or reflect the policies or opinions of, Cornell University or its designated representatives. The Cornell Review is published by The Ithaca Review, Inc., a non-profit corporation. The opinions stated in The Cornell Review are those of the individual author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the editors or the staff of The Cornell Review. Editorial opinions are those of the responsible editor. The opinions herein are not necessarily those of the board of directors, officers, or staff of The Ithaca Review, Inc. The Cornell Review is distributed free, limited to one issue per person, on campus as well as to local businesses in Ithaca. Additional copies beyond the first free issue are available for $1.00 each. The Cornell Review is a member of the Collegiate Network. The Cornell Review prides itself on letting its writers speak for themselves, and on open discourse. We publish a spectrum of beliefs, and readers should be aware that pieces represent the views of their authors, and not necessarily those of the entire staff. If you have a wellreasoned conservative opinion piece, we hope you will send it to cornellreview@ cornell.edu for consideration. The Cornell Review regularly meets on Tuesdays at 5 pm in 162 Goldwin Smith. E-mail messages should be sent to
cornellreview@cornell.edu
Copyright © 2014 The Ithaca Review Inc. All Rights Reserved.
3
elcome to Cornell, where the expression of contrarian political beliefs in a well-reasoned, thoughtful manner inspires such great indignation and fury that the only appropriate responses are personal attacks and smear campaigns. Such must be the thinking of the anonymous culprits behind the
mighty thrones—completely absolved of privilege and prejudice, no doubt—they dictate who may think and what they may think. My purpose here, however, is not to rip into the flyers’ distributors or defend Kairey, as the front-page piece in this issue already addresses that topic. Really what stuns me the most about this entire incident is the fact that both Cornell’s administration and the Cornell
“[T]hese cowards are actively trying to change Cornell’s precious motto of ‘Any person, any study’ to ‘Certain people, certain studies.’ ” distribution of the Julius Kairey flyers. Hiding behind the small, white flyers that so proudly and boldly lie to all those who happened to see them, these cowards are actively trying to change Cornell’s precious motto of “Any person, any study” to “Certain people, certain studies.” In a free society, there is nothing wrong with different individuals and groups holding different opinions; there is equally nothing wrong with expressing them. But to the distributors of these flyers, there is no correct ideology, no acceptable way of thinking, except for their own. On their high and
Daily Sun have not outright condemned the flyers. The Sun’s chief editors, on the Monday following the Thursday and Friday discovery of the flyers, did publish a paltry Letter from the Editor entitled “Fostering Appropriate Conversation.” The letter makes an oblique reference to the incident, and fails to use key words like “Julius Kairey,” “flyers,” and “condemn.” Evidently the Sun’s three most senior staff members cannot even muster the courage to defend Kairey, one of their own writers, in name. On Monday, Sep. 29, over a week after the flyers were first discovered,
President David Skorton published an editorial entitled “Free Speech and Civility: Are They Incompatible?” basically re-iterating the Sun editors’ vague, gaseous treatment of the situation. Only Daily Sun columnist Deon Thomas wrote a meaningfuly condemnation the flyers, in a piece entitled “The Art of Constructive Criticism.” Despite national news outlets covering the story, there has been no official press statement from any administrator condemning the flyers. Inquiries sent to Cornell Media Relations and the Bias Response Program have gone unanswered. The point here is not that the Daily Sun or Cornell officials have to defend the content of Kairey’s writing, but that they have failed to defend his dignity and his freedom of speech. Weakly saying that students should be civil is a start, but it is not an acceptable end. Essentially, the Sun and the administration have cavpitulated to the students behind the flyers. If only the most influential groups on campus would adhere to the wisdom of Voltaire: “I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it.” Casey Breznick is a sophomore in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. He can be reached at cb628@cornell.edu.
Domestic Terrorism in the U.S.
Laura Gundersen Managing Editor
D
omestic terrorism is here, and almost nobody is talking about it. In June, 19-year old Brendan Tevlin was killed after being shot eight times by 29-year-old Ali Muhammad Brown, who randomly ambushed the teen when he was driving alone in his car. Brown, a confessed terrorist, has also admitted to three other murders in Washington State. The murders, according to Brown, were carried out as retribution against the U.S. for lives lost in the Islamic world. According to local news station Q13 Fox, Brown stated, “My mission is vengeance... Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, all these places where innocent lives are being taken every single day… All these lives are taken every single day by America, by this government. So a life for a life.” More recently in late September, 30-year-old Alton Nolen brutally beheaded 54-year-old Colleen Hufford in the food processing plant where he worked, and stabbed 43-year-old Traci Johnson after being fired. The victims seem to have been randomly targeted, and had not Nolen been shot and injured he probably would have gone on to murder more. Investigating police asked the FBI to assist in the investigation due to the similar nature of the attack to recent
acts of terror by ISIS, specifically their videotaped beheadings of American journalists James Foley and Steven Sotloff, as well as British aid worker David Haines. According to the Associated Press, Nolen had been trying to convert several employees to Islam. He also reportedly had several pictures of behadings on his Facebook page. The spread of jihad has infected not only Americans, but apparently has reached Europeans as well. According to New York Daily News, 16-yearold Samra Kesinovic and 15-year-old Sabina Selimovic have fled their homes in Vienna to join ISIS. The girls posted photos of themselves online wearing burkas standing next to terrorists holding Kalashnikov rifles, causing authorities to fear that they will recruit more impressionable teens. These are only some examples of the spread of radical Islam so close to home. This strange attraction to groups like ISIS--which holds girls as sex slaves, forcibly converts its prisoners to Islam, and beheads children--is beyond comprehension. Something that seems so evil is apparently now somehow desirable and has managed to become normalized in a gruesome and twisted way. We are so afraid to talk about Islamic terrorism in a negative light for fear of sounding offensive that the discussion
of domestic terrorism has been silenced. Compare the media’s coverage of the Michael Brown shooting, for example, and the murder of Brendan Tevlin. Compare also the public’s and the Obama administration’s reactions to the events. The shooting of Michael Brown by police created mass outrage, violent protests, and unrest that continues today. Attorney General Eric Holder and three White House officials attended Brown’s funeral. For Brendan Tevlin, whose family held a quiet and peaceful candlelight vigil, the White House looked the other way, and the country remained oblivious of the gruesome tragedy and undisputed act of terror that occurred in New Jersey. We as a nation have become dangerously reluctant to criticize radical Islamic terrorism. The fear instilled in Americans of saying something that may be offensive has prevented the necessary conversations from happening, in effect normalizing terrorism in the most dangerous manner. The rise of domestic terror is real, and even worse, is slipping away quietly into history ignored and unnoticed. Laura Gundersen is a sophomore in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. She can be reached at lcg63@ cornell.edu.
The Review encourages letters to the editor. Long, gaseous letters that seem to go on forever are best suited for publication in the Cornell Daily Sun. The Review requests that all letters to the editor be limited to 350 words. Please send all questions, comments, and concerns to cornellreview@cornell.edu.
Campus
4
University Should Do Conservatives vs. Away with Mandatory Libertarians Tapestry Presentation John Predro Staff Writer
O
ver the course of the last six years, President Obama’s time in office has seen a strengthening of unity between two related yet sometimes competing tenets of thought associated with the political right: conservatism and libertarianism. Libertarianism is usually described as the combination of fiscal conservatism, social liberalism, and non-interventionism. Whereas conservatism can be divided into fiscal or social conservatism, libertarianism is entirely concentrated on expanding liberty to the fullest extent possible. For example, the typical conservative is opposed to abortion on moral grounds, but libertarians consider it a matter of individual freedom and are more likely to support legalization. Although differences exist— most notably within the realms of social issues and foreign policy—these
as a Republican—all being quixotic quests that excited his base but earned him ridicule from mainstream Republicans. One issue that tends to split libertarian candidates is whether they should run as Republicans or Libertarians (or Independents). Also, libertarian-leaning voters often debate the merits of political victory or ideological pureness. Given that Paul is the most prominent proponent of libertarianism on the national stage today, the latter strategy of running as a Republican for greater appeal and support base appears to produce more influential results, though it requires compromise to reach such a position. As the leading libertarian on the national stage, Senator Paul has shown himself to be much more pragmatic and politically adept than his father at gaining widespread acceptance of libertarian ideals. In March 2013, Paul emerged as a national hero in the aftermath of his
“This influx of new thinking has and will continue to help the GOP reclaim the mantle of the ‘party of ideas’...” two political philosophies share the fundamental concern for the freedom of the individual in relation to a limited government. In the past few years, Senator Rand Paul has taken it upon himself to mediate and bridge the gap between mainstream conservative thought and libertarianism. Elected to the Senate just in 2010, Paul is now often mentioned, along with numerous other Republicans, as a serious presidential contender come 2016. This is a significant mark of the developing mutual influence of libertarianism and conservatism on American right-wing politics, which for now the Republican Party dominates. Rand’s father, Congressman Ron Paul, thrice campaigned for the presidency— once on the libertarian ticket and twice
thirteen hour filibuster holding up the nomination of current CIA Director John Brennan. Motivated by outrage against the Obama Administration’s drone policies, especially the secretive nature of their legal justification and the then-unanswered question of whether American citizens on U.S. soil could be targeted by drones, Paul earned praise from across the political spectrum, including liberals like Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon. Such a response illustrates the uniqueness of libertarianism, in that it appeals to many who would never have given traditional conservatism a second thought. The filibuster also served as an exemplary highlight of libertarianism’s constitutional focus, as Paul’s filibuster
Robert Dunbar Staff Writer
F
or freshmen, “O-Week” was a brief, memorable period of time that consisted of meeting new people, attending fun social events, getting acclimated to Cornell, and attending mandatory presentations deemed “graduation requirements.” One of these mandatory presentations was Tapestry of Possibilites, Cornell’s own theater group Ordinary People, who describes themselves as a “social justice and peer education theater troupe,” sponsors and performs in Tapestry, which seeks to educate students about diversity awareness and acceptance. However, Tapestry is so charged with progressive subject material that it is no stretch to say that it is designed to push a progressive, multicultural agenda that goes beyond simple diversity awareness. The performance came off most appalling with a scene that depicts a hall meeting between students and their Residential Advisor (RA). When a girl confesses to being “gay” as the rumors about her suggest, everyone else on her floor, including her RA, comes out as being homosexual, bisexual, or pansexual. (Yes, apparently pansexuality is a thing now, where a person could love anyone despite gender and sexual orientation.) Everyone, that is, except for one boy, who is then badgered to confess what his sexual orientation is. The boy is initially hesitant but finally admits that he is a heterosexual. The others immediately ostracize him, insisting he must have “some bi in him” and that he “shouldn’t tell [students’]
dads when they come to visit for parents’ weekend.” Of course, the heterosexual being ostracized by his gay counterparts is supposed to satirize the type of scrutiny that gay students often feel. Fine, except that later in the scene the narrator encourages the hetero student to explore the wide spectrum of sexuality and to not limit his options. The narrator advises the student to experiment with his body, especially with his anus. It is absurd to think that a school recently named the 15th best university in the nation has a graduation requirement that encourages students to explore their “butt hole”—actual quote. First and foremost, it is not the university’s job to tell students what they should do with their bodies and sexualities. Second, it is disturbing to think that Cornell should even take a stance in encouraging rampant sexuality. The irony is this: while Tapestry discourages students from labeling and identifying individuals based on their sexuality, it introduces the concept of a spectrum of sexuality, thus implying a system of categorization and labeling. So while the LGBT movement tries to beat down sexuality as a societal construct, its mere existence perpetuates sexuality in an extremely ostentatious way. Another noteworthy sequence of scenes involves a young white girl and her Hispanic friend, who asks the other to join a minority club with her; the white girl politely declines, explaining she would not belong. Later the white girl attends one of the minority club
Continued on page 10
Continued on page 10
Conservatives • Strong, albeit small, government • Law and order • Traditional values, largely anti-marijuana legalization, antiabortion • Strong military, foreign intervention
Libertarians • Free markets • Small government • Lower taxes • Individual responsibility
• Maximum individual liberty • Limited or no foreign military intervention • Limited or no social welfare programs • Mostly progay marriage, pro-marijuana legalization
National
5
Hyper Hypocrisy: Getting Rich Off Anti-Capitalism Examining the peculiar correlation between bashing capitalism and benefitting highly from it Shay Collins Staff Writer
D
uring the summer, documentarian and world-renowned Hollywood liberal Michael Moore finalized his divorce from Kathy Glynn, his wife of 22 years. Files released from the divorce proceedings reveal facts about Moore’s personal life that directly contradict his anti-capitalist, anti-establishment underdog persona. For all of his anti-capitalist drumbeating, Moore has done phenomenally well in the American capitalist system: a net worth of $50 million, a $2 million lakefront property, a large Manhattan condominium, and seven other properties. Moore loves to portray himself as a fellow work-a-day American, often stressing his humble upbringing in post-industrial Flint, Michigan. The reality is that Moore has amassed his great personal wealth by directing and starring in some of the most successful political documentaries of all time, such as Bowling for Columbine and Fahrenheit 9/11. Most recently and most ironically, Moore criticized the United States’ capitalist system in his 2009 film Capitalism: A Love Story, which closed with the millionaire working class hero stating, “Capitalism is an evil, and you cannot regulate evil.” Yet, Moore has achieved great wealth in the capitalist system due to the commercial success of his films and the wise Wall Street investments. Following Warner Bros. Entertainment’s $3 million acquisition of Roger & Me, Moore wrote on his blog, “I made the decision that I would never buy a share of stock (I didn’t understand the casino known as the New York Stock Exchange and I did not believe in investing in a system that I did not agree with).” Peter Schweizer, author of Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in
Liberal Hypocrisy, however, revealed that Moore did the exact opposite and purchased stocks in multiple large corporations, some of which Moore has criticized in interviews and his movies. During an interview with Joe Scarborough of MSNBC, Schweizer stated that, based off Moore’s Schedule D tax forms, at one point Moore owned, “2,000 shares of Boeing, nearly 1,000 shares of Sonoco, more than 4,000 shares of Best Foods, more than 3,000 shares of Eli Lilly, more than 8,000 shares of Bank One, and more than 2,000 shares of Halliburton.” Just to emphasize the importance of the last statement: the director of Fahrenheit 9/11, a film that criticized
“Apparently, the best strategy for upending a ‘system of violence’ includes not only operating within but also investing money in that very system. ” Halliburton’s role in the Iraq War, invested in Halliburton. The hypocrisy doesn’t end there. Moore made a film called Sicko that criticizes the United States health care system and praises that of Cuba, but he also invested in Tenet Healthcare, Pfizer, and other healthcare corporations. Moore goes to great lengths to conceal his financial success from the general public, and often tries drawing arbitrary distinctions between himself and other multi-millionaires. During a 2011 interview with Piers Morgan, Moore stated, “I spend my time, my energy, my money on trying to up-end this system that I think is a system of violence, it’s a system that’s unfair to the average working person.” Apparently, the best strategy for upending a “system of violence”
Michael Moore’s Net Worth:
$50,000,000
“Capitalism is an organized system to guarantee that greed becomes the primary force of our economic system and allows the few at the very top to get very wealthy...”
includes not only operating within but also investing money in that very system. Moore quickly points to inequalities in the United States society and blames capitalism, ignoring that the capitalist system allows him to easily purchase products and machines with which to create his films. The capitalist system allows Moore to employ workers who have chosen to specialize in filmmaking. The capitalist system enables Moore to enter into contracts with production and distribution companies, many of which raise capital through the stock market. Yet Moore’s narrates a capitalism of exploitative corporations, soul-less investments, and an oppressed working class.
Why then does Moore, a beneficiary of the free market, openly criticize and passionately loathe capitalism? Perhaps he feels guilty about living in such extravagance and thus seeks to offset his success by attacking the capitalist system. Even while driving around in hybrid Cadillac Escalades and buying up real estate, Moore touts his worn-in baseball cap and shaggy locks, attempting to minimize the visibility of his wealth. Alternatively, maybe Moore has grown to love the advantages of living in the uppermost class and wants to continue to maximize his fortune. Why deviate from a successful formula? Thus, as a new, controversial topic catches the populace’s attention, Moore spins out a documentary to match, be it about capitalism, health care, or gun culture.
His record of producing polarizing, fervent films allows him to remain in the public consciousness, a limelight away from which he certainly does not seem to shy. The great irony here is that Moore is in fact one the greatest capitalists of our time. He found an untapped market, seized it, innovated it, and reaped enormous financial returns, no different from John D. Rockefeller or Steve Jobs. His anti-capitalist narrative in the end only serves to fatten his bank account, and he knows it. Moore’s fault lies not in the fact that his films achieved commercial success, causing him to earn a personal fortune. In fact, Moore’s ascent from the working to the upper class due to his hard work represents the ideal functioning of a meritocratic free market. Rather, Moore errs by crafting extremely biased, opportunistic films that pander to anti-establishment sentiments and fail to present a complete picture of the subject matter. How do working-class citizens in Forest Home, Michigan, the site of Moore’s $2 million lakefront property, view him? “He criticizes capitalism, but capitalism made him rich. Why he decided to live in this conservative area, I’ll never know,” said resident Gary Tracy to The Detroit News. The moral of Moore’s story does not regard any particular economic policy or system, but rather the importance of vigilantly evaluating sources of critical media. Although a talented filmmaker, Moore displays a desire to say anything to capture the public’s attention and sell tickets, even while committing the exact opposite of what he preaches. Shay Collins is a freshman in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be reached at smc377@cornell.edu.
Average American Net Worth:
Median American Net Worth:
$301,000
$45,000
Domestic Box Office Grosses of Moore’s 5 Most Successful Documentaries* $156,431,100
$29,918,400
$29,070,000 $15,384,000
Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004)
Bowling for Columbine (2002)
Sicko (2007)
Capitalism: A Love Story (2009)
$12,942,700 Roger & Me (1989) *Adjusted for inflation
“Capitalism means that a few people will do very well, and the rest will serve the few.” Data obtained from CNN Money, Newsmax, and Box Office Mojo.
National
6
2014 Midterm Elections:
Analysis and Review
Written and Compiled by Casey Breznick
W
e know where it stands today: 45 Republicans, 53 Democrats, and 2 Independents. That, of course, is the current political party makeup of the Senate. The House of Representatives currently has a sizeable Republican majority, and nearly every media organization, political pundit, Washington insider, and polling agency reports that it will remain that way after the midterm elections. However, come Tuesday, November 4 all eyes will be on the fate of the Senate. The GOP needs a net gain of six seats in order to take a majority; anything less than five would secure continued Democratic dominancy, as the two current Independents are basically Democrats. With the six-seat net gain, Majority Leader Harry Reid loses his gavel, and the Obama Administration is all but over, except for whatever the President does based on executive whimsy. The Cornell Review is not a Republican newspaper, and it does not blindly support candidates just because they’re running as “R” as opposed to “D.” However, it seems that in most cases the Republicans running for Senate office are genuine conservatives, and some even have libertarian sympathies. Clearly, any result would be desirable to the current Senate: According to Politico Majority Leader Reid has mentioned the Koch brothers 250 times in 22 separate floor speeches. erfect Purple. That’s how Politico A year ago, most would have said that economics issues, like the minimum wage debate and taxes, describes Colorado, the rurally would have dominated this election. But the events of the summer oriented Senate races more towards conservative, but urban pot-smoking Rocky foreign policy, as discussion of ISIS and military action in Iraq and Syria have crept up from a niche Mountain state. Challenging incumbent issue into a campaign-defining one. Mark Udall is Republican Cory Gardner, In reponse, Democrats will pound hard on “women’s issues”--treating women like some sort who polls show is gaining considerable of different species. They will also try to trick voters into thinking Republicans and conservatives ground. Udall is a rank-and-file Democrat, who don’t want people paying for other people’s healthcare are somehow anti-women. These same having voted for Obamacare, against tax cuts, for increased gun control, and against Democrats will have to answer to a disastrous rollout of Obamacare, an economic recovery that only the Keystone pipeline. Gardner is a pretty the stock market feels, and a crumbling foreign policy. mainstream Republican, but that’s what In the end, if Republicans do take back the Senate it will be cause to rejoice, but if they don’t then it wins in Colorado. is all the more reason to prepare for 2016.
P
Republicans Will Emphasize... king • Lin crats Demo r popula with un nt Preside olicy eign p • For rous ast • Dis acare Obam rollout the os at • Cha r borde g cuts, n i d n e • Sp g taxes n i r e w lo
Democrats Will Emphasize... king • Lin licans Repub r popula with un ss Congre r on • “Wa n” Wome nesty • Am g federal sin e • Rai um wag minim loss of ssing • Stre would Senate bama O cripple y nc preside
C
omprising most of urban San Diego and several suburbs, California’s 52nd district is split nearly evenly between Republicans and Democrats. Challenging freshman incumbent Democrat Scott Peters is “New Generation Republican” Carl DeMaio, the first openly gay Republican to run for federal office. While Peters regularly tries to link DeMaio with the Tea Party, DeMaio is branching out to traditionally non-Republican groups like AsianAmericans and young people and touts his “Fix Congress First” plan, a bill that would limit Congressional perks.
A
n Alaska senator wh That’s Mark Begich, is currently failing to keep challenger Dan Sullivan. S tenuous primary competitio slated to oust Begich, who w gas emissions but not a “carb
The GOP needs a net gain of s Wes
Vote!
L
Incumbent Democrat: 32
National
7
Key House & Senate Races I
thaca is the locus of liberalism within the mostly conservative 23rd district of New York. Challenging Republican Tom Reed is Martha Robertson ’75, who is a cookie-cutter liberal if you had ever seen one. If elected, Robertson says her first vote in Congress would be for Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House. Need we say more? Just in case, know that Robertson is notorious for hiding from the media, supports Obamacare, and opposes free trade.
T
aking on Democratic Senator Jeanne Shaheen is former Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown, who visited campus last spring for a Cornell College Republicans event. Brown is a moderate conservative, but in liberal New England that’s the type of conservative that will win elections. Brown is currently trailing Shaheen by a few too many points and needs to get Independents on his side. Promises of “nonpartisanship” as he talked about at Cornell might convince enough New Hampshire voters to go with Brown.
Map courtesy of The Politc
ho supports capand-trade? , a junior Democratic senator who hold of his seat against Republican Sullivan emerged victorious from a on, but now seems to be increasingly wants to set a “price” for greenhouse bon tax.” Sure.
R
epublican Joni Ernst and Democrat Bruce Baley are vying for an open Senate seat. Currently, Ernst has a small lead over Baley, who infamously complained that the House gym should have been kept open during the government shutdown last year. Ernst, a lieutenant colonel in the Iowa National Guard, has racked up endorsements from Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin, indicative of her ability to ally all wings of the GOP.
N
orth Carolina is a purple state. Incumbent Democratic Senator Kay Hagan holds a slight lead over Republican challenger Thom Tillis, but her seat might just be one of the most vulnerable ones up for re-election. Hagan offers nothing new except more big government solutions to about every problem imaginable. Tillis has the backing of major GOP figures from establishmentarians like Jeb Bush to libertarian stalwarts like Rand Paul.
six seats to obtain a majority in the Senate. Most analysts agree three are nearly guaranteed: South Dakota, st Virginia, and Montana. What other states might contribute to a GOP takeover?
Likely Republican: 4
Likely Democrat: 4 Safe Democrat: 7
Toss Up: 9
Safe Republican: 12
Incumbent Republican: 30
Note: 2 current senators not up for re-election are Independents
8
National
Redskins: Facts and Feelings Obscured Continued from front page
of Natural History, stated that Natives Americans created the term simply to differentiate themselves from the white Europeans with whom they interacted. Goddard bluntly asserts that “redskin” is “[was] used by [Native Americans] and the idea that it would be derogatory doesn’t make any sense.” Furthermore, team owner Dan Snyder has stated that the “redskins” name was adopted in the 1930s to honor the Native American people and several Native American football players of the time, rather than patronize them, as many leftists assume. Given these historical truths, it is inconceivable as to how the name can be misconstrued as a defamatory stereotype rather than the honorary tribute it originally was and remains today. In spite of what you might think, neither a majority of Americans nor a majority of Native Americans have a problem with the “redskins” name. A recent ESPN poll found that 71% of Americans are against changing the name. In the Native American community, the acceptance for the name is even higher: a 2004 national survey revealed that 90% of Native Americans were not offended by the name. Thus, the anti-”redskins” campaigns are catering to a small minority of Native Americans and hyper-sentive liberal progressive that seeks to misrepresent the views of the majority by acting as the un-appointed head spokesperson. So if there is no racist historical background to “redskins” and public opinion is generally accepting of the name, then what is fueling the outrage? To resolve this dilemma, one must realize that the Redskins controversy is part of a larger problem that must be addressed—the oversensitive liberal culture of America. In modern society, the “political correctnes police”--the PC police-respond to the concerns of individuals who find nearly everything to be offensive. These individuals seek a society where everyone must carefully
examine everything that is said because there is no telling who one might verbally offend. John Banzhaf, an activist law professor at The George Washington University, is a prime example of the PC police: he petitioned the FCC to ban the on air use of the word “redskins” on the basis that it “amounts to obscenity akin to profanity and a hate crime.” However, even if the “redskins” term is historically offensive, there is still no reason to legally cripple the NFL, or any other private organization, just to appease the feelings of a select few vocally-aggressive individuals. For if such a name is forced to be legally changed simply because it hurts some people’s feelings, it would represent a significant abandonment of the free speech rights granted to all Americans. There is no telling what else the leftwingers might censor merely on the basis of “political incorrectness.” The Redskins controversy is only one example of the expansive culture war that the progressives have waged on the rest of the nation, a war where victory for them heralds severe restraints on First Amendment rights. Unfortunately, it is reasonable to expect that political correctness will only continue to expand over the next few decades. Therefore, it is the responsibility of an informed American citizen and voter to disentangle him or herself from the sentiments and emotions that encompass important issues and formulate an opinion based purely on logic and reason. For if Americans neglectfully allow this trend to continue, the fundamental liberal axiom—‘your rights end where my feelings begin’—will ring true and replace the free-flowing diversity of thought in traditional American vernacular with the tyrannical groupthink that camouflages reality to appease sensitivity.
Four North Carolina State Univeristy students invented Undercover Colors, a nail polish that changes color when exposed to date rape drugs. Photo courtesy of UnderCover Colors Facebook page.
Nail Polish ‘Undercover Colors’ Is Under Attack Continued from front page According to a 2012 National Crime Victimization Survey, there are an average of 237,868 rape victims per year. Clearly, rapists are out there, and they’re not convinced by feminist arguments. While women are still threatened by the possibility of sexual assault, why shouldn’t they be encouraged to defend themselves? In an April Facebook post, the students behind Undercover Colors stated, “Our goal is to invent technologies that empower women to protect themselves from this heinous and quietly pervasive crime.” The key word there is “empower.” Undercover Colors could give women the power both to protect themselves and to identify potential predators.
In the same post, the students wrote, “Through this nail polish and similar technologies, we hope to make potential perpetrators afraid to spike a woman’s drink because there’s now a risk that they can get caught.” By making date rape drugs risky for men to use, Undercover Colors may accomplish more than just sparing many women from being victims of rape, a worthy goal in itself. This tool may lead to the exact result feminists are clamoring for: preventing men from raping in the first place. Miranda Hawkins is a freshman in the College of Arts and Sciences. She can be reached at meh339@cornell.edu.
Jake Zhu is a freshman in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be reached at jjz43@cornell.edu.
No Need, No Desire to Fight Russia in Ukraine Continued from Page 2 war against steadily escalating Russian military action. Economic action rather than military force is the best way forward because it target Russia’s Achilles heel: a commodity, exportdriven economy. Economic sanctions have already proven to be quite effective in curbing Russian economic growth. The United States and a coalition of other countries have imposed sanctions on a multitude of Russian and Ukrainian officials and businesses said to be linked to the seizure of Crimea and the ongoing crisis in eastern Ukraine. Travel bans and the freezing of assets were followed by more severe sanctions; several Russian banks were blocked from U.S. and European capital markets. Consequently, the Russian finance, energy, and defense industries have been hit hard. According to Robert
Kahn, an economist for the Council on Foreign Relations, there has been a $75 billion capital flight in this year alone. Future measures can target the prohibition of sale to Russian businesses or government energy equipment and technology, and an arms embargo. Russia suffered from a noticeable slowdown in economic growth and investment in the first quarter of 2014, and the rapid impact of these sanctions suggests that their continuation will have a serious dent on the Russian economy in the short-term and longterm. Therefore, such sanctions must be continued in order to discourage the Russians’ belligerent behavior against Ukraine. While there is an argument to be made for direct American military involvement, we live in a country where the government is beholden to the
Much of the fighting that occured over the summer took place in fareastern Ukraine near the Russian border. Photo Courtesy of GeoCurrents. people’s will. And the people do not want to fight. Americans have become wary of sending troops over to solve the rest of the world’s problems, especially after the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in which 6,000 troops made the ultimate sacrifice and $1.3 trillion dollars were spent. Whether the latest crisis happens in Ukraine, Syria or Gaza, the American public is unwilling to contribute military forces for conflicts which do not pose a direct threat to American interests. In short, the public support that Moscow could garner for a prolonged conflict in Ukraine would dwarf the commitment and support that US leaders could garner, simply because
the public is not ready to commit to another war or conflict so soon after the debacles in the Middle East. Ukraine’s fight to defend its national identity is admirable and the struggles of the Ukrainian people against the might of the Russians rightly elicit sympathy and support, but there simply aren’t enough benefits in sending our troops to the region. It would merely exacerbate an already volatile situation and might place the US at the forefront of a conflict it really doesn’t need to join. Abhinav Saikia is a sophomore in the College of Engineering. He can be reached at as2586@cornell.edu.
9
Campus
NY23 Democratic Candidate Martha Robertson on Media Lockdown, Except When Media is Friendly
During Cornell speech, only Daily Sun videographer who is a Robertson campaign intern was allowed to video Casey Breznick Editor-in-Chief
E
xcept when the media covering her is friendly, Democratic Candidate for New York’s 23rd district Martha Robertson ‘75 operates on a media lockdown. On Sep. 18, Robertson visited Cornell campus to give a fifteen minute speech at a Cornell Democrats-sponsored event. Robertson spoke mostly biography and her major campaign talking points to an audience of about 40 students. The talking points were the usual ones: lamenting about the “war on women,” attacking free trade, and calling for bigger government in just about every way possible. Robertson is challenging incumbent Republican Tom Reed. Just before the event began, the Cornell Democrats E-Board specifically forbade The Cornell Review reporters from recording audio and video. According to Cornell Democrats Vice
President Jared Ham, only pictures were permitted. Several days after the event, a video surfaced on the Daily Sun’s website featuring about two minutes of Robertson’s speech. The videographer listed on the website was Beifan “Kiki” Li ‘17, who is also an intern for the Robertson campaign. Apparently, the Daily Sun is using its staffers’ insider political connections to gain exlcusive media access to otherwise restricted events. While all is fair in the battle of best and exclusive content among publications, the real problem here is with the Robertson campaign itself. Robertson is only comfortable with friendly media and friendly reporters covering her. It is rather odd, though, for a political candidate to think he or she can run for federal office without critical media coverage. Cornell Democrats President Eric Pesner and Vice President Jared Ham
Screenshot from Cornell Daily Sun video from Martha Robertson’s Sep. 18 speech. Photo Courtesy of Legal Insurrection. did not respond to multiple inquiries asking for comment on official university policy regarding media restrictions at public events.
Casey Breznick is a sophomore in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. He can be reached at cb628@cornell.edu.
Anonymous Flyers: Smear Campaigns, Personal Attacks Define Many Leftist Students on Campus Continued from front page
I do not even know where to start trying to explain how wrong this attack is in every aspect imaginable. My history major peers and others well-versed in politics surely know about the era when politicians and people who stood up against dictatorship in Communist China during the Cultural Revolution were publicly humiliated, their pictures—or the people involved themselves—exposed to the crowd, accompanied by denigrating and objectifying messages. Stalin was also known for using similar techniques on disloyal members of the party, ultimately leading to their execution, or “purge.” It does feel like there is an interesting correlation between totalitarianism and the need to purge dissenting opinions from society. Perhaps something similar is happening here? It seems so: the groups fighting for a Communist/Palestinian/Flower-loving/ Pansexual/Occupy/Etc. society have gone all the way to publicly shame a fellow student in order to censor him and establish their view as the only version of facts allowed to be discussed on campus. Every time Kairey publishes his thoughts on controversial issues like racism or rape culture, his articles receive most of the comments on the Sun’s website, mostly as a backlash for expressing conservative views on Cornell’s biggest newspaper. Moreover, most of these comments do not even come in the form of criticism, but mainly as personal attacks, such as “Not only has Cornell failed you, Julius, by allowing you as a student to squeak by with no evidence of ability to think critically or analyze something intelligently, but they are failing the rest of their students and
whoever is reading the Daily Sun by publishing a piece like this” in response to his article “Islamophobia and Racism” published early September. This situation has reached a point in which we must ask ourselves: Why has this gone so far? What are these people’s intentions? Do they pretend to harass this man, and by extension the rest of the campus, all the way self-censorship? Why has Cornell not taken any measures to bring back order yet? I can say that, as a writer in a newspaper that is constantly signaled and discriminated for its views, I support Kairey because I understand how difficult it is to express these view on such a beacon of liberalism like Cornell. And yet, most people keep siding with cowardly groups who shelter behind their shared resentment and dirty pamphlets. Kairey is of recent the single-most attacked person on campus, yet the Cornell Review is the only newspaper covering a situation of public harassment that should concern the entire Cornell community, but that many people choose to ignore because of who is being attacked. What is really shameful is the fact that those people involved in political life on campus have not risen to defend someone who is being oppressed. Julius Kairey spoke up, and now we are speaking up for him. I can only say one thing: freedom of speech on campus is in great danger if it is left for fringe groups to control. Nevertheless, I still trust that most of Cornell, that silent majority, will speak up when they will be forced to defend that most sacred freedom. Andres Sellitto is a sophomore in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be reached at as2747@cornell.edu.
Old Problems and Stiff Primary Challenge Serious Impediments to 2016 Romney Run
Continued from Page 2
and other swing states, but it certainly raises another question about reputational equity based on partisanship. As Governor Romney continues to dismiss the notion more and more, he is further opening himself up to attacks from both the right and left on the consistency of his partisanship and platform. Many recall the “health care flip-flop” allegations brought against Romney leading up to the election. Many ridiculed him for his critical views of Obamacare while not even commenting on his contributions to a more socialized healthcare system in Massachusetts. Not to capitulate to the leftist media on this one, but I have to agree to a certain extent. While Governor Romney remains one of the most humble, good-hearted, truest candidates to come out of recent history, he doesn’t quite fit the GOP bill. In a valiant effort to reconfigure Congress in the 2010 mid-term elections (and even managing to take back the House), the Republican Party won many elections on the sole basis of pledging to overturn Obamacare and to stop further bureaucratic atrocities. But how does the GOP attempt to add to the momentum in 2012? Run the “flipflopper” who invented Obamacare. It’s a lost cause trying to fully understand what happened in November almost two years past. Is it coincidental that notorious radical leftist billionaire George
Soros owned a good deal of 2012 ballot machines in Ohio? Or that in certain precincts (over 100) Obama won over 99.9% of the popular vote? This is another debate for another time. But what is evident is that with changing demographics come changing trends in voter outcomes. The feat of electing an African American to the office of president is an indicator of these changing voter outcomes. What will need to happen come 2016 (or whenever the party is ready) is significant party realignment by the GOP. The fact that in Iowa, although Romney leads outright, there is still significant percentage awarded to Rand Paul, an arguable “libertarian conservative,” speaks to this cultural and demographic shift. As rightleaning youth grow up with more socially left-leaning values, it is hard for me to believe that any young people come 2016 will be looking to vote for a Jeb Bush, a Rick Santorum, or a Mitt Romney. Time will tell who is to be the GOP front-runner in the next presidential election. For the time being, what will undoubtedly affect party chances in 2016, are midterm outcomes this November. Let’s just hope ACORN doesn’t register the rest of the Disney clan this time (if you catch my drift). Christopher Nowacki is a sophomore in the College of Human Ecology. He can be reached at cmn63@cornell.edu.
10
Campus
The Forty-Four Percent Not Proud to be American A critical look at where the country stands today, where it has been, and where it needs to go Alexis Cashman Staff Writer
F
orty-four percent of Americans are not proud to be American, according to a Pew report conducted in July. We are not proud of our administration, our justice system, our history. Our poverty, scandal, corruption. We are not proud of our grappling, mudslinging, and manipulative political parties that love to play a blame-game, trying to see who can hit harder and who can rack up the most points. And we are right not to be proud of these particular things. But we still need to be proud of our country and the roots that she stands for. How did we come to this? Over the last three centuries, we have somehow lost our hope, our faith in the system, and our faith in ourselves. Today’s youth is trying to pick up the pieces of a puzzle and put it back together, but we have never seen the picture on the front of the box. So what exactly are we trying to fix? We’re stuck in a mess we cannot help but inherit. It really is a mess, and probably way worse than what your room looked like before your mom finally snapped and decided it was going to be cleaned up ASAP- and by you. The
problem is that you didn’t necessarily make the mess this time. So that sucks, and we don’t know where everything is supposed to go. People say that it is important to stand by what you believe; the problem is when you can’t seem to form an opinion without every side trying to manipulate you into supporting them to clean up the mess their way. It is all about power and racking up numbers, and it’s true for every political party and affiliation. This war for our support, fought with logic, passion, and every kind of emotional appeal, has left us dazed, confused, and frustrated. No wonder we are not proud to be Americans. What do we have left to believe in? It seems that now, hope is more than lost. How many of your friends and family despise or are ashamed of the American system? Optimism has been stripped away, generation by generation, by the ever-changing world, by the administration, and by our own selfdoubt. And that is understandable when you look at our not-so-proud moments and different forms of injustice still not only prevalent, but thriving. America is not perfect, but it never claimed perfection. Take your pick of
Rand Paul Could Unite GOP’s Warring Factions Continued from Page 4 was about clarifying the legal boundaries and restrictions on drone policies, not about politics. Libertarian candidates often find their most ardent supporters to be youthful political participants, as evidenced by past libertarian campaigns on the national level, including those of Ron Paul and former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson. This is not a characteristic associated with conservatism, which often struggles to appeal to young voters. In the 2012 Presidential Election, Governor Romney won just 36% of voters under the age of 30, in contrast to President Obama’s 60%. With regards to doctrinal differences, libertarians are much more open to debate on social issues, including but not limited to same-sex marriage and abortion. Libertarians have also spearheaded critical national conversations on drug legalization policies and oppressive incarceration practices, whereas conservatives have directed most of their recent focus to national defense funding and other economic priorities. Furthermore, libertarians often comprise what is seen as the “isolationist” wing of the GOP because they are more cautious of participating in foreign military excursions. Despite this caution, some libertarians like Senator Paul have been supportive of the formation of an international coalition to combat ISIS, the Islamic terrorist group that currently controls large swaths of Iraq and Syria. Despite these distinctions, libertarians and conservatives alike are united in their strong defenses of individual liberty, lower taxes, and economic freedom. Although liberal media coverage often focuses on the splintering of
things that you don’t agree with; we can all admit that there are plenty. But if you Republicans along such ideological lines, the presence of these sometimes differing viewpoints has been a boon, not bust, for the Republican Party. The diversity of viewpoints and accompanying intellectual and political potential is exemplary of “big tent republicanism,” the notion that any and all are welcome within the confines of the Republican Party, a term dating back to the days of Ronald Reagan. This healthy debate and vigor has led to the rise of reform conservatism, a movement to promote liberty, simplify government, and expand social mobility. Notable reform conservatives including Senator Mike Lee of Utah—who also identifies as a libertarian—hope to do this by fostering efficiency through a broad series of domestic policy reforms, particularly within the areas of healthcare, immigration, and federal tax policy. This influx of new thinking has and will continue to help the GOP reclaim the mantle of the “party of ideas,” a crucial development as the party looks towards winning the White House in 2016. The similarities between conservatives and libertarians far outweigh their differences. As Ronald Reagan articulated in a 1975 interview with Reason Magazine, “I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.” This natural alliance will play a significant role in reshaping American politics for the foreseeable future, as both conservatives and libertarians set their sights on what Lord Acton called “the highest political end”—liberty. John Pedro is a freshman in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be reached at jmp488@cornell.edu.
can promise the love of your life to stay despite his or her imperfections, is it so hard to say the same about this country? We can still love her and stand by her. America is a struggle; she is finicky, temperamental, she has made mistakes, and she has trusted the wrong person time and time again. She has been taken advantage of, manipulated, hurt. And she has definitely done her fair share of causing pain. But she can also be forgiven, and she herself can forgive. She is only human, and humanity is not always nice to look upon. But it can move forward. Right now, forward feels very stagnant. We do not know who we can trust, and we never feel safe. We don’t trust politicians or our justice system,
that if we let go and try to understand other opinions, what we consider the “other side” will win, and challenge our existing personal morals and goals. When all divided sides are consumed with battling the others for supremacy, everyone loses. The politicians lose, sure, but the American populace loses more. Because nothing gets done. Only Americans can decide if we can be something to be proud of. We have allowed ourselves to get to this point over decades and centuries. We stopped paying attention to the bigger picture: freedom. Freedom to fail, succeed, to say and do what we want, and so much more. At her roots, America is freedom corporeal. If we can remember that, we can be proud again. We are not proud
“America is not perfect, but it never claimed perfection.” and the 99% scream that we are doing something very wrong. We must come to a place where we are not afraid to find the truth, and where we can decide what values we really want to instill in this country so that we can trust it again. We need to decide what picture is on the front of the puzzle box, so maybe we, the young generation that gets to clean up the mess, can stop trying to put pieces blindly where they will never fit. So many of our generation scream for social justice, economic equality, and green energy, and sure, these are happy ideals. But far too many of our young people cannot see the whole picture. They can only see pieces at a time, and don’t necessarily understand all of the consequences of pushing policies like these. We need to remind each other why we agree with certain ideals, and then think about what meaning this has for the Constitution and for our economy. However, while we agree change is necessary, our fear of defeat at the hands of an opposing party or ideology has caused a massive power struggle that has resolved nothing. We are so afraid
because so many shameful things have happened, and politicians are too busy posturing and vying for power to protect and elevate this country to what it could be. It is essential to remember that the past does not define the future. Policies and money talk, but so do we. Love America’s imperfections; don’t write her off as a lost cause. We don’t have to be proud of her darkness, but we do have to stand by her, because everything that she has done has been for us. There is so much more that we need to accomplish, and we will always be a work in progress because perfection does not exist, no matter what fairy tales tell you. Don’t be afraid to call America yours; she really has so much potential, even though we are not sure what the front of the box looks like yet. And underneath the dirt and grime that 44% of Americans are still stuck wading through, America sparkles. Alexis Cashman is a sophomore in the School of Industrial and Labor Relations. She can be reached at arc269@cornell. edu.
Tapestry is Self-Defeating
Continued from Page 4
meetings where the group is planning a protest in response to an incident where some white fraternity brothers threw empty bottles and yelled, “Hey Trayvon!” at a black student. The members of the minority organization become angry with the white girl for not taking a passionate stance and wanting to join their protest. She is ridiculed for trying to pursue a nonrace related campus issue. These scenes obviously paint whites as the automatic bad guys, not just because of the imagined bottlethrowing incident, but also because of the white girl’s disinterest in joining her friend’s club. The message to the audience is that all white people either specifically target black people, or they don’t care when it happens. Not only are whites played as folks who wink to racism, they are made out to be the instigators of racism—period. It thus seems Tapestry’s one goal is to perpetuate the progressive narrative that white heterosexuals
are responsible for all of society’s ills simply because they are white and heterosexual. Despite advocating for equality for all, Tapestry does not even apply its critique equally to all groups. It is disturbing to think that this type of bias—that the university is allegedly on an offensive against—is mandatory for all students to graduate. What kind of Orwellian system does this school belong to where it attempts to indoctrinate every student into its absurd world of politically correctness and multiculturalism? Lastly, for all the precautions Tapestry takes to make sure no student ever offends another, the mandatory presentation itself is blatantly offensive to a portion, albeit a small portion, of the Cornell community: those that uphold conservative values. Robert Dunbar is a freshman in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be reached at rjd276@cornell.edu.
11
Campus
Review Blog
(blog.thecornellreview.com)
Month in Review from the Review Blog
Written by Casey Breznick
Sep. 30: Anti-Rape Culture Sep. 11: Ho Plaza ‘Stop Police Brutality’ Protest Protesters Target Skorton Students gathered on Ho Plaza this afternoon to take part in the National Day of Protest Against Rape Culture, during which several Cornell students gave speeches and read poems in order to bring about the end to “Rape Culture.” One of the event’s three organizers, Bailey Dineen, read an approximately 9-minute speech/poem concerning personal experiences and “rape culture,” saying that the institutions that promote it–-Cornell, the Justice System, and the “white supremacist, imperialist, capitalist,
cisheteropatriarchy”–-must be destroyed. After the protest concluded, Dineen and fellow event organizer Natalie Nesvaderani spray painted a mattress with text reading “Skorton here is your oral warning/We’re fighting back.” along with the number “6.4,” a reference to campus conduct policy addressis sexual assaults. A group of five female students then carried the mattress and placed it in front of Day Hall, where President David Skorton’s office is located.
A student participating in the “die-in.” In response to the shooting death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri early last month, and the perceived racially-motivated circumstances surrounding Brown’s death, several student groups led by the Black Students Union (BSU) staged a protest of police brutality on Ho Plaza during the afternoon of Sep. 10. Compared to the anti-Israel protest staged by the Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) two weeks ago, this protest was much more well-organized and included, at the peak, at least 75 students, faculty, and locals. The event began with a “die-in” in which approximately twentyfive students lay on the ground in six minutes of silence holding signs with slogans like “America never loved us,” “I’m not a [target sign], ” and “#JusticeforMike.” Afterwards the coalition of students, which included those from SJP, formed a large circle on Ho Plaza and BSU event coordinator Surayya Diggs began speaking about the events in Ferguson. Diggs subsequently handed the microphone over to Assistant Professor Russell Rickford, history, who proceeded to deliver an approximately 20-minute long
speech (see video for condensed version). Rickford, who specializes in “black radical tradition and black political culture after WWII” according to his bio on the Cornell History Department’s website, covered topics relating to “white supremacy,” “post-racialism,” and forming a “social justice movement.” Following Rickford’s speech, Nadia May ’16 recited her poem entitled “From Mom, With Love,” a piece on her expectations of how she will mother her future children intertwined with commentary on racism and police brutality. After May’s poem, the participating students gathered for a photo under the McGraw clock tower. One photo was taken with the students making the Black Panther symbol raising their right arms. In another, everyone put both hands up and shouted “don’t shoot.” In what appeared to be somewhat of a spontaneous act, the group then started chanted slogans like “no justice, no peace, no racist police” and later “hands up, don’t shoot” and began walking up the plaza, past the clock tower, into the Arts Quad, and ended up crowded around the statue of Ezra Cornell, where one final speech was delivered.
Sep. 11: Students Plant Flags for 9/11 Memorial Students from both the Cornell College Republicans and Cornell College Democrats worked together to assemble the annual 9-11 memorial on the Arts Quad. The flags spelled out “Remeber 9-11.” The following day students operated a booth that raised money for a Veterans of Foreign Wars. Passers-by were encouraged to plant smaller flags in the lawn, and to climb the McGraw Clock Tower in order to get the best view of the display.
Sep. 15: Unknowns Graffiti ‘Fight Back Kill Rapists’ Currently unknown individuals are responsible for the graffitiing of the phrase “Fight Back Kill Rapists” across several campus sidewalks. The Cornell Review cannot confirm if a student organization, individual students, or non-students were behind the act, but the three your correspondent saw all appeared to have been created with the same spray paint stencil. Two, both of which were on West Campus, were in bright red, and another in Central Campus was in black. While walking down the slope, your correspondent passed a Cornell
Paint Shop employee scrubbing out the graffiti on the sidewalk. He said, “It’s not the best way to get your message out.”
12
Asking liberals where wages and prices come from is like asking six-year-olds where babies come from. Thomas Sowell
Wisemen & Fools
Attempts to create heaven on Earth invariably produce hell. Karl Popper Ideas are more powerful than guns. We do not let our enemies have guns, why would we let them have ideas? Joseph Stalin
I’m a millionaire, I’m a multimillionaire. I’m filthy rich. You know why I’m a multimillionaire? ‘Cause multimillions like what I do. Michael Moore
When a criminal breaks into your home I’ll let the liberals call the lawyer. I’m going to call Smith & Wesson. Rick Perry
I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member. Groucho Marx
One difference between libertarianism and socialism is that a socialist society can’t tolerate groups of people practicing freedom, but a libertarian society can
Number of Senate seats GOP needs to gain to obtain majority
superiority over Russia. We will never allow that to happen. Vladmir Putin
There is all the difference in the world between treating people equally and attempting to make them equal. While the first is the condition of a free society, the second means as De Tocqueville describes it, ‘a new form of servitude.’ Friedrich Hayek, Nobel Prize Winning Economist
Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. Saul Alinsky
6
comfortably allow people to choose voluntary socialism. David Boaz, VP of the Cato Institute
Capitalism has worked very well. Anyone who wants to move to North Korea is welcome. Bill Gates I’m sort of the Antichrist to the Conservative Party. Andrew Cuomo, New York Govenor
The invisible hand of the free Nobody should have any market always moves faster illusion about gaining military and better than the heavy
hand of government. Mitt Romney Terrorism is the tactic of demanding the imposible, and demanding it at gunpoint. Christopher Hitchens True equality means holding everyone accountable in the same way, regardless of race, gender, faith, ethnicity, or political ideology. Monica Crowley As long as I own this football team and long after I’m gone, they will always be the Washington Redskins. Jack Cooke, Former Owner of the Washington Redskins Change change change change change change change change change Barack Obama
Just the Numbers $100,000 $1 52% Amount SolarCity is paying over the next decade to lease space for its new upstate NY factory
President Obama’s approval ratings with Hispanics, down from high of 74%
How much City of Ithaca paid father of Cornell student who committed suicide in 2010
$17,773,007,200,000 1,400
$2.75
Millions of dollars spent to repair the Cascadilla Gorge trail; $2 million came from the univeristy
Approximate number of young girls in Rotherham, England raped by gangs of Pakistani men from 1997-2013
$25
Billions of dollars Alibaba raised in its IPO
U.S. National Debt
9
Number of properties anticapitalist Michael Moore owns, including a lakefront mansion
Join the Review. Send us an email at cornellreview@cornell.edu.
Join us at 162 Goldwinsmith on Tuesdays at 5pm.